Search results

By observations of what managers do with the balanced scorecard (BSC), the purpose of the paper is to discuss how further empirical research may be advanced, which differentiates more clearly what we study when exploring BSC work.

The paper is based on a discussion of observations of seasoned managers working with the BSC as part of their executive education program. It offers a discussion of how insights from interaction with these managers can develop our understanding of how management concepts are constituted and can be explored.

The ways in which managers (dis‐)connect the BSC objects and concept are everything but benign. Much more could be known about the BSC, by studying both how these relationships are crafted in practice, and how the relationships crafted are influenced by the texts by which the BSC is known.

The paper offers a new way of framing research of popular management conceptualizations, by separating them in terms of conceptual ideas and representational objects. It offers a starting point for researching, what managers do with the BSC, and for researching what it is that works for the balanced scorecard.

The paper frames a quadrant approach. It distinguishes the BSC in terms of its conceptual narrative, its artefact object representation, users’ conceptual expectations and object mobilization. These four dimensions can assist researchers in finding ways to assess the impact of popular management concepts.

This paper presents the results of a survey of the use of the balanced scorecard in New Zealand companies. The top 40 companies on the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZSE40) were chosen as the survey population. A 62.5% response rate was achieved. One hundred percent of respondents indicated that they have knowledge of the balanced scorecard. Sixty‐one percent and 65% of the respondents reported that they use a balanced scorecard at organisational and divisional level, respectively. The results indicate that financial performance measures continue to dominate non‐financial measures in terms of importance. In addition to further developing the literature on the balanced scorecard, the research provides opportunities to investigate balanced scorecard implementations in New Zealand in more depth.

The purpose of this research is to show a preliminary examination of the effects of the development of the causal model of the strategy in the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard. Studies on the Balanced Scorecard adoption show that many organizations that adopted the Balanced Scorecard did not develop a causal model of their strategy. The study seeks to examine the differences in Balanced Scorecard implementation of adopters who developed a causal model of their strategy and those who did not.

Mailed survey was used to collect the data.

It was found that Balanced Scorecard adopters who did not develop a causal model of their strategy experienced specific problems more than those who developed a causal model of their strategy. It affected the outcomes and ease of implementation of the Balanced Scorecard.

The small number of responses obtained in this study due to the relatively recent adoption of the Balanced Scorecard in Malaysia limits the generalizability of this study. However, it does provide insights on the hypotheses to be examined in future studies.

The findings of this survey suggest that the successful implementation of the Balanced Scorecard requires that organizations develop and articulate a causal model of their strategy.

This study is probably the first attempt to examine the role of causal model development in effective implementation of the Balanced Scorecard.

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC), first introduced by Kaplan and Norton in 1992, is described as a comprehensive performance measurement system as well as a strategic management tool. Over the past decade, the BSC has attracted increasing attention in mainstream management accounting research. A review of the literature identifies five main areas of criticism relating to the BSC. Using particularly Nørreklit’s (2000, 2003) criticisms of the BSC’s assumptions, this research gained views (using both a pilot and follow up survey of New Zealand companies) on the number and titles of perspectives in the BSC; the existence and understanding of cause‐and‐effect relationships; whether or not the BSC was perceived as a strategic control model; the number of performance measures and perceptions of the ability to judge performance based on those measures; and the credibility and effectiveness of the BSC as a management solution. The findings show that the BSC is not used extensively by the firms studied but those that do use it take full advantage of the BSC’s flexibility, using broader perspective names, as needed, to incorporate the desired aspects of organisational performance. There appears to be no concern over whether the cause‐and‐effect relationships meet a set of academic criteria relating to empirical verification and logical independence. However, Nørreklit’s (2000) criticism that the BSC fails to increase strategy awareness finds some support. The findings also contradict the suggestion that the BSC necessitates an excessive number of performance measures which could be detrimental to managerial performance evaluation. Finally, the criticism that the BSC is merely a trend, popularised by management consulting firms, is also not supported.

The balanced scorecard (BSC), first created by Kaplan and Norton in 1992, has been developed over the last 20 years, resulting in numerous iterations. There is currently no agreed taxonomy for these iterations, making comparison of research findings difficult. The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for describing the different iterations.

In order to assist in understanding the numerous changes, the concept of revision control was introduced. A full review of the literature describing new iterations of the BSC was undertaken and these iterations were classified as minor developments or major generational evolution.

Eight subsets of the Balanced Score card are proposed, grouped into three generations; the first being the initial generation of score card, the second generation including strategy maps, and the final generation which includes destination statements.

It is planned that this simple classification will prove useful to practitioners, for describing which generation of the scorecard they propose to implement, and for academics to describe more precisely the scorecard that they are analysing.

This paper is the first to provide a taxonomy for the different versions of the BSC, through a process of identifying and labelling the major and minor changes that have occurred. This allows a more nuanced analysis of the BSC as a tool for managing performance and adding precision to any critique, in that it is clear which version has been used.

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is widely applied as a performance measurement and strategy implementation tool by organizations. Research has revealed that the term “balanced scorecard” may be understood differently by managers both within as well as across organizations implying that the performance measurement systems implemented in organizations may not be similar to the construct envisioned by Kaplan and Norton. Using Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard construct as a basis, the paper aims to develop and test a five‐level taxonomy to classify firms' performance measurement systems.

A Balanced Scorecard taxonomy is validated using a large sample of professional accountants working in Canadian organizations.

