The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ
15,4

Balanced score for the balanced

scorecard: a benchmarking tool

420

Faculty of Production and Operations and Finance,

Department of Management Studies, National Institute of Technology,
Tiruchirappalli, India, and

M. Punniyamoorthy

R. Murali
Faculty of Human Resources and Finance, Department of Management Studies,
National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to create a model called Balanced score for the balanced
score card and to provide an objective benchmarking indicator for evaluating the achievement of the
strategic goals of the company.
Design/methodology/approach The paper uses the concepts of Balanced scorecard proposed
by Robert. S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. This paper also adopts the model given by Brown P.A. and
Gibson D.F. and the extension to the model provided by P.V. Raghavan and M. Punniyamoorthy.
Preference theory is used to calculate the relative weightage for each factor, using the process of pair
wise comparison. The balanced score for balanced scorecard provides a single value by taking into
account all the essential objective and subjective factors be it financial or non-financial. It also
provides a suitable weightages for those parameters. The target performance and the actual
performance are compared and the analysis is made.
Findings Information from a leading organization was obtained and the balanced score for a
balance scorecard was calculated for that organization. The variations were analyzed through this
model. The depth and objectivity in the analysis is highlighted.
Research limitations/implications This provides a single bench marking measure to evaluate
how far the firm had been successful in achieving the strategies. The paper has adopted the preference
theory which limits the weightage to be accorded to the factors concerned. However, further
refinement can be provided by the usage of analytic hierarchy process for arriving suitable
weightages.
Practical implications The organization can calculate the balanced score by themselves, by
assigning appropriate importance to the activities as they deem fit. It is a tailor made benchmarking
information system created by the firm for itself.
Originality/value This is of value to the top management to identify the important activities and
setting suitable target measures to be achieved in those activities. The variations are arrived by
comparing the targeted performance with the actual. This will help the firm to take suitable actions
under those parameters where there are significant deviations.
Keywords Balanced scorecard, Benchmarking, Corporate strategy, Analytical hierarchy process
Paper type Research paper

Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Vol. 15 No. 4, 2008
pp. 420-443
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/14635770810887230

Introduction
Businesses houses are continuously striving to be successful amidst the increasingly
competitive and constantly changing environments. To achieve that, they must be
willing to adopt any processes and accept any benchmarking standards which would
help them in not only doing things right but also in doing the right thing.

The bench mark so accepted should be a:

.
reference or measurement standard for comparison;
.
performance measurement that is the standard of excellence for a specific
business; and
.
measurable, best-in-class achievement (On what is a benchmark?, available at:
http://retailindustry.about.com/library/terms/b/bld_benchmark.htm).
Competition has become so intense that managers do have less time to respond to
market situation. Efficiency in operations and profitability are the key words in driving
the organizations today to remain competitive. The rapid technological developments
and improvements in communication have forced the manager to deal with a large
quantum of data and arrive at the decision, which would produce results comparable to
the market standards. This makes the process little too complex. What they perhaps
need is some benchmarking indicators to process the data objectively and to come to a
conclusion not only correctly but also quickly.
It is observed:
Benchmarking is a process used in management and particularly strategic management, in
which organizations evaluate various aspects of their processes in relation to best practice,
usually within their own sector. This then allows organizations to develop plans on how to
adopt such best practice, usually with the aim of increasing some aspect of performance.
Benchmarking may be a one-off event, but is often treated as a continuous process in which
organizations continually seek to challenge their practices. Benchmarking opens
organizations to new methods, ideas and tools to improve their effectiveness. It helps crack
through resistance to change by demonstrating other methods of solving problems than the
one currently employed, and demonstrating that they work (On best process of
benchmarking, available at: www.managementupdate.info/benchmarking.htm).

Therefore, through this paper, we have devised a process of calculating a suitable

bench mark figure called Balanced score through which the achievements of the
performance in the implementation of the strategy by the firm can be evaluated.
The paper uses the concepts of Balanced scorecard proposed by Kaplan and
Norton (1992a); and the model adopted by Brown and Gibson (1972) along with the
extension to the model provided by Ragavan and Punniyamoorthy (2003) to arrive at a
single measure called balanced score.
Need for incorporation of strategic intent in every activity
Over the years, the economies have grown leaps and bounds and the companies
themselves have outgrown several times. In order to grow further and at a rapid pace,
most of them have branched out to become global players. This had forced them to
meet larger competition and high volatility in the business environment they operate:
Strategy is the direction and scope of an organization over the long term: Which achieves the
advantage for the organization through its configuration of resources within a changing
environment, to meet the needs of the markets and to fulfill stakeholder expectation ( Jhonson
and Scholes, 2001).

Every act initiated by the competitors or its customers of the company has far reaching
consequences. It may be that any single desire or the ambition by the top management
can alter the destiny of the company.

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard
421

BIJ
15,4

422

Porter (1985) has suggested the five force model and in this model he provides emphasis
on all the relevant factors that an organization should consider. He says that for an
organization to succeed it needs to take into account the firm, its competitors, its suppliers,
its customers and also its substitutes. If all these are not monitored properly and the
linkages not understood correctly, then it can impede the performance of an organization.
A study contrasting high- and low-performing organizations yielded the data as
shown in Table I.
So it becomes imperative for the managers to have the clear understanding of the
ultimate performance standards the firm has to achieve. Obviously, mere
understanding may not suffice. They should also ensure that the information is
properly communicated down the line. Further the top management must be in a
position to periodically monitor the progress with regard to the achievement of the
strategic goals in order to ensure successful achievement of the strategies. For making
a meaningful evaluation, they must be having some objective measures to review the
efficiency of the company taking into account all the dimensions of its operation.
It is observed that, in the present day context in any organization the intangible
factors drive the tangibles assets. In a report on the Accounting for Intangibles, it was
stated that:
Human capital and structural capital are an indication of a companys future value and ability
to generate financial results. This is why a more systematic method of reporting on and
managing these intangible dimensions is needed (Skandia Reporting Model, 2001).

So the present day managers should also be proficient in reviewing the efficiency of the
company in all the intangible components of the business operation, viz. in employee
satisfaction, quality standards, social obligations, customers and other non-financial
which are very important to the success of an organization.
All the above requirements can be only linked effectively with the help of an
appropriate strategy. This is because company can say to itself that it has fulfilled the
purpose of its existence only if it achieves the goals derived out of the strategic
thinking process. If the company were to achieve its goals, then it would only mean
that all the parameters set for all the functions and activities of the firm are to be
accomplished.
Porter (1996) further describes:
Ultimately, all differences between companies in cost or price derive from hundreds
of activities required to create, produce, sell and deliver their products or services [. . .]
differentiation arises from both the choice of the activities and how they are performed.

