The balanced scorecard (BSC) is a strategy performance management tool - a semi-standard structured report, supported by design methods and automation tools, that can be used by managers to keep track of the execution of activities by the staff within their control and to monitor the consequences arising from these actions. It is perhaps the best known of several such frameworks (it was the most widely adopted performance management framework reported in the 2010 annual survey of management tools undertaken by Bain & Company.) Since its original incarnation in the early 1990s as a performance measurement tool, the BSC has evolved to become an effective strategy execution framework. The BSC concept as put forth by Drs. Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton is now seen as a critical foundation in a holistic strategy execution process that, besides helping organizations articulate strategy in actionable terms, provides a road map for strategy execution, for mobilizing and aligning executives and employees, and making strategy a continual process.
Contents [hide] 1 Characteristics
3.1 Original design method
3.2 Improved design methods
3.4 Variants, alternatives and criticisms
4.1 Balanced Scorecard used for incentive based pay
5 The four perspectives
7 Software tools
8 See also
The characteristic of the balanced scorecard and its derivatives is the presentation of a mixture of financial and non-financial measures each compared to a 'target' value within a single concise report. The report is not meant to be a replacement for traditional financial or operational reports but a succinct summary that captures the information most relevant to those reading it. It is the method by which this 'most relevant' information is determined (i.e., the design processes used to select the content) that most differentiates the various versions of the tool in circulation. The balanced scorecard also gives light to the company's vision and mission. These two elements must always be referred to when preparing a balance scorecard.
As a model of performance, the balanced scorecard is effective in that "it articulates the links between leading inputs (human and physical), processes, and lagging outcomes and focuses on the importance of managing these components to achieve the organization's strategic priorities."
The first versions of balanced scorecard asserted that relevance should derive from the corporate strategy, and proposed design methods that focused on choosing measures and targets associated with the main activities required to implement the strategy. As the initial audience for this were the readers of the Harvard Business Review, the proposal was translated into a form that made sense to a typical reader of that journal - one relevant to a mid-sized US business. Accordingly, initial designs were encouraged to measure three categories of non-financial measure in addition to financial outputs - those of "customer," "internal business processes" and "learning and growth." Clearly these categories were not so relevant to non-profits or units within complex organizations (which might have high degrees of internal specialization), and much of the early literature on balanced scorecard focused on suggestions of alternative 'perspectives' that might have more relevance to these groups.
Modern balanced scorecard thinking has evolved considerably since the initial ideas proposed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the modern performance management tools including Balanced Scorecard are significantly improved - being more flexible (to suit a wider range of organisational types) and more effective (as design methods have evolved to make them easier to design, and use). In the latest book by Kaplan & Norton related to the BSC, "The Execution Premium", the BSC forms only a part of a broader Execution Premium Process (XPP) to implement and monitor strategy.
Organizations have used systems consisting of a mix of financial and non-financial measures to track progress for quite some time. One example of a such a system was created by Art Schneiderman in 1987 at Analog Devices, a mid-sized semi-conductor company; the Analog Devices Balanced Scorecard was similar to what is now recognised as a "First Generation" Balanced Scorecard design. Subsequently Art Schneiderman participated in an unrelated research study in 1990 led by Dr. Robert S. Kaplan in conjunction with US management consultancy Nolan-Norton, and during this study described his work on performance measurement. Subsequently, Kaplan and David P. Norton included anonymous details of this use of balanced scorecard in a 1992 article. Kaplan and Norton's article wasn't the only paper on the topic published in early 1992 but the 1992 Kaplan and Norton paper was a popular success, and was quickly followed by a second in 1993. In 1996, they published the book The Balanced Scorecard. These articles and the first book spread knowledge of the concept of balanced scorecard widely, and has led to Kaplan and Norton being seen as the creators of the concept.
While the "balanced scorecard" terminology was coined by Art Schneiderman, the roots of performance management as an activity run deep in management literature and practice. Management historians such as Alfred Chandler suggest the origins of performance management can be seen in the emergence of the complex organisation - most notably during the 19th Century in the USA. More recent influences may include the pioneering work of General Electric on performance measurement reporting in the 1950s and the work of French process engineers (who created the tableau de bord – literally, a "dashboard" of performance measures) in the early part of the 20th century. The tool also draws strongly on the ideas of the 'resource based view of the firm' proposed by Edith Penrose. However it should be noted that none of these influences is explicitly linked to original descriptions of balanced scorecard by Schneiderman, Maisel, or Kaplan & Norton.
