514:
paper refers to these distinct types as "generations". Broadly, the original 'measures in four boxes' type design (as initially proposed by Kaplan & Norton) constitutes the 1st generation balanced scorecard design; balanced scorecard designs that include a 'strategy map' or 'strategic linkage model' (e.g. the
Performance Prism, later Kaplan & Norton designs, and the Performance Driver model of Olve, Roy & Wetter (first published in Swedish, 1997; English translation, 1999,) constitute the 2nd Generation of Balanced Scorecard designs; and designs that augment the strategy map / strategic linkage model with a separate document describing the long-term outcomes sought from the strategy (the "destination statement" idea) comprise the 3rd generation balanced scorecard design.
497:, the proposal was translated into a form that made sense to a typical reader of that journal – managers of US commercial businesses. Accordingly, initial designs were encouraged to measure three categories of non-financial measure in addition to financial outputs – those of "customer," "internal business processes" and "learning and growth." These categories were not so relevant to public sector or non-profit organizations, or units within complex organizations (which might have high degrees of internal specialization), and much of the early literature on balanced scorecard focused on suggestions of alternative 'perspectives' that might have more relevance to these groups (e.g. Butler et al. (1997), Ahn (2001), Elefalke (2001), Brignall (2002), Irwin (2002), Radnor et al. (2003)).
757:(SMEs), the balanced scorecard has been found to be effective, but that focus is required on balancing design complexity and relevance with the availability of resource to do the design work. Others have argued that the balanced scorecard is unsuitable for SMEs for a variety of reasons, including the belief that SMEs lack a long-term strategic focus (Hvolby and Thorstenson (2000), McAdam (2000)) and that SMEs have limited knowledge about performance measurement in general (Rantanen and Holtari 2000) and therefore do not recognise the benefits that might accrue from use of the tool (McAdam 2000; Bourne 2001), but it is also important to note that none of these studies attempts to theorise the reasons behind their negative findings.
726:
first proposed, the four most common perspectives in
Balanced Scorecard designs mirror the four proposed in the original Kaplan & Norton paper. There have been many studies that suggest other perspectives might better reflect the priorities of organizations – particularly but not exclusively relating to the needs of organizations in the public and non-governmental sectors. For instance, the balanced scorecard does not address important aspects of nonprofit strategy such as social dimensions, human resource elements, political issues and the distinctive nature of competition and collaboration in nonprofit settings. More modern design approaches such as
743:
have difficulties in this respect, due to the wide variations in definition of 'what a balanced scorecard is' (making it hard to work out in a survey if you are comparing like with like). Single organization case studies suffer from the 'lack of a control' issue common to any study of organizational change – what the organization would have achieved if the change had not been made isn't known, so it is difficult to attribute changes observed over time to a single intervention (such as introducing a balanced scorecard). However, such studies as have been done have typically found
Balanced Scorecard to be useful.
643:
performance measures is then derived directly by selecting one or two measures for each strategic objective. This type of approach provides greater contextual justification for the measures chosen, and is generally easier for managers to work through. This style of balanced scorecard has been commonly used since 1996 or so: it is significantly different in approach to the methods originally proposed, and so can be thought of as representing the "2nd generation" of design approach adopted for the balanced scorecard since its introduction.
484:
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. The balanced scorecard indirectly also provides a useful insight into an organization's strategy – by requiring general strategic statements (e.g. mission, vision) to be precipitated into more specific/tangible forms.
617:
organizations in their initial design. These categories were not so relevant to public sector or non-profit organizations, or units within complex organizations (which might have high degrees of internal specialization), and much of the early literature on balanced scorecard focused on suggestions of alternative 'perspectives' that might have more relevance to these groups(e.g. Butler et al. (1997), Ahn (2001), Elefalke (2001), Brignall (2002), Irwin (2002), Flamholtz (2003), Radnor et al. (2003)).
658:
opportunities to intervene to influence strategic goals are (and need to be) anchored in current and real management activity. Secondly, the need to "roll forward" and test the impact of these goals necessitated the reference to an additional design instrument: a statement of what "strategic success", or the "strategic end-state", looked like (which in turn would be related to the organization's
Mission or Vision Statement). This reference point was called a
51:
662:. It was quickly realized that if a Destination Statement was created at the beginning of the design process then it became easier to select the appropriate strategic activity and outcome objectives which if achieved would deliver it. Measures and targets could then be selected to track the achievement of these objectives. Design methods that incorporate a Destination Statement or equivalent (e.g. the
708:
on the topic, an absence noted, for example, by
Norreklit. Others identified technical flaws in the methods and design of the original balanced scorecard or concerning the lack of validation for the approach – for example Flamholtz observed that no validation was provided for the choice of the "four perspectives" of the 1st Generation design:
692:
scorecards were often designed remotely by consultants – it is suggested that because they were not being involved in the design the managers who were intended to use the device did not trust its design (e.g. it measured the wrong things and used inappropriate targets) and so failed to engage with and use the devices.
