Mind mapping the topic of balanced scorecard (BSC)
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent Trainer
Hong Kong, China
Abstract: The topic of balanced scorecard (BSC) is a main one in Strategic
Management. This article makes use of the mind mapping-based literature review
(MMBLR) approach to render an image on the knowledge structure of balanced
scorecard. The finding of the review exercise is that its knowledge structure
comprises four main themes, i.e., (a) Descriptions of basic concepts and
information (b) Major underlying theories and thinking, (c) Main research
topics and issues, and (d) Major trends and issues related to practices. There is also a set of key concepts identified from
the balanced scorecard literature review. The article offers some academic and pedagogical values on the topics of
balanced scorecard, literature review and the mind mapping-based literature
review (MMBLR) approach.
Key words: Balanced
scorecard, literature review, mind
map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach
Introduction
Balanced scorecard (BSC) is a main topic in Strategic Management. It is of academic and
pedagogical interest to the writer who has been a lecturer on Strategic
Management for some tertiary education centres in Hong Kong. In this article,
the writer presents his literature review findings on balanced scorecard using
the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach. This approach was
proposed by this writer in 2016 and has been employed to review the literature
on a number of topics, such as supply chain management, strategic management
accounting and customer relationship management (Ho, 2016). The MMBLR approach
itself is not particularly novel since mind mapping has been employed in
literature review since its inception. The overall aims of this exercise are
to:
1. Render an image of the knowledge structure of
balanced scorecard via the application of the MMBLR approach;
2. Illustrate how the MMBLR approach can be
applied in literature review on an academic topic, such as balanced scorecard.
The findings from this literature review
exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who are interested in
the topics of balanced scorecard, literature review and the MMBLR approach.
Other than that, this exercise facilitates this writer’s intellectual learning
on these three topics. The next section makes a brief introduction on the MMBLR
approach. After that, an account of how it is applied to study balanced
scorecard is presented.
On mind
mapping-based literature review
The mind mapping-based literature review
(MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer in 2016 (Ho, 2016). It makes use
of mind mapping as a complementary literature review exercise (see the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page
and the Literature on literature review
Facebook page). The approach is made up of two steps. Step 1 is a thematic
analysis on the literature of the topic chosen for study. Step 2 makes use of
the findings from step 1 to produce a complementary mind map. The MMBLR
approach is a relatively straightforward and brief exercise. The approach is
not particularly original since the idea of using mind maps in literature
review has been well recognized in the mind mapping literature. The MMBLR
approach is also an interpretive exercise in the sense that different reviewers
with different research interest and intellectual background inevitably will
select different ideas, facts and findings in their thematic analysis (i.e.,
step 1 of the MMBLR approach). Also, to conduct the approach, the reviewer
needs to perform a literature search beforehand. Apparently, what a reviewer
gathers from a literature search depends on what library facility, including
e-library, is available to the reviewer. The next section presents the findings
from the MMBLR approach step 1; afterward, a companion mind map is provided
based on the MMBLR approach step 1 findings.
Mind
mapping-based literature review on balanced scorecard (BSC): step 1 findings
Step 1 of the MMBLR approach is a thematic
analysis on the literature of the topic under investigation (Ho, 2016). In our
case, this is the balanced scorecard topic. The writer gathers some academic
articles from some universities’ e-libraries as well as via the Google Scholar.
With the academic articles collected, the writer conducted a literature review
on them to assemble a set of ideas, viewpoints, concepts and findings (called
points here). The points from the balanced scorecard literature are then
grouped into four themes here. The key words in the quotations are bolded in
order to highlight the key concepts involved.
Theme 1: Descriptions of basic concepts and
information
Point 1.1.
