Transcription
Effective Performance Management with the Balanced ScorecardTechnical Report
Writers:Liz MurbyStathis GouldCIMACIMACIMA gratefully acknowledges the contributions ofGary Ashworth, Philip Barden, Peter Brewer, Gavin Lawrie, Bernard Marr,Professor Bob Scapens, Dr Mostafa Jazayeri-Dezfuli, and Francesco Zingales.Contact:liz.murby@cimaglobal.comCopyright CIMA 2005First published in 2005 by:The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants26 Chapter StreetLondon SW1P 4NPPrinted in Great BritainThe publishers of this document consider that it is a worthwhile contribution todiscussion, without necessarily sharing the views expressed.No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining fromaction as a result of any material in this publication can be accepted by the authorsor the publishers.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means method or device, electronic(whether now or hereafter known or developed), mechanical, photocopying, recordedor otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.Translation requests should be submitted to CIMA.
Effective Performance ManagementContents1. Development of scorecard thinking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1 From performance measurement to strategic management . . . . . . . . . . .1.2 Strategy mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2.1 An introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2.2 Decision support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.3 Effective scorecard design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3344662. Implementation and practicalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1 Kaplan and Norton’s five guiding principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1.1 Translate strategy into operational terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1.2 Align the organisation to the strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1.3 Make strategy everyone’s job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.1.4 Make strategy a continual process –strategy management meetings and the learning process. . . . . . . 112.1.5 Mobilise change through executive leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143. Beyond Kaplan and Norton – alternative complementary approaches . . 153.1 Strategy mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1.1 The value creation map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1.2 The value dynamics framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.2 Scorecard implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.2.1 The business modelling approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184. Dimensions of scorecard application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.1 The balanced scorecard in the public sector4.2 Embedding a sustainability focus with the balanced scorecard. . . . . . . . . . 195. Software in scorecard development and application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216. The balanced scorecard – a resounding success? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236.1 Why balanced scorecards sometimes fail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236.2 Presentational/stylistic criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267. Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277.1 Private sector: BAE Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277.2 Public sector: Health Action Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Appendices1. The value dynamics framework at Dell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352. The Business Modelling Approach’s ‘if-then matrices’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363. The Business Modelling Approach’s implementation questionnaire . . . . . 37References and further information sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
2Effective Performance ManagementIntroductionTo manage and deploy organisational resources in sucha way as to deliver and fulfil organisational objectives isa vital role of senior finance and managementprofessionals. Many tools, techniques and frameworkshave evolved to assist managers in this: value-basedmanagement, total quality management, theperformance prism, and more.This report focuses on one suchframework: the balanced scorecard.Of the tools designed to improvecorporate performance, the balancedscorecard has probably been the mostpopular. Originally developed as aperformance measurement tool, thescorecard is now associatedincreasingly with strategyimplementation. It acts as amanagement framework with thepotential to identify and exploitorganisations’ key value drivers to theirbest strategic advantage.This report considers the more recentdevelopments in scorecard thinking, inparticular the key role of strategymapping. It outlines how, through wideapplication, and facing ever-changingoperating conditions, the scorecard hasdeveloped over the last ten years, tosupport different organisational‘missions’ – from profit maximisation,to service delivery or resourceoptimisation. For example, manyorganisations are realising increasinglythat much of their strategic