Using the Balanced Scorecard for strategic communication and performance
management
Cidália Oliveira, University of Minho (NIPE), Portugal
Adelaide Martins, University Portucalense, Portugal
Mark Anthony Camilleri, University of Malta, Malta
Shital Jayantilal, University Portucalense, Portugal
This is a pre-publication version.
Suggested citation: Oliveira, C., Martins, A., Camilleri, M.A. & Jayantilal, S. (2021). Using the Balanced
Scorecard for strategic communication and performance management. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.) Strategic
Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, Bingley, UK.
Abstract
There is a relationship between the organizations’ strategic objectives and their corporate
communications. The latter is an important feature of organizational performance.
Organizational leaders are continuously facing the challenge of communicating their strategic
goals to their stakeholders. Very often, they are adopting performance management tools to meet
this challenge. Consequently, this chapter explains that the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) can be
used to evaluate and measure the firms’ corporate communications and their organizational
performance. This tool has been widely recognized by academics and managers as it is capable
of aligning organizational strategies (including their missions and visions), strategic indicators
(leading and lagging indicators) and stakeholder management. A review of the relevant literature
review suggests that many practitioners are becoming strategic in their corporate
communications. In this light, this chapter clarifies that the BSC approach can be used to support
them in their stakeholder engagement. This contribution is useful for both academics and
practitioners as it aligns the corporate communication practices with organizational strategy and
performance management in the digital era.
Keywords: Balanced Scorecard, stakeholder management, organizational strategy, performance
management, organizational performance, corporate communication.
1
1. Introduction
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) has become one of the most popular performance
measurement and strategic management tools (Guenther & Heinicke, 2019; Hansen &
Schaltegger 2016). It is often portrayed as a management tool to describe, communicate and
implement strategy (Kaplan, 2012). Thus, the BSC has practical relevance for the organizational
decision making. The move towards a digital culture is revolutionizing decision-making
processes by altering the way in which knowledge is gained and actions are undertaken
(Quattrone, 2016). The use of business analytics to gain insight and make better business
decisions is rapidly becoming a mainstream business practice (Cokins, 2013; Martins, Silva &
Fontes, 2019; Rikhardssona & Yigitbasioglub, 2018). Regarding this mainstream, big data is
widely regarded as the next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity (Gamage 2016;
Manyika et al., 2011). In particular, big data analysis can facilitate the discovery of important
measures to be incorporated in BSCs (Warren, Moffitt & Byrnes, 2015).
Many leading companies began to adopt the BSC approach when they ascertained that it
permitted them to improve their performance by increasing their organizations’ goals and global
objectives (Quesado, Guzmán & Rodrigues, 2018). The method that was advocated for
implementing the BSC was top-down (i.e., from the strategic level to the operational levels)
(Norreklit, Jacobsene & Mitchell, 2008). Therefore, the communication and comprehension of
the BSC framework may prove to be a difficult task to undertake due to its complexity (Lueg &
Julner 2014). According to Carmona, Iyer and Reckers (2011, p.67), the communication of “a
good strategy is usually given less attention than the creation of that strategy and yet without
good communications effective execution of the strategy is impossible”. There is a generic
agreement that communication effectiveness has been one of the leading indicators of an
organization’s business performance (Meng & Pan 2012). Previous research reported that one of
the main reasons behind the failure in the implementation of strategies is usually attributed to the
2
top managers’ poor communications strategies (Cokins, 2017; Lueg & Julner 2014; Scholey,
2005). The ability of these human actors to communicate in an effective manner may be itself a
source of competitive advantage or disadvantage (Malina & Selto, 2001).
The proponents of the BSC approach argue that it can also be an instrument that can bring
cultural and strategic change by effectively creating and communicating a credible vision and
method towards achieving change (Camilleri, 2020; Kaplan, Davenport & Robert, 2001; Malina
& Selto, 2001). However, despite the growth in the use of the BSC, managers may still lack the
skills to utilize this management tool (e.g., Alsharari, Eid & Assiri, 2019; Dimitropoulos,
Kosmas & Douvis, 2017). In this vein, this chapter clarifies the implementation of the BSC
framework as it can assist managers in their corporate communication of their organizational
strategy to all stakeholders.
Broadly, this contribution adds to the richness of the debate regarding the BSC approach.
It is useful for both academics and managers as it fills a gap in the literature appertaining to
corporate communication, strategic management and performance management in the “digital
era”. This chapter is also a useful teaching resource for course instructors and can be used during
continuous professional training and development programs that are aimed at novice managers.
2. Balanced Scorecard - leveraging strategic management
Barney and Clark (1991) held that organizations can achieve competitive advantage when
they can create more economic value than their competitors. In an increasingly digital world,
they can develop tangible skills and resources, but also intangible resources such as relationships
between partners, learning processes and experiences. Intangible assets can also promote
competitive advantage (García-Valderrama, Mulero-Mendigorri & Revuelta-Bordoy, 2008;
Kaplan & Norton, 2000).
