The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

How to profit from the balanced

scorecard

Profit from the

balanced
scorecard

An implementation roadmap
Ali Assiri

937

School of Management, The European Centre for TQM, University of Bradford,

Bradford, UK

Mohammed Zairi
Bradford School of Management, The European Centre for TQM,
Bradford, UK, and

Riyad Eid
Wolverhampton Business School, Wolverhampton University,
Wolverhampton, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify a comprehensive set of potential determinants
influencing the successful implementation of balanced scorecard (BSC).
Design/methodology/approach This research is an exploratory investigation into the BSC
implementation based on a holistic view. This includes: a comprehensive scrutiny of the relevant
literature; a comprehensive analysis of case studies of BSC implementations in organisations
presented in the literature; and an exploratory global survey of 103 organisations in 25 countries that
have already implemented or are in the process of implementing BSC.
Findings The roadmap presented in this paper has been taken from a model proposed in the study.
The model contained 27 critical success factors which are expected to influence the BSC implementation.
The model divides those factors into three levels, namely dominant, main, and supporting factors.
Research limitations/implications There is a need to empirically test and refine the proposed
factors, and explore relationships among the various variables by collecting data from organisations
that have already implemented BSC.
Practical implications The findings of this study are important and relevant to all the different
sized organisations in the different sectors and industries. This study also makes a significant
contribution to society in general.
Originality/value Generally, the generic factors proposed by this study should enhance the
current practices of BSC implementation, which mostly follow narrowly-focused approaches. In
essence, the results of this research will help management in making crucial decisions and in resource
allocations that are required to make the BSC implementation a success.
Keywords Performance measures, Balanced scorecard, Critical success factors, Benchmarking, Surveys
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Measuring organisational success and implementing effective strategies for future
success represent continuous challenges for managers, researchers and consultants.
The authors sincerely thank the editor and the anonymous IMDS reviewers for their constructive
and valuable comments and suggestions.

Industrial Management & Data

Systems
Vol. 106 No. 7, 2006
pp. 937-952
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-5577
DOI 10.1108/02635570610688869

IMDS
106,7

938

Whilst financial measures are clearly important, new frameworks have emerged in
recent years that take into account a broader range of measures. These frameworks
aim to respond to the criticisms levelled at financial measures, namely that they are
one-dimensional and that they are inherently backward-looking in that they record a
history of a firm (Chakravarthy, 1986; Evans, 2005; Rao, 2006). Recognising
relevance lost in the performance measures of the traditional management, Kaplan and
Norton (1992, 1996a, b) developed the theory of the balanced scorecard (BSC) as an
approach to integrating financial and non-financial measures into management in the
hyper-competitive environment.
BSC approach has gained wide acceptance, particularly in the USA. A survey of its
members by the American Institute of Public Accountants and Maisel (2001) revealed
that 43 per cent were utilising the technique. This is due perhaps not only to its
intrinsic value to businesses, but also because the concept has been aggressively
marketed. For more than a decade now, diverse organisations around the world
(manufacturing and service, private sector and public sector, for profit and
not-for-profit) have used that BSC to achieve performance breakthroughs through
focused and effective strategy execution (Kaplan, 2005).
However, a recent trend in evaluation is the increasing emphasis on the intangible,
qualitative and non-financial sides of the companies. Although financial earnings are
still an important indicator of valuation, more and more empirical evidence suggests
that the returns-earnings relation has declined over decades (Brown et al., 1999; Huang
et al., 2006; Wang, 2005). Recognising relevance lost in the performance measures of the
traditional management, Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996a, b) developed the theory of
the BSC as an approach to integrating financial and non-financial measures into
management in the hyper-competitive environment. An important preliminary step
prior to choosing the scorecard goals and measures is to map the strategy in detail, a
process that Kaplan and Norton (2001) describe in some detail. A typical scorecard
would include at least four perspectives, namely financial, customers, internal
processes, and learning and growth, for each of which the organisation has to identify a
number of goals and measures for gauging the degree of goal attainment.
In fact the literature review undertaken revealed a lack of research with regard to
some critical factors of BSC implementation (e.g. stimulate culture, executive and
manager sponsorship), and this could be due to the fact that these factors are related to
any new project, not particularly to BSC system implementation only. This study is
therefore an exploratory investigation into the BSC implementation based on a holistic
view. Through a detailed analysis of the literature, using a global survey of 103 firms
in 25 countries that have already implemented or are in the process of implementing
BSC, this paper identifies a BSC implantation roadmap in three levels, namely
dominant factors, main factors, and supporting factors.
Literature review
BSC presents a tool for translating an organisations mission (embodied in its strategy)
into more tangible measurable goals, actions and performance measures. The technique
is documented by Kaplan (2005, 1996, 1994) and was derived following the realisation
that no single performance indicator could fully capture the complexity of an
organisations performance (Epstein and Manzoni, 1998). However, the BSC approach,
which can be applied at different levels (total organisation, strategic business unit,

