BALANCE SCORECARD

P a g e | 1
BALANCE SCORECARD
The balanced scorecard (BSC) and strategy map, are key tools for the implementation of strategy. The
BSC implements strategy by providing a comprehensive performance measurement tool that reflects
the measures critical for the success of the firm’s strategy and thereby provides a means for aligning the
performance measurement in the firm to the firm’s strategy. Thus, managers and employees within the
firm have the awareness of the firm’s CSFs (through the balanced scorecard) and an incentive to achieve
these CSFs in moving the firm forward to its strategic goals. The strategy map is also used to implement
strategy, but in contrast to the focus on performance measurement in the BSC, the main role of the
strategy map is to develop and communicate strategy throughout the organization. The strategy map
links the perspectives of the BSC in a causal framework that shows systematically how the organization
can succeed by achieving specific critical success factors in the learning and growth perspective, thereby
leading to desired performance in internal processes, and then to desired performance in the customer
perspective, and finally to the ultimate goal—financial performance and, for a public firm, shareholder
value. In sum, the BSC provides the structure of performance measures and the strategy map provides
the road map the firm can use to execute the strategy.
FINANCIAL AND NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES
It has been seen how the information used in a management control system can be financial or non-
financial. Many common performance measures such as operating profit rely on internal financial and
accounting information. Increasingly, companies are supplementing internal financial measures with
measures based on external financial information (for example, stock prices), internal non-financial
information (such as manufacturing lead time) and external non-financial information (such as customer
satisfaction). In addition, companies are benchmarking their financial and non-financial measures
against other companies that are regarded as the ‘best performers’. To compete efectively in the global
market, companies need to perform at or near the ‘best of the breed’.
Some companies present financial and non-financial performance measures for various organisation
subunits in a single report called the balanced scorecard. Diferent companies stress various elements in
their scorecards, but most scorecards include (1) profitability measures; (2) customer-satisfaction
measures; (3) internal measures of efficiency, quality and time; and (4) innovation measures.
The balanced scorecard highlights trade-offs that the manager may have made. For example, it indicates
whether improvements in financial performance resulted from sacrificing investments in new products
or from on-time delivery. The specific non-financial measures chosen signal to employees the areas that
top management views as critical to the company’s success.
Some performance measures, such as the number of new patents developed, have a long-run time
horizon. Other measures, such as direct materials efficiency variances, overhead spending variances and
yield, have a short-run time horizon. We focus on the most widely used performance measures covering

P a g e | 2
an intermediate to long-run time horizon. These are internal financial measures based on accounting
numbers routinely maintained by organisations. Non-financial performance measures ofer some distinct
benefits. Ittner and Larcker (2000) suggest that they:
• provide a closer link to long-term organisational stategies;
• provide indirect quantitative information on a company’s intangible assets;
• can be good indicators of future financial performance;
• can improve managers’ performance by providing more transparent evaluation of their actions.
However, these researchers also note that non-financial performance measures:
▪ can be time consuming and costly to implement;
▪ do not have a common denominator and entail diferent denominators such as time,
percentages, quantities, etc;
▪ sometimes lack verifying links to accounting profits or stock prices and may have weak
statistical reliability;
▪ may be too numerous to translate into main drivers of success.
SOME FINANCIAL MEASURES

P a g e | 3
2. Residual income
Residual income is income minus a required euro return on the investment:
Residual income = Income – (Required rate of return × Investment)
The required rate of return multiplied by investment is also called the imputed cost of the investment.
Imputed costs are costs recognised in particular situations that are not regularly recognised by accrual
accounting procedures. An imputed cost is not recognised in accounting records because it is not an
incremental cost but instead represents the return forgone by Hôtels Desfleurs as a result of tying up
cash in various investments of similar risk.
3. EVA
(from notebook)
FINANCIAL MEASURES AND ITS LIMITATIONS
As long as business organizations have existed, the traditional method of measurement has been
financial. Bookkeeping records used to facilitate financial transactions can be traced back literally
thousands of years.
At the turn of the twentieth century, financial measurement innovations were critical to the success of
the early industrial giants, such as General Motors. That should not come as a surprise since the financial
metrics of the time were the perfect complement to the machinelike nature of the corporate entities
and management philosophy of the day. Competition was ruled by scope and economies of scale with
financial measures providing the yardsticks of success.
Financial measures of performance have evolved, and today concepts such as economic value added
(EVA) are quite prevalent. EVA suggests that unless a firm’s profit exceeds its cost of capital, it really is
not creating value for its shareholders. Using EVA as a lens, it is possible to determine that despite an
increase in earnings, a firm may be destroying shareholder value if the cost of capital associated with
new investments is sufficiently high. As we move into the twenty-first century, however, many are
questioning our almost exclusive reliance on financial measures of performance. Perhaps these
measures served better as a means of reporting on the stewardship of funds entrusted to
management’s care rather than as a way to chart the future direction of the organization.

P a g e | 4
Let’s take a look at some of the criticisms levied against the overabundant use of financial measures:
1. Not consistent with today’s business realities. Today’s organizational value creating activities
are not captured in the tangible, fixed assets of the firm. Instead, value rests in the ideas of
people scattered throughout the firm, in customer and supplier relationships, in databases of
key information, and in cultures capable of innovation and quality. Traditional financial
measures were designed to compare previous periods based on internal standards of
performance. These metrics are of little assistance in providing early indications of customer,
quality, or employee problems or opportunities. We’ll examine the rise of intangible assets in
the next section of this chapter.
2. Driving by rearview mirror. Financial measures provide an excellent review of past performance
and events in the organization. They represent a coherent articulation and summary of activities
of the firm in prior periods. However, this detailed financial view has no predictive power for the
future. As we all know, and as experience has shown, great financial results in one month,
quarter, or even year are in no way indicative of future financial performance. Even so-called
great companies—those that once graced the covers of business magazines and were the envy
of their peer groups—can fall victim to this unfortunate scenario. Witness the vaunted Fortune
500 list; two-thirds of the companies comprising the inaugural list in 1954 had either vanished or
were no longer large enough to maintain their presence on the list’s fortieth anniversary.
3. Tend to reinforce functional silos. Financial statements in organizations are normally prepared
by functional area: Individual department statements are prepared and rolled up into the
business unit’s numbers, which ultimately are compiled as part of the overall organizational
picture. This approach is inconsistent with today’s organization, in which much of the work is
cross-functional in nature. Today we see teams comprised of many functional areas coming
together to solve pressing problems and create value in never-imagined ways. Regardless of
industry or organization type, teamwork has emerged as a must-have characteristic of winning

