Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it

If you were a military general on the march, you'd want your troops to have plenty of maps--detailed information about the mission they were on, the roads they would travel, the campaigns they would undertake, and the weapons at their disposal. The same holds true in business: a workforce needs clear and detailed information to execute a business strategy successfully. Until now, there haven't been many tools that can communicate both an organization's strategy and the processes and systems needed to implement that strategy. But authors Robert Kaplan and David Norton, cocreators of the balanced scorecard, have adapted that seminal tool to create strategy maps. Strategy maps let an organization describe and illustrate--in clear and general language--its objectives, initiatives, targets markets, performance measures, and the links between all the pieces of its strategy. Employees get a visual representation of how their jobs are tied to the company's overall goals, while managers get a clearer understanding of their strategies and a means to detect and correct any flaws in those plans. Using Mobil North American Marketing and Refining Company as an example, Kaplan and Norton walk through the creation of a strategy map and its four distinct regions--financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth--which correspond to the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard. The authors show step by step how the Mobil division used the map to transform itself from a centrally controlled manufacturer of commodity products to a decentralized, customer-driven organization.     

THE RISE AND USE OF BALANCED SCORECARD MEASURES IN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

This paper examines the rise and use of balanced scorecard performance measurement systems in Australian government departments. Through a survey of all Australian federal, state and territory government departments we find that Australian government departments include a broad set of financial and non‐financial measures within a balanced scorecard approach. Theoretically, our findings lend support for both economic and ‘external’ institutional rationales for the implementation and use of balanced scorecard measures. We find that those government departments reporting greater implementation of balanced scorecard performance measures also report greater benefits for organisational decisions. Our findings shed light on the use, and further potential, of BSC performance measurement systems as part of the management control system in Government departments.     

The judgmental effects of strategy maps in balanced scorecard performance evaluations

We examine whether supplemental information displays affect decisions made using a common strategic performance measurement system, the balanced scorecard. A distinguishing feature of the balanced scorecard (BSC) is the number and diversity of its metrics. To effectively formulate a decision from such a complex information set, managers must view these measures within their strategic context ( [Kaplan and Norton, 1993] and [Kaplan and Norton, 1996] ). However, academic studies indicate that problems in communication and comprehension of the strategic logic underlying the scorecard hinder its implementation and use ( [Lipe and Salterio, 2000] , [Malina and Selto, 2001] , [Ittner et al., 2003a] and [Ittner et al., 2003b] ). We investigate whether a supplemental information display, in the form of a strategy map, results in performance evaluation judgments consistent with the recognition of relations between performance metrics and strategy. Strategy maps are causal diagrams depicting temporally-separate and non-linear relations between scorecard performance measures and overriding strategic objectives. As predicted, we find that performance evaluation decisions are more consistent with the achievement of strategic objectives when participants are provided with strategy maps.     

Nonfinancial and financial performance measures: How do they affect employee role clarity and performance?

Two recent studies have found that comprehensive performance measurement systems comprising both financial and nonfinancial measures (e.g., balanced scorecard) are positively related to managerial performance through role clarity. It is, however, unclear if these results are from the use of financial measures or from the use of nonfinancial measures. It is also unclear if these effects are achievable by using nonfinancial measures alone. This study provides insights into prior studies' findings by distinguishing those effects arising from nonfinancial measures from those arising from financial measures. Based on a sample of 121 managers, the results indicate that nonfinancial measures, by themselves, significantly influence managerial performance through role clarity. More importantly, they also indicate that the effect of nonfinancial measures on role clarity is substantially stronger than that through financial measures.     

Using the Balanced Scorecard to Manage Intangible Assets in A Sino-Foreign Joint Venture

The application of the balanced scorecard as a performance measurement tool to convert intangible assets into tangible outcomes is examined using a case study of a Sino-US joint venture — Xinan JV. The balanced scorecard is described in terms of the specific measures that were used to manage various innovation and human resource development processes and initiatives to help the company respond to its strategic challenges. We present some impressions of the managers of the company on how the balanced scorecard facilitated the management of intangibles in the joint venture.     