individual operational units, or even to individuals), involves identifying key

components of operations, setting goals for them, and finding ways to measure
progress towards their achievement (Evans, 2005; Sandkuhl et al., 2003; Walker, 1996).
Moreover, traditional financial measures, viewed as lagging indicators of performance,
are balanced with non-financial measures, which are lead indicators and serve to drive
future performance. The measures are not to be viewed merely as a collection of various
metrics (Kaplan and Norton, 2001), but instead they are selected to show cause and effect
in the implementation of the companys mission and organisational strategy.
Research methodology
Research design
This research is an exploratory investigation into the BSC implementation based on a
holistic view. This includes:
.
a comprehensive scrutiny of the relevant literature;
.
a comprehensive analysis of case studies of BSC implementations in
organisations presented in the literature; and
.
exploratory global survey of 103 organisations in 25 countries that have already
implemented or are in the process of implementing BSC.
Data collection
The generalisability of the study relied on the representativeness of the respondents.
Therefore, a representative selection of companies was made from a large sample of
organisations worldwide, in order to elicit their experience regarding elements and key
factors in BSC implementation. The sample organisations were chosen from the BSC
Collaborative, BSC associations, literature, and BSC newsgroups on the internet.
A further selection process involved the individuals to be contacted. The aim was to
select a population of companies which has a BSC system that include at least the four
perspectives, namely financial, customers, internal processes, and learning and growth
discussed by Kaplan and Norton (2001). To identify these companies, the first question
in the questionnaire asked the respondents to specifiy wether their BSC covered the
four perspectives. The aim was to include only companies which implement the BSC
sytem as discussed by Kaplan and Norton (2001).
The selection included the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board (PSB),
Hong Kong Quality Management Association (HKQMA), Saudi Arabian Quality
Council (SAQC), the Dubai Quality Group (DQG), American Society for Quality (ASQ)
and European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM). All the selected
organisations had implemented the BSC system or in the process of implementation.
A research packet, which contained a covering letter and an anonymous
(self-administering) questionnaire, was mailed to a single recipient, i.e. CEO or
general director of the sample organisation in order to enhance the chance of getting
back a quick and effective response (240 in total). This procedure resulted in 103 useful
responses or a 42.91 per cent overall response rate.
There were organisations from 25 countries from different continents which
participated in the present study, 25.2 per cent of respondents were from Europe (from
organisations in England, Germany, France, Finland, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and
Ireland), 21.4 per cent were from the Middle East (organisations in Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates, Iran, Jordan, and Kuwait), 21.4 per cent from Asia

Profit from the

balanced
scorecard
939

IMDS
106,7

940

(organisations in Malaysia, South Korea, Japan, Philippine, Singapore, and Taiwan),

19.4 per cent from the USA 9.7 per cent from Africa (organisations in South Africa and
Egypt), and only 2.9 per cent from other countries (Australia and New Zealand).
The sample can be described as follows: a majority of the respondents were
involved on BSC implementation (60.2 per cent), nearly half (51.5 per cent) of the
respondents had implemented BSC from 1 to 3 years, 23.3 per cent for less than 1 year,
followed by 22.3 per cent of respondents where BSC had been implemented from 4 to
6 years. In terms of industry sector, the majority of respondents (36.9 per cent) were
from the manufacturing sector, followed by financial and energy sectors (14.6 per cent),
the retail sector was (8.7 per cent), followed by consulting, transportation and
education sectors (6.8, 5.8 and 3.9 per cent, respectively), and the lowest responses came
from telecommunications, distribution, and healthcare sectors, with 2.9 per cent for all
of them. With respect to size of organisations, the majority of respondent organisations
had 10,001-50,000 employees (33 per cent), followed by those employing 1,001-5,000
(17.5 per cent), third are those organisations with 5,001-10,000 and 501-1,000, with
15.5 per cent for each and organisations employing over 50,000, 101-500, and 100 or
fewer had the lowest responses rate with 7.8, 5.8 and 4.9 per cent, respectively. Finally,
the majority of respondents are senior managers representing 40 per cent of all
respondents, followed by executive managers with 26.5per cent, 21.6 per cent of the
respondents are managers, whereas only 10.7 per cent are supervisors.
To ensure that the valid responses were representatives of the larger population, a
non-response bias test was used to compare the early and late replies. However,
response bias occurs when the observed value deviates from the population parameter
due to differences between respondents at the early and later stages of the survey.
x 2 tests show no significant difference between the two groups of respondents at the
5 per cent significance level, implying that a non-response bias is not a concern.
Analysis and results
Road map of BSC implementation
The roadmap presented in this paper has been taken from a model proposed in the
study. The model contained 27 critical success factors (CSFs) which are expected to
influence the BSC implementation. The model divides those factors into three levels,
namely dominant, main, and supporting factors. The following sections will give a
brief idea about each level with a detailed roadmap for the implementation.
Dominant factors. Dominant factors are those expected to play a significant role in
BSC implementation. Dominant factors are those without which the BSC finds it hard
to be implemented, namely executives and senior managers commitment, BSC team,
and identifying adequate BSC perspectives. Table I shows that those factors represent
a considerable level of criticality, and were rated above 4.0 on a 1-5 likert scale and
ranked from 1 to 3.