Employees have a good

Understanding of overall
Organization goals
Senior mangers are highly
Effective communicatorsa
Table I.

Source: aStewart (1999)

Well-performing organizations
(per cent)

Poorly-performing organizations
(per cent)

67

33

26

Obviously, the strategies adopted by the firm even to arrive a common generic goal
such as, accomplishing higher sales, may be different depending upon the
environments in which they operate and the strengths and weaknesses they possess.
The researchers have observed Managing strategy is fundamentally different from
managing operations (Hope and Fraser, n.d.). It has also been outlined that:

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard

An outstanding corporate strategy is not a random collection of individual building blocks

but a carefully constructed system of interdependent parts [. . .] [I]n a great corporate
strategy, all of the elements [resources, businesses and organization] are aligned with one
another. This alignment is driven by the nature of the firms resources its special assets,
skills and capabilities (Kaplan, 1996).

423

Hence, it is needed for the organizations to develop a comprehensive strategic approach

in all its levels and activities of functioning so that they can effectively initiate and
monitor all the activities.
Since, the strategies were all compartmentalized in the earlier cases, one department
did not understand the measures the others had taken. This resulted in the strategies
turning counterproductive and giving rise to the blame game. Hence, the need was felt
for developing some methods, which can ensure integration of the strategic content in
each and every function of the organization.
Further while implementing the strategies the firms face many a problems. It was
reported:
.
only 5 per cent of the workforce understands their company strategy;
.
only 25 per cent of managers have incentives linked to strategy;
.
about 60 per cent of organizations do not link budgets to strategy;
.
about 86 per cent of executive teams spend less than one hour per month
discussing strategy (balanced scorecard BSC collaborative).
According to the BSC collaborative, there are four barriers to strategic implementation:
(1) Vision barrier. No one in the organization understands the strategies of the
organization.
(2) People barrier. Most people have objectives that are not linked to the strategy of
the organization.
(3) Resource barrier. Time, energy, and money are not allocated to those things that
are critical to the organization. For example, budgets are not linked to strategy,
resulting in wasted resources.
(4) Management barrier. Management spends too little time on strategy and too
much time on short-term tactical decision making (Evans, n.d.).
All these observations call for not only developing proficiency in formulating an
appropriate strategy to make the organizational goals relevant to the changing
environment, but also call for an effective implementation of the strategy:
Managers intent on implementing strategy must coordinate a broad range of efforts aimed at
transforming strategic intentions into action. Resulting actions constitute the firms realized
strategy; and it reflects what an organization has done and ultimately determines how the
organizations will fare [. . .] Consequently, the ability to implement strategies is one of the
most valuable of all managerial skills [. . .] Several factors impede strategy implementation

BIJ
15,4

424

[. . .] Changing one element has a ripple effect that impacts other parts of the model, which in
turn have their ripple effects and so on (Miller, 1998).

From the foregoing observations, we find that the Balanced scorecard is precisely the
framework that enables the organization to implement the strategy successfully, as
this approach helps in providing adequate linkages, to enable the organizations to
implement complex and intricate activities involved in implementing the corporate
strategies and monitor every activities of the firm with the intent to achieve the
strategic objectives. It has also been observed that:
The balanced scorecard is a strategic performance management system that links performance
to strategy using a multi dimensional set of financial and non-financial performance measures.
It focuses on better understanding the causal relationships and links within organizations and
the levers that can be pulled to improve corporate governance (Dye, 2003).

Balanced scorecard approach

The French and the Canadians were the first to use the BSC in a different form. The
French began using a measure called the tableau de board, or the dashboard
of measure, which included both financial and non-financial measures. The emphasis
on quality in the American continent during the 1980s made Canadian companies to
include non-financial measures also in evolving their business strategy. This was the
initial conception of the balanced scorecard (Stewart and Hubin, 2001).
Kaplan and Norton (1992b) had devised the BSC in its present form. They had
framed the BSC as a set of measures that allows for a holistic, integrated view of the
business process so as to measure the organizations performance. The scorecard was
originally created to supplement traditional financial measures with criteria that
measured performance from three additional perspectives those of customers,
internal business processes, and learning and growth (Kaplan and Norton, n.d.).
In due course of time, the whole concept of the BSC evolved into a strategic
management system forming a bridge between the long- and short-term strategies of
an organization. Many companies readily adopted the BSC because it provided a single
document in which the linkages of activities-more particularly by giving adequate
importance to both tangible and non-tangible factors were more vividly brought out
than in any other process adopted:
Clearly, opportunities for creating value are shifting from managing tangible assets to
managing knowledge based strategies that deploy an organizations intangible assets:
Customer relationships, innovative products and services, high quality and responsive
operative processes, information technology and databases and employee capabilities, skills
and motivation (Kaplan and Norton, n.d.).

The BSC has grown out itself from being just a strategic initiative to its present form of a
performance management system. The BSC, as it is today, is a performance
management system that can be used by organisations of any size to align the vision and
mission with all the functional requirements and day-to-day work. It can also enable
them to manage and evaluate business strategy, monitor operational efficiency, provide
improvements, build organization capacity, and communicate progress to all employees:
The Balanced Scorecard concept has been successfully employed by many companies in
recent years to better measure their financial results. According to one study, fully 40 per cent

of Fortune 500 companies were using this system to evaluate performance at the end of 2000.
In essence, the Balanced Scorecard was developed because it was becoming increasingly
apparent to many executives that traditional financial measures of performance were not
allowing companies to relate financial measures of performance to long-term company
objectives. For example, traditional financial analysis fails to take into account such key
variables as levels of customer service, employee morale, market share by segment and other
important factors that influence an organizations ultimate success (Analyst, 2001).

Hence, it is being adopted by many companies across the world today cutting across
the nature of the industry, types of business, geographical and other barriers.
Balanced scorecard (BSC) as a concept
The mission set by the corporate entity normally reveals the cherished dreams of the
firm, which are strategic to its sustained growth. Such guiding principles arising out of
the strategic intent of the company, is not fully captured in any traditional system. If
this can be calculated and be integrated into the traditional method then it will
facilitate to formulate a well-devised plan for the future growth:
In the knowledge-driven economy of today, intellectual capital and other such intangible
assets have not got desired presentation in the annual reports of companies (Corrigan, n.d.).

