Search results

Empirical evidence indicates that effective management of resources to implement strategy in a balanced scorecard (BSC) system is essential. We present a mathematical model for allocating limited resources in the BSC strategy implementation process.

The proposed facilitated negotiation model provides a systematic approach to prioritizing strategic initiatives in the design and implementation of a BSC.

Our joint decision model prioritizes strategic initiatives and concurrently calculates the optimal (or approximately optimal) set of BSC targets and weights, given multiyear resource restrictions.

The model assumes full, open, and truthful exchange of information between the parties; an assumption that may exclude many organizations.

We address an important gap in the BSC literature on how organizations can effectively link strategy to the potential constraint of resource budgets.

Quantitative models are being used in practice for allocating resources, but we are not aware of their use by organizations for allocating resources in a BSC application.

The use of the balanced scorecard has been subject to increasing scrutiny and criticism in academic literature. The purpose of this paper is to explore the limitations of, and implications for, the Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) as a balanced scorecard approach in the NHS. Although Kaplan and Norton suggested that the balanced scorecard can be adapted for strategic performance management purposes in the public sector, this study aims to argue that such claims fail to give sufficient weight to the political context in which a public sector organization operates.

Semi‐structured interviews were employed to investigate the perceptions about the PAF of local managers and whether and how they incorporated central government's performance targets into their local operations within two health authorities. Furthermore, in order to examine these two health authorities' performance measurement practices, documents relating to their internal performance reports and local delivery plans were analysed.

Empirical findings drawn from local health authorities indicate that the use of the PAF was primarily for legitimacy seeking purposes rather than for rational performance improvement. For central government, the PAF was used to make the performance of the NHS visible to the public so that the public would receive the signal that central government has attempted to deliver government mandates. For local health authority managers, in order to seek legitimacy from central government, imposed performance indicators were incorporated into their local performance measurement practice. However, the use of the PAF was symbolic and ceremonial and had little impact on improving performance valued by local managers in NHS.

This study agrees with institutional theorists' argument that the use of performance measurement systems should take into account politics and power faced by an organization. In the NHS, performance measurement might be used by local NHS organizations primarily as a ceremonial means of demonstrating their symbolic commitment for legitimacy seeking purposes.

The purpose of this paper is to present a balanced scorecard model methodology to develop an approach for decision making for the motor homes industry that is used to communicate and evaluate achievement of the corporate mission and strategy. The index, success indicator, gives management a “bottom line” result including non‐financial as well as financial measures based on the targeted improvement efforts as well as the actual result. The comprehensive set of measures helps to focus their organization's strategic objectives in the areas of financial, customer, learning, and growth.

The qualitative analysis and the quantitative survey of the motor homes industry were summarized to develop generalized measures and applications as a basic for formulating a special balanced scorecard model.

Various financial, customer, learning, and growth metrics were identified for a possible template for an actual balanced scorecard.

This paper focuses on a methodology for use by the manufactured home industry that would quantify the intuitive understanding needed to project the possible results. The advantage of using the analysis and the “success indicators” would be to give a “bottom line” result (financial and non‐financial) based on corporate efforts within the industry as presented in the simulation. Further modeling would be necessary to investigate changes in multiple measures.

The strategy cannot be executed if it cannot be understand, and it cannot be understood if it cannot be described.

This paper develops an approach for decision making by formulating a specific balanced scorecard model for the motor homes industry.

Models of value creation that have been proposed for supporting value-based management are described and analyzed, including the Balanced Scorecard, the Baldrige Quality Award Criteria, the Deming Management Method, the Service-Profit Chain, and the Skandia Intellectual Capital Model. These models are compared, their potential for guiding the identification of value drivers and performance measures for value-based management is assessed, and management issues that must be addressed if such models are to contribute to long-run value creation are explored. These issues include causally linking value drivers to each other and to financial outcomes, the extent to which the models take a dynamic, or whole-system, view of value creation, and whether multiple value drivers should be explicitly weighted and combined to form a “value index.” Finally, the substantial body of research evidence linking intangible value drivers to financial outcomes is reviewed, and some directions for further research are offered.

This study explores how balanced scorecard format and reputation from environmental performances interact to influence performance evaluations.

Two general options exist for inserting environmental measures into a scorecard: embedded among the four traditional perspectives or grouped in a fifth perspective. Prior balanced scorecard research also assumes negative past environmental performances. In such settings, and when low management communication levels exist on the importance of environmental strategic objectives (a common practitioner scenario), environmental measures receive less decision weight when they are grouped in a fifth scorecard perspective. However, a positive environmental reputation would generate loss aversion concerns with reputation, leading to more decision weight given to environmental measures. Participants (N=138) evaluated performances with scorecards in an experimental design that manipulates scorecard format (four, five-perspectives) and past environmental performance operationalizing reputation (positive, negative).