Table I.
Dominant factors means
and ranks

Factor

Mean

Rank

Identify BSC perspectives

BSC team
Executives and senior managers commitment

4.2337
4.0453
4.0114

1
2
3

No project can be successful without executive support and commitment. Managers

should give necessary priority to BSC implementation to gain internal commitment.
Moreover, their commitment and support does not end with initiation and facilitation,
but must extend to the full implementation of BSC. They must be involved at every
step of the project and show their commitment in the project. Table II presents an
implementation guidelines checklist that may help executives and senior managers
to ensure their commitment to BSC project.
However, creating a BSC team is critical for successful building and implementation
of the BSC. Consequently, top management have to identify the best people in the
organisation, organise them into an interdisciplinary team, and empower them for
responsibilities in the BSC project. Table II presents implementation guidelines
checklist that may help to appoint BSC team and guide them to the accurate practice
for a BSC project.
Identifying the adequate BSC perspectives is crucial for success of BSC
implementation. As mentioned previously, Kaplan and Nortons four perspectives
have been found to be appropriate for most companies and industries. However, the four
perspectives have to be considered as a template. Therefore, the choice of perspectives
Identification of BSC perspectives

Profit from the

balanced
scorecard
941

Choosing perspectives that suit organisations

requirements, strategy, and objectives
BSC perspectives adequately capture focus of
organisations strategy and provide balance between
financial and non-financial measures
Between 3 and 5 perspectives
BSC perspectives cover all aspects and activities of
organisation
Executives and seni or managers commitment Executives and senior managers assume active
responsibility for BSC implementation
Visibility of executives and senior managers
commitment to BSC activities
Executives and senior managers allocate adequate
resources and time for BSC project
Involvement of top and middle level managers in
BSC development
Top management discuss many BSC issues during
their meetings
BSC team
Special team has approved for the BSC project
BSC team members have various skills, knowledge
and are from different departments
BSC team visible and has access to top management
Training for BSC team in BSC implementation and
performance measurement
Frequent and regular meetings for team to discuss
BSC issues
Team member has a very detail understanding of
functional area
Team member can gather and analyse detail data for
Table II.
clear communication to others
Implementation
Team member can comprehend strategic issues and guidelines for dominant
connect issue to his/her job
factors of BSC (checklist)

IMDS
106,7

for the organisations BSC has to be according to what is necessary to execute the
strategy and create a competitive advantage for the organisation. Table II presents an
implementation guidelines checklist that may assist the organisation to select the
suitable BSC perspectives.

942

Main factors
Main factors are less critical than the dominant factors. Main factors are important in
each step of a BSC project. They contain 19 CSFs (Table III) which have been subdivided
into six categories: learning and innovation, planning, development, implementation,
sustainability and benefits realisation, each of which contains a number of critical
factors (Table III). Table III also shows that main factors representing a considerable
level of criticality were rated between 3.6 and 3.99 and ranked from 4 to 22.
The first main factor is mission, values, vision, and strategy. Any organisation
intending to implement BSC has to have clear mission, values, vision, and strategy in
place. It is well known that the BSC mainly concerns the implementation of already
planned strategies, it translates the organisation mission, values, vision, and strategy
into performance objectives, and measures them in each of the BSC perspectives.
Table IV presents an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC
project.
Table III shows that the second main factor is training. As discussed previously, the
BSC is essentially a new approach for organisation. It is about adopting new perspectives
and processes, and about innovation and change. Consequently, employees training and
education initiatives may help facilitate this change by providing employees with the