The effects of performance report layout on managers’ subjective evaluation judgments

Managers tend to provide subjective performance evaluations that are relatively high (leniency) and not very dispersed (compression). This paper reports on an experiment that investigates whether the layout of performance reports affects the leniency and compression of managers’ subjective evaluations. Relying on psychology theory, we predict that subjective ratings will be higher and more compressed if performance reports contain alphabetically listed indicators rather than categorically listed indicators (as in a balanced scorecard). Moreover, we predict that ratings will be higher and more compressed if performance reports present indicator target and actual values in tables than when this information is presented in graphs. The results from the experiment provide support for the hypothesis that performance ratings are higher if measures are listed in alphabetical order as opposed to presented in a four-category balanced scorecard format. However, there is no support for the other hypotheses. We discuss the implications of the study for accounting research and practice.     

The Role of Visual Attention in the Managerial Judgment of Balanced‐Scorecard Performance Evaluation: Insights from Using an Eye‐Tracking Device

This paper investigates the role of visual attention in managerial judgments during balanced‐scorecard performance evaluations. Using the Locarna eye tracker to establish the amount of time managers spent focused on visual cues, we found that managers who look more at strategically linked performance measures are more likely to make decisions consistent with the achievement of their subordinates’ strategic objectives. When aware of strategy, managers focused more on strategically linked performance measures than on nonlinked measures. The presentation format of the strategy information did not significantly affect this focus. Our findings indicate that awareness of strategically linked performance measures, but not their presentation, appears to be important in helping managers to make better decisions. This study contributes to the management accounting literature by generating useful insights into the impact of visual attention on judgments and decision‐making processes.     

Joint selection of balanced scorecard targets and weights in a collaborative setting

Information asymmetries may create problems in developing both the balanced scorecard (BSC) targets and weights. In practice, the process of assigning weights to performance measures can be challenging in terms of reaching a consensus between top management and divisional managers. In this research, we address the issues of target and weight selection using a collaborative decision-making model. Most of the previous research related to performance measurement has assumed self-interested agents. When weights are assigned subjectively, there is evidence in the literature of common-measure bias leading to BSC disagreement (conflict). We contribute to the literature by considering actor preferences in a novel approach that permits the parties jointly to determine optimal (or approximately optimal) BSC targets and weights.     

The impact of the corporate balanced scorecard on corporate control—A research note

The paper explores the adoption of the corporate balanced scorecard (CBSC) and its impact on corporate control of business units. Following interviews with senior corporate managers in 15 of Sweden's largest multinational companies, 8 were found to adopt CBSC. However, CBSC had little impact on control at the corporate level. Corporate control was financially focused in all the companies: mainly financial measures were important, standards were only set for financial measures and rewards were largely based on financial performance measures. Top management's need for simplicity and comparability internally, and capital market pressures motivated the financial focus.     

How to implement a new strategy without disrupting your organization

Throughout most of modern busi ness history, corporations have attempted to unlock value by matching their structures to their strategies: Centralization by function. Decentralization by product category or geographic region. Matrix organizations that attempt both at once. Virtual organizations. Networked organizations. Velcro organizations. But none of these approaches has worked very well. Restructuring churn is expensive, and new structures often create new organizational problems that are as troublesome as the ones they try to solve. It takes time for employees to adapt to them, they create legacy systems that refuse to die, and a great deal of tacit knowledge gets lost in the process. Given the costs and difficulties involved in finding structural ways to unlock value, it's fair to raise the question: Is structural change the right tool for the job? The answer is usually no, Kaplan and Norton contend. It's far less disruptive to choose an organizational design that works without major conflicts and then design a customized strategic system to align that structure to the strategy. A management system based on the balanced scorecard framework is the best way to align strategy and structure, the authors suggest. Managers can use the tools of the framework to drive their unit's performance: strategy maps to define and communicate the company's value proposition and the scorecard to implement and monitor the strategy. In this article, the originators of the balanced scorecard describe how two hugely different organizations--DuPont and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-used corporate scorecards and strategy maps organized around strategic themes to realize the enormous value that their portfolios of assets, people, and skills represented. As a result, they did not have to endure a painful series of changes that simply replaced one rigid structure with another.