674:
Third generation balanced scorecards improved the utility of second generation of balanced scorecards, giving more relevance and functionality to strategic objectives. The major difference is the incorporation of
Destination Statements. Other key components are strategic objectives, strategic linkage
620:
These suggestions were notably triggered by a recognition that different but equivalent headings would yield alternative sets of measures, and this represents the major design challenge faced with this type of balanced scorecard design: justifying the choice of measures made. "Of all the measures you
725:
over others. Early forms of
Balanced Scorecard proposed by Kaplan & Norton were orientated towards the needs of commercial organizations in the USA – where a focus on investment return was appropriate. This focus was maintained through subsequent revisions. Even now over 20 years after they were
657:
In the late 1990s, the design approach had evolved yet again. One problem with the "second generation" design approach described above was that the plotting of causal links amongst twenty or so medium-term strategic goals was still a relatively abstract activity. In practice it ignored the fact that
707:
The first kind of criticism focuses on the empirical nature of the framework and the lack of any formal validation of the ideas it is based on in the early articles that introduced the concept. Kaplan and Norton notoriously failed to include any citations of earlier articles in their initial papers
691:
Theorists have argued from the earliest days of discussion of balanced scorecard usage that much of the benefit of it comes from the design process itself. Indeed, it is argued that many failures in the early days of the balanced scorecard could be attributed to this problem, in that early balanced
565:
These steps go beyond the simple task of identifying a small number of financial and non-financial measures, but illustrate the requirement for whatever design process is used to fit within broader thinking about how the resulting balanced scorecard will integrate with the wider business management
714:
The second kind of criticism is that the balanced scorecard does not provide an overall score or a unified view of performance with clear recommendations: it is simply a list of metrics that managers have to interpret before deciding upon appropriate interventions (e.g. Jensen 2001). These critics
670:
Design methods for balanced scorecards continue to evolve and adapt to reflect the deficiencies in the currently used methods, and the particular needs of communities of interest (e.g. NGOs and government departments have found the third generation methods embedded in results-based management more
616:
The idea was that managers used these perspective headings to prompt the selection of a small number of measures that informed on that aspect of the organization's strategic performance. The perspective headings show that Kaplan and Norton were thinking about the needs of non-divisional commercial
500:
Modern balanced scorecards have evolved since the initial ideas proposed in the late 1980s and early 1990s and are significantly improved – being both more flexible (to suit a wider range of organizational types) and more effective (as design methods have evolved to make them easier to design, and
742:
There are relatively few reliable assessments of the effectiveness of the approaches embodied in the balanced scorecard, but some studies demonstrate a link between the use of balanced scorecards and better decision making or improved financial performance of companies. Broadcast surveys of usage
513:
Many of the structural variations proposed are broadly similar, and a research paper published in 2004 attempted to identify a pattern in these alternatives – noting three distinct types of variation. The variations appeared to be part of an evolution of the balanced scorecard concept, and so the
547:
The original thinking behind a balanced scorecard was for it to be focused on information relating to the implementation of a strategy, and over time there has been a blurring of the boundaries between conventional strategic planning and control activities and those required to design a balanced
483:
The characteristic feature 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
642:
In this modified version of balanced scorecard design, managers select a few strategic objectives within each of the perspectives, and then define the cause-effect chain among these objectives by drawing links between them to create a "strategic linkage model". A balanced scorecard of strategic
470:
As the title of Kaplan and Norton's second book highlights, even by 2000 the focus of attention among thought-leaders was moving from the design of balanced scorecards themselves, towards the use of the balanced scorecard as a focal point within a more comprehensive strategic management system.
770:
The processes of collecting, reporting, and distributing balanced scorecard information can be labor-intensive and prone to procedural problems (for example, getting all relevant people to return the information required by the required date). The simplest mechanism to use is to delegate these
683:
In 1997, Kurtzman found that 64 percent of the companies questioned were measuring performance from a number of perspectives in a similar way to the balanced scorecard. Balanced scorecards have been implemented by government agencies, military units, business units and corporations as a whole,
509:
Since the balanced scorecard was popularized in the early 1990s, a large number of alternatives to the original 'four box' balanced scorecard promoted by Kaplan and Norton in their various articles and books have emerged. Most have very limited application, and are typically proposed either by
774:
In more complex organizations, where there are multiple balanced scorecards to report and/or a need for co-ordination of results between balanced scorecards (for example, if one level of reports relies on information collected and reported at a lower level) the use of individual reporters is
543:
Design of a balanced scorecard is about the identification of a small number of financial and non-financial measures and attaching targets to them, so that when they are reviewed it is possible to determine whether current performance 'meets expectations'. By alerting managers to areas where
372:
management, and 63% for operational management. Although less common, the balanced scorecard is also used by individuals to track personal performance; only 17% of respondents in the survey reported using balanced scorecards in this way. However it is clear from the same survey that a larger
590:: encourages the identification of a few relevant high-level financial measures. In particular, designers were encouraged to choose measures that helped inform the answer to the question "How do we look to shareholders?". Examples: cash flow, sales growth, operating income, return on equity.
621:
could have chosen, why did you choose these?" These issues contribute to dis-satisfaction with early balanced scorecard designs, since if users are not confident that the measures within the balanced scorecard are well chosen, they will have less confidence in the information it provides.
430:
included anonymous details of this balanced scorecard design in a 1992 article. Although Kaplan and Norton's article was not the only paper on the topic published in early 1992, it was a popular success, and was quickly followed by a second in 1993. In 1996, the two authors published
715:
usually include in their criticism suggestions about how an 'unanswered' question they identify in their commentary could be answered, but typically the unanswered question relate to things outside the scope of balanced scorecard itself (such as developing strategies) (e.g. Brignall)
367:
The term 'balanced scorecard' primarily refers to a performance management report used by a management team, and typically focused on managing the implementation of a strategy or operational activities. In a 2020 survey 88% of respondents reported using the balanced scorecard for
569:
Although it helps focus managers' attention on strategic issues and the management of the implementation of strategy, it is important to remember that the balanced scorecard itself has no role in the formation of strategy. In fact, balanced scorecards can co-exist with
596:: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "What is important to our customers and stakeholders?". Examples: percent of sales from new products, on time delivery, share of important customers’ purchases, ranking by important customers.
510:
academics as vehicles for expanding the dialogue beyond the financial bottom line – e.g. Brignall (2002) or consultants as an attempt at differentiation to promote sales of books and / or consultancy (e.g. Neely et al. (2002), Bourne (2002), Niven (2002)).
738:
In response to these concerns there have been many studies seeking to provide (retrospective) academic underpinnings for the
Balanced Scorecard concept, and to provide case study and validation information for the various design generations.
458:
Kaplan and Norton's first book remains their most popular. The book reflects the earliest incarnations of balanced scorecards – effectively restating the concept as described in the second
Harvard Business Review article. Their second book,
766:
The balanced scorecard by definition is not a complex thing – typically no more than about 20 measures spread across a mix of financial and non-financial topics, and easily reported manually (on paper, or using simple office software).
414:
Organizations have used systems consisting of a mix of financial and non-financial measures to track progress for quite some time. One such system, the Analog
Devices Balanced Scorecard, was created by Art Schneiderman in 1987 at
405:
Two of the ideas that underpin modern balanced scorecard designs concern making it easier to select which data to observe, and ensuring that the choice of data is consistent with the ability of the observer to intervene.
402:. Subsequently, it was promoted specifically as an approach to strategic performance management. The balanced scorecard has more recently become a key component of structured approaches to corporate strategic management.
463:, echoed work by others (particularly a book published the year before by Olve et al. in Scandinavia) on the value of visually documenting the links between measures by proposing the "Strategic Linkage Model" or
687:
The balanced scorecard has been widely adopted, and consistently has been found to be the most popular performance management framework in a widely respected annual survey (e.g. see results from 2003 and 2013).
666:
method proposed by the UN in 2002) represent a tangibly different design approach to those that went before and so have been proposed as representing a "third generation" design method for balanced scorecards.