"The balanced
scorecard as developed by Kaplan and Norton is based on four basic
concepts: 1. Managers should measure performance at
the business unit level, ... 2. Establishing cause-and-effect
relationships is core to developing an effective scorecard.....3. Both
financial and nonfinancial measures are used in balanced scorecards. ... 4. The
scorecard is used to disseminate corporate strategies throughout the organization"
(Albright et al., 2011);
Point 1.2.
"The balanced
scorecard approach generally groups strategic
measures into one of the following: outcome or driver measures, financial
or non-financial measures, and internal or external measures" (Gautreau
and Kleiner, 2001);
Point 1.3.
"Robert Kaplan and David Norton originated the balanced scorecard approach in the
1980’s. .... The approach was an effort to achieve goal congruence amongst the various strategic measures within an
organisation. It is a tool for focusing the organisation, improving
communication, setting organisational objectives, and providing feedback on
strategy" (Gautreau and Kleiner, 2001);
Point 1.4.
"The balanced
scorecard (BSC) was originally introduced in response to performance
measurement systems that relied exclusively on financial performance metrics.
Rewarding performance based on these systems was thought to promote short-term
decision making at the expense of long-term profitability. Originally, the
balanced scorecard was a performance measurement system; however, it has
evolved to include a significant strategic
planning element" (Albright et al., 2011);
Point 1.5.
"It [BSC] is an
action-oriented approach to business
performance improvement ..., allowing for the appraisal of the integration
of technology processes, marketing activities, and business performance, and it
estimates the level of customer satisfaction by considering marketing feedback
.... It reflects a customer-centric philosophy based on such aspects as
customer knowledge, customer interaction, customer value, and customer
satisfaction .... The BSC is a goal-oriented approach designed to advance
business effectiveness through customer relationship management" (Hu, Yang and Islam, 2010);
Theme 2: Major underlying theories and
thinking
Point 2.1.
"Kaplan and Norton ... developed the balanced scorecard approach to highlight the links between leading
indicators as performance-driven factors
(non-financial performance) and lagging indicators as results’ measurements (financial performance). Huang et
al. ... also suggested that the cause-effect relationship of the
balanced scorecard perspectives should be clearly linked to firm financial
targets. However, no previous empirical studies have investigated the
interrelationships among the four balanced scorecard perspectives in the context
of KMO [knowledge management orientation] implementation" (Lin,
2015);
Point 2.2.
"The most important benefits of the BSC creation
processes are: * They promote the systematic development of vision and strategy, and therefore the
understanding of how things are going at all management levels. * They allow
for the creation of the business model specifying the key success factors and
their interrelation" (Ritter, 2003);
Point 2.3.
"....there are three implicit
assumptions which – if not fulfilled – can result in discrepancies between
mission and the BSC: 1. The official mission corresponds with the real mission.
..... 2. Mission and strategy are congruent. ..... 3. The strategy is described
in all its details" (Ahn, 2005);
Point 2.4.
"...the balanced scorecard should be able to align departmental
and personal goals to overall strategy" (Nørreklit,
2000);
Point 2.5.
"...the BSC can only ever reflect a strategy that is a set of hypotheses about causality,
rather than a set of proven relationships. However, Bukh and Malmi ... also
note that, ideally, organisations should attempt to validate their causality
hypotheses when data become available" (Northcott
and Smith, 2011);
Point 2.6.
"A BSC can be represented as a hierarchy of strategic goals to be derived from certain
perspectives. Kaplan and Norton propose a financial perspective and a customer
perspective as external viewpoints as well as a (business) process perspective
and a learning and growth perspective as internal viewpoints. These four
‘‘standard perspectives’’ have two particular characteristics: on the one hand
they are the basis for the desired balance between financial and non-financial
strategic goals; on the other hand, they are connected by a causal
relationship, describing a system of strategic goals which are linked together
via cause-and-effect assumptions" (Ahn, 2005);
Point 2.7.
"...the transformational leadership of sale managers positively impacts the
job satisfaction of sales associates and that the BSC could be used as a
catalytic tool in monitoring and measuring the performance of the
operation" (Hu, Yang and
Islam, 2010);
Point 2.8.