P a g e | 5
enterprises in today’s business environment. As an example, consider the fields of endeavor:
basketball as played by the well-compensated superstars of the National Basketball Association
(NBA). however, studies reveal that success in all these is markedly improved through the use of
teamwork: The interactions of surgeons with other medical professionals (anesthesiologists,
nurses, and technicians) are the strongest indicator of patient success on the operating table.
Even in the NBA, researchers have found that teams where players stay together longer win
more games. Our traditional financial measurement systems have no way to calculate the true
value or cost of these relationships.
4. Sacrifice long-term thinking. Many change programs feature severe cost cutting measures that
may have a very positive impact on the organization’s short-term financial statements.
However, these cost-reduction efforts often target the long-term value-creating activities of the
firm, such as research and development, associate development, and customer relationship
management. This focus on short-term gains at the expense of long-term value creation may
lead to suboptimization of the organization’s resources. Interestingly, an emerging body of
evidence is beginning to suggest that cost-cutting interventions such as downsizing frequently
fail to deliver the promised financial rewards and in fact sabotage value. University of Colorado
Business School professor Wayne Cascio documented that downsizing not only hurts workers
who are laid off, but destroys value in the long-term. He finds that, all else being equal,
downsizing never improved profits or stock market returns.
5. Financial measures are not relevant to many levels of the organization. Financial reports by
their very nature are abstractions. “Abstraction” in this context is defined as moving to another
level, leaving certain characteristics out. When we roll up financial statements throughout the
organization, that is exactly what we are doing: compiling information at a higher and higher
level until it is almost unrecognizable and useless in the decision making of most managers and
employees. Employees at all levels of the organization need performance data they can act on.
This information must be imbued with relevance for their day-to-day activities.
Given the limitations of financial measures, should we even consider saving a space for them in our
Balanced Scorecard? With their inherent focus on short-term results, often at the expense of long-
term value-creating activities, are they relevant in today’s environment?
I believe the answer is yes for a number of reasons. As we’ll discuss shortly, the Balanced Scorecard
is just that: balanced. An undue focus on any particular area of measurement often will lead to poor
overall results. Precedents in the business world support this position.
▪ In the 1980s the focus was on productivity improvement;
▪ in the 1990s quality became fashionable and seemingly critical to an organization’s success.
In keeping with the principle of what gets measured gets done, many businesses saw tremendous
improvements in productivity and quality. What they didn’t necessarily see was a corresponding
increase in financial results, and in fact some companies with the best quality in their industry failed to
remain in business. Financial statements will remain an important tool for organizations since they
ultimately determine whether improvements in customer satisfaction, quality, innovation, and

P a g e | 6
employee training are leading to improved financial performance and wealth creation for shareholders.
What is needed, and what the Balanced Scorecard provides, is a method of balancing the accuracy and
integrity of our financial measures with the drivers of future financial performance of the organization.
THE BALANCE SCORECARD
As the preceding discussion indicates, organizations face many hurdles in developing performance
measurement systems that truly monitor the right things. What is required is a system that balances the
historical accuracy of financial numbers with the drivers of future performance, while simultaneously
harnessing the power of intangible assets and of course assisting organizations in implementing their
differentiating strategies. The Balanced Scorecard is the tool that answers this complex triad of
challenges. In the remainder of this chapter we will begin our exploration of the Balanced Scorecard by
discussing its origins, reviewing its conceptual model, and considering what separates the Balanced
Scorecard from other systems.
Prior to the wide use of the BSC in the late 1990s, firms tended to focus only on financial measures of
performance, and as a result, some of their critical nonfinancial measures were not sufficiently
monitored and achieved. In effect, the BSC enables the firm to employ a strategy-centered performance
measurement system, one that focuses managers’ attention on critical success factors and rewards

P a g e | 7
them for achieving these critical factors. Now a rapidly increasing number of firms, not-for-profit
organizations, and governmental units use the BSC to assist them in implementing strategy.
The Balanced Scorecard is a framework to implement and manage strategy by linking a vision and
mission to strategic priorities, objectives, measures, and initiatives. The Balanced Scorecard provides a
view of an organisation’s overall performance. It integrates financial measures with other objectives and
key performance indicators related to customers, internal business processes, and organisational
capacity.
It was originally published by Dr Robert Kaplan and Dr David Norton as a paper1 in 1992 and then
formally as a book ‘The Balanced Scorecard’ in 1996. Both the paper and the book spread the knowledge
of the Balanced Scorecard leading to its widespread success.
The Balanced Scorecard is not just a scorecard, it is a methodology that identifies of a small number of
financial and non-financial objectives related to strategic priorities. It then looks at measures, setting
targets for the measures and finally strategic initiatives (often called projects). It is in this latter stage
that the Balanced Scorecard approach differs from other strategic methodologies. It forces an
organisation to think about how objectives can be measured first and then what initiatives can be put in
place to satisfy the objectives. The rationale is to avoid creating costly initiatives or projects that have no
impact on the strategy.
The balanced scorecard gets its name from the attempt to balance financial and non-financial
performance measures to evaluate both short-run and long-run performance in a single report.
Consequently, the balanced scorecard reduces managers’ emphasis on short-run financial performance,
such as quarterly earnings. Why? Because the non-financial and operational indicators measure
fundamental changes that a company is making. The financial benefits of these changes may not be
captured in short-run earnings, but strong improvements in non-financial measures signal the prospect
of creating economic value in the future.
For example, an increase in customer satisfaction signals higher sales and income in the future. By
balancing the mix of financial and non-financial measures, the balanced scorecard focuses
management’s attention on both short-run and long-run performance
ORIGINS OF THE BALANCED SCORECARD
The Balanced Scorecard was developed by two men, Robert Kaplan, an accounting professor at Harvard
University, and David Norton, a consultant also from the Boston area. In 1990 Kaplan and Norton led a
research study of a dozen companies exploring new methods of performance measurement. The
impetus for the study was a growing belief that financial measures of performance were ineffective for
the modern business enterprise. The study companies, along with Kaplan and Norton, were convinced
that a reliance on financial measures of performance was affecting their ability to create value. The
group discussed a number of possible alternatives but settled on the idea of a Scorecard featuring
performance measures capturing activities from throughout the organization—customer issues, internal
business processes, employee activities, and, of course, shareholder concerns.

