Hello class, After reading the Balance Score Card Institute's case study of the U.S Army Medical Department (AMEDD), I have a new perspective on the key features of creating a scorecard method for performance evaluations for any organization. The article first highlighted the fact that AMEDD's first attempt at the scorecard method failed. They acknowledged that the failure was due a lack of communication, inadequate planning, insufficient resources to achieve the goal, not encouraging innovation and a high leadership turnover rate. In addition the scorecards focused on current production versus future capabilities. As a matter of fact, they stated that the biggest hurdle they had to implementing a new scorecard method was the sentiment of employee resentment that the old scorecards left behind. They transformed their new scorecard into "actionable strategies." In other words, they wanted to paint a clear picture of where they were going and how they were going to get there. They focused on measurable quality that could be monitored and documented. They also focused on efficiency (cost and speed). Another important difference between the old and new scorecards, is that the new scorecards were created with employee input. They emphasized the fact that it is extremely important for employees to not only know they are important but also know their roles in the organization. The new scorecards measured customer/ stakeholder satisfaction, financial/ stewardship, internal processes and organizational capacity. The biggest lesson from the case study is that employee engagement is imperative in any successful method of employee evaluations. An employee has to feel that their place within the organization is important. It is also important to encourage a culture of innovation, mentorship and to have strong communication. How do I respond to this