Objective- The aim of this research paper is to highlight the development of The Balanced Scorecard; dissecting the emerging significance of scorecards in appraisal of organizational performances, investigating the problems that firms meet in creating and executing performance management systems and illumination of lessons derived from organizations across the globe that have employed the Balanced Scorecard.
Methodology- The methodology used involved the interview of performance appraisal managers in real life situations. The managers interviewed in this research paper were all queried on their use of Balanced Scorecard in reviewing the organizational performance of their organizations.
Findings- The research paper found out that the use of Balanced Scorecards in the appraisal and management of performance was an emerging trend among big firms around the globe. It also discovered that most organizations need an overhaul in their cultures if they are to tap on the potentials of the Balanced Scorecard. This change in organizational culture is informed by the reality that a Balanced Scorecard needs insight and dedicated support across an organization's hierarchy. Every department of the organization should be ready to embrace the Balanced Scorecard as a means of evaluating and therefore managing performance in the organization. Also conscious of the fact that culture in organization is a feature under incessant change, because of the fast changes in the global environment; the Balanced Scorecard needs to continually be updated to capture the emergent underlying parameters. Such emergent parameters may cover aspects like new organizational goals, changing market areas and influx of new recruits into the organizations as well as the exit of retirees.
Get your grade
or your money back
using our Essay Writing Service!
Case Study- This research paper particularly investigates the utilization of Balanced Scorecard in management of organizational performance in two selected firms in New Zealand.
The global financial meltdown that started in 2008 has exposed many frailties in the management of performance in organization. New Zealand has had its own share of economic challenges, some of which are still being felt today. Managerial employees are more than ever before being faced with the daunting challenge of ensuring the global recession does not have far-reaching consequences on the performance of their firms. This research paper attempts to understand the input of Balanced Scorecard on performance management of firms. It explores excellent methods of developing scorecard systems that capture problems which New Zealand firms face in their everyday duties. It also seeks to gather on lessons derived from firms that particularly have a broad history in the execution of the Balanced Scorecard in systematic performance management.
Clear as the benefits of management are, there exist two performance management precepts. The first is the tactical management of performance and the other is conservative management system. The tactical system which is purely strategic is also intrinsically reactionary and depends on market or environment settings and conditions. The tactical management system is triggered whenever there are drastic changes in the organizational surroundings and the business needs to readjust its activities in the wake of environmental changes. The conservative performance management system on the contrary is a continuous system that is carried out at predetermined regular intervals to self-regulate the firm. The regulation could be a quarterly, bi-annual or yearly process, planned to coincide with specific but organization-wide release of statements, for example production output statements, fiscal position reports or profit announcements (Carton & Hofer, 2006). Balanced Scorecard attempts to capture both the two
Other than communicating the position of the firm to stakeholders, the regular management of organizational performance is critical in inspiring and rewarding exceptional employee behaviors. While in the conventional logic the evaluation of employee performance and the reward schemes have been associated with release of firm's fiscal reports, some organizations are using the Personal Balanced Scorecard to negotiate salary, wages and compensation for their employees. Paul Niven, in his books, is critical of the system that seeks to use appraisal reports in assigning compensation packages for its employees. He argues that "appraisal results are efficient only if the rewards for good behavior are gifts that supplement an employee's pay, not if the result is used to calculate and determine the compensation package" (Niven, 2006). Mohan Nair disputes Niven's argument in his book, Essentials of balanced scorecard. Mohan is of the view that a scorecard is the surest means of keeping employees in check all year round. He, Mohan, posits that an organization has no business providing attractive compensation packages to non-performing employees as the main goal of an organization is to generate profits. Niven is critical of using scorecards to determine compensation packages because they create rivalries among employees within departments and they are also unsustainable.
