Hwang raw, design and planning of the balanced scorecard a case study rubber in taiwan

Human Systems Management 26 (2007) 217–227 217
IOS Press
Design and planning of the balanced
scorecard: A case study
Ming-Hon Hwang
a,b
andHsinRau
b,∗
a
Department of Information Management, Diwan College of Management, Taiwan
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan
Abstract. In the industrial economy, evaluating company performance based on financial results was good enough. However,
in the current globalized and highly competitive environment, maintaining long term competitiveness requires companies to
engage in overall strategic planning and performance evaluation. The balanced scorecard is a tool or method for balancing an
organization’s performance and can react to situations where a company’s direction becomes disoriented. This approach assists
in strategy planning, process management, and performance evaluation from four perspectives, including financial, customer,
internal process, and learning and growth. Good strategy planning provides companies with a correct management direction,
correct process management ensures the efficient execution of plans, and correct performance evaluation illustrates the execution
results. This study mainly focuses on how a large rubber company in Taiwan utilizes the balanced scorecard in its organization. As
the technical perspective is important in the rubber keypad industry, besides the four above perspectives, this company has added
the technical perspective. By introducing this company and its progress in implementing the balanced scorecard, this study hopes
to provide other companies, especially rubber companies, with a planning direction and reference for the future implementation
of the balanced scorecard.
Keywords: Balanced scorecard, competitive advantage, performance evaluation
Ming-Hon Hwang is a PhD candidate
at the Department of Industrial Engi-
neering, Chung-Yuan Christian Univer-
sity, and a senior lecturer at the Depart-
ment of Information Management, Di-
wan College of Management, Taiwan.

His research interests include supply
chain management and strategy manage-
ment.
Hsin Rau is a Professor of Industrial
Engineering Department at Chung-Yuan
Christian University, Taiwan. He re-
ceived the PhD degree from UCLA. His
research interests include e-business and
supply chain management. He has pub-
lished many papers in journals and con-
ferences.
*
Corresponding author. E-mail:
1. Introduction
In the past, companies used economies of scale
to produce abundantly standardized products, to ac-
quire customers at the lowest possible price, and to
succeed in the industry. It was important to obtain
a simple method of assessing company financial per-
formance. However, given improvements in technol-
ogy and global market transparency, global companies
seem to be competing locally. Customers thus have the
ability to find products or services with the greatest
customer value and purchase them as soon as possi-
ble. Customer value is the measurement of customers’
feelings towards a company, and comprises the prod-
uct, service and other intangeables provided by the
company. Thus, to survive and compete against global
competitors, companies have to make a total strategy
plan and an operating process. The balanced scorecard

is a tool or method for balancing organizational per-
formance and can help managers by providing them
with early warning and thus facilitating rapid response
to a bad company decision. During the past ten years,
a belief has grown among academics and industry that
companies are excessively reliant on financial indi-
0167-2533/07/$17.00  2007 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
218 M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard
cators for performance evaluation, despite this form
of evaluation not helping their competitiveness. Chow
et al. [1] pointed out that 80% of large American en-
terprises wish to change traditional performance eval-
uation and measurement systems to improve their ca-
pacity for strategy execution. Johnson and Kaplan [2]
noted that in many big companies, managers use short
term financial measurements as a basis for decision-
making, especially earnings per share and profit, to
review the effects of each project on those measure-
ments.
However, investments which are helpful to long term
economic development, such as research development,
process improvement, and training, have been ignored
by managers who are focused on short term finan-
cial performance at the expense of long-term com-
petitiveness. For example, Xerox was quite success-
ful in leasing copy machines, and their financial re-
ports indicated excellent performance. However, the
company ignored customer complaints regarding their
products and dissatisfaction with pricing, issues which
were not reflected in the performance measurement,