value liesin their people, systems, processes andability to innovate – this reportincludes an explanation of howorganisations can integrate thepotential of these intangibles in theirscorecard.The scorecard has been usedsuccessfully by organisations (public,private and not-for-profit) to realiseand integrate the strategic contributionof all relevant organisational valuedrivers for two key reasons:First, it helps to ensure consistencyand alignment between thenon-financial and the financialmeasures, (this helps to facilitate thealignment of the measures andstrategy).Second, it helps to identify andmeasure the specific value drivers thatunderpin performance. This allowsmanagers to test their hypotheses onwhat is driving organisationaloutcomes.The report considers the use of thebalanced scorecard to link strategy toresources and then to performancemeasures, and offers guidance on thestrategy mapping process to ensurerobust cause-and-effect linkage. Newapproaches to bridging the gapbetween strategy and the balancedscorecard such as value-creationmapping and the value dynamicsframework are profiled.To help organisations’ scorecard design,the report includes: Case-study based observations andpractical advice from twoorganisations that have implementeda balanced scorecard approach. Extensive references and signposts tofurther information and advice.In addition to the balanced scorecard,many organisations use a range oftools and techniques to improveperformance. It is important tointegrate these with the scorecardapproach and we recommendtherefore that this report be read inconjunction with resources on othermanagement accounting techniquessuch as value-based management,activity-based costing, qualitymanagement and business processre-engineering. Recommended readingcan be found atwww.cimaglobal.com/sem
Effective Performance Management1. Development of scorecard thinking1.1 From performance measurementto strategic managementThe balanced scorecard is amanagement framework which, sinceits inception by Kaplan and Norton inthe early 1990s, has been adopted,modified and applied by hundreds oforganisations worldwide. If understoodthoroughly and implementedappropriately, its potential contributionto organisational success – howevermeasured – is fundamental.The scorecard translates vision andstrategy into four notional quadrants.In the original offering from Kaplanand Norton, these quadrants reflectedthe following perspectives andimplications of the strategy: Financial;Customer;Internal business processes; andOrganisational learning and growth.(An overview of the balanced scorecardcan be found at: www.cimaglobal.com)The key to the popularity of thescorecard may lie in its flexibility andadaptability. Whether for commercialorganisations, governed by profits,public sector operations governed byservice delivery, or not-for-profitorganisations driven by commitmentto a particular cause, a scorecard thatimproves performance (either throughperformance measurement, or viastrategy refinement), can bedeveloped.When first developed, the scorecardwas positioned as a holisticperformance-measurement framework,which could provide management withuseful information relating to financialperformance, internal processes,customer perceptions and internallearning and growth.The opportunity to use suchinformation to satisfy the concerns ofnot only internal management but alsoexternal stakeholders was soonacknowledged, and companies such asSears, Citicorp, and AT&T, as well asnumerous public sector organisationsdeveloped such ‘stakeholderscorecards’. By first identifying theinterested parties whose objectivesthey sought to satisfy, (shareholders,customers, employees, suppliers etc),the organisations then defined goalsfor each and developed stakeholdercards of appropriately balancedstakeholder-related measures andtargets, in an attempt to meet theneeds of all.The underlying premise of the strategicscorecard is straightforward: that allthe actions determined bymanagement decisions andimplemented to promote strategyrealisation, have an impact. Tosuccessfully contribute to achievementof an organisation’s mission, thescorecard must effectively interpretstrategy into operational terms.Strategy is thus ‘operationalised’through the assumed relationshipsbetween actions and their impacts. Bymeasuring these impacts (via thescorecard’s identified key performanceindicators), management information –which informs decision-making – iscreated.These second-generation scorecardsallow individuals and teams to definewhat they must do well to contributeto higher-level goals. They are foundmost frequently in manufacturing andhealthcare organisations, especiallythose that have been implementingtotal quality management programmes(TQM, Malcolm Baldridge awardinitiatives), which generate manymeasures to monitor processes andprogress. Such stakeholder scorecards,were criticised by some, as being littlemore than an extended list of keyperformance indicators (KPIs).Importantly, by introducing thisconcept of ‘causality’ into scorecarddesign, more recent refinements tobalanced scorecard use have exploitedits potential value as a framework forstrategic management. Through theuse of ‘strategic