The balance on the balanced scorecarda critical analysis of some of its assumptions
Management Accounting Research, 2000, 11, 65-88 doi:10.1006/mare.1999.0121 Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
*
IDE b 0
L
The balance on the balanced scorecarda critical analysis of some of its assumptions Hanne Nerreklit”
In recent years academic scholars have given increasing attention to the importance of strategic measurement systems including both non-financial and financial measures.
One of the approaches adopted is that of the balanced scorecard. It is distinct from other strategic measurement systems in that it is more than an ad hoc collection of financial and non-financial measures. It contains outcome measures and the performance drivers of outcomes, linked together in cause-and-effect relationships, and thus aims to be a feed-forward control system. Furthermore, the balanced scorecard is intended not only as a strategic measurement system but also as a strategic control system which can align departmental and personal goals to overall strategy. This paper first examines the extent to which there is a cause-and-effect relationship among the four areas of measurement suggested (the financial, customer, internalbusiness-process and learning and growth perspectives). The paper then examines whether the balanced scorecard can link strategy to operational metrics which managers can understand and influence. Finally, it discusses and suggests some improvements to the balanced scorecard.
0 2000 Academic Press
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
In recent years, increasing criticism has been levelled against the financial measures of accounting systems (Emmanuel and Otley, 1995). The criticism has, in part, focused on their historic nature, which ensures that they reveal a great deal about the company’s past actions but nothing about its future alertness (Merchant, 1985;
Chakravarthy, 1986; Schoenfeld, 1986; Dearden, 1987; AICPA, 1994; Kaplan and
Norton, 1996). Accounting figures do not emphasize the elements
*
IDE b 0
L
The balance on the balanced scorecarda critical analysis of some of its assumptions Hanne Nerreklit”
In recent years academic scholars have given increasing attention to the importance of strategic measurement systems including both non-financial and financial measures.
One of the approaches adopted is that of the balanced scorecard. It is distinct from other strategic measurement systems in that it is more than an ad hoc collection of financial and non-financial measures. It contains outcome measures and the performance drivers of outcomes, linked together in cause-and-effect relationships, and thus aims to be a feed-forward control system. Furthermore, the balanced scorecard is intended not only as a strategic measurement system but also as a strategic control system which can align departmental and personal goals to overall strategy. This paper first examines the extent to which there is a cause-and-effect relationship among the four areas of measurement suggested (the financial, customer, internalbusiness-process and learning and growth perspectives). The paper then examines whether the balanced scorecard can link strategy to operational metrics which managers can understand and influence. Finally, it discusses and suggests some improvements to the balanced scorecard.
0 2000 Academic Press
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
In recent years, increasing criticism has been levelled against the financial measures of accounting systems (Emmanuel and Otley, 1995). The criticism has, in part, focused on their historic nature, which ensures that they reveal a great deal about the company’s past actions but nothing about its future alertness (Merchant, 1985;
Chakravarthy, 1986; Schoenfeld, 1986; Dearden, 1987; AICPA, 1994; Kaplan and
Norton, 1996). Accounting figures do not emphasize the elements
References: The AICPA Special Committee on Financial Reporting, 1994. Improving Business Reporting-A Costumer Focus: Meeting the Infomation Needs of Investors and Creditors, American Institute Anthony, R. N., Dearden, J. and Bedford, N. M., 1984. Management Control Systems, IL, Irwin. Anthony, R. N., Dearden, J. and Bedford, N. M., 1989. Management Control Systems, IL, Irwin. Arbnor, I. and Bjerke, B., 1994. Foretagsekonomisk Metodlura, Studenterlitteratur, Lund, Sweden. Argyris, C., 1977. Organizational learning and management information systems, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 113-1 23. Argyris, C. and Kaplan, R. S., 1994. Implementing new knowledge: the case of activity-based costing, Accounting Horizons, 8(3), 83-1 05. Atkinson, A. A., Banker, R. D., Kaplan, R. S. and