Balanced Performance Measurement Systems and Manager Satisfaction - Empirical Evidence from a German Study -
Sandt, J.
Schaeffer, U.
Weber, J.
1 Motivation
In the late eighties and the beginning of the nineties, criticism of traditional performance measures and performance measurement systems was widespread.1 Consequently, new concepts such as the Balanced Scorecard (as the most successful example) have been developed and implemented in a considerable number of companies.2 The Balanced Scorecard claims, amongst other things, to enhance the managers' understanding of the strategy and the underlying business model.3 Furthermore, the concept claims to lead to a higher degree of user satisfaction, i.e. the managers' satisfaction with performance measurement.4 However, little empirical evidence for these claims has been collected so far.5
The objective of this paper is to provide empirical evidence for the two claims underlying the Balanced Scorecard concept. In a first step, the characteristics of balanced performance measurement systems (like the Balanced Scorecard) are described. Two constituting factors are identified to classify a balanced performance measurement system: Linkage and balance of performance measures. Secondly, hypotheses are developed concerning the impact of balanced performance measurement systems on the users' understanding of strategy and the users' satisfaction with performance measures. Finally, the empirical results are presented and discussed.
1 cf. for example Johnson/Kaplan (1987), Eccles (1991).
2 cf. for example a study by Towers Perrin cited in Neely (1998), p.7, and Speckbacher/Bischof (2000).
3 cf. for example Kaplan/Norton (1992), p. 73.
4 cf. for example Kaplan/Norton (1992), p. 73.
5 for example Lingle/Schieman (1996), Perlitz (1998) and Horváth et al. (1999) did empircal research on performance measurement systems, yet manager satisfaction and conceptual use was not part of it.
2 Constituting factors of balanced performance measurement systems
Performance measures can be defined as metrics which quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of a business.6 As opposed to an aggregation of stand-alone performance measures, a performance measurement system consists of performance measures which are explicitly related to each other.7 Accordingly, a performance measurement system is more than just a simple set of performance measures. A performance measurement system demands a systematic link between the performance measures, either in a mathematical way or in terms of a descriptive cause-effect relationship. As a consequence, the degree of how systematically the performance measures are linked is the defining trait of a performance measurement system. For example, the Balanced Scorecard is said to consist of performance measures which are systematically linked.8 As opposed to the DuPont-System9, the performance measures of the Balanced Scorecard are not mathematically linked, but rather by descriptive cause-effect relationships.
One major critique of traditional performance measurement systems concerned the emphasis they placed on financial measures.10 Financial measures are reporting the financial outcome of activities and thus are lagging measures. Traditional performance measurement systems tend to neglect the drivers of the (future) financial outcomes, so called leading measures.
However, a balanced performance measurement system focuses not only on one or a few aspects of the business, but rather takes a comprehensive view. This type of performance measurement system encompasses performance measures which address all important aspects of the business. If a performance measurement system consists of both lagging and leading measures and instead of focusing only on single aspects of the business it is balanced. The degree of balance is a second major factor for describing and classifying performance measurement systems.11
By using these two factors - the degree of the performance measures' systematic linkage and the degree of their balance - performance measurement systems can be specified more
6 cf. Neely (1998), p.5.
7 cf. Staehle (1969), p. 69, Lachnit (1976), p. 216.
8 cf. Kaplan/Norton (1996).
9 cf. Davis (1950).
10 cf. for example Johnson/Kaplan (1987), Eccles (1991).
accurately than just by asking managers whether they have a performance measurement system or not. Using a 2x2-matrix, a performance measurement system can be catgorized according to four different types.
Degree of the performance measures'
systematic linkage Degree of the
performance measures' balance
low high
low high
4
2 3
1
Figure 1: Classification of performance measurement systems
One of the oldest and most widely used performance measurement systems is the Return on Investment-system (DuPont-system)12. The centerpiece of this performance measurement system is the return on investment. This pivotal performance measure is mathematically split. The product is a pyramid of performance measures. Though the DuPont-performance measurement system is characterized by a high degree of the systematic linkage of performance measures, it consists only of financial measures. Thus, the performance measures of the Du Pont-performance measurement system have only a low degree of balance (cell 1).