objectives’, manyorganisations, both private and public,have used the scorecard to placestrategy, rather than financial metrics(simple budgets, economic valueadded, shareholder return etc.) at theheart of their management processes.Strategic objectives, first representedas short sentences attached to each ofthe four perspectives, can be used tohighlight the essence of theorganisation’s strategy relevant toeach. Measures that reflect progresstowards the achievement of theseobjectives are then selected.As organisations developed their ownscorecards to measure performance,each generated valuable information,relating to many aspects oforganisational activity.Close analysis of this information,added to organisational knowledge ofoperations and their impacts, madepeople aware of the potential of theframework from a performancemanagement perspective rather thanone of performance measurement.The identification of ‘causality’ –action and resultant impact – betweenand within scorecard perspectives,marked a significant development inscorecard understanding andapplication. Identifying assumedcausality within the scorecard designwas the catalyst for the scorecard’sleap of value, from a framework formeasuring organisational performance(second-generation scorecards), to onewhich may, if fully embedded in anorganisation, lead to strategyrefinement. This is being called the‘third-generation balanced scorecard’.3
4Effective Performance Management Development of scorecard thinkingInherent in these third-generation scorecards is the graphical representation oforganisational activity as a series of ‘linkages’.Generation 1:Using a balance of financialand non-financial performancemeasures, long- andshort-term horizons, andexternal as well as internalperspectives.1.2 Strategy mapping:1.2.1 An introductionIt is critical to note that the scorecarditself is NOT a tool for strategyformulation, rather it is a descriptionand interpretation of the strategy,founded on assumed/hypothesisedcausal links between actions and theirimpacts.Kaplan and Norton noted the value ofarticulating and representinggraphically such links between actions(‘drivers’ or ‘lead’ indicators) anddesired outcomes (‘lag’ indicators).They termed the representationprocess ‘strategy mapping’. Theidentification and effectivemanagement of such causalrelationships is the anchor to thesuccess of the ‘strategy scorecard’, andshows how assets can be deployed,results measured and resourcesmanaged to achieve desired strategicresults.The strategy map is a general, logicaland comprehensive architecture fordescribing the strategy framework. It isonly when this is achieved thatmanagement can claim to understandthe key drivers behind organisationalperformance and view the businessmodel through a single lens.Generation 2:Using balanced scorecard designto understand the businessmodel through valuepropositions and the causalrelationships betweenobjectives.Generation 3:Testing the business model bysecuring greater claritybetween the assumednon-financial drivers ofperformance and cash flow.Strategy mapping provides anopportunity to articulate the keystrategies or initiatives thatmanagement intends to adopt toachieve the strategic objectives. Themapping process can be effective inclosing the gap between the strategicvision/direction and the operationalactivities of the organisation –ensuring better execution of strategy.Building the strategy mapIt is crucial that a balanced scorecardrepresents a chain of assumed causeand effect links between and withineach scorecard perspective. For eachperformance measure it must be clearwhat the key performance indicator is,and how each is achieved. Building thestrategy map involves the followingsteps:Thus, the balanced scorecard designprocess is founded on the premise ofstrategy as a set of hypotheses aboutcause and effect. These hypothesesform the strategy for moving theorganisation from its current positionto where it wants to be. (Organisationscan sometimes find it helpful to statethis desired position by formulating a‘destination statement’).1. Clarifying the mission andstrategic vision.2. Specifying objectives in thescorecard areas necessary to realisethis vision.Importantly, having developed thescorecard and by using the associatedperformance metrics, the cause andeffect relationships between actionsand impacts are both explicit andtestable. As such, it should be possiblefor a third party to understand anorganisation’s strategy, and how this isto be achieved from an effective andwell-constructed strategy map.The over-riding contribution of thethird-generation scorecard rests in theclarification and expression of the linksbetween performance drivers and theirimpact on progress towards strategicsuccess, conveyed through thestrategy-mapping process.Simply, a strategy map charts theimpacts of activities. Once maps havebeen constructed, linking actions andtheir impacts, operations can bemanaged to achieve desired outcomes.From the example of a strategy mapopposite, it can be seen that theorganisation’s mission is to improveshareholder value, and that this isachieved through the revenue growthand productivity strategies – objectivesof the financial perspective.