The BSC retains traditional financial measures. But financial measures tell the story of
past events, an adequate story for those companies for which investments in long-term
capabilities and customer relationships were not critical for success. These financial
measures are inadequate, however, for guiding and evaluating the performance of the
modern companies as they are forced by intense competition provided the
environment, to create future value through investment in customers, suppliers,
employees, processes, technology, and innovation.
Kaplan and Norton describes the BSC as a processs which move beyond a
performance measurement system to become the organizing frame work for a strategic
management system.
The BSC is a system that enables the organization to clarify their strategy and
translate them into action. It is a system, derived from the strategy, reflecting the
business objectives which the firm had set for itself. The approach supports
the strategic planning and implementation by integrating all the activities of the
organization around a common understanding, viz. the goals of the organization.
The BSC translates an organizations strategy into a comprehensive set of performance
measures that provides framework for the implementation of strategy.
Thus, BSC essentially is a means of focusing employees attention on desired behavior
and desired results. By combining financial and non-financial measures in a single report
the BSC aims to provide the managers with richer and more relevant information about
activities they are managing than is provided by financial measures alone.
The BSC enables the companies to develop a more comprehensive view of their
operations and to better match all operating and investment activities to long- and
short-term strategic objectives. The BSC approach provides a clear prescription as to
what companies should measure in order to balance the implications in all the
functional areas, arising out of the strategic intent.
The components under these can be linked through a cause and effect diagram. For
example, we can from the strategy, make out a strategy map and get all the linkages,

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard
425

BIJ
15,4

426

which will be triggered in order to achieve the desired goal. This can diagrammatically
bring out cause and effect relationship between the measures. This gives the clearer
idea of the complex linkages with which the company has to mow through for its
ultimate successes. Strategy map can be made for the entire activities as a whole or for
a specific segment.
The strategic content of the company can be grouped under different perspectives,
which will cover the entire activity of the firm. Kaplan and Norton introduced four
different perspectives through which the firms entire activity can be integrated. They are:
(1) Financial perspective. It evaluates the profitability element of the strategy.
(2) Customers perspective. It identifies the targeted market, segments and
measures the companys success in these segments.
(3) Internal and business perspective. It focuses on internal operations.
(4) Learning and growth perspective. It identifies the capabilities in which the
organization must excel in order to achieve superior internal process that
creates value for customers and share holders.
The four perspectives are complete in so far as no additional perspective is required to
represent any element of organizational activity that management team might believe
worth the focus. Each perspective influences and influenced by the other perspectives
and can be shown in Figure 1.
This classification covers the entire gamut of activities in the major functional areas of
the business. The financial focus concentrates on traditional return-based efficiency and
effectiveness metrics. The customer focus lists metrics about customer satisfaction,
business potential and unit growth. The process and development focus provides details
about efficiency, outputs, and savings and of future growth. The innovative and learning
focus gives information pertaining to employee loyalty, skills and competencies.
Obviously a good strategic plan is one, which is successfully implemented. The BSC
provides a format whereby, all the requirements under the different perspectives will
be consolidated and each of the functional departments, viz. production, personnel,
marketing and finance would exactly know what they are expected to do and when.
This coordinated effort only can make the strategy successful. The growth plan of any
Financial Perspective

Customer
Perspective

Figure 1.

Internal Business
Process
Perspective

Innovative and
Learning Perspective

organization should be built combining these four perspectives into a single-balanced

integrated view.
From out of these perspectives, the related objectives, measures and initiatives in
the identified critical areas of the firm are defined. In a measurement managed
organization:

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard

[. . .] senior management was reported to be in agreement on measurable criteria for

determining strategic success and in which management updated and reviewed semi-annual
performance measures in [. . .] primary performance areas (Lingle and Schiemann, 1996).

427

Measures are constructed by devising suitable metrics that aid target-setting and
performance measurement in those areas. For better understanding and management
these measures can be broken down to the individual level, group level, business level
and then finally aggregated to the corporate level.
Metrics are designed to support strategies. They are carefully selected yardsticks
that help in the performance measurement.
From our own experience, we expect strategy scorecards to have 20-25 measures.
Here, is a typical allocation across the four perspectives (Kaplan and Norton, n.d.):
(1) financial five measures (22 per cent);
(2) customer five measures (22 per cent);
(3) internal eight to ten measures (34 per cent); and
(4) learning and growth five measures (22 per cent).
Best Practices LLC (1999) analyzed the scorecards of 22 organizations that had
successfully implemented and found just about the same distribution of measures.
The metrics are usually determined via a detailed and carefully analyzed survey or
interviews. The management should be able to identify shortcomings, to prioritize
action items, and then conduct follow-on studies to choose appropriate metrics and the
fix the targeted performance to be achieved under each of those metrics.
Metrics give numerical standards against which a clients own processes can be
compared. Metric benchmarks are of the form:
.
finished-product first-pass yield of 97 per cent;
.
scrap/rework less than 1 per cent of sales;
.
cycle time less than 25 hours;
.
customer lead times less than 20 days;
.
productivity levels of $150,000 or more per employee; and
.
plant-level ROA better than 15 per cent (Metrics benchmark, available at:
www3.best-in-class.com/bestp/domrep.nsf/).
For example, the following can be set of metrics chosen under each perspective, firm as
a whole for specified target requirements:
(1) Learning and growth perspective:
.
involve the employees in corporate governance;
.
inculcate leadership capacities at all levels; and
.
become a customer driven culture.

