See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315717468

Balanced Scorecard: Today’s Challenges

Chapter in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing · March 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56535-4_64

CITATIONS READS

0 304

2 authors:

Jorge Gomes Mário Romão

University of Lisbon ISEG – Lisboa School of Economics & Manage…
45 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS 61 PUBLICATIONS 121 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 4th Edition View project

Knowledge Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jorge Gomes on 11 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Balanced Scorecard: Today’s challenges

Jorge Gomes, Mário Romão

ISEG, Rua Miguel Lupi, 20

1200-781 Lisboa, Portugal
{jorge.gomes@phd.iseg.ulisboa.pt; mario.romao@iseg.ulisboa.pt}

Abstract. In today's global landscape organizations are pressured to develop

new capabilities such as flexibility or expertise to respond to the ever-changing
technology, competition, and customer preferences. Companies cannot be
competitive or successful if their business and information systems and
technology (IS/IT) strategies are not aligned. Nowadays, with the growing
importance of intangible assets, performance measurement tools must be able to
capture this new and important reality. Measuring organizational performance
is a difficult and ongoing challenge for managers. Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is
a powerful tool that gives a fast, but comprehensive view of the business
including operational measures on customer satisfaction, organization's
innovation, activities improvement, as well as financial measurements. This
study empirically examines how the BSC has been applied in practice and
whether different BSC designs result in varying performance outcomes. In this
paper the authors address the BSC and promote the discussion about the
strengths and the limitations, underlining the latest developments and future
research.

Keywords: Balanced Scorecard, Strategy Map, Performance Measurements,

Strategic Alignment, IS/IT Investments.

1 Introduction

Organizations are required to act in the best of their abilities in the face of competition
resulting from globalization and other market factors [1]. To respond to the
constraints of the new business environment, the successful organizations developed
three major strategies [2]: (1) Train employees in the use of IS/IT to provide
organizations of knowledge and responsiveness to answer the pressures to change. (2)
Choose for collaborative platforms involving all relevant stakeholders (customers,
suppliers and employees) in the business process. (3) Find ways of obtaining superior
performance using the frameworks to assist management processes. The inability to
achieve the “real” value from IS/IT investments lies mainly in the lack of alignment
between the business and the strategies for IS/IT [3]. Strategic alignment positively
influences IT effectiveness [4], [5], leading to greater business profitability [6]. From
the IS / IT point of view, problems of non-alignment with business strategy typically
result in reactive stances, and IS/IT is seen as a cost center, rather than viewed as a
strategic partner of business. From the point of view of business, the non-alignment of
IS/IT result in a decreasing income arising from the IS/IT investments and a reduction
of competitive capabilities for the organization [7]. With the shift to a new business
environment with great predominance of intangible assets such as knowledge and
innovation, organizations are required to manage environments of great complexity,
mobility and uncertainty [8]. The increasing emphasis on intellectual capital is
essential for the proper development of innovative products, promotion and to
improve the market value of the organization [9]. For many companies the
competitive advantage is seen as continuous process of performance improvement,
looking for best practices and enhancing new capabilities. This article considers the
different design choices of the BSC, the impact on the benefits, the overall results
obtained by the organizations and the reflection of the academic and professional
world.

2 Performance measuring tools

Historically, Performance Measurement Systems (PMS), have been developed as a

means of monitoring and maintaining organizational control to ensure that the
proposed strategies are suitable to the proposed objectives [10]. A PMS must
essentially do four things [11]: (1) Help the organisations assess whether you are
receiving the expected contribution of employees and suppliers. (2) Help assess
whether the company is giving each stakeholder group you need to continue to
support the company achieve its main objectives. (3) Assist the company in building
and implementing processes that contribute to achieving the strategic objectives. (4)
Help the company assess and monitor strategic planning in accordance with the
agreements negotiated with key stakeholders. Some authors argue that non-financial
indicators better reflect the investment and the performance of the more intangible
aspects, which are good at predicting the future financial performance [12], [13].
These intangibles can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage and are the
resources that the organization owns that are not easily imitable [14], [15], [16]. The
traditional financial accounting measures can give misleading signals for continuous
improvement and innovation in organizations, and are generally non- aligned with the
capabilities and skills required for today's organizations in the preparation of their
future [17]. PMS is a balanced and dynamic system that can support the decision-
making process by gathering, elaborating and analysing information and have been
recognized as fundamental element to improving business performance of the
organizations [18], [19]. “Management control systems provide information that is
intended to be useful to managers in performing their jobs and to assist organizations
in developing and maintaining viable patterns of behavior.” [20] (p.364). Through
the PMS, organizations can monitor the implementation of their strategies, thus
contributing to organizational success. The past two decades, scholars from several
disciplines have performed a significant effort in the development of PMS that reflect
the fast-changing business environment [21], [22], [23], [10]. Thus, there is a shift
away from traditional concepts to reflect the complexity and dynamic business
environment. In nowadays, the BSC is the framework most accepted worldwide [24],
[25], [26]. Recognizing the weaknesses and shortcomings of previous management
approaches, the BSC presents a clear description of what companies should measure
to balance the financial perspective.