Always on Time
Marked to Standard
Niven wants us to imagine a scenario where the performance of an employee keeps fluctuating on monthly basis. If an employee is outstanding on the first month, average on the second and grossly underproductive on the third, does the management keep on updating the compensation package for every of those months and for every single employee in the organization? Matthew Kemmerer in his book The Balanced Scorecard - Advantages and Disadvantages goes deeper into the pros and cons of balanced scorecards as were developed by the pair of Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. He notes that while Kaplan and Norton were innovative in formulating a system for evaluating performances, he hypothesizes that "anomalous employee behavior is most likely to be observed in the long haul" (Kemmerer, 2009). This system will eventually water down on the worth of tactical performance management as it will not be entirely impartial to all employees. Research done by Michael Hammer on the same issue backs up Kemmerer's hypothesis, and points out to the prejudicial nature of scorecards on junior employees. The reward scheme is done by senior organization employees and these superiors will assign themselves favorable points and pocket the bulk of the rewards (Hammer, 2007).
Many departmental managers have raised complaints regarding the partiality of performance rewards scheme, and particularly criticized the criteria employed to settle on rewards. The human resource department is at the centre of this reward scheme and is equally burdened by the tenets to be used in rationally allocating rewards (Hammer, 2007). The big question therefore is, what aspects need to be managed when evaluating the performance of the organization? The quandary of assessing organizational performance is such a demanding undertaking that management experts and observers can only speculate on the best ways forward. Fiscal strategies are conventionally regarded as the easily usable schemes in many firms. With the turn of the millennia however, organizations have become more complex with multifaceted dimensions that need cannot be evaluated by fiscal analysis alone (Taticchi, 2010).
The Idea of a Balanced Scorecard to review the performance of an organization was initially preconceived in the 90s. Over the next decade, statistics pointed to the reality that more than half of firms around Western Europe and the United States enlisted scorecards in performance management. The concept of measuring performance by use of particular measures was however not entirely conceived in the 90s but has existed for a while. Using the traditional appraisal systems, it could not be authoritatively claimed that a particular set of measures would adequately capture every bit of detail needed today. Indeed, excellently certified services, intellectual and skilled human resources and first-rate business practices are subtle assets that may not be captured by traditional measures or reflected in statements of organizational performance (Mohan, 2004). As a result of the failure to capture some of these crucial performance indicators, it is difficult for insiders and outsiders to ascertain the precise worth or value of organizers with absolute confidence.
The Balanced Scorecard website reveals how its inclusive conceptual framework has provided firms with both fiscal and non-fiscal measures and a reliable system that generates quantifiable information on all areas of the organization. The Balanced Scorecard audits all employees from the top to the bottom and is informed by the goals and policies of the firm. The fiscal and non-fiscal measures are designed based on outside measures and internal measures. Outside measures encompass issues such as customer satisfaction measures and shareholder confidence, whereas internal measures involve financial statements of business processes, invention and innovation and employee training and development (Niven, 2006). The state of balance between the two sets of measures must also take into consideration the previous organization performances and policies that have driven the firm to the current status.
Basically, all the literatures on the Balanced Scorecard seem to arrive at the same conclusion regarding its purposes: elucidate and transform goals into policies and strategies; disseminate and connect policies and strategies to measures; devise plans around committed targets and bring them into line with initiatives; and develop and improve on training and communicate feedback on any improvements. Conventionally, firms used to gauged their performance on the
This Essay is
a Student's Work
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Examples of our work
The purpose of the research conducted was to determine the use of the relatively new approach towards performance management using the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). The research was conducted through use of interviews. The interviews were with Mr. Blake Adams, the Balanced Scorecard Manager of the Zoogle Company, Mr. Daniel White, the Human Resource Manager of Bill and sons Company Limited and Mr. David Townsend, the General Manager of the Crown Sugar Mills. Zoogle is a multi-million software company, Bill and sons a family investment in copper mining industry while Crown Sugar Mills is a sugar milling factory all in New Zealand. They are amongst few of the companies and institutions that have embraced the use of the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool to monitor performance.