3
It is known that value creation is implicitly related to an organization’s mission, goals,
and its internal and external intentions (Li, Eden, Hitt & Ireland, 2008). An organizational
mission characterizes the business and supports strategic principles. Furthermore, strategic
principles and organizational targets are based on the organizational mission and vision (Daily,
Certo & Dalton, 2005). However, to enable these links to be strategically functional, it is essential
that the managers are able to distinguish between the vision and mission.
Mission is known as having a more specific character. Therefore, managers define the
mission in order to guide them towards achieving their strategic targets. Furthermore, the
strategies and their goals assist them in their daily operations, for instance, in the concentration
of efforts, in resource allocation, definition of responsibilities and competencies, et cetera
(Campbell, Datar, Kulp & Narayanan, 2008; Daily et al., 2005; Farokhi & Roghanian, 2018).
The vision identifies where the organization intends to be in the future (Harrison, Hitt,
Hoskisson & Ireland, 2001). In this sense, the vision guides the mission, the individual targets
and, ultimately, the whole organizational strategy to be implemented. Consequently, once the
mission, vision and values have been defined, the organizations will be in a position to map the
processes to be performed; thus, bringing all processes together into a strategic map. Managers
should strike a balance between job specialization and business diversification, as this integration
symbolizes a major strategic challenge (Green, Covin & Slevin, 2008). Bearing in mind the
relevance of strategic mapping, Table 1 provides an example of strategic management processes.
4
Table 1. The organizations’ strategic management processes
5
A strategic organization shows, on the one hand, the willingness to create value for its
shareholders and, on the other hand, it is concerned on its customers and the community (Kaplan
& Norton, 2004a). Kaplan, Norton and Barrows Jr. (2008) reinforce that the primary concern of
an organization should not only involve meeting the budgets or objectives, but also on
implementing the strategy, and furthermore to evaluate the measures that enable strategic growth.
Hence, a competitive strategy consists of a set of activities that offer unique and differentiating
value (Porter, 1980).
Although there is not one universally accepted definition of a business strategy, most
definitions possess some common traits. As far back as Chandler (1962) to more recent times
(e.g., Daily et al., 2005) this notion was often described as a process or a plan (e.g., Mintzberg,
1991). Therefore, the business strategies are aimed to achieve pre-defined goals. Various
researchers have relied on different approaches in terms of how that process is defined and
driven. Whilst Porter (1980) maintained that the organizations ought to take into account the
competitive forces in the marketing environment. He argued that they can create value through
either differentiation or cost leadership approaches. Others, like Drucker (1999) stressed that it
is important for organizations to use their resources, capabilities and competences to seize
opportunities. Martin and Bartol (1998) claimed that organizations need to take into account
both the internal and external realities of the firm before establishing goals and objectives. There
are various theoretical underpinnings that have provided different definitions for these terms
(e.g., Ireland, Hoskisson & Hitt, 2008; Martin & Bartol, 1998).
Chandler (1962) suggested that organizations can create value by sustaining a
competitive advantage in the long term. Others, like Porter (1980) have included the financial
measures to evaluate the successful execution of their strategic objectives like improving
organizational performance (e.g., Return on Investment). More recently, Porter and Kramer
(2011) have introduced the concept of creating shared value. This proposition is a paradigm shift.
6
The authors suggest that the organizations should not just focus on financial and economic value
creation. They argued that organizations are also expected to consider social change. This way,
they will be in a position to create shared value for their business as well as for society (Camilleri,
2017). Therefore, they may use the balanced score card (BSC) approach to improve their
organizational performance.
2.1 The Balanced Scorecard
Bearing in mind the relevance of guiding managers in adapting to paradigm shifts, the
BSC is a tool that supports managers in the implementation of their strategy and in the evaluation
of their performance. It allows them to be more assertive in their actions. Therefore, the BSC
framework can be used to enhance the organizational performance of organizations (Bourne &
Neely, 2003; Kaplan & Norton, 2004b). The businesses’ greater focus on their strategy may
enable them to also trigger changes in their organizational culture (Kaplan & Norton, 1996c;
Kaplan & Norton, 2001b), but the reverse may also occur (Carmona et al., 2011).
The organizations’ strategies are never static. Therefore, the organizations must
constantly adjust their strategies and plans based on external opportunities and threats (Cokins,
2017). A correct strategic planning allows them to anticipate constant changes of the
environment and to predict the contingent movements of competitors (Montgomery, 2008).