Cell 2 characterizes a balanced performance measurement system, as recommended by Kaplan and Norton, the authors of the Balanced Scorecard concept.13 The performance measures of a Balanced Scorecard can be considered to have a high degree of balance as they cover several perspectives. The proposed perspectives - financial, customer, internal business, learning and growth - are organised along the value chain and thus cover all important aspects of a business. A Balanced Scorecard should also have a high degree of
11 cf. Kennerley/Neely (2000), p. 294.
12 cf. Davis (1950), Horváth et al. (1999), p. 308.
13 cf. Kaplan/Norton (1996).
systematic linkage: the performance measures of the Balanced Scorecard are linked by cause-and-effect relationships14 and can be assigned to cell 3.
In some companies which adopt the Balanced Scorecard, the existing performance measures are merely grouped into the perspectives.15 When a perspective lacks performance measures, some measures are added, thus balancing the performance measurement system. Yet, if the relationships between the performance measures are not worked out and specified, it is a performance measurement system out of cell 3.16
Cell 4 describes a performance measurement system which is characterized by a low degree of systematic linkage and a low degree of balance (e.g. ad hoc collection of financial and non-financial performance measures). This situation is found in companies which just add performance measures that seem to be relevant without checking their interdependence with others and whether in toto they cover all aspects leading to „too many [measures] – and too many irrelevant ones.“ 17
3 The use of performance measurement systems
As mentioned above, balanced performance measurement systems claim to enhance the understanding of the strategy and the business. Thus, a performance measurement system is used for learning. The question is, how can this kind of use be operationalized. As perfomance measures and performance measurement systems are basically information, in the next section several typologies information usage are briefly summarized.
• One of the earliest works on the information usage was conducted by Simon et al.18 They differentiate between three types: score keeping, attention directing and problem
14 cf. Kaplan/Norton (1996), p. 149: „Every measure selected for a Balanced Scorecard should be an element of a chain of cause-and-effect relationships that communicates the meaning of the business unit’s strategy to the organization.“
15 cf. Weber/Schäffer (2000), p. 127.
16 cf. Otley (1999), p. 375: "However, the mapping of means-end relationships for a given organization is of crucial importance for the development of a meaningful Balanced Scorecard, and is worthy of much greater attention." Also Kaplan/Norton (1996), p. 29: „The multiple measures on a properly constructed Balanced Scorecard should consist of a linked series of objectives and measures that are both consistent and mutually reinforcing ... Like a flight simulator, the scorecard should incorporated the complex set of cause-and-effect relationships among the critical variables, including leads, lags, and feedback loops, that describe the trajectory, the flight plan, of the strategy.“ Also Kaplan/Norton (1996c), p. 4: "Many managers believe they are using a Balanced Scorecard, when they supplement traditional financial measures with generic, non- financial measures about customers, processes, and employees."
17 Keegan/Eiler/Jones (1989).
18 cf. Simon et al. (1954).
solving. Score keeping and attention directing are grouped together as attention is redirected when score keeping leads to detecting variances.
• Menon and Varadarajan examine the process of marketing knowledge utilization within firms.19 According to them, the most widely used conceptualizations of knowledge utilization are instrumental, conceptual and symbolic use. Instrumental use refers to the application of information to a problem to be solved. It is a tradtional view of information use. A more indirect use is the conceptual one. The use of the information does not directly relate to a concrete problem, but rather provides general enlightenment.
It can be considered as developing the managerial knowledge base. Information can also be used after decisions have been taken to legitimize and justify them. Yet, the information was not used for the actual decision making itself. This kind of use is called symbolic.
• Simons introduces a new concept of information use. 20 In order to maximize the return on management, i.e. the ratio between the productive organizational energy released by a manager's activities and the manager's attention invested, he speaks of diagnostic and interactive use. Whereas diagnostic use means that the manager only takes action when goals are not met and as a consequence saves his attention, interactive use refers to focusing attention on areas with strategic uncertainties. Diagnostic use generates stability, interactive use stimulates reflection and action on pivotal aspects of the business.
• In a recent empirical study, Vandenbosch suggests four categories of information use:
score keeping, improving understanding, focusing attention and legitimizing decisions.21 This typology integrates some of the above mentioned kinds of use.
Coming back to the question of whether performance measurement system further the manager's basic understanding of the business and broaden his knowledge, this corresponds with Menon/Varadarjan’s „conceptual use“ and Vandenbosch’s „improving understanding“.