582:
The first generation of balanced scorecard designs used a "four perspective" approach to identify what measures to use to track the implementation of strategy. The original four "perspectives" proposed were:
544:
performance deviates from expectations, they can be encouraged to focus their attention on these areas, and hopefully as a result trigger improved performance within the part of the organization they lead.
442:
suggest the origins of performance management can be seen in the emergence of the complex organization – most notably during the 19th Century in the USA. Other influences may include the pioneering work of
491:, and proposed design methods that focused on choosing measures and targets associated with the main activities required to implement the strategy. As the initial audience for this were the readers of the
438:
While the "corporate scorecard" terminology was coined by Schneiderman, the roots of performance management as an activity run deep in management literature and practice. Management historians such as
639:". With this modified approach, the strategic objectives are distributed across the four measurement perspectives, so as to "connect the dots" to form a visual presentation of strategy and measures.
517:
Variants that feature adaptations of the structure of the balanced scorecard to suit better a particular viewpoint or agenda are numerous. Examples of the focus of such adaptations include the
750:
For large organizations this work has focused on how to translate aggregate corporate strategies into performance management tools relevant to individual teams / units within the organization.
2120:
Kellermans, Walter J.; Floyd F. W.; Veiga S. W.; Matherne C. (2013). "Strategic Alignment: A missing link in the relationship between strategic consensus and organisational performance".
627:
In short, first generation balanced scorecards are hard to design in a way that builds confidence that they are well designed. Because of this, many are abandoned soon after completion.
451:– literally, a "dashboard" of performance measures) in the early part of the 20th century. The tool also draws strongly on the ideas of the 'resource based view of the firm' proposed by
1820:
Ioppolo, Giuseppe; Saija, Giuseppe; Salomone, Roberta (July 2012). "Developing a Territory Balanced Scorecard approach to manage projects for local development: Two case studies".
635:
In the mid-1990s, an improved design method emerged. In the new method, measures are selected based on a set of "strategic objectives" plotted on a "strategic linkage model" or "
2560:
1433:
Abernethy, Margret A.; Horne, M.; Lillis, A. M.; Malina, M. A.; Selto, F. H. (2005). "A multi-method approach to building causal performance maps from expert knowledge".
955:
1912:
Proceedings of 3rd Annual Conference on Performance Measurement and Management Control, the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM), Nice, France
386:
a mix of financial and non-financial data items (originally divided into four "perspectives" - Financial, Customer, Internal Process, and Learning & Growth); and,
548:
scorecard. This is illustrated by the four steps required to design a balanced scorecard included in Kaplan & Norton's writing on the subject in the late 1990s:
435:. These articles and the first book spread knowledge of the concept of balanced scorecards, leading to Kaplan and Norton being seen as the creators of the concept.
535:
The balanced scorecard is also used to support the payments of incentives, even though it was not designed for this purpose and is not particularly suited to it.
775:
problematic. Where these conditions apply, organizations use balanced scorecard reporting software to automate the production and distribution of these reports.
602:: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "What must we excel at?". Examples: cycle time, unit cost, yield, new product introductions.
789:
1874:
Moullin, Max; Soady, John; Skinner, John; Price, Charles; Cullen, John; Gilligan, Christine (2007). "Using the Public Sector Scorecard in Public Health".
426:
in conjunction with US management consultancy Nolan-Norton, and during this study described his work on performance measurement. Subsequently, Kaplan and
2240:
455:. None of these influences is explicitly linked to in the original descriptions of balanced scorecard by Schneiderman, Maisel, or Kaplan & Norton.
2066:
Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal: How Managers Use Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal
475:
in 2008, "Intelligent Design of Inclusive Growth Strategies" in 2019); many others also continue to refine the device itself (e.g. Abernethy et al.).
532:
tools and activities. Although there are clear areas of cross-over and association, the two sets of tools are complementary rather than duplicative.
419:, a mid-sized semi-conductor company. Schneiderman's design was similar to what is now recognised as a "First Generation" balanced scorecard design.
1743:
The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Business Success: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Stakeholder Relationships
886:
1701:
Malina, M. A.; Selto, F. H. (2001). "Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard".
1460:
Shulver, Michael J.; Antarkar, N. (2001). "The Balanced Scorecard as a Communication Protocol for Managing Across Intra-Organizational Borders".
1907:
2553:
771:
activities to an individual, and many balanced scorecards are reported via ad hoc methods based around email, phone calls and office software.
2074:
1804:
1775:
1750:
1354:
1324:
1292:
1262:
1237:
1208:
1847:
Northcott, Deryl; Taulapapa, Tuivaiti Ma'amora (2012). "Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector organizations".
1056:
727:
652:
2004:
754:
339:
2546:
1997:
1932:
Gardiner, P. D.; Simmons, J. E. L. (2003). "Performance measurement tools: The balanced scorecard and the EFQM excellence model".
487:
The first versions of Kaplan and Norton's interpretation of the balanced scorecard asserted that relevance should derive from the
2646:
2636:
869:
285:
253:
1589:
Elefalke, K. (2001). "The Balanced Scorecard of the Swedish Police Service: 7000 officers in total quality management project".
959:
2487:
1667:
Radnor, Z.; Lovell, W. (2003). "Defining, justifying and implementing the Balanced Scorecard in the National Health Service".
525:
system have strong design and structural similarities to those used in the 3rd Generation Balanced Scorecard design approach.
373:
proportion (about 30%) use corporate balanced scorecard elements to inform personal goal setting and incentive calculations.
612:?". Examples: time to develop new generation of products, life cycle to product maturity, time to market versus competition.
226:
2692:
521:, decision support, public sector management, and health care management. The performance management elements of the UN's
471:
Subsequent writing on the balanced scorecard by Kaplan & Norton has focused on its uses, rather than its design (e.g.
1080:
608:: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "How can we continue to improve, create value and
364:
used to keep track of the execution of activities by staff and to monitor the consequences arising from these actions.
1462:
Proceedings from the 12th Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, Orlando, Florida, USA
734:
methods explicitly consider the interests of wider stakeholder groups and perhaps address this issue in its entirety.
1483:
2702:
2288:
Norreklit, Hanne (2000). "The balance on the balanced scorecard – a critical analysis of some of its assumptions".
1116:
Epstein, Marc; Manzoni, J. (1997). "The balanced scorecard and tableau de bord: Translating strategy into action".
917:
806:
700:
Academic criticism of the balanced scorecard can be broken into three distinct (but overlapping) areas of concern.
2244:
721:
The third kind of criticism is that the model fails to fully reflect the needs of stakeholders – putting bias on
2315:
Lingle, J. H.; Schiemann W. A. (1996). "From balanced scorecard to strategic gauges: Is measurement worth it?".