Dyson (2000) and Mintzberg (1990), among other authors, argued that strategy implementation
is important in strategic planning. Although it is recognized that the strategy implementation
phase is a key step, it is often overlooked, and this could jeopardize the success of the strategy
(Alexander, 1985; Cândido, 2015; Kaplan, Norton & Ansari, 2010). The Kaplan & Norton,
2004b; Mankins & Steele, 2005; Sterling, 2003). Hence, the strategies are meant to align all
aspects of the organization in a comprehensive manner (Hamid Hawass, 2010; López-Ospina,
Quezada, Barros-Castro, Gonzalez & Palominos, 2017).
7
Various businesses are using the BSC and its four perspectives to monitor their
organizational performance (Kaplan, 2009; Kaplan & Norton, 1996a; López-Ospina et al., 2017;
Bostan, Bîrcă, Tabără & Muntean Jemna, 2019). Its perspectives include the financial; customer;
internal/process; and learning and growth. The financial perspective is focused on measuring the
economic and financial situation of the organization. Its metrics include revenue, profitability,
financial solvency, et cetera. This perspective has an effect on the other three perspectives
(Kaplan & Norton, 1996b). The customer perspective is customer-focused. Its measures are used
to evaluate the degree of customer satisfaction. Its metrics can include indicators such as
compliance with the delivery time, the quality level of products (goods or services), or customer
satisfaction with the agreed price, among others (Kaplan & Norton, 1996b). The main objective
of this perspective is to ensure that the customers are satisfied with the businesses’ products and
services. This will encourage their loyal behaviors (García-Valderrama et al., 2008).
The internal perspective focuses on the analysis of the operational processes that are
intended to create value in the short and long-term. This perspective is related to the
organizations’ productivity and efficiency (Kaplan & Norton, 1996b). It is of particular relevance
as it influences the whole organization, namely the customer value creation, including customer
satisfaction and retention (García-Valderrama et al., 2008). Finally, the organizational learning
and growth perspective focuses on the employees’ ongoing training and development. Therefore,
this perspective is focused on identifying the human resources’ training requirements in order to
develop their competences and capabilities to foster new product development (Kaplan &
Norton, 1996b). The learning and growth perspective is particularly relevant for those
organizations that are focused on enhancing their employees’ knowledge and intellectual capital
(Bratianu, 2018; Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2019).
The businesses ought to strive for excellence through continuous improvements in their
organizational performance. They can do so by regularly analyzing their performance through
8
BSC’s four perspectives. The BSC approach allows them to control their organizational
performance and to check for deviations in the implementation of strategies. As a result, they
can make corrective actions and revise their plans. Therefore, strategic planning is related to the
concepts of organizational learning, improvement and adaptation (Kaplan, 2010). Relevant
academic research has indicated that organizations that have successfully implemented the
BSC’s framework and have assessed strategy and operations through its four perspectives, have
registered significant improvements in their performance (Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2019; Kaplan,
2010).
2.2 Balanced Scorecard - aligning the stakeholders’ objectives
Kaplan and Norton have extended and broadened the BSC concept into a strategic
management tool as they explained their performance management framework (Hoque 2014;
Kaplan, 2009, 2012). The typical BSC comprises both financial and non-financial perspectives.
Some of them have short-term and/or long-term, qualitative and/or quantitative measures
(Kaplan & Norton 1992, 1996a; Hansen & Schaltegger 2016; Carmona et al., 2011). The BSC’s
perspectives present a set of strategic objectives, which ultimately lead to financial success
through cause-and effect chains (Hansen & Schaltegger 2016).
Considering the cause and effect linkages, the BSC approach can support the
organizations’ corporate strategy at all levels. The managers can use the BSC’s framework to
plan, organize, monitor and control their business. This performance management tool is distinct
from the traditional ones, as it comprises four perspectives (Chavan, 2009). The BSC’s strategic
map links different aspects of the organization including employees, processes, customers and
financial performance (Kaplan & Norton, 1996b). Consequently, the organizational objectives
and targets are linked with the key performance indicators (Kaplan, 2009). Thus, the businesses
will be in a good position to identify their objectives, implement them, and measure their
effectiveness (Hu, Leopold-Wildburger & Strohhecker, 2017; Tayler,
9
2010). The BSC
management tool evaluates the organizational strategy. Its key performance indicators are
aligned with the BSC’s four perspectives (Kaplan, 2009). Kaplan and Norton (1992) held that it
is important for organizations to have clear performance indicators to rigorously measure their
performance (Long & Vansant, 2015). In sum, managers need to define their organizational
purpose, objectives and plan appropriate courses of action to implement their strategy.
Afterwards, the businesses can use the BSC’s indicators to measure whether their organizational
strategy and its implementation was successful or not (Kaplan, 2009).