The conceptual use methodology has recently been tested for cost accounting systems in a German study. The conceptual use of cost accounting systems was higher than the
19 cf. Menon/Varadarajan /1992).
20 cf. Simons (1996).
21 cf. Vandenbosch (19 99).
instrumental use. 22 This paper applies this concept in the context performance measurement system.
4 Hypotheses
4.1 Balanced performance measurement system and conceptual use
Kaplan and Norton suggest that a balanced performance measurement system like the Balanced Scorecard helps managers to understand their business. The links between performance measures represent knowledge about interrelationships. 23 They can be used to generate and test hypotheses about cause-and-effect-relationships managers have set up. 24 Thus, it can enhance the manager's knowledge-base.
The balanced representation of leading and lagging measures as well as the linkage of performance measures work together in helping managers to see "the whole picture"25 and to transcend functional and departmental barriers. Thus, a balanced performance measurement system is a necessary prerequisite for the successful conceptual use of performance measures.
Managers who perceive their performance measures as linked and are thus aware of the interrelations will be more likely to use their performance measures conceptually than others.
It can be formulated as follows:
H1: Managers who say they have a performance measurement system use it more in a conceptual way than managers who do not (and just have a set of single performance measures).
22 Homburg et al. (2000).
23 Kaplan/Norton (1992), p. 79: "... the balanced scorecards helps managers understand, at least implicitly, many interrelationships. This understanding can help managers transcend traditional notions about functional barriers and ultimately lead to improved decision making and problerm solving."
24 cf. Kaplan/Norton (1996b), p. 84: "Another organization attempted to validate its hypothesized cause-and- effect relationships by measuring the strength of the linkages among measures in the different
perspectives."
25 cf. Norreklit (2000), p. 82: "It [the Balanced Scorecard] may contribute to sharpening communication in the company in that it is not restricted to financial measures but also includes non-financial ones, which provides a more comprehensive picture of the company."
In hypothesis 1 the independent variable is on a nominal scale: managers state whether they perceive to have a performance measurement system or not. To specify the independent variables, the two factors introduced above to classify performance measurement system are incorporated in the second and third hypothesis:
H2: Balanced of the performance measures will be positively related to the degree of conceptual use.
H3: Systematic linkage of the performance measures will be positively related to the degree of conceptual use.
4.2 Balanced performance measurement system and managers' satisfaction Traditional performance measurement systems are characterized by a financial focus, i.e. a low degree of balance.26 Besides, managers had been provided with more and more performance measures, every new management concept such as Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering adding new ones without checking how they interrelate with the already exisiting ones. As a consequence, managers were not satisfied with their performance measures.27
Balanced performance measurement system avoid these shortcomings of the traditional systems with their focus on financial measures and the lack of linkage. Therefore, it is claimed that managers are more satisfied with balanced performance measurement system.
As such, hypothesis 4 is as follows:
H4: Managers who say they have a performance measurement system are more satisfied with the measures than those who do not (and just have single performance measures).
As for hypotheses 2 and 3, the performance measurement system is specified by the factors balance an linkage of the performance measures. Hypotheses 5 and 6 are:
H5: Balance of the performance measures will be positvely related to managers' satisfaction with their performance measures.
H6: Systematic linkage of the performance measures will be positively related to managers' satisfaction with their performance measures.
26 cf. Johnson/Kaplan (1987).
27 cf. for example Eccles (1991), p. 132.
4.3 Conceptual use and managers' satisfaction
In the hypotheses above, the conceptual use of performance measures and managers‘
satisfaction with performance measurement are dependent on the balance and linkage of performance measures. In addition, it is postulated that the conceptual use of performance measures has a positive impact on managers' satisfaction. The conceptual use of performance measures contributes to the managers‘ understanding of the strategy and the underlying business modell. This knowledge is a necessary condition for job satisfaction, which should lead to perceiving the performance measures as useful and increase the satisfaction with them. Therefore, hypothesis 7 is as follows:
H7: Conceptual use of performance measures is positively related to managers' satisfaction with their perfomance measures.
5 The study
The study consisted of a scale development and a large scale questionnaire-based survey to test the hypotheses.