BIJ
15,4

428

(2) Internal process perspective:

.
improve productivity standards;
.
eliminating defects in manufacturing;
.
provide adequate technical knowledge and skill for all the levels of
employees; and
.
customer feedbacks to be integrated in the operation.
(3) Financial perspective:
.
about 12 per cent return-on-equity to be achieved;
.
about 15 per cent revenue growth;
.
about 5 per cent reduction in production cost; and
.
about 3 per cent reduction in cost of capital.
(4) Customer perspective:
.
enhance market share by 5 per cent;
.
about 10 per cent increase in export sales;
.
obtain competitive pricing;
.
increase after sales service outlets by 10 per cent; and
.
to conduct face-to-face meeting with customers by organizing customer
meets.
BSC not only captures the change in any one measure but also provides insight into the
related changes in other perspectives. BSC, therefore helps to have an enlarged vision
to the firms management as, each strategic intent will flow across all four perspectives,
viz. financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth and the necessary
impact is captured in those perspectives, respectively, and holds out the promise of
improving a companys prospects of more closely matching its managements plans to
its strategic goals and objectives.
Balanced score model for the balanced scorecard
The BSC in its present form certainly eliminates uncertainty to a great extent as
compared to the traditional financial factors-based performance measurement systems.
However, when we set out to measure the actual performance against the targeted
performance, mostly not all the criterions is met. For some factors, actual performance
is greater than the targeted performance, for some it is less. Therefore, for the decision
makers there may be some kind of confusion regarding the direction in which the
organization is going. That is, he is not clear whether the firm is improving or
deteriorating.
This is because the firm might have achieved the desired performance in not so vital
parameters but would have failed to show required performance in many vital
parameters. Hence, it becomes imperative to provide weightage for the factors
considered, so as to define the importance to be given to the various parameters. So this
provides a clear direction to the management as to prioritize the fulfillment of the
targets set for those measures which have been ascribed for the larger weightage.
The firm can reasonably feel satisfied if it is able to achieve the targets set for it, as it
would encompass all the performance measures. Basically, The balanced scorecard is

constructed taking into account all the strategic issues. The balanced score, which we
are suggesting is basically derived for the balanced score card. If the single bench mark
measure The balanced score for the balanced scorecard is created then it would
clearly mean that the firm will be reasonably be in a position to evaluate the
achievement of the strategic targets.
The balanced score for the BSC tries to arrive at a single value for comparing the
target performance and the actual performance of the organization by suitably taking
into account the weightage to be assigned to each factor by considering the users view
point. His opinions and perceptions are used to create weightages for the parameters
selected and a balanced score for the BSC is arrived.
Further, if we are able to devise a single benchmark measure, which would give the
indication as to the direction in which the organization is proceeding with regard to
achievement of the strategic intent, the decision maker can either maintain the status
quo or make any required modification. This decision he may be able to take in an
objective manner given the required benchmark figure.
In short, it is a single benchmarking measure, which evaluates under or over
achievement of the firm in respect of fulfilling the goals set by the company. It can also
provide the variation of the actual measure from the targeted measure under each of
the factors considered.
Balanced scores of two different time periods can also be compared to evaluate the
performance of the organization over those periods.
Thus, the balanced score model for a BSC, as suggested in this paper will provide a
single bench mark information for the decision makers to take appropriate action and
concentrate on such measures which would result in the achievement of the strategic
needs of the company.
Development of balanced score model
Let us now see the development of balanced score model for BSC. As discussed earlier,
the BSC divides all the activities under four perspectives. The perspectives, the
measures under each perspective, the target and actual values of each measure are
analysed in a framework as shown in Figure 2.
The target and actual performance were calculated using the following method:
Balanced score for BSC target performance
a1 b1 c1 b2 c3 b3 c5 a2 b4 c7 b5 c9 a3 b6 c11 b7 c13 a4 b8 c15 ;

Balanced score for BSC actual performance

a1 b1 c2 b2 c4 b3 c6 a2 b4 c8 b5 c10 a3 b6 c12 b7 c14 a4 b8 c16 :

There are four levels in the balanced score for balanced scorecard model.
Level 1
The first level is the goal of the model, i.e. balanced score for BSC.
Level 2
This level consists of the criteria for evaluating organizational performance under the
following categories:

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard
429

BIJ
15,4

I-Level
Goal

Balanced Score for Balanced Scorecard

II- Level
Criteria

430

Financial Perspective
(a1)

Customer
Perspective
(a2)

Internal Business
Perspective
(a3)

Learning &
growth
Perspective (a4)

III- Level
Sub Criteria
b1

b2

b3

b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

IV- Level
Alternatives

Figure 2.
Framework for calculating
the balanced score for BSC

c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6
TP AP TP AP TP AP

.
.
.
.

c7 c8 c9 c10
TP AP TP AP

c11 c12 c13 c14

TP AP TP AP

c15 c16
TP AP

financial perspective (a1);

customer perspective (a2);
internal business process perspective (a3); and
learning and growth perspective (a4).

Level 3
Each perspective may have sub-criteria for measuring organizational performance.
To measure each criterion or sub-criteria the measures are identified. These have been
referred to as bis.
Level 4
For each measure, identified targets are set. These target performance values are then
compared with the actual performance achieved.
In nutshell, the score is arrived based on the relative weightages of the items
incorporated in the model based upon the classification suggested in the BSC approach.
The factors of levels 2 and 3 are evaluated using the preference theory. The relative
weightage for each factor is arrived at by pair wise comparison using the preference
theory. These factors are compared pair wise and 0 or 1 is assigned based on
the importance of one perspective over another. In each level, the factors relative
weightage is established by pair-wise comparison. In the process of comparison, if the
first factor is more important than the second factor, 1 for the first and 0 for the second
is assigned. If the first factor is less important than the second factor, 0 for the first and
1 for the second are assigned. If both perspectives are valued equally, 1 is assigned for
both perspectives. When the values are assigned, it is to be seen that results of the
comparison decision are transitive, i.e. if the factor 1 is more important than factor 2

and factor 2 is more important that factor 3, then the factor 1 is more important than
factor 3.
The factors of level 4 are grouped into financial and non-financial factors to measure
the effectiveness of the organizations activity. The financial factors are cost and
benefit. Non-financial factors are classified into factors related with time dimensions
and other factors. The above said factors could be brought under categories, which are
to be maximized, and the factors, which are to be minimized.
The whole framework is given in Figure 3.
Now, we can frame a general expression considering the entire factors. The
expression is framed in such a manner that the factors are converted into consistent,
dimensionless indices. The sum of each index is equal to 1. This is used to evaluate the
factors in order to assist to arrive at the relative weightage at the lowest level. This is
the framework developed by Ragavan and Punniyamoorthy (2003):