The organizations’ managers roles are to monitor the performance of their business. They
may use BSC’s indicators as a guideline to analyze the customer, operational, organizational
innovation and learning as well as the financial performance (Long & Vansant, 2015). They can
rely on the BSC’s approach to make decisions, aggregate information and knowledge based on
the strategic guidelines, objectives and key performance indicators (KPI). The use of the BSC’s
performance indicators can support organizations to measure the successful execution of their
plans (Chan, 2004; Greatbanks & Tapp, 2007; Hubbard, 2009; Mooraj, Oyon & Hostettler,
1999). Warren et al. (2015) claimed that BSC’s measures may also provide important data on
the consumers’ transactions with the organizations, including phone calls, emails, sensor
recordings, internet activities and social media (Zhang, Yang, and Appelbaum, 2015).
Traditionally, the consumer performance has been captured by using structured data (Richins,
Stapleton, Stratopoulos & Wong, 2017). However, big data and analytics are increasingly
offering companies more opportunities to generate value (Camilleri, 2019; Schneider, Dai,
Janvrin, Ajayi & Raschke, 2015).
Firms can analyze structured and unstructured data to identify those areas that require
further improvement (Richins et al., 2017). The big data can reveal insightful information and
can help organizations to improve their performance (Richins et al., 2017). For example,
companies can incorporate data that is not usually included in their analyses, such as website
10
traffic. Some technology solutions are able to look into sales revenues and to link them to
particular salespersons, or to track online users, or to optimize workforce allocation, et cetera
(Richins et al., 2017). Warren et al. (2015, p, 400) claims that advanced analytics can reveal more
useful data from each area of the BSC’s dimensions. It can shed more light on the organizations’
operations. For example, the use of the digital technologies may support organizational learning
and growth goals. The organizational communications can enhance internal business processes
as well as the delivery of service quality to the businesses’ customers.
Carmona et al. (2011, p.67) argued that “communication must be more than accurate, it
must be persuasive. The strategic communications can help to improve the organizational
learning and performance (Angwin, Cummings & Daellenbach, 2019). The management and
employees must clearly understand their roles within the organization. Therefore, the BSC’s
strategy mapping has the potential to increase persuasive corporate communications (Carmona
et al., 2011; Kaplan & Norton,1996b). In this perspective, strategy formulation and
communication are top down while the actual implementation of strategy is bottom-up (Kaplan
2012).
Arguably, in reality, it may prove difficult to communicate the competitive strategy to all
employees (Atkinson, 2006; Fuller & Rothaermel, 2012). The corporate strategy has to be clearly
communicated and explained within the organization (Kaplan, 2010). Notwithstanding, there
may be successive changes that will have to be made to the extant strategies. Hence, the BSC’s
four perspectives and their measures will have to be adapted to respond to the changes in the
competitive market environment and/or to technological innovations (Kaplan & Norton, 1996c).
The financial indicators measure organizational performance. However, the financial
results are related to other indicators such as customers, processes and employees (Andjelkovic
& Dahlgaard, 2013; Chavan, 2009). Whilst the financial indicators are backward looking as they
11
measure the organizations’ past actions, other indicators of the remaining three perspectives are
measuring the extant organizational performance (Camilleri, 2020; Fijałkowska & Oliveira,
2018; Johnson, Reckers & Bartlett, 2014). Hence, there are causal links among the BSC’s four
perspectives. This causal link suggests that the BSC is an integrated management tool as it
examines the entire organization’s performance (Kaplan & Norton, 1996a). However, there are
certain parameters that are not completely registered within the financial results, such as
intangible issues like the provision of high-quality customer services, intellectual capital, human
resources’ skills, dedication, commitment, et cetera (Chavan, 2009; Oliveira, Pinho & Silva,
2018). However, Malina and Selto (2001) reported that some BSCs do not have an explicit causal
link between indicators and organizational strategy. These authors argued that the BSC has to be
correctly parameterized to identify who is responsible to implement tasks within the
organization. Other authors suggested that the BSC sheds light on the identification of
inappropriate strategic decisions and can enhance the feedback from managers (Al-Omari et al.,
2020). The managers may rely on the key performance indicators, “as the BSC’s dashboards
become like a laboratory to truly optimize size and complexity” (Cokins, 2013, p.72).
It may be difficult to achieve a sustained performance especially during turbulent times
(Rogers & Wright, 1998; Appelbaum & Reichart, 1998). In this vein, managers should compare
their organizational performance with other businesses. Through benchmarking, they will get
know whether their organizational performance is better or worse than their competitors (Hitt,
1996).
2.3 Balanced Scorecard for corporate communications
The provision of organizational information and communication can influence the
businesses’ decision-making processes. The relevant information about the company’s financial
and nonfinancial performance is the basis for successful performance management (Harris &
12
Mongiello, 2001). In a similar vein, the BSC’s four dimensions require information on the
organizations’ performance (Quesado & Rodrigues, 2009).