The methodology or approach I opted for was the use of an interview because I intended to use the managers as real life example of people who are exploiting the workability of the scorecard phenomenon to gauge performance hence productivity. The Balanced Scorecard idea requires that the strategies are passed to others. An interview would best pass the idea to many by convincing them of the effectiveness of the scorecard through addressing their concerns. I therefore chose to use knowledgeable respondents and carefully structured my questions to address most issues surrounding the use of the scorecard program. The spontaneity of asking and answering questions gives little room for a respondent to give biased remarks thus the responses are reliable. The questions are structured in such a way they address the various objectives developed for learning.
The use of interview as a methodology for my research also met certain shortcomings that I could not avoid. The interview limited me to few respondents due to resources like time and respondent accessibility.
The interview with Mr. Blake Adams.
ME: How did you get involved with the balanced scorecard for the first time?
Mr. Blake: I was working at the Financial Planning and Reporting department as a chartered Public Accountant. I had been there for nine years so the boss tried me temporarily as the Assistant Balanced Scorecard Manager.
ME: The Balanced Scorecard idea has not been embraced widely as a managerial tool as compared to the Finance and Human Resources departments. What is your take on this?
Mr. Blake: Since the Balanced Scorecard idea is not a widely in cooperated one; most institutions do not apply it in recruiting of employees for jobs. For example, when I was hired, they needed someone with the ability to build an agreement along all levels of the institution, make management ideas as diverse as possible yet workable, have the technical knowhow of installing and implementing software solutions and also experienced in performance management.
ME: What is your word to critics of balanced scorecard program?
Mr. Blake: I think their views are somewhat true, though I do not agree with them because inasmuch as this program has shortcomings, it is evident that the problems can be adequately addressed using workable solutions. One needs to be working practically with the scorecard program to identify the shortcomings and it is another thing to be smart enough to be able to counter the emerging shortcomings.
ME: What is your take on the balanced scorecard and the already existing management control systems?
Mr. Blake: I think that the balanced scorecard is by far a better tool in assessing performance as opposed to the other management control systems. However, the traditional systems must not be done away with but rather complemented by the scorecard. The scorecard addresses disadvantages of the traditional systems and thus makes it a preference. This is true because the scorecard addresses strategy while the others only assess imminent effects of certain projects but not the long term picture. It also focuses on strategy as opposed to control.
ME: You are required to facilitate the process of building balanced scorecards and implementing them. Are there any challenges you face while doing that and how do you overcome the challenges if any?
Mr. Blake: Yes there are challenges. It is most challenging to get the built balanced scorecards accepted and supported. This is due to influential individuals that can easily undermine its efficiency, and a diverse organization like Zoogle Company is most likely to have very many of them. Another challenge is keeping momentum with the already started project. To overcome these is hard; first identify other influential individuals who are support the idea to show people what the proposed balanced scorecard can achieve. It is also vital to have a team that is dedicated to the balanced scorecard. The team will communicate this through meetings, weekly newsletters and also by organizing group meetings to analyze findings. Then the results are communicated to other people to enable them see the achievements the scorecard can bring.
ME: So what are the challenges associated with maintaining the already created momentum?
Mr. Blake: Barriers to maintaining momentum include time and communication. Communication develops the psyche to continue working on something thus the momentum is maintained. This is done through programmed meetings oriented towards supporting the scorecard. Our team has three members who oversee this therefore ensuring the scorecard idea is well sold to all and those that are opposed are convinced otherwise.
ME: The balanced scorecard program is viewed as being authoritative in the nature of its execution. Where do you and the other managers involved with the program get the authority to execute your responsibilities?
Mr. Blake: At Zoogle, we as the scorecard team work as independent executives while doing our job. You need authority in any managerial position to achieve results and this is not different from Zoogle. The person managing the scorecard is the 'CEO' at the moment and has direct authority. We also coordinate with the real executives to ensure they support the scorecard by proving its ability to achieve certain goals so it actually eliminates any authority issues that may arise.
ME: You seem to have developed a strong liking for the balanced scorecard and even find it enjoyable using it as a performance gauge. Do you have any plans whatsoever about promoting the use of the scorecard?