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard
431

Tangible Factors

To be Maximized

Financial
Factors

Monetary
Dimensions

-Labour saving
-Material
saving
-Inventory Cost
saving

To be Minimized

Non Financial

Time
Dimensions

Utilisation
Time

Financial Factors

Others

Produc
-tivity

Monetary
Dimensions

-Labour Cost
-Material Cost
-Overheads

Non Financial
Factors

Time
Dimensions

Others

-Cycle
time
-set up
time

Loss

Figure 3.
Framework for calculating
level 4 alternatives

BIJ
15,4

432

X
X
X
1=CM
21 BTI 1= BT
ESI BMI 1= BM CMI
X
X
X
1=TM
21 NFI = NF NFMI = 1=NFM
21 ;
TMI

where, ESI effectiveness score for alternative I; BMI benefit in money for alternative I;
BTI benefit in time for alternative I; CMI cost to be minimized for alternative I; TMI
time to be minimized for alternative I; NFI non-financial factors for alternative I to be
maximized; NFMI non-financial factors for alternative I to be minimized.
The relative weightage for all the factors are arrived and the balanced score for the
BSC is arrived using equations (1) and (2) for sample framework is shown in Figure 2.
Comparing the figures of targeted performance and the actual performance, we may
be able to say how the company had fared.
Balanced score model in an IT industry
In order to illustrate this model using real-time data, information from a leading
organization was obtained and the balanced score for a BSC has been reached.
The company is one of the worlds leading international insurance and financial
services organization, with operations in more than 130 countries and jurisdictions. Its
member companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers through the
most extensive worldwide property-casualty and life-insurance networks. In the USA, its
companies are the largest underwriters of commercial and industrial insurance and its
global business also include retirement services, financial services and asset management.
Its financial services businesses include aircraft leasing, financial products, trading
and market making. The organizations common stock is listed in the USA on the
New York Stock Exchange and ArcaEx, as well as the stock exchanges in London,
Paris, Switzerland and Tokyo.
Beyond this small briefing, let us see how the balanced score for the BSC is calculated.
The frame work to arrive at the balanced score for BSC for the industry concerned is
shown in (Figure 4).
Level 1 goal
Balanced score for BSC.
Level 2 criteria
In this model four perspectives are considered. They are:
(1) financial perspective;
(2) customer perspective;
(3) internal business process perspective; and
(4) learning and growth perspective.
Weightage for each perspective are arrived by preference table. In this case of
perspectives, 4C2 pairs are considered for pair-wise comparison using preference
theory. The possible pair-wise combinations are:
.
finance and customer perspective;
.
finance and internal process perspective;
.
finance and learning perspective;

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard

Balanced Score for Balanced Scorecard

I-Level
Goal

433

II-Level
Criteria
Financial Perspective
(a1)

Customer Perspective
(a2)

Internal
Business
Perspective

Learning &
growth
perspective

III-Level
Sub-Criteria
*
-BR-Onsite (b1)
-BR-OffShore (b2)
-Realization-Onsite (b3)
-Realization-OffShore (b4)
-Outstanding
Receivables (b5)
-Billed Vs Allocated (b6)
-BA Ratio (b7)

*
-CSI Coverage (b8)
-Customer satisfaction
Index (Average)
(b9)

IV-Level
Alternatives
c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6
TP AP TP AP TP AP
c7 c8 c9 c10
TP AP TP AP
c11 c12 c13 c14
TP AP TP AP

c15
TP

c16
AP

c17 c18
TP AP

*
-On-time Delivery (b10 )
-On-Budget Delivery (b11)
-Billing Analysis (b12)
-Audit Coverage (b13)
-Time sheet compliance
(WON) (b14)
-Time sheet Compliance
(SWON)
(b15)

c19 c20 c21 c22

TP AP TP AP
c23 c24 c25 c26
TP AP TP AP
c27 c28 c29 c30
TP AP TP AP

*
Training
Days/
person
b16

c31 c32
TP AP

*(the metrics shown here are company specific ones in which we had made the observation,
the details of which is given in the ensuing paragraph and not generic in nature; these are
shown here to highlight how this is being worked out)
.
.
.

customer and internal perspective;

customer and learning perspective; and
internal and learning perspective.

After thorough consultation with the top management, the relative weightage for each
factor is arrived at by pair-wise comparisons using the preference theory as described
earlier. The weightage thus calculated are used to attach importance for the respective
perspectives in the preference table and the relative weightage are shown in Table II.
Calculations for level 3 sub-criteria
Each perspective will have sub-criteria for measuring organizational performance.
To measure each criterion or sub-criteria measures are identified under each of the four
perspectives, viz financial, customer, internal and learning.
Now let us find out the weightages of every measure under each perspective.

Figure 4.
Framework for calculating
balanced score for BSC for
the firm in question

BIJ
15,4

434

Financial perspective
We do not disregard the traditional need for financial data. Timely and accurate
financial data will always be a priority, and the managers will do whatever necessary
to provide it. In fact, we want to only point out that there is often more than
enough handling and processing of financial data at the cost of other relevant and
important information and not to entirely ignore them. We have already seen that the
current emphasis on financial parameters leads to the unbalanced situation
with regard to other perspectives, viz. customer, internal process and learning
perspectives.
Under the financial perspective, the following measures were identified by the
industry in question as very important. The information regarding the degree of
importance in respect of the following sub-factors for the industry concerned are
collected (all the metrics mentioned are company specific and not generic in nature):
.
billing revenue onsite;
.
billing revenue offsite;
.
realization per person onsite;
.
realization per person offshore;
.
number of days of outstanding receivables;
.
billed vs allocated; and
.
BA ratio.
In this case, 7C2 pairs are considered for pair-wise comparison using preference theory
and the relative weightage for each measure (sub-factor) is shown in (Table III).

Factor

Table II.
Table for level 2 criteria

Finance
Customer
Internal
Learning

Factor

Table III.
Table for level 3
sub-criteria financial
perspective

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

F&C

F&I

F&L

1
0

0
0

C&I

C&L

1
1

1
0

I&L

0
1

Weightage
a1 0.4286
a2 0.2857
a3 0.1429
a4 0.1429

3
2
1
1
7

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6
2 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 6 7 7

BR-on
1 1 0 1 0 0
BR-off
1
1 1 1 1 1
Real-on
1
0
1 1 0 1
Real-off
1
1
1
1 1 1
Outstanding
0
0
0
0
1 1
Bills/alloc
1
1
0
0
0
BA
1
0 0
0
0
0 1

Weightage
3
6
4
6
2
2
2
25

b1 0.1200
b 2 0.2400
b3 0.1600
b4 0.2400
b5 0.0800
b6 0.0800
b7 0.0800

Customer perspective
Obviously, the firm felt that the customer satisfaction information is key knowledge
and a critical success factor. They informed that the poor performance of this
perspective is a leading indicator of future decline, even though the current financial
picture may look good.
The sub-factors considered are (all the metrics mentioned are company specific and
not generic in nature):
.
customer satisfaction index coverage; and
.
customer satisfaction index average.