Therefore, there is scope for the organizations to communicate their strategies that will
impact their consumers, employees, processes and financial performance to the management and
their employees, to increase their convergence of efforts to attain their objectives. Furthermore,
organizational leaders may rely on BSC’s four perspectives as they reflect their firm’s vision and
strategies (Quesado et al., 2018). Senge (1990) stressed that the organizations need to
continuously adapt to change. Their adaptation implies incorporating a high capacity for
organizational learning and communication in order to ensure competitiveness and sustained
performance. Consequently, organizational communication and liaison among employees would
lead to achieving the desired strategies (Appelbaum & Reichart, 1998; Kaplan & Norton, 1996c).
With the implementation of BSC, organizations can provide more transparent information to
their management and employees, whilst enhancing their extant relationships with stakeholders.
Organizations must take into account not only BSC’s measuring instruments and monitor
its four perspectives, but it is imperative that they disseminate information across the entire
organization. It is important that the organizational vision is defined by the managers (Kaplan,
2009). In this kind of alignment, the organizational communication comes from the higher
echelons of the company in order to align the strategy into the employees’ daily goals (Kaplan,
2001). The communication of the corporate strategy to the employees is critical as it guides their
behavior and drives organizational performance (Spear & Roper, 2016). In the past, managers
claimed that it was impossible to measure the impact of communication on their organization
because of its intangible nature (Ritter, 2003). Yet, the BSC’s causal links between its four
perspectives could foster an increased engagement among stakeholders. It is precisely in this
sense that the BSC has become increasingly relevant, as it facilitates corporate communication
within the organization (Ritter, 2003). For this reason, BSC approach has often been employed
13
by various managers as its holistic measures cover all aspects of the organization. However, the
BSC’s implementation relies on the following:
•
Communicating the vision and mission
•
Setting strategic plans, goals and objectives
•
Evaluate different strategies to achieve the mentioned objectives
•
Choose the best strategies and courses of action
•
Identify the critical success factors
•
Measure actual results and compare with the plan
•
Respond to divergences from plan.
The strategic planning of organizations involves ongoing communications with different
stakeholders and the continuous dissemination of relevant information. The organizational
leaders are expected to use their available resources, competences and capabilities to align their
strategies with operations. When the employees are well aware about their organizations’
strategies, the managers should dedicate themselves to continuous audits, in order to confirm that
their employees are knowledgeable about their vision, mission, strategic objectives and values.
Feedback programs are crucial because they allow organizations to set measurable goals and
achieve them, or to set alternative courses of actions if necessary (Ritter, 2003).
3
Conclusion
Many businesses are experiencing turbulent times that are characterized by increased
volatility, uncertainty and by the impact of the digital technologies on their organizational
strategies and operations (Cokins, 2017). Bearing in mind that there is such a turbulent
environment, several organizations are already embracing the digital revolution as they are using
14
big data and analytics to improve their decision-making processes (Quattrone, 2016). They make
use of business intelligence and analytical tools as they map their strategy to improve their
performance (Rikhardssona & Yigitbasioglub, 2018; Cokins, 2013, 2017). Hence, the businesses
intelligence can be used in conjunction with the BSC. The data driven technologies can provide
the right mechanism to refine the organizations’ performance management systems across
BSC’s four perspectives (Cokins, 2017; Chopra & Gupta, 2019). However, there are
organizations that are still not well acquainted with the use of big data and analytics
(Rikhardssona & Yigitbasioglub, 2018). These technologies present challenges as well as
opportunities for decision-making processes. For instance, Quattrone (2016, p.120) argued that
big data will make people “take wrong decisions much more quickly than before”.
In conclusion, this contribution reported that the BSC is a performance management tool
that enables organizations to use the existing resources and capabilities, including data crunching
competences that are intended to create long-term value. Moreover, the BSC’s framework can
assist organizations to implement their strategies (Kaplan & Norton, 2008) after they are properly
communicated and accepted by managers as well as employees (Carmona et al., 2011). The
relevant literature suggests that the organizations’ top management need to communicate the
corporate vision and strategy to everyone within their organization. At the same time, they should
incentivize their employees towards achieving the performance targets of their organization
(Carmona et al., 2011; Kaplan & Norton, 2006).
In this light, this chapter sheds light on how the BSC’s framework can support
organizations to communicate their strategy among stakeholders. This research addresses the
existing gap in the literature by detailing how the BSC assists managers in their organizational
communications. Future research can explore the relationship between corporate communication
and the implementation of those strategies that maximize organizational performance (Carmona
15
et al., 2011; Hoque, 2014). Further research is required to shed more light on the managers’
understanding on the link between organizational communication and performance management.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the reviewers who have provided constructive remarks and suggestions.