Table III.
Main factors means and
ranks

Factor

Group

Meana

CSFs rank

Mission, values, vision, strategy

Training
Automating BSC
Set objectives and measures
KPIs
Rolling out implementation plan
Updating BSC measures and linking it with rewards
Regular reporting
Communicate BSC
Cascading BSC
Initial plan
Corporate alignment
Learning and innovation
Information system design
Measurements assessment
Benchmarking
Cause-and-effect linkage
Stimulate culture
Problem solving and action planning

DSFc
DSF
SSF
DSF
DSF
ISFd
SSFe
BSF
PSFb
ISF
PSF
SSF
LSFf
ISF
BSFg
SSF
DSF
PSF
BSF

3.9924
3.9495
3.8897
3.8810
3.8529
3.8419
3.8163
3.7737
3.7328
3.6990
3.6850
3.6767
3.6732
3.6731
3.6600
3.6436
3.6333
3.6214
3.6106

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Notes: aMean is based on the five point Likert scale; b(PSF) planning stage factors; c(DSF) design
stage factors; d(ISF) implementation stage factors; e(SSF) sustainability stage factors; f(LSF) learning
and innovation stage factors; g(BSF) benefits and realisation stage factors

Mission, values, vision, strategy Organisation has a clear mission, values, vision and strategy
Entire workforce understand and is committed to mission, vision,
values, and strategy
Organisations BSC supports vision statement
BSC communicated strategy throughout organisation
Organisation clarifies and translates vision and strategy in
operational terms
Strategy aligned to, and driven by CSFs and balanced set of
performance measures
Training
Emphasis placed on skills development and training in organisation
Knowledge and skills developed, consistently, to meet changing
needs of BSC implementation, teams and individuals
Linking Education and Training of employees to organisation
long-term plans and strategies
Top management arranges adequate resources for employee
education and training
Training for BSC team and employees in performance
measurement and BSC implementation and other technical skills
Automating BSC
Choosing adequate software for BSC implementation that achieves
organisation requirements
All the results automatically sent to right employees at right time
and in right frame
BSC software integrated with other software
Regular maintenance and updating for BSC software
Set objectives and measures
Before implementing BSC key objectives have to be identified
Initiatives and measures derived form strategy
Each department has to create own performance objectives and
measures
Between 3 and 5 measures for each BSC perspectives
Between 20 and 30 measures for whole BSC
Well-balanced set of financial, non-financial, lagging and leading
measures representing all parts of organisation
BSC measures are regularly discussed in management meetings
Written documented definitions for BSC measures
KPIs
Establishing relative importance of KPIs before implementing BSC
Relative weights and appropriate balance among KPIs
determined before implementing the BSC
Actions and objectives supported by KPIs
Rolling out implementation plan Developing comprehensive implementation plan for BSC
BSC comprehensive implementation plan divided into subgroups
Leader for each subgroup appointed, and responsibilities assigned
Using the top-down approach
Developing clear communication between top-level and shop floor
Updating BSC measures and
Measures re-visited and re-defined on regular basis
linking it with rewards
Measures re-visited to confirm continued relevance
Updating BSC measures at least once a year
Linking compensation and rewards to BSC measures results
Regular reporting
BSC deliver to top management and employees on regular base
Information of BSC reaches right people, in right format, at the
right time and in right quantity
Result of BSC measures incorporated into regular reporting system
Using BSC feedback to adjust strategic plan during operating period
(continued)

Profit from the

balanced
scorecard
943

Table IV.
Implementation
guidelines for main
factors of BSC (checklist)

IMDS
106,7

Communicate BSC

944
Cascading BSC

Initial plan

Corporate alignment

Learning and innovation

Information system design

Measurements assessment
Benchmarking

Cause-and-effect linkage

Table IV.