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard
435

In this perspective, 2C2 pairs are considered for pair-wise comparison using preference
theory. Equal weightage (0.5) was assigned to both the factors (Table IV).
Internal perspective
Under this perspective, the firm had broadly identified two kinds of business process.
They are:
(1) mission-oriented process; and
(2) support-oriented process.
After identifying the type of process, the sub-factors for the internal perspective for the
industry concerned are identified as follows (all the metrics mentioned are company
specific and not generic in nature):
.
on-time delivery;
.
on-budget delivery (within 10 per cent over-run);
.
billing timeliness;
.
audit coverage
.
time sheet compliance (WON); and
.
time sheet compliance (SWON).
In this perspective, 6C2 pairs are considered for pair-wise comparison using preference
theory. The relative weightage are as shown in Table V.
Learning and growth perspective
The industry considers only one metric, viz. training days/person under this
perspective. In this perspective, since only one factor is considered total weightage of 1
was assigned to the factor. The weightage is shown in Table VI.
Level 4 alternatives
The target and the actual performance value of the measures mentioned are considered
as factors which could be grouped into financial and non-financial factors to measure
Factors
CSI coverage
Customer satisfaction index

Weightage
b8 0.5
B9 0.5

Table IV.
Table for level 3
sub-criteria customer
perspective

BIJ
15,4

436

the organizations activity effectiveness. The financial factors are cost and benefit.
Non-financial factors are classified into factors related with time dimension and other
factors. The above factors could be brought under the catogories that are to be
maximized or to be minimized as shown in Figure 4.
Here, the actual and targeted values for each constituent of the level 3 are
substituted in the equations (1) and (2), respectively, to arrive at the weightage for
the targeted and actual performance values for the industry concerned. All the
weightage are shown in Table VII. These weightage are multiplied and summed to
arrive at the balanced score for the BSC.
Calculations
Financial perspective:
TP a1 b1 c1 b2 c3 b3 c5 b4 c7 b5 c9 b6 c11 b7 c13 ;
AP a1 b1 c2 b2 c4 b3 c6 b4 c8 b5 c10 b6 c12 b7 c14 :
Customer perspective:
TP a2 b8 c15 b9 c17 ;
AP a2 b8 c16 b9 c18 :
Internal process perspective:
TP a3 b10 c19 b11 c21 b12 c23 b13 c25 b14 c27 b15 c29 ;
AP a3 b10 c20 b11 c22 b12 c24 b13 c26 b14 c28 b15 c30 :
Learning and growth perspective:
TP a4 b16 c31 ;
AP a4 b16 c32 :
Substituting the respective values.

Factor

Table V.
Table for level 3
sub-criteria internal
process perspective

Table VI.
Table for level 3
sub-criteria learning
and growth perspective

1
2
3
4
5
6

On time delivery
On bud
Bill time
Audit coverage
TS-WON
TS-SWON

1
2

1
3

1
4

1
5

1
6

1
1

Factors
Training days per person

0
0

2
3

2
4

2
5

2
6

0
1

0
1
0

1
1

0
1

3
4

3
5

3
6

4
6

5
6

1
1
0

1
1

4
5

1
0

1
1

Weightage
3
2
3
3
3
3
17

b10 0.1765
b11 0.1176
b12 0.1765
b13 0.1765
b14 0.1765
b15 0.1765

Weightage
b16 1

M
Q
M
M
M

Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
Days/pm

Learning and growth

perspective
Balanced score

Internal perspective

Customer perspective

M
M
Q
Q
M
M

M
M
M
M
M

USD
USD
USD/hr
USD/hr
No of
days
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent

Billing revenue onsite b1

Billing revenue offshore b2
Realization per person onsite b3
Realization per person offshore b4
Number of days of outstanding
receivables b5
Billed vs allocated (T&M) b6
BA ratio b7
CSI coverage b8
Customer satisfaction index (average) b9
On-time delivery b10
On-budget delivery (within 10 per cent
overrun) b11
Billing timeliness b12
Audit coverage b13
Time sheet compliance WON b14
Time sheet compliance SWON b15
Training days/person b16

Financial perspective

Frequency

Unit

Measure

Perspective

0.1429

0.1429

0.2857

0.4286

Weights
(ai)

0.1765
0.1765
0.1765
0.1765
1.0000

0.0800
0.0800
0.5000
0.5000
0.1765
0.1176

0.1200
0.2400
0.1600
0.2400
0.0800

Weights (b1)
ij
Actuals
0.5048
0.4481
0.4856
0.5126
0.7656
0.4565
0.3724
0.4878
0.5000
0.5000
0.4762
0.4975
0.5000
0.4975
0.5000
0.4834
0.493873

Targeted (c1)
ij
0.4952
0.5519
0.5144
0.4874
0.2344
0.5435
0.6276
0.5122
0.5000
0.5000
0.5238
0.5025
0.5000
0.5025
0.5000
0.5166
0.506241

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard
437

Table VII.
Table indicating
balanced score for BSC

BIJ
15,4

Financial perspective
TP a1 b1 c1 b2 c3 b3 c5 b4 c7 b5 c9 b6 c11 b7 c13 ;
TP 0:42860:12 0:4952 0:24 0:5519 0:16 0:5144 0:24
0:4874 0:08 0:2344 0:08 0:5435 0:08 0:6276

438

0:215843;
AP a1 b1 c2 b2 c4 b3 c6 b4 c8 b5 c10 b6 c12 b7 c14 ;
AP 0:42860:12 0:5048 0:24 0:4481 0:16 0:4856 0:24 0:5126
0:08 0:7656 0:08 0:4565 0:08 0:3724 0:212757:
Customer perspective
TP a2 b8 c15 b9 c17 0:28570:5 0:5122 0:5 0:5

0:144593;

AP a2 b8 c16 b9 c18 0:28570:5 0:4878 0:5 0:5

0:141107:

Internal process perspective

TP a3 b10 c19 b11 c21 b12 c23 b13 c25 b14 c27 b15 c29 ;
TP 0:14290:1765 0:5 0:1176 0:5238 0:1765 0:5025 0:1765 0:5
0:1765 0:5025 0:1765 0:5
0:071983;
AP a3 b10 c20 b11 c22 b12 c24 b13 c26 b14 c28 b15 c30 ;
AP 0:14290:1765 0:5 0:1176 0:4762 0:1765 0:4975 0:1765 0:5
0:1765 0:4975 0:1765 0:5
0:070931:
Learning and growth perspective
TP a4 b16 c31 0:14291 0:5166 0:073822;
AP a4 b16 c32 0:14291 0:4834 0:069078:
Results and analysis
For a clear analysis, let us find out the difference between the targeted weightage to
that of actual importance given under each of the perspectives as well as under the
sub-criteria under those perspectives. This is given in Table VIII.
On the whole, the companys targeted weightage is on the higher side 0.506241 as
compared to the actual of 0.493873 leading to a difference of 0.012368. This would
mean that the overall performance of the company varies from specified target.
This leads us to discuss the reason(s) for the under performance of the company.
It is observed that there is not only variation under the overall figure, but
also there are variations in all the criteria and the sub-criteria as well. Let us

therefore make a detailed analysis of all the criteria and sub-criteria in each of the
perspective.
Financial perspective
From the financial perspective, the companys actual performance score (0.212757) is
less than the target score (0.215843) (Table IX).
It is evident that the organization varies in terms of financial performance from the
targeted or the desired level. The reason quoted by the organization for this under
performance is inadequate employee training. This is true, because under the learning
and growth perspective there is a significant variation of 0.004744. We know that
shortage of training results in lower skill levels of the employees, which in turn affect
the employee output. But, we feel that this alone cannot be the reason. In fact, we find
that under financial perspective the variation in Billing revenue off shore (b2) is
0.010677, which is more than the variation shown under training. This clearly shows
that the management did not perceive this larger difference in the variation.
This is possibly because they were actually working on the financial value of the
activity and not on the importance value, the activity deserves. Further under the
sub-criteria b1 (billing revenue onsite), b4 (realization per person offshore), b5
(number of days of outstanding receivables) though the actual performance is more
than the targeted performance, it is necessary for the management to ensure the reason
for such a positive variance. Possibly, the firm is diverting more resources than it needs
to for the performance of those sub-criteria.
For example, if we look at the variance in b5-, number of days of outstanding
receivables, we find the variance as very large, which call for a review to find the cause
for such a variance.

Perspectives
Financial perspective
Customer perspective
Internal process perspective
Learning and growth perspective

Targeted performance

Actual performance

Variance

0.215843
0.144593
0.071983
0.073822
0.506241

0.212757
0.141107
0.070931
0.069078
0.493873

0.003086
0.003486
0.001052
0.004744
0.012368

Measure
Billing revenue onsite b1
Billing revenue offshore b2
Realization per person onsite b3
Realization per person offshore b4
Number of days of outstanding receivables b5
Billed vs allocated (T&M) b6
BA ratio b7
Sub-total

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard
439

Table VIII.
Calculation of the
balanced score for the
BSC arriving at the
overall variance

Targeted
Actuals
(ai bi ci) (ai bi ci) Variance calculations
0.025469
0.056771
0.035275
0.050136
0.008037
0.018636
0.021519
0.215843

0.025963
0.046093
0.033301
0.052728
0.026251
0.015652
0.012769
0.212757

20.00049
0.010677
0.001975
20.00259
20.01821
0.002983
0.00875
0.003086

Table IX.
Arriving at the variance
for financial perspective

BIJ
15,4

440

Customer perspective
Regarding the customer perspective the actual performance (0.1312) varies from the
target performance (0.1344), thus producing the variance of 0.003242 is given in Table X.
Interestingly, in the two sub-criteria selected, one sub-criteria, viz. customer
satisfaction index (average) b9, shows a significant difference and hence calls for a
detailed review.
Internal perspective
In the internal, perspective shows the actual performance (0.08783) varies from the
target performance (0.0762) is given in Table XI.
Here, also we observe that the sub-criteria time sheet compliance WON ( b14)
needed managements attention. Possibly, the performance under this subcriterion may
be enhanced by providing adequate internal training for the employees.
Learning and growth perspective (a4)
Training days=person b16

0:073822

0:069078

0:004744:

Learning and growth perspective also shows difference in that the actual performance
(0.06908) varies from the target performance (0.073822). This will naturally happen, as
in the only metric identified under this perspective the actual performance under the
measure training days/person varies from the targeted weightage. Inadequate training
like this can possibly result in increased rework constituting a major problem.
Findings and contributions
If we have a resource, which needs to be distributed to different activities, then the
resource is not obviously divided equally amongst the activities. For example, if we
have a resource of $1 million and five activities are to be attended to we do not earmark
$200,000 for each activity. This is also true for the allocation of any other non-financial
resources such as employee allocation, managements attention, machines training
needs, quality requirements, etc. According to the importance the activity deserves, we
provide suitable weightages and allocate the resources, be it financial or non-financial.

Table X.
Arriving at the variance
for customer perspective

CSI coverage b8
Customer satisfaction index (average) b9
Sub-total

Table XI.
Arriving at the variance
for internal perspective

On-time delivery b10

On-budget delivery (within 10 per cent
overrun) b11
Billing timeliness b12
Audit coverage b13
Time sheet compliance WON b14
Time sheet compliance SWON b15
Sub-total

0.073168
0.071425
0.144593

0.069682
0.071425
0.141107

0.003486
0
0.003486

0.012611

0.012611

0.008802
0.012674
0.012611
0.012674
0.012611
0.071983

0.008003
0.012548
0.012611
0.012548
0.012611
0.070931

0.0008
0.000126
0
0.000126
0
0.001052

So in this paper, we have detailed a process of identifying the essential criteria to be

achieved by the company and the relative importance the company should give for the
fulfillment of those criteria.
If the company either gives less attention to the fulfillment of any sub-criteria, then
the organization has to set it right as otherwise the performance of other criteria would
suffer. This situation is also true if it gives more attention than is needed to the
sub-criteria. But obviously, if there is variance in any sub-criteria which has the higher
weightage allocated to it, then it commands more attention, as such variations would
have a leveraged impact on the overall performance of the organization.
So, it becomes apparent that the performances under all the perspectives are
interdependent. If the performance in a subcriterion under any perspectives is affected,
then it may result in the show of adverse or favorable performance in the sub-criteria of the
other perspectives. That is why the management had given the reason of training
inadequacy as the sole reason for the failure of adequate performance in other perspectives.
So by adopting the balanced score process as detailed in this paper, we are able to
identify the deficiency with respect to the importance afforded by the organization in
their entire set of activities.
Hence, this approach can be used for different situations without any difficulty.
This is again a measure of importance provided by the organization itself.
The organization is setting up for themselves the bench mark with respect to the
importance that should be afforded to the fulfillment of different sub-criteria. So it is a
tailor made benchmarking information system created by the firm for itself and hence
the question of unsuitability of the bench mark does not arise.
It has been observed that:
This Best Practices Benchmarkingw Report includes best practices to help companies create
optimal structures for benchmarking, successful approaches to prioritizing research requests,
methods for building buy-in for benchmarking as a concept and effective ways to track
process improvements. When well executed, benchmarking initiatives help companies
compare their processes, identify gaps in performance and discover proven tactics for closing
those gaps. Successful companies harness the power of benchmarking to lower cost positions,
increase productivity and drive greater competitiveness (Best practices benchmarking,
available at: www3.best-in-class.com/bestp/domrep.nsf/).

