Balanced Scorecard: A Review of Implementation and Future Opportunities

Balanced Scorecard: A
Review of Implementation
and Future Opportunities
Dosen: Prof. Ir. Syamsir Abduh, M.M., PhD.
By:
Fendy Susanto – 222141503
Lilian Isabella Wardhana – 222141505
Yvonne Wangdra – 222141511
Score
96

Contents
• Concept of Balanced Scorecard
– Introduction
– History
– Strategy Map
– Improvement
– Future Opportunities
• Benefits of Balanced Scorecard
• Balanced Scorecard Drawbacks
• Key Implementation Success Factors
• Article Discussions

INTRODUCTION
Concept of Balanced Scorecard
Quality Management and
Standardization_Group Assignment
Source: Balancescorecardorg, 2016

Introduction : Concept of Balanced
Scorecard
• First introduced as a Balanced Scorecard in a 1992 Harvard Business
Review article (Kaplan & Nort on, 1992).
• Basic concept is to study performance measurement in companies
whose intangible assets played a central role in value creation (Nolan
Norton Institute, 1991).
• Founder:
Robert Kaplan David Norton

Scorecard
• The founders’ statement:
“Norton and I believed that
if companies were to
improve the management
of their intangible assets,
they had to integrate the
measurement of intangible
assets into their
management systems”
Source: Balancescorecardorg, 2016

Scorecard
Financial metrics as the ultimate outcome measures for company success, with metrics
from three additional perspectives – customer, internal process, and learning and growth as
the drivers for creating long-term shareholder value.
Figure 1. The original structure for the Balanced Scorecard (BSC)

What is Balanced Scorecard?
• One of the most influential concepts in accounting and management.
(Madsen & Stenheim, 2015).
• A strategic planning and management system that is used extensively
in business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations
worldwide to align business activities to the vision and strategy of the
organization, improve internal and external communications, and
monitor organization performance against strategic goals.
(Balancescorecardorg, 2016)

HISTORY
1990s
1993
1996
Current
• Kaplan and
Norton
develop BSC
• Links strategy
and
performance
• BSC used as a
Strategic
Management
System
• Kaplan and
Norton starts
to put BSC to
work
• BSC used extensively in
business and industry,
government, and
nonprofit organizations
worldwide

History : Concept of Balanced
Scorecard
1.1. Historical Roots: 1950-1980
• In the 1950s, a GE corporate staff group recommended that divisional performance
be measured by one financial and seven nonfinancial metrics
These are roots of Balanced Scorecard
FINANCIAL
CONSUMERS
INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESSES
LEARNING AND GROWTH
ESSENCE OF BALANCED
SCORECARD

Scorecard
1.1. Historical Roots: 1950-1980
• However, GE’s recommendation was failed -- corporate pressure for short-term
profits led them to compromise long-term objectives and their public
responsibilities.
• There was a lacking in a clear way of describing and communicating top-level
strategy in a way that middle managers and front-line employees could
understand and internalize
• In the mid-1960s, Robert Anthony, identified three different types of systems:
strategic planning, management control, and operational control
• Strategic planning: the process of deciding upon objectives, on changes in these objectives, on
the resources used to attain these objectives, and on the policies that are to govern the
acquisition, use, and disposition of these resources.
• Management control: the process by which managers assure that resources are obtained and
used effectively and efficiently in the accomplishment of the organization’s objectives”
• Operational control: the process of assuring that specific tasks are carried out effectively and
efficiently. Information for operational control was mostly nonmonetary, though some
information could be denominated in monetary terms (presumably, frequent variance reports on
labor, machine, and materials quantity and cost variances).
The primary management system for most companies, until the 1990s, used financial
information almost exclusively and relied heavily on budgets to maintain focus on short-
term performance.

1.2. Japanese Management Movement: 1975-1990
• During the 1970s and 1980s, innovations in quality and just-in-time production by
Japanese companies challenged the Western leadership in many important
industries.
• Western companies’ narrow focus on short-term financial performance
contributed to their complacency and slow response to the Japanese threat.
• US corporations had become obsessed with short-term financial measures and
had failed to adapt their management (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987)
Scorecard

1.2. Japanese Management Movement: 1975-1990
• Proposed method to create intangible assets could be capitalized and placed as
asset on the corporate balance sheet.
• Financial reporting could be more relevant if companies capitalized their
expenditures on intangible assets or with other methods by which these assets
could be placed on corporate balance sheets.
• Challenge:
• Value from intangible assets is indirect
• Value from intangible assets depends on organizational context and strategy
• Intangible assets seldom have value by themselves.
• Recommendation: For companies to integrate nonfinancial indicators of their
operating performance into their management accounting and control systems,
mainly focus on improving quality, reducing cycle times, and improving
companies responsiveness to customers demands. These would lead naturally
to improved financial performance
• The stage was set for thinking about a general framework by which both senior-
level executive teams and front-line production workers would receive financial
and nonfinancial information, balancing between both.
Scorecard

1.3. Stakeholder Theory vs Balanced Score Card
• Stakeholder theory was useful to articulate a broader company mission beyond
a narrow, short-term shareholder value-maximizing model. It increased
companies’ sensitivity about how failure to incorporate stakeholder preferences
and expectations can undermine an excessive focus on short-term financial
results.
• The Balanced Scorecard, however, incorporates stakeholder interests
endogenously, within a coherent strategy and value-creation framework, when
outstanding performance with those stakeholders is critical for the success of
the strategy.
Scorecard

STRATEGY MAP

Strategy Map: Concept of Balanced
Scorecard

IMPROVEMENT

Improvement: Concept of Balanced
Scorecard
create Office of
Strategy
Management (OSM),
to be the process owner
of the strategy execution
within the organization.
Creation of Closed Loop Management System for Strategy Execution

FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES

Future Opportunities: Concept of
Balanced Scorecard
Steps to improve BSC:
1. measure organizational leadership in each implementation and assessing this
factor’s role in creating success.
• The four strategy-focused organization principles other than leadership. But none of
the four principles can be effectively mobilized and sustained without leadership at the
top.
• Of course, such a strong claim about both necessity and sufficiency needs to be tested
through careful research designs and instruments.
2. the emerging literature and practice on enterprise risk management
needs to be more formally embedded in the strategy map and Balanced
Scorecard.
3. strategy maps still represent a highly-aggregated view of causal
relationships among strategic objectives.

BALANCED SCORECARD
BENEFITS
Why use Balanced Scorecard
Source: www.hr-scorecard-metrics.com

• Help increase organisation’s focus on key things needed to create breakthrough
performance
• A BSC shows that an organisation is only weak in a couple of areas - but that these areas are impeding its
overall success. By focusing everyone in the organisation on improving those areas, overall performance gets
better. Generally, the BSC prescribes that only three to five measures should be developed for each of the
four perspectives : Financial, Internal Operations, Customer and Company Learning & Growth (Neely 1998).
• Help to integrate various corporate programmes (like quality and customer service)
• Focusing on everybody's customer service performance behaviours will lead to small improvements in each
department or unit; the overall effect will be a bigger improvement in the organisation's customer service
performance across the board.
• Bridging the gap between different fields
• The second advantage of the BSC is that it serves as a bridge between different fields. Both financial and non-
financial measures are included in the scorecard. Also researchers from different management fields have
examined the concept. The management accountancy aspect of the BSC has been considered by, for
example, Newing (1994) and Nørreklit, (2000). Also in the operations management field the BSC is well-
known (Neely et al. 1995; Bourne, et al. 2000; Hafeez et al. 2002, Lohman et al. 2002) From a strategy
perspective, the BSC has been described by for example Mooraj, et al. (1999), Hudson, et al. (2001) and
Kaplan and Norton (2001). Furthermore, the concept has been used for the strategic management of
information systems (Martinsons, et al. 1999). This interest in and the successful use of the BSC by
researchers and managers from different fields indicates that it is possible to combine performance measures
related to different aspects of a company into only one scorecard.
• Improve communication of organisation’s vision and strategy
• Align organisation’s strategy with workers daily activities
Benefits of Balanced Scorecard

BALANCED SCORECARD
DRAWBACKS

Balanced Scorecard Obstacles
• Causality relationships between the areas of measurement in the BSC are unidirectional
and too simplistic.
• Some scholars note that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between some of the suggested areas
of measurements in the BSC (Norrekelit, 2003; Mohobbot, 2004; Henk and Kim 2002).
• Neglects time dimension.
• This critical point of the BSC starts from the assumption that the linkage between different points of
time must be understood (Norrekelit, 2003).
• Lack of validation.
• The reliance of BSC on few measures makes a critical point of BSC. Mohobbot (2004) and Henk and Kim
(2002) point out that the advantage of checking just a few number measures became disadvantage
when not the right numbers are selected for the BSC.
• Lack of the integration between top-levels and operational levels’ measures.
• Mohobbot (2004), Henk and Kim (2002) point out that BSC fails to identify performance measurements
as two-ways process. Hondson et al(2001) notes that one of the critical points of BSC is its lack of the
integration between the top and operational levels which may leads to strategic problematic.
• Internally focus.
• One of the criticisms of BSC is that its framework encourages the focus on internal aspects. Mohobbot
(2004) mentions that the BSC is incapable to answer the questions related to the competitors
movements. Additionally, the BSC does not evaluate the significant changes in external conditions.
• Ineffective to corporate sustainability.
• According to Thomas (2003) the traditional BSC-concept is not effective enough to contribute to
corporate sustainability. This point of view supported by Mohobbot(2004) and Hink and Kim(2002).

IMPLEMENTATION OF
BALANCED SCORECARD
How to implement Balanced Scorecard?

Implementation of Balanced Scorecard
• Phase 1: Model Synthesis
– Strategy synthesis: form and commit the management to a consensus view about the
organizations vision and strategies
– Measure synthesis: decide on the attributes to be measured with balanced scorecard
• Phase 2: Technical Implementation
– Decide on which balanced scorecards tools is used (eg. QPR Balanced Scorecard)
• Phase 3: Organizational Implementation
– Definition of the persons who are responsible to measure data and their empowerment
– Explanation of the objectives of Balanced Scorecard implementation to the employees.
– Re-engineering the management and strategy process
– Re-engineering the reporting process.
• Phase 4: Technical Integration
– Identification of the imported measures and the source systems
– Analysis of the database structure and exporting capabilities of the operative systems
– Defining t he procedure to get measure data from data sources including data
identification, modification and scheduling.
– Implementation of the link between QPR Scorecard and the operative systems.
• Phase 5: Operation of the BSC System
– Update measure values
– Analyze the Balanced Scorecard results
– Report the Balanced Scorecard Results
– Refine the Balanced Scorecard model
(Virtanen, 2009)

Implemetation of Balanced
Scorecard
9 Steps to Success:
1. Assessment
2. Strategy
3. Objectives
4. Strategy map
5. Performance measures
6. Initiatives
7. Performance Analysis
8. Alignment
9. Evaluation Source: (Atout, 2015)

Key Implementation Success
Factors
• Gain top leadership support; it helps if there is a 'burning platform' for change.
• Measure the right things - things that customers, stakeholders, and employees find
value in -- not everything.
• Create a governance process that engages key stakeholders.
• Design the system to follow the actual work of the organization.
• Start development of measures at both the top and bottom of the organization and
cascade them in both directions.
• Create a communications campaign that explains how a Scorecard both reflects and
drives a focus on mission.
• Align systems: tie them to the organization's planning, measurement, and budget
cycles.
• Ensure the credibility of the process and honesty in reporting.
• Create transparency of information that is as real-time as possible; this is key to its
credibility and usefulness to both senior and frontline managers.
• Align incentives: link rewards to performance through effective evaluation and
performance appraisals.
(Kamensky, 2016)

Critical Success Factors
(Lueg & Vu, 2015)

Blind Spots in Critical Success
Factors
(Lueg & Vu, 2015)

ARTICLE DISCUSSIONS

“The impact of knowledge management practices
on organizational performance: A balanced
scorecard approach”
Valmohammadi, C., & Ahmadi, M. (2015). Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 28(1), 131-159.
Purpose
To present a holistic approach regarding evaluation of knowledge management (KM)
practices on organizational performance.
The effects of seven critical success factors (CSFs), namely leadership role,
organizational culture, KM strategy, processes and activities, training and education,
information technology, and motivation and rewarding system, on organizational
performance in the framework of four perspectives of balance scored card (BSC)
approach were surveyed.
Design and Methodology
• The research hypotheses were raised based on the four perspectives of this approach,
namely, growth and learning, internal processes, customer and financial.
• By literature review, CSFs of KM and organizational performance along with their
items were identified in the framework of BSC’s perspectives.
• Based on these constructs and their items an instrument was designed and
distributed among managers and employees of the subsidiary firms of Iran National
Petrochemical Company (INPC).

Management, 28(1), 131-159.
Findings
• The results revealed that KM practices positively and meaningfully (though
weak) impact overall organizational performance.
• This impact is significant only regarding growth and learning dimension and
on the other dimensions is insignificant.
• Also, as customer and financial constructs were loaded on one factor based
on the entity of their indicators we considered these two constructs as
stakeholders construct.
• In addition, among the above mentioned seven CSFs, motivation and
rewarding system obtained the lowest rank among the survey organizations.

Management, 28(1), 131-159.
Contribution/Positive Added Value to BSc Framework:
To provide the empirical support and confirmation of the argument of Walsham (2001) where he
suggests that the best approach for successful implementation of KM is human centered view of
KM.
• Although machinery is still important in knowledge-based economy and technology undertakes a
considerable and critical role, but the main tool of production is still human mind (Al-Ali, 2003).
Because knowledge is only shaped in individuals mind.
To confirm the benefits of BSc in KM implementation: the effect of KM practices on the four
organizational performance dimensions of the survey organizations, though weak, is meaningful.
• Accordingly, the most important suggestion for the top managers of organizations in general and
INPC’s in particular is to exactly monitor the indicators of four BSC perspectives offered in this
research to implement KM in a holistic and balanced manner, so they would hopefully be able to
fully reap the benefits of this approach.
This study contributes to the field of KM by empirically investigating the impact of KM practices on
various measures of organizational performance in order to prove the suitability of a
comprehensive approach like BSC
Based on the calculated coefficients, the ranking of CSFs are as follows; KM strategy,
organizational culture, processes and activities, training and education, IT, leadership role, and
rewarding and motivation.
• This finding broadens the informational horizon of top managers of the surveyed companies to
better prioritize and plan necessary measures.
This study may be viewed as a “pilot study” to provide a baseline and insight into future research of
KM for enabling organizational performance.

Management, 28(1), 131-159.
Drawbacks
• The sample is restricted to only three companies, thus lack of generalizability
How to fix it?
It needs to gather data from various parts of Iran including both manufacturing and
service industries could increase the generalizability of the results obtained.
Several research had been investigated the influence of small, medium, and big
companies in KM implementation, however they never compare through the BSc
approach (Rohrbeck and Schwarhz, 2013; Alegre, Sengupta, Lapiedra, 2013;
O’Connor and Basri, 2014). Thus, the comparison between big and small medium
enterprises may also be the subject of research, as well as in developing and
developed countries.
• This study the data gathered were cross-sectional,
How to fix it?
A longitudinal study could help gain deeper understanding of the cause-and-
effect relationship among the variables. This is in accordance with statement from
Institute of Work and Health, Canada (2015).