P a g e | 8
Over the next four years a number of organizations adopted the Balanced Scorecard and achieved
immediate results. Kaplan and Norton discovered these organizations were not only using the Scorecard
to complement financial measures with the drivers of future performance but were also communicating
their strategies through the measures they selected for their Balanced Scorecard. As the Scorecard
gained prominence with organizations around the globe as a key tool in strategy implementation.
A simple definition, however, cannot tell us everything about the Balanced Scorecard. In my work with
many organizations and research into best practices of Scorecard use, I see this tool as three things:
▪ communication tool,
▪ measurement system,
▪ and strategic management system.
The ‘balance’ that a Balanced Scorecard achieves is brought about by a focus on financial and non-
financial objectives that are attributed to four areas of an organisation and described as Perspectives.
They are: Financial, Customer, Internal Processes and Learning & growth
.
4 PERSPECTIVES OF BSC
The target performance levels for non-financial measures are based on competitor benchmarks. They
indicate the performance levels necessary to meet customer needs, compete efectively and achieve
financial goals.

P a g e | 9
The etymology of the word “perspective” is from the Latin perspectus, “to look through” or “see
clearly,” which is precisely what we aim to do with a Balanced Scorecard: examine the strategy, making
it clearer through the lens of different viewpoints. Any strategy, to be effective, must contain
descriptions of financial aspirations, markets served, processes to be conquered, and, of course, the
people who will steadily and skillfully guide the company to success. Thus, when measuring our
progress, it would make little sense to focus on just one aspect of the strategy when in fact as Leonardo
da Vinci reminds us, “Everything is connected to everything else.”24 An accurate picture of strategy
execution, it must be painted in the full palette of perspectives that comprise it; therefore, when
developing a Balanced Scorecard, we consider these four: Customer, Internal Processes, Employee
Learning and Growth, and Financial.

P a g e | 10
1. FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE
Financial measures are a critical component of the Balanced Scorecard, especially so in the for-profit
world. The objectives and measures in this perspective tell us whether our strategy execution— which is
detailed through objectives and measures chosen in the other perspectives—is leading to improved
bottom-line results. We could focus all of our energy and capabilities on improving customer
satisfaction, quality, on-time delivery, or any number of things, but without an indication of their effect
on the organization’s financial returns, they are of limited value. We normally encounter classic lagging
indicators in the Financial perspective. Typical examples include profitability, revenue growth, and asset
utilization.
The financial perspective is a key factor of any performance measurement system because an
organisation’s financial performance is fundamental to its success. Measures reflecting financial
performance include the number of debtors, creditors, cash flow, profitability and return on investment.
The main problems with financial measures are as follows.
• They are based on past data. Financial measures show what has happened but they may not tell
us what is currently happening. They are not necessarily a good indicator of future performance.
• They are short termist and do not focus on the organisation’s long term financial strategy.

P a g e | 11
2. CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE
When choosing measures for the Customer perspective of the Scorecard, organizations must
answer three critical questions: Who are our target customers? What is our value proposition in
serving them? and What do our customers expect or demand from us? Sounds simple enough, but
each of these questions offers many challenges to organizations. Most organizations will state that
they do in fact have a target customer audience, yet their actions reveal an “all things to all
customers” strategy. As strategy guru Michael Porter has taught, this lack of focus will prevent an
organization from differentiating itself from competitors. Choosing an appropriate value proposition
poses no less of a challenge to most firms. Many will choose one of three “disciplines” articulated by
Treacy and Wiersema in The Discipline of Market Leaders:
▪ Operational excellence. Organizations pursuing an operational excellence discipline focus
on low price, convenience, and often “no frills.” Wal-Mart provides a great representation of
an operationally excellent company.
▪ Product leadership. Product leaders push the envelope of their firm’s products. Constantly
innovating, they strive to offer simply the best product in the market. Sony is an example of
a product leader in the field of electronics.
▪ Customer intimacy. Doing whatever it takes to provide solutions for unique customer’s
needs defines customer-intimate companies. They don’t look for one-time transactions but
instead focus on long-term relationship building through their deep knowledge of customer
needs. In the retail industry, Nordstrom epitomizes the customer-intimate organization.
Regardless of the value discipline chosen, this perspective will normally include measures widely used
today: customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, market share, and customer acquisition, for example.
Equally as important, the organization must develop the performance drivers that will lead to
improvement in these “lag” indicators of customer success. Doing so will greatly enhance your chances
of answering our third question for this perspective: What do our customers expect or demand from us?
In Chapters Four and Five we will take a closer look at the Customer perspective and identify what
specific steps your organization should take to develop customer objectives and measures.

P a g e | 12
3. INTERNAL PROCESS PERSPECTIVE
In the Internal Process perspective of the Scorecard, we identify the key processes the firm must excel at
in order to continue adding value for customers and ultimately shareholders. Each of the customer
disciplines just outlined will entail the efficient operation of specific internal processes in order to serve
customers and fulfill our value proposition. Our task here is to identify those processes and develop the
best possible objectives and measures with which to track progress. To satisfy customer and
shareholder expectations, you may have to identify entirely new internal processes rather than focusing
your efforts on the incremental improvement of existing activities. Product development, production,
manufacturing, delivery, and postsale service may be represented in this perspective.
Many organizations rely heavily on supplier relationships and other third-party arrangements to serve
customers effectively. Such organizations should consider developing measures in the Internal Process
perspective to represent the critical elements of those relationships.
These are measures of key business processes, such as time taken in production, re-work costs or time
to process an order. These internal business focused measures allow the organisation to measure how
well the business is operating and whether its products and services meet customer requirements.
This perspective focuses on internal operations that further both the customer perspective by creating
value for customers and the financial perspective by increasing shareholder wealth. Chipset determines
internal business process improvement targets after benchmarking against key competitors. There are
diferent sources of competitor cost analysis: published financial statements, prevailing prices,
customers, suppliers, former employees, industry experts and financial analysts. Chipset also physically
takes apart competitors’ products to compare them with its own designs. This activity also helps Chipset
to estimate competitors’ costs. The internal business process perspective comprises three principal
subprocesses:
a. The innovation process – creating products, services and processes that will meet the needs of
customers. At Chipset, the key to lowering costs and promoting growth is improving the
technology of manufacturing.

P a g e | 13
b. The operations process – producing and delivering existing products and services to customers.
Chipset’s key strategic initiatives are
• improving manufacturing quality,
• reducing delivery time to customers, and
• meeting specified delivery dates.
c. After-sales service – providing service and support to the customer after the sale or delivery of a
product or service. Chipset’s sales staf work closely with customers to monitor and understand
how well product features of CX1 match customer needs.

