The difficulties of strategy implementation – can the

balanced scorecard be a helpful tool in ‘new economy’

– firms?

Author: Jasmin Mathea

University of Twente
P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede
The Netherlands
j.mathea@student.utwente.nl

During the past decades, much of scientific literature focused on different sorts of analyses in order to find the right strategies for
businesses. As difficult as strategy formulation may be, researchers as well as executives suggest that the implementation and
execution of these strategies are the actual difficulty.
Based on the literature, this paper suggests the use of the Balanced Scorecard approach for strategy implementation by
introducing the framework and applying it to a ‘new economy’ company, namely Takeaway.com. With its main operations online,
the thesis provides an insight, into the company’s internal environment on the basis of qualitative interviews and introduces
strategic objectives and initiatives for the future.
This thesis proposes that the basic Balanced Scorecard (BSC) framework can be a helpful tool in performance measurement next
to giving an aid for strategy implementation within ‘new economy’ businesses and introduces suggestions for the BSC as a
management system.

Supervisors:

Dr.ir. Jeroen Kraaijenbrink

Dr. Raymond Loohuis

Keywords
Strategy implementation, strategy execution, Balanced Scorecard (BSC), strategy map, closed-loop management system, new
economy

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
2015, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Copyright 2015, University of Twente, Faculty of Management and Governance.

1
1. INTRODUCTION The central research question, the thesis wants to reflect on is
‘The reason why firms succeed or fail is perhaps the central therefore whether the BSC system can be a helpful tool in
question in strategy. It has preoccupied the strategy field since strategy implementation with focus on ‘new economy’-
its inception four decades ago’ (Porter, 1991, p. 95). This is businesses. For this, the example of the startup Takeaway.com
how one of the most recognized scholars in this field - Michael will be used to apply the framework on the basis of interviews
E. Porter - started one of his many famous papers on strategy. with managers and employees from different levels of the
In order to answer this central question, many tools for analysis organisation. Resulting from a recent acquisition of a
have been developed; among these, there are Porter’s Five competitor, the company has faced some changes, especially
Forces Model (Porter, 1979), the SWOT-analysis (Humphrey, within the German branch; the BSC is proposed to help cope
2005) or the PESTEL framework (Johnson, Scholes, & with these changes and give a direction for strategy
Whittington, 2008). Although, all of these frameworks provided implementation and communication.
good insights for businesses and their competitive environments In order to give an overview of the topics, the thesis will first
in the past and still do now, as well as present the basis of give a short introduction of the term ‘new economy’ and
strategy development, there have been troubles to bringing continue with the definition of strategy implementation and the
theory into action (Alexander, 1985; Lawrence G. Hrebiniak, issues managers might have in the process. It will then
2006; Okumus, 2003; Pryor, Anderson, Toombs, & introduce the balanced scorecard concept with the main facets
Humphreys, 2007; Wernham, 1984). described by Kaplan and Norton during the last decades
In fact, research suggests that only about 10 to 30% of followed by pointing out criticism among researchers as well as
formulated strategies are actually put into action (Raps, 2005). suggesting improvements. Afterwards, the company
In the past, different methods of tackling this problem, most Takeaway.com will be introduced and a summary of the
commonly short lists or tables with implications for interviews given. With the gathered information, the BSC will
management have been suggested by the literature for the sake be applied to the German branch. The results will then be
of finding the universal solution for strategy implementation. discussed followed by a conclusion to determine whether the
However, due to the individuality of different businesses among BSC can be a helpful tool in strategy implementation in new
industries, a general formula or model has not been found yet. economy environments as well as in this particular company.
The literature (Atkinson, 2006; Mooraj, Oyon, & Hostettler,
1999; Raps, 2005) also suggests that there might be a helpful
tool, namely the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as a strategic 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
management system using strategy maps as a communication
tool in order to find the proper way of translating and executing
2.1 The ‘New Economy’
The so-called ‘New Economy’ has started by the end of the
strategies based on its creators Robert S. Kaplan and David P.
1990s and is seen to be a result of globalization and the
Norton (1992-2008).
developments in information and communication technologies
While much of existing literature is focused on using the BSC (ICT) (Pohjola, 2002). On the basis of this development is the
in established firms (e.g. Ahn, 2001; Malmi, 2001; Internet, which offers a ‘widespread information infrastructure’
Speckbacher, Bischof, & Pfeiffer, 2003), there is a lack of and thus an ‘increase in network computing’ (Pohjola, 2002, p.
research regarding so-called ‘new economy’ businesses where 135). New Economy is regarded as an ‘umbrella term for
the main business is done on the internet. There has been some changes in economic life and business but its definition will
research on companies operating in ‘new economy’ always be indeterminate and changing’ (Gummesson, 2002, p.
environment with the application of the BSC, but the focus is 38). Gummesson (2002, p. 38) adds that it ‘embraces such
more on how established companies shifted their attention to phenomena as the network society, a focus on services, new
online markets next to and in alignment with their existing customer roles, information technology (IT), globalization,
business activities. Furthermore, the BSC has only been deregulation of financial systems, and mega-alliances between
suggested as a mere performance measurement system in these countries’.
studies (see for example, Bose & Thomas, 2007; Gumbus &
Many existing businesses identified the need for change due to
Lussier, 2006). Next to that, there has been research on BSCs
the development to a new economy environment, for example
for IT-businesses, which however, also puts the focus on the
putting the focus on becoming either network, virtual,
performance measurement approach rather than using it for
horizontal or project based and to adapt their organisational
successful strategy implementation (see Györy, Brenner, &
attempts to a rather flat, more flexible and intelligent form
Uebernickel, 2012; Saull, 2000; Van Grembergen, 2000).
(Whittington, Pettigrew, & Ruigrok, 2000). On the one side, the
For the purpose of this paper, only one researcher has been new economy is therefore characterized by existing companies,
found to actually develop general BSCs and strategy maps for using a different platform for sales and marketing, which is
‘new economy’ – businesses or ‘virtual organizations’, but it is more commonly done online. On the other side, it is
yet again, a general approach, rather than applied to an actual characterized by many new entrants, often virtual organizations,
company (Walters & Buchanan, 2001). This thesis is therefore or so-called ‘dot.com’-businesses, where either all, or the main
aiming at actually applying the BSC approach to a ‘virtual activities are based on the web (Pohjola, 2002; Walters &
organization’ as the different environment and background of Buchanan, 2001).
such a firm makes it interesting to apply an established model to
a younger company to see if it might be feasible and helpful in a
more dynamic and flexible setting as well. Furthermore, it also 2.2 Strategy Implementation
takes the developments of the BSC approach from a In today’s literature, strategy implementation can be found with
performance measurement tool to a management system into different definitions. Some authors claim, that implementation
account, seeing as most of the papers on applying the BSC are stands for planning (Lawrence G Hrebiniak & Joyce, 1984) or
only concerned with Kaplan and Norton’s papers until the year deciding how a strategy should be operationalized (Stonich,
1996. 1982). A similar definition can be found by Chakravarthy et al.
(2003, p. 2): ‘while the emphasis in the formulation phase is on

2
decision-making, the implementation phase deals with how to (Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Heide, et al., 2002; Lawrence G.
convert these decisions into actions and thus achieve a Hrebiniak, 2006; Wernham, 1984). Other authors go as far as to
predefined goal.’ describe internal political games as obstacles to implementation
According to Eccles (1994, p.10), ‘… strategy implementation (Heide, et al., 2002).
is the action that moves the organization along its choice of Strategy implementation might also be hindered by a lack of
route towards its goals – the fulfilment of its mission, the resources in terms of money and time. Unfortunately the time
achievement of its vision’; it is thus ‘the realization of factor is often underestimated, especially since the objectives of
intentions’ (Eccles, 1994, p. 13). the new strategy or the strategic change are generally focused
Strategy implementation or execution is therefore rather a on the long-term, the results only present themselves over time
process than a single action, or as Hrebiniak (2005, p. 3) states, (Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Alexander, 1985; Heide, et al.,
it ‘represents a disciplined process or logical set of connected 2002; Wernham, 1984). Taking this into account, it is also
activities that enables an organization to take a strategy and suggested that in some companies implementation processes
make it work’. might consume too much of the budget (Wernham, 1984).