The five‐level taxonomy is used to categorize the performance measurement systems of 149 organizations. It is found that 111 organizations' (74.5 percent) performance measurement systems met the criteria to be classified as a Basic Level 1 BSC, while 61 (40.9 percent) organizations have structurally complete Level 3 BSCs, and 36 (24.2 percent) organizations have fully developed Level 5 BSCs. The paper also discusses differences between Level 1 and Level 5 BSC organizations.

While many researchers assume that organizations' performance measurement systems are similar in implementation level and use, the paper demonstrates that organizations are at different levels of BSC implementation and use, a factor that should be taken into consideration when designing empirical studies to test the efficacy of Kaplan and Norton's BSC.

The five‐level BSC taxonomy scheme provides managers working with Kaplan and Norton's BSC with a tool to plan their implementation steps and then benchmark their progress towards implementing a fully developed Level 5 BSC.

In developing and empirically validating a BSC taxonomy, the paper builds on and extends previous research on BSC implementation and its potential implications.

This paper aims to focus on the development of a “dynamic Balanced Scorecard” and to demonstrate that matching the traditional Balanced Scorecard (BSC) architecture with system dynamics principles offers better support for strategic management decisions.

The paper is based on a case study related to a service‐based business. The maps, the mathematical model and the BSC developed according to system dynamics modelling principles are discussed.

A system dynamics‐based BSC, particularly if embedded into a management flight simulator, would allow exploration and understanding of features of complexity and dynamics, consideration of feedback loops rather than unidirectional causality, the use of mapping tools for a more comprehensive design of the strategy maps, the facilitation of a process of organisational learning; and support for policy design and strategic analysis performed by managers.

The value of this paper is two‐fold: first, it shows that by using system dynamics modelling principles it is possible to overcome positively some limitations of the original BSC framework; second, the paper provides information and suggestions that are helpful for companies that are interested in developing strategic management systems based on both BSC architecture and on system dynamics principles and simulation tools (e.g. the management flight simulator).

There are several ways to implement and work with the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). The company Ericsson Data AB was one of the pioneers in employing the BSC in Sweden. As early adopters, they were interested in obtaining an evaluation performed by external researchers. We were fortunate to have that opportunity. During the autumn of 1998, Majvor Karlsson and Ellen Sharma had full access to the developmental department dealing with the implementation of BSC at the company. The present article is based on interviews with managers and developers with the aim to determine how the BSC was implemented and how it functions in the day‐to‐day life of the company. The BSC model introduced in Ericsson was given the name Cockpit. As one might expect, implementing BSC requires a great deal of time and energy. We found that it resembles the process in other organisational changes as well. In our research, we found that there were many aspects of the implementation of BSC with which we could interpret and explain our observations with the help of theories of organisational change. Our findings led us to formulate a theory concerning the implementation process of the BSC. It was a relief to discover that we could use a method that allowed us to listen and learn from the persons involved in the implementation process at Ericsson Data.

In the early industrial age which with high intensity of machine and labor, using financial measurement index was good enough to tie in company’s mechanization and philosophy of management and been in efficiency. But being comply with “New Economic age,” a new economic environment is full of knowledge and information, the enterprise competition had changed from tangible assets, plants to intangible innovation ability of knowledge. As recognizing the new tendency by enterprise, they value gradually the growth and influence from learning. Practice of organization learning not only needs firm structure and be in coordination with both hardware and software, but also needs an affect measurement model to offer enterprise to estimate learning performance. It’s a good instrument of financial performance measure mold in the past years, But it’s for measuring the past, couldn’t formulate enterprise trend to future, hard to estimate investment for future, such as development of products, organization learning, knowledge management etc, as which intangible assets and knowledge ability just the key factors of being win around competition environment in the future. In 1992, Kaplan and Norton brought up Balance Scorecard (BSC) on Harvard Business Review, as an instrument helping enterprise to measure performance, which is being considered to be a most influence management instrument. It added non‐financial index such as customer, internal process and learning growth besides traditional financial index, as offering enterprise an index to measure and manage intangible assets and intellectual property. As being aware of organization learning is hard to be ignored in the new economic age, this research is based on learning and growth of BSC, and citing one national material company try to let the most difficult measurement performance of organization learning, to be estimate through BSC, analyze of factor and individual case, to discuss the company how to make the related strategy and vision of organization learning to develop learning and growth of the structure of BSC, subject the matter of out put factors to be discussed, and measure the outcomes as a result of research. The research affect offers (1) the base implement procedure of carrying out BSC; (2) the reference of formulating measurement index while enterprise using BSC to estimate performance of organization learning; (3) the possibility bottleneck maybe forcing while carrying out BSC, to be an improvement or preventive for enterprise.

The purpose of this study is to develop BSC model of social enterprise. Performance analysis tool of BSC have been brought over from the business world, designed and created from the perspectives of profit‐based businesses. The BSC is a strategic performance measurement and management tool designed for the private sector acting as a communication/information and learning system, to measure “where we are now” and “where to aim for next”. It prescribes a plan for translating “vision” and “strategy” into concrete action across four perspectives at different stages, depending on the business. These perspectives are “financial”, “customer”, “internal processes” and “learning and growth”, each of which is connected by cause‐and‐effect relationships that reflect the firm’s strategy. Social aims of social enterprise are to accomplish desired outcomes which are to employ vulnerable people and to provide social services. The measurement factors of financial perspective are stable funding, efficiency of budgeting, stakeholders’ financial supports, and trade profit. The measurement factors of customer perspective are government, social service users, employees, local communities, supplier, social activity company, and partnership with external organizations. The measurement factors of internal process perspective are organizational culture, organizational structure/management, internal/external communication, quality of products and services, information sharing. The measurement factors of learning and growth perspective are training and development, management participation, knowledge sharing, leadership of CEO and manager, and learning culture.