P a g e | 14
4. EMPLOYEE LEARNING AND GROWTH PERSPECTIVE
If you want to achieve ambitious results for internal processes, customers, and ultimately shareholders,
where are these gains found? The objectives and measures in the Employee Learning and Growth
perspective of the Balanced Scorecard are really the enablers of the other three perspectives. In
essence, they are the foundation upon which the Balanced Scorecard is built. Once you identify
objectives, measures, and related initiatives in your Customer and Internal Process perspectives, you can
be certain of discovering some gaps between your current organizational infrastructure of employee
skills (human capital), information systems (informational capital), and the environment required to
maintain success (organizational capital).
The objectives and measures you design in this perspective will help you close that gap and ensure
sustainable performance for the future. As with the other three perspectives of the Scorecard, we would
expect a mix of core outcome (lag) measures and performance drivers (lead measures) to represent the
Employee Learning and Growth perspective. Employee skills, employee satisfaction, availability of
information, and alignment could all have a place in this perspective. It is normally the last perspective
to be developed. Perhaps the teams are intellectually drained from their earlier efforts of developing
new strategic measures, or they simply consider this perspective “soft stuff ” best left to the Human
Resources group. No matter how valid the rationale seems, this perspective cannot be overlooked in the
development process.. Think of them as the roots of a tree that will ultimately lead through the trunk of
internal processes to the branches of customer results and finally to the leaves of financial returns.
These are measures that highlight an organisation’s development and learning ability. They might
include the number of training days, the number of qualified staff or total hours spent on staff training.
This perspective includes staff training and attitudes to organisational culture related to both individual
and corporate self-improvement. This quadrant recognises that in a knowledge worker organisation,
people are the greatest resource. Kaplan and Norton focus upon the fact that 'learning' is more than
'training'.

P a g e | 16
VERTICAL VECTOR RELATIONSHIP FOR STRATEGY MAP

P a g e | 17
IT SHOWS THAT COMPANY HAS PRIORITY OF CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE
THE BALANCED SCORECARD AS A COMMUNICATION TOOL:
STRATEGY MAPS
First and foremost, the Balanced Scorecard has been proven to generate results for thousands of
organizations in private, public, and nonprofit fields of endeavor. This efficacy would seem a
prerequisite of any tool destined to reach the pantheon of business systems. Dig a little deeper,
however, and you find another equally compelling rationale for the Balanced Scorecard’s continued
growth: its continued growth. Perhaps “evolution” is a more suitable description. Brought into the world
by Kaplan and Norton as a methodology to tame the power of financial metrics run amok, the Balanced
Scorecard soon evolved into a system capable of bridging short-term leadership action with long-term
strategy through links to such processes as budgeting and compensation. This discovery heralded a new
chapter in its life and beckoned thousands of additional organizations to heed the call. But quite possibly
the most powerful evolutionary leap in the Balanced Scorecard’s life has been from measurement
system to strategy communication device through the advent of the Strategy Map.
For those of you who grapple with an issue best by first defining it, let’s try this one for Strategy Maps:
a one-page graphical representation of what you must do well in each of the four perspectives in
order to execute your strategy successfully. We’re not taking any measurements in the Strategy Map;

P a g e | 18
there’s no tallying of results here. Instead we’re communicating to all audiences, internal and
external, what we must do well if we hope to achieve our ultimate goals. Hence the description of the
Strategy Map as a powerful communication tool, signaling to everyone within the enterprise what
must occur should they hope to beat the almost overwhelming odds of strategy execution. So why do
we use the term “map”? Why not a more mundane moniker, such as “strategy sheet” or “must-do”
list? A map guides us on our journey, detailing pathways to get us from point A to point B, ultimately
leading us to our chosen destination. So it is with a Strategy Map; we are defining causal pathways
weaving through the four perspectives that will lead us to the implementation of our strategy. We’ll
return to the exciting world of Strategy Maps in Chapter Four, where you’ll discover how to create a
document that brings your strategy to life with dazzling clarity and allows you to flex your creative
muscles to a degree rarely seen in the corporate world.
The objectives are linked in a causal way from the bottom to the top. The Strategy Map provides a very
powerful tool allowing the user to talk about the causal impact of investment at the bottom to improved
financial results at the top.

P a g e | 19
The key to a good Balanced Scorecard is the strategy map. Any product selected should be able to create
strategy maps with drill-down capabilities. Strategy maps often start out as a blank canvas to which you
add images, shapes, gauges, graphs, text, and numbers to create a visual representation of your data.
Once you make a strategy map, however, the colours and numbers should automatically update based
on the real data in your system. Strategy maps can also be used to track key metrics, visualise
geographic data, and monitor trends.
A strategy map is a cause-and effect diagram of the relationships among the BSC perspectives.
Managers use it to show how the achievement of goals in each perspective affect the achievement of
goals in other perspectives, and finally the overall success of the firm. For most firms, the ultimate goal
is stated in financial performance, and for public firms in particular, in shareholder value. So, the
financial perspective of the BSC is the target in the strategy map. The other BSC perspectives contribute
to financial performance in a predictable, cause-and-effect way. For many firms, the learning and
growth perspective is the base upon which the firm’s success is built. The reason is that learning and
growth—resulting in great products and great employees—drive performance in the internal processes
perspective and also the customer perspective. Similarly, great performance in the internal processes
perspective drives performance in the customer perspective; better operations mean more satisfied
customers. Finally, satisfied customers lead directly to improved financial performance.