In simple terms, strategy implementation is the execution of a The last factors described by the literature are of external
new strategy, translating it into actions within the different nature. Alexander (1985) notes, that some companies have poor
departments of an organisation and putting it to work. risk identification measures regarding uncontrollable factors.
Those factors can stem from the competitive environment or
Miller, Wilson and Hickson (2004) provided an overview of the from economic or governmental changes. Examples for this
managerial activities necessary for implementation. Companies might be uncertainties in a new market or newly introduced
and organizations have to assess their objectives, specify the laws and regulations (Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Alexander,
tasks, organize resources, gain acceptability as well as structure 1985; Wernham, 1984).
their actions throughout the organization and prioritize.
The importance of successful implementation is obvious as
without it, ‘even the most superior strategy is useless’ 2.3 The Balanced Scorecard
(Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002, p. 415) and nothing ‘but a fantasy’ The balanced scorecard (BSC) was developed by Kaplan and
(Hambrick & Cannella, 1989, p. 278). Strategy implementation Norton in 1992 after a research project involving 12 different
is thus ‘a critical cornerstone and ally in the building of a companies in which the need of a performance measurement
capable organization’ (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008, p. 302). tool that not only focused on financial but also on operational
measures was discovered. The main criticism here was that too
2.2.1 The difficulties in strategy implementation much emphasis has been put on financial measures, which only
In their research, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1987, p. 12) note that represent performance and results from the past which
companies were basically aware of what they had to do, according to the researchers was not thorough enough with
however, ‘their difficulties lay in how to achieve the necessary regard to the beginning of the information age (Kaplan &
changes’. According to the general findings in the literature, Norton, 1996a).
strategy implementation fails because of numerous reasons:
In order to give managers an overview of the financial and
The first and most frequently mentioned topics are that of operational perspectives of their business, the main perspectives
communication and coordination. The literature suggests that in such as the customer, internal business as well as the innovation
most cases there is too little and just poor communication and learning aspects were introduced as the most critical
between the different levels of an organization. Lower level operational measures as a complementation to the financial
managers and employees are often only instructed with unclear perspective (Kaplan & Norton, 1992).
definitions and vague objectives while provided with ineffective
coordination and blurry instructions based on poorly formulated The aim of the BSC is the translation of a company’s mission
objectives, strategies and implementation plans. Another and vision into a framework of performance measures so that a
obstacle to successful implementation might also be that firm’s main targets and the drivers that help in accomplishing
employees are simply not skilled enough or that their training these can be identified (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, 1996b, 2001,
was not adequate (Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Alexander, 2005). Kaplan and Norton (2008) define the mission as the
1985; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Giles, 1991; Hax & Majluf, purpose of a company, the reason of its existence and what it
1984; Heide, Grønhaug, & Johannessen, 2002; Lawrence G. offers; the vision is defined as the desired future position and
Hrebiniak, 2006; Kaplan & Norton, 2008). goal. The balance of the scorecard is presented across the
different aspects: between financial and non-financial measures,
With regards to personnel, research found that often there are short- and long-term goals, internal and external performance
too many managers within the different levels of organizations, factors as well as lagging (results from the past) and leading
having unclear responsibilities and lack of routines. (drivers for future performance) indicators (Hepworth, 1998;
Furthermore it is criticized that the people planning new Striteska & Spickova, 2012). Since the early nineties, the
strategies are often not involved in day-to-day business concept has continually been developed by the two scholars,
activities – explaining some of the communication and from a performance measurement framework into a strategic
coordination problems – while the people involved in the management system (Kaplan & Norton, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c,
business activities are not involved in the planning phase 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008).
(Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Alexander, 1985; Beer &
Eisenstat, 2000; Giles, 1991; Heide, et al., 2002; Lawrence G. In the following, the different elements of the concept will be
Hrebiniak, 2006). Other research adds that ineffective outlined in the way, that they have been developed by Kaplan &
leadership also plays an important role in failure (Beer & Norton during the past decades. Starting with the framework to
Eisenstat, 2000; Lawrence G. Hrebiniak, 2006). Especially with measure performance with the combination of financial and
regard to organizational culture, it is suggested that there might non-financial measures, while then explaining strategy maps
also be resistance throughout the organization as changes in and its cause-and-effect relationships just to arrive at the
routines, procedures, culture and power structures may not be strategic management system as described by the researchers.
welcome or there is no clear instruction on how to change these However, for clearer division, the different ‘generations’ of the

3
BSCs will be described based on the classification into different 2.3.1.2 Customer perspective
types, or rather: types I-III, based on Speckbacher et al. (2003). The main question Kaplan & Norton (1992, p. 73) ask is ‘How
do customers see us?’ According to the researchers this
perspective has become a major priority for companies and it is
2.3.1 BSC Type I: The Balanced Scorecard also helpful for defining the market segment as a whole.
framework Managers should thus align their mission to customer service
As stated above, the BSC was introduced as a comprehensive with regard to the main factors of their customer’s concerns,
performance measurement system and focuses on four main such as time, quality, performance, service and cost (Kaplan &
perspectives in order to organize the strategic objectives as a Norton, 1992). These factors should be translated into different
translation of the mission and vision of a company. These goals according to the products and services companies provide
perspectives or dimensions are a set of financial and non- while also regarding the means to measure these, for example
financial measures and are presented in the following. For each through customer surveys as well as benchmarking techniques
perspective, companies have to develop sets of performance on basis of the competitor’s performance (Kaplan & Norton,
measures individually that fit to and materialize the vision 1992). Kaplan and Norton (1996b) suggest the outcome
(Kaplan & Norton, 1993). The basic framework can be seen in measures of customer acquisition, retention, satisfaction and
Figure 1; note that Kaplan and Norton (1996a) explain, that profitability while considering the market and account share of
there is no strict rule about the perspectives that are being these. The perspective thus translates the strategy in so far as to
chosen, the researchers identified these as the most common create value and differentiation for the customer (Kaplan &
among organizations. Companies could thus adapt their most Norton, 1996a).
important perspectives in their BSCs and even add another one
for example.
2.3.1.3 Internal business perspective
The internal business or business process perspective is
concerned with the question ‘What must we excel at?’ (Kaplan
& Norton, 1992, p. 74). It focuses on improving internal
processes in order to achieve customer satisfaction while at the
same time reaching the financial objectives with regard to the
shareholders (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, 1996b). Companies must
therefore focus on their core competencies to ensure short- and
long-term value creation for customers by improving their
existing operations (short-term) and the innovation process for
long-term success (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, 1996b).
Kaplan and Norton (1992) also point out that good information
systems within the company are crucial for the flow of
communication within the company as well as for measuring
the targets and to identify points of improvement in a timelier
manner.
2.3.1.4 Innovation and learning perspective
Based on the question ‘Can we continue to improve and create
Figure 1. The Balanced Scorecard framework, based on Kaplan & value?’(Kaplan & Norton, 1992, p. 75) this perspective focuses
Norton (1996c) on the company’s ability to improve continuously, to innovate
and expand its knowledge base, as well as the skills and
performance of its employees. Thus, enhancing the capabilities
2.3.1.1 Financial perspective of people, systems and organizational procedures for the sake of
‘How do we look to shareholders?’ (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, p. reaching the critical success factors which are based on the
77) is the main question regarding the financial performance of findings from the customer and internal business perspectives
a company. With the general goal being to survive, succeed and (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, 1996b).
to prosper, Kaplan and Norton (1996b) also take into account
Regarding the people factor the suggested measures are looking
that the strategies depend on the different types of businesses as
at employee satisfaction, retention training and skills, while the
well as which stage of the life cycle they have reached. The
improvement and development of information systems for
researchers identified the rapid growth, sustain and harvest
timely and accurate information stands in the center of the
stages going from new to mature businesses. Furthermore, they
system factor. With respect to the organizational procedures,
identified three main financial themes in businesses: the
these would be based on employee incentives and the
revenue growth and mix, the cost reduction/ productivity
improvements derived from the basis of the internal business
improvement and the asset utilization/ investment strategy
perspective (Kaplan & Norton, 1996b).
(Kaplan & Norton, 1996b). These themes are related to the two
main strategies identified by the researchers: revenue growth,
by e.g. creating revenue in new markets and/or increasing sales 2.3.2 BSC Type II: Strategy Maps
to existing customers, and productivity, by for example
The balanced scorecard framework is said to help in important
improving the cost structure and asset utilization (Kaplan &
management processes but due to implementation problems,
Norton, 1996a, 2000).
Kaplan and Norton saw the need to develop the basic scorecard
In summary, the financial perspective defines the performance further. The researchers (Kaplan & Norton, 1996b, 1996c)
that is expected from the strategy as well as the goals that all of therefore first suggested four management processes that are
the other aspects of the BSC have set as their objectives and necessary for its implementation.
measures all while giving insight to the value, revenue and
The first factor is the translation of the vision into a tangible set
growth for the shareholders (Kaplan & Norton, 2000).
of targets and measures. During this process, different aspects