5.1 Scale development
The relevant constructs of the hypotheses are managers' satisfaction with their performance measures, the existence of a performance measurement system, the systematic linkage of the performance measures, and their balance. The first two constructs were measured using one indicator. First, managers were asked how satisfied they are with the performance measures they have using a 7-point Likert scale. The question does not specify whether the managers' performance measures are part of a performance measurement system or not. Therefore, in another question using a nominal scale (answer options yes/no) managers were asked whether they have a performance measurement system or not.
The systematic linkage of the performance measures, their balance and the conceptual use have characteristics of latent variables. Therefore, they are conceptualized and operationalized using multiple indicators (see appendix). Again, 7-point Likert scales are used for the constructs' items. The construct of conceptual use has been used in other studies
and proved to be valid.28 These items are used in this study. The construct of systematic linkage of the performance measures and the balance has not been developed for questionnaire yet. Therefore, the construct has been conceptualized and operationalized for the first time. Before the questionnaires were sent out, the constructs had been tested in interviews with general managers and researchers.
5.2 The survey
General managers of German companies of all industries and sizes were asked. After having checked the questionnaire with the constructs in a pre-test, the questionnaire was sent to 2.386 German general managers. General managers are managers who are responsible for both costs of a business unit or company and revenues. General managers were asked to avoid a bias by functional specialization. 265 managers replied for a response rate of 11,11%. Eleven of the 265 questionnaires had a large number of missing values, leaving 254 usable responses.
5.3 Results
Before the hypotheses are tested by analysing the strength of the relationships under investigation, the reliability and the validity of the constructs are measured.
To check the reliability and validity of the constructs, criteria of the first generation (exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, item-to-total correlation) and the second generation were used (chi-square-test, goodness-of-fit index, adjusted goodness-of-fit-index, indicator reliability, average variance extracted).29 The required thresholds were passed indicating reliability and validity of measurement.30
As systematic linkage of the performance measures and the balance are two independent variables in a measurement model, the discriminant validity between the two constructs must be tested. As the the average extracted variances of the factors are larger than the squared correlation, the Fornell-Larcker criterion is met and the factors can be considered to be distinct.
28 cf. Aust (1999), Karlshaus (2000).
29 cf. Homburg/Giering (1996).
30 cf. Homburg/Giering (1996), p. 13.
Once the reliabilty and validity of the constructs are established, the relationships among them are assessed by multiple regression analysis, producing the variance explained and the path strengths.
A T-test of the means was used to test hypothesis 1. Table 1 shows the results: if managers perceive themselves to have a performance measurement system, the conceptual use is significantly higher.
Performance Measurement System
N Mean Standard
deviation
T-Value df Significance
yes 119 5,46 1,08
no 135 4,91 0,98
-4,262 252 0,000
Table 1: T-test of means of conceptual use (do have a performance measurement system and do not have a performance measurement system)
The means are different on a highly significant level (α= 0,01).
If the set of performance measures is highly balanced (H2) and systematically linked (H3), the conceptual use of performances measures is higher, too. The balance of the performance measures contributes more to a conceptual use of the performance measures than the systematic linkage.
The regression analysis for hypothesis H2 and H3 results in a variance explained of 31%
(see figure 1), i.e. both variables together explain 31% of the conceptual use of performance measures.
Conceptual use of the performance measures Systematic linkage
of the performance measures ‘ Balance of the
performance measures
0,43***
0,20***
R2= 0,31
Figure 4: Conceptual use and balance, systematic linkage of the performance measures For testing hypothesis H4, the mean of managers' satisfaction who have a performance measurement system are compared with a T-test with the mean of the managers' satisfaction who do not have a performance measurement system. The results are shown in table 2: If there is a performance measurement system in the perception of the manager, they are more satisfied with their performance measures than those who say they do not have one.
Performance Measurement System
N Mean Standard
deviation
T-Value df Significance
yes 119 5,28 1,19
no 135 4,55 1,44
-4,452 252 0,000
Table 2: T-test of means of managers' satisfaction (do have a performance measurement system and do not have a performance measurement system)
The means are different on a highly significant level (α= 0,01).
The regression analysis for hypothesis H5 und H6 results in an explained variance of 44%
(see figure 2), i.e. both variables togehter explain 44% of the manager’s satisfaction with performance measures. If the set of performance measures is highly balanced (H5) and systematically linked (H6), the managers' satisfaction is higher, too.