Kaplan and Norton's first book, The Balanced Scorecard, remains their most popular. The book reflects the earliest incarnations of balanced scorecards - effectively restating the concept as described in the second Harvard Business Review article. Their second book, The Strategy Focused Organization, echoed work by others (particularly in Scandinavia) on the value of visually documenting the links between measures by proposing the "Strategic Linkage Model" or strategy map. They have since published three additional books on "Strategy Maps", "Alignment" and "The Execution Premium", which together address issues and expand insights gained by the consultants at the Palladium Group, the firm they co-founded, during BSC implementation.
Design of a balanced scorecard ultimately is about the identification of a small number of financial and non-financial measures and attaching targets to them, so that when they are reviewed it is possible to determine whether current performance 'meets expectations'. The idea behind this is that by alerting managers to areas where performance deviates from expectations, they can be encouraged to focus their attention on these areas, and hopefully as a result trigger improved performance within the part of the organization they lead.
The original thinking behind a balanced scorecard was for it to be focused on information relating to the implementation of a strategy, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, over time there has been a blurring of the boundaries between conventional strategic planning and control activities and those required to design a Balanced Scorecard. This is illustrated well by the four steps required to design a balanced scorecard included in Kaplan & Norton's writing on the subject in the late 1990s:
Translating the vision into operational goals;
Communicating the vision and link it to individual performance;
Business planning; index setting
Feedback and learning, and adjusting the strategy accordingly.
These steps go far beyond the simple task of identifying a small number of financial and non-financial measures, but illustrate the requirement for whatever design process is used to fit within broader thinking about how the resulting Balanced Scorecard will integrate with the wider business management process. This is also illustrated by books and articles referring to Balanced Scorecards confusing the design process elements and the balanced scorecard itself. In particular, it is common for people to refer to a "strategic linkage model" or "strategy map" as being a balanced scorecard.
Although it helps focus managers' attention on strategic issues and the management of the implementation of strategy, it is important to remember that the Balanced Scorecard itself has no role in the formation of strategy. In fact, balanced scorecards can comfortably co-exist with strategic planning systems and other tools.
Original design method
The earliest balanced scorecards comprised simple tables broken into four sections - typically these "perspectives" were labeled "financial", "customer", "internal business processes", and "learning and growth". Designing the balanced scorecard required selecting five or six good measures for each perspective.
Many authors have since suggested alternative headings for these perspectives, and also suggested using either additional or fewer perspectives. These suggestions were notably triggered by a recognition that different but equivalent headings would yield alternative sets of measures. The major design challenge faced with this type of balanced scorecard is justifying the choice of measures made. "Of all the measures you could have chosen, why did you choose these?" This common question is hard to answer using this type of design process. If users are not confident that the measures within the Balanced Scorecard are well chosen, they will have less confidence in the information it provides. Although less common, these early-style balanced scorecards are still designed and used today.
In short, early-style balanced scorecards are hard to design in a way that builds confidence that they are well designed. Because of this, many are abandoned soon after completion.
Improved design methods
In the mid-1990s, an improved design method emerged. In the new method, measures are selected based on a set of "strategic objectives" plotted on a "strategic linkage model" or "strategy map". With this modified approach, the strategic objectives are distributed across the four measurement perspectives, so as to "connect the dots" to form a visual presentation of strategy and measures.
To develop a strategy map, managers select a few strategic objectives within each of the perspectives, and then define the cause-effect chain among these objectives by drawing links between them. A balanced scorecard of strategic performance measures is then derived directly from the strategic objectives. This type of approach provides greater contextual justification for the measures chosen, and is generally easier for managers to work through. This style of balanced scorecard has been commonly used since 1996 or so: it is significantly different in approach to the methods originally proposed, and so can be thought of as representing the "2nd generation" of design approach adopted for balanced scorecard since its introduction.