Mr. Blake: Yes. I have long term plans within my company and I intend to extend it to other companies and institutions too. I am working on a curriculum that will enable institutions of learning to include the balanced scorecard approach into their system and be able to offer management control solutions through proper gauging of performance yet have a two sided view of the process. The idea is great and if fast spread could greatly and positively impact on productivity of various institutions. So it is my pleasure to find ways to perfect the idea and most importantly sell it to the whole world using the same methods I use to solicit support for scorecards during my responsibilities as the Balanced Scorecard Manager of the Zoogle Company.
The interview with Mr. Daniel White
ME: Do you know about the balanced scorecard, and if you do then please give a brief description about it and its application at Bill and sons Company limited.
Mr. White: Yes I know about the Balanced Scorecard. It is a program designed to assess performance through strategic planning. Performance is observed over time and adjusted according to initial plan. Then new future prospects are evaluated and used to formulate strategies that will help achieve long term objectives. In a business setting like my company, the strategies are communicated to all members of the given organization for implementation.
ME: As the HR manager, how many people do you work with in your scorecard program team and what are their roles?
Mr. White: Our team consists of three members; the assistant scorecard manager, the balanced scorecard technical leader and I. The roles of the assistant balanced scorecard manager include working together with the other teams in creating workable strategies modifying their strategy plans, working on communication criteria that would promote and maintain the scorecard momentum, ensuring timely performance, facilitating logistics and training activities then finally reporting his findings to our group. The balanced scorecard technical lead's work is purely technical and includes deploying and implementing internal web based solutions pertaining to software.
ME: The use of the Balanced Scorecard is just a risk though it has been proven to be potentially productive. Is there anything you can do as a manager to ensure that the risk turns out to be beneficial?
Mr. White: For any risk to be undertaken in a business entity, it has to be evaluated to ensure there is potential and meaningful revenue. The ability of the scorecard program to produce desired results has been proven over time so what matters is how to go about it so that it is productive. The manager decides the course of the process and should ensure it is adhered to, everything goes as scheduled and the process is assessed to ensure it goes as planned.
ME: The Balanced Scorecard is a phenomenon that is designed to measure strategy, right? Please highlight the process that leads to development of workable strategies from a proposed scorecard.
Mr. White: Yes it measures strategy that is developed through a series of activities. The manager structures visions that are clarified to all the members of the firm. After they have understood all it entails, the visions are linked to desired objectives. Then a precise work plan is developed to align the strategic initiatives. Lastly, assessment is done to facilitate strategic feedback and enable learning from the whole process which stimulates development of new objectives.
ME: Since the idea aims at improving on previous targets and the strategies are formulated in order to ensure new and higher goals are attained, what happens when the goals set are too unrealistic or are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve?
Mr. White: The aim of any organization is to perform at the highest level possible and maintain or improve. So is the aim of the balanced scorecard. That is to monitor performance until it is at its maximum so that if there is difficulty in further improvement, the performance is still desirable. But from my experience at Bill and sons Company, the program gives a wide range of new targets you can never actually run out of attainable objectives.
ME: Why balanced? Why not just a scorecard? Do the scorecards formulated have to be balanced and in what way?
Mr. White: The tool aims to evaluate performance and help control management. Therefore management is assessed under four perspectives; the customers, the finances, business processes and learning and growth. All these need to be in the right balance in order to achieve the set goals. There is also the need to balance employees' accountability alongside the goals. Imbalance in any of the determinants means there is no balanced scorecard and therefore no management control.
ME: The attainment of the objectives set requires a lot of things to be put in place like finances, accountability, and cohesion, then balancing of all of them for the idea to work. How are all these feasible?