BSC is communicated throughout organisation from top to low

level
Providing commentary and written guidelines for users of
scorecard
Employees well-informed about BSC development
continuously
Strong communication system between departments
Using various communication devices is begin BSC project, such as
executive announcements, videos, town meetings, brochures, and
newsletters
Using top-down approach
Linking objectives from executive level down to lower business
level, ensuring everyone working towards common goals
Communicating BSC to every level of organisation and comparing
current performance with past results
Prepare initial plan for BSC development and implementation
Identification of sources of performance data before
implementation
Identification of critical processes that should be excelled at in
order to meet objectives of shareholders and of targeted customer
segments
Identifying key strategic initiatives to achieve objectives, and
allocating resources appropriately
Alignment of tangible and intangible assets with strategy
BSC measures works in congruence with organisations strategic
objectives
Strategic feedback system in place
Performance appraisal system encourages learning and innovation
Existence of learning environment encourages people to innovate
and share best practice and knowledge
Encouraging employees to voice opinions, criticisms and feedback
on organisational functioning and performance
Information system communicating BSC requirements and best
practice indicators
Technology is strategy planned and utilised to improve
communication and access to services for customers and
stakeholders
BSC team actively gathers, integrates, and communicates
information critical to implementation and practice
of BSC
Measures assessed according to BSC results
Reviewing measures frequently and identifying right combination
of measures
Benchmarking made against primary competitors
Informal benchmarking and other forms of information
sharing with organisations in different sectors and industries
to identify best practices for improvements and
opportunities
Targets stretched according to external benchmarking
Establishing relationships and linkages between KPIs
BSC support relationship definition to provide cause and effect
modelling
(continued)

Stimulate culture

Problem solving and action

planning

Cause and effect relationships between data elements are looked

into to ensure resources are being correctly allocated
Stimulating employees culture for BSC implementation by
increasing education in performance measurements
Shifting managers efforts from single-minded focus on
growth/financial figures to broader set of objectives that
encompass profitability and non-financial performance
Convince employees that BSC measures exist to evaluate and
improve their performance, not to blame them
Problem solving and continuous improvement processes, based on
BSC results, facts and systematic analysis
Team approach in problem-solving and continuous improvement
Employees empowered to resolve problems and improve processes
Encouraging culture of teamwork and problem solving
Action taken as a result of measurement activities
Measurement results used to drive decision making throughout
organisation
Management regularly checks that actions related to achievement
of BSC targets are taken

knowledge and skills they require to adapt to and to lead this change process. However, the
target of training should include the BSC team, the role employees play in exercising sound
business judgement, and the specific techniques for implementing BSC. Table IV presents
an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC project.
Automation is crucial for BSC implementation success. BSC automation may enable
a quicker culture change, provide visibility to the BSC process, and facilitate
participation by a wider audience. Therefore, organisations should automate their BSC
and choose the most appropriate software. However, there is a lot of BSC software
available in the market (SEM BSC, Oracle BSC, SPImact BSC, BSC Analytic App.,
Corporater BSC and Comshare MPC are just examples of these software) but the
question is which one is more adequate? Marr and Neely (2003) identify ten selection
criteria which organisations should discuss when choosing BSC software, namely
company and product, scalability, flexibility and customisation, features and
functions, communication, technical specifications, /data presentation, analysis
functionality, service, and future. Table IV presents an implementation guidelines
checklist for this factor in a BSC project. The fourth main factor is setting objectives
and measures for BSC. Each department has to set its objectives and measures, and
then these have to be agreed by top management and the BSC team. However, all
objectives and measures have to be derived from the organisation strategy. Table IV
presents an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC project.
The fifth main factor is key performance indicators (KPIs). BSC translates an
organisations strategy into a comprehensive set of KPIs. These KPIs measure
performance-linked corporate goals by tracking performance across the BSC
perspectives. By demonstrating the cause-and-effect relationships between KPIs, the
BSC provides managers with an obvious understanding of how their decisions impact
not only on their direct area of responsibility, but also on other departments and the
overall organisation strategy. Table IV presents an implementation guidelines
checklist for this factor in a BSC project.

Profit from the

balanced
scorecard
945

Table IV.