P a g e | 21
CAUSE AND EFFECT IN THEORY
“What really separates the Balanced Scorecard from other performance management systems is the
notion of cause and effect.” While I still believe cause and effect is an important consideration when
crafting both a Strategy Map and performance measures to appear on a Balanced Scorecard, as with
most things, there is a wide spectrum of commitment to the idea in practice. It will serve you well to
understand both the advantages and limitations of the idea.
The best strategy ever conceived is simply a hypothesis developed by its creators. It represents their
best guess as to an appropriate course of action, given their knowledge of information concerning the
environment, competencies, competitive positions, and so on. What is needed is a method to document
and test the assumptions inherent in the strategy. The Balanced Scorecard allows us to do just that.
A well-designed Balanced Scorecard should describe your strategy through the objectives appearing on
the Strategy Map and measures you have chosen for your scorecard. These measures should link
together in a chain of cause-and-effect relationships from the performance drivers in the Employee
Learning and Growth perspective all the way through to improved financial performance as reflected in
the Financial perspective. We are attempting to document our strategy through measurement, making
the relationships between the measures explicit so they can be monitored, managed, and validated.
1. IN THEORY For example,
Let’s say your organization is pursuing a growth strategy. You therefore determine that you will measure
revenue growth in the Financial perspective of the scorecard. You hypothesize that loyal customers
providing repeat business will result in greater revenues so you measure customer loyalty in the
Customer perspective. How will you achieve superior levels of customer loyalty? Now you must ask
yourself what internal processes the organization must excel at in order to drive customer loyalty and
ultimately increased revenue. You believe customer loyalty is driven by your ability to continuously
innovate and bring new products to the market, and therefore you decide to measure new product
development cycle times in the Internal Process perspective. Finally you have to determine how you will
improve cycle times. Investing in employee training on new development initiatives may eventually
lower development cycle time and is then measured under the Employee Learning and Growth
perspective of the Balanced Scorecard. This linkage of measures throughout the Balanced Scorecard is
constructed with a series of if-then statements: If we increase training, then cycle times will lower. If
cycle times lower, then loyalty will increase. If loyalty increases, then revenue will increase. When
considering the linkage between measures, we should also attempt to document the timing and extent
of the correlations. For example, do we expect customer loyalty to double in the first year as a result of
our focus on lowering new product development cycle times? Explicitly stating the assumptions in our
measure architecture makes the Balanced Scorecard a formidable tool for strategic learning

P a g e | 22
2. IN PRACTICE For example,
let’s say you’ve hypothesized a cause-and-effect link between employee training in the Employee
Learning and Growth perspective and the number of manufacturing defects in the Internal Processes
perspective. Logically, this relationship makes sense; trained employees should have a higher skill level
and thus be able to limit defects on the line. In actual practice, however, problems in manufacturing
may result from dozens of factors, including machine failures, supplier quality issues, and computer
malfunctions. This lack of scientific rigor may be enough to deter many organizations from pursuing a
pure cause-and-effect linkage model when creating their Balanced Scorecard.
CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE IN DETAIL
Just two little, seemingly innocent questions must be answered when developing objectives for the
Customer perspective of your Strategy Map: (1) Who are our target customers? and (2) What is our
value proposition in serving them? Much like our foray into card writing, these two queries can provide
a more vexing challenge than first meets the eye.
Let’s begin with question 1, “Who are our target customers?” When appropriately prodded, every
executive or manager would trot out an answer to this question, but often their behavior in the
marketplace belies their response. Many organizations, while professing to dedicate themselves to a
core customer segment, practice an “all things for all customers” mentality. In attempting to serve the
needs of the broad landscape of potential consumers before them, in the process they tend to do little
for anyone. Strategy, it should be noted, is as much about what not to do as what to do, and this advice
applies readily to the choice of a customer segment: Not every potential customer group will fund your
profitable growth or find your offerings valuable. Your challenge is determining which groups constitute
the best market for your particular offerings, in light of your strategy, and focusing your Strategy Map
objectives on that subset of customers.
Our second question to be pondered and answered when developing Customer objectives for our
Strategy Map was: “What is our value proposition in serving our targeted customers?” The customer
value proposition describes how you will differentiate yourself and, consequently, what markets you will
serve. To develop a customer value proposition, many organizations will choose one of three
“disciplines” articulated by Treacy and Wiersema in The Discipline of Market Leaders
• Operational excellence. Organizations pursuing an operational excellence discipline focus on
low price, convenience, and often “no frills.” Anyone who shops at Costco will recognize it as an
operationally excellent company. Low prices and great selection bring us back.
• Product leadership. Product leaders push the envelope of their firm’s products. Constantly
innovating, they strive to offer simply the best product in the market. Sony Corporation with its
focus on bringing new and innovative technology and home entertainment devices to market
would be considered a product leader.

P a g e | 23
• Customer intimacy. Doing whatever it takes to provide solutions for customers’ unique needs
helps define the customer-intimate company. Such companies don’t look for one-time
transactions but instead focus on long-term relationship building through their deep knowledge
of customer needs. In the retail industry Nordstrom is a great example of a customer-intimate
organization; its tales of heroic customer service have reached mythic proportions.
Customer-intimate organizations recognize that their clients have needs beyond which their product
alone can satisfy. They offer their customers a total solution that encompasses a unique range of
superior services so that customers get the greatest benefit from the products offered. Here are some
attributes of customer-intimate organizations and the objectives you might use should you follow the
customer-intimate approach:
▪ Customer knowledge. To succeed, all customer-intimate companies require a deep and
detailed knowledge of their customers. To gauge staff knowledge, they may develop an
objective of “Increase training hours on products and services offered.”
▪ Solutions offered. Customer-intimate firms also realize that customers are not turning
to them for low cost or the latest product; it’s the unmatched total solution they offer.
Therefore, “Increase total number of solutions offered per client” may be included
within the Customer perspective.
▪ Penetration. At the height of IBM’s success, it was customer intimacy that assured its
good fortune. The critical objective Thomas Watson put forth to his staff was customer
penetration, or “Enhance share of targeted customer spending.” The customer-intimate
organization aims to provide complete solutions for its client base and needs to ensure
these efforts are achieving success by deep penetration of accounts.
▪ Customer data. To offer the solutions only they can, these organizations also require
abundant and rich data on their customers. “Increase percentage of employees with
access to customer information” may be stated as an objective to ensure this key
differentiator of success will be monitored.
▪ Culture of driving client success. Employees of customer-intimate organizations feel
they’ve succeeded when the customer has attained success. This attitude is deeply
rooted in their culture. Receiving an award from a cherished client as proof of their
contribution would be the greatest prize a customer-intimate company can receive.
“Increase number of customer awards received” is an objective they may develop to
communicate this desire.
▪ Relationships for the long term. Customer-intimate organizations don’t take a short
view of any client relationships. Their goal is to build long-lasting unions during which
they can increase their share of the clients’ business by providing unparalleled levels of
knowledge and solutions. The relationship doesn’t end when the sale is made; in fact, it
is just beginning. At Roadway Logistics customers are assigned “directors of logistics
development” who stay close to the process and often move to client locations.
“Provide staff at client locations” could be an objective speaking of the deep
relationship these organizations maintain with their clients.

