Balanced scorecard

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)).

51: 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

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 "

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. 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: 2560: 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: 771:

activities to an individual, and many balanced scorecards are reported via ad hoc methods based around email, phone calls and office software.

1847:

Northcott, Deryl; Taulapapa, Tuivaiti Ma'amora (2012). "Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector organizations".

1056: 789: 2004: 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

869: 1589:

Elefalke, K. (2001). "The Balanced Scorecard of the Swedish Police Service: 7000 officers in total quality management project".

2553: 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.

2074: 1804: 1775: 1750: 1354: 1324: 1292: 1262: 1237: 1208: 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. 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.

727: 652: 1080: 754: 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.

339: 17: 1462:

Proceedings from the 12th Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, Orlando, Florida, USA

2546: 734:

methods explicitly consider the interests of wider stakeholder groups and perhaps address this issue in its entirety.

1483: 2646: 2636: 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: 700:

Academic criticism of the balanced scorecard can be broken into three distinct (but overlapping) areas of concern.

285: 253: 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?".

226: 2692: 447:

on performance measurement reporting in the 1950s and the work of French process engineers (who created the

1284:

The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment

1012: 2702: 806: 2334:

Jensen, M. C. (2001). "Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function".

2214: 996:

Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1992). "The Balanced Scorecard – Measures That Drive Performance".

746:

Consideration has been given to the effect of organization size on balanced scorecard effectiveness:

2391:"Examining Opportunities for Improving Public Sector Governance Through Better Strategic Management" 2348: 1715: 1419: 731: 663: 522: 2697: 2601: 493: 369: 280: 2395:

Proceedings, Third International Conference on Performance Measurement and Management (PMA 2002)

2343: 1710: 1627:

Proceedings, Third International Conference on Performance Measurement and Management (PMA2002)

816: 624:

Although less common, these early-style balanced scorecards are still designed and used today.

439: 357: 332: 1398: 2626: 2606: 2591: 1908:"Balanced Scorecard and Results-Based Management – Convergent Performance Management Systems" 1406: 1371: 895: 294: 271: 208: 1793: 1226: 2661: 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".

826: 303: 118: 69: 50: 8: 2596: 217: 163: 150: 1527:

Butler, A.; Letza S. R.; Neale B. (1997). "Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy".

2569: 2180: 2172: 2137: 1506: 1386: 1282: 811: 571: 529: 518: 488: 145: 87: 83: 2503: 2155:

Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton D. P. (1996). "Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy".

1570: 1540: 865: 2641: 2518: 2446: 2390: 2070: 2064: 1960: 1833: 1800: 1771: 1746: 1625:

Brignal, S. (2002). "The UnBalanced Scorecard: a Social and Environmental Critique".

1394: 1390: 1350: 1344: 1320: 1314: 1288: 1258: 1233: 1204: 1198: 1057:"3rd Generation Balanced Scorecard: Evolution of an effective strategic control tool" 925: 821: 399: 389:

a portfolio of initiatives designed to impact performance of the measures/objectives.

325: 231: 78: 74: 34: 2184: 2141: 2093:

Flamholtz, Erik (2003). "Putting Balance and Validity into the Balanced Scorecard".

1510: 2499: 2461: 2424: 2353: 2297: 2164: 2129: 2102: 2043: 2035: 2026:

Muralidharan, Raman (2004). "A framework for designing strategy content controls".

1972: 1941: 1883: 1856: 1829: 1720: 1676: 1598: 1566: 1536: 1498: 1442: 1378: 1179:

Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1993). "Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work".

1071: 444: 423: 172: 141: 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".

2445:

Lawrie, Gavin V.; Abdullah, N. A.; Bragg, Christopher; Varlet, Guillaume (2016).

1680: 427: 222: 186: 132: 123: 92: 1557:

Ahn, H (2001). "Applying the Balanced Scorecard Concept: An Experience Report".

2656: 2611: 1795:

Balanced Scorecard Step-by-step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results

1502: 416: 398:

The balanced scorecard was initially proposed as a general purpose performance

298: 289: 204: 159: 136: 114: 2428: 2039: 1976: 1945: 1887: 1860: 1724: 1602: 1446: 1075: 2686: 2651: 2631: 2581: 2465: 2133: 929: 452: 276: 262: 249: 2357: 2666: 2538: 2301: 2119: 831: 636: 464: 307: 177: 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;

1382: 213: 96: 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" 609: 181: 168: 127: 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: 2616: 784: 376:

The critical characteristics that define a balanced scorecard are:

65: 42: 154: 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

2447:"Multi-level strategic alignment within a complex organisation" 555:

Communicating the vision and link it to individual performance;

361: 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" 2671: 2621: 1643:

Irwin, D. (2002). "Strategy Mapping in the Public Sector".

311: 267: 1894: 1432: 1338: 1336: 1276: 1274: 1192: 1190: 2444: 2373: 1959:

Andersen, Henrik V.; Lawrie, Gavin; Savič, Nenad (2004).