4
of the vision can actually be clarified and defined while also created a closed-loop management system since they discovered
and especially the objectives for shareholders and customers that still too often there is a gap between strategy and actual
can be established more thoroughly (Kaplan & Norton, 1996a, operations in an organisation. The management system consists
1996c). The results have to be communicated and linked of five different stages and will be presented in the following.
throughout the organization in the second step. Here, the main
targets can be translated into smaller strategic objectives for
2.3.3.1 1. Develop the strategy
each group, business unit or even individual. In the third step, In the first stage of the closed-loop management system,
business planning, the most important drivers for implementing managers must first define the business they are operating in
strategy are identified and financial budgets are put in line with and agree on the mission and vision as well as the core values,
regard to supporting the strategic objectives. The last step which describe the character of the organisation. When these
contains feedback and learning. The company can then evaluate factors are established, managers can focus on the key issues
the theories developed in the balanced scorecard and if that they face in their business environment. Here, the
necessary, adapt these accordingly (Kaplan & Norton, 1996a, researchers suggest internal and external methods of strategic
1996c). analysis: Porter’s Five Forces and PESTEL analyses to
determine the external setting, while the SWOT analysis is an
The authors further introduced strategy maps which are example to find the internal capabilities and shortcomings.
described as tools to help communicating the strategies On the basis of the findings, management can then proceed to
throughout the organization and therefore making their the actual formulation of the strategy. Important factors to
implementation easier (Kaplan & Norton, 2000). The maps are include in the process are the definitions of target market/
a vertical depiction of the BSC framework (as in figure 1) with customers and value proposition and the identification of the
the learning perspective on the bottom, followed by internal human capital capabilities as well as technology and
business processes, then the customer perspective and the organizational enablers. Depending on the situation and goals of
financial perspective on the top. These perspectives are linked the company as well as the results from the preceding analyses,
in cause and effect relationships throughout the map. The basic different frameworks on how to find their individual strategies
linkage happens thus from the bottom to the top: the knowledge have been suggested (Kaplan & Norton, 2008). For companies
and skills of the employees as well as the general systems who stay in their markets and want to achieve more with the
(learning and growth perspective) lead to the identification and capabilities they already have, Michael Porter’s competitive
building of strategic capabilities (internal business processes) in advantage framework (Porter, 1980) and resource based
order to deliver value for the customers (customer perspective) theories (Wernerfelt, 1984) are proposed. Companies that want
so that the financial targets can be reached and shareholder to attack or create new markets (and market positions) could
value increased (financial perspective). The financial measures use the help of Blue Ocean (Mauborgne & Kim, 2005) and
therefore need to be at the top with financial gain being the goal disruptive (Christensen & Raynor, 2013) strategy literature
of every company (Kaplan & Norton, 1996c, 2000, 2004). (Kaplan & Norton, 2008).
However, the researchers are only really able to give basic 2.3.3.2 2. Translate the strategy
characteristics and common factors that might be important in
In the second stage, the strategic objectives have to be defined
strategy maps, the cause-and-effect linkages vary from
and measures and targets need to be selected. To give an
company to company just like the mission and vision that is to
overview, the development of a strategic map is suggested with
be translated. The basic aspects of a strategy map can be seen in
the addition of using different strategic themes to make the
Figure 2 (Kaplan & Norton, 1996a).
illustration clearer. After that, the map should be linked to the
BSC and its metrics to find performance measures for the
strategic objectives. Managers then have to identify and
authorize the resources that are needed to achieve the strategy’s
objectives (Kaplan & Norton, 2008).
2.3.3.3 3. Plan operations
The next step is to identify and organize the actions that are
necessary in order to actually execute the previously developed
strategy (or strategies). On the basis of this, most companies
have to find process improvements. Managers must find a way
to ‘align near-term proves improvements with long-term
strategic priorities’ (Kaplan & Norton, 2008, p. 7). Furthermore,
management has to create a sales plan in which the actual sales
target is broken down into sub-targets, which can be based on
previous achievements in terms of target numbers (e.g. sales
forecasts). The next step would be to build a resource capacity
plan after collecting and creating the data in the two preceding
steps for the determination of the kind of resources needed to
actually execute the strategic goals. Kaplan and Norton (2008,
p.10) suggest a time-driven activity-based costing model
(TDABC) which ‘is a set of equations, based on historical
experience, that describe how various transactions and demands
consume the capacity of resources such as people, equipment,
Figure 2. Basic Strategy Map, based on Kaplan & Norton (2004)
and facilities.’ On the basis of this the company reached the
step of dynamic operating and capital budgets, meaning that it
basically needs to calculate what all the operation activities may
2.3.3 BSC Type III: Management system cost and approve budgets (Kaplan & Norton, 2008).
In their continuous research on strategy implementation and
execution, Kaplan and Norton (2008) took a step forward and

5
2.3.3.4 4. Monitor and learn the measurability of certain performance indicators since some
As the strategy is put into action, Kaplan and Norton (2008) strategic action may take longer to create an effect than others
focus on the need for managers to have regular review meetings and it cannot specifically be determined when it actually occurs.
regarding two subjects: operations and strategy. The authors are Identifying the actual cause of a financial effect (whether
of the opinion that these should be held separately from another positive or negative) is almost impossible (Nørreklit, 2000;
so that the focus will not drift from either subject during the Nørreklit, Jacobsen, & Mitchell, 2008).
meetings. During the operational review meetings, the Furthermore, common mistakes are that the chosen
performance of the operations should be reviewed, in order to performance targets are set unnecessarily unrealistic and the
find and solve issues that might have been hindering factors. actual performance measurement is done incorrectly (Ittner &
Good information systems within the company are said to be Larcker, 2003; Nørreklit, et al., 2008).
crucial for timely identification and response to these issues.
Another downfall, Nørreklit et al. (2008) describe, is that the
Strategic review meetings should determine whether strategy
BSC approach is supposed to be created top-down, but
execution is still on track, thus if there is still a common
managers, especially the larger a company becomes, often do
consensus about the goals of the company. At this stage, also
not really have a connection to daily business operations on the
the performance of the BSC measures should be reviewed
lower level and might not be able to identify the strategic
(Kaplan & Norton, 2008).
targets and the according measures anymore. In addition, she
2.3.3.5 5. Test and adapt the strategy expresses her concerns that measures and performance might be
The last stage of the closed-loop management system becomes manipulated (Nørreklit, et al., 2008).
necessary, when management identifies flaws in their strategy’s In general, she challenges the popularity of the BSC by
assumptions as well as when external events or new strategic analyzing speech patterns. In her opinion, the methodology of
opportunities force the company to change course. Managers the framework as described in Kaplan & Norton (1996a) is not
then have to decide whether to keep the current strategy or to based on logical developments but are rather build on the
further develop or transform it. For a review of the strategy a scholars’ need for self-presentation and thus more persuading
company should look at cost and profitability reports so that the than convincing (Nørreklit, 2003). According to Nørreklit
performance of their product lines, customer and market (2003), arguments are missing and real examples are not given.
segments, channels and regions can be assessed. Through that The author even declares Kaplan and Norton’s book 1996a) as a
successes and failures of the current strategy can be identified. sort of propaganda which is only underlined by a missing self-
Statistical analyses can help in finding correlations within the critic perspective towards their limitations.
results of the strategic performance measures through different
departments based on their strategy map and BSC metrics. This Other researchers found that even when companies use the BSC
gives managers also an opportunity to validate the cause-and- approach or a version of it, managers often forget linkages – on
effect relationships that have been assumed during the strategy the one hand the cause-and-effect linkages and on the other
translation stage. Another factor that might come in at this stage hand the measures are often not linked to strategy at all (Ittner
is that of emergent strategies, thus feedback and ideas coming & Larcker, 2003; Malmi, 2001). Further, the cause-and-effect
from within the organisation. At this point management has to linkages between measures and perspective are missing proper
decide whether the ideas can be integrated into the existing explanation and thus often seem weak (Malmi, 2001; Reilly &
strategy, further analysis of internal and external data can Reilly, 2000). Another point of criticism is that the BSC is
support with the decision process (Kaplan & Norton, 2008). actually unbalanced and suggest a performance measurement
tool that puts more focus on stakeholder value (Reilly & Reilly,
Whether the strategy is going to be altered or a completely new 2000).
approach will be taken, the closed-loop cycle will then start
again. This might be a demanding and exhausting process but as All in all, there only has been some research on the actual
Kaplan and Norton (2008, p16) state: ‘a company can have the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard, especially regarding
best strategy in the world, but it will get nowhere if managers the newest approach as a strategic management system. On the
cannot translate that strategy into operational plans and then basis of articles about BSC in practice there were only a few
execute the plans and achieve the performance targets.’ mentioning the use of the 3rd BSC type which is why Lueg et al.
(2013) suggest that the success of the BSC might only be a
placebo effect.
2.4 Criticism on the BSC However, all of the criticism mainly puts the focus on the basic
As with most models, systems or frameworks in research, framework and the strategy maps, which are the most
scholars try to test and challenge the suggested theories. One of commonly researched among Kaplan and Norton’s findings.
the most cited critics of the BSC is Danish researcher Hanne The BSC and strategy map as sole frameworks are dated before
Nørreklit (Lueg & Carvalho e Silva, 2013). The factor that Kaplan and Norton introduced the closed-loop management
received most of Nørreklit’s criticism (Nørreklit, 2000) is the system in which many of the mentioned downfalls in the BSC
assumption of the cause-and-effect relationships within the BSC framework are actually addressed. Examples for this are the
framework. According to the researcher, these generic causal missing external factors which are included in the Definition
relationships are invalid and the BSC consists only of logical Phase and the time lag to some extent as the scholars mention
relationships, making the framework thus no different or better the useful life of a strategy being 3-5 years. Furthermore, the
than other performance measurement tools. In addition, she criticism of the cause-and-effect relationships by Nørreklit can
criticizes the gap between internal and external measures, be resolved by arguing that the researchers did not explicitly
meaning that the external environment of an organization is not describe them as generic but that they rather suggest that such
taken into account when using the BSC approach (Nørreklit, linkages might exist in companies. Companies are given the
2000). In addition, it is criticized that suppliers are not included opportunity for easier assumption of these relationships in order
in the BSC framework (Ahn, 2001). to build their strategies and they can always adjust their strategy
Nørreklit also mentions the time lag between cause and effect maps and BSCs if an assumption might prove wrong (Bukh &
which is not mentioned in the BSC approaches. She questions Malmi, 2005).