"According to Malmi
.... there are three different ways to utilize a BSC. First, it can be used to focus on management
by objectives. Secondly, a BSC can be an information system. Finally, the BSC
can be used to visualize the cause and effect relationships between different
measures. ... if companies are already using a BSC framework, it can be easier
to use the same familiar framework to implement environmental objectives and
measures ... the organization’s strategy
should include components of environmental issues so that the BSC may be used
for implementing the chosen strategy" (Länsiluoto and Järvenpää, 2010);
Point 2.9.
"Following the generic
value chain model, Kaplan and Norton ... suggested that it was value
creation efforts in the internal business process that had the greatest impact
on customer satisfaction" (Hu, Yang and Islam, 2010);
Point 2.10.
"Kaplan and Norton’s ... BSC construct is a management tool that, when correctly
understood and properly implemented: . clearly communicates the
organization’s strategy to its employees; . allows employees to see how they
contribute to the organization’s strategic goals by translating these goals
into specific, measurable activities; . increases employees’ motivation by
attaching well thought-out objectives and targets to performance measures and
then pays incentives when reached; . enhances employees’ learning and
accountability by measuring and providing feedback on their actions; and . enables
managers to monitor and update their organizations’ strategies as their
environments change" (Soderberg, 2011);
Point 2.11.
"The balanced scorecard requires that a company strategy be defined. The
scorecard does not define the best strategy for a company to take. No system
can do that; it is senior management’s responsibility and vision. The scorecard
also cannot select the best measurements of strategy. That is also senior
management’s responsibility as well as lower/middle management’s
responsibility" (Gautreau and Kleiner, 2001);
Point 2.12.
"The BSC also
addresses the measurement and management of tangible versus intangible assets. Examples of tangible assets
include items such as inventory, property, plant and equipment .... while
examples of intangible assets are ‘‘customer relationships, innovative products
and services, high-quality and responsive operating processes, skills and
knowledge of the workforce, the information technology that supports the
workforce and links the firm to its customers and suppliers, and the
organizational climate that encourages innovative problem-solving and
improvement’’..." (Craig and Moores, 2010);
Point 2.13.
"The unique mix of product, price, service,
relationship, and image that the company offers, is at the core of any
business strategy, and are introduced in the BSC via the customer
perspective" (Craig
and Moores, 2010);
Point 2.14.
"When using the BSC, the initial stage of the divide and conquer
decision strategy is to use measures within a category to assess performance in that area (e.g. financial performance). Since
the measures have been grouped together, the decision maker will be expecting
and seeking relations between them .... If performance on these measures
confirms this expectation (e.g. by indicating consistently good
performance), the decision maker may reasonably reduce the decision weight
placed on each individual measure due to perceived correlations
(nonindependence) of the measures" (Lipe and Salterio, 2002);
Point 2.15.
"I believe that management needs to take on faith or
fuzzy logic the linkage between the
financial and non-financial sides of the scorecard. We do the non-financial
things because it is the collective wisdom of the organization that they will
improve our chances of success" (Schneiderman, 1999);
Point 2.16.
"Kaplan and Norton ... assume
the following causal relationship: measures
of organizational learning and growth ->measures
of internal business processes->measures of the customer perspective
-> financial measures" (Nørreklit, 2000);
Point 2.17.
"Kaplan and Norton ... suggest
that the BSC should be used as an open reporting system. Open reporting
system makes information available to all. Although, often individuals tend to
hold information confidential to retain advantage, they argue that companies
should attempt to break through such constraints" (Herath,
Bremser and Birnberg, 2015);
Theme 3: Main research topics and issues
Point 3.1.