P a g e | 24
▪ Financial objectives and measures. Don’t forget that the Balanced Scorecard should tell
the story of your strategy from financial targets through the customer, processes, and
employee capabilities you’ll need to achieve success. Once you’ve developed financial
objectives and measures, ask yourself how they translate into customer requirements.
For example, if you have a financial target of double-digit revenue growth, you may
require greater customer loyalty or ambitious customer acquisition policies to achieve
that goal.
▪ The customer’s voice. The Internet is an incredibly powerful medium for spreading
customer perceptions about your products and services, good or bad. Message boards
and targeted sites across the vast universe of the Web likely contain a host of references
to your company and its offerings. Take advantage of this opportunity by listening to
what your customers have to say about you and then proactively defining yourself.
▪ Moments of truth. Any point at which a customer comes in contact with a business
defines a moment of truth. The interaction can be either favorable or unfavorable and
can have a great impact on future business. Mapping these moments of truth provides
you with an opportunity to isolate the differentiating features you offer and design
metrics to track your success.
▪ Look to your channels. Today’s organization may serve customers in a number of ways,
each with unique processes. Take the example of a retailer. It may offer shopping over
the Internet, in retail stores, and/or by catalog. Each of these channels has specific
processes and will entail different performance measures. For instance, when
measuring checkout efficiency and speed in retail stores, error rates in keying
items/prices into the register and the average length of a transaction might be
monitored. Online, the same organization could monitor transaction ease by examining
the number of fields into which the customer must enter information or the number of
abandoned transactions. A catalog transaction would examine the number of rings it
takes customer service representatives to answer calls and how long it takes to place
the order
BALANCED SCORECARD AS A MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
When Kaplan and Norton initially conceived the Balanced Scorecard, they were attempting to solve a
problem of measurement: How do we acknowledge the importance of financial metrics in decision
making and business success while also recognizing the rapid rise of intangible assets and their critical
importance to the overall recipe for organizational success? Their answer to this quandary lay in the
development of measures in each of four distinct yet related perspectives of performance: Financial,
Customer, Internal Processes, and Employee Learning and Growth. Kaplan and Norton rightly
hypothesized that financial measures will always remain a vital part of any enterprise’s attempts to gain
an accurate picture of its performance, but those measures must be balanced by indicators
demonstrating how those financial yardsticks will be maximized.

P a g e | 25
Measures for the Balanced Scorecard are derived from the objectives appearing on the Strategy Map,
which itself serves as a direct and clarifying translation of the organization’s strategy. These two links in
the chain of success remind me of the old song “Love and Marriage”: You can’t have one without the
other. A Strategy Map may prove to be the most inspirational document you’ve ever produced, but
without the accountability and focus afforded by accompanying performance measures, its value is
specious to say the least. Conversely, performance measures serve as powerful monitoring devices, but
without the benefit of a clear and compelling Strategy Map, much of their contextual value is lost. It
would not be an exaggeration to suggest that measurement is at the very heart of the Balanced
Scorecard system; it’s in the tool’s very DNA, and has been from its inception in 1990. Strategy Maps
communicate the strategic destination, while performance measures housed within the Balanced
Scorecard monitor the course, allowing us to ensure we remain on track
(YOU CAN WRITE MORE FROM INDIVIDUALLY PERFORMANCE MEASURES FROM 4 PERSPECTIVES)

P a g e | 26
THE BALANCED SCORECARD AS A STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
For many organizations that are highly skilled in the art of the Balanced Scorecard, the system, besides
communicating strategy and measuring progress, serves as what Kaplan and Norton have described as a
“Strategic Management System.”26 While the original intent of the Scorecard system was to balance
historical financial numbers with the drivers of future value for the firm, as more and more
organizations experimented with the concept, they found it to be a critical tool in aligning short-term
actions with strategy. Used in this way, the Scorecard alleviates many of the issues of effective strategy
implementation discussed earlier in the chapter. Let’s revisit those barriers and examine how the
Balanced Scorecard may in fact remove them.
Overcoming the Vision Barrier through the Translation of Strategy
The Balanced Scorecard is ideally created through a shared understanding and translation of the
organization’s strategy into objectives, measures, targets, and initiatives in each of the four Scorecard
perspectives. The translation of vision and strategy forces the executive team to determine specifically
what is meant by often vague and nebulous terms contained in vision and strategy statements, such as:
“best in class,” “superior service,” and “targeted customers.” Through the process of developing a
Strategy Map and Scorecard, an executive group may determine that “superior service” means 95
percent on-time delivery to customers. All employees can now focus their energies and day-to-day
activities toward the crystal-clear goal of on-time delivery rather than wondering about and debating
the definition of “superior service.” By using the Balanced Scorecard as a framework for translating the
strategy, these organizations create a new language of measurement that serves to guide all employees’
actions toward the achievement of the stated direction.

P a g e | 27
Cascading the Scorecard Overcomes the People Barrier
To implement any strategy successfully, it must be understood and acted upon by every level of the
firm. Cascading the Scorecard means driving it down into the organization and giving all employees the
opportunity to demonstrate how their day-to-day activities contribute to the company’s strategy. All
organizational levels distinguish their value-creating activities by developing Scorecards that link to the
high-level corporate objectives. By cascading you create a line of sight from the employee on the shop
floor back to the executive boardroom. Some organizations have taken cascading all the way down to
the individual level with employees developing personal Balanced Scorecards that define the
contribution they will make to their team in helping it achieve overall objectives.
Rather than linking incentives and rewards to the achievement of shortterm financial targets, managers
now have the opportunity to tie their team, department, or business unit’s rewards directly to the areas
in which they exert influence. All employees can now focus on the performance drivers of future
economic value and what decisions and actions are necessary to achieve those outcomes. Chapter Nine
will outline strategies for the linkage of Balanced Scorecard results to compensation.

P a g e | 28
IMPLEMENTING BSC
Correct implementation is key to the successful deployment of a balanced scorecard. It is particularly
important that some common objectives drive the desire to use a balanced scorecard within an
organisation. Many unintended forces can shape the way in which a balanced scorecard is ultimately
implemented (Kasurinen 2000). If it is incorrectly implemented, ‘the organisation may actually go faster
in the wrong direction’. This appears to be true across for-profit as well as not-for-profit and
governmental organisations (Kloot and Martin 2000). One study of 17 Finnish companies with balanced
scorecard applications suggests that specific emphasis was being placed on management by objectives
in some organisations but on more directly deploying the balanced scorecard as an information system
in others (Malmi 2001). More recent research suggests that successful balanced scorecard
implementation depends on managers’ understanding of the linkages between performance measures,
business units’ strategy and firm decisions (Ding and Beaulieu 2011). In a significant review of balanced
scorecard research over two decades, Hoque (2014) notes that, for some organisations, integrating the
balanced scorecard with other managerial control tools such as budgeting is difficult.
To be implemented effectively, the balanced scorecard should:
▪ Have the strong support of top management.
▪ Accurately reflect the organization’s strategy.