Several design issues still remain with this enhanced approach to balanced scorecard design, but it has been much more successful than the design approach it superseded.
In the late 1990s, the design approach had evolved yet again. One problem with the "2nd generation" design approach described above was that the plotting of causal links amongst twenty or so medium-term strategic goals was still a relatively abstract activity. In practice it ignored the fact that opportunities to intervene, to influence strategic goals are, and need to be, anchored in the "now;" in current and real management activity. Secondly, the need to "roll forward" and test the impact of these goals necessitated the creation of an additional design instrument; the Vision or Destination Statement. This device was a statement of what "strategic success," or the "strategic end-state" looked like. It was quickly realized, that if a Destination Statement was created at the beginning of the design process then it was much easier to select strategic activity and outcome objectives to respond to it. Measures and targets could then be selected to track the achievement of these objectives. Design methods that incorporate a "destination statement" or equivalent (e.g. the results based management method proposed by the UN in 2002) represent a tangibly different design approach to those that went before, and have been proposed as representing a "3rd generation" design method for balanced scorecard.
Design methods for balanced scorecards continue to evolve and adapt to reflect the deficiencies in the currently used methods, and the particular needs of communities of interest (e.g. NGO's and government departments have found the 3rd generation methods embedded in results based management more useful than 1st or 2nd generation design methods).
The balanced scorecard represents an adaptive tool for assessing public and private programs and projects. A very interesting initiative is a new application of BSC proposed by Ioppolo G. et al. He has published on land use policy journal the structure and application of the territory balanced scorecard to support environmental management projects and new public governance actions.
From another perspective, Del Giorgio Solfa has proposed the development of a Benchmarking Dashboard Public Management (BDPM), which enable benchmarking from the point of view of Public Management Modernization of the State, the location and degree of development of the provincial public organizations, in relation to the resources used to operate.
In 1997, Kurtzman found that 64 percent of the companies questioned were measuring performance from a number of perspectives in a similar way to the balanced scorecard. Balanced scorecards have been implemented by government agencies, military units, business units and corporations as a whole, non-profit organisations, and schools.
Many examples of balanced scorecards can be found via web searches. However, adapting one organisation's balanced scorecard to another is generally not advised by theorists, who believe that much of the benefit of the balanced scorecard comes from the design process itself. Indeed, it could be argued that many failures in the early days of balanced scorecard could be attributed to this problem, in that early balanced scorecards were often designed remotely by consultants. Managers did not trust, and so failed to engage with and use, these measure suites created by people lacking knowledge of the organisation and management responsibility.
Variants, alternatives and criticisms
Since the balanced scorecard was popularized in the early 1990s, a large number of alternatives to the original 'four box' balanced scorecard promoted by Kaplan and Norton in their various articles and books have emerged. Most have very limited application, and are typically proposed either by academics as vehicles for promoting other agendas (such as green issues), or consultants as an attempt at differentiation to promote sales of books and / or consultancy.
Many of the variations proposed are broadly similar, and a research paper published in 2002 attempted to identify a pattern in these variations - noting three distinct types of variation. The variations appeared to be part of an evolution of the Balanced Scorecard concept, and so the paper refers to these distinct types as "generations". Broadly, the original 'measures in boxes' type design (as proposed by Kaplan & Norton) constitutes the 1st generation balanced scorecard design; balanced scorecard designs that include a 'strategy map' or 'strategic linkage model' (e.g. the Performance Prism, later Kaplan & Norton designs, the Performance Driver model of Olve & Wetter) constitute the 2nd Generation of Balanced Scorecard design; and designs that augment the strategy map / strategic linkage model with a separate document describing the long-term outcomes sought from the strategy (the "destination statement" idea) comprise the 3rd generation balanced scorecard design.
The balanced scorecard has attracted criticism from a variety of sources. Most has come from the academic community, who dislike the empirical nature of the framework: Kaplan and Norton notoriously failed to include any citation of prior art in their initial papers on the topic. Some of this criticism focuses on technical flaws in the methods and design of the original Balanced Scorecard proposed by Kaplan and Norton, and has over time driven the evolution of the device through its various generations. Other academics have simply focused on the lack of citation support.
