The Balance Scorecard

INTRODUCTION

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a strategic performance management tool - a semi-

standard structured report, supported by proven design methods and automation tools, that

can be used by managers to keep track of the execution of activities by the staff within their

control and to monitor the consequences arising from these actions. It is perhaps the best

known of several such frameworks (it is the most widely adopted performance management

framework reported in the annual survey of management tools undertaken by Bain &

Company, and has been widely adopted in English-speaking western countries and

Scandinavia in the early 1990s). Since 2000, use of the Balanced Scorecard, its derivatives

(e.g., Performance Prism), and other similar tools (e.g., Results Based Management) has also

become common in the Middle East, Asia and Spanish-speaking countries.

The characteristic of the Balanced Scorecard and its derivatives is the presentation of a

mixture of financial and non-financial measures each compared to a 'target' value within a

single concise report. The report is not meant to be a replacement for traditional financial or

operational reports but a succinct summary that captures the information most relevant to

those reading it. It is the method by which this 'most relevant' information is determined (i.e.

the design processes used to select the content) that most differentiates the various versions of

the tool in circulation.

As a model of performance, the Balanced Scorecard is effective in that "it articulates the links

between leading inputs (human and physical), processes, and lagging outcomes and focuses

on the importance of managing these components to achieve the organization's strategic

priorities.

The Balance Scorecard

NEED FOR BALANCED SCORECARD

Accountants communicate with financial statements. Engineers communicate with as-built

drawings. Architects communicate with physical models. It seems that almost every

profession has some means of communicating clearly to the end user. However, for people

engaged in strategic planning there has been an on-going dilemma. The finished product, the

strategic plan, has not communicated and reached the end user. Sure strategic plans are nice

to look at, full of bar charts, nice covers, well written, and professionally prepared; but they

simply have not impacted the people who must execute the strategic plan. The end result has

been poor execution of the strategic plan throughout the entire organization. And the sad fact

of the matter is that execution of the strategic plan is everybody’s business, not just upper

level management. Upper level management creates the strategy, but execution takes place

from the bottom up.

There are four barriers to strategic implementation:

Vision Barrier – No one in the organization understands the strategies of the organization.

People Barrier – Most people have objectives that are not linked to the strategy of the

organization.

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.

Management Barrier – Management spends too little time on strategy and too much time

on short-term tactical decision-making.

Only 5% of the workforce understands their company strategy.

Only 25% of managers have incentives linked to strategy.

60% of organizations don’t link budgets to strategy.

86% of executive teams spend less than one hour per month discussing strategy

Therefore, we need a new way of communicating strategy to the end-user. Enter the Balanced

Scorecard. At long last, strategic planners now have a crisp and clear way of communicating

strategy. With balanced scorecards, strategy reaches everyone in a language that makes sense.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 2


When strategy is expressed in terms of measurements and targets, the employee can relate to

what must happen. This leads to much better execution of strategy.

One should think of the Balanced Scorecard as a management system, not just another

performance measurement program. And since strategy is at the center of value-creation for

the organization, the Balanced Scorecard has become a critical management system for any

organization. In 1997, Harvard Business Review called the Balanced Scorecard one of the

most significant business developments of the previous 75 years.

“Balanced Scorecards tell you the knowledge, skills and systems that your employees

will need (learning and growth) to innovate and build the right strategic capabilities and

efficiencies (internal processes) that deliver specific value to the market (customer)

which will eventually lead to higher shareholder value (financial). ”

Terminology-

Cause Effect Relationship : The natural flow of business performance from a lower

level to an upper level within or between perspectives. For example, training

employees on customer relation’s leads to better customer service which in turn leads

to improved financial results. One side is the leader or driver, producing an end result

or effect on the other side.

Goal : An overall achievement that is considered critical to the future success of the

organization Goals express where the organization wants to be.

Measurement : A way of monitoring and tracking the progress of strategic objectives.

Measurements can be leading indicators of performance (leads to an end result) or

lagging indicators (the end results).

Objective : What specifically must be done to execute the strategy; i.e. what is critical

to the future success of our strategy? What the organization must do to reach its goals.



Perspectives : Four or five different views of what drives the organization.

Perspectives provide a framework for measurement. The four most common

perspectives are: Financial (final outcomes), Customer, Internal Processes, and

Learning & Growth.

Programs : Major initiatives or projects that must be undertaken in order to meet one

or more strategic objectives.

Strategic Area : A major strategic thrust for the organization, such as maximizing

shareholder value or improving the efficiency of operations. Strategic areas define the

scope for building the balanced scorecard system.

Strategic Grid : A logical framework for organizing a collection of strategic

objectives over four or more perspectives. Everything is linked to capture a cause and

effect relationship. Strategic grids are the foundation for building the Balanced

Scorecard.

Strategic Model : The combination of all strategic objectives over a strategic grid,

well connected and complete, providing one single model or structure for managing

the strategic area.

Strategy : An expression of what the organization must do to get from one reference

point to another reference point. Strategy is often expressed in terms of a mission

statement, vision, goals, and objectives. Strategy is usually developed at the top levels

of the organization, but executed by lower levels within the organization.

Target : An expected level of performance or improvement required in the future.

Templates : Visual tools for assisting people with building a balanced scorecard,

typically used for capturing and comparing data within the four components of the

Balanced Scorecard: Strategic Grids, Measurements, Targets, and Programs.



Vision : An overall statement of how the organization wants to be perceived over the

long-term (3 to 5 years).



BALANCED SCORECARD - THE PROCESS

1. Strategic Foundation

When designing a balanced scorecard, we always start by asking: “What is your

strategy?” Once we understand the strategy, we can build a new framework for

describing the strategy, which we call a strategy map.

Elongating this quote, we can further deduce it to the more technical term of Strategic

Alignment.

a crystal clear and sharp strategic plan for feeding our balanced scorecard. A clear

strategy requires two things: Specific objectives that tell people what to do and a set

of targets for communicating what is expected.The second key ingredients for a clear

strategy are targets. Targets put teeth into a strategy by imposing criteria that the

organization must achieve.

Once you have defined a clear strategy (objectives and targets), then you must rally

the organization around it.

2. Strategic Area

The organization should a selected area for achieving strategic success; otherwise the

organization may find itself trying to do too many things. The strategic thrust of the

organization needs to be confined to a few major areas. The strategic thrust of the

organization will revolve around stakeholder groups; such as customers, shareholders,

and employees. Additionally, each strategic area will flow across all four perspectives

of the Balanced Scorecard: Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning and

Growth.

3. Strategic Grid

To develop strategic objectives and placing them into the correct layers for all

strategic grids is probably the most difficult step in building the Balanced Scorecard.

We look into some main aspects of a strategic Grid

Operational Efficiency – Value for customers through competitive pricing, superior

quality, on-time delivery or diverse product lines.



Customer Relationships – Value for customers through personal service, building

trust, brand loyalty, providing customized solutions, and other one-to-one

relationships.

Innovative Products & Services – Inventing new products and features, fast delivery

of products and services, forming partnerships to expand product lines, and other

product leadership initiatives.

Different strategies that can fit with our current strategic grid:

Competencies – Skills and knowledge of the work force.

Technologies – Applications and systems for execution of internal processes.

Change Culture – Organizational alignment, employee motivation, executive

leadership, communication, and other qualities of empowering the organization.

4. Measurement

Basic Guidelines for Measurements are:

Linked : Measurements communicate what is strategically important by linking back

to your strategic objectives.

Repeatable : Measurements are continuous over time, allowing comparisons.

Leading : Measurements can be used for establishing targets, leading to future

performance.

Accountable : Measurements are reliable, verifiable, and accurate.

Available : Measurements can be derived when they are needed.

Moving onto Result Categories;

Internal Process Perspective can be broken down into three result categories:

Pre Delivery Results => Innovative Processes that meet customer needs, provide

solutions, and address emerging trends. Example of Leading Indicator => Number

of new products introduced.

Delivery Results => Operations that produce and deliver products and services to

customers. Example of Leading Indicator => Delivery Response Time to Customer.

Post Delivery Results => Value added services provided to customers once products

and / or services have been delivered. Example of Leading Indicator => Cycle Time

for Resolving Customer Complaint.



5. Targets:

Measurement alone is not good enough. We must drive behavioral changes within the

organization if we expect to execute strategy. This requires establishing a target for each

measurement within the Balanced Scorecard. Targets are designed to stretch and push the

organization in meeting its strategic objectives.

Targets need to be realistic so that people feel comfortable about trying to execute on the

target. Therefore, targets should be mutually agreed upon between management and the

person held responsible for hitting the target. One good place to start in setting a target is

to look at past performance. Past trends can be extended for modest improvement. Your

strategic goals can also give you clues as to what your targets should be.

6. Programs:

The final design step is to close the loop and put specific programs in place to make

everything happen. This is perhaps the fun part in the entire process. How do we actually

hit these targets and meet our strategic objectives? What major initiatives must the

organization undertake to make all of this happen? Programs are the major projects that

facilitate execution of everything downstream within the scorecard. Some typical

examples of programs include quality improvement programs, marketing initiatives,

enterprise resource planning, customer relation’s management, and supply chain

management.

Programs usually have certain characteristics:

Sponsored by upper level management

Utilizes designated leaders and cross-functional teams

Consists of deliverables, milestones, and a timeline

Requires resources (people, facilities, allocated budget, etc.)

Once programs have been established and sold to various stakeholders, they tend to add some

degree of strategic value or impact. However, getting a major program initially launched can

be difficult due to funding, apprehension, politics, and other obstacles. If existing programs



lose funding, then you need to work back through your scorecard, adjusting your targets and

making sure everything still fits.

One of the critical steps in selecting programs is to plot programs against all strategic

objectives and assess the strategic impact. This can be extremely important since executive

management will routinely demand cost reductions. You don’t want to cut programs with the

biggest strategic impact. This would undercut your ability in meeting strategic objectives.

Programs with little or no strategic impact should get lowest priority within the organization.

Once we have designed the Balanced Scorecard, we need to implement it throughout the

entire organization. This requires careful planning and coordination with all parts of the

organization. We should have learned several lessons from our first stage scorecard:

How to organize and kick off the process

How to coordinate and gain consensus

How to identify the benefits and difficulties associated with the Balanced Scorecard

An understanding of project deliverables

Also, we should have knowledge about what factors influence implementation of the

Balanced Scorecard, such as:

Time required to develop a balanced scorecard

Availability of data and resources for building the Balanced Scorecard

Degree of support from upper level management

The deployment phase will involve reviewing and aligning the first scorecard with other parts

of the business (divisions, operating units, departments, etc.). We want to integrate the

Corporate or Business Unit Scorecard into lower level scorecards. As we move the scorecard

forward, a more formal collection and reporting system should emerge for the Balanced

Scorecard. Once we get more and more scorecards working, we will begin to explore the

possibility of linking compensation to the measurements within the Balanced Scorecard.

Since strategizing takes place at the upper level of the organization, one place to start

building the Balanced Scorecard is at the corporate level. Once again, we can go back to our

four to five rule: Build your scorecard at the upper layer of the organization, corporate; work

your way down to the second layer, operating; then work your way down to shared service



departments; next work your way down to the lowest levels such as department, teams, and

individuals. By following this process, we ensure alignment.

However, most organizations elect to build their first scorecard at the strategic business unit

level (such as operating units or divisions within the business). The reason is simple. You

want to build a balanced scorecard that covers the entire value chain; i.e. customers,

production, sales, innovation, and all elements that go into making a “complete” scorecard.

Also, by letting other business units start the process, you may get stronger “buy in” to the

Balanced Scorecard. For example, if executive management pushes the scorecard down to

divisions, the divisions may see the scorecard as just another phony management program.

By letting each division review the scorecard first and report back to executive management,

the organization is better positioned for full-scale deployment of the Balanced Scorecard.



THE BALANCED SCORECARD FRAMEWORK

The BSC Method of Kaplan and Norton is a strategic approach performance management

system that enables organizations to translate a company’s vision and strategy into

implementation, working from the 4 perspectives:

1. Financial Perspective

2. Customer Perspective

3. Business Process Perspective

4. Learning and Growth Perspective



1) Financial Perspective: Kaplan and Norton do not disregard the traditional need for

financial data. Timely and accurate funding data will always be a priority, and

managers will do whatever necessary to provide it. In fact, often there is more than

enough handling and processing of financial data. With the implementation of a

corporate database, it is hoped that more of the processing can be centralized and

automated. But the point is that the current emphasis on financials leads to the

"unbalanced" situation with regard to other perspectives. There is perhaps a need to

include additional financial-related data, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit data,

in this category.

2) Customer Perspective: Recent management philosophy has shown an increasing

realization of the importance of customer focus and customer satisfaction in any

business. These are leading indicators: if customers are not satisfied, they will

eventually find other suppliers that will meet their needs. Poor performance from this

perspective is thus a leading indicator of future decline, even though the current

financial picture may look good.

In developing metrics for satisfaction, customers should be analyzed in terms of

kinds of customers and the kinds of processes for which we are providing a product or

service to those customer groups.

3) Business Process Perspective: This perspective refers to internal business processes.

Metrics based on this perspective allow the managers to know how well their business

is running, and whether its products and services conform to customer requirements

(the mission). These metrics have to be carefully designed by those who know these

processes most intimately; with our unique missions these are not something that can

be developed by outside consultants.

4) Learning and Growth Perspective: This perspective includes employee training and

corporate cultural attitudes related to both individual and corporate self-improvement.

In a knowledge-worker organization, people -- the only repository of knowledge -- are

the main resource. In the current climate of rapid technological change, it is becoming



necessary for knowledge workers to be in a continuous learning mode. Metrics can be

put into place to guide managers in focusing training funds where they can help the

most. In any case, learning and growth constitute the essential foundation for success

of any knowledge-worker organization.

Kaplan and Norton emphasize that 'learning' is more than 'training'; it also includes

things like mentors and tutors within the organization, as well as that ease of

communication among workers that allows them to readily get help on a problem

when it is needed. It also includes technological tools; what the Baldrige criteria call

"high performance work systems."

An example of Constructing the Sorecard is given below:



KEY BENEFITS OF USING BALANCED SCORECARDS

Research has shown that organisations that use a Balanced Scorecard approach tend to

outperform organisations without a formal approach to strategic performance management.

The key benefits of using a BSC include:

Better Strategic Planning – The Balanced Scorecard provides a powerful framework for

building and communicating strategy. The business model is visualised in a Strategy Map

which forces managers to think about cause-and-effect relationships. The process of creating

a Strategy Map ensures that consensus is reached over a set of interrelated strategic



objectives. It means that performance outcomes as well as key enablers or drivers of future

performance (such as the intangibles) are identified to create a complete picture of the

strategy.

Improved Strategy Communication & Execution – The fact that the strategy with all its

interrelated objectives is mapped on one piece of paper allows companies to easily

communicate strategy internally and externally. We have known for a long time that a picture

is worth a thousand words. This ‘plan on a page’ facilities the understanding of the strategy

and helps to engage staff and external stakeholders in the delivery and review of strategy. In

the end it is impossible to execute a strategy that is not understood by everybody.

Better Management Information – The Balanced Scorecard approach forces organisations

to design key performance indicators for their various strategic objectives. This ensures that

companies are measuring what actually matters. Research shows that companies with a BSC

approach tend to report higher quality management information and gain increasing benefits

from the way this information is used to guide management and decision making.

Improved Performance Reporting – companies using a Balanced Scorecard approach tend

to produce better performance reports than organisations without such a structured approach

to performance management. Increasing needs and requirements for transparency can be met

if companies create meaningful management reports and dashboards to communicate

performance both internally and externally.

Better Strategic Alignment – organisations with a Balanced Scorecard are able to better

align their organisation with the strategic objectives. In order to execute a plan well,

organisations need to ensure that all business and support units are working towards the same

goals. Cascading the Balanced Scorecard into those units will help to achieve that and link

strategy to operations.

Better Organisational Alignment – well implemented Balanced Scorecards also help to

align organisational processes such as budgeting, risk management and analytics with the

strategic priorities. This will help to create a truly strategy focused organisation.



CASE STUDY: SAATCHI & SAATCHI WORLDWIDE

Headquartered in New York City, and with annual billings topping $US 7 billion, Saatchi &

Saatchi is one of the world’s leading creating organizations. The corporation has more than

7,000 employees in 84 countries. Services range from communication and marketing

strategy, advertising scripts for production, consumer research and forecasting, among others.

Its impressive client list includes household names such as Carlsberg, General Mills, Lexus,



Procter & Gamble, Sony Ericsson and Visa International. The organization positions itself

not as an advertising agency, but as an ‘ideas company’.

Since 1997, the Balanced Scorecard has been central to implementing the purpose, or vision,

of Saatchi & Saatchi. In this case study we focus mainly on the early years of scorecard usage

in the corporation, and what was one of the truly great balanced scorecard success stories.

A Classic Burning Platform

In September 2000, the Paris, France, Headquartered Publicis Groupe SA purchased Saatchi

& Saatchi for close on $2.5 billion. Equating to about 4.5 times Saatchi & Saatchi’s then net

worth, the purchase price is remarkable in that just three years earlier the corporation was

teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

Experiencing a classic burning platform due to over-extension through acquisition throughout

the 1980s, coupled with severe financial pressures in the recession of the early 1990s,

turnaround started with the appointment of a new senior management team in the mid-1990s.

Bob Seelert became chairman and he appointed Kevin Roberts as CEO Worldwide, and Bill

Cochrane as CFO Worldwide. They still hold these positions and were, as a team, catalytic

for the scorecard implementation that was to follow.

Setting Stretch Targets

First though was the requirement for significant organizational restructuring and cost

reduction. A key trigger for this was the December 1997 de-merger of Saatchi & Saatchi

from Cordiant Communications. With Saatchi & Saatchi now on its own, the senior team

presented to its stakeholders a detailed strategic blueprint for recovery, which included the

following three very ambitious targets with a timeframe of three years.

1. Growing the revenue base better than the market

2. Converting 30% of that incremental revenue to operation profit



3. Doubling its earnings per share

These goals were to support the new vision: ‘To be revered as the hothouse for world-

clanging creating ideas that transform our clients’ businesses, brands and reputations.’

The corporation had an ambitious vision and even more ambitious stretch targets. But the

trick would be to deliver on its goals, which would require a rapid implementation of its new

strategy. And given the high failure rates of strategy implementation, coupled with the

corporation’s precarious financial position, this would not be without a significant risk of

failure.

Choosing the Balanced Scorecard

After spending about three months on the road during late 1997 visiting the majority of the

organization’s 45+ globally dispersed agencies, Kevin Roberts realized that although great

work was being done, each location was essentially working on its own agenda. Simply put,

there was no commonality of purpose or cohesion of identity – not surprising as the

organization had grown through acquisition. Roberts therefore realized that he required a

management tool that would help communicate and make operational the new vision in a

commonly understood process and language.

A Balanced Scorecard Steering Committee to lead the scorecard program was appointed,

comprising three representatives from Renaissance and three from Saatchi & Saatchi – Paul

Melter and colleagues from client services and strategic planning. The committee had to

report to the executive management team on a weekly basis.

Creating the Strategy Map

The corporate level CompaSS was built in a three month period from September to

November 1998. The corporate Strategy Map that was used until 2003 is shown in Figure 1.

Note that despite the pressure that the organization was under at the time it first created the

scorecard, and the complexities of managing a global organization, the Strategy Map is



remarkably simple, comprising just 12 strategic objectives. The simplicity was purposeful,

says Melter:

“A Strategy Map should show the critical few objectives that will make the difference in

delivering to the strategy. And these should be strategic objectives, not operational. Too

many Strategy Maps include both.”

RASCIs

From the steering committee evolved a process of setting out RASCIs – an acronym for

Responsible, Approval, Support, Consult and Inform. They identified a theme owner for each

perspective (therefore responsible for that perspective). For Finance it was Bill Cochrane, for

Client it was a Senior Executive/Regional Director from Asia. For Product and Process it was

another Senior Executive/Regional Director from Australia, and for People and Culture, it

was another Senior Executive/Regional Director from China.

These ‘Rs’ then worked with the steering committee to choose objectives that would

eventually be essential links in the Strategy Map. Having just one ‘A’ and just one ‘R’ for



each perspective was vital for taking out any bottlenecks and ensuring the process moved

rapidly.

From here, further ‘Rs’, typically CEOs from agencies around the global network, were

assigned responsibility for detailing how specific objectives would be achieved, such as

identifying the key measures. These ‘Rs’ also worked closely with the steering committee in

delivering to this task.

Global Rollout

With the Corporate level CompaSS in place, the next process step was global rollout to the

45+ business units. Keeping with the goal of commonality of purpose and the desire to keep

the scorecard simple and focused, devolved Strategy Maps are essentially the same as at the

corporate level. Importantly, the corporate map defined the performance conversations with

the regions. Responsibility for performance within each unit ultimately lied with the local

CEOs as Melter explains:

“Without having the unconditional, unequivocal backing of the senior executive team this

will fail. All of the 45+ unit-based CEOs have mentors among the senior executive team and

if there’s a feeling that the CompaSS doesn’t have to be done this month, or if they believe

that there is something more important then it will fade. But our three executive leaders make

it clear to all the local unit CEOs that it is a great tool and this is the way we manage the

business.”

Facilitating the Scorecard Process

The management of each unit does receive proper training and ongoing support in how to

work with the scorecard. Paul Melter is the full-time CompaSS director and is supported by

two fulltime staff. One is involved in managing and developing the scorecard software

system and the other is involved in quality control. Melter also has the support of over 40

part-time scorecard champions in the units who are responsible for collecting and collating

their own CompaSS and forwarding theses to the centre.



As an important learning, Melter is convinced that in a global organization, responsibility for

the scorecard has to be a full time vocation.

The job isn’t over when CompaSS is up and running. You get into managing the scorecard as

an ongoing program, and using the scorecard with the aim of building a strategy-focused

organization. The scorecard therefore impacts planning, communication, people and culture,

budgeting and feedback, as examples. It focuses the discussions of every management

meeting. In short, the scorecard is an essential tool in the way they manage their global

organization. It is the means for setting priorities and allocating resources.

CONCLUSION



Despite the undoubted success, there have been challenges along the way. One has been the

complexity of reporting the scorecard results from the business units back up to the corporate

level in a meaningful fashion.

Scorecard results are delivered quarterly, and expressed through the “traffic-light” reporting

system of green (ahead of target), yellow (meeting target) and red (off target). When green,

executives are expected to share best practices for use elsewhere in the organization (thus

strengthening the ‘one team, one dream’ people and culture objective). When managers were

reporting green for people, process and customer but red for financial it highlighted a

strategic disconnect that needs to be addressed. Identifying such disconnects is, one of the

strengths of the scorecard system.

This was achieved by predefining the financial measures based on conditional formatting.

Therefore making them either red or green there was rarely ever a yellow status.



BIBLOGRAPHY

Websites

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/bscresources/examplessuccessstories/tabid/57/

default.aspx

http://www.netmba.com/accounting/mgmt/balanced-scorecard

http://www.symphonytech.com/articles/bscard.htm

http://managementhelp.org/org_perf/bal_card.htm

http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_balancedscorecard.html

http://www.citehr.com/37492-balance-score-card-case-study.html

http://www.business-intelligence.co.uk/reports/strat_bsc/casestudies.asp

http://www.epmreview.com/Resources/Case-Studies/Saatchi-Saatchi-Worldwide.html

www.verslobanga.lt/lt/zb.download/3f1a601f9edd1/BCS_Saatchi.pdf

http://www.brainmass.com/homework-help/business/accounting-business-analysis-

financial-reporting/266949

Books

Cost and Management Accounting by Ravi Kishore, Taxmann Publications, 4th

Edition.

Cost Management: A Strategic Emphasis by Edward Blocher, Kung H. Chen, W.

Thomas Lin, Mcgraw-Hill Professional, 3rd Edition.

Succeeding with the Balanced Scorecard by James Creelman, Naresh Makhijani,

Wiley – India Edition, 2006.


http://www.brainmass.com/homework-help/business/accounting-business-analysis-financial-reporting/266949

http://www.brainmass.com/homework-help/business/accounting-business-analysis-financial-reporting/266949

http://www.verslobanga.lt/lt/zb.download/3f1a601f9edd1/BCS_Saatchi.pdf

http://www.epmreview.com/Resources/Case-Studies/Saatchi-Saatchi-Worldwide.html

http://www.business-intelligence.co.uk/reports/strat_bsc/casestudies.asp

http://www.citehr.com/37492-balance-score-card-case-study.html

http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_balancedscorecard.html

http://managementhelp.org/org_perf/bal_card.htm

http://www.symphonytech.com/articles/bscard.htm

http://www.netmba.com/accounting/mgmt/balanced-scorecard

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/bscresources/examplessuccessstories/tabid/57/default.aspx

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/bscresources/examplessuccessstories/tabid/57/default.aspx

Documents

The Balance Scorecard