731:
663:
522:
2601:
280:
2697:
493:
447:
on performance measurement reporting in the 1950s and the work of French process engineers (who created the
369:
2343:
1710:
1284:
The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment
1012:
816:
439:
357:
332:
2626:
2606:
2591:
1406:
294:
271:
208:
50:
2334:
Jensen, M. C. (2001). "Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function".
2661:
2214:
996:
Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1992). "The Balanced Scorecard – Measures That Drive Performance".
826:
746:
Consideration has been given to the effect of organization size on balanced scorecard effectiveness:
303:
118:
69:
2391:"Examining Opportunities for Improving Public Sector Governance Through Better Strategic Management"
2348:
1715:
2596:
217:
163:
150:
2569:
2180:
2172:
2137:
1506:
1386:
811:
571:
529:
518:
488:
145:
87:
83:
2395:
Proceedings, Third International Conference on Performance Measurement and Management (PMA 2002)
1627:
Proceedings, Third International Conference on Performance Measurement and Management (PMA2002)
624:
Although less common, these early-style balanced scorecards are still designed and used today.
2641:
2070:
1800:
1771:
1746:
1398:
1394:
1350:
1320:
1288:
1258:
1233:
1204:
925:
821:
399:
325:
231:
78:
74:
34:
1908:"Balanced Scorecard and Results-Based Management – Convergent Performance Management Systems"
1371:
895:
2499:
2461:
2424:
2353:
2297:
2164:
2129:
2102:
2043:
2035:
1972:
1941:
1883:
1856:
1829:
1793:
1720:
1676:
1598:
1566:
1536:
1498:
1442:
1378:
1226:
1071:
444:
423:
172:
141:
2488:"Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms"
2198:
Kurtzman, Joel (17 February 1997). "Is your company off course? Now you can find out why".
1419:
427:
222:
186:
132:
123:
92:
1527:
Butler, A.; Letza S. R.; Neale B. (1997). "Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy".
2656:
2611:
1282:
416:
298:
289:
204:
159:
136:
114:
2503:
2155:
Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton D. P. (1996). "Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy".
1570:
1540:
865:
2686:
2651:
2631:
2581:
2518:
2446:
2390:
2064:
1960:
1833:
1625:
Brignal, S. (2002). "The UnBalanced Scorecard: a Social and Environmental Critique".
1390:
1344:
1314:
1198:
1057:"3rd Generation Balanced Scorecard: Evolution of an effective strategic control tool"
452:
389:
a portfolio of initiatives designed to impact performance of the measures/objectives.
276:
262:
249:
2184:
2141:
2093:
Flamholtz, Erik (2003). "Putting Balance and Validity into the Balanced Scorecard".
1510:
2666:
2026:
Muralidharan, Raman (2004). "A framework for designing strategy content controls".
1179:
Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1993). "Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work".
831:
636:
464:
307:
177:
2519:"Balanced Scorecard implementation in SMEs: reflection in literature and practice"
2415:
Kong, E. (2010). "Analysing BSC and IC's usefulness in non-profit organisations".
1153:
Maisel, L. S. (1992). "Performance measurement: the Balanced Scorecard approach".
17:
2445:
Lawrie, Gavin V.; Abdullah, N. A.; Bragg, Christopher; Varlet, Guillaume (2016).
1680:
1557:
Ahn, H (2001). "Applying the Balanced Scorecard Concept: An Experience Report".
213:
96:
1795:
Balanced Scorecard Step-by-step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results
1502:
398:
The balanced scorecard was initially proposed as a general purpose performance
2428:
2039:
1976:
1945:
1887:
1860:
1724:
1602:
1446:
1075:
609:
181:
168:
127:
2465:
2133:
929:
2357:
2538:
2301:
1961:"Effective quality management through third-generation balanced scorecard"
1228:
Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Enterprise
380:
its focus on the strategic agenda of the organization/coalition concerned;
2616:
1382:
784:
65:
42:
2176:
1998:"How do I link corporate and individual performance management systems?"
422:
In 1990 Schneiderman participated in an unrelated research study led by
383:
a focused set of measurements to monitor performance against objectives;
1484:"Improving and evaluating performance with the Public Sector Scorecard"
154:
2048:
1370:
Kaplan, Robert S.; Serafeim, George; Tugendhat, Eduardo (2019-10-30).
1316:
Performance Drivers: A practical guide to using the Balanced Scorecard
2168:
2106:
361:
376:
The critical characteristics that define a balanced scorecard are:
2671:
2621:
2273:
Schneiderman, Arthur M. (1999). "Why Balanced Scorecards fail".
2028:
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
1965:
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
1491:
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
1064:
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
311:
267:
2542:
2447:"Multi-level strategic alignment within a complex organisation"
555:
Communicating the vision and link it to individual performance;
1135:
561:
Feedback and learning, and adjusting the strategy accordingly.
1901:
1899:
1897:
2241:"Bain and Company's Management Tools and Trends Survey 2013"
2215:"Bain and Company's Management Tools and Trends Survey 2003"
1643:
Irwin, D. (2002). "Strategy Mapping in the Public Sector".
1338:
1336:
1276:
1274:
1192:
1190:
1959:
Andersen, Henrik V.; Lawrie, Gavin; SaviÄŤ, Nenad (2004).
956:"Analog Devices: 1986–1992, The First Balanced Scorecard"
1200:
The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action
918:"The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive Performance"
671:
useful than first or second generation design methods).
1876:
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance
1111:
1109:
1107:
1105:
1103:
1101:
1099:
1849:
The International Journal of Public Sector Management
1346:
The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations
1313:
Olve, Nils-Göran; Roy, J.; Wetter, M. (25 Feb 1999).
1174:
1172:
1170:
1168:
1050:
1048:
1046:
1044:
1042:
1040:
1038:
1036:
1034:
2440:
2438:
2268:
2266:
2264:
2262:
991:
989:
987:
985:
983:
981:
979:
977:
2486:Ittner, C. D.; Larcker, D. F.; Randall, T. (2003).
1906:Lawrie, Gavin J. G.; Kalff D.; Andersen H. (2005).
1741:Neely, Andy; Adams C.; Kennerley M. (27 May 2002).
1372:"Intelligent Design of Inclusive Growth Strategies"
1281:Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1 October 2000).
1792:
1225:
1079:
916:Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, David P. (1992-01-01).
675:model and perspectives, measures and initiatives.