and the company eventually faced a financial crisis
as a result of these issues. Hoffecker and Golden-
berg [3] believed that short-sighted companies that fo-
cus on a single false performance dimension are at
risk of suffering from weak company strategy. Kaplan
and Norton [4] believed traditional financial perfor-
mance measures were effective in the industrial age,
but had been discarded by companies seeking new
technologies. Managers seek a balance between finan-
cial and other performance. Christopher [5] empha-
sized that traditional performance evaluation cannot
help teams understand their operations and capacities,
or improve their performance. These result measures
are mostly internal financial indicators, including rev-
enue, gross margin, cost and debts, and few of them in-
clude a cross-department index. Maisel [6] mentioned
that traditional financial performance evaluations can-
not be associated with various strategies, creating bar-
riers to strategy execution, competitiveness improve-
ment, and profitability. Hoffecker and Goldenberg [3]
thought that former performance evaluation methods
based on traditional accounting systems cannot pro-
vide information about customers and competitors, and
losing this important information means losing aware-
ness of market opportunities. Zeleny [7] believes that
decision making occurs only when additional dimen-
sions, such as an estimated reliability, a judge’s credi-
bility, or the cost of erroneous judgments are brought
in. Clearly, no one-dimensional or single-criterion de-
cision problem can ever exist. Other than choosing the

tool of measurement, there remains very little to be
decided. Atkinson et al. [8] believed that performance
evaluation trends involve improving current financial
indicators and non-financial indicators (e.g., customer
satisfaction, employee satisfaction, and product failure
rate). Zee and Jong [9] observed that traditional eval-
uations, like regular sales and sales revenues indicate
past results rather than future prospects. In terms of the
analysis of stock holder value, future forecasts should
be based on the current status. However, the problem is
that the financial evaluation is the final result, and can
be obtained only after executing different activities. In
contrast, the balanced scorecard covers areas like cus-
tomers, internal processes, team innovation, and devel-
opment progress, and helps in methodically analyzing
team activities and tracing the execution results, finally
leading the company to financial success.
Thus, this study focuses on company P, and de-
scribes in detail how it integrates the balanced score-
card into its strategy planning. The remainder of this
paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the
content of the balance scorecard. Section 3 then intro-
duces the case (i.e., Company P). Section 4 explains
the implementation of the balance scorecard for Com-
pany P. Conclusions are finally drawn in Section 5.
2. Content of the balanced scorecard
2.1. Origin
The balanced scorecard concept dates back to 1988,
when KPMG designed a performance evaluation sys-
tem for APPLE. Later, in 1990, the Nolan Norton In-

stitute sponsored a research project entitled “evalua-
tion of future organization performance”, led by Pro-
fessor Robert Kaplan of Harvard University as a rep-
resentative of academia and the CEO of Nolan Nor-
ton David Norton as a representative of industry to
evaluate the performance of 12 companies. The project
was completed in December of 1990 and published in
the Harvard Business Review in 1992. Norton and Ka-
plan mentioned the concept of the balanced scorecard,
which applies an overall management system cover-
ing four perspectives to help managers acquire com-
plete information very quickly, and learn the status of
their business. The balanced scorecard is a total man-
agement system for translating strategy into action, and
its core value is achieving the company vision and
strategy. The key objective is to transform company
M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard 219
strategy into actions to improve competitiveness. The
four perspectives include the traditional financial indi-
cators and add three non-financial operating indicators,
namely the customer perspective, the internal process
perspective, and the learning and growth perspective.
These four perspectives transform an organization’s
vision and strategy into a new performance evalua-
tion system with objectives and measures. It consoli-
dates individual, departmental, cross-departmental, re-
sources and projects of the company to achieve com-
mon objectives, and it associates company strategy, vi-
sion, and direction with a strategic performance man-
agement system. In practice, many companies using