Mr. White: Yes. It could be very costly to any organization that is not dedicated enough to keep the momentum. If the process fails, all the labor, time, financial input and other resources would have gone to waste yet the goals would not be achieved. It therefore calls for able leadership, a taskforce that is accountable and consistency for the procedure to be pulled off. This could be too demanding leading to loss of interest amongst members of the team thus the scorecard would have been wasted. My duty as the Hr manager is to ensure there is proper communication, coherence and dedication so that momentum is gathered and maintained.
ME: What is your perception on the impact of the Balanced Scorecard in various companies and the corporate world as a whole in the coming years?
Mr. White: The increasing popularity in the global use of the Balanced Scorecard will necessitate its long term existence. Since the results are commendable and long term I see a business environment that is based on performance value and individual accountability. It will generate quality thus enhancing growth and success in the business world.
The interview with Mr. David Townsend.
ME: What is a Balanced Scorecard and how were you developed into the Balanced Scorecard program?
Mr. Townsend: A Balanced Scorecard is a performance measurement tool that functions through measuring workability of different strategies that are being implemented in a firm. The strategies are implemented by continuous balancing of different aspects of management thus they are in frequent adjustments so as to suit the desired goals. It was while I was at SmarTel, my first firm after college, that I first experienced the implementation of the balanced scorecard program. I was also well trained at Reconnaissance LLC after I sought a managerial position with the firm. But the culmination of it all was at the pioneer group, Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, a truly first class company that falls under the Palladium Inc.
ME: Your services at the Crown Sugar Mills in relation to the Balanced Scorecard are long term. Most companies and institutions prefer hiring Balanced Scorecard personnel on short term basis. Why did your company decide to employ you as a long term scorecard manager?
Mr. Townsend: It is actually a change by our senior partners because I wanted to create top level scorecards and use them fully within the system, then we would tie merge the ideas with our planning process. Part time employment would make it difficult to instill the balanced scorecard culture into the system since the results would be for a short duration. So I proposed to them that my services be on a long term basis so as to execute the process successfully and that was granted.
ME: What about you? What is it with the balanced scorecard that made you to want to do the job on a full term basis?
Mr. Townsend: It has to be because I preferred an escape from a purely financial role I had as a Chartered Public Accountant initially. Moreover, as a General Manager directly in control of the Balanced Scorecard program, I could learn about all the areas in the company due to the interdependence of the various departments that need to work together make the program successful. This personally gave me a sense of satisfaction in my work because the Balanced Scorecard is strategy-oriented and therefore guides everyone towards achieving specific objectives rather than attending to emergent crises.
ME: As a manager of the Balanced Scorecard program, your job is not purely financial. Does the financial background assist you or anyone else for that matter in performing of the responsibilities?
Mr. Townsend: I really do not think a financial background is mandatory for one to be scorecard manager but rather has a slight advantage. In my previous job positions, I was concerned with understanding varied business components and studying their strategic objectives. So that somehow prepared me for my strategy oriented responsibilities as the scorecard manager.
ME: You have been in the balanced scorecard department for quite some time now. What, according to your opinion are the main success factors in succeeding in the Balanced Scorecard management?
Mr. Townsend: I consider myself a very successful scorecard manager and I attribute the success to my ability and skills. A successful scorecard manager has to be an expert in subject matter, be able to form and also develop various teams, can adequately communicate the philosophy of a scorecard and its benefits, thereby being able to convince and motivate the organization to accept the changes. If the scorecard manager does not believe in his changed system, it will be difficult to pass it to the others and therefore the scorecard will simply not work.
ME: In your own professional perspective, do you think there are any important skills one requires to be a successful scorecard manager?
Mr. Townsend: Yes you need to be skillful. One, you have to be almost perfect in everything you do. Self belief is critical in achieving that. Then passing this feeling of achievement to the rest of people you are working with is vital so that they also have faith in your collective responsibility to achieve. It creates a feeling of being a champion. Secondly, the scorecard is criticized as having a top to bottom view or approach and not recognizing employees' efforts. So a beneficial skill a manager would use is to exploit the top to bottom dimension by including executives to believe in and support the scorecard but also consider the employees' ideas since they posses knowledge in their line of work. This encompasses all levels of the organization and encourages productivity.