2088:
2086:
881:
879:
2095:Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting
1620:
1618:
1616:
1614:
1612:
1584:
1582:
1580:
1343:Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1 July 2008).
1013:"Strategy Execution and the Balanced Scorecard"
2069:. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
1696:
1694:
1692:
1690:
1662:
1660:
1658:
1522:
1520:
1349:. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
1203:. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
949:
947:
945:
552:Translating the vision into operational goals;
2554:
2378:. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
2369:
2367:
1736:
1734:
1645:International Journal of Strategic Management
1638:
1636:
1477:
1475:
1473:
1471:
1287:. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
333:
8:
2376:Performance measurement frameworks: a review
2275:Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement
1766:Bourne, Mike; Bourne P. (29 November 2002).
1308:
1306:
1304:
860:
858:
856:
854:
852:
850:
848:
846:
2523:Proceedings of the Fourth SMESME Conference
2517:Lawrie, Gavin; Andersen, Henrik V. (2006).
2389:Andersen, Henrik V.; Lawrie, Gavin (2002).
1552:
1550:
888:FAQ Answer: What is the Balanced Scorecard?
730:, the Public Sector Scorecard and the UN's
2561:
2547:
2539:
2374:Adams, C.; Neely A.; Kennerley M. (2007).
1669:International Journal of Medical Marketing
866:"2GC Balanced Scorecard Usage 2020 Survey"
340:
326:
29:
2347:
2047:
1714:
1703:Journal of Management Accounting Research
1197:Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1996).
1055:Lawrie, Gavin J. G.; Cobbold, I. (2004).
1017:Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
528:The balanced scorecard is also linked to
958:. Arthur M. Schneiderman. Archived from
719:Not reflective of all stakeholder needs:
2003:. 2GC Active Management. Archived from
894:, 2GC Active Management, archived from
842:
684:non-profit organizations, and schools.
41:
1415:
1404:
868:. 2GC Active Management. 21 May 2021.
2492:Accounting, Organizations and Society
2063:Simons, Robert L. (1 December 1994).
7:
2243:. Bain & Company. Archived from
1255:The Theory of the Growth of the Firm
27:Strategy performance management tool
1799:. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
653:Third-generation balanced scorecard
2454:Journal of Modelling in Management
1770:. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
924:. No. January–February 1992.
755:small and medium-sized enterprises
25:
1319:. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
1257:. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
728:3rd Generation Balanced Scorecard
461:The Strategy Focused Organization
2647:Segmenting-targeting-positioning
1834:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.10.005
1791:Niven, Paul R. (18 April 2002).
954:Schneiderman, Arthur M. (2006).
872:from the original on 2021-05-24.
558:Business planning; index setting
49:
2417:Journal of Intellectual Capital
2239:Rigby, D.; Bilodeau B. (2013).
2213:Rigby, D.; Bilodeau B. (2003).
2290:Management Accounting Research
1435:Management Accounting Research
1232:. Boston, MA.: The MIT Press.
1:
2637:Porter's five forces analysis
2504:10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00033-3
2336:European Financial Management
1934:Measuring Business Excellence
1571:10.1016/s0024-6301(01)00057-7
1541:10.1016/s0024-6301(96)00116-1
2157:California Management Review
1768:Balanced Scorecard in a Week
1681:10.1057/palgrave.jmm.5040117
1224:Chandler, Alfred D. (1962).
600:Internal business processes
2719:
1503:10.1108/IJPPM-06-2015-0092
1155:Journal of Cost Management
1000:(January–February): 71–79.
807:Key performance indicators
650:
2577:
2429:10.1108/14691931011064554
2040:10.1108/17410400410561213
1977:10.1108/17410400410561259
1946:10.1108/13683040310466690
1888:10.1108/09526860710754352
1861:10.1108/09513551211224234
1745:. London: Prentice Hall.
1725:10.2308/jmar.2001.13.1.47
1603:10.1080/09544120120096106
1447:10.1016/j.mar.2005.03.003
1076:10.1108/17410400410561231
712:Lack of an overall score:
574:systems and other tools.
360:tool – a well-structured
2466:10.1108/JM2-11-2014-0085
2134:10.1177/1476127013481155
1591:Total Quality Management
732:Results Based Management
664:results-based management
523:Results Based Management
2358:10.1111/1468-036x.00158
1253:Penrose, Edith (1959).
1181:Harvard Business Review
1011:Legace, Martha (2008).
998:Harvard Business Review
922:Harvard Business Review
785:Balanced scorecard SWOT
494:Harvard Business Review
370:strategy implementation
2302:10.1006/mare.1999.0121
2122:Strategic Organization
1414:Cite journal requires
817:Performance management
723:financial stakeholders
433:The Balanced Scorecard
358:performance management
2627:Pareto priority index
2607:Managerial grid model
2592:Business Model Canvas
1118:Management Accounting
660:Destination Statement
473:The Execution Premium
295:Business Model Canvas
272:Managerial grid model
209:Competitive advantage
2693:Strategic management
2662:Strategic Grid Model
2220:. Bain & Company
1482:Moulin, Max (2017).
1383:10.2139/ssrn.3478190
827:Strategic management
798:enterprise dashboard
304:Strategic Grid Model
244:Frameworks and tools
119:Rita Gunther McGrath
70:Strategic management
2602:Growth–share matrix
2597:Competitor analysis
2202:. pp. 128–130.
1559:Long Range Planning
1529:Long Range Planning
1140:www.nolannorton.com
962:on 25 December 2013
802:executive dashboard
606:Learning and growth
281:Growth–share matrix
225: •
218:Performance effects
216: •
207: •
180: •
171: •
164:Alfred Thayer Mahan
162: •
153: •
151:Carl von Clausewitz
144: •
135: •
126: •
117: •
95: •
86: •
77: •
68: •
2587:Balanced scorecard
2570:Strategic planning
812:Marketing strategy
794:business dashboard
572:strategic planning
530:quality management
519:triple bottom line
489:corporate strategy
354:balanced scorecard
310: •
306: •
297: •
288: •
279: •
270: •
261: •
259:Balanced scorecard
252: •
227:Generic strategies
88:Strategic thinking
84:Strategic planning
18:Balanced Scorecard
2703:Business software
2680:
2679:
2642:Scenario planning
2317:Management Review
2076:978-0-87584-559-3
1806:978-0-471-07872-2
1777:978-0-340-84945-3
1752:978-0-273-65334-9
1377:. Rochester, NY.