The balance of the performance measures contributes more to managers' satisfaction with performance measurement than the systematic linkage of the measures.
Managers‘ satisfaction with the performance measures Systematic linkage
of the performance measures ‘ Balance of the
performance measures
0,53***
0,22***
R2= 0,44
Figure 2: Managers' satisfaction, balance and systematic linkage of the performance measures
As figure 3 shows, the conceptual use of performance measures is positivley related to the managers' satisfaction with them. The explained variance is 33% with a standardized coefficient of 0,57.
Conceptual use of the performance measures
0,57 ***
R2= 0,33 Managers‘ satisfaction with
the performance measures
Figure 3: Conceptual use of and managers' satisfaction with the performance measures
6 Conclusion and Discussion
The objective of this paper was to examine the empirical relationship between balanced performance measurement systems, the conceptual use of performance measures, and the satisfaction of managers with performance measurement in German companies. The following findings were made:
• Balance and linkage are identified as defining characteristics of balanced performance measurement systems like the Balanced Scorecard.
• To the degree that performance measures are higly balanced or systematically linked, the conceptual use of performance measures and managers' satisfaction with performance measurement are higher. In addition, a conceptual use of performance measures has a positive impact on managers' satisfaction with their measures.
• If there is a performance measurement system in the perception of managers, conceptual use of performance measures and satisfaction with performance measurement are significantly higher than in the case of managers who state that they do not perceive to have a performance measurement system.
The claim of the Balanced Scorecard proponents that a balanced performance measurement system increases the conceptual use of performance measures and managers' satisfaction with performance measurement can be supported with the above mentioned empirical findings. Thus, our empirical results can be seen as a step towards the scientific foundation of the Balanced Scorecard concept. Hopefully, the paper can contribute to shifting the discussion from the question of whether to introduce a Balanced Scorecard or not, to an analysis of important design parameters and their impact on managers' satisfaction and performance.
There are also many important challenges for future research, which arise partially from the limitations of this paper:
• This paper is restricted to German companies. This appeared to be a logical first step, considering possible culture-specific differences and the absence of comparable studies in the past. In future, there should be studies that compare Germany to other countries, particularly in Anglo-Saxon regions, which have a significant impact on German management.
• Only managers were questioned. It is to be expected that their views may differ from those of controllers on performance measurement in general, and specifically, the conceptual use of and the satisfaction with performance measurement systems. Therefore, for future studies, controllers should also be consulted and dyadic surveys should be carried out (controller/manager).
It was assumed that apart from balance and linkage of performance measures, no further context factors or design parameters have a significant impact on the conceptual use of and satisfaction with performance measurement. In future papers, these premises should be examined.
Appendix
Systematic linkage of performance measures
SL1: The cause-and-effect relationships between the performance measures are clear to me.
SL2: The performance measures I have are independent from each other.
(reversed-coded item)
SL3: The performance measures interrelate.
Balance of the performance measures
B1: The performance measures encompass the "hard" aspects of the business as well as the
"soft" aspects.
B2: The performance measures consist of both financial and non-financial.
B3: The performance measures consider a quantitative as well as a qualitative perspective.
Conceptual use
CU1: The performance measures help me to get an overview of my business.
CU2: The performance measures contribute to the general understanding of the current situation in my business.
CU3: My knowledge of the consequences of my management is enhanced by the performance measures.
CU4: The performance measures support the estimation of the future state in my business.
References
Aust, R. (1999): Kostenrechnung als unternehmensinterne Dienstleistung. Wiesbaden.
Biel, A./Weber, M./Nicklas, M. (2000): Interview: Value Based Management im DaimlerChrysler Konzern, ControllerMagazin, No. 5, pp. 420-427.
Davis, T.C. (1950): How the Du Pont Organization Appraises its Performance, American Management Association Financial Management Series, No. 94, New York.
Eccles, R.G. (1991): The Performance Measurement Manifesto, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 (January-February 1991), pp. 131-137.
Homburg, C./Giering, A. (1998): Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer Konstrukte - Ein Leitfaden für die Marketingforschung, Marketing Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis, Vol. 20 (No.1), pp. 5-24.
Homburg, C./Weber, J./Aust, R./Karlshaus, J. T. (2000): Interne Kundenorientierung der Kostenrechnung? Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung in deutschen Industrieunternehmen, DBW Die Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 60 (No.2), pp. 241-256.