6
3. METHOD celebration, in the Netherlands in 1999 (Groen, 2014;
In this paper, the main topic of strategy implementation and its Takeaway.com, n.d.). The website was launched in 2000 but
difficulties as well as the basic framework of the Balanced made the first significant successes in 2003 when broadband
Scorecard and its application as a management system are internet was introduced and people got more acquainted with
purely derived from literature. The latter is mainly based on the the internet. Since then, the company has experienced immense
research of its creators Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. growth. In the position of the market leader in the Netherlands,
In order to answer the research questions as to what the the company introduced the website in other European
difficulties in strategy implementation are, and if the BCS can countries in 2007, namely in Germany, Austria, Switzerland,
be a helpful tool, especially with regard to ‘new economy’ the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark and France. In 2009,
businesses, qualitative interviews with employees in different the international name of Takeaway.com was announced
levels of the company Takeaway.com have been conducted. (corporate.takeaway.com, n.d. ; Groen, 2014).
Most of the chosen interviewees are working for the German While the launch in Belgium was quite successful, in some of
branch, as it is the focus of this thesis due to the recent the other countries, the competition was already having a large
acquisition of the company’s German competitor and the size of market share. Unexpectedly, Lieferservice.at in Austria also
the firm. grew very fast. In Germany, one of the biggest markets the
The interviewees from the top levels were Takeaway’s chief company has entered, the branch Lieferservice.de only ranked
executive officer (CEO) and founder Jitse Groen as well as 4th regarding market share in the last years (Groen, 2014). That
current chief of operations (COO) and one of Lieferando’s is why Takeaway.com looked out to buy one of the competitors
founders Jörg Gerbig both to give insight in decision-making – Lieferando. Until 2012 the company only operated on its own
and general strategies and their implementation within the capital, but in January of that year, a Dutch venture capital firm
company. On the middle management level, the interviews invested €13 million (corporate.takeaway.com, n.d. ;
were conducted with the customer service manager (CSM) Hackmann, 2014). The money was used to expand in existing
overseeing the customer and partner service for the whole markets but also to take a step in the Asian market by the
German branch (including Austria and Switzerland) and its two acquisition of Vietnammm.com – as the name suggests, a
offices in Berlin and Enschede; and a supervisor of the service branch in Vietnam. In 2014, Takeaway.com had another
center (CSS) who is overseeing the operational level and the investment round in which €74 million were raised, so that in
day-to-day activities in the customer service. These employees April of the same year, the company acquired Lieferando,
were chosen as on the one hand the CSM is the link between the including its Polish branch Pyszne.nl making it one of the
base in Utrecht and the German branch, as well as between the largest food delivery website in continental Europe
two offices that belong to the latter. The CSS was selected since (corporate.takeaway.com, n.d. ).
this person is the direct link between middle management and The company has its headquarters in Utrecht, including the UK
the operational level in the service center. In addition, two service center, and offices in Brussels for the French,
customer service agents (CSA) were chosen to provide Luxembourgian and Belgian websites, in Ho Chi Minh for
information about the operational level, both have been working Vietnammm.com, in Wroclaw for the Polish branch, in
in the company for several years and experienced its Enschede for the Dutch website as well as for the Austrian,
development. One of these CSAs is also responsible for the Swiss and German service and in Berlin where also a part of the
training of new employees and working on feedback and German service center is located (Groen, 2014).
refreshment trainings for current co-workers, this senior
customer service agent is a direct link between the supervisors 4.2 Interviews
and the agents. Within this chapter, the contents and findings of the interviews
will be presented and divided into sections for a better
During all of the interviews the past and present situation of the overview.
company was discussed. The management executives were
asked about the companies’ strategies from the past and after 4.2.1 Start-up and growth
the acquisition and explicitly what difficulties they have Within the start-up phase of their businesses the CEO and COO
encountered. Furthermore it was discussed who took part in the agree that during the time when it is starting to grow, it is too
planning as well as how strategic changes are being busy to stop and use business models and theories in order to
communicated throughout the organization. In the end, a future shape your organization and guide its actions (Gerbig, 2015;
outlook was provided. The middle managers were asked in how Groen, 2014). Regarding the strategy formulation and
far they are included in the strategic processes of the company implementation as a start-up, Groen (2014) states, that he set
as well as how these are communicated to them. On the small and achievable targets for the company – one of the first
operational level, training and motivation as well as information being to get the actual order of the restaurant to the restaurant
flow and in general were part of the interviews. Furthermore automatically. Gerbig (2015) is of the opinion that it depends on
within the last four interviews, the general communication a company’s age. As a young organization, there are lots of
within the company and especially between the two ‘German’ ideas and taking too much time to plan everything through,
offices has been assessed the changes since the acquisition and especially when the whole environment can change the within a
general problems were described as well as suggestions for short period – it is thus better to be flexible.
improvements made. During the growth phase when more and more people had to be
Before providing a summary of the findings from the employed, the structures of the companies have been developed
interviews, the company will shortly be introduced. and basically stayed that way, also after the acquisition (Gerbig,
2015; Groen, 2014). While Lieferando took the approach to
build different departments that were concerned with specific
4. ANALYSIS parts of the service the company provides (e.g. marketing, a
product-team, partner and customer service) (Gerbig, 2015),
4.1 Takeaway.com Takeaway.com took a more centralized approach regarding
Takeaway.com was founded by Jitse Groen, who developed the departments, with management, marketing and HR for example
idea to launch a food ordering website during a family