"According to
Kaplan and Norton..., the BSC approach focuses on strategy and
provides a broader control focus that contributes to manager orientation
towards longer-term objectives,
compensation, resource allocation, etc... TQM programs promote such a broader
focus—the type of focus that many organisations are now working to accomplish,
that is, cross-functional integration, customer supplier partnerships, global
scale, continuous improvement, and teams rather than individual
accountability" (Hoque, 2003);
Point 3.2.
"According
to De Geuser, Mooraj, and Oyon ..., empirical research on the BSC can be
categorized in three main topics: I.
Studies examining the diffusion of the concept; II. Studies analyzing whether
the BSC contributes to organizational performance (the ‘‘how
much’’
question); III. Studies analyzing how the BSC contributes to organizational
performance (the "how’’
question)" (Burkert, Davila and Oyon, 2010);
Point 3.3.
"Active
participation in the BSC process by all stakeholders has been suggested in
the recent literature .... Learning and feedback
has been touted as an important component in the success of a BSC strategy.
Kaplan and Norton ... argue that instead of a single feedback loop (reporting
and control), strategy-focused firms use a double loop feedback that promotes a
culture of teamwork and problem-solving around the strategy" (Herath,
Bremser and Birnberg, 2015);
Point 3.4.
"Although proponents of the BSC claim that it is well suited for
implementation of any strategy, of which TQM [Total Quality Management] is one example, I argue that a TQM
firm needs a BSC-like performance management system if it desires to achieve
continuous performance improvement" (Hoque, 2003);
Point 3.5.
"Bhagwat and Sharma ...suggested that it is more
appropriate to use a balanced approach to measure and evaluate supply chain performance because the
overall scenario and metrics are considered in a balanced approach, including
such things as strategic, tactical, and operational levels, which include both
financial and non-financial measures" (Chang, Hung, Wong and
Lee, 2013);
Point 3.6.
"Epstein and Roy ... follow the Kaplan and Norton BSC
framework very closely, simply substituting stakeholders’ satisfaction for the customer dimension, since
stakeholders can be considered the “customers” for board outcomes. Epstein and
Roy’s inclusion of financial measures, (EVA, ROI, share price, earnings, cash
flow and profit in excess of plan), as lagging indicators rests on the
assumption that good board structure and performance will contribute to strong
financial performance" (Northcott and Smith, 2011);
Point 3.7.
"If a cause-and-effect relationship requires a time lag between cause and effect, then
it is problematic that the time dimension is not part of the scorecard. Because
it measures cause and effect at the same time without considering any time lag,
it has no time dimension" (Nørreklit, 2000);
Point 3.8.
"Lipe
and Salterio ... find in an experiment
that common measures are clearly preferred to unique measures. This finding
questions one of the key expected benefits of the BSC, as its measures should
by definition be unique since they translate a specific strategy into specific
actions. Moreover, Ittner, Larcker, and Randall ... find that satisfaction with
implemented BSCs falls over time" (Burkert, Davila and Oyon, 2010);
Point 3.9.
"Research in cognitive psychology shows that people are
generally unable to process more than 7–9 items of information simultaneously
.... The BSC contains many more measures than this limit, suggesting that
managers will find it difficult to utilize the information in the scorecard.
However, the four category organization
of the BSC may assist managers’ use of this large volume of measures by
suggesting a way to combine and use the data" (Lipe and Salterio, 2002);
Point 3.10.
"Several
studies indicate that BSC in healthcare
organizations was initially regarded as a model for performance
measurements with little or no connection to strategy implementation ..... Some
authors describe how the implementation of BSC has become a regular step in the
quality improvement work in several healthcare organizations" (Aidemark, Baraldi, Funck and Jansson, 2010);
Point 3.11.
"The BSC literature ... is largely silent on two
issues critical to those interested in applying the BSC: How to set targets, how to weigh (or balance) measures when
evaluating managers and the firm, and how
to resolve conflicts that arise in the BSC process" (Herath,
Bremser and Birnberg, 2015);
Point 3.12.