IMDS
106,7

946

Implementing a new system or project such as BSC may bring a significant change
in the way employees view their job, therefore it is important to ensure that everyone is
involved at every level of the organisation by rolling out the BSC between the different
levels of the organisation. Table IV presents an implementation guidelines checklist
for this factor in a BSC project. As can be seen in Table III, the seventh main factor is
updating BSC and linking it with rewards. Kaplan and Norton (1996a) believe that the
rewards of executives and managers have to be tied with the results of BSC measures.
These rewards can be divided into extrinsic and intrinsic. The BSC team has to expect
a number of changes in the measures of each perspective. Even the organisational
strategy may require to be changed, due to sudden changes in internal or external
circumstances. Therefore, the performance measures have to be updated according to
new circumstances. Despite changes of circumstances, the measures should, however,
be evaluated and reviewed at least once a year in conjunction with the organisation
planning. In addition, to strengthen the BSC implementation, the reward of executives
and managers has to be tied with the results of BSC measures. Table IV presents an
implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC project.
One potential benefit of BSC implementation is a clear system for regular reporting.
The BSC has become a commonly practised and popular management reporting
method in recent times. The BSC may also enable organisations to integrate all aspects
of the management information system, and it can have a consequence on how
managers think about their business and how they invest their time and resources.
Table IV presents an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC
project. Table III shows that the ninth main factor is Communicating BSC. The
organisation has to set a comprehensive and sustained plan to communicate the BSC to
its employees. The communication plan should not only be comprehensive but also
periodic. However, how often the communication plans should be updated depends on
the levels of the organisation. For example, Kaplan and Norton (1996c) suggest that
organisations could have a quarterly plan at the corporate level, monthly plan at the
directors level and finally, an as needed plan at the support groups level. Various
communication devices can be also used to begin the BSC project such as executive
announcements, videos, town meetings, brochures and newsletters. Table IV presents
an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC project.
The BSC objectives and measures have to be cascaded from the top to the bottom of
the organisation. The organisation starts its BSC by identifying the strategic objectives
in the upper level of the organisation, and then cascading to the lower level
departments to determine their achievements and contribution to overall goals.
Table IV presents an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC
project. The eleventh main factor is developing and initial plan for BSC. As mentioned
earlier, BSC plans vary from one organisation to another. Many organisations prefer to
set a comprehensive and detailed plan. These organisations usually use the Microsoft
Project system to facilitate this. Other organisations choose to start with a simple plan
that might be easy to follow. Simple plans usually contain critical tasks and use MS
Excel or Word document systems.
Corporate alignment is very important for BSC implementation success. Both
intangible and tangibles have to be aligned with strategy in order to create value.
Table III indicates that designing of an adequate information system is a main
factor of BSC success. As discussed earlier, if any unexpected rustle is given by

the BSC, managers need access to underlying data to explore the cause of any
problem or analyse trend and correlations. If the information system is inadequate,
however, it can considerably affect the effectiveness of the BSC. Table IV presents
an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC project.
Benchmarking is considered as one of the CSFs of BSC implementation. It has
been adressed through benchmarking studies, and for the purpose of this research
we define benchmarking as an ongoing process of measuring and improving
products, services and practices against the best that can be identified worldwide
(McGaughey, 2002). It includes the application of the skill of comparison
comparing ones own performance of a particular strategy, task or operation with
that of others, and provides an objective analysis of how successful is an
organisations performance by adopting a systematic measurement process of the
improvement (Shen et al., 2003). It is widely believed that competition provides an
impetus for improvements and benchmarking is a powerful tool for continuous
improvement (Leem and Kim, 2004; Zairi, 1998). To this end a best practice
benchmarking approach has been adopted by this research to examine BSC in
todays successful companies (Eid et al., 2002; Eid and Trueman, 2004).
The BSC may use benchmarking information to set targets. Benchmarking can be
used to incorporate existing best practice and to confirm that internally proposed
targets will not keep the business unit trailing in strategic measures. Consequently, the
organisation should stretch its targets according to those targets of best-in-class.
Table IV presents an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC
project. As shown in Table III, BSC measures have to be determined according to
cause-and-effect linkage. The well-designed BSC illustrates the organisations strategy
through the objectives and measures that have been chosen. These measures should
link together in a chain of cause-and-effect relationships. Table IV presents an
implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC project.
As indicated by Table III, culture stimulating is another main factor of BSC
implementation. It is well known that culture is a crucial element to be prepared before
implementing any new system in an organisation. All organisation levels have to be
prepared prior to introducing the BSC, starting at the top and permeating throughout
the whole organisation. All levels should be aware of the significance of the BSC and its
future benefits. Organisations need to create, therefore, a culture where all employees
can participate and be involved in the BSC programmes relevant to their workplace.
Table IV presents an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC
project.
Finally, BSC may help to solve various problems and provide the organisation with
action planning. As mentioned earlier, BSC measures can enhance problem-solving
and team-communication processes in numerous ways, including development of a
common understanding of the problem, signifying that a solution has been found, and
testing potential solutions. The BSC, however, enables the organisation to focus its
efforts on those critical processes. Table IV presents an implementation guidelines
checklist for this factor in a BSC project.
Supporting factors
Supporting factors are those factors with less criticality than dominant and main
factors of BSC implementation. However, these factors are significant to support the