ME: Comparing the balanced scorecard and the budget, which one do you think is a better planning tool?
Mr. Townsend: In most organizations, the scorecard competes with the budget as a tool for management thus ending up confusing the organization as to which is most important. The scorecard is a far much better tool in the integrating strategy with financial measurement activities and the processes that people undertake. The budget focuses narrowly in terms of finances and therefore does not offer a holistic approach. Hence strategic execution of activities can be drawn from a good scorecard but not from a budget.
ME: What are your views about your career and how your current position in this field will be affected in the long run?
Mr. Townsend: Balanced scorecard as a managerial tool, even though still a new idea, is quickly gaining acceptance in many companies and institutions worldwide. Some are even considering it as a permanent planning solution. Therefore its future is bright.
This analysis utilizes the information gathered from the interviews with specific examples from the Zoogle Company and its Balanced Scorecard Manager, Mr. Blake Adams since amongst the three managers, he was the most specialized in the scorecard program. The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) was an idea that was developed in the early nineties by Kaplan and Norton as an approach towards performance evaluation.
The scorecard has four perspectives; "the financial perspective, the customer perspective, the internal business processes perspective and the learning, growth and innovation perspective" (Kaplan & Norton, 2006). The financial aspect requires that for an organization to succeed financially there is need to improve on the shareholder value, realize return on capital and also to utilize efficiently the available assets. For example, the Zoogle Company benefitted financially because they registered improved market share value in the stock exchange for three consecutive years after inception of the scorecard, running from 2003 to 2006.
The customer perspective tends to answer the question, 'to realize our vision, how should we present to our customers?' This would be through ensuring better products and services for customer satisfaction, enabling good customer relationships and making sure the company reputation is jealously protected. Zoogle noted some improved customer interest in their software business through a customer feedback program. Some even suggested what they would prefer to continue getting and what should be changed. This obviously impacted positively on the company's revenue. The internal business processes perspective tends to identify the processes that can be altered so that both the shareholders and the customers are impressed. This would be through proper development of products and services and, distribution and after sales services.
Mr. White and Mr. Townsend are really skilled, so it is no surprise that their companies have done well through their leadership in using the scorecard. The learning, growth and innovation perspective aims at changing existing ideas for better ones and improving on others so as to maintain momentum geared towards achieving the company vision. This focuses on the employees' and the information machinery capabilities, motivation of employees to perform better and empowering them. Mr. Blake's Zoogle Company has put in place motivational strategies that ensure dedicated services. Their employees feel their compensation packages are friendly and that drives them to perform.
Therefore the responsibility of the balanced scorecard is to guide and control balance between the various perspectives thereby highlighting specific objectives that can be met. This creates a strategic approach from the objectives and when a balance is struck, it is communicated to all the departments to be executed as specified. The scorecard is therefore always changing depending on the objectives put forward and the strategic plan of actions that are to be implemented so as to realize the corporate vision. It is no wonder that the Zoogle Company has noted tremendous improvements since they started using the balanced scorecard.
This research therefore aimed at establishing the authenticity of using the scorecard as a successful managerial tool to gauge performance. The scorecard idea is analyzed to ascertain its applicability in the present management systems. From the interview with Mr. Blake Adams, the scorecard is researched to establish whether it can be useful, whether it can replace the traditional performance control systems, whether it can withstand the test of time within the institutions, how it impacts on the employees and companies that use them, the challenges that are likely to be faced, its effects on the budget and whether its continued use could be phased out due to technological advancements. The idea is to link the scorecard model with organizational research using the interview questions to break down the objectives. First, I sought to establish the effect of exposure into the field (experience) and whether an experience in the financial docket was a requirement for a successful balanced scorecard career. My findings proved that a financial background was not really a requirement but it is an advantage since knowledge about different organizational departments' issues is critical if one is to develop good planning strategies.