"The stakeholder concept
may neglect such BSC perspectives (for instance, an innovation perspective)
which are not directly related to a stakeholder group; in addition, it provides
no help with regard to the question which identified stakeholder groups should
be represented by perspectives" (Ahn, 2005);
Theme 4: Major trends and issues related
to practices
Point 4.1.
"A few attempts to adapt the BSC for software intensive organizations
(SIOs3) have been reported, such as: * the Balanced IT Scorecard (BITS) proposed by the European Software
Institute (ESI) ...: provides a new version of the four original
perspectives (financial, customer, internal process, infrastructure and
innovation) and adds a fifth one, the People Perspective" (Abran
and Buglione, 2003);
Point 4.2.
"An important aspect of the scorecard is performance evaluation. Our experience
indicates that employees report higher satisfaction levels when they are
involved, when expectations are communicated, and when performance evaluations
occur frequently" (Albright et al.,
2011);
Point 4.3.
"Non-financial measurement
systems have generally been characterized by loosely coupled local systems
guided by local needs and with no integration of the company’s strategic
objectives or any balancing of local and company considerations .... The
efforts made in recent years, however, have been directed at constructing a
system of non-financial measures linked to strategy" (Nørreklit, 2000);
Point 4.4.
"One of the problems with a BSC is that it may not be
updated fast enough to adjust to environmental changes ... and so does not seem
desirable to achieve agility. Yet
the BSC may be modified with the use of other tools to provide a tailor-made
strategic system ..., which provides a framework for building a strategic
performance measurement system" (Gurd and Ifandoudas,
2014);
Point 4.5.
"Surveys
provide evidence for impressively high rates of adoptions of BSCs worldwide: among the US firms, the rate of
adoption had already been estimated to be around 50% by earlier studies ...,
and more recent evidence even indicates that this percentage has increased
significantly, up to 66% .... Also, the diffusion rates in other countries have
been found to be high ... or are expected to be high in the future" (Burkert,
Davila and Oyon, 2010);
Point 4.6.
"The scorecard must be constantly up-dated. This is good
because it requires re-alignment with changing strategies or corporate
structure. This also has a negative impact. It takes a great amount of time and
resources to keep the scorecard updated
and effective" (Gautreau and Kleiner, 2001);
Point 4.7.
"Zelman
et al. .... identify two problems that healthcare
organizations will have to confront when implementing BSC. First, the BSC
model assumes that an overall vision can be defined and that the units within
the organization are coordinated to realize that vision. However, healthcare
organizations are traditionally loosely coupled systems in which strategy
planning and management are not as vital as they are in more centralized
organizations. A precondition for successful use of BSC is thus that a common
vision is created and that interdependence among units is stressed. Second, the
ranking of the perspectives within the BSC can be questioned. Financial success
is not of utmost importance, but an impediment to the success within the other
perspectives" (Aidemark, Baraldi, Funck and Jansson, 2010);
Point 4.8.
"...some
researchers have raised the concern that the high number of publications
focusing on new management instruments such as the BSC ‘‘has produced a faddish
nature to the managerial accounting literature’’ .... In particular, Norreklit
... argues that the rapid diffusion of
BSCs worldwide is merely the result of a management
fashion triggered by viral marketing" (Burkert,
Davila and Oyon, 2010);
Point 4.9.
"Andersson
and Seiving ... find in a recent study that core concepts underlying the BSC
are not really new, such as non-financial measurement or the reflection of the
organization’s strategy in the measurement system. However, they note that the popularity patterns of these underlying
core concepts were modest before 1992, the year of the first publication on the
BSC" (Burkert, Davila and Oyon, 2010);
Point 4.10.
"In practice, the format of performance scorecards varies significantly across firms
..... Some firms organize their measures into BSC performance categories while
others simply provide a general list of measures. How results are presented in
a scorecard also varies. Many firms show only target levels and actual results,
while other firms supplement this information with performance markers (i.e.,
+, _, =) or qualitative signs (e.g., red, yellow, and
green indicators) to more explicitly indicate the status of the actual results
in relation to the target levels" (Cardinaels
and van Veen-Dirks, 2010);
Point 4.11.