Effective Performance Management Development of scorecard thinkingStrategy map exampleImprove Shareholder ValueShareholder ValueROCEProductivity StrategyRevenue Growth StrategyFinancial PerspectiveValue fromNew Products andCustomersIncrease CustomerValueImprove CostStructureImprove AssetUtilisationNew Revenue SourcesCustomer ProfitabilityCost per UnitAsset UtilisationCustomerPerspective:Customer valuepropositionProduct leadershipCustomer IntimacyOperational ExcellenceInternal Perspective‘Innovate’(Processes thatCreate NewProducts andServices)Learning & GrowthPerspectiveEmployeeCompetenciessource: Adapted from Kaplan and Norton, (2000)‘IncreaseCustomer rationalExcellence’(Operations &Logistics Processes)Technology‘Be a GoodNeighbour’(Regulatory &EnvironmentalProcesses)CorporateCulture5
6Effective Performance Management Development of scorecard thinkingThe strategy map shows increasedcustomer value and the value deliveredfrom new goods and services to be thekey drivers of increased shareholdervalue.These are driven by achievingoperational excellence, customerintimacy and product leadership. Theseare customer-perspective relatedmeasures, and progress towards theirachievement might be measuredthrough devices such as customersurveys/feedback, falls in numbers ofcomplaints and dissatisfiedcustomers/returned goods.Operational excellence, customerintimacy and product leadership are alldriven by initiatives identified in theinternal-processes perspective:innovate, increase customer value,achieve operational excellence and bea good neighbour. Thus it might beexpected that the organisation: Invests in increased R&D expenditure(supporting the innovation initiative); Enhances the performancedimensions of existing offerings (toincrease customer value); Reassesses internal logistics ofproduction and delivery; and Monitors the environmental impactsof activities (supporting the ‘goodneighbour initiative’).The above activities and changes areall achieved through appropriatedeployment and effective utilisation ofthe learning and growth perspectiveconstituents – employeecompetencies, technology and thecorporate culture.1.2.2 Decision supportIn a presentation to CIMA’s StrategicEnterprise Management Round Table in2003, the Inland Revenue identifiedthe balanced scorecard as a goodframework for a decision-support toolat board level. A process of strategymapping with executives and seniormanagement was used to understandthe existing business model and createan iterative process of change. This wasseen as the best way forward fordeveloping the organisation’s directionin the light of a changing environmentwhere new managementresponsibilities and expectations wereemerging.The Inland Revenue found that theprocess: Ensured shared goals and objectives; Brought a strategy and its drivers tolife; Focused the organisation ondelivering value for customers andother stakeholders; and Enabled less, but more relevant,information to reach the board tofacilitate strategic decision-making.The result of this project has been abetter shared understanding by theboard and senior managers of how thebusiness works. Value trees have beencreated that link systematically theoperating elements of the business tovalue creation. Ultimately, thisfacilitates a better dialogue withstakeholders, such as HM Treasury, onresource-allocation issues.1.3 Effective scorecard designThe process of understanding thebusiness model and identifying bothperformance drivers and appropriatemeasures is complex. There is oftenconfusion, for instance, aroundassumed logical, rather than actual,causal relationships between drivers ofperformance and hence performancemeasures. It may seem logical toassume causality between reportedcustomer-service satisfaction levelsand financial results. However, the twoare not necessarily congruent:customer-service satisfaction levelswithin the budget airline industry maybe significantly lower than those offull-service carriers, although thecomparative financial performance ofthe former is markedly better.Further advice concerning scorecarddesign and the selection of appropriateperformance measures was offered byProfessor David Larcker in hispresentation, as CIMA’s visitingprofessor (2004).The presentation is available at:www.cimaglobal.comTo be predictive, rather than simplybackward looking, the balancedscorecard approach should focus onthose activities and processes that anorganisation needs to get right toensure it fulfils its strategy. Thesignificance of this task cannot beunderestimated. The lack of a causeand effect relationship between driversof performance and indicators, perhapsfrom invalid assumptions of thebusiness model, will lead to adverseorganisational behaviour andperformance.
