Designing a Balanced Scorecard for the Evaluation of a Local Authority Organization
Introduced in the early 90’s by Kaplan and Norton, Balanced Scorecard (BSC) composed a contemporary framework for the evaluation of a company or an institution, translating mission and strategy into goals and measures, organized into four different perspectives: Financial, Customer, Internal Process and Learning and Growth. Several variations of the initial scorecard, developed in the years to follow, was intended to be applied by non–profit and government organizations, such as Local Authority Organizations (LAOs), where traditional evaluation methods, focused mainly on the financial performance, were not the most appropriate tools for their performance measurement. The purpose of this paper is to describe and present the design of a BSC in order to be applied to the evaluation of a LAO. The main alteration of the proposed scorecard is the modification of its architecture, where the Customer Perspective, which in the case of a LAO is named Stakeholders Perspective, is placed on the top of the scorecard, instead of the Financial, and is actually identical to the organization’s mission. For each one of the four perspectives of the model, a three–level sub–system is employed which contains one strategic goal, three to four objectives and up to five performance drives for every objective. The design of the scorecard starts with the definition of the strategic goal of every perspective and the process is completed with the selection of the objectives and the performance drivers of the four scorecard’s perspectives. The whole model is presented analytically in a table.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xiv:y:2011:i:2:p:65-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Eleni Giannakopoulou)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.