References
Al-Omari, Z. S., Alomari, K. A. A. & Aljawarneh, N. M. (2020). The role of empowerment in
improving internal process, customer satisfaction, learning and growth. Management Science
Letters, 10(4), 841–848. https://doi.org/10.5267 /j.msl.2019.10.013
Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: a role for the balanced scorecard? Management
Decision, 44(10), 1441–1460. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00251740610715740
Alexander, L. D. (1985). Successfully implementing strategic decisions. Long Range Planning,
18(3), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(85)90161-X
Alsharari, N. M., Eid, R. & Assiri, A. (2019). Institutional contradiction and BSC
implementation: comparative organizational analysis. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis. 27 (3), 414-440
Andjelkovic Pesic, M. & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2013). Using the Balanced Scorecard and the
European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence model as a combined roadmap for
diagnosing and attaining excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(56), 652-663.
Angwin, D. N., Cummings, S. & Daellenbach, U. (2019). How the Multimedia
Communication of Strategy Can Enable More Effective Recall and Learning. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 18(4), 527-546.
Appelbaum, S. & Reichart, W. (1998). How to measure an organization’s learning ability: the
facilitating factors-part II. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(1), 15–28.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13665629810370012
Barney, J. B. & Clark, D. N. (1991). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining
competitive advantage. Long Range Planning, 3(24), 32–39.
Bostan, I., Bîrcă, A., Tabără, N. & Muntean Jemna, L. (2019). Analysis of the Relationships
between Sustainable Management Control and Performance Appraisal System. Postmodern
Openings/Deschideri Postmoderne, 10(4).
16
Bourne, M. & Neely, A. (2003). Implementing performance measurement systems : a literature
review John Mills and Ken Platts. Business Performance Management, 5(1), 1–24.
Bratianu, C. (2018). Intellectual capital research and practice: 7 myths and one golden rule.
Management and Marketing, 13(2), 859–879. https://doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2018-0010
Bratianu, C. & Bejinaru, R. (2019). The Theory of Knowledge Fields: A Thermodynamics
Approach. Systems, 7(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7020020
Camilleri, M. A. (2017). Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating value for
business, society and the environment. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social
Responsibility, 2(1), 59-74. https://ajssr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41180-017-0016-5
Camilleri, M.A. (2018). Travel Marketing, Tourism Economics and the Airline Product: An
Introduction to Theory and Practice. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-319-498492 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319498485#aboutBook
Camilleri, MA (2019). The Use of Data Driven Technologies in Tourism Marketing. In Ratten,
V., Alvarez-Garcia, J. and De l Cruz Del Rio-Rama, M., Entrepreneurship, Innovation and
Inequality: Exploring Territorial Dynamics and Development, 1st Edition, Routledge, Oxford,
UK. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3412897
Camilleri, M.A. (2020). Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in
higher education. Management in Education.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3567699
Campbell, D., Datar, S. M., Kulp, S. L. & Narayanan, V. G. (2008). Testing strategy with
multiple performance measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard at Store24. Scientific
document, 08-081. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Cândido, C. (2015). Strategy implementation : What is the failure rate ? Strategy
implementation: What is the failure rate ? Journal of Management & Organization, 21(2), 237–
262.
Carmona, S., Iyer, G. & Reckers, P. M. (2011). The impact of strategy communications,
incentives and national culture on balanced scorecard implementation. Advances in
Accounting, 27(1), 62-74.
Chan, Y. L. (2004). Performance Measurement and adoption of balanced scorecards: A survey
of municipal governments in the USA and Canada. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 17(3), 204–221.
Chandler, A. D. & Chandler Jr, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: chapters in the History of
the Industrial Enterprise.
Chavan, M. (2009). The balanced Scorecard: a new challenge. Journal of Management
Development, 28(5), 393–406.
Chopra, M. & Gupta, V. (2019). Linking knowledge management practices to organizational
performance using the balanced scorecard approach. Kybernetes, 49(1), 88–115.
https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2019-0295
Cokins, G. (2013). Driving Acceptance and Adoption of Business Analytics. Journal of
Corporate Accounting & Finance, 24(2), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.21831
17
Cokins, G. (2017). Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) and the Digital Revolution.
Performance Improvement, 56(4), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pfi.21698
Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T. & Dalton, D. R. (2005). Investment bankers and IPO pricing: Does
prospectus information matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 93–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.10.003
Dimitropoulos, P., Kosmas, I. & Douvis, I. (2017). Implementing the balanced scorecard in a
local government sport organization. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management. 66 (3), 362-379
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-Worker Productivity. California Management Review,
41(2), 79–94.
Dyson, R. G. (2000). Strategy, performance and operational research. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 51(1), 5–11.
Gamage, P. (2016). Big Data: are accounting educators ready?. Journal of Accounting and
Management Information Systems, 15(3), 588-604.
Farokhi, S. & Roghanian, E. (2018). Determining quantitative targets for performance
measures in the balanced scorecard method using response surface methodology. Management
Decision, 56 (9), 2006-2037
Fijałkowska, J. & Oliveira, C. (2018). Balanced Scorecard in Universities. Journal of
Intercultural Management, 10(4), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.2478/joim-2018-0025
Fuller, A. W. & Rothaermel, F. T. (2012). When stars shine: The effects of faculty founders on
new technology ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 220-235.