"Lawrie and Cobbold .... report that the most frequent
question posed on a performance measurement discussion board was “What is a
Balanced Scorecard?”. As an example of confusion
among practitioners, a CMA Canada study .... found that the term “balanced
scorecard” may be understood differently by managers across organizations or
even those in the same organization" (Soderberg,
2011);
Point 4.12.
"Part of the difficulty in using the balance scorecard is
trying to automate the system. The
balanced scorecard measures items that are often difficult to relate and/or
measure. Financial measures are not a problem, they have been used effectively
for many years. It is the non-financial measurements that are difficult to
establish" (Gautreau and Kleiner, 2001);
Each of the four themes has a set of
associated points (i.e., idea, viewpoints, concepts and findings). Together
they provide an organized way to comprehend the knowledge structure of the balanced
scorecard topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on the
writer’s intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the balanced
scorecard literature. The referencing indicated on the points identified
informs the readers where to find the academic articles to learn more about the
details on these points. Readers are also referred to the Literature on management accounting Facebook page for additional
information on this topic. The process of conducting the thematic analysis is
an exploratory as well as synthetic learning endeavour on the topic’s
literature. Once the structure of the themes, sub-themes[1]
and their associated points are finalized, the reviewer is in a position to
move forward to step 2 of the MMBLR approach. The MMBLR approach step 2
finding, i.e., a companion mind map on balanced scorecard, is presented in the
next section.
Mind
mapping-based literature review on balanced scorecard (BSC): step 2 (mind
mapping) output
By adopting the findings from the MMBLR
approach step 1 on balanced scorecard, the writer constructs a companion mind
map shown as Figure 1.
Referring to the mind map on balanced
scorecard, the topic label is shown right at the centre of the map as a large
blob. Four main branches are attached to it, corresponding to the four themes
identified in the thematic analysis. The links and ending nodes with key
phrases represent the points from the thematic analysis. The key phrases have
also been bolded in the quotations provided in the thematic analysis. As a
whole, the mind map renders an image of the knowledge structure on balanced
scorecard based on the thematic analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is
part of the learning process on literature review. The mind mapping process is
speedy and entertaining. The resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation
and teaching material. This mind mapping experience confirms the writer’s
previous experience using on the MMBLR approach (Ho, 2016). Readers are also
referred to the Literature on literature
review Facebook page and the Literature
on mind mapping Facebook page for additional information on these two
topics.
Concluding
remarks
The MMBLR approach to study balanced
scorecard provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its
procedures have been refined via a number of its employment on an array of
topics (Ho, 2016). No major additional MMBLR steps nor notions have been
introduced in this article. In this respect, the exercise reported here
primarily offers some pedagogical value as well as some systematic and
stimulated learning on balanced scorecard in the field of Strategic Management.
Nevertheless, the thematic findings and the image of the knowledge structure on
balanced scorecard in the form of a mind map should also be of academic value
to those who research on this topic.
Bibliography
1.
Abran, A. and L. Buglione. 2003. "A multidimensional performance
model for consolidating Balanced Scorecards" Advances in Engineering Software 34, Elsevier: 339-349.
2. Ahn, H. 2005. "Insights from research: How to individualise
your balanced scorecard" Measuring
business excellence 9(1), Emerald: 5-12.
3. Aidemark, L., S. Baraldi, E.K. Funck and A. Jansson. 2010.
"The importance of balanced scorecards in hospitals" Performance Measurement and Management
Control: Innovative Concepts and Practices Studies in Managerial and Financial
Accounting 20: 363-385.