Profit from the

balanced
scorecard
947

IMDS
106,7

948

Table V.
Supporting factors means
and ranks

latter. They include integration, self-assessment, finalise BSC plan, finalise measures,
and fine tuning and refining. Supporting factors were rated less than 3.6, and ranked
from 23 to 27 (Table V).
Integration is the first supporting factor in BSC implementation. Consequently, the
BSC must be integrated in the management system. In spite of the BSC strengths, it
cannot stand alone. Table VI presents an implementation guidelines checklist for this
factor in a BSC project.
The second supporting factor is self-assessment. As mentioned previously,
combining BSC and self-assessment models may increase the ability of the
organisation. In addition, the BSC and the excellence models can be used
interactively with the strengths and weaknesses recognised in EFQM assessments
Factor

Mean

Rank from total CSFs

Integration
Self assessment
Finalise measures
Fine tuning and refining
Finalise BSC plan

3.5833
3.5468
3.5297
3.3993
3.3299

23
24
25
26
27

Integration

Self-assessment

Finalise measures

Fine tuning and refining

Finalise BSC plan

Table VI.
Implementation
guidelines for the
supporting factors of BSC
(checklist)

BSC integrated into strategic management system

Integration of BSC automation software with internet and email to
share analysis and results
Process of goal deployment and performance improvement linked to
performance appraisal as integrated system
Implementing self-assessment frequently
Use of self-assessment tools and other mechanisms to track and
improve performance gaps in implementation and effectiveness of
systems, processes and practices
Recognising weakness in activities and improving it
Before implementing BSC, measures reviewed and finalised
Customers involved in establishing objectives and measures for
customer perspective
Organisation selects correct performance measures for assessing
desired performance
BSC communicated to every level of organisation and compares
current performance with past results
Organisations measures have been refined according to BSC reporting
results
Results of organisation measures reflect understandable causal
relationship between performance effort and performance result
Measures have direct link to strategy
Organisation calculates costs and benefits of its measures collection
BSC team or employees are able to explain both operational and
strategic significance of every measure
Measures accurately depict the process or objectives it is attempting to
evaluate
Organisation specifies precise meaning of its performance measures
and ensures that it has agreement with BSC team

(as part of a strategic appraisal or performance checkpoint process) focused and

prioritised through the strategic direction of the BSC. Table VI presents an
implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC project.
Finalising BSC measures is also one of the supporting factors of BSC. The BSC
team has to narrow the measures and choose those that may help the organisation
to execute its strategy. In general, the organisation has to be aware of the number
of measures chosen. The key to determining the organisations BSC measures,
however, is ensuring an adequate description of the organisations strategy
through its BSC perspectives. In addition, finalising the BSC plan is crucial as
well. Table VI presents an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in
a BSC project.
BSC systems have to be integrated into the organisations management systems to
create value. Therefore, the BSC comprehensive plan has to be finalised by the top
management and the BSC team to ensure that all BSC requirements exist in the plan.
Table VI presents an implementation guidelines checklist for this factor in a BSC
project.
Discussion and conclusion
The findings of this study are important and relevant to all the different sized
organisations in the different sectors and industries. This study also makes a
significant contribution to our society in general.
It has provided an insight into the various principles and techniques of a successful
BSC implementation. Despite the increasing reputation of BSC, its implementation is
still complex. Consequently, this study has recognised a series of critical issues that
must be carefully considered to ensure successful implementation. Furthermore,
adhering to the various levels of application of BSC factors will ensure that
organisations can derive maximum benefits.
Generally, the generic factors proposed by this study should enhance the current
practices of BSC implementation, which mostly follow narrowly-focused approaches.
In essence, the results of this research will help management in making crucial
decisions and in resource allocations that are required to make the BSC implementation
a success.
The paper presents a roadmap for BSC implementation. The key findings and
analysis of data were derived from integration of three different data sources:
survey questionnaire, primary case studies, and secondary case studies. The
interpretations of the results have been guided by scrutiny of previous empirical
studies in relevant literature review. Moreover, the paper has identified a series of
critical factors that must be carefully considered to ensure successful
implementation of BSC. Those factors have been divided into three levels:
dominant, main, and supporting factors. In addition, when constructing the BSC
implementation model, consideration must be given to structuring it to be as
practical as possible. Such an objective is best achieved by presenting the
components of the model in the form of implementation guidelines, with the critical
BSC factors superposed as a useful checklist.
The roadmap is primarily based on the findings of the quantitative and qualitative
studies conducted by the authors among organisations throughout the world with
experience in BSC implementation. The roadmap is expected to be useful to a wide