1356:978-1-4221-2116-0
1326:978-0-471-98623-2
1294:978-1-57851-250-8
1264:978-0-19-828977-7
1239:978-1-61427-508-4
1210:978-0-87584-651-4
1136:"nolannorton.com"
822:Strategic control
790:Digital dashboard
631:Second generation
400:management system
350:
349:
232:Mission statement
79:Strategic studies
75:Military strategy
16:(Redirected from
2710:
2563:
2556:
2549:
2540:
2534:
2533:
2531:
2529:
2514:
2508:
2507:
2483:
2477:
2476:
2474:
2472:
2451:
2442:
2433:
2432:
2412:
2406:
2405:
2403:
2401:
2386:
2380:
2379:
2371:
2362:
2361:
2351:
2331:
2325:
2324:
2312:
2306:
2305:
2285:
2279:
2278:
2270:
2257:
2256:
2254:
2252:
2236:
2230:
2229:
2227:
2225:
2219:
2210:
2204:
2203:
2195:
2189:
2188:
2169:10.2307/41165876
2152:
2146:
2145:
2117:
2111:
2110:
2107:10.1108/eb029081
2090:
2081:
2080:
2060:
2054:
2053:
2051:
2023:
2017:
2016:
2014:
2012:
2002:
1994:
1988:
1987:
1985:
1983:
1956:
1950:
1949:
1929:
1923:
1922:
1920:
1918:
1903:
1892:
1891:
1871:
1865:
1864:
1844:
1838:
1837:
1817:
1811:
1810:
1798:
1788:
1782:
1781:
1763:
1757:
1756:
1738:
1729:
1728:
1718:
1698:
1685:
1684:
1664:
1653:
1652:
1640:
1631:
1630:
1622:
1607:
1606:
1586:
1575:
1574:
1554:
1545:
1544:
1524:
1515:
1514:
1488:
1479:
1466:
1465:
1457:
1451:
1450:
1430:
1424:
1423:
1417:
1412:
1410:
1402:
1376:
1367:
1361:
1360:
1340:
1331:
1330:
1310:
1299:
1298:
1278:
1269:
1268:
1250:
1244:
1243:
1231:
1221:
1215:
1214:
1194:
1185:
1184:
1176:
1163:
1162:
1150:
1144:
1143:
1132:
1126:
1125:
1113:
1094:
1093:
1091:
1089:
1083:
1078:. Archived from
1061:
1052:
1029:
1028:
1026:
1024:
1008:
1002:
1001:
993:
972:
971:
969:
967:
951:
940:
939:
937:
936:
913:
907:
906:
905:
903:
893:
883:
874:
873:
862:
792:, also known as
647:Third generation
578:First generation
445:General Electric
424:Robert S. Kaplan
342:
335:
328:
173:Adrian Slywotzky
60:Analysis methods
53:
30:
21:
2718:
2717:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2676:
2573:
2567:
2537:
2527:
2525:
2516:
2515:
2511:
2485:
2484:
2480:
2470:
2468:
2449:
2444:
2443:
2436:
2414:
2413:
2409:
2399:
2397:
2388:
2387:
2383:
2373:
2372:
2365:
2349:10.1.1.214.9827
2333:
2332:
2328:
2314:
2313:
2309:
2287:
2286:
2282:
2272:
2271:
2260:
2250:
2248:
2247:on 7 April 2014
2238:
2237:
2233:
2223:
2221:
2217:
2212:
2211:
2207:
2197:
2196:
2192:
2154:
2153:
2149:
2119:
2118:
2114:
2092:
2091:
2084:
2077:
2062:
2061:
2057:
2025:
2024:
2020:
2010:
2008:
2000:
1996:
1995:
1991:
1981:
1979:
1958:
1957:
1953:
1931:
1930:
1926:
1916:
1914:
1905:
1904:
1895:
1873:
1872:
1868:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1822:Land Use Policy
1819:
1818:
1814:
1807:
1790:
1789:
1785:
1778:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1753:
1740:
1739:
1732:
1716:10.1.1.200.2892
1700:
1699:
1688:
1666:
1665:
1656:
1642:
1641:
1634:
1624:
1623:
1610:
1588:
1587:
1578:
1556:
1555:
1548:
1526:
1525:
1518:
1486:
1481:
1480:
1469:
1459:
1458:
1454:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1413:
1403:
1374:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1357:
1342:
1341:
1334:
1327:
1312:
1311:
1302:
1295:
1280:
1279:
1272:
1265:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1240:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1211:
1196:
1195:
1188:
1178:
1177:
1166:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1115:
1114:
1097:
1087:
1085:
1059:
1054:
1053:
1032:
1022:
1020:
1010:
1009:
1005:
995:
994:
975:
965:
963:
953:
952:
943:
934:
932:
915:
914:
910:
901:
899:
898:on 20 June 2014
891:
885:
884:
877:
864:
863:
844:
840:
781:
764:
705:Lack of rigour:
698:
681:
655:
649:
633:
580:
541:
507:
481:
479:Characteristics
449:tableau de bord
440:Alfred Chandler
428:David P. Norton
412:
396:
346:
317:
316:
245:
237:
236:
223:Core competency
200:
192:
191:
187:Henry Mintzberg
133:Candace A. Yano
124:Bruce Henderson
110:
102:
101:
93:Decision theory
61:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2716:
2714:
2706:
2705:
2700:
2698:Business terms
2695:
2685:
2684:
2678:
2677:
2675:
2674:
2669:
2664:
2659:
2657:Kraljic matrix
2654:
2649:
2644:
2639:
2634:
2629:
2624:
2619:
2614:
2612:MECE principle
2609:
2604:
2599:
2594:
2589:
2584:
2578:
2575:
2574:
2568:
2566:
2565:
2558:
2551:
2543:
2536:
2535:
2509:
2498:(7): 715–741.
2478:
2460:(4): 889–910.
2434:
2423:(3): 284–303.
2407:
2381:
2363:
2342:(3): 297–318.
2326:
2307:
2280:
2258:
2231:
2205:
2190:
2147:
2128:(3): 304–328.
2112:
2082:
2075:
2055:
2034:(7): 590–601.
2018:
2007:on 28 May 2014
1989:
1971:(7): 634–645.
1951:
1924:
1893:
1882:(4): 281–289.
1866:
1855:(3): 166–191.
1839:
1828:(3): 629–640.
1812:
1805:
1783:
1776:
1758:
1751:
1730:
1686:
1675:(3): 174–188.
1654:
1632:
1608:
1597:(7): 958–966.
1576:
1565:(4): 441–461.
1546:
1535:(2): 242–253.
1516:
1497:(4): 442–458.