the balanced scorecard consider it to be an important
management process, being used for individual and
team objectives, the salary system, resource alloca-
tion, budget estimation and planning, as well as strat-
egy feedback and learning. Consequently, the balanced
scorecard has been promptly developed as a strategic
management system.
2.2. Definition
Niven [10] thinks that the balanced scorecard is
a strategic measurement tool carefully selected by
companies, that leaders use to express investment
achievements to employees and stakeholders, and to
motivate the achievement of objectives. He also be-
lieves that the balanced scorecard incorporates mea-
surement systems, strategy management tools, and
communication tools. Chow et al. [1] pointed out
that the balanced scorecard associates traditional and
strategic performance evaluation, and helps a company
to achieve objectives such as long term strategy, inno-
vation, and customer values. Kaplan and Norton [4]
mentioned in the Harvard Business Review that the
balanced scorecard is a strategic management tool for
the association of company strategy and key perfor-
mance indexes, seeking a balance between long term
and short term objectives, financial and non-financial
measurements, external and internal performance per-
spectives, lagging and leading indicators, as well as
subjective and objective perspectives.
2.3. Advantages
Chow et al. [1] believe that the advantage of the bal-

anced scorecard lies in helping companies to integrate
strategy, organization framework, and vision into man-
agement systems, to translate the long term strategy
and innovation of customer value into operational ac-
tivities, and to balance the competitiveness and short
term fortunes of stockholders via the combination of
traditional and modern indicators. Martin [11] thinks
that traditional performance indicators tend to measure
financial and accounting aspects, impacting long term
productivity and profits, whereas companies should fo-
cus on synthetic indicators like customer reactions,
profits, quality, and flexible production selection. The
balanced scorecard provides measurements of those in-
dicators. Berman [12] stated that the balanced score-
card enables companies to focus on necessary manage-
ment and measurement indicators. Moreover, it also
enables efficient communication of team objectives,
and companies can understand how to achieve strategic
success by using the balanced scorecard. Berman [12]
also believes that companies should include 25 to
60 key performance indicators in the balanced score-
card. Additionally, Hanson [13] thinks that the main
advantage of the balanced scorecard lies in helping
all organization members to cooperate on develop-
ing the future of the firm. MacStravic [14] mentioned
that the balanced scorecard possesses six advantages:
(1) An Increase of firm insights in the understanding
of customers, (2) Readjustment of internal operations,
(3) Stockholder satisfaction, (4) Customer acquisition,
(5) Improving customer relationships, (6) Increasing

customer loyalty. Frigo and Kip [15] pointed out that
Motorola has improved in three key areas after us-
ing the balanced scorecard, including vision system-
ization, quality improvement, and execution. There-
fore, the balanced scorecard is an important tool for
providing focus in strategic management.
3. Case study of Company P
Company P was established in 1972, and has ac-
cumulated over 30 years of experience. It has built
up an excellent technical team, which explains its
leading position in producing conductive rubber key-
pads, and having a global customer-base. Products
previously produced by Company P include mobile
phone parts, computers, calculators, desk phones, re-
mote controls, car remote controls, translators, and fax
machines (Fig. 1).
Company P not only looks to reduce costs and share
their profits with clients, but it also stresses product
quality, which itself depends on a perfect quality con-
trol system. Therefore, machines must periodically be
reformed, fleshware should be constantly improved re-
gardless of market competition, and efforts must be
220 M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard
Fig. 1. Products of Company P.
Fig. 2. The organization of Company P.
made to continue stressing internal management, im-
prove work efficiency, reduce costs and provide cus-
tomers with feedback. As a good corporate citizen,
Company P has important community responsibilities.
Moreover, its core values include innovation, rapidity,