Effective Performance Management Development of scorecard thinkingIn designing a scorecard, there is aneed to challenge and discuss thegeneric four perspectives of thebalanced scorecard that preoccupymanagers regularly. In the public sectorparticularly, scorecard design can berefined with perspectives that aremore meaningful and as is illustratedin chapter three, visualising valuedrivers does not need to be undertakenwithin the context of theseperspectives.Of all the firms participating in Olsonand Slater’s study, irrespective of theirproduct/market response position,‘higher performers’ placed greateremphasis on measures included in thefinancial perspective than did lowerperformers. Interestingly, for operatorsclassified as ‘low-cost defenders’ thosethat performed better placed lessemphasis on customer-relatedperformance measures than did thelower performers.To summarise, the Kaplan and Nortonview is that strategy scorecards:Recent research suggests that the wayforward for managers, is to focusexplicitly on how goals, strategies andoperations are connected, and to try tounderstand the interdependenciesacross the value chain. Provide a logical and comprehensiveway to describe strategy; Communicate clearly theorganisation’s desired outcomes andits hypotheses about how theseoutcomes can be achieved; and Enable all organisational units tounderstand the strategy and identifyhow they can contribute bybecoming aligned to the strategy.Getting the ‘balance’ rightThe correct ‘balance’ that a scorecardencompasses should be driven by –and reflect – the value proposition(product leadership, customer intimacyor operational excellence) on whichthe strategy is based. To be mosteffective, scorecards of ‘customerintimates’ should emphasise measuresin the customer perspective; productleaders should emphasise those in theinnovation and growth perspective; andthose pursuing technical excellenceshould focus more on the internalbusiness-processes perspective.Olson and Slater (2002) have testedthis approach. Their research findingsshowed that ‘superior’ performance canindeed be facilitated by manipulationof performance emphasis, i.e. scorecarddesign, irrespective of: The value proposition on which thestrategy is based; and The characteristics exhibited inaddressing the product/marketstrategy decisions.Chenhall categorised an index ofintegration over a number ofdimensions including: Operations/strategy: integratedoperational actions withorganisational strategies; Different internal units: integratedobjectives of different business unitswithin the organisation; Internal/external: make transparentthe interrelationships between theactivities of different business unitsand external suppliers and customers; Financial/non-financial: provideinformation on financial,customer-related, business-processrelated, and long-term innovationrelated performance; and Time: integrate current actions withpast and future consequences byusing leading and lag indicators.If we accept that organisations createvalue through their superiorco-ordination and integration,identifying what it is exactly that abalanced scorecard integrates seemsvery useful. What matters most for theindividual company, however, is onwhich dimension of integration toconcentrate. Manufacturers thatcompete on product quality might, forexample, emphasise the integration ofinternal and external units. Theirbalanced scorecards would need tohighlight measures of co-operativeproduct design, speed and reliability ofdeliveries and logistics efficiencies, forexample.By contrast, organisations in a strategicturnaround situation might need toemphasise the integration between theoperations in local units with overallcorporate strategy. Performancemeasurement systems can supportsuch change programmes byhighlighting the extent of integrationbetween operations and strategy.The bottom line is that a goodscorecard will reveal an organisation’sstrategy and paint a picture that thetraditional focus on financial measuresis unable to do.7
