A new strategic management system, if it’s adequately
implemented, can change an entire organization in a way to became more
effective and efficient, and the most of strategic management authors and
practicers agree that implementation of an organizational strategy is more
difficult than its formulation. In today’s dynamic, highly competitive
environment, organizations have to devote significant time, as well as
human and financial resources to measuring their performance in order to
achieve their strategic goals. Therefore, organizations must implement an
appropriate strategic management and performance measurement system,
which is suitable for capturing the value of tangible and intangible assets
such as employee satisfaction, organization innovation potential, and
customer and supplier relationships. The facts show that the significance
of strategy is more important today then it has ever been. The balanced
scorecard has emerged as a proven and effective tool in organization’s
request to capture, describe, and translate intangible assets into real value
and allow organization to implement differentiating strategies
successfully, which will help them for better functioning in contemporary
global economic world. It is very important fact that balanced scorecard
concept, making some specific and appropriate correction, became
widely applicable in public sector organizations and in non-profit
organizations within developed economies. Thus, the business and
organizational practice, which is widely used in developed economies
organizations, should be implementing in domestic organizations,
because it will admit to faster eligibility conditions and standards of
access to European Union by the domestic business organizations and
guvernment institutions.
Keywords: Balanced Scorecard Concept, Strategic map, Knowledge Management, Learning organization principles, Measurable Organizational Value
References
1.
Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The strategy-focused organization. Strategy & Leadership. 2001;29(3).
2.
Bill L, Radnor DZ. A Pragmatic Assessment of the Balanced Scorecard. In: An Evaluation for use in a NHS Multi-Agency Setting in the UK.
3.
Behara S, Ravi F, F. G, Alicia G. Customer Satisfaction Measurement and Analyzing Using Six.
4.
Morisawa T. Building Performance Measurement System with the Balanced Scorecard Approach’. NRI Papers. (45).
5.
Rautiainen A. Balanced Scorecard Usage in Finish Municipalities’.
6.
Formulating the Balanced Scorecard. Total Performance Scorecard. 2004. p. 55–114.
7.
Niven P. “Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies.”
8.
Niven P. Balanced scorecard: korak ko korak.
9.
Modell S. Performance Measurement Myths in the Public Sector: A Research Note. Financial Accountability & Management. 2004;20(1):39–55.
10.
New Business Environment’.
11.
Andersen H. Balanced scorecard implementation in SMEs, reflection in literature and practice.
12.
Johnsen Å. Balanced scorecard: theoretical perspectives and public management implications. Managerial Auditing Journal. 2001;16(6):319–30.
13.
Holmes JS, Amin Gutiérrez de Piñeres, S, Douglas Kiel L. Reforming Government Agencies Internationally: Is There a Role for the Balanced Scorecard? International Journal of Public Administration. 2006;29(12):1125–45.
14.
Carmona S, Grönlund A. Measures vs actions: the balanced scorecard in Swedish Law Enforcement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2003;23(12):1475–96.
15.
Bryant L, Jones DA, Widener SK. Managing Value Creation within the Firm: An Examination of Multiple Performance Measures. Journal of Management Accounting Research. 2004;16(1):107–31.
16.
Aung M, Heeler R. Core Competencies of Service Firms: A Framework for Strategic Decisions in International Markets. Journal of Marketing Management. 2001;17(7–8):619–43.
17.
18.
Arveson P. A Balanced Scorecard for City & Country Services’.
19.
Arveson P. The Main Fact about The Balanced Scorecard, Balanced Scorecard Institute.
20.
Antony J. Six sigma for service processes. Business Process Management Journal. 2006;12(2):234–48.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