Experience in the field is vital since the scorecard is fast developing and changing. Knowledge about where it is changing from is therefore helpful to know how best it can work and prepare future strategic plan. Its job requirements are rather dependent in the ability of one to be smart enough and create productive initiatives as opposed to academic qualification. It is important to maintain a good work already initiated by a good scorecard so as not to kill employees' morale and destroy a good scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 2000). Communication should therefore be maintained and everyone encouraged keeping the process going so as not to bring a well thought strategy to waste. Employees should be hired permanently to see the scorecard ideas grow and implement long term future plans.
The field holds a bright future for a scorecard employee since the concept is slowly gaining acceptance globally. There is increasing job security and avenue for developing a successful career out of it. The idea also promises a bright future for companies that use it. A scorecard professional also requires good skills that would expand his knowledge base and help him get support for his ideas so that they are implemented to completion and successfully (Kaplan & Norton, 2000). He has to plan a rapport with both the executives and the ordinary workers and ensure his good strategies are well communicated to everyone so that they all understand the achievements it would attain. This utilizes well the top to bottom approach of the scorecard while also taking care of the ordinary employee input considering they are knowledgeable in their respective departments.
The biggest worry for anyone in whatever they do is overcoming the challenges that he may face while at it. The biggest challenge faced by the balanced scorecard program is how one can successfully convey his thought strategic plan in a way that will appeal to everyone so that they support it during implementation (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). The solution to this was to counter the barriers to the spread of the idea by using influential individuals within the executive and employee groups. The idea is to explain it well to them and make them show the others why they have to buy the scorecard idea. After the idea has been accepted, it becomes a priority to ensure the momentum is maintained within the workforce (Niven, 2008). This is done through ensuring the executives continue to support the program and the employees work towards achieving specific objectives in the scorecard. They should all be encouraged throughout the process and convinced that the much they have already put in place is producing the desired effects. Of course the best feeling one gets is that of relief after working out perfect solutions to their challenges because after all the concept requires that whoever initiates it believes in it so as to be able to pass it to everyone else. The scorecard should work to control the budget and not to compete with it because use of the budget without considering the directions the scorecard offers causes loss of balance between the relevant parameters like finances.
The scorecard has a holistic approach and enables the reading of strategy out of it as opposed to the financially oriented budget. It is also important to highlight that the scorecard should be used to complement rather than to phase out the traditional management control systems (Smith, 2006). This is because it has been observed that sometimes newly acquired ideas could be phased out if they clash with the already existing ones in the longer run. The Zoogle Company and Mr. Adams are real life proof that the scorecard phenomenon is practical and serves its purpose. This is true due to the tremendous success the company has achieved and also due to Mr. Adams' own admitting that it indeed gives some satisfaction to do what he does.
The balanced scorecard is structured to meet all the corporate objectives in a holistic way. The research aimed at establishing the applicability of the scorecard model in offering solution for management control systems. All the research objectives were met to an extent of almost perfection since most study areas were taken care of. Different companies have different balanced scorecards depending on the companies' sizes and the work force (Wheeler, 2000), the study was able to explore the extent of the use of the scorecard and demonstrate its workability in the practical scenario. It also showed why there is need to research further on the scorecard so as its use spreads since it is a relatively new concept.
There is need to invest in researching on the use of the balanced scorecard. Further research would address different phenomena related to the scorecard and enhance its application with the emerging changes in the corporate world. It would create an avenue of new discovery of even better performance evaluation tools that address more perspectives that are believed to contribute in performance enhancement other than the four the scorecard addresses (Wheeler, 2000).
It can be concluded that the scorecard is a worthwhile managerial tool since the research was able to prove its benefits over the traditional methods through real life examples like the successful Zoogle Company as a result of using the balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard is a good management tool and therefore needs to be embraced. Investment should be put into it to facilitate research and advancement of the idea. Its use is advisable since it proves beneficial and does not phase out the already existing systems so trying it will not be a catastrophic risk. It has been tried at the Zoogle Company and it worked perfectly.