P a g e | 29
▪ Communicate the organization’s strategy clearly to all managers and employees, who
understand and accept the scorecard.
▪ Have a process that reviews and modifies the scorecard as the organization’s strategy and
resources change.
▪ Be linked to reward and compensation systems; managers and employees have clear incentives
linked to the scorecard.
▪ Include processes for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information in the scorecard.
▪ Ensure that the relevant portions of the scorecard are readily accessible to those responsible for
the measures and that the information is also secure, available only to those authorized to have
the information.
▪ the selection of the scorecard measures.
▪ Be framed as a strategy map with all of the linkages among perspectives because this more
structured approach will provide additional credibility to the BSC.
PITFALLS TO AVOID WHEN IMPLEMENTING A BALANCED SCORECARD
Points to note when implementing a balanced scorecard include the following:
1. Do not assume the cause-and-efect linkages to be precise. They are merely hypotheses. A
critical challenge is to identify the strength and speed of the causal linkages among the non-
financial and financial measures. Hence, an organisation must gather evidence of these
linkages over time. With experience, organisations should alter their scorecards to include
those non-financial objectives and measures that are the best leading indicators of
subsequent financial performance (a lagging indicator). Committing to evolve the scorecard
over time avoids the paralysis associated with trying to design the perfect scorecard at the
outset.
2. Do not seek improvements across all of the measures all of the time. This approach may be
inappropriate because trade-ofs may need to be made across various strategic goals. For
example, emphasising quality and on-time performance beyond a point may not be
worthwhile – further improvement in these objectives may be inconsistent with profit
maximisation.
3. Do not use only objective measures in the scorecard. Chipset’s scorecard includes both
objective measures (such as operating income from cost leadership, market share and
manufacturing yield), as well as subjective measures (such as customer and employee
satisfaction ratings). When using subjective measures, though, management must be careful
to trade of the benefits of the richer information these measures provide against the
imprecision and potential for manipulation.
4. Do not fail to consider both costs and benefits of initiatives such as spending on
information technology and R&D before including these objectives in the scorecard.
Otherwise, management may focus the organisation on measures that will not result in
overall long-run financial benefits.

P a g e | 30
5. Do not ignore non-financial measures when evaluating managers and employees.
Managers tend to focus on what their performance is measured by. Excluding non-financial
measures when evaluating performance will reduce the significance and importance that
managers give to non-financial scorecard measures. Extensive research by Larker (2004)
suggests that it is crucial for an organisation to think carefully about linking balanced
scorecard categories to performance measures. He notes that companies often experience
problems of ‘disbalance’ when incorporating non-financial measures stemming from the
balanced scorecard into remuneration plans. In one investigation of the use of balanced
scorecards at Citibank, Larker noted that 45% of branch managers were not satisfied with
the scorecard process whereas only 32% were. A major problem was managers not knowing
‘who gets what and why’ when it came to scorecard-based bonuses.
EVALUATE HOW SUCCESSFUL IT HAS BEEN IN IMPLEMENTING ITS STRATEGY (pg.13)
Chipset compares the target and actual performance columns of its balanced scorecard in
Exhibit 22.1. This comparison indicates that Chipset met most of the targets it had set on the
basis of competitor benchmarks. Meeting the targets suggests that the strategic initiatives that
Chipset had identified and measured for learning and growth resulted in improvements in
internal business processes, customer measures and financial performance. The financial
measures show that Chipset achieved targeted cost savings and growth. The key question is:
How does Chipset isolate operating profit from specific sources such as cost savings and growth
instead of emphasising only the aggregate change in operating profit?
Some companies might be tempted to gauge the success of their strategies by measuring the
change in their operating profits from one year to the next, but this approach is inadequate. For
example, operating profit can increase simply because entire markets are expanding, not
because a specific strategy has been successful. Also, changes in operating profit might be
caused by factors outside the strategy. For example, a company such as Chipset that has chosen
a cost leadership strategy may find that operating profit increases have instead been caused
incidentally by some degree of product diferentiation. Managers and accountants need to
evaluate the success of a strategy on the basis of whether the sources of operating profit
increases are the result of implementing the chosen strategy. To use operating profit numbers
for evaluating the success of a strategy, a company needs to isolate the operating profit due to
cost leadership from the operating profit due to product diferentiation. Of course, successful
cost leadership or product diferentiation generally increases market share and helps a company
to grow.
To evaluate the success of a company’s strategy, one can subdivide changes in operating profit
into components that can be identified with growth, product diferentiation and cost leadership.
Subdividing the change in operating profit to evaluate the success of a company’s strategy is
similar to variance analysis. The focus is on comparing actual operating performance over two
diferent time periods and explicitly linking it to strategic choices. A company is considered to be

P a g e | 31
successful in implementing its strategy when the amounts of the product diferentiation, cost
leadership and growth components align closely with its strategy.
The balanced scorecard seems useful to some organisations if it is adopted in a flexible manner.
Some management accounting commentators believe that developing a balanced scorecard
without the input and participation of those who implement the enterprise’s strategies and
plans will ‘doom the balanced scorecard to being a source of controversy rather than an
integrating and focusing force in the organization. Broadly, there is growing evidence that
managers place diferent values on diferent aspects of management accounting systems
including balanced scorecards. While organisational values are an important element in the
implementation of balanced scorecards, broader-level factors, including nation-specificity can
also influence their nature and use.
FEATURES OF A GOOD BALANCED SCORECARD
A good balanced scorecard design has several features:
1. It tells the story of a company’s strategy by articulating a sequence of cause-and-efect
relationships. For example, because Chipset’s goal is to be a low-cost producer and to
emphasise growth, the balanced scorecard describes the specific objectives and measures in
the learning and growth perspective that lead to improvements in internal business
processes. These, in turn, lead to increased customer satisfaction and market share, as well
as higher operating profit and shareholder wealth. Each measure in the scorecard is part of
a cause-andefect chain, a linkage from strategy formulation to financial outcomes.
2. It helps to communicate the strategy to all members of the organisation by translating the
strategy into a coherent and linked set of understandable and measurable operational
targets. Guided by the scorecard, managers and employees take actions and make decisions
that aim to achieve the company’s strategy. To focus these actions, some companies, such
as Halifax and Barclays, have pushed down and developed scorecards at the division and
department levels.
3. In for-profit companies, the balanced scorecard places strong emphasis on financial
objectives and measures. Managers sometimes tend to focus too much on innovation,
quality and customer satisfaction as ends in themselves even if they do not lead to tangible
pay-ofs. A balanced scorecard emphasises non-financial measures as a part of a programme
to achieve future financial performance. When financial and non-financial performance
measures are properly linked, many of the non-financial measures serve as leading
indicators of future financial performance. In the Chipset example, the improvements in
non-financial factors have, in fact, led to improvements in financial factors.
4. The balanced scorecard limits the number of measures used by identifying only the most
critical ones. Avoiding a proliferation of measures focuses management’s attention on those
that are key to the implementation of strategy.