7
sitting at headquarters in Utrecht (‘We do like the fact that a levels until it reaches the operational level (CSA, 2015; CSM,
couple of tasks are centralized because it’s the same in every 2015; CSS, 2015; SCSA, 2015). The CSM (2015) describes it
country’, Groen, 2014). Most of the other interviewees have as follows: management releases the information to the
also experienced the development stating that due to the smaller customer service director (CSD), who, depending on which
work load, there less responsibilities, no supervision and a branch it is meant for, either gives it to the CSM from a specific
relaxed atmosphere with a lot of freedom for the workforce branch or it will be discussed during the monthly CSM-
(CSA, 2015; CSM, 2015; SCSA, 2015). In addition, the CEO meetings with all CSMs from the different branches. The CSM
was in office regularly and gave updates on the situation and can then give feedback and suggestions to the CSD who will
performance of the company (SCSA, 2015). discuss it with management. The supervisors receive their
Takeaway.com has always been rather spontaneous regarding information almost exclusively from the CSM, where in some
strategies and planning. First of all, the company has always cases, decisions can be discussed and suggestions for
invested all of their money in different business activities and improvement made (CSS, 2015) The supervisor and agents
through that it could achieve growth. The firm is always however, criticize communication from upper management to
looking for good opportunities, for example when entering new be rather poor as the values of the company are not
markets. ‘Due to the little competition we started a fishing communicated and neither the goals and future targets.
expedition’ in different markets across Europe where the Important information for daily activities is sometimes not and
established Dutch model was simply translated for the other often only belatedly available. Furthermore, there was
countries (Groen, 2014). When exploring different markets, disapproval that the communication between the two ‘German’
Lieferando took the same approach when entering Austria, offices is not allowed, although it would ease many of the daily
France and Poland, but decided to focus operations on the home processes (CSA, 2015; CSS, 2015; SCSA, 2015).
market. In Poland they were lucky to buy a start-up that could As for the main strategy the focus for Takeaway.com was and is
profit from Lieferando’s experience and system (Gerbig, 2015). to provide an easy to use service and to be perceived as a
friendly company – for customers and restaurants – with good
4.2.2 Acquisition and integration customer and partner service (‘happy restaurants lead to happy
The acquisition of Lieferando was a strategic decision for customers’, Groen, 2014). Lieferando built on product
Takeaway.com, on the one hand, because they were worried differentiation, by offering budget systems for companies and
that the competitor Lieferheld (who then acquired the largest providing a closed system where the partners are enabled to
competitor pizza.de) would buy the company. On the other offer incentives for customers, helping with customer retention
hand, although, Lieferservice.de was growing, it was operating (Gerbig, 2015). Both of these strategies are still to be integrated.
too far behind the competition and ‘if we would not have
bought them, we would have a huge problem in Germany […] 4.2.4 Employee motivation
would have even had to close Lieferservice’ (Groen, 2014). At Lieferando – or rather the Berlin office, employee
However, for almost all of the lower level employees, it was motivation is very important. Next to onboarding activities,
taken as a surprise and perceived as chaotic and poorly planned there are a few team events and a portfolio of different sports is
and especially the operational level was only provided little being offered in order to create good team spirit. Furthermore, a
information (CSA, 2015; CSS, 2015; SCSA, 2015). lot of transparency is being shown by updating the workforce
The struggle now is still the integration of both companies, in about performance and goals during regular team meetings. In
particular the mix of the best aspects from the systems each addition, employees receive half-yearly feedback
company uses as well as to create a mix of the two corporate questionnaires. The latter is planned to be integrated in the
cultures. While the first is still in progress – a new system is whole company as well - the goal is to foster entrepreneurial
being built at the moment – the latter is already showing a thinking within the company. (Gerbig, 2015). Although, an
development into a mix with some German and some Dutch open door policy for feedback is also promoted at Takeaway
traits (CSM, 2015; Gerbig, 2015; Groen, 2014). For the other (CSM, 2015; CSS, 2015), employees however, do not get the
employees, two worlds with different corporate cultures (Dutch feeling that actions are taken (CSA, 2015; SCSA, 2015).
vs. German – meaning rather relaxed vs. formal) and different For the general employee motivation, different events are taking
strategies (partner vs customer orientation) collided during the place divided in company, office and team events, furthermore
integration (CSA, 2015; CSM, 2015; SCSA, 2015) with the a ski vacation is offered and employees get monthly vouchers
goal being now to put more focus on customer orientation (CSM, 2015; CSS, 2015; SCSA, 2015). Nevertheless, agents
(CSM, 2015). At the moment, there are thus two teams in two criticize that especially in Enschede the rights of and rules for
different offices doing more or less the same tasks, with the agents are different from the employees of the Dutch branch
focus on customer service and orders in Enschede and partner and while more freedom is taken, there are more duties to deal
management in Berlin, while working with three different with, thus limiting motivation (CSA, 2015; SCSA, 2015).
systems (CSA, 2015; CSM, 2015; SCSA, 2015).
4.2.5 Future plans and wishes
4.2.3 Strategy, planning and communication For the future strategy Groen (2014) explained, that there is a
In general, strategy and planning processes are done on two ‘big plan’ but that they could not predict where the company
levels; the first level is management including Jitse Groen, Jörg would be in a year, because they are always looking for new
Gerbig and the CFO Brent Wissink. The second level includes opportunities. As for now, the focus is laid on the German
the board of directors with eight people and an external board market because, ‘at the end of the day, there is no point in being
(Gerbig, 2015). The COO is of the opinion that planning and on the 3rd rank in every country you operate in, at least in your
strategy activities depend on the size of an organization; in home country you have to be the number 1’. The focus is put on
general he thinks that the not enough time is put into these Lieferando in particular, to strengthen the brand name, improve
activities in many companies and suggests that, ‘strategies and marketing and Gerbig (2015) already sees an affirmation in the
future goals have to be communicated well within the strategy, due to the growth rates.
organisation […and] employee involvement might be helpful’ The larger target in the future is to become number one in every
(Gerbig, 2015). The general information flow inside the country Takeaway.com operates in (Gerbig, 2015): ‘we want to
company is described as top-down, going through different

8
have the most customers, […] restaurants […and] people to ‘We aim to provide our customers (consumers and restaurants)
perceive us as a friendly brand’ (Groen, 2014). a service for ordering food online that is quick, easy to use and
The employees suggestions for the future in order to achieve the reliable. Our website is clear and practical which allows
company’s goals are mainly: more structure, more customers to place their order with only a few clicks of the
communication, improved communication systems and the new mouse. After this, the customer can sit back and relax and enjoy
system that is already being built should be implemented soon their meal delivered at home’ (Takeaway.com, n.d.).
(CSA, 2015; CSM, 2015; CSS, 2015; SCSA, 2015). The SCSA This statement describes the purpose and thus the mission of the
(2015) also wishes to keep the start-up culture by getting back company. Furthermore, the vision is said to be:
to hiring more students as employees and suggests that there ‘We also stress great importance of the techniques used to
should be more communication between the different offices to communicate the orders to the restaurants. This should be fast
support a mutual corporate culture. She further notices that it and effective for the restaurant while being 100% reliable. We
would be important to communicate the company’s goals and take great care in ensuring all technical aspects of this are
values to the employees for better identification with it. The monitored, from the online menu to the sending of the order to
agents think that the same rules should apply to everyone within the restaurant with the method selected by the restaurant. We
an office and that the operational level should be more included also offer each restaurant promotional material and the chance
in decision-making (CSA, 2015; SCSA, 2015). to enjoy all our advertising on TV, radio, magazine and of
The wish for more transparency, more employee involvement, course online’ (Takeaway.com, n.d.).
and room for ideas from the operational level also seems to hold However, with regard to the literature, this is a rather poorly
in different offices based on recent feedbacks on website for formulated vision statement since this kind of statement should
employer reviews. Furthermore, the lack of communication express what the desired future state of the company is
within the company and the different departments was criticized (Johnson, et al., 2008; Kaplan & Norton, 2008). Nevertheless,
(Glassdoor.co.in, n.d.). on the same website, the following can also be found:
4.3 Balanced Scorecard of Takeaway.com ’We believe that to achieve our objective of becoming one of the
In the following, a strategy map and a balanced scorecard for largest sites to order food in the world, we must pass on all our
the company will be created on the basis of the conducted orders to the restaurant within the shortest time, with efficiency
interviews. Due to the recent acquisition, the company is and reliability’ (Takeaway.com, n.d.).
struggling with the integration within the German branch as
This statement describes the objective of the company and
well as with strategy implementation and communication.
defines some of its values: fast, efficient and reliable; it
Therefore, the steps of the closed-loop system by Kaplan and describes the vision of the company more than its actual vision
Norton (2008) are used for the application in order to find if the
statement. Takeaway.com should thus already revise their
BSC approach can also be a helpful tool in this company.
mission and vision statement for the purpose of providing a
However, this study has a lot of limitations as actual numbers
clear guideline.
either from the company itself or the market are not available.
Therefore some steps and actions can only be suggested. The With regards to strategy formulation, for this purpose the
focus will lie in the first and second step of the closed-loop current goal which is to become the number one, or in another
system in particular. term, market leader in Germany, is chosen.