3 Strengths and limitations of traditional measuring systems: The

Balanced Scorecard

There is considerable interest in the role of strategic PMS, such as BSC, in assisting
managers develop competitive strategies. The BSC arises from the urgent need to
measure the success of organizations, so that the vision and strategy are converted
into objectives, indicators and targets. In turn, these objectives and goals indicators
are translated from other perspectives, as well as financial, according to an integrated
system monitoring and improvement [26]. In the last decades, it has been underlined
the inadequacy of exclusive use of financial indicators [22]. BSC suggests a
combination of financial performance measures, with due attention to customer needs,
business processes and long-term sustainability. The BSC is reflected by the balance
between the lagging indicators that represent the measurement results, the past, and
the main representative indicators of future trends that will affect the results in the
future [27]. The BSC not only translate the strategy into operational terms, and
promotes the alignment of its organizational strategy translated into business units and
employees in carrying out daily tasks [28]. The main target is to create value
considering the intangible and intellectual capital as opposed to traditional financial
performance systems [29]. The BSC adds to traditional financial performance
measures, other three perspectives, namely, customers, internal processes and learning
and growth, thereby allowing the monitoring of progress in building internal
capabilities and acquiring the intangible assets that are crucial for future growth in
parallel with the development of the financial accompanying measures. Using the
BSC, organizations no longer rely simply financial performance indicators. An
important step for the implementation of the strategy involves the construction of a
consistent and reliable structure, which represents the network of relationships that
lead to the achievement of the objectives and implementation of the strategy. This
framework is known as the "strategic map", which describes the network of cause and
effect relationships between the organization's strategy and the daily employee’s tasks
[30]. The strategy map graphically displays the key variables for each of the BSC
perspectives, reflecting on all the organization's strategy. The process of defining the
strategy should be driven by a broad consensus among all stakeholders on what are
the key performance factors should be considered. The BSC is a process of change in
the way tasks are performed and the acceptance of this change has decisive influence
on the course of the process [31]. To this organizational dialogue process, top
management involvement is critical to achieving consensus required as to legitimize
and encourage the development and implementation of the BSC [32].
3.1 BSC strengths

The academy and practitioners recognized several strengths to the BSC:

 Clarification of vision and strategy. Translation into action providing feedback on
both the internal strategy process and external outcomes to continuously improve
the strategic performance and results [18].
 Balancing both internal and external aspects of the business to achieve business
results [23].
 Measuring customer perception, since it provides direct revenues through sales.
Critical information to increase and sustain sales [33].
 Allowing employees understand the strategy and objectives making the
connection to your company's day-to-day. Facilitates assessment and feedback on
an ongoing basis [29].
 Clarifying the operational strategy and facilitating communication, BSC aims
efficiently align the company with the strategy of the foam that managers can
align their actions and efforts [8].
 Communication strategy allowing managers to understand how measurement
results are affected by their actions [34].
 Learning and growth perspective is particularly important for the strategic
management as it allows to identify and improve the performance of intellectual
capital [9].
 An important aspect for project managers is that BSC transforms project tasks
into tangible performance measures [35].
 The BSC can be seen as a means of communication and strategy implementation,
since it requires the firm to define the mission, vision and organizational strategy
[36].
 The implementations of BSC are mainly related to a need arising from a strategic
change in the organization [37].
 The increasing use of BSC among small and medium-sized organizations
contributes to increasing their chances of survival in the current macroeconomic
environment [38].

3.2 BSC limitations

Despite its worldwide adoption, the results of the BSC implementations raise several
criticisms that focus mainly on the following aspects:
 Not all stakeholders were included in the BSC, namely, the suppliers and public
authorities, which can be decisive for many organizations. BSC makes invalid
assumptions about the causal relationships between performance indicators. [39].
 The BSC provides no mechanism to maintain the relevance of the initially
defined measures [40], [41].
 The lack of focus on the human resources dimension of organizations is perhaps
the greatest weakness of the BSC [17].
 The BSC contains a serious failure in their construction, once it focused
management strictly on a set of pre-defined indicators and measures and they are
 not able to respond to simple and fundamental question, such as “what our
competitors are doing? " [42].
 The BSC does not monitor competition or technological developments. This
implies that does not consider the uncertainty inherent risks involved in the
events that can threaten this strategy. The effect of this control model can lead to
serious dysfunctional behaviour and loss of control over the implementation of
the strategy [43].
 In practice organizations submerge in the task of generating indicators without
devoting sufficient time to the definition of the strategy and the results are
indicators that are not aligned with the strategic objectives [32].
 Due to problems in the implementation of the strategy is difficult to achieve a
balance between financial and non-financial measures [44].
 Rigidity or lack of flexibility [8], [45].
 Understanding of BSC implementation and what its involves [46].
 The BSC implementation requires a minimum set of resources for collection and
treatment of new data, and could create work overload in some departments [47].

4 Keeping BSC updated and aligned with today´s needs

Several studies revealing the vitality of BSC developments and these improvements
are a clear and appropriate response to criticism.
 Sustainability BSC formulation. This approach is a starting point for integration
of environmental and social issues within the management process [48].
 A framework for improving the efficiency and effectiveness at all levels of public
management [49].
 Linking BSC with product development and innovation. A new performance
dimension that allows measuring the performance and the quality [50].
 Analyses of the relationship between strategic alignment, motivation and
organisational performance in the BSC context [51].
 Aligning IT capabilities with business objectives using the BSC [52].
 Evaluation of the UK public healthcare system applying the BSC [53].
 Linking the use of the BSC with Scenario Planning to reinforces the process of
formulation and strategy implementation [54].
 Heathrow Terminal 5 project and the customised application of the BSC
Scorecard in a major infrastructure with multiple stakeholders [35].
 A quasi-experiment usage to investigate incentives and branch performance in
the UK [55].
 Studying BSC impact on manager´s job satisfaction [56].
 Assigning the attribute weight in multiple decision making [57].
 Matching the traditional BSC architecture with System Dynamics principles to
offer a better support for strategic management decisions [58].
 BSC usage in collaborative and inter-organizational settings definition [59].
 An IT BSC framework that mix together with business environment, balances
and control of the IT strategy [60].
 A conceptual model combining BSC with the non-parametric technique known as
Data Envelopment Analysis. Using various interconnected models encapsulated
the four BSC perspectives [61].
 Exploration of the linkage between the Benefits Dependency Network from
Benefits Management with Strategy Maps [62].
 The hierarchical integration of the BSC with fuzzy linguistic for evaluate the
operating room performance in hospitals [63].
 Development of the BSC for safety performance in Saudi schools that captures
all the relevant perspectives that influence the effectiveness of the safety
performance process [64].
 Rebalancing BSC to accommodate a fifth perspective which considers the
interface between the firm and its external environment [65].
 The development and implementation process of the BSC approach in an
educational institution. Extraction of twelve design principles for the BSC
development and implementation process [66].
 A study highlighting that Private Cloud Computing will provide strategic values
for all BSC perspectives with some high expectations for the financial
perspective [67].

5 Discussion and future improvements

Research has shown that the BSC concept can be interpreted and understood in
different ways. In the original design of BSC, the main benefit was to help
organizations develop and implement effective business strategies. However, due to
different interpretations, organizations have implemented the BSC to support a wide
range of strategic objectives, namely: (1) As a strategic management tool to support
senior management decision making; (2) Improving the management of intellectual
capital (3) Developing an incentive system for employees; (4) Measuring
organizational performance and implementing strategy; (5) Improving the survival of
the small-scale organizations; (6) Allowing management to articulate, communicate
and monitor strategy implementation; (7) Developing strategic maps to provide a
clear view of operations and potential areas to create value; (8) Improving the strategy
achievement, since it transforms the strategy into tangible performance metrics, which
managers can track, alter or speed up.
Some of the most referred organizational problems are the communication,
coordination and control. Communication is essential when using the BSC.
Management must communicate strategy to employees and how they expect
employees to perform to achieve the corporate goals. The BSC does require
management to focus on creating strategy and defining ways that performance can be
measured in accordance with strategy. The BSC requires understanding, commitment
and support from the very top management. The problems surrounding the
“balancing” of the BSC four perspectives was been referenced recurrently as a source
of difficulties. The BSC must be constantly up-dated and that promote de re-
alignment with changing strategies and corporate structure. The research highlighted
further BSC improvements: (1) Future oriented. BSC must have implications on the
future performance too; (2) The BSC should consider the intuition of managers for
performance evaluation; (3) BSC measures must be linked with the strategy of the
organization; (4) BSC can be successful with supportive culture in the organization;
(5) BSC must be organised to support product developments and innovation; (6)
There must be responsiveness in the BSC to different external situations.

7 Conclusions

Although an increasing number of companies have been using nonfinancial

performance measurements in areas such as customer loyalty and employee
satisfaction, few have realized the potential benefits of these relatively new
measurement systems. This is because they fail to correctly identify, analyse and act
on the right measurements. The criticisms of the BSC and the uncertainty surrounding
the extent to which firms obtain true benefits from their implementation and use can
be explained in part by due to a poor or inconsistent development. Performance
measurement systems, such as the BSC, are useful in uniting the organization to
achieving success. The successfulness of the measurement system depends on the
extent to which the entire organization is aligned with the overall goals and objectives
of the company. To have more prosperous organizations it becomes necessary to add
more value to the business through projects and initiatives that incorporate changes in
the way of performing the work, changes in processes, adequacy of skills or acquiring
new resources. These initiatives should be increasingly strategic to ensure alignment
with the organization's goals. The BSC aims to address a major concern of managers
to monitor and ensure that the objectives of the organization's strategy will be
implemented and achieved.

References

1. Ashurst, C., Doherty, N. F.: Towards the formulation of “a best practice” framework for
benefits realization in IT projects. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation,
6, 1-10 (2003).
2. Gomes, J., Romão, M.: How benefits management helps Balanced Scorecard to deal with
business dynamic environments. Tourism and Management Studies, 9(1), 129-138 (2012).
3. Henderson, J. C., Venkatraman, N.: Strategic alignment: Leveraging information
technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 38, 472-484 (1999).
4. Porter, M. E.: From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business
Review, 15-31 (1987).
5. Galliers, R.D.: Strategic information systems planning: myths, reality and guidelines for
successful implementation. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 55–64 (1991).
6. Luftman, J. N. (Ed.): Competing in the Information Age: Strategic Alignment in Practice.
New York: Oxford University Press (1996).
7. Tallon, P. P., Kraemer, K. L., Gurbaxani, V.: Executive’s perceptions of the business
value of information technology: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 16, 145-17 (2000).
8. Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M., Eckhoff, R.A.: The tyranny of the balanced scorecard in the
innovation economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 43-60 (2006).
9. Bose, S., Thomas, K.: Applying the balanced scorecard for better performance of
intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 653-665 (2007).
10. Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Bourne, M.: Designing Performance Measures: A
Structured Approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
17(11), 1131-1152 (1997).
11. Atkinson, A., Waterhouse, J., Wells, R.: A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic
Performance Measurement. Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 5, Spring (1997).
12. Epstein, M., Manzoni, J. F.: Implementing corporate strategy: from tableaux de board to
balanced scorecards. European Management Journal, 2, 190–203 (1998).
13. Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P.: How Strategy Maps Frame an Organization´s Objectives.
Financial Executive, March-April (2004).
14. Barney, J.: Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1), 99-120 (1991).
15. Prahalad, C. K., Hamel, G.: The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review, 68(3), 79-91 (1990).
16. Marr, B., Schiuma, G., Neely, A.: Intellectual capital-defining key performance indicators
for organizational knowledge assets. Business Process Management Journal, 10(5), 551-
569 (2004).
17. Maltz, A. C., Shenhar, A. J., Reilly, R. R.: Beyond the Balanced Scorecard: Refining the
Search for Organizational Success Measures. Long Range Planning, 36, 187-204, April
(2003).
18. Neely, A., Adams. C., Kennerley, M.: The performance prism. London: Prentice Hall
(2002).
19. Sharma, M. K., Bhagwat, R., Dangayach, G. S.: Practice of performance measurement:
experience from Indian SMEs. International Journal of Globalization and Small Business,
1(2), 183-213 (2005).
20. Otley, D.: Performance management: a framework for management control systems
research. Management Accounting Research, 10, 363–382 (1999).
21. Eccles, R. G., Pyburn, P. J.: Creating a comprehensive system to measure performance.
Management Accounting, 74(4), 41-44 (1992).
22. Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P.: Balanced Scorecard: Measures that drive performance.
Harvard Business Review, January-February (1992).
23. Olve, N. G., Petri, C. J., Roy, J., Roy, S.: Making Scorecards Actionable: Balancing
Strategy and Control. New York: John Wiley & Sons (2003).
24. Hoque, Z., James, W.: Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors:
impact on organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research,
12(1), 1-17 (2000).
25. Kald, M., Nilsson, F.: Performance Measurement at Nordic companies. European
Management Journal, 18(1), 113-127 (2000).
26. Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J., Pfeiffer, T.: (2003). A descriptive analysis on the
implementation of balanced scorecards in German-speaking countries. Management
Accounting Research, 14(4), 361-387 (2003).
27. De Haas, M.: Strategic dialogue: in search of goal coherence. Thesis submitted for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Eindhoven University of Technology (2000).
28. Frigo, M., Krumwiede, K.: The Balanced Scorecard: A Winning Performance
Measurement System. Strategic Finance, 50-54, January (2000).
29. Pandey, I. M.: Balanced Scorecard: Myth and Reality. Vikalpa, 30(1), Jan-Mar (2005).
30. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P.: Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It.
Harvard Business Review, September-October (2000).
31. Venkatraman, G., Gering, M.: The Balanced Scorecard. Ivey Business Journal, 64(3), 10-
13, Jan-Feb (2000).
32. Richardson, S.: The Key Elements of Balanced Scorecard Success. Ivey Business Journal,
69(2), 7-9, Nov-Dec (2004).
33. Casey, W., Peck, W.: A balanced view of balanced scorecard. Executive Leadership
Group, White Paper: The Leadership Lighthouse Series (2004).
34. Burney, L., Widener, S. K.: Strategic performance measurement systems, job-relevant
information, and managerial behavioral responses-role stress and performance. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 19, 43-69 (2007).
35. Basu, R., Little, C., Millard, C.: Case study: A fresh approach of the Balanced Scorecard
in the Heathrow Terminal 5 project. Measuring Business Excellence, 13(4), 22-33 (2009).
36. Tayler, W. B.: The Balanced Scorecard as a Strategy-Evaluation Tool: The Effects of
Implementation Involvement and a Causal-Chain Focus. The Accounting Review, 85(3),
1095-1117 (2010).
37. Banchieri, L., Planas, C. F., Rebull, M. V. S.: What Has Been Said, and What Remains to
Be Said, About the Balanced Scorecard? Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics,
Journal of Economics and Business, 29(1), 155-192 (2011).
38. Hoque, Z.: 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps
and opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review, 46(1), 33-59
(2014).
39. Nørreklit, H.: The Balanced Scorecard- a critical analysis of some of its assumptions.
Management Accounting Research, March (2000).
40. Hudson, M., Smart, A., Bourne, M.: Theory and practice in SME performance
measurement systems. International Journal of operations & Production Management,
21(8), 1096-1115 (2001).
41. Platts, K., Tan, K.: Designing Linked Performance Measures: A Connectance Based
Approach. 12th International Working Seminar on Production Economics, Innsbruck,
Austria (2002).
42. Kennerley, M., Neely, A.: Measuring performance in a changing business environment.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(2), 213- 229 (2003).
43. Nørreklit, H.: The Balanced Scorecard: What is the Score? A Rhetorical Analysis of the
Balanced Scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(6), 591-619 (2003).
44. Anand, M., Sahay, B., Saha, S.: Balanced Scorecard in Indian Companies. Vikalpa, 30(2),
11-25, April-June (2005).
45. Molleman, B.: The challenge of implementing the Balanced Scorecard. In proceedings of
the 6th Twente Student Conference on IT, Enschede (2008).
46. Othman, R.: How Balanced Scorecard can fail: some caves. Borneo Bulletin, June 2
(2009).
47. Antonsen, Y.: The downside of the Balanced Scorecard: A case study from Norway. The
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(1), 40-50 (2014).
48. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M.: The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard -
Linking Sustainability Management to Business Strategy. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 11(5), 269-284 (2002).
49. McAdam, R., Walker, T.: An inquiry into Balanced Scorecards within best value
implementation in UK local government. Public Administration, 81, 873-892 (2003).
50. Jiménez-Zarco, A. I., Martinez-Ruiz, M. P., Gonzalez_Benito, O.: Performance
Measurement System (PMS) Integration into new Product Innovation: A Literature
Review and Conceptual Framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 9 (2006).
51. Decoene, V., Bruggeman, W.: Strategic alignment and middle-level managers’ motivation
in a balanced scorecard setting. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 26(4), 429–448 (2006).
 52. Huang, C., & Hu, Q.: Achieving IT-business strategic alignment via enterprise-wide
implementation of balanced scorecards. Information Systems Management 24(2), 173-184
(2007).
53. Chang, Li-Cheng: The NHS performance assessment framework as a balanced scorecard
approach: limitations and implications. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 20(2), 101-117 (2007).
54. Othman, R.: Enhancing the effectiveness of Balanced Scorecard with Scenario Planning.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(3), 259-266
(2008).
55. Griffith, R., Neely, A.: Performance pay and managerial experience in multitask teams:
Evidence from within a firm. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(1), 49-82 (2009).
56. Burney, L. L., Swanson, N. J.: The Relationship between Balanced Scorecard
Characteristics and Manager´s Job Satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues, XXII (2),
166-181 (2010).
57. Yang, K. M., Cho, Y. W., Choi, S. H., Park, J. H., Kang, K. S.: A study on development of
Balanced Scorecard using multiple attribute decision making. Journal of Software
Engineering & Applications, 3, 286-272 (2010).
58. Barnabè, F.: A system dynamics-based Balanced Scorecard to support strategic decision
making: Insights from a case study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 60(5), 446-473 (2011).
59. Al-Ashaab, A., Flores, M., Doultsinou, A., Magyar, A.: A balanced scorecard for
measuring the impact of industry–university collaboration. Production Planning &
Control: The Management of Operations, 22(5-6) 554-570 (2011).
60. Marcos, A. F., Rouyet, J. I., Bosch, A.: An IT Balanced Scorecard Design under Service
Management Philosophy. In proceedings of 45th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (2012).
61. Amado, C. A. F., Santos S. P., Marques, P.M.: Integrating the Data Envelopment Analysis
and the Balanced Scorecard approaches for enhanced performance assessment. Omega 40,
390-403 (2012).
62. Gomes, J., Romão, M., Caldeira, M.: The Benefits Management and Balanced Scorecard
Strategy Map: How They Match. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and
Governance, 4 (1), 44-54 (2013).
63. Lin, Q. L., Liu, L., Liu, H. C., Wang, D. J.: Integrating hierarchical balanced scorecard
with fuzzy linguistic for evaluating operating room performance in hospitals. Expert
Systems with Applications, 40, 1917–1924 (2013).
64. Alolaha, T., Stewart, R. A., Panuwatwanicha, K., Mohamed, S.: Determining the causal
relationships among balanced scorecard perspectives on school safety performance: Case
of Saudi Arabia. Accident Analysis and Prevention 68 (2014) 57–74 (2014).
65. Waruhiu, H.: Rebalancing the Balanced Scorecard: A Sequel to Kaplan and Norton.
European Journal of Business and Management 6 (29), 116–124 (2014).
66. Ozmantar, Z. K., Gedikoglu, T.: Design Principles for the Development of the Balanced
Scorecard. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(5),622-634 (2016).
67. Alharbi, F., Atkins, A., Stanier, C., Al-Buti, H. A.: Strategic Value of Cloud Computing in
Healthcare organisations using the Balanced Scorecard Approach: A case study from A
Saudi Hospital. Procedia Computer Science 98, 332- 339 (2016).

Acknowledgments: The research work where this article is based on, has been supported by
FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, in the context of financed projects under the
Reference UID/SOC/04521/2013.

View publication stats