8Effective Performance Management2. Implementation and practicalities2.1 Kaplan and Norton’s five guidingprinciplesIn their original exposition of the‘strategy-focused’ scorecard Kaplanand Norton identified the five ‘keyprinciples’ to successful developmentand implementation of a strategicscorecard, outlined below.2.1.1 Translate strategy intooperational termsThe balanced scorecard is not astrategy-formulation tool. Strategyformulation may be viewed as an art,although the description of strategy,(through the balanced scorecard), isnot. For organisational performance tobe of a value exceeding that of thesum of its parts (the compositebusiness/organisational units anddepartments), the activities of eachmust be linked, and mutuallyre-enforcing, via the organisationalstrategy. (Chapter three outlinesvariations on Kaplan and Norton’sstrategy-mapping theme used totranslate the strategy from a notionalconcept into a schedule of actions andkey performance measures: anorganisational plan).Strategic themes and priorities mustbe embedded within reportingstructures to enable a consistentmessage and set of corporate strategicpriorities to permeate each part of theorganisation.In some cases, for example within theUK National Health Service, or thefinancial services industry, wherereporting structures are required forregulatory requirement compliance, itmay be necessary to add asupplementary reporting structure. Inother circumstances, a new reportingstructure that addresses the balancedscorecard themes and priorities maysimply replace the existingperformance reporting structure.2.1.2 Align the organisation to thestrategyKaplan and Norton’s work shows thatthe common thread to the successfulimplementation of the balancedscorecard lies in companies’ ability torealise consistent strategic alignmentand focus. An organisation might bestachieve focus by developing andcommunicating a number of strategicthemes. Corporate or organisationalstrategy generally encompasses two orthree complementary and mutuallysupportive strategic themes that alloworganisations to balance and focuspotentially conflicting long- andshort-term priorities.The strategic themes: Reflect what must be done internallyto achieve identified strategicoutcomes; and Provide a way of segmenting thestrategy into several generalcategories, or projects.Typically, strategic themes relate tointernal business processes, and eachacts as a ’pillar’ supporting theover-arching corporate strategy. Eachtheme contains its own strategichypothesis, its own set of cause-andeffect relationships and occasionally itsown scorecard. It is frequently the casethat organisations overload themselveswith too many initiatives and projects.This leads to a dilution of focus on thehigh-value-at-stake issues. In manylarge organisations, the balancedscorecard is developed first atcorporate level to articulate acompany’s vision, and how it will bedelivered. Kaplan and Norton suggestthat the corporate scorecard can clarifytwo elements of corporate-levelstrategy: Corporate themes – the values, ideasand beliefs shared throughout thecompany; and Corporate roles – the actions thatcreate synergy and value atbusiness-unit level.From this corporate scorecard, thestrategic contribution of thesupporting business units/divisions isclarified, and scorecards which areconsistent with, and reinforce thecorporate level scorecard, can bedeveloped for each. The frameworkallows the continued communicationof strategy throughout theorganisation. Scorecards developed atcorporate level can be deployedthroughout departments and divisions,and may prompt such units clearly todefine their contribution to overallstrategy execution.Thus begins a communication processfrom division or department level tocorporate head, facilitating refinementof strategy and strategy managementplans throughout the organisation. Inreality, this is often a process ofnegotiation and discussion untilobjectives and priorities are agreed.According to Kaplan and Norton’sresearch, organisations such as MobilOil have used this approach indeveloping scorecards for the 18business units of its North AmericaMarketing and Retailing division. Itshould be noted, however, that thetranslation of values into desiredbehaviours is not a straightforwardprocess. It requires that all the driversof employees’ behaviour – includingperformance measurements andrewards, available technology,structure, people skills, andorganisational culture and processes –are influenced.
Effective Performance Management Implementation and practicalitiesWhere organisations are also realisingthe value of partnership working – andboundaries between organisations arebecoming increasingly fluid (as shownby an increase in partnershiparrangements, joint ventures andoutsourcing) – scorecards can bedeveloped to define how value will becreated within the externalpartnerships. In such circumstances,contracts b
a balanced scorecard approach. Extensive references and signposts to further information and advice. In addition to the balanced scorecard, many organisations use a range of tools and techniques to improve performance. It is important to integrate these with the scorecard approach and we recommend therefore that this report be read in