Profit from the

balanced
scorecard
949

IMDS
106,7

950

range of organisations, since it provides for a BSC implementation plan to suit any
business situation.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
As the number of various organisations implementing BSC continues to grow, further
research is needed to expand the findings from this study and to provide more
conclusive answers. Despite its attempt to be exhaustive and cover a broad area of
research, there are many areas in which future research is needed.
However, as with any study, there are certain limitations that should be recognized.
First, there is a need to empirically testing and refining the proposed factors, and
exploring relationships among the various variables by collecting data from
organisations that have already implemented BSC.
Second, the CSFs also calls for a micro type of research, where each component is
examined through exploratory studies that can provide better understanding of the
internal working of their elements, and the mechanisms by which the role of each in
BSC implementation and effectiveness can be improved.
Third, as mentioned earlier, the study did not verify similarities and differences
between organisation sizes. Therefore, further studies may be necessary depending
upon the size of organisations, namely large, medium, and small, to discover any
expected differences in BSC implementation.
Fourth, one of this studys findings is that there are no differences in BSC
implementation in the different countries worldwide. However, further studies may be
required to further investigate this result in terms of developed and developing
countries.
Fifth, the sample has been confined to all organisations which implemented BSC,
regardless of type of business or company size. A research sample taking each
business individually would provide a further valuable contribution to the findings of
this study.
References
Brown, S., Lo, K. and Lys, T. (1999), Use of R2 in accounting research: measuring changes in
value relevance over the last four decades, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 83-115.
Chakravarthy, B.S. (1986), Measuring strategic performance, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 5, p. 437.
Eid, R. and Trueman, M. (2004), Factors affect the success of business-to-business international
internet marketing (B-to-B IIM): an empirical study of UK companies, Journal of
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 16-30.
Eid, R., Trueman, M. and Ahmed, A. (2002), A cross-industry review of B2B critical success
factors, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 110-23.
Epstein, M. and Manzoni, J-F. (1998), Implementing corporate strategy: from tableaux de bord to
balanced scorecards, European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 190-203.
Evans, N. (2005), Assessing the balanced scorecard as a management tool for hotels,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 376-90.

Huang, S., Lee, C. and Kao, A. (2006), Balancing performance measures for information security
management: a balanced scorecard framework, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 242-55.
Kaplan, R. (1996), Communication breakdown: balanced scorecard survey by CFO magazine,
CFO, Vol. 12(ER), pp. 29-40.
Kaplan, R.S. (1994), Devising a balanced scorecard matched to business strategy, Planning
Review, September-October, pp. 15-17, 19, 48.
Kaplan, R.S. (2005), How the balanced scorecard complements the McKinsey 7-S model,
Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 41-6.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The balanced scorecard measures that drive
performance, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-8.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 75-85.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy, California
Management Review, Vol. 39(ER), pp. 53-79.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996c), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001), The Strategy-focused Organization: How Balanced
Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Leem, C.S. and Kim, I. (2004), An integrated evaluation system based on the continuous
improvement model of IS performance, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104
No. 2, pp. 115-28.
McGaughey, R.E. (2002), Benchmarking business-to-business electronic commerce,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 471-84.
Maisel, L.S. (2001), Performance Measurement Practices Survey, American Institute of Public,
Accountants, New York, NY.
Marr, B. and Neely, A. (2003), Automating the balanced scorecard selection criteria to identify
appropriate software applications, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 29-36.
Sandkuhl, K., Meissen, U., Hacker, J. and Jakoby, A. (2003), Supporting alignment of
IT-infrastructure and IT-strategy: the balanced scorecard based IT-strategycard
approach, Proceedings 10th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering,
Madeira Island, Portugal, July.
Rao, M.P. (2006), A performance measurement system using a profit-linked multi-factor
measurement model, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 3, pp. 362-79.
Shen, L., Drew, D. and Chung, J. (2003), Benchmarking the use of information technology by the
quantity surveying profession, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 6,
pp. 581-96.
Walker, K.B. (1996), Corporate performance reporting revisited the balanced scorecard and
dynamic management reporting, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 96 No. 3,
p. 24.
Wang, W. (2005), An evaluation of the balanced scorecard? in equity valuation: the case of
exchange ratio in the M&As of Taiwans financial industry, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 206-21.
Zairi, M. (1998), Supplier partnerships for effective advanced manufacturing technology
implementation: a proposed model, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 109-19.

Profit from the

balanced
scorecard
951

IMDS
106,7

952

Further reading
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1997), Why does business need a balanced scorecard?, Journal of
Cost Management, Vol. 11(ER), pp. 5-11.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2005), The balanced scorecard: measures that drive
performance, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83, pp. 172-80.
Corresponding author
Riyad Eid can be contacted at: Riyad.Eid@wlv.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints