Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Major Perspectives Weighted Model for Balanced Scorecard System in the Case of Auto Industries


Affiliations
1 Department of Accounting, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
 

The Balanced Scorecard methodology is a comprehensive approach that analyzes an organization's overall performance in at least four ways. Based on the idea that assessing performance through financial returns only provides information about how well the organization did prior to the assessment, so that future performance can be predicted and proper actions taken to create the desired future. The present study tried to point out the major perspectives weighted model for the Balance Scorecard Systems through setting weight for each perspective of a Balance Scorecard which especially can be used in Iranian auto industries. Fuzzy AHP was employed as one of the important items regarding multi-criteria decision making. Regarding results of Fuzzy AHP Organization's Innovation and Learning is the most important perspective and then are Customer Satisfaction, Financial Measures and Internal Processes. It should be noticed that in effectiveness Balance Scorecard, all the perspectives are of not the same importance and a better Balance Scorecard system that makes suitable will tend support for higher performance.

Keywords

Balanced Scorecard, Fuzzy AHP, Perspective, Implementation
User

  • Ahn H (2001) Applying the balanced scorecard concept: an experience report. Long Range Planning. 34(4), 441-461.

  • Balanced Scorecard Collaborative (2010) Learning centre section, FAQs and glossary, available at: https://www.bscol.com/bsc_online/learning/faqs/index.cfm?id=D84E0D4C-BDC5-11D4-A8C400508BDC96C1.

  • Balanced Scorecard Institute (2010) Available at: http://www.balancedscorecard.org/bscresources/ aboutthebalancedscorecard/tabid/55/default.aspx.

  • Biggart TB, Burney LL, Lanagan RF and JW Harden (2010) Is a balanced scorecard useful in a competitive retail environment? Manage. Acc. Quarterly. pp: 1-12.

  • Butler A, Letza SR and Neale B (1997) Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. Long Range Planning. 30(2), 242-253.

  • Chang CH (1996) Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 96, 343–350.

  • De Geuser F, Mooraj S and Oyon D (2009) Dose the balanced scorecard add value? Empirical evidence on its effect on performance. Eur. Acc. Rev. 18(1), 93-122.

  • Dumond EJ (1994) Making best use of performance-measures and information. Int. J. Oper. & Prod. Manage. 14(9), 16-31.

  • Govindarajan V and Gupta A (1985) Linking control systems to business unit strategy. Impact on performance. Acc., Organz. & Soc. 10(1), 51-66.

  • Hanson J and Towle J (2000) The balanced scorecard, not just another fad. Credit Union Executive J. 40(1), 12-16.

  • Hasan H and Tibbits HR (2000) Strategic management of electronic commerce: an adaptation of the balanced scorecard. Internet Res. 10(5), 439-450.

  • Hayes RH and Abernathy WJ (1980) Managing our way to economic decline. Harvard Business Rev. 58(4), 67-77.

  • Hoque Z and James W (2000) Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors. Impact on organizational performance. J. Manage. Acc. Res. 12, 1-17.

  • Hueng P (2000) Process performance measurement system: a tool to support process-based organizations. Total Quality Manage. 11(1), 67-85.

  • Islam M and Kellermanns F (2006) Firm-and Individual-level determination of balanced scorecard usage. Canad. Acc. Perpect. 5(2), 181-207.

  • Ittner CD and DF Larcker (1998) Innovations in performance measurement, trends and research implications. J. Manage. Acc. Res. 10(1), 205-238.

  • Ittner CD and DF Larcker (2003) Coming up short on non-financial performance measurement. Harvard Bus. Rev. 81(11), 88-95.

  • Johnson HT and Kaplan RS (1988) Relevance lost - the rise and fall of management accounting. Harvard Bus. School Press, Boston, MA.

  • Kahraman C, Cebeci U and Ulukan Z (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics Info. Manage. 16(6), 382–394.

  • Kanji GK (2002) Performance measurement systems. Total Quality Manage. 13(5), 715-729.

  • Kaplan RS and DP Norton (1992) The balanced scorecard. Measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 69(1), 71-79.

  • Kaplan RS and Norton DP (1996) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Bus. Rev. January- February.

  • Kaplan RS and Norton DP (2000) The strategy focused organization - how balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Bus. School Press, Boston, Mass.

  • Kaplan RS and Norton DP (2001) Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management, part I. Acc. Horizons. 15(3), 87-104.

  • Kaplan RS and Norton DP (2004) Plotting success with strategy maps. Optimize. February, pp. 61-65.

  • Khandwalla P (1972) The effect of different types of competition on the use of management controls. J. Acc. Res. 10(2), 275-285.

  • Khozein A (2012) Balanced scorecard should attend more in organizations. Int. J. Res. Manage. 2(1), 38-46.

  • Lawson R, Stratton W and Hatch T (2003) The benefits of a scorecard system. CMA Manage. 24(6-7), 24-26.

  • Maiga A and Jacobs F (2003) Balanced scorecard, activity-based costing and company performance. An empirical analysis. J. Managerial Issues. 15(3), 283-301.

  • Maltz AC, Shenhar AJ and Reilly RR (2003) Beyond the balanced scorecard: refining the search for organisational success measures. Long Range Planning. 36(2), 187-204.

  • Marr B and Schiuma G (2002) Research challenges for corporate performance measurement: evidence from a citation analysis. Conf. Proc. Perform. Meas. & Manage. Res. & Action, Ed Neely. A and Walters, A., 17-19 July, Boston, USA pp. 355-362

  • Neely AD, Gregory M and Platts K (1995) Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Oper. & Prod. Manage. 15(4), 80-116.

  • Neely A, Kennerley M and V Martinez (2004) Does the balanced scorecard work: an empirical investigation. (Eds, Neely A, Kennerley M and Walters A), Perform. Meas. & Manage., Public & Private, Cranfield School of Manage., Edinburgh, UK. pp: 763-777.

  • Pforsich H (2005) Does your scorecard need a workshop? Strategic Finance. 86(8), 30-35.

  • Saaty L (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. NY. McGraw- Hill.

  • Sandt J, Schaeffer U and Weber J (2001) Balanced performance measurement systems and manager satisfaction -empirical evidence from a german study. WHU - Otto Beisheim Graduate School of Manage.

  • Speckbacher GJ and Pfeiffer T (2003) A descriptive analysis on the implementation of Balanced Scorecards in German-speaking countries. Manage. Accoun. Res. 14(4), 361-387.

  • Wang TC and Chen YH (2007) Applying consistent fuzzy preference relations to partnership selection. Int. J. Manage. Sci. 35, 384–388.


Abstract Views: 562

PDF Views: 154




  • The Major Perspectives Weighted Model for Balanced Scorecard System in the Case of Auto Industries

Abstract Views: 562  |  PDF Views: 154

Authors

Ghodratolah Talebnia
Department of Accounting, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


The Balanced Scorecard methodology is a comprehensive approach that analyzes an organization's overall performance in at least four ways. Based on the idea that assessing performance through financial returns only provides information about how well the organization did prior to the assessment, so that future performance can be predicted and proper actions taken to create the desired future. The present study tried to point out the major perspectives weighted model for the Balance Scorecard Systems through setting weight for each perspective of a Balance Scorecard which especially can be used in Iranian auto industries. Fuzzy AHP was employed as one of the important items regarding multi-criteria decision making. Regarding results of Fuzzy AHP Organization's Innovation and Learning is the most important perspective and then are Customer Satisfaction, Financial Measures and Internal Processes. It should be noticed that in effectiveness Balance Scorecard, all the perspectives are of not the same importance and a better Balance Scorecard system that makes suitable will tend support for higher performance.

Keywords


Balanced Scorecard, Fuzzy AHP, Perspective, Implementation

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2012%2Fv5i10%2F30920