Another criticism is that the balanced scorecard does not provide a bottom line score or a unified view with clear recommendations: it is simply a list of metrics. These critics usually include in their criticism suggestions about how the 'unanswered' question postulated could be answered. Typically, however, the unanswered question relates to things outside the scope of balanced scorecard itself (such as developing strategies). Another more conceptual criticism is that the model is built upon the principle of shareholders being the ultimate purpose, whereas other stakeholders seem to be undervalued or worse: stipulated as 'input' to serve the financial goals. Recent corporate success stories prove a solid stakeholder approach is profitable on the long run, too. 
There are few empirical studies linking the use of balanced scorecards to better decision making or improved financial performance of companies, but some work has been done in these areas. However, broadcast surveys of usage have difficulties in this respect, due to the wide variations in definition of 'what a balanced scorecard is' noted above (making it hard to work out in a survey if you are comparing like with like). Single organization case studies suffer from the 'lack of a control' issue common to any study of organizational change - you don't know what the organization would have achieved if the change had not been made, so it is difficult to attribute changes observed over time to a single intervention (such as introducing a balanced scorecard). However, such studies as have been done have typically found balanced scorecard to be useful.
Balanced Scorecard used for incentive based pay
A common use of balanced scorecard is to support the payments of incentives to individuals, even though it was not designed for this purpose and is not particularly suited to it.
The four perspectives
The 1st generation design method proposed by Kaplan and Norton was based on the use of three non-financial topic areas as prompts to aid the identification of non-financial measures in addition to one looking at financial. Four "perspectives" were proposed:
Financial: encourages the identification of a few relevant high-level financial measures. In particular, designers were encouraged to choose measures that helped inform the answer to the question "How do we look to shareholders?"
Customer: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "How do customers see us?"
Internal business processes: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "What must we excel at?"
Learning and growth: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "How can we continue to improve, create value and innovate?".
These 'prompt questions' illustrate that Kaplan and Norton were thinking about the needs of small to medium sized commercial organizations in the USA (the target demographic for the Harvard Business Review) when choosing these topic areas. They are not very helpful to other kinds of organizations, and much of what has been written on balanced scorecard since has, in one way or another, focused on the identification of alternative headings more suited to a broader range of organizations.
The balanced scorecard is ultimately about choosing measures and targets. The various design methods proposed are intended to help in the identification of these measures and targets, usually by a process of abstraction that narrows the search space for a measure (e.g. find a measure to inform about a particular 'objective' within the customer perspective, rather than simply finding a measure for 'customer'). Although lists of general and industry-specific measure definitions can be found in the case studies and methodological articles and books presented in the references section, in general measure catalogs and suggestions from books are only helpful 'after the event' - in the same way that a dictionary can help you confirm the spelling and usage of a word, but only once you have decided to use it proficiently.
It is important to recognize that the balanced scorecard by definition is not a complex thing - typically no more than about 20 measures spread across a mix of financial and non-financial topics, and easily reported manually (on paper, or using simple office software).
The processes of collecting, reporting, and distributing balanced scorecard information can be labor intensive and prone to procedural problems (for example, getting all relevant people to return the information required by the required date). The simplest mechanism to use is to delegate these activities to an individual, and many Balanced Scorecards are reported via ad-hoc methods based around email, phone calls and office software.
In more complex organizations, where there are multiple balanced scorecards to report and/or a need for co-ordination of results between balanced scorecards (for example, if one level of reports relies on information collected and reported at a lower level) the use of individual reporters is problematic. Where these conditions apply, organizations use balanced scorecard reporting software to automate the production and distribution of these reports.
A 2009 survey of software usage found roughly one third of organizations used office software to report their balanced scorecard, one third used software developed specifically for their own use, and one third used one of the many commercial packages available.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Balanced Scorecard.
Digital dashboard, also known as business dashboard, enterprise dashboard or executive dashboard
Data presentation architecture
Enterprise planning systems
Key performance indicators
Third-generation balanced scorecard
Jump up^ 2GC Balanced Scorecard Usage Survey
Jump up^ FAQ Answer: What is the Balanced Scorecard?, 2GC Active Management, archived from the original on 12 September 2012
Jump up^ http://www.bain.com/management_tools/home.asp
Jump up^ Abernethy, M.A., Horne, M.H., Lillis, A.M., Malina, M.A. and Selto, F.H., 2005, "A multi-method approach to building causal performance maps from expert knowledge" p. 136.