pragmatism, diligence and thrift, described as follows:
– Innovation: Aggressive, brave, understanding in-
ternal and external changes, able to adapt to
changes, continuously looking for improvement
and creating new opportunities.
– Rapidity: Agile, well-executed, efficiently gain-
ing a leading position.
– Pragmatism: Working effectively and honestly.
Not being edgy or hypocritical, and seeking to ob-
tain stable progress.
– Diligence and thrifty: Being diligent and thrifty,
concentrating on the business, and making things
simple and clear.
To realize the above values, Company P has designed
their organization as shown in Fig. 2.
The main goal of Company P is to make a profit. To
achieve this goal Company P extends secondary objec-
tives from this principle. Company P has adopted the
slogan “20103100” to describe the direction in which
they need to go in to achieve their target. Company P
hopes to bring their company to a new level during the
21st century and to rise to big challenges. The slogan
has the following meaning:
– 2010 stands for the Year 2010 (now is the Year
2006)
– 3100 stands for company expectations: (1) To
rank among the top three in terms of global mar-
ket share, (2) To obtain 100 technical patents,
(3) To make one billion NTD in sales revenues.
Company P will work with its current organiza-

tion and resources, relying on business core val-
ues, to achieve the above vision. The vision is
showninFig.3.
M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard 221
Fig. 3. Company P vision “20103100”.
4. Implementation of the balanced scorecard
4.1. Strategy planning and process
Rather than using traditional financial performance
indicators based on internal accounting systems, which
cannot provide important information about customers
and competitors, resulting in lost awareness of mar-
ket opportunities, Company P helps managers to get
complete information to understand the status of their
businesses, with the balanced scorecard providing the
basis of firm strategic planning. Additionally, with the
11 steps of the balanced scorecard developed by Olve
et al. [16] and the background information of four per-
spectives developed by Niven (Fig. 4 [10]), Company P
creates the process of strategy planning (Fig. 5). Fig-
ure 5 shows that Company P first builds the company
vision, which is identified by the management team
and agreed on by the entire organization. After defining
the vision, they must establish accurate objectives for
its achievement. However, before setting objectives,
various factors should first be analyzed. Company P
uses the inner factors analysis, competitors analysis,
and five forces analysis to analyze business operations.
Furthermore, due to the professionalism of the rub-
ber industry, Company P has added the technical per-
spective to supplement the four perspectives of the bal-

anced scorecard as a direction for objective setting. Af-
ter objectives are set, the action plans for achieving
them needs to be defined. If there are no problems dur-
ing the planning of action plans, the plan execution
and performance evaluation step is next; however, if
there are problems in the objective setting when defin-
ing the action plan, then you have to get back to the
objective setting step to reset the objectives. Once at
the plan execution and performance evaluation step, if
there is a problem executing the action plans or doing
the performance evaluation, then you have to get back
to the action plan definition step to check the original
action plan. On the contrary, if there are no problems
at the plan execution and performance evaluation step,
the objectives and action plan set by Company P are al-
right, and Company P can successfully meet its target.
4.2. Inner factors analysis
Company P has to perform the inner factors analysis
to understand its advantages and weaknesses in order
to set correct objectives. Company P generates its ad-
vantages and weaknesses with the inner factors analy-
sis as follows:
Advantages:
– Respond to requests for low quantity and diversi-
fied products.
– Strong resources and highly cooperative.
Weaknesses:
– Insufficient technical human resources.
– The appearance of the office building is not good.
– Insufficient research and development.

– Big factories have low intentions of placing or-
ders.
– Insufficient technical staff causing reluctance to
invest.
– Others have already applied Quality Assurance
Systems (e.g., Company A, Company B), and
their technical information is stored and made
available to the public.
222 M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard
Fig. 4. Background information of four perspectives [9].
Focusing on the weakness of the Company P, this
study proposes a solution as follows:
– Recruit highly educated new employees and train
them to increase their competence.
– Redecorate the appearance and build a large stan-
dardized factory.
– Train talented staff as R&D specialists, and re-
cruit external researchers.
– Improve factory scope, technical staff, customer
service and satisfaction to increase the possibility
of receiving orders from big factories.
– Employee training. Sufficient technical staff can
solve the resource problem in company invest-
ment.
– Company P also has a Quality Assurance System
which is filed and made available to the public.
4.3. Competitors analysis
The competitors of Company P are Company A,
Company B, and Company C. Their advantages and
weaknesses compared with Company P are as follows:

(1) Company A
Their main products are PC film, P + R, Rub-
ber, Soft IC, and films in plastic keypads. The
advantages of Company A are:
– Sufficient resources for technical and market
development.
– Publically listed company, with sufficient fi-
nancial support.
– Sufficient capital, with plans for equipment
performance improvement and employee
training, indicating generally bright prospects.
The comparisons between Company P and
Company A are listed in Table 1.
(2) Company B
The products of Company B consist of metal
rubber coated keypads, double printing keypads,
EL lamps, plastic metal domes, plastic films,
and mobile phone covers. The advantages of
Company B are:
M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard 223
Fig. 5. Process of strategy planning for Company P.
Table 1
Comparison between Company P and Company A
No Item Company P Company A
1 Number of employees Insufficient Good
2 Stock listed No Good
3 Financial support, having plans for equipment performance improvement and Insufficient Good
employee training, bright prospects
– Sufficient employees, especially in engineer-
ing and R&D.

– Publically listed company, with full capital
support.
– Stable structure, with irreplaceable advan-
tages in terms of resources.
– Excellent appearance of the office building,
equipment, and technical staff, with consis-
tent orders from big factories.
– Efficient factory management and decision
process.
The comparisons between Company P and
Company B are listed in Table 2.
(3) Company C
Company C has transformed itself into an elec-
tronics company, and their main products are
rubber, P + R, bonding, lasers and PC films.
The comparison between Company P and Com-
pany C are listed in Table 3.
4.4. Five forces analysis
Considering current resources, organization, team
scope, competitive analysis, the admission of Taiwan
to the WTO, competition and threats from the rapid
growth of China enterprises, and the current inter-
national economic situation, this subsection conducts
a five forces analysis for Company P. This five forces
analysis should help to clarify the future direction for
Company P and help it identify a correct strategy,
reduce risks, and achieve maximum profits, creating
a win-win situation. Hopefully, Company P can enter
a new phase in the 21st century and continue to grow.
The five forces analysis devised by Porter [17] de-

termines industry profitability or attractiveness based
on five competitive forces: threats from potential en-
tries, threats from substitutors, price negotiation power
of the buyer, price negotiation power of the supplier,
and industry competitors. This analytical perspective
224 M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard
Table 2
Comparison between Company P and Company B
No Item Company P Company B
1 Number of employees, especially in engineering and R&D Insufficient Good
2 Stock listed company, capital supports new projects within budget Not listed Good
3 Stable structure, irreplaceable advantages in resource Fair structure and resources Good
4 Excellent appearance, equipments and technic, consistent orders from big factories Insufficient Good
5 Efficient factory management Fair Good
Fig. 6. Strategic map for Company P.
helps clarify the industry characteristics, which influ-
ence competitiveness and profitability in the industry.
From a strategic point of view, enterprises face compe-
tition from competitive forces.This study uses the five
forces of Porter for Company P. The synthetic analysis
isshowninTable4.
4.5. Strategic map
Following the inner factors analysis, competitors
analysis, and five forces analysis for Company P, fu-
ture objectives and action plans can be defined, and
Table 3
Comparison between Company P and Company C
No Item Company P Company C
1 Technical staff Insufficient Enough
2 Equipment Insufficient Enough