Management, 28(1), 131-159.
Future Research Opportunities
First, a future study is suggested to conduct a longitudinal research design to
present the evidence of causation which cannot be achieved through cross-
sectional designs.
Second, it is encouraged to perform similar researches in other countries
particularly in organizations of developed countries which are more likely to be
mature in KM implementation to be carried out.
It needs to gather data from various parts of Iran including both manufacturing and service
industries could increase the generalizability of the results obtained

Management, 28(1), 131-159.
References:
1. Oluikpe, P.I. (2012), “Developing a corporate knowledge management strategy”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 862-878.
2. Singh, M.D. and Kant, R. (2008), “Knowledge management barriers: an interpretive structural modeling approach”,
International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 141-150.
3. Darroch, J. and McNaughton, R. (2002), “Examining the link between knowledge management practices and types
of innovation”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 210-222.
4. Rašul, J., Vu kšić, V.B. and Štemberger, M.I. (2012), “The impact of knowledge management on organisational
performance”, Economic and Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147-168.
5. Zack, M., McKeen, J. and Singh, S. (2009), “Knowledge management and organizational performance:an
exploratory analysis”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 392-409.
6. Zack, M.H. (1999), “Developing a knowledge strategy”, California Management Review, Spring, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp.
125-145.
7. Walsham,G. (2001), “Knowledge management: the benefits and limitations of computer systems”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 599-608.
8. Rohrbeck, R., & Schwarz, J. O. (2013). The value contribution of strategic foresight: Insights from an empirical
study of large European companies.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1593-1606.
9. Alegre, J., Sengupta, K., & Lapiedra, R. (2013). Knowledge management and innovation performance in a high-tech
SMEs industry. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 454-470.
10. O'Connor, R., & Basri, S. (2014). Understanding the role of knowledge management in software development: a
case study in very small companies. International Journal of Systems and Service-Oriented Engineering, 4(1), 39-
52.
11. IWH. 2015. What researchers mean by... cross-sectional vs. longitudinal studies.
https://www.iwh.on.ca/wrmb/cross-sectional-vs-longitudinal-studies. Accessed 21 April 2016.

“Firm-Level Outsourcing Decision Making:
A balanced Scorecard-Based Analytic
Network Process Model”
Tjader, Y., May, J.H., Shang, J., Vargas, L.G., and Gao, N. (2014).
International Journal Production Economics. 147, 614-623.

“Firm-Level Outsourcing Decision Making: A
balanced Scorecard-Based Analytic Network
Process Model”
Tjader, Y., May, J.H., Shang, J., Vargas, L.G., and Gao, N. (2014). International
Journal Production Economics. 147, 614-623.

“Firm-Level Outsourcing Decision Making: A
balanced Scorecard-Based Analytic Network
Process Model”
Tjader, Y., May, J.H., Shang, J., Vargas, L.G., and Gao, N. (2014). International
Journal Production Economics. 147, 614-623.
• As a result, the combined BSC-ANP approach supports the
decision maker in a number of ways, including :
– Establishing relationships between and within different
dimensions,
– Measuring the strengths of those relationships and interactions,
– Determining the overall impact of different dimensions and
individual elements of a dimension on the strategies studied,
– Deriving priorities for the dimensions, the components of the
dimensions, and the strategies considered,
– Allocating resources according to those priorities, and a
– Assessing the sensitivity of strategy priorities to changes in the
priorities of the dimensions and their components.

Purpose
The purpose of this article is to;
• Provide an overview of five important areas of Balanced Scorecard (BSC) research:
1. Conceptual evolution
2. Adoption and diffusion
3. Implementation and use
4. Performance effects
5. Critical perspectives
• Suggests fruitful areas for further research

“The Balanced Scorecard: A Review of Five
Research Areas”
Madsen, D.Ø & Stenheim, T. (2015). American Journal of Management, 15(2),
24-41.
Findings
The article discusses current trends and emerging issues in the BSC literature and suggests
fruitful areas for further research. The following are the findings provided in this article:
1. Provide information concerning the evolution of BSC over the course of the first two decades
2. Looked at the role of supply-side and demand-side of the BSC concept
3. BSC can be customized to fit an organization’s needs and characteristics
4. BSC has interpretive space, which leads itself to different interpretations and use in practice
5. A lot of critics on BSC’s conceptual and theoretical issues related to the assumptions of
causality
Added values
• Provide suggestions on fruitful areas for further research in Balanced Scorecard;
• Research on adoption and diffusion of BSC
• Obtain more knowledge about the perceived benefits and problems associated with BSC
use
• More insight into how to successfully implement BSC
• Because most of extant research has focused on problems and failed implementations
of BSC
• Literature on the use of BSC in SMEs
• Cross-national comparative studies of BSC use
• Examine patterns in term of adoption, diffusion, and implementation in different
countries