1467:
1452:
1441:(2): 135–155.
1425:
1416:|journal=
1362:
1355:
1332:
1325:
1300:
1293:
1270:
1263:
1245:
1238:
1216:
1209:
1186:
1164:
1145:
1127:
1095:
1070:(7): 611–623.
1030:
1003:
973:
941:
908:
875:
841:
839:
836:
835:
834:
829:
824:
819:
814:
809:
804:
787:
780:
777:
763:
762:Software tools
760:
759:
758:
751:
736:
735:
716:
709:
697:
694:
680:
677:
651:Main article:
648:
645:
632:
629:
614:
613:
603:
597:
591:
579:
576:
563:
562:
559:
556:
553:
540:
537:
506:
503:
480:
477:
417:Analog Devices
411:
408:
395:
392:
391:
390:
387:
384:
381:
356:is a strategy
348:
347:
345:
344:
337:
330:
322:
319:
318:
315:
314:
301:
299:Kraljic matrix
292:
290:MECE principle
283:
274:
265:
256:
246:
243:
242:
239:
238:
235:
234:
229:
220:
211:
205:Business model
201:
198:
197:
194:
193:
190:
189:
184:
175:
166:
160:Julian Corbett
157:
148:
139:
137:C. K. Prahalad
130:
121:
115:Michael Porter
111:
109:Major thinkers
108:
107:
104:
103:
100:
99:
90:
81:
72:
62:
59:
58:
55:
54:
46:
45:
39:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2715:
2704:
2701:
2699:
2696:
2694:
2691:
2690:
2688:
2673:
2670:
2668:
2665:
2663:
2660:
2658:
2655:
2653:
2652:SWOT analysis
2650:
2648:
2645:
2643:
2640:
2638:
2635:
2633:
2632:PEST analysis
2630:
2628:
2625:
2623:
2620:
2618:
2615:
2613:
2610:
2608:
2605:
2603:
2600:
2598:
2595:
2593:
2590:
2588:
2585:
2583:
2582:Ansoff matrix
2580:
2579:
2576:
2571:
2564:
2559:
2557:
2552:
2550:
2545:
2544:
2541:
2524:
2520:
2513:
2510:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2482:
2479:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2448:
2441:
2439:
2435:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2411:
2408:
2396:
2392:
2385:
2382:
2377:
2370:
2368:
2364:
2359:
2355:
2350:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2330:
2327:
2322:
2318:
2311:
2308:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2284:
2281:
2276:
2269:
2267:
2265:
2263:
2259:
2246:
2242:
2235:
2232:
2216:
2209:
2206:
2201:
2194:
2191:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2151:
2148:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2116:
2113:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2089:
2087:
2083:
2078:
2072:
2068:
2067:
2059:
2056:
2050:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2022:
2019:
2006:
1999:
1993:
1990:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1955:
1952:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1928:
1925:
1913:
1909:
1902:
1900:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1870:
1867:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1843:
1840:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1816:
1813:
1808:
1802:
1797:
1796:
1787:
1784:
1779:
1773:
1769:
1762:
1759:
1754:
1748:
1744:
1737:
1735:
1731:
1726:
1722:
1717:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1697:
1695:
1693:
1691:
1687:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1663:
1661:
1659:
1655:
1651:(6): 563–672.
1650:
1646:
1639:
1637:
1633:
1628:
1621:
1619:
1617:
1615:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1585:
1583:
1581:
1577:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1553:
1551:
1547:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1523:
1521:
1517:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1485:
1478:
1476:
1474:
1472:
1468:
1463:
1456:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1429:
1426:
1421:
1408:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1373:
1366:
1363:
1358:
1352:
1348:
1347:
1339:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1322:
1318:
1317:
1309:
1307:
1305:
1301:
1296:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1260:
1256:
1249:
1246:
1241:
1235:
1230:
1229:
1220:
1217:
1212:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1175:
1173:
1171:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1149:
1146:
1141:
1137:
1131:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1112:
1110:
1108:
1106:
1104:
1102:
1100:
1096:
1084:on 1 May 2014
1082:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1058:
1051:
1049:
1047:
1045:
1043:
1041:
1039:
1037:
1035:
1031:
1018:
1014:
1007:
1004:
999:
992:
990:
988:
986:
984:
982:
980:
978:
974:
961:
957:
950:
948:
946:
942:
931:
927:
923:
919:
912:
909:
897:
890:
889:
882:
880:
876:
871:
867:
861:
859:
857:
855:
853:
851:
849:
847:
843:
837:
833:
830:
828:
825:
823:
820:
818:
815:
813:
810:
808:
805:
803:
799:
795:
791:
788:
786:
783:
782:
778:
776:
772:
768:
761:
756:
752:
749:
748:
747:
744:
740:
733:
729:
724:
720:
717:
713:
710:
706:
703:
702:
701:
695:
693:
689:
685:
678:
676:
672:
668:
665:
661:
654:
646:
644:
640:
638:
630:
628:
625:
622:
618:
611:
607:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:
585:
584:
577:
575:
573:
567:
560:
557:
554:
551:
550:
549:
545:
538:
536:
533:
531:
526:
524:
520:
515:
511:
504:
502:
498:
496:
495:
490:
485:
478:
476:
474:
468:
466:
462:
456:
454:
453:Edith Penrose
450:
446:
441:
436:
434:
429:
425:
420:
418:
409:
407:
403:
401:
393:
388:
385:
382:
379:
378:
377:
374:
371:
365:
363:
359:
355:
343:
338:
336:
331:
329:
324:
323:
321:
320:
313:
309:
305:
302:
300:
296:
293:
291:
287:
284:
282:
278:
277:PEST analysis
275:
273:
269:
266:
264:
263:Ansoff matrix
260:
257:
255:
251:
248:
247:
241:
240:
233:
230:
228:
224:
221:
219:
215:
212:
210:
206:
203:
202:
196:
195:
188:
185:
183:
179:
176:
174:
170:
167:
165:
161:
158:
156:
152:
149:
147:
143:
140:
138:
134:
131:
129:
125:
122:
120:
116:
113:
112:
106:
105:
98:
94:
91:
89:
85:
82:
80:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
63:
57:
56:
52:
48:
47:
44:
40:
36:
32:
31:
19:
2667:Strategy map
2586:
2526:. Retrieved
2522:
2512:
2495:
2491:
2481:
2469:. Retrieved
2457:
2453:
2420:
2416:
2410:
2398:. Retrieved
2394:
2384:
2375:
2339:
2335:
2329:
2320:
2316:
2310:
2296:(1): 65–88.