García-Valderrama, T., Mulero-Mendigorri, E. & Revuelta-Bordoy, D. (2008). A Balanced
Scorecard framework for R&D. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(2), 241–281.
Guenther, T. W. & Heinicke, A. (2019). Relationships among types of use, levels of
sophistication, and organizational outcomes of performance measurement systems: The crucial
role of design choices. Management Accounting Research, 42, 1-25.
Greatbanks, R. & Tapp, D. (2007). The impact of balanced scorecards in a public sector
environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(8), 846–873.
Green, K. M., Covin, J. G. & Slevin, D. P. (2008). Exploring the relationship between strategic
reactiveness and entrepreneurial orientation: The role of structure-style fit. Journal of Business
Venturing, 23(3), 356–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusvent.2007.01.002
Hamid Hawass, H. (2010). Exploring the determinants of the reconfiguration capability: a
dynamic capability perspective. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 409–438.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011086276
Hansen, E. G. & Schaltegger, S. (2016). The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic
review of architectures. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 193-221.
Harris, P. J. & Mongiello, M. (2001). Key performance indicators in European hotel properties:
general managers’ choices and company profiles. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 13(3), 120-128.
18
Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (2001). Resource
complementarity in business combinations: Extending the logic to organizational
alliances. Journal of Management, 27(6), 679-690.
Hitt, W. D. (1996). The learning organization: some reflections on organizational renewal. The
Journal of Workplace Learning, 8(7), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13665629610149065
Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: trends, accomplishments, gaps
and opportunities for future research. The British accounting review, 46(1), 33-59.
Hu, B., Leopold-Wildburger, U. & Strohhecker, J. (2017). Strategy Map Concepts in a
Balanced Scorecard Cockpit Improve Performance. European Journal of Operational Research,
0, 664–676. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.09.026
Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(December 2006), 177–191. https://doi.org/Doi
10.1002/Bse.564
Ireland, R. D., Hoskisson, R. & Hitt, M. (2008). Understanding business strategy: Concepts
and cases. Nelson Education.
Johnson, E. N., Reckers, P. M. J. & Bartlett, G. D. (2014). Influences of Timeline and
Perceived Strategy Effectiveness on Balanced Scorecard Performance Evaluation Judgments.
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar50639
Kaplan, R. S. (2001). Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Nonprofit
Organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3), 354.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.11308
Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P., & Ansari, S. (2010). The execution Premium: linking strategy to
operations for competitive advantage. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1475-1477.
Kaplan, R. S. (2009). Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. In C. S. Chapman, A.
G. Hopwood & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research (Vol. 3;
pp. 1253–1269). Oxford: Elsevier
Kaplan, R. S. (2010). Leading Change with the Strategy Execution System. Harvard Business
Publishing, 12(6), 1–16.
Kaplan, R. S. (2012). The balanced scorecard: comments on balanced scorecard commentaries.
Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 8(4), 539–545
Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. . & Barrows Jr., E. (2008). Developing the Strategy : Vision , Value
Gaps , and Analysis. Harvard Business Publishing, 10(1), 1–5.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, 70,71–79.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996a). Knowing the score. Financial Executive, 6(December),
30–33.
19
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996b). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into
Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996c). Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic
Management System. Harvard Business Review, 74(January-February), 75–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0840-4704(10)60668-0
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having Trouble With Your Strategy. Harvard Business
Review, 5, 167–176.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2001a). The Strategy- Focused Organization. Strategy and
Leadership, 29(3), 41–42.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2001b). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance
measurement to strategic management: Part 1. Accounting Horizons, March, 87–104.
Kaplan, R. S., Davenport, T. H., Robert (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How
balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business Press.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2004a). Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assets.
Harvard Business Review, (Feb), 52–63.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2004b). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into
Tangible Outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2006). Alignment: Using balanced scorecard to create corporate
synergies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2008). The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations
for Competitive Advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Kramer, M. R. & Porter, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2),
62-77.
Li, D., Eden, L., Hitt, M. A. & Ireland, R. D. (2008). Friends, acquaintances, or strangers?
Partner selection in R&D alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 315–334.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
Long, J. H. & Vansant, B. (2015). The Effects of Firm-Provided Measure Weightings on
Evaluators’ Incorporation of Non-Contractible Information. Journal of Management
Accounting Research, 27(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50837
López-Ospina, H., Quezada, L.E., Barros-Castro, R.A., Gonzalez, M.A. & Palominos, P.I.
(2017). A method for designing strategy maps using DEMATEL and linear programming.
Management Decision, 55(8), 1802-1823.
