Skip to main content

Evolution of the Balanced Scorecard

The balanced scorecard (BSC) has evolved from simple metrics and performance reporting into a strategic planning and management system. It is no longer a passive reporting document which shows pretty pictures. It has transformed into a framework that not only provides performance measurements but helps analysts identify gaps and continual service improvement programs. It enables our senior staff to truly execute their strategic goals and objectives.

Dr. R. Kaplan & David Norton did extensive research and documentation on this framework in the early 1990’s. In Kaplan & Norton’s writing, the four steps required to design a BSC are as follows:
  • Translating the vision into operational goals;
  • Communicating the vision and link it to individual performance;
  • Business planning; index setting
  • Feedback and learning, and adjusting the strategy accordingly.
In the late 1990’s an updated version on the traditional balanced scorecard was introduced called the Third Generation Balanced Scorecard. The components are:
  • A destination statement. This is a one or two page description of the organization at a defined point in the future, typically three to five years away. The descriptions of the successful future are segmented into perspectives, for example financial & stakeholder expectations, customer & external relationships, processes & activities, organization & culture
  • A strategic linkage model. This is a version of the traditional ‘’strategy map’’ that typically contains 12-24 strategic objectives segmented into two perspectives, activities and outcomes, analogous to the logical framework . 
  • A set of definitions for each of the strategic objectives.
  • A set of definitions for each of the measures selected to monitor each of the strategic objectives, including targets.
The BSC process begins with the development of a ‘destination statement’ to build management consensus on longer term strategic goals. This document is then used to build a ‘strategic linkage model’ which describes the shorter term management objectives to achieve. These objectives are prioritized and are assigned ‘owners’ from within the management team. These owners will then define the objective itself, plus the measures and targets associated with the objective.

The main improvements with this third generation of balanced scorecard relate to the greater relevance of the strategic objectives, because objectives are selected in the context of the organization’s longer-term strategic goals, using a destination statement, and the greater “ownership” of the objectives by managers, because objectives are selected and defined by the responsible managers themselves.

Design of a Balanced Scorecard ultimately is about the identification of continual improvement. This should highlight areas where performance deviates from expectations. Organizations can be encouraged to focus their attention on these areas, and hopefully as a result trigger improved performance and the realization of strategic goals and objectives.

Comments

Gary Cokins said…
This a nice history of BSC. I was personally fortunate to be with Kaplan & Norton in the 1990s when I was with KPMG consulting to experience the initial research.

One problem that still slows the adoption rate of BSC is exessive emphasis on the KPIs without adequately deriving them from the strategy map.

Then there is questioning the correctness of selected KPIs. An emerging tool my employer, SAS, has to validate the explanatory value of KPIs is embedding correlation analysis. SAS software now does this; and it makes the map more like a laboratory to test KPIs with.

Gary

Gary Cokins, SAS
Thanks for posting this short summary of our paper from 2004 on Balanced Scorecard evolution.

If you would like to read the original that this note summarises, you can find it at the 2GC web site.

Gavin Lawrie // 2GC Active Management

Popular posts from this blog

Four Service Characteristics

Recently I came across several articles by researchers and experts that laid out definitions and characteristics of services. ITIL provides us with a definition that can help drive the creation of value-laden services: A means of delivering value to customers by facilitating outcomes customers want to achieve without the ownership of specific costs and risks. An area that ITIL is not so clear is in terms of service characteristics. Several researchers and experts put forth that services have four basic characteristics (IHIP): Intangibility—Services are the results of actions not things. They have no physical presence and represent a logical set of elements. One way to think of service is “work done for others.”  Heterogeneity—Also known as “variability”; services are unique items because of the mechanisms used to deliver services, which is people. Because the people element adds variability, the service is variable. This holds true, especially for the value proposition—not eve...

What Is A Service Offering?

The ITIL 4 Best Practice Guidance defines a “Service Offering” as a description of one or more services designed to address the needs of a target customer or group.   As a service provider, we can’t stop there!   We must know what the contracts of our service offering are and be able to put them into context as required by the customer.     Let’s explore the three elements that comprise a Service Offering. A “Service Offering” may include:     Goods, Access to Resources, and Service Actions 1. Goods – When we think of “Goods” within a service offering these are the items where ownership is transferred to the consumer and the consumer takes responsibility for the future use of these goods.   Example of goods that are being provided in the offering – If this is a hotel service then toiletries or chocolates are yours to take with you.   You the consumer own these and they are yours to take with you.      ...

What is the difference between Process Owner, Process Manager and Process Practitioner?

This article was originally published in 2015. With the Introduction of ITIL 4, some of this best practice has changed. See  ITIL 4 and the Evolving Role of Roles . Updated Definitions in ITIL 4: Process Owner: In ITIL 4, the concept of 'processes' has expanded into broader 'practices.' Consequently, the Process Owner is now often referred to as the 'Practice Owner.' This individual is accountable for the overall design, performance, integration, and improvement of a specific practice within the organization. They ensure that the practice achieves its intended outcomes and aligns with the organization's objectives. Process Manager: Now commonly known as the 'Practice Manager' in ITIL 4, this role is responsible for the day-to-day management of the practice. The Practice Manager ensures that activities are carried out as intended, manages resources assigned to the practice, and oversees the practitioners performing the work. Process Practit...