True to this observation, we are providing a benchmark figure which would enable to
evaluate the performance in the implementation of the strategy. In this process, we
have taken into account the subjective factors also and provided a suitable measurable
index. Many objective methods exist to find out the causes of under performance in the
areas of financial measures. There are not many objective methods available to find out
which are the areas of non-financial measures affecting the performance of the firm and
to what extent.
Limitation of the research
The levels 2 and 3 factors are evaluated using preference theory and it has certain
limitations. When we compare the degree of importance of one factor over another and
assign 1 for a factor and 0 for another, it means that 0 importance is attached to that
factor. There is a possibility, that factor may have uniformly 0 value in all the pair-wise
comparisons. This results in factor getting 0 relative importance. In other words, in the
decision a 0 value factor does get a role, which is not necessary.

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard
441

BIJ
15,4

442

Future prospect of the research

To remove the above said limitation, future research may be carried out to evaluate
criteria (ais) and the sub-criteria (bis) by using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Even
by adopting AHP, pair-wise comparison can be made and different values be assigned
based on the degree of importance ranging from 1 to 9. The reciprocal values can also
be assigned based on the importance of one factor over the other. This may provide
more refinement in providing adequate weightages to the relevant criteria and the
sub-criteria.
Conclusions
There are any numbers of attempts made to show the efficacy of the usage of the BSC for
showing better performance. While retaining all the advantages that are made available
by using the BSC approach in providing a frame work for showing better performance,
through this process of calculating the bench mark figure called Balanced score we are
able to add more value for the analysis. We are able to identify those parameters
whose actual performance vary from the targeted performance and find out their relative
proportion of adverse or favorable contribution to the performance of the company by
assigning appropriate weights for such parameters be it financial or non financial.
Therefore, we are in a position to objectively capture the reason for variations in the
performance from the targeted levels in all the functional areas of the business with the
use of the concepts of BSC as well as applying the extended information arising out of
arriving at the balanced score for the balanced scorecard.
In conclusion arriving at a balanced score for BSC which is by and large considered
as a powerful approach in formulating a business excellence model, will certainly help
the users of this approach to make an objective evaluation while implementing the
same in their business environment.
References
Analyst (2001), Accounting for intangibles Skandia reporting model, Analyst, October.
Best Practices LLC (1999), Best Practices Bench Marking Report, Developing the Balanced
Scorecard, Best Practices LLC, Chapel Hill, NC.
Brown, P.A. and Gibson, D.F. (1972), A quantified model for facility site selection application to
the multi product location problem, AIIE Transactions, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Corrigan, T.D. (n.d.), Capital budgeting in the context of the balanced score card, available at:
www.iaes.org/conferences/past/philadelphia
Dye, R.W. (2003), Keeping score, CMA Management, 18-23 December/January.
Evans, M.H. (n.d.), The balanced scorecard, available at: www.exinfm.com/training
Hope, J. and Fraser, R. (n.d.), Beyond budgeting, BBRT, CAM-I, Europe White paper.
Jhonson, G. and Scholes, K. (2001), Exploring Corporate Strategy, Text & Cases, 4th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, India, pp. 1-38.
Kaplan, R.S. (1996), Mobil USM & R (a): Linking the Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business
School, Boston, MA, 9-197-025 6.l.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992a), The balanced scorecard: measures that drive
performance, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 71-9.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992b), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (n.d.), The Strategy Focused Organizations, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 1-30, 369-80.
Lingle, J.H. and Schiemann, W.A. (1996), From balanced scorecards to strategic gages: is
measurement worth it?, Management Review, March, pp. 56-62.
Miller, A. (1998), Strategic Management, 3rd ed., Irwin Mc-Graw Hill International Edition,
New York, NY, pp. 313-45.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1996), What is strategy, Harvard Business Review, November/December, p. 62.
Ragavan, P.V. and Punniyamoorthy, M. (2003), Strategic decision model for the justification of
technology selection, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 21, pp. 72-8.
Skandia Reporting Model (2001), Skandia Reporting Model: Accounting for Intangibles Edited
Excerpts from the Supplement to Annual Report 1994, Skandia Analyst, October.
Stewart, A.C. and Hubin, J.C. (2001), The balanced scorecard: beyond reports and rankings,
Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 37-42.
Stewart, T. (1999), The status of communication today, Journal of Strategic Communication
Management, February\March, pp. 22-5.
About the authors
M. Punniyamoorthy is a Graduate in Mathematics, with a BTech in Production Technology from
Madras Institute of Technology, Chennai, and MTech in Industrial Engineering and Operations
Research from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. He possesses ICWAI (inter)
qualification and did his Doctorate in Management from Bharathidasan University,
Tiruchirapalli. He is presently working as an Assistant Professor in the National Institute of
Technology. One of his papers A strategic decision model for the justification of technology
selection published in the International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, UK
(Vol. 21, 2003, pp. 72-8) has been selected by the American Society for Mechanical Engineers as
one of the best ten papers in the area of technology selection. M. Punniyamoorthy is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: punniya@nitt.edu
R. Murali is a Post Graduate in Mathematics and has a Management Degree from Indhira
Ghandhi National Open University. He is also a cost accountant and is presently a Fellow in the
Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India, which is the apex body of cost accountants in
India. He has worked in one of the biggest Nationalized Banks of India having a large network of
branches in India and abroad for more than 26 years and has also served for more than ten years
in the staff training college of the bank handling in the areas of credit and human resources.
He is presently working as a Lecturer in the National Institute of Technology in cost and
management accounting, financial management, economics, strategic management and human
resources related topics.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Balanced score
for the balanced
scorecard
443

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.