Lueg, R. & Julner, P. (2014). How are strategy maps linked to strategic and organizational
change? A review of the empirical literature on the balanced scorecard. A Review of the
Empirical Literature on the Balanced Scorecard (July 6, 2014). Corporate Ownership &
Control, 11(4), 439-446.
Malina, M. A. & Selto, F. H. (2001). Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical
study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of management accounting
research, 13(1), 47-90.
20
Mankins, M. C. & Steele, R. (2005). Turning great strategy into great performance. Harvard
Business Review, 121-132.
http://www.academia.edu/download/32967977/HarvardBusStrategy.pdf#page=123 Manyika,
J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C. & Byers, A. H. (2011). Big data:
The next frontier for innovation, competition. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global Institute.
Martin, D. C. & Bartol, K. M. (1998). Performance appraisal: Maintaining system
effectiveness. Public Personnel Management, 27(2), 223–230.
Martins, A., Silva, A. P. & Fontes, A. (2019). A paradigm shift in Accounting and Auditing in
the era of Big Data. In Melo, P.N. & Machado, C. (Eds.), Business Intelligence and Analytics
in Small and Medium Enterprises (pp. 37-52).1st edition, Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis
Group. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429056482
Meng, J. & Pan, P. L. (2012). Using a balanced set of measures to focus on long-term
competency in internal communication. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 484-490.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). The Design School: Reconsidering the Basis Premises of Strategic
Management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171–195.
Mintzberg, H. (1991). Learning 1, planning 0 reply to Igor Ansoff. Strategic Management
Journal, 12(6), 463–466.
Montgomery, C. A. (2008). Putting leadership back into strategy. Havard Business Review,
86(1), 54–60.
Mooraj, S., Oyon, D. & Hostettler, D. (1999). The balanced scorecard: a necessary good or an
unnecessary evil? European Management Journal, 17(5), 481–491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00034-1
Nørreklit, H. (2003). The Balanced Scorecard: What is the score? A rhetorical analysis of the
Balanced Scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(6), 591–619.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00097-1
Norreklit, H., Jacobsen, M. & Mitchell, F. (2008). Pitfalls in using the balanced scorecard.
Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 19(6), 65–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jcaf.20436
Oliveira, C., Pinho, J., Silva, A. (2018). The relevance of learning and growth in organizations
that adopt and do not adopt the BSC- Characterization of the cultural profile. Revista
Eletrônica Gestão & Sociedade, 12(33), 2584–2602.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and companies.
New York. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250020110
Quattrone, P. (2016). Management accounting goes digital: Will the move make it wiser?.
Management Accounting Research, 31, 118-122.
Quesado, P. R. & Rodrigues, L. L. (2009). Factores Determinantes na Implementação do
Balanced Scorecard em Portugal. Revista Universo Contábil, 5(4), 135–146.
https://doi.org/10.4270/ruc.2009433
21
Quesado, P., Guzmán, B. A. & Rodrigues, L. L. (2018). Advantages and contributions in the
balanced scorecard implementation. Intangible Capital, 14(1), 186–201.
https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1110
Richins, G., Stapleton, A., Stratopoulos, T. C. & Wong, C. (2017). Big data analytics:
opportunity or threat for the accounting profession?. Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 6379.
Rikhardsson, P. & Yigitbasioglu, O. (2018). Business intelligence & analytics in management
accounting research: Status and future focus. International Journal of Accounting Information
Systems, 29, 37-58.
Ritter, M. (2003). The use of balanced scorecards in the strategic management of corporate
communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(1), 44-59.
Rogers, E. W. & Wright, P. M. (1998). Measuring organizational performance in strategic
human resource management: Problems, prospects and performance information markets.
Human resource management review, 8(3), 311-331.
Schneider, G. P., Dai, J., Janvrin, D. J., Ajayi, K. & Raschke, R. L. (2015). Infer, predict, and
assure: Accounting opportunities in data analytics. Accounting Horizons, 29(3), 719-742.
Scholey, C. (2005). Strategy maps: a step-by-step guide to measuring, managing and
communicating the plan. Journal of Business Strategy, 26(3), 12-19.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organization. Sloan
Management Review, 23, 1–17.
Spear, S. & Roper, S. (2016). Storytelling in organisations: supporting or subverting corporate
strategy? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 21(4), 516-532.
Sterling, J. (2003). Translating strategy into effective implementation: dispelling the myths and
highlighting what works. Strategy & Leadership, 31(3), 27–34.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570310472737
Tayler, W. B. (2010). The balanced scorecard as a strategy-evaluation tool: The effects of
implementation involvement and a causal-chain focus. Accounting Review, 85(3), 1095–1117.
https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.3.1095
Warren Jr, J. D., Moffitt, K. C. & Byrnes, P. (2015). How Big Data will change accounting.
Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 397-407.
Zhang, J., Yang, X. & Appelbaum, D. (2015). Toward effective Big Data analysis in
continuous auditing. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 469-476.
22