P a g e | 32
5. The scorecard highlights suboptimal trade-ofs that managers may make when they fail to
consider operational and financial measures together. For example, a company for which
innovation is key could achieve superior short-run financial performance by reducing
spending on R&D. A good balanced scorecard would signal that the short-run financial
performance may have been achieved by taking actions that hurt future financial
performance because a leading indicator of that performance, R&D spending and R&D
output, has declined.
6. Strategy Maps The key to a good Balanced Scorecard is the strategy map. Any product
selected should be able to create strategy maps with drill-down capabilities. Strategy maps
often start out as a blank canvas to which you add images, shapes, gauges, graphs, text, and
numbers to create a visual representation of your data. Once you make a strategy map,
however, the colours and numbers should automatically update based on the real data in
your system. Strategy maps can also be used to track key metrics, visualise geographic data,
and monitor trends.
7. Cascaded Scorecards Organisation-wide Balanced Scorecard roll-outs require multiple
cascaded scorecards. This allows the organisation to start at the top of the organisation and
roll down into department, group, or even to the employee level. Look for products that
allow for unlimited cascaded scorecards. Organisations should be able to drill-through to
sub-scorecards or individual measure views. The entire organisation should be able to roll-
up information from multiple scorecards into higher-level scorecards.
8. Alignment A good solution will allow for Balanced Scorecard “Aligned Objectives” to be
easily created, so that scorecards can show the performance of their own objectives and
measures, or of supporting objectives across various scorecards.
9. Automated Scoring and Weighting A scorecard tool should allow for automated scoring and
weighting of structure elements. You should be able to build your structure, define the
weighting, enter the measure values, and watch the scorecard “colour-up.”
10. Initiative Management Many initiatives will come out of the Balanced Scorecard process.
Look for products that have good initiative management modules to manage these
scorecard initiatives. It should be possible to create tasks and milestones and assign them to
individuals or groups.
KEY BENEFITS
After decades since its introduction the Balanced Scorecard is now accepted by many organisations as
the de-facto method to gather information, make decisions and implement strategy. It has been
estimated more than 50% of medium to large organisations use the Balanced Scorecard approach to
performance management. The key benefits are:
▪ Improved organisational alignment and communication – The Balanced Scorecard approach
necessitates that the method is adopted by the whole organisation from department to division
to enterprise. It becomes a single standard for all. The immediate benefit is a common language,

P a g e | 33
common set of strategic objectives and common metric structure. This does not mean that the
Balanced Scorecard must be implemented across an entire organisation immediately, indeed,
the best approach is to start small (usually at the executive level) and roll out over a defined
period.
▪ Better strategic planning – The creation of a Strategy Map using the Balanced Scorecard
methodology forces an executive team to think hard about the relationship between a strategic
objective, initiatives to fulfil the objective and the metrics required to both help with the success
(leading measures) and determine actual success (trailing measures). The strategy map
therefore becomes the cornerstone in strategic planning. It has the added benefit of being the
communication medium of the strategy (and the way it will be measured) to the rest of the
organisation.
▪ Improved performance reporting overall – The Balanced Scorecard focuses the mind on those
things that need to be reported to the management and executive teams. There will be other
things that need to be measured and reported upon, but the simple fact that the management
and executive teams are clear on what they need will cause the whole organisation to think
about what is required and more importantly why. One of the obvious benefits of this activity is
that unnecessary reporting will be eliminated. The Balanced Scorecard becomes an extremely
powerful tool to ensure organisational alignment, to improve communications, achieve much
stronger strategic planning and ultimately lead to a better preforming organisation that is in-
tune with its business strategy.
▪ It avoids management reliance on short-term or incomplete financial measures. It ensures that
senior management takes a balanced view about the organisation’s performance.
▪ Using the BSC can assist in ‘driving down’ the corporate strategy to divisions and functions by
forcing management to develop success measures related to corporate goals. Top level strategy
and middle management level actions are clearly connected and appropriately focused.
▪ It can help stakeholders to evaluate the organisation if measures are communicated externally.
▪ The organisation’s performance reporting system (and the organisation itself) is much more
likely to focus on staying competitive in the long term and to realise value for its stakeholders.
DRAWBACKS
The main drawbacks are outlined below. •
❖ The BSC does not lead to a single aggregate summary control. The popularity of measures such
as Return on Investment (ROI) has been because they conveniently summarise ‘how things are
going’.
❖ Measures may give conflicting signals and confuse management. For example, if customer
satisfaction and financial indicators are both falling, do management sacrifice one or the other?

P a g e | 34
❖ It involves substantial shifts in corporate culture to implement, such as the need to re-focus on
the long term. The organisation must also be recognised as a set of processes rather than
separate departments.
❖ The approach is not a quick fix. It takes considerable thought to develop an appropriate
scorecard.
❖ It must be tailored to the organization
A balanced scorecard is supposed to provide a framework from which to work from, however, it
will still need to be customized to every organization using this system. This can take up a lot of
time, and while examples are helpful, they can’t be copied exactly due to the unique needs of
every business.
❖ It needs buy-in from leadership to be successful
For the balanced scorecard system to be fully effective, it must be implemented from the
bottom all the way to the top of the organization. This means getting buy-in from leaders, which
can sometimes take some convincing, not to mention the learning curve involved with getting
the whole organization to use the new system.
❖ It can get complicated
The framework itself of balanced scorecards takes some time and dedication to understand.
There are countless resources and case studies to read from and it’s easy to get bogged down
with the many different ways of using this method.
❖ 4. It requires a lot of data
Most of the time balanced scorecards require managers and team members to report
information, which means logging data. Many don’t like this because they find it tedious and
also, it can get in the way of doing the work required to meet objectives.

BALANCE SCORECARD

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to BALANCE SCORECARD (20)

More from ANMOL GULATI (13)

Recently uploaded (20)

BALANCE SCORECARD