1905: 1740: 1526: 956:"Analog Devices: 1986–1992, The First Balanced Scorecard" 1873: 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).

1369: 1333: 1271: 1187: 2148: 1876:

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

1111: 1109: 1107: 1105: 1103: 1101: 1099: 2314: 1849:

The International Journal of Public Sector Management

1453: 1346:

The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations

1313:

Olve, Nils-Göran; Roy, J.; Wetter, M. (25 Feb 1999).

1312: 1174: 1172: 1170: 1168: 1050: 1048: 1046: 1044: 1042: 1040: 1038: 1036: 1034: 2510: 2485: 2440: 2438: 2382: 2268: 2266: 2264: 2262: 1952: 1819: 991: 989: 987: 985: 983: 981: 979: 977: 2486:Ittner, C. D.; Larcker, D. F.; Randall, T. (2003). 1958: 1906:Lawrie, Gavin J. G.; Kalff D.; Andersen H. (2005). 1741:Neely, Andy; Adams C.; Kennerley M. (27 May 2002). 1459: 1372:"Intelligent Design of Inclusive Growth Strategies" 1342: 1281:Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1 October 2000). 1280: 1196: 1178: 1096: 995: 2154: 1846: 1792: 1700: 1225: 1165: 1115: 1079: 1031: 916:Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, David P. (1992-01-01). 675:model and perspectives, measures and initiatives. 2435: 2259: 2088: 2086: 2019: 1054: 974: 881: 879: 2684: 2238: 2212: 2095:Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting 1666: 1620: 1618: 1616: 1614: 1612: 1584: 1582: 1580: 1343:Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1 July 2008). 2113: 1931: 1765: 1013:"Strategy Execution and the Balanced Scorecard" 2516: 2388: 2281: 2083: 2069:. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press. 1696: 1694: 1692: 1690: 1662: 1660: 1658: 1522: 1520: 1426: 1349:. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press. 1203:. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press. 949: 947: 945: 876: 552:Translating the vision into operational goals; 2554: 2378:. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press. 2369: 2367: 2191: 1925: 1736: 1734: 1645:International Journal of Strategic Management 1638: 1636: 1609: 1577: 1477: 1475: 1473: 1471: 1287:. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 1217: 333: 2568: 2376:Performance measurement frameworks: a review 2275:Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement 2272: 2025: 1990: 1766:Bourne, Mike; Bourne P. (29 November 2002). 1308: 1306: 1304: 1246: 953: 915: 860: 858: 856: 854: 852: 850: 848: 846: 2523:Proceedings of the Fourth SMESME Conference 2517:Lawrie, Gavin; Andersen, Henrik V. (2006). 2479: 2389:Andersen, Henrik V.; Lawrie, Gavin (2002). 2327: 2308: 2056: 1867: 1759: 1687: 1655: 1552: 1550: 1517: 1146: 942: 888:FAQ Answer: What is the Balanced Scorecard? 730:, the Public Sector Scorecard and the UN's 2561: 2547: 2374:Adams, C.; Neely A.; Kennerley M. (2007). 2364: 2232: 2206: 1784: 1731: 1669:International Journal of Medical Marketing 1633: 1468: 1004: 866:"2GC Balanced Scorecard Usage 2020 Survey" 340: 326: 2408: 2347: 2287: 2092: 2047: 1714: 1703:Journal of Management Accounting Research 1301: 1197:Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1996). 1055:Lawrie, Gavin J. G.; Cobbold, I. (2004). 1017:Harvard Business School Working Knowledge 843: 528:The balanced scorecard is also linked to 2197: 1588: 1547: 1223: 958:. Arthur M. Schneiderman. Archived from 719:Not reflective of all stakeholder needs: 2003:. 2GC Active Management. Archived from 1813: 1624: 1252: 894:, 2GC Active Management, archived from 684:non-profit organizations, and schools. 14: 2685: 2333: 2062: 1481: 1152: 1010: 868:. 2GC Active Management. 21 May 2021. 2542: 2492:Accounting, Organizations and Society 2063:Simons, Robert L. (1 December 1994). 1790: 1642: 2414: 2243:. Bain & Company. Archived from 1255:The Theory of the Growth of the Firm 630: 27:Strategy performance management tool 1799:. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1556: 653:Third-generation balanced scorecard 646: 577: 24: 2454:Journal of Modelling in Management 1770:. London: Hodder & Stoughton. 924:. No. January–February 1992. 755:small and medium-sized enterprises 478: 25: 2714: 1319:. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1257:. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 761: 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). 1840: 1363: 2290:Management Accounting Research 1435:Management Accounting Research 1232:. Boston, MA.: The MIT Press. 1128: 909: 13: 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)00116-1 837: 678: 2157:California Management Review 1768:Balanced Scorecard in a Week 1681:10.1057/palgrave.jmm.5040117 1224:Chandler, Alfred D. (1962). 695: 7: 778: 600:Internal business processes 504: 10: 2719: 1503:10.1108/IJPPM-06-2015-0092 1155:Journal of Cost Management 1000:(January–February): 71–79. 807:Key performance indicators 650: 409: 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. 