References
1. Alegre, J., Sengupta, K., & Lapiedra, R. (2013). Knowledge management and innovation
performance in a high-tech SMEs industry. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 454-470.
2. Atout, N. (2015). LinkedIn Pulse. Retrieved 21 April, 2016, from
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/implementing-balanced-scorecard-system-nader-atout
3. Balancedscorecardorg. (2016). Balancedscorecardorg. Retrieved 21 April, 2016, from
http://balancedscorecard.org/Resources/About-the-Balanced-Scorecard.
4. Darroch, J. and McNaughton, R. (2002), “Examining the link between knowledge management
practices and types of innovation”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 210-222.
5. IWH. 2015. What researchers mean by... cross-sectional vs. longitudinal studies.
https://www.iwh.on.ca/wrmb/cross-sectional-vs-longitudinal-studies. Accessed 21 April 2016.
6. Johnson, H. T. and R. S. Kaplan (1987) Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management
Accounting, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
7. Kamensky, J.M. (2016). Top Ten List: Key Factors That Make a Balanced Scorecard Successful (07-
2005). Retrieved 21 April, 2016, from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/brief/top-ten-list-
key-factors-make-balanced-scorecard-successful-07-2005
8. Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1992) The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance,
Harvard Business Review, (January-February): 71-79.
9. Kaplan, R.S. (2010). Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard.
10. Madsen, D.Ø & Stenheim, T. (2015). The Balanced Scorecard: A Review of Five Research Areas.
American Journal of Management, 15(2), 24-41.
11. Nolan Norton Institute (1991) “Measuring Performance in the Organization of the Future: A
Research Study.”

References
9. Johnson, H. T. and R. S. Kaplan (1987) Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting,
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
10. Lueg, R & Vu, L. (2015). Success factors in Balanced Scorecard implementations:A literature review.
Management Revue, 26(4), 306-327.
11. O'Connor, R., & Basri, S. (2014). Understanding the role of knowledge management in software
development: a case study in very small companies. International Journal of Systems and Service-
Oriented Engineering, 4(1), 39-52.
12. Oluikpe, P.I. (2012), “Developing a corporate knowledge management strategy”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 862-878.
13. Rašul, J., Vu kšić, V.B. and Štemberger, M.I. (2012), “The impact of knowledge management on
organisational performance”, Economic and Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147-168.
14. Rohrbeck, R., & Schwarz, J. O. (2013). The value contribution of strategic foresight: Insights from an
empirical study of large European companies.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8),
1593-1606.
15. Singh, M.D. and Kant, R. (2008), “Knowledge management barriers: an interpretive structural modeling
approach”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 141-150.
16. Tjader et al.. (2014). Firm-Level Outsourcing Decision Making: A balanced Scorecard-Based Analytic
Network Process Model. International Journal Production Economics, 147(2014), 614-623.
17. Virtanen, T. (2009) QPR Guidelines to Implementing Balanced Scorecard. PR Software Plc.
http://www.prototechnika.lt/qpr/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/QPR-Guidelines-for-Implementing-
Balanced-Scorecard.pdf.
18. Walsham,G. (2001), “Knowledge management: the benefits and limitations of computer systems”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 599-608.

References
19. Zack, M., McKeen, J. and Singh, S. (2009), “Knowledge management and organizational performance:
an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 392-409.
20. Zack, M.H. (1999), “Developing a knowledge strategy”, California Management Review, Spring, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 125-145.

Balanced Scorecard: A Review of Implementation and Future Opportunities

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (18)

Similaire à Balanced Scorecard: A Review of Implementation and Future Opportunities

Similaire à Balanced Scorecard: A Review of Implementation and Future Opportunities (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Balanced Scorecard: A Review of Implementation and Future Opportunities