4.3.1 Develop the strategy 4.3.2 Translate the strategy

The first step is to develop the strategy. For this, the mission With the above stated goal in mind, the translation can start
and vision as well as the core values of the company should be with the following steps: creating a strategy map (Figure 3) and
established. On the company website the following statements based on this, a balanced scorecard (Figure 4).
can be found: Starting at the bottom level is the learning and growth

Figure 3. Strategy Map for Takeaway.com

9
perspective. Here, it is suggested, that the ultimate goal is to the best customer support (for customers and restaurants). The
create a high-performance culture within the company. In order company should focus on improving partner service, with churn
to do so, the following targets have been developed for this rates and actual feedback from the restaurants as an indicator.
level: to expand and build employee skills, capabilities and Furthermore, the brand image should be improved and
expertise, increase their motivation and satisfaction and to strengthened, here, customer feedback and self-assessment
enable a continuous learning environment with a knowledge- could be used as measures. In this perspective, the main focus
sharing philosophy. For the first target, the action to improve should nonetheless be to increase customer satisfaction,
training and refreshment has been suggested; the effect can be retention and acquisition. With good ideas already in place
measured by individual performance statistics like the quizzes (previously mentioned closed system, but also vouchers for new
that have already been developed by the training team. For customers etc.), focus should be put more on customer service
increasing employee motivation and satisfaction, different quality and to also get customers who have a bad experience to
actions have to be taken, since a few are already on the verge of return. The suggested measures are first of all direct customer
being implemented (e.g. feedback questionnaires in the whole feedback, then rating websites could be checked as well as an
company, incentives for high performing employees), the target analysis within the system – e.g. customer retention rate, how
was also regarded as the action in the BSC. However, it is successful is new customer acquisition, etc.
important to note, that more transparency and room for Within the financial perspective, the main strategy is revenue
employee feedback (as suggested by the work force) can also growth which can be analyzed based on financial reports of the
lead to higher motivation and satisfaction. The proposed company. Other targets are to increase market share (industry
measurements can be the result of feedback reviews and reports and analysis), increase the number of partners (statistical
employee turnover rates, assuming that there are more people analysis in the system) and increase efficiency (performance
leaving the company when they are dissatisfied and statistics).
unmotivated. The last target is translated into fostering a
creative and entrepreneurial environment within the whole Of course, these measures and suggestions are just ideas based
company. Here self-assessment and employee feedback would on the findings from the interviews and website as well as
be the measures. assumptions. The tasks for the company would now be to plan
the operations and to monitor and learn as well as in the end to
On the business process perspective, the main goal is the test and if the circumstances require, adapt the strategy.
improvement of communication channels and the system in
general. Smaller targets are based on excelling at technology
development and improvement in partner management.
5. DISCUSSION
For the general improvement of processes, it is suggested to In the previous section, Takeaway.com’s mission, vision and
integrate employee feedback, as in some cases, they know best, strategy have been broken down into smaller targets. On the
where the flaws in the systems are (measure: self-assessment). basis of this, actions and their corresponding performance
With regard to the system, especially the reliability and speed of measures have been suggested for the BSC. Furthermore, the
order transmissions should be improved and can be measured subsequent steps for the integration into the management
by general performance statistics. Also the improvement of system were shortly mentioned.
internal and external communication flows can be measured by
The question is now, whether this system actually is applicable
these statistics but employee and customer feedback could be
in the company. Opposing to BSC implementation might be the
taken into account as well. Furthermore the BSC suggests
managers’ reluctance of using models and frameworks in the
improving partner management with measurement based on i.e.
past. As Groen (2014) states: ‘I have some difficulties with
performance statistics as well the number of complaints.
theoretical [models]. The issue is that I have never actually seen
Regarding the customer perspective, the main goal is to have

Figure 4. Takeaway's Balanced Scorecard

10
a company applying those theoretical exercises […] you always The focus within the customer perspective is on the actual
see a huge gap between what is thought at universities and what customers as well as on the restaurants or partners, with the
is actually being done – especially on the internet. Most of main goal of offering the best service. In order to arrive at this,
those models are based on something that was built before the the general quality of both types of services should be reviewed
internet’. Maybe the model would be more interesting if it was and if necessary improved.
also applicable to the other branches, which it actually is for Within the financial perspective, Takeaway.com is not in the
most branches (with the common goal being to become number position of having to satisfy shareholders first with Groen
one in each country, it is quite easy to derive). Furthermore, as a holding the majority of shares. However, in order to reach the
rather young company, Takeaway.com should also focus on its goal of becoming market leader in Germany, the company
start-up culture and thus keep the flexibility, spontaneity and needs to grow, which is suggested within this perspective.
dynamic with the company. Maybe using such a business model
or rather strategic management system would hinder this kind Regarding the BSC management system as a strategy
of culture too much due to a more regulated, less flexible implementation tool, there is to mention that it addresses a lot
planning. of the factors identified as obstacles for the process. On the one
Nevertheless, trying to apply the BSC framework on the hand it addresses the issue of communication, focusing on
company was also characterized by some difficulties. As has breaking down the company’s values and strategies to smaller
been criticized before, the BSC approach by Kaplan and Norton targets; on the other hand it also includes the coordination to
lacks aids for decision making and is too general to be easily some extent. Due to the external analyses, external risk factors
applied (Ahn, 2001). Assuming the cause-and-effect linkages are also taken into account as well as the lack of resources
and developing certain strategies and measures gave the (through earlier resource capacity and budget planning) and the
impression of a guessing game rather than an actual strategic organizational culture are addressed and plays a central role in
analysis. The generality and the missing aids were also a major the BSC system. Nevertheless, the use of the BSC framework
obstacle in this study, but however, the generality actually within the closed-loop management system might be impeded
makes the BSC framework applicable (with regard to the time due to only a little evidence of successful implementation.
and effort needed) in different types of business, no matter the Although the scholars dedicated most of their work into
size or environment it operates in and by also offering to change improving the framework, there might be some issues that have
the different perspectives into what these businesses are not been identified yet. Management in general could be more
actually focusing on (cf. Bukh & Malmi, 2005). reluctant to introduce such a system, because it takes in a lot of
time and work while it is unclear whether it actually is
As of the main findings and recommendations for successful. Especially in ‘New economy’ businesses this might
Takeaway.com, the analysis first of all identified the need to pose a problem due to the rather flexible and fast changing
revise the vision statement. How can the mission and vision environment.
actually be translated and communicated to the company if the However, stepping away from the closed-loop system and just
statements are not complete? After revision these statements focusing on the BSC framework and strategy maps, research
have to be communicated through all levels of the company so has already suggested, that these might be helpful tools in
that the workforce actually knows what they are working performance measurement as well as in the implementation and
towards and what values they should stand for. monitoring of strategy within new economy businesses. Due to
Within the learning and growth perspective of the BSC, the the shifting focus from tangible to intangible assets, the BSC is
need to focus on employee satisfaction and motivation has been proposed to be useful because of its balanced focus on financial
identified in order to reach the goal of creating a high- and operational measures, and within these, important but not
performance environment. In the interviews, the need for always tangible factors such as knowledge and innovation,
general guidelines and rules has been identified to help systems, processes, etc. are included (Bose & Thomas, 2007;
supporting the employees on the operational level. In general, Walters & Buchanan, 2001). It definitely makes sense to put the
the need for transparency is perceived as very great – strategic objectives in order and create smaller goals in order to
employees would like to know what is actually happening in the reach them all while being easily presented in a strategy map
company and how well the performance is. Since Lieferando which can be quickly adapted if objectives change or
and Takeaway.com are still in the transition phase, this is assumptions might prove wrong.
something that could be added to the mix – Lieferando’s As stated in the analysis section, this thesis has a few
employee motivation and encouragement incentives as well as limitations, especially regarding access to all relevant
regular updates of the company’s performance. The first steps information for proper analysis as the actual numbers and
toward such an approach have already been taken by planning performance measures are missing and only six employees were
on introducing the employee reviews through questionnaires interviewed. The closed loop system could therefore not
company-wide. The step after that is, however, more important: completely be tested and steps could only be suggested.
implement the feedback. If and to what extent, employees will In addition, the thesis could only present the most important
be involved more in business processes and planning, is of findings of the BSC system, due to the extensive works of the
course the decision of the management. However, due to the authors.
young workforce, with often an academic background,
management could actually get valuable input. Adding to this, For the future, it suggests, that the general BSC framework and
management might in fact be too far away from the operational strategy maps could be further researched within ‘new
level, so that determining what will work best could be further economy’ environments and –businesses, especially by
from reality than if employees are actually involved. applying and testing the model with and in companies to
provide more real-life evidence for its usefulness. Furthermore,
In the business process perspective focus is put on the system in there is a need to test the latest development in Kaplan and
general and communication channels. Here, the IT department Norton’s work (2008) since the closed-loop management
needs to finish the integrated system, and communication system has not been properly researched.
channels should be opened and simplified to ensure support in
day-to-day activities.

