IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxivy2011i2p65-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing a Balanced Scorecard for the Evaluation of a Local Authority Organization

Author

Listed:
  • Anthoula Kladogeni
  • Alexandros Hatzigeorgiou

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthoula Kladogeni & Alexandros Hatzigeorgiou, 2011. "Designing a Balanced Scorecard for the Evaluation of a Local Authority Organization," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 65-80.
  • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xiv:y:2011:i:2:p:65-80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ersj.eu/repec/ers/papers/11_2_p4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reza Banai, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    2. Guh, Yuh-Yuan, 1997. "Introduction to a new weighting method -- Hierarchy consistency analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 215-226, October.
    3. Xiaoxia Li, 2022. "Research on the Development Level of Rural E-Commerce in China Based on Analytic Hierarchy and Systematic Clustering Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Danijela Tuljak-Suban & Patricija Bajec, 2022. "A Hybrid DEA Approach for the Upgrade of an Existing Bike-Sharing System with Electric Bikes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-23, October.
    5. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Li-zhu Yue & Jia-wei Zhang & Yue Lv, 2024. "Pyramid-Shaped Indicators: Evaluating the Robustness of Scheme Comparisons Under Weight Uncertainty," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 631-656, September.
    7. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    8. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Ya-Qiang Xu & Le-Sheng Jin & Zhen-Song Chen & Ronald R. Yager & Jana Špirková & Martin Kalina & Surajit Borkotokey, 2022. "Weight Vector Generation in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making with Basic Uncertain Information," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-11, February.
    10. Hsin-Chieh Wu & Toly Chen & Chin-Hau Huang, 2020. "A Piecewise Linear FGM Approach for Efficient and Accurate FAHP Analysis: Smart Backpack Design as an Example," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, August.
    11. Hartvigsen, David, 2005. "Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 357-369, June.
    12. Purvis, Ben & Calzolari, Tommaso & Genovese, Andrea, 2025. "Consensus and contestation: Reflections on the development of an indicator framework for a just transition to a circular economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    13. Azam Abdolazimi & Mehdi Momeni & Majid Montazeri, 2015. "Comparing ELECTRE and Linear Assignment Methods in Zoning Shahroud-Bastam Watershed for Artificial Recharge of Groundwater with GIS Technique," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(1), pages 1-68, January.
    14. Sudipa Choudhury & Apu Kumar Saha & Mrinmoy Majumder, 2020. "Optimal location selection for installation of surface water treatment plant by Gini coefficient-based analytical hierarchy process," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 4073-4099, June.
    15. Chun-An Chen & Shang-Ru Lee, 2013. "Developing The Country Brand Of Taiwan From The Perspective Of Exports," Asian Journal of Empirical Research, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 3(9), pages 1223-1236, September.
    16. Thanh Ngo & Hai‐Dang Nguyen & Huong Ho & Vo‐Kien Nguyen & Thuy T. T. Dao & Hai T. H. Nguyen, 2021. "Assessing the important factors of sustainable agriculture development: An Indicateurs de Durabilité des Exploitations Agricoles‐Analytic Hierarchy Process study in the northern region of Vietnam," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 327-338, March.
    17. Cheng-Hua Yang & Huei-Ju Chen & Li-Chu Lin & Alastair M. Morrison, 2020. "The Analysis of Critical Success Factors for In-Town Check-In in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    18. Oryani, Bahareh & Koo, Yoonmo & Rezania, Shahabaldin & Shafiee, Afsaneh, 2021. "Barriers to renewable energy technologies penetration: Perspective in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 971-983.
    19. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    20. Pascoe, Sean & Doshi, Amar & Kovac, Mladen & Austin, Angelica, 2019. "Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combining multi-criteria methods with choice experiments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General
    • L30 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.