The environmental reputation valence’s impact is more (less) pronounced when environmental measures are grouped (embedded) in a fifth perspective (among the four traditional perspectives), when the environmental feature of the measures is more (less) salient.

Findings provide the literature with original empirical results that support the popular, but often anecdotal, position of advocating a fifth perspective for environmental measures to help emphasize and promote environmental stewardship within an entity when common low management communication levels exist. Specifically, when positive past environmental performances exist, entities may choose to group environmental performance measures together in a fifth scorecard perspective without risking those measures receiving the discounted decision weight indicated in prior studies.

The purpose of this paper is to relate the balanced scorecard (BSC) to strategy and teams.

This paper proposes deriving performance targets and weights using a multiparty collaborative decision model that can be integrated into team-based bonus formulas.

Cross-functional division managers face a more complex problem in setting goals for individual managers. The proposed approach is intended to develop such goals and link them for team-based incentives. An example illustrates the application of the proposed BSC model and the team-based pay formula.

The model can be used to determine group bonus.

The paper has two objectives: to relate the BSC to the team setting with a participative flavor rather than with imposed targets and weights, and to develop a better way of relating behaviors and outcomes to the team’s and/or the organization’s goals. Integrating the strategies of various units adds a new dimension that differs from rationalizing the superior’s and the subordinate’s goals. The proposed model considers input from all value chain functional managers involved in implementing an organizational strategy. A methodology is provided to operationalize (Hope and Fraser, 2003) beyond the budgeting model principles.

Performance improvement is high on the agenda of many companies around the world and with the growing number of improvement models now available care has to be taken to adopt an approach that will yield the most attractive return on investment. This paper compares and contrasts two widely known and well‐publicized improvement models: Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard and the EFQM Excellence Model. Each consists of a non‐prescriptive template offering managers a relatively small number of categories of key performance metrics to focus on. Here, they are examined from a critical perspective with regard to five central issues represented by five questions relating to objectives, strategies and plans, target setting, reward structures and information feedback loops. The analysis conducted reveals that despite having some significant differences both approaches seem to be developed from similar concepts. The paper concludes that it is difficult to find a perfect match between a company and a performance measurement framework and that further research should concentrate on how to implement strategic performance frameworks effectively in specific types of organization.

The balanced scorecard (BSC) allows firms to place importance on both financial and nonfinancial performance measures in four perspectives for developing and implementing corporate strategy and performance evaluation. The BSC literature however provides minimal insight on how to set targets, how to weigh measures when evaluating managers and the firm, and how to resolve conflicts that arise in the BSC process. Researchers have attempted to fill these gaps using two contending approaches. In particular, Datar et al. (2001) uses an agency model to select the optimal set of weights and more recently Herath et al. (2009) develop a mathematical programming–based collaborative decision model to find the optimal (or approximately optimal) set of target and weights considering inputs from two parties. In this article, we apply the Herath et al. (2009) model to a detailed BSC example. We demonstrate how the collaborative BSC model can be implemented in Microsoft Excel by practitioners to minimize BSC conflicts. Finally, we discuss how the model facilitates alignment and a culture of open reporting (information sharing) around the BSC that is necessary for its effective implementation.

The purpose of this article is to address the measure selection problem and to propose the use of a multi‐criteria approach to address the problem more effectively. The main objective of this research is to propose a methodology (not a new performance measurement framework) that will support existing measurement framework(s) during the process of performance measurement systems' design, implementation and use, and to advance the decision‐making process.

Conforming to the most favoured approach, the balanced scorecard is adopted to illustrate the proposed methodology. This paper briefly illustrates the application of the proposed methodology. This illustration is based on a real case study from a Greek financial institution, which has considered the proposed methodology in order to select appropriate measures. The paper begins with a brief literature review on the balanced scorecard, the theory of MCDM and smart technique. In section three the proposed methodology is presented and each of the stages involved. The paper then illustrates the proposed methodology.

The greatest significance of the methodology suggested here is that it provides a structure to guide decision makers through the process of measure selection. Criteria must be identified and considered systematically, as must alternatives (i.e. measures).

While the smart was chosen to select appropriate measures for the balanced scorecard, the basic approach used in formulating the problem serves also as a framework for the application of other multi‐criteria approaches to this problem as well as to other performance measurement frameworks. Ultimately, better quality decisions will result; both as a consequence of the support provided by the multi‐criteria tools and as a result of a structure that will help the decision makers to better understand the issues associated with the problem involved.

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.