11
6. CONCLUSION Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killers of
This paper has provided an overview of what strategy strategy implementation and learning. Sloan
implementation is and what obstacles there are to it. It Management Review, 41(4), 29-40.
introduced the Balanced Scorecard system from its basic Bose, S., & Thomas, K. (2007). Applying the balanced
framework to an actual management system and applied it to scorecard for better performance of intellectual
the company Takeaway.com. The thesis was able to provide capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 653-665.
Takeaway.com with interesting insights on employee wishes Bukh, P. N., & Malmi, T. (2005). Re-examining the cause-and-
and general recommendations on which areas it should focus on effect principle of the balanced scorecard. Accounting
to reach its goal to become the number one in Germany. in Scandinavia–The northern lights, 87-113.
Chakravarthy, B. S., Mueller-Stewens, G., Lorange, P., &
Coming back to the main research question whether the BSC Lechner, C. (2003). Defining the contours of the
can be a helpful tool in strategy implementation within ‘new strategy process field. In B. S. Chakravarthy, G.
economy’ businesses, the answers are yes and no. Although Mueller-Stewens, P. Lorange & C. Lechner (Eds.),
there has been extensive research on the general BSC Strategy process: Shaping the contours of the field
framework, the newest and most complete approach has not (pp. 1-17). Oxford: Blackwell.
been tested yet. It can thus not be determined whether this
management system is what companies have been waiting for in Christensen, C., & Raynor, M. (2013). The innovator's solution:
order to properly implement their strategies. Nevertheless, the Creating and sustaining successful growth: Harvard
BSC framework has proven to be helpful in the past and might Business Review Press.
support Takeaway.com’s future initiatives in thus far as to corporate.takeaway.com. (n.d.). Company website Retrieved
translate mission, vision and strategy into smaller targets 20 May, 2015, from http://corporate.takeaway.com
organized in an easy to follow map. This can generally provide
Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2008). Building a
managers with a good overview of what actions need to be
capable organization: The eight levers of strategy
taken in the future - whether or not actual performance
implementation. Business Horizons, 51(4), 301-309.
measurement with the framework will be used is a different
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.02.003
question. The findings and developments in strategy can be
taken into account anyway. CSA (2015, 23 Jun). [Interview with a Customer Service
Agent] Enschede.
CSM (2015, 22 Jun). [Interview with the Customer Service
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Manager] Enschede.
First and foremost, I would like to thank Jeroen Kraaijenbrink CSS (2015, 22 Jun). [Interview with a Customer Service
for giving me the opportunity to write this thesis in a topic that I Supervisor] Enschede.
myself found very interesting and the help he provided me with. Eccles, T. (1994). Succeeding with change: Implementing
Secondly, I would like to thank all of my interview partners for action-driven strategies. New York: McGraw-Hill
their time, openness and all the help and support they have Gerbig, J. (2015, 08 Jun). [Interview with the Chief Operating
given me. Here in particular, I thank Jörg Gerbig for an Officer] Berlin.
insightful interview and for giving me an interesting Giles, W. D. (1991). Making strategy work. Long Range
introduction into Lieferando’s developments. Planning, 24(5), 75-91.
My special thanks go to Mr. Jitse Groen, who not only provided Glassdoor.co.in. (n.d.). Takeaway.com employee reviews
me with a very interesting interview but also with a deep insight Retrieved 24 Jun, 2015, from
into his business environment as well as his own processes and http://www.glassdoor.co.in/Overview/Working-at-
experiences. It was a great pleasure for me to do the research on Takeaway-com-EI_IE823453.11,23.htm
his company. Groen, J. (2014, 23 Oct). [Interview with the Chief Executive
Officer] Utrecht.
Gumbus, A., & Lussier, R. N. (2006). Entrepreneurs use a
8. REFERENCES balanced scorecard to translate strategy into
performance measures. Journal of Small Business
Aaltonen, P., & Ikävalko, H. (2002). Implementing strategies Management, 44(3), 407-425.
successfully. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Gummesson, E. (2002). Relationship marketing in the new
13(6), 415-418. economy. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1(1),
Ahn, H. (2001). Applying the Balanced Scorecard Concept: An 37-57.
Experience Report. Long Range Planning, 34(4), 441- Györy, A., Brenner, W., & Uebernickel, F. (2012). Finding the
461. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024- right balanced scorecard for business-driven IT
6301(01)00057-7 management: a literature review. Paper presented at
Alexander, L. D. (1985). Successfully implementing strategic the System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii
decisions. Long Range Planning, 18(3), 91-97. International Conference on System Sciences.

Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: a role for the Hackmann, F. (2014). Takeaway.com acquires Lieferando
balanced scorecard? Management Decision, 44(10), Retrieved 25 Sep, 2014, from
1441-1460. doi: doi:10.1108/00251740610715740 http://venturevillage.eu/takeaway-com-acquires-
lieferando
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1987). Managing across
borders: new strategic requirements. Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (1989). Strategy
implementation as substance and selling. The
Academy of Management Executive, 3(4), 278-285.