Jump up^ http://www.thepalladiumgroup.com/about/thoughtleadership/Pages/XPP.aspx
Jump up^ Schneiderman, "The First Balanced Scorecard?"
Jump up^ Cobbold, I. and Lawrie, G. (2002a). "The Development of the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management Tool". Performance Measurement Association 2002
Jump up^ "The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that Drive Performance", Harvard Business Review, Feb. 1992
Jump up^ Maisel, L.S., "Performance measurement: the Balanced Scorecard approach", Journal of Cost Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, 1992, pp. 47-52.
Jump up^ "Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work", Harvard Business Review, Sept. 1993
Jump up^ The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1996)
Jump up^ Ch. 1 of "Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Enterprise", Alfred D. Chandler Jr., The MIT Press, 1962
Jump up^ "The Theory of the Growth of the Firm", New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1959, ISBN 978-0-19-828977-7
Jump up^ "Performance Drivers: A practical guide to using the Balanced Scorecard", Nils-Goran Olve, JanRoy, Magnus Wetter. John Wiley & Sons, 1999
Jump up^ http://hbr.org/product/execution-premium-linking-strategy-to-operations-f/an/2116-HBK-ENG
Jump up^ http://www.thepalladiumgroup.com/about/thoughtleadership/Pages/XPP.aspx
Jump up^ Epstein M J and Manzoni J F (1997). ‘The Balanced Scorecard & Tableau de Bord: A Global Perspective on Translating Strategy into Action’, INSEAD Working Paper 97/63/AC/SM
^ Jump up to:a b Cobbold, I. and Lawrie, G. (2002a). "The Development of the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management Tool". Performance Measurement Association 2002
Jump up^ Ioppolo, G., Saija, G., Salomone, R., 2012. Developing a Territory Balanced Scorecard approach to manage projects for local development: Two case studies. Land Use Policy 29 (3), pp. 629–640]
Jump up^ Del Giorgio Solfa, F. Benchmarking en el sector público: aportes y propuestas de implementación para la provincia de Buenos Aires (1a ed.). Villa Elisa: Industry Consulting Argentina. 2012, p. 41. ISBN 978-987-33-2236-5.
Jump up^ e.g. Brignall, S. (2002) "The UnBalanced Scorecard: a Social and Environmental Critique", Proceedings, Third International Conference on Performance Measurement and Management (PMA 2002) Boston, MA, USA July 2002; Butler A. Letza S.R. and Neale B. (1997).
Jump up^ e.g. e.g. Bourne, M., and Bourne, P. (2000), Understanding the Balanced Scorecard in a Week, Hodder & Stoughton, UK,Olve, N.; Sjöstrand, A., (2002), The Balanced Scorecard, Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing; Niven P.R. (2002). Balanced Scorecard Step by Step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results, Wiley, New York, USA; Parmenter, D., (2002), "Implementing a Balanced Scorecard in 16 Weeks", Chartered Accountants Journal, Vol. 81 Issue 3, p19.; and Davig, W., Elbert, N., Brown, S., (2004), "Implementing a Strategic Planning Model for Small Manufacturing Firms: An Adaptation of the Balanced Scorecard". S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 69 Issue 1, p18, Charles Hannabarger, Frederick Buchman, and Peter Economy (2007) Balanced Scorecard Strategy for Dummies Wiley Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-0-470-13397-2
Jump up^ Kaplan R.S. and Norton D.P. (2000). The Strategy Focused Organization, HBS Press, USA
Jump up^ Olve N., Roy J., Wetter M. (1999 - English translation, 1st published in Swedish 1997); "Performance Drivers: A practical guide to using the Balanced Scorecard", Wiley, UK.