2293:
2289:
2283:
2274:
2249:. Retrieved
2245:the original
2234:
2222:. Retrieved
2208:
2199:
2193:
2163:(1): 53–79.
2160:
2156:
2150:
2125:
2121:
2115:
2101:(3): 15–26.
2098:
2094:
2065:
2058:
2031:
2027:
2021:
2009:. Retrieved
2005:the original
1992:
1980:. Retrieved
1968:
1964:
1954:
1940:(1): 14–29.
1937:
1933:
1927:
1915:. Retrieved
1911:
1879:
1875:
1869:
1852:
1848:
1842:
1825:
1821:
1815:
1794:
1786:
1767:
1761:
1742:
1706:
1702:
1672:
1668:
1648:
1644:
1626:
1594:
1590:
1562:
1558:
1532:
1528:
1494:
1490:
1461:
1455:
1438:
1434:
1428:
1407:cite journal
1365:
1345:
1315:
1283:
1254:
1248:
1227:
1219:
1199:
1180:
1158:
1154:
1148:
1139:
1130:
1121:
1117:
1086:. Retrieved
1081:the original
1067:
1063:
1021:. Retrieved
1016:
1006:
997:
964:. Retrieved
960:the original
933:. Retrieved
921:
911:
900:, retrieved
896:the original
887:
832:Strategy map
801:
797:
793:
773:
769:
765:
745:
741:
737:
722:
718:
711:
704:
699:
690:
686:
682:
673:
669:
659:
656:
641:
637:strategy map
634:
626:
623:
619:
615:
605:
599:
593:
587:
581:
568:
564:
546:
542:
534:
527:
516:
512:
508:
499:
492:
486:
482:
472:
469:
465:strategy map
460:
457:
448:
437:
432:
421:
413:
404:
397:
375:
366:
353:
351:
308:Strategy map
258:
178:Sharon Oster
146:Liddell Hart
1161:(2): 47–52.
1124:(2): 28–36.
254:Five forces
214:Value chain
142:Jim Collins
97:Game theory
2687:Categories
2277:(January).
2049:2022/23514
935:2020-01-15
838:References
679:Popularity
182:Chris Zook
169:J.C. Wylie
128:Gary Hamel
2344:CiteSeerX
1711:CiteSeerX
1709:: 47–90.
1391:209057620
930:0017-8012
696:Criticism
588:Financial
566:process.
2617:Mind map
2323:(3): 56.
2185:15409777
2177:41165876
2142:11720578
1511:43702511
1019:(August)
870:Archived
779:See also
610:innovate
594:Customer
505:Variants
199:Concepts
66:Strategy
43:Strategy
35:a series
33:Part of
2528:11 July
2471:11 July
2400:11 July
2224:11 July
2200:Fortune
2011:11 July
1982:11 July
1917:11 July
1399:3478190
1088:11 July
1023:11 July
902:11 July
410:History
155:Sun Tzu
2346:
2251:28 May
2183:
2175:
2140:
2073:
1803:
1774:
1749:
1713:
1509:
1397:
1389:
1353:
1323:
1291:
1261:
1236:
1207:
966:28 May
928:
539:Design
501:use).
362:report
2572:tools
2450:(PDF)
2218:(PDF)
2181:S2CID
2173:JSTOR
2138:S2CID
2001:(PDF)
1507:S2CID
1487:(PDF)
1387:S2CID
1375:(PDF)
1060:(PDF)
892:(PDF)
2672:VRIO
2622:OGSM
2530:2017
2473:2017
2402:2017
2253:2014
2226:2017
2071:ISBN
2013:2017
1984:2017
1919:2017
1801:ISBN
1772:ISBN
1747:ISBN
1420:help
1395:SSRN
1351:ISBN
1321:ISBN
1289:ISBN
1259:ISBN
1234:ISBN
1205:ISBN
1090:2017
1025:2017
968:2014
926:ISSN
904:2017
312:VRIO
268:OGSM
250:SWOT
2500:doi
2462:doi
2425:doi
2354:doi
2298:doi
2165:doi
2130:doi
2103:doi
2044:hdl
2036:doi
1973:doi
1942:doi
1884:doi
1857:doi
1830:doi
1721:doi
1677:doi
1599:doi
1567:doi
1537:doi
1499:doi
1443:doi
1379:doi
1072:doi
800:or
753:In
394:Use
286:STP
2689::
2521:.
2496:28
2494:.
2490:.
2458:11
2456:.
2452:.
2437:^
2421:11
2419:.
2393:.
2366:^
2352:.
2338:.
2321:85
2319:.
2294:11
2292:.
2261:^
2179:.
2171:.
2161:39
2159:.
2136:.
2126:11
2124:.
2097:.
2085:^
2042:.
2032:53
2030:.
1969:53
1967:.
1963:.
1936:.
1910:.
1896:^
1880:20
1878:.
1853:25
1851:.
1826:29
1824:.
1733:^
1719:.
1707:13
1705:.
1689:^
1671:.
1657:^
1649:35
1647:.
1635:^
1611:^
1595:12
1593:.
1579:^
1563:34
1561:.
1549:^
1533:30
1531:.
1519:^
1505:.
1495:66
1493:.
1489:.
1470:^
1439:16
1437:.
1411::
1409:}}
1405:{{
1393:.
1385:.
1335:^
1303:^
1273:^
1189:^
1167:^
1157:.
1138:.
1122:79
1120:.
1098:^
1068:53
1066:.
1062:.
1033:^
1015:.
976:^
944:^
920:.
878:^
845:^
796:,
467:.
352:A
37:on
2562:e
2555:t
2548:v
2532:.
2506:.
2502::
2475:.
2464::
2431:.
2427::
2404:.
2360:.
2356::
2340:7
2304:.
2300::
2255:.
2228:.
2187:.
2167::
2144:.
2132::
2109:.
2105::
2099:7
2079:.
2052:.
2046::
2038::
2015:.
1986:.
1975::
1948:.
1944::
1938:7
1921:.
1890:.
1886::
1863:.
1859::
1836:.
1832::
1809:.
1780:.
1755:.
1727:.
1723::
1683:.
1679::
1673:3
1629:.
1605:.
1601::
1573:.
1569::
1543:.
1539::
1513:.
1501::
1464:.
1449:.
1445::
1422:)
1418:(
1401:.
1381::
1359:.
1329:.
1297:.
1267:.
1242:.
1213:.
1183:.
1159:6
1142:.
1092:.
1074::
1027:.
970:.
938:.
341:e
334:t
327:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.