12
Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). The corporate strategic Lueg, R., & Carvalho e Silva, A. L. (2013). When one size does
planning process. Interfaces, 14(1), 47-60. not fit all: a literature review on the modifications of
Heide, M., Grønhaug, K., & Johannessen, S. (2002). Exploring the balanced scorecard. Problems and Perspectives in
barriers to the successful implementation of a Management, 11(3), 86-94.
formulated strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Malmi, T. (2001). Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies: a
Management, 18(2), 217-231. doi: research note. Management Accounting Research,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(01)00007-0 12(2), 207-220.
Hepworth, P. (1998). Weighing it up-a literature review for the Mauborgne, R., & Kim, W. C. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy-
balanced scorecard. Journal of Management How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make
development, 17(8), 559-563. Competition Irrelevant: TRINH VAN PHUC.
Hrebiniak, L. (2005). Making strategy work: leading effective Miller, S., Wilson, D., & Hickson, D. (2004). Beyond
execution and change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Planning:: Strategies for Successfully Implementing
Pearson Education, publishing as Wharton School Strategic Decisions. Long Range Planning, 37(3),
Publishing. 201-218. doi:
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to Effective Strategy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.03.003
Implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 35(1), 12- Mooraj, S., Oyon, D., & Hostettler, D. (1999). The balanced
31. doi: scorecard: a necessary good or an unnecessary evil?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.12.001 European Management Journal, 17(5), 481-491.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. (1984). Implementing Nørreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard a
strategy: Macmillan New York. critical analysis of some of its assumptions.
Humphrey, A. (2005). The Origin of SWOT Analysis. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65-88. doi:
European Quality. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mare.1999.0121
Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2003). Coming up short on Nørreklit, H. (2003). The balanced scorecard: what is the score?
nonfinancial performance measurement. harvard A rhetorical analysis of the balanced scorecard.
business review, 81(11), 88-95. Accounting, organizations and society, 28(6), 591-
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring 619.
corporate strategy: text & cases (8 ed.): Pearson Nørreklit, H., Jacobsen, M., & Mitchell, F. (2008). Pitfalls in
Education. using the balanced scorecard. Journal of Corporate
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard: Accounting & Finance, 19(6), 65-68.
Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Okumus, F. (2003). A framework to implement strategies in
Review, 70(1), 71-79. organizations. Management Decision, 41(9), 871-882.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced Pohjola, M. (2002). The new economy: facts, impacts and
scorecard to work. In H. B. Review (Ed.), Focus Your policies. Information Economics and Policy, 14(2),
Organization on Strategy - with the Balanced 133-144.
Scorecard (3rd ed., pp. 16-29). Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy:
Harvard Business Review Boston.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996a). The balanced
scorecard: translating strategy into action: Harvard Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for
Business Press. analyzing industries and competition. New York, 300.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996b). Linking the balanced Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy.
scorecard to strategy. California management review, Strategic management journal, 12(S2), 95-117.
39(1). Pryor, M. G., Anderson, D., Toombs, L. A., & Humphreys, J.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996c). Using the balanced H. (2007). Strategic implementation as a core
scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard competency. Journal of Management Research, 7(1),
Business Review, 74(1), 75-85. 3-17.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with Raps, A. (2005). Strategy implementation–an insurmountable
your strategy? Then map it. Focus Your Organization obstacle? Handbook of business strategy, 6(1), 141-
on Strategy—with the Balanced Scorecard, 61. 146.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused Reilly, G. P., & Reilly, R. R. (2000). Using a measure network
organization. Strategy and Leadership, 29(3), 41-42. to understand and deliver value. Journal of Cost
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Management, 14(6), 5-14.
Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes: Saull, R. (2000). The IT Balanced Scorecard – A Roadmap to
Harvard Business Press. Effective Governance of a Shared services IT
Organization. Information Systems Control Journal,
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2005). The Office of Strategy 2, 31-38.
Management. In H. B. Review (Ed.), Focus Your SCSA (2015, 23 Jun). [Interview with a Senior Customer
Organization on Strategy - with the Balanced Service Agent] Enschede.
Scorecard, 3rd Edition (3rd ed., pp. 2-13): Harward
Business Review. Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J., & Pfeiffer, T. (2003). A
descriptive analysis on the implementation of
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). How to implement a Balanced Scorecards in German-speaking countries.
new strategy without disrupting your organization. Management Accounting Research, 14(4), 361-388.
Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 100. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2003.10.001
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). Mastering the
management system. harvard business review, 86(1), Stonich, P. J. (1982). Implementing strategy: Making strategy
62. happen. Cambridge: Ballinger Pub Co.

13
Striteska, M., & Spickova, M. (2012). Review and comparison
of performance measurement systems. Journal of
Organizational Management Studies, 2012, 1-14.
Takeaway.com. (n.d.). Who we are Retrieved 25 Sep, 2014,
from http://www.takeaway.com/who-we-are
Van Grembergen, W. (2000). The Balanced Scorecard and IT
Governance. Information Systems Control Journal, 2,
40-43.
Walters, D., & Buchanan, J. (2001). The new economy, new
opportunities and new structures. Management
Decision, 39(10), 818-834.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm.
Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Wernham, R. (1984). Bridging the awful gap between strategy
and action. Long Range Planning, 17(6), 34-42. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(84)90216-4
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., & Ruigrok, W. (2000). New
notions of organizational 'fit' Mastering Strategy.
London: Financial Times, Prentice-Hall.

14
9. APPENDIX

9.1 The Basic Balanced Scorecard framework based on Kaplan & Norton (1996c)

9.2 Summary of interviews – operational level

Subjects CS Manager CS Supervisor Senior CS Agent CS Agent

4 years ago: -- - just entered the German - small office, less work,
market, 4 people were no supervisors, relaxed
-small office, no supervisor
responsible for Dutch and atmosphere
- enormous growth of the German websites
company
Development of the - structure had to evolve
company E.g. 2 people on a Sunday due to growing number of
evening*, now 20 employees & market
growth
 CEO was in office
*busiest time of the week
regularly, gave updates
- CS Manager for both - surprise, very chaotic - rumors about it in the - during: uncertainty and
offices company fear to loose job, on
- wasn’t planned well
operational level nobody
- both offices have the - was announced to
- especially operational was informed
same tasks employees at the same time
level was affected
Fusion with - 2 cultures and strategies
as in the news -2 worlds came together
Lieferando with different views
came together (formal vs - 2 teams, same tasks
(takeaway = friendly
relaxed, partner vs
company; Lieferando =
customer orientation)
only profit-oriented)
New positions were
- unclear responsibilities

15
 created:
- customer service director
- project manager
- top down, management - top down - top down through - main information comes
cs director  cs manager different levels from supervisors
- goes through many
 cs supervisors  cs
different levels - lots of flaws in operative - too many information
agents
communication channels channels
- basically all information
- communication between  difficulties, missing or
from CS Manager - does not feel informed
and within offices gets faulty information
well
better
Information flow - information about general
- monthly cs manager
changes come very late
meetings (from all
branches) with cs director,
sometimes involvement in
project management
- feedback, suggestions
resource planning goes
through cs director
- cs managers are involved - recent feedback from - if there is involvement, - there was a feedback
sometimes employees: try to realize then only on operational questionnaire but up until
suggestions & support level (team meetings, now no changes
- cs agent involvement is
agents feedback)
encouraged at operational - also there is an open door
Employee level - supervisors can give - suggestions probably do policy but nothing is going
feedback & suggestions not leave this level and are to change anyway
involvement - feedback meetings for
during meetings with CS not used in strategy
both sides  open door
Manager development
policy
- open door policy for - assessment of employee
- recent employee feedback
employees satisfaction and feedback
 still working on results
- training needed a change - training team does very - very chaotic in the past - training was ok, there was
 training team developed good job, has enough only one system
- responsible for training
freedom
- freedom for training team team, planning of training - you can get a new
- performance reviews and training if you feel insecure
- guidelines and feedback - measure knowledge
feedback for current
quizzes can also help other levels of employees, helps
agents, training is offered
employees (see if the level in revision trainings for
Training for those who need
is the same, suggest current employees
revision
training + revision)
 help developing
 based on this team’s company-wide training
guidelines, project basis
management wants to
develop general training
program for takeaway
- employee events: borrel - employee events: borrel - budget for team events, - Not much is done to
& takeaway event & takeaway event also employee events motivate
(summer), Christmas party, (summer), Christmas party,
- networking among  some freedoms are
budget for team events budget for team events
employees taken, more duties
Employee - full-time employees go - monthly vouchers for
Motivation - 2 different branches in - Dutch office has more
on ski vacation once a year employees (since May)
one office with different rights
 new reward system for rights
employees is in
development
- information flow has - direct communication - no communication of - too much focus on
many flaws with other office not goals, targets, future personal statistics, speed,
allowed outlooks, actual more on quantity than
performance of the quality
 unnecessarily more
company
complicated work flow, - no communication about
- no communication of the goals and future targets
- management does not
what the company actually of the company, with other
Criticism communicate any long-
stands for offices, communication is
term plans
forbidden with Berlin ->
- communication channels
- instructions/ rules change can lead to inefficient
in general  when
constantly workflow
something is planned, the
- not all important employees who have to - rules and instructions
information is available for deal with it, are informed change a lot
supervisors last

- improve communication - more structure - bundle different - general set of rules

flows communication/
Suggestions for the - clear instructions
information channels
- regular trainings to
future - more structure refresh old guidelines, keep
- general rules/ guidelines
- more communication everyone on the same level
- new system should come
between offices, getting to

16
 soon - finish database know each other  - a valuable member of the
supports mutual corporate cs center should also be
- division of customer - develop new system asap
culture included in strategy
service in different tasks to
- allow communication meetings as well as in
support and relieve them - focus more on employee
application process
(already in planning) motivation
- same rules should apply
- new system has to come
to everyone within an
- keep the start-up culture, office
keep students in the
workforce and do not rely
so much on full-time
employees
It seems as if Management should listen It is always said that we are
takeaway.com does not to the operational level of 1 company and 1 team, but
really have a strategy – the organization. all the communication is
some activities seem more forbidden. How can there
like spontaneous decisions be team spirit and a
Other points  sometimes spontaneity common culture then?
is good, but having a
general overview of the
company’s plans would
help in daily activities

9.3 Strategy Map for Takeaway.com

17
9.4 Balanced Scorecard for Takeaway.com

18