Young, S. M., 1997. Management Accounting, NJ, Prentice Hall. Beischel, M. E. and Smith, F. R., 1991. Linking the shop floor to the top floor, Journal of Management Accounting, October, 25-29. Buzell, R. D. and Gale, B. T., 1987. The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Perfomance, NY, New York Press. Chakravarthy, B. S., 1986. Measuring strategic performance, Strategic Management Journal, 7, 437-458. Collis, D. J. and Montgomery, C. A., 1995. Competing on resources: strategy in the 1990s, Haruard Business Review,July-August, 118-1 28. Collis, D. J. and Montgomery, C. A., 1997. Corporate Strategy: Resources and the Scope of the F i m , IL, Irwin. Crossley, N., 1996. Intersnbjectivity-The Fabric of Social Becoming, London, SAGE Publications. Dearden, J., 1969. The case against ROI control, Haruard Business Review, May-June, 124-1 35. Dearden, J., 1987. Measuring profit center managers, Haruard Business Review, September-October, 84-88. Demirag, I. S., 1998. Short-Term Performance Pressures, Corporate Governance, and Accountability: An Overview, in Demirag, I. S. (ed.) Corporate Governance, Accountability, and Pressures to Perfom A n International Study, Connecticut, JAI Press Inc., pp Donaldson, G., 1984. Managing Corporate Wealth, NY, Praeger. Edwards, P., 1972. The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Volumes 1-8, U.S., Macmillian Publishing Co., Inc. and The Free Press. Emmanuel, C. and Otley, D., 1995. Readings in Accountingfor Management Control, C h a p mann and Hall. Euske, K. J., Lebas, M. J. and McNair, C. J., 1993. Best Practises in World Class Organizations, CAM-I, R-93-CMS-01, February. Fgllesdal, D., Wallge, L. and Elster, J., 1997. Argnmentasjonsteori, Spr& Og Vitenslzapsjilosoji, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget. de Haas, M. and Kleingeld, A., 1999. Multilevel design of performance measurement systems: enhancing strategic dialogue throughout the organization, Management Accounting Research, Holloway, J., Lewis, J. and Mallory, G., 1995. Perfomance Measurement and Evaluation, London, Sage Publications. Hopwood, A. G., 1972. An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation, empirical research in accounting, Snpplement to Journal of Accounting Research, Hopwood, A. G., 1973. Accounting and Human Behavionr, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. Ittner, C. D. and Larcker, D. F., 1998. Innovations in performance measurement: trends and research implications, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 205-239. Johnson, H. T. and Kaplan, R. S., 1987. Relevance Lost, The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press. Jones, T. 0. and Sasser, W. E., 1995. Why satisfied customers defect, Haruard Business Review, November-December, 88-99. Jonsson, S. R., 1998. Management accounting research to managerial work, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(4), 41 1-434. Kaplan, R. S., 1984. The evolution of management accounting, The Accounting Review,July, 390-418. Kaplan, R. S., 1998. Innovation action research: creating new management theory and practice, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 89-1 18. Kaplan, R. S. and Cooper, R., 1998. Cost and Effect-Using Integrated Cost Systems to Drive Projitability and Perfomance, Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., 1992. The balanced scorecard as a strategic management system, Haruard Business Review,January-February, 6 1-66. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., 1996a. The Balanced Scorecard-Translating Strategy into Action, Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., 1996 b. Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy, California Management Review, Fall, 4, 53-79. Kiechel, W., 1984. Snipping at strategic planning, Planning Review, May, 8-1 1. Maciariello, J. A. and Kirby, C. J., 1994. Management Control Systems, N.J., Prentice Hall. McNair, C. J., Lynch, R. L. and Cross, K. L., 1990. Do financial and nonfinancial measures have to agree?, Management Accounting, November, 28-39. Maisel, L. S., 1992. Performance measurement: the balanced scorecard approach, Journal of Cost Management, Summer, 47-52. Mattessich, R., 1995. Conditional-normative accounting methodology: incorporating value judgements and means-end relations of applied science, Accounting, Organizations and Merchant, K., 1985. Control in Business Organizations, MA, Harvard Graduate School of Business. Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C., 1978. Organizational Strategy, Strnctnre and Process, N.Y., McGraw-Hill. Mintzberg, H., 1973. Strategy making in three modes, California Management Review, Winter, 44-53.