The American balanced scorecard versus the French tableau de bord: the ideological dimension

Management Control Systems in Madeira Island Largest Firms: Evidence on the Balanced Scorecard Usage

“…Emphasize short-term financial performance Fu et al (2008); Kaplan and Norton (1996a); Ittner and Larcker (1998); Bourguignon et al (2004); Neely and Al Najjar (2006); Malina and Selto (2001) Fail to match long term strategy to short term actions Fu et al (2008); Ittner and Larcker (1998); Bourguignon et al(2004); Malina and Selto (2001) Create a gap between strategic formulation and implementation Fu et al (2008); Kaplan and Norton (1996a); Bourguignon et al (2004) Fail to reflect organizational continuous improvements and innovation Kaplan and Norton (1992); Malina and Selto (2001) Only allow for an historic approach to organizational performance Kaplan and Norton (1992); Ittner and Larcker (1998) Aren't able to identify the organizational value creating activities Kaplan and Norton (1992); Neely and Al Najjar (2006) Don't consider some important intangible assets Kaplan and Norton (1996a); Ittner and Larcker (1998); Malina and Selto (2001) Don't allow managers to verify if the firm is attaining strategic goals Kaplan and Norton (1996b); Ittner and Larcker (1998) Don't give information enough to correctly assess managers' performance, apart from short-term financial indictors Sliwka (2002); Ittner and Larcker (1998) Present little information on causes and solutions to organizational problems Ittner and Larcker (1998) identify key changes in the business far too late Ittner and Larcker (1998) Reflect organizational functions structure and not multi-functional processes Ittner and Larcker (1998) Present information that is too much aggregated and summarized Ittner and Larcker (1998) Aren't useful when adopting other tools like TQM that require inform...…”

“…Adopting non financial indicators enlightens the causes over the results, enabling managers to predict future organizational performances Wiersma (2008). The BSC is among fresh strategic management information systems sharing many similarities with the predecessor Tableax de Bord, and easier to implement Bourguignon et al (2004). Both systems convert organizational strategy and vision in goals and associated indicators, emphasizing proactive moves over reactions and enabling top management decision to match employees' actions.…”

“…Learning (Kumpikaitė 2008) and growth indicators have impact on internal processes and these will influence clients' indicators. In the end of this cause and effect chain the financial indicators will reflect the result of all previous activity in the firm, therefore the need for both lead and lag indicators in the BSC is imperative (Bourguignon et al 2004) for the organizational moves into the future shouldn't depend purely upon financial indicators (Nørreklit 2003).…”

“…Literature presents arguments for (see Table 4) and against (see Table 5) the BSC use, but the former surpass the latter. Enables the materialization of vision and strategy by an easy use tool Ittner and Larcker (1998) Easy to apply Kanji and Moura de Sá (2002) Allows clarification, consensus and focusing on performance improvement needs Kaplan and Norton (1996b) Permits strategy explanation, adaptation and communication throughout the organization Kaplan and Norton (1996b) Advantages Authors in literature Consents individual goals alignment with organizational strategy Kaplan and Norton (1996b) Provides useful feedback for organizational learning and performance development Malina and Selto (2001) Favors pro-activeness over reaction Bourguignon et al (2004) Focuses on clients and markets Kanji and Moura de Sá (2002) Connects top management decisions to lower levels activities Bourguignon et al (2004) …”

The Intangible Resources and Small Firms’ Multilevel Performance: A Partial Least Squares Approach

“…Nevertheless, upon all the existing evidence of such relationships, there are very rare studies on how both intellectual capital and entrepreneurial orientation impact multilevel performance (i.e., both financial and non-financial performance). Financial and non-financial measurement system considered the most appropriate way of measuring today's performance (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) as against the traditional financial measures, which is solely concerned with historical nature of the firm (Bourguignon, Malleret, & Nørreklit, 2004;Norreklit, 2000), and that can, of course, give misleading indicators for today's competitive environment (Kaplan & Norton, 1992;Suwignjo, Bititci, & Carrie, 2000).…”