3 Capital Fair Enough
the balanced scorecard can be used to evaluate per-
formance. The balanced scorecard includes financial,
customer, internal process, technical, and learning and
growth perspectives. Figure 6 shows the strategic map
for Company P for the year 2010.
M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard 225
Table 4
Synthetic analysis
Price negotiation power Substitute products Substitute level Entry difficulty
Whom Level Product Substitute Product Level Category Level Examples
Material supplier Middle Touch screen Mobile phone High Rough Low Remote control, toy, telephone
Partner Strong Membrane switch PDA High Fine High Auto parts
Customer Weak PC film General Low Extra work High Mobile phone, PDA
Table 5
2006 annual objectives for Company P
Perspective No Strategy Measurement KPI performance indicator Status (/year) Target (/year)
Financial 1 Increase sales sales (new product) Annual growth 25% 50%
sales ROI 10% 20%
Customer 2 Increase customer Customer loyalty Continuous order rate – 99%
satisfaction Customer satisfaction Customer Customer – – 99% <6/month
satisfaction complaint
Internal 3 Reasonable cost Production cycle Delivery rate 90% 95%
process Production cycle reduction rate – 20%
4 Reinforcement of productivity Increase personal productivity 2.4 million 40%
organization NTD
Number of employees Elimination rate 2% 5%
Technical 5 Improve R&D Patent Quantity 5% 20%
New product development Success rate 50% 100%
6 Production Quality Yield rate 90% 95%

techniques Productivity Personal productivity 3750p 2% (3825p)
7 Technical Task follow-up Success rate – 95%
management Problem finding and solving Problems found Solving rate 5/month 90% 10/month 90%
Learning 8 Building company Employee satisfaction Quit rate 5% 2%
and growth culture
Customer recognition Customer loyalty – 99%
9 Multi-functional Competence development Achievement rate 70% 90%
10 e-enterprise Process improvement Success rate 40% 80%
4.6. Annual objective for the year 2006 for
Company P
With the strategic map for Company P, we have
a rough understanding of the direction in which we are
working, and can start setting objectives for 2006. To
stimulate discussion between decision makers and all
related staff, the 2006 annual objectives are listed in
Table 5.
4.7. Action plans
After completing the 2006 annual objective setting,
Company P can work on the action plans with their
strategy performance indicators, as shown in Table 6.
5. Conclusion
Company P has carried a debt of one hundred mil-
lion NTD since June 1989, but achieved earnings of
tens of millions of NTD for 2005. Company P has
experienced numerous difficulties and transitions, but
currently the scope of the company is growing, the
number of employees is increasing, and products are
becoming increasingly complicated. The former “one
governor” policy does not suit the current rapidly
changing market. Therefore, Company P must start

a new process starting with objective setting, strate-
gic plans, action plans, project execution, and evalua-
tion, to avoid any losses caused by personal negligence
or error. The process can also improve decision mak-
226 M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard
Table 6
Action plans of Company P
Perspectives Strategy Indicator Action plan Schedule/Month Owner Plan
123456789101112 execution
Finance Increase Double Quantity increase −−−−− →−−−−− →−−−→ Sales –
sales of new products 50%
Quantity increase −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→
of mature products 100%
Customer Improve Continuous order Improve −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ Sales/R&D –
customer over 95% service quality
satisfaction (customer loyalty) Reduce failure rate −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− → QC/Product
line
Accurate delivery −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− → Production
Management/
Product line
Internal Reasonable Cost down Low cost material −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ Sales/RD –
cost 15% Reduce failure rate −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ QC/Production
Shorten −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− → Engineering/
production cycle production
Technical R&D 20 pcs/ Staff optimization −−−−−−−−−−−−→ Management/ –
Competence year R&D
Purchase patent −−−−− →−−−−−→ R&D
techniques
Learning Multifunctional Basic employees Building annual −−→−−→−−−→ Management –
and growth 30 hrs training and related

Engineers evaluation system −−−−− →−−− → departments
50 hrs
Middle staff −−−−− →−−−−−→
20 hrs
Managers −−−−− →−−− →
36 hrs
ing. By introducing the steps and data of the balanced
scorecard of Company P, this study expects to provide
other enterprises, especially the rubber industry, with
an important reference for use in their future imple-
mentation of the balanced scorecard.
References
[1] C.W. Chow, M.H. Kamal and J.E. Williamson, Applying the
balanced scorecard to small companies, Management Account-