4. Albright, T.L., C.M. Burgress and S. Davis. 2011. "The
balanced scorecard and twenty-first century thoughts on motivation" The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance November/December, Wiley: 73-80
5. Burkert, M., A. Davila and D. Oyon. 2010. "Performance
consequences of balanced scorecard adoptions: claim for large-scale evidence
and proposals for future research" Performance
Measurement and Management Control: Innovative Concepts and Practices Studies
in Managerial and Financial Accounting 20, Emerald: 345-361.
6.
Cardinaels, E. and
P.M.G. van Veen-Dirks. 2010. "Financial versus non-financial information:
The impact of information organization and presentation in a Balanced
Scorecard" Accounting, Organizations
and Society 35, Elsevier: 565-578.
7. Chang, H.H., C.J. Hung, K.H. Wong and C.H. Lee. 2013. "Using
the balanced scorecard on supply chain integration performance - a case study
of service businesses" Serv Bus
7(5): 539-561.
8. Craig, J. and K. Moores. 2010. "Strategically aligning
family and business systems using the Balanced Scorecard" Journal of Family Business Strategy 1,
Elsevier: 78-87.
9.
Gautreau, A. and B.H.
Kleiner. 2001. "Recent trends in performance measurement systems - the
balanced scorecard approach" Management
Research News 24(3/4), Emerald: 153-156.
10. Gurd, B. and P. Ifandoudas. 2014. "Moving towards
agility: the contribution of a modified balanced scorecard system" Measuring business excellence 18(2), Emerald: -13.
11. Herath,
H.S.B., W.G. Bremser and J.G. Birnberg. 2015. "Facilitating a team
culture: a collaborative balanced scorecard as an open reporting system" Advances in Management Accounting online
March 10: 149-173 (url address: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7871(2010)0000018009).
12.
Ho,
J.K.K. 2016. Mind mapping for literature
review – a ebook, Joseph KK Ho publication folder October 7 (url address: http://josephkkho.blogspot.hk/2016/10/mind-mapping-for-literature-review-ebook.html).
13. Hoque, Z. 2003. "Total quality management and the
balanced scorecard approach: a critical analysis of their potential
relationships and directions for research" Critical Perspectives on Accounting 14: 553-566.
14.
Hu, Y.J.,
Y.F. Yang and M. Islam. 2010. "Leadership behavior, satisfaction, and the
balanced approach" International
Journal of Commerce and Management 20(4), Emerald: 339-356.
15.
Länsiluoto, A. and M. Järvenpää. 2010. "Greening the balanced
scorecard" Business Horizons 53,
Elsevier: 385-395.
16. Lin, H.F. 2015. "Linking knowledge orientation to balanced
scorecard outcomes" Journal of
Knowledge Management 19(6), Emerald: 1224-1249.
17. Lipe, M.G. and S. Salterio. 2002. "A note on the
judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization" Accounting, Organizations and Society
27, Pergamon: 531-540.
18.
Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address:
https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).
19.
Literature
on management accounting Facebook page, maintained by Joseph,
K.K. Ho (url address:
https://www.facebook.com/literature.management.accounting/).
20.
Literature on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).
21. Nørreklit, H. 2000. "The balance on the balanced scorecard -
a critical analysis of some of its assumptions" Management Accounting Research 11: 65-88.
22. Northcott, D. and J. Smith. 2011. "Managing performance at the top:
a balanced scorecard for boards of directors" Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 7(1), Emerald:
33-56.
23. Ritter, M. 2003. "The use of balanced scorecards in the
strategic management of corporate communication" Corporate Communication 8(1): 44-59.
24. Schneiderman, A.M. 1999. "Why balanced scorecards fail" Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement
January: 6-11.
25. Soderberg, M. 2011. "When is a balanced scorecard a balanced
scorecard?" International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 60(7), Emerald: 688-708.
pdf version at: https://www.academia.edu/32183908/Mind_mapping_the_topic_of_balanced_scorecard_BSC_
ReplyDelete