538: 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 393: 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: 2539: 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: 29: 21: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2676: 2573: 2567: 2537: 2527: 2525: 2515: 2511: 2484: 2480: 2470: 2468: 2449: 2443: 2436: 2413: 2409: 2399: 2397: 2387: 2383: 2372: 2365: 2349:10.1.1.214.9827 2332: 2328: 2313: 2309: 2286: 2282: 2271: 2260: 2250: 2248: 2247:on 7 April 2014 2237: 2233: 2223: 2221: 2217: 2211: 2207: 2196: 2192: 2153: 2149: 2118: 2114: 2091: 2084: 2077: 2061: 2057: 2024: 2020: 2010: 2008: 2000: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1981: 1979: 1957: 1953: 1930: 1926: 1916: 1914: 1904: 1895: 1872: 1868: 1845: 1841: 1822:Land Use Policy 1818: 1814: 1807: 1789: 1785: 1778: 1764: 1760: 1753: 1739: 1732: 1716:10.1.1.200.2892 1699: 1688: 1665: 1656: 1641: 1634: 1623: 1610: 1587: 1578: 1555: 1548: 1525: 1518: 1486: 1480: 1469: 1458: 1454: 1431: 1427: 1415: 1413: 1404: 1403: 1374: 1368: 1364: 1357: 1341: 1334: 1327: 1311: 1302: 1295: 1279: 1272: 1265: 1251: 1247: 1240: 1222: 1218: 1211: 1195: 1188: 1177: 1166: 1151: 1147: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1114: 1097: 1087: 1085: 1059: 1053: 1032: 1022: 1020: 1009: 1005: 994: 975: 965: 963: 952: 943: 934: 932: 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: 2706: 2705: 2700: 2698:Business terms 2695: 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: 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: 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: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2482: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2448: 2441: 2439: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2411: 2396: 2392: 2385: 2377: 2370: 2368: 2359: 2355: 2350: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2330: 2322: 2318: 2311: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2284: 2276: 2269: 2267: 2265: 2263: 2246: 2242: 2235: 2216: 2209: 2201: 2194: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2151: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2116: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2089: 2087: 2078: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2059: 2050: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2022: 2006: 1999: 1993: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1955: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1928: 1913: 1909: 1902: 1900: 1898: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1870: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1843: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1816: 1808: 1802: 1797: 1796: 1787: 1779: 1773: 1769: 1762: 1754: 1748: 1744: 1737: 1735: 1726: 1722: 1717: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1697: 1695: 1693: 1691: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1663: 1661: 1659: 1651:(6): 563–672. 1650: 1646: 1639: 1637: 1628: 1621: 1619: 1617: 1615: 1613: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1585: 1583: 1581: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1553: 1551: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1523: 1521: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1485: 1478: 1476: 1474: 1472: 1463: 1456: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1429: 1421: 1408: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1373: 1366: 1358: 1352: 1348: 1347: 1339: 1337: 1328: 1322: 1318: 1317: 1309: 1307: 1305: 1296: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1277: 1275: 1266: 1260: 1256: 1249: 1241: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1220: 1212: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1193: 1191: 1182: 1175: 1173: 1171: 1169: 1160: 1156: 1149: 1141: 1137: 1131: 1123: 1119: 1112: 1110: 1108: 1106: 1104: 1102: 1100: 1084:on 1 May 2014 1082: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1058: 1051: 1049: 1047: 1045: 1043: 1041: 1039: 1037: 1035: 1018: 1014: 1007: 999: 992: 990: 988: 986: 984: 982: 980: 978: 961: 957: 950: 948: 946: 931: 927: 923: 919: 912: 897: 890: 889: 882: 880: 871: 867: 861: 859: 857: 855: 853: 851: 849: 847: 842: 833: 830: 828: 825: 823: 820: 818: 815: 813: 810: 808: 805: 803: 799: 795: 791: 788: 786: 783: 782: 776: 772: 768: 756: 752: 749: 748: 747: 744: 740: 733: 729: 724: 720: 717: 713: 710: 706: 703: 702: 701: 693: 689: 685: 676: 672: 668: 665: 661: 654: 644: 640: 638: 628: 625: 622: 618: 611: 607: 604: 601: 598: 595: 592: 589: 586: 585: 584: 575: 573: 567: 560: 557: 554: 551: 550: 549: 545: 536: 533: 531: 526: 524: 520: 515: 511: 502: 498: 496: 495: 490: 485: 476: 474: 468: 466: 462: 456: 454: 453:Edith Penrose 450: 446: 441: 436: 434: 429: 425: 420: 418: 407: 403: 401: 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: 41: 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.

Index