Horváth, P./Arnaout, A./Gleich, R./Seidenschwarz, W./Stoi, R. (1999): Neue Instrumente in der deutschen Unternehmenspraxis, Managementinstrumente und -konzepte. Entstehung, Verbreitung und Bedeutung für die Betriebswirtschaftslehre, edited by Egger, A./Grün, O./Moser, R.:, Stuttgart, 1999, pp. 289-328.
Johnson, H.T./Kaplan, R.S.(1987): Relevance Lost. The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Boston, MA.
Karlshaus, J.T. (2000): Die Nutzung von Kostenrechnungsinformationen im Marketing.
Bestandsaufnahme, Determinanten und Erfolgswirkungen, Wiesbaden.
Kaplan, R.S./Norton, D.P. (1992): The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 (No. 1), pp. 71-79.
Kaplan, R.S./Norton, D.P. (1996): The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S./Norton, D.P. (1996b): Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 (No. 1), pp. 75-85.
Kaplan, R.S./Norton, D.P. (1996c): Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy, California Management Review, Fall, 4, pp. 53-79.
Keegan, D.P./Eiler, R.G./Jones, C.R. (1989): Are Your Performance Measures Obsolete?
Many Companies Have Too Many – And Too Many Irrelevant Ones, Management Accounting, Vol. 70 (No. 12, June 1989), pp. 45-50.
Kennerley, M./Neely, A. (2000): Performance Measurement Frameworks - A Review, Performance Measurement 2000. Past, Present and Future, Papers from the Second International Conference on Performance Measurement, University of Cambridge, 19-21 July 200, edited by Neely, A. Cambridge, pp. 291-298.
Lachnit, L. (1976): Zur Weiterentwicklung betriebswirtschaftlicher Kennzahlensysteme.
ZfbF Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, Vol. 28, pp. 216-230.
Lingle, J.H./Schieman, W.A. (1996): From Balanced Scorecard to Strategic Gauges: Is Measurement worth it? Management Review, March 1996, pp. 56-61.
Menon, A./Varadarajan, P.R. (1992): A Model of Marketing Knowledge Use Within Firms, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 (October 1992), pp. 53-71.
Neely, A. (1998): Measuring Business Performance, Why, what and how, London,
Norreklit, H. (2000): The balance on the balanced scorecard - a critical analysis of some of ist assumptions, Management Accounting Research, 11, pp. 65-88.
Otley, D. (1999): Performance management: a framework for management control systems research, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 363-382.
Perlitz, M. (1998): Business Performance Measurement - Neue Instrumente für eine zukunftsorientierte Unternehmenssteuerung, Präsentationsunterlagen IV. Mannheimer Unternehmerforum, 29./30.10.1998, Mannheim.
Simon, H.A./Guetzkow, H./Kozmetsky, G./Tyndall, G. (1954): Centralization vs.
decentralizaiton in organizing the controller's department, Houston, TX.
Simons, R.S. (1996): Levers of Control. How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal, Boston, MA.
Speckbacher, G./Bischof, J. (2000): Die Balanced Scorecard als innovatives Managementsystem. Konzeptionelle Grundlagen und Stand der Anwendung in deutschen Unternehmen, DBW Die Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 795-810.
Staehle, W. (1969): Kennzahlen und Kennzahlensysteme als Mittel der Organisation und Führung von Unternehmen. Wiesbaden.
Vandenbosch, B. (1999): An empirical analysis of the association between the use of executive support systems and perceived organizational competitiveness, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24 (No. 1), pp. 77-92.
Weber, J./Schäffer, U. (1998): Die Balanced Scorecard – Gedanken zur Einordnung des Konzepts in das bisherige Controlling-Instrumentarium, Zeitschrift für Planung, Vol. 9 (No. 4), pp. 341-365.
Weber, J./Schäffer, U. (2000): Balanced Scorecard & Controlling. Implementierung - Nutzen für Manager und Controller - Erfahrungen in deutschen Unternehmen, 3.
Auflage, Wiesbaden.
Authors:
Joachim Sandt/Utz Schaeffer/Jürgen Weber
WHU – Otto Beisheim Graduate School of Management
Chair of Controlling and Telecommunications –Deutsche Telekom AG Foundation Chair Burgplatz 2, D-56179 Vallendar