Jump up^ e.g. Lingle J.H. and Schieman W.A. (1996). "From Balanced Scorecard to strategic gauges: is measurement worth it", Management Review, Vol.85; Schneiderman A.M. (1999). "Why Balanced Scorecards fail", Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement, January, Special Edition 6; Malina, M.A., Selto, F.H., (2001), "Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13, p47
Jump up^ e.g. Norreklit H. (2000), "The balance on the Balanced Scorecard - a critical analysis of some of its assumptions", Management Accounting Research, 11, pp. 65-88.
Jump up^ Jensen, Michael C., "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function" (October 2001). Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking, eds. J. Andriof, et al, (Greenleaf Publishing, 2002). Also published in JACF, V. 14, N. 3, 2001, European Financial Management Review, N. 7, 2001 and in Breaking the Code of Change, M. Beer and N. Norhia, eds, HBS Press, 2000. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=220671 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.220671
Jump up^ e.g. Rohm, Howard (2004). "A Balancing Act", Perform Magazine, v. 2 no. 2.
Jump up^ Sisodia R, Sheth J., Wolfe D.B., "firms of endearment" (2007)
Jump up^ e.g. Epstein M.J. and Manzoni J.F. (1997). "The Balanced Scorecard & Tableau de Bord: A Global Perspective on Translating Strategy into Action"; INSEAD Working Paper, 97/63/AC/SM, Mooraj S. Oyon D. and Hostettler D. (1999). "The Balanced Scorecard: A Necessary Good or an Unnecessary Evil?" European Management Journal, Vol.17, No.5, Malina, M.A., Selto, F.H., (2001), "Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13, p47
Jump up^ "FAQ Answer: What is the Balanced Scorecard?"
Jump up^ "The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that Drive Performance", Harvard Business Review, Feb. 1992
Jump up^ 2GC Limited (2009), "2GC Balanced Scorecard Usage Survey 2009", "2GC Balanced Scorecard Usage Survey 2009".
Douglas W. Hubbard "How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business" John Wiley & Sons, 2007. ISBN 978-0-470-11012-6
Cobbold, I. and Lawrie, G. (2002a). "The Development of the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management Tool". Performance Measurement Association 2002
Cobbold, I and Lawrie, G (2002b). "Classification of Balanced Scorecards based on their effectiveness as strategic control or management control tools". Performance Measurement Association 2002.
International Controller Association: Statement Balanced Scorecard; Gauting, Germany, 2003
Kaplan R S and Norton D P (1992) "The Balanced Scorecard: measures that drive performance", Harvard Business Review Jan – Feb pp. 71–80.
Kaplan R S and Norton D P (1993) "Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work", Harvard Business Review Sep – Oct pp2–16.
Kaplan R S and Klein N (1995) "Chemical Bank: Implementing the Balanced Scorecard" Harvard Business School Press
Kaplan R S and Norton D P (1996) "Using the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic management system", Harvard Business Review Jan – Feb pp. 75–85.
Kaplan R S and Norton D P (1996) "Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action" Harvard Business School Press
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets. Harvard Business Review, 82(2): 52-63.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kurtzman J (1997) "Is your company off course? Now you can find out why", Fortune Feb 17 pp128– 30
Niven, Paul R. (2006) "Balanced Scorecard. Step-by-step. Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results".
Per Nikolaj Bukh & Teemu Malmi "Re-Examining the Cause-and-Effect Principle of the Balanced Scorecard"
Norreklit H. (2000), The balance on the Balanced Scorecard - a critical analysis of some of its assumptions, Management Accounting Research, 11, pp. 65–88.
Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G. and Prastacos, G.P. (2004) Implementing the Balanced Scorecard in Greece: a software firm’s experience. Long Range Planning, 37(4), 347-362.
Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G., Prastacos, G.P. and Soderquist, K.E. (2005) An integrated methodology for putting the Balanced Scorecard into action. European Management Journal, 23(2), 214-227.
Rohm, Howard (2004). "A Balancing Act", Perform Magazine, v. 2 no. 2.
Rohm, Howard and Halbach, L. (2004). "Sustaining New Directions" Perform Magazine v. 3 no. 2.
Voelpel, S., Leibold M., Eckhoff R., Davenport T. (2006), The tyranny of the Balanced Scorecard in the innovation economy, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7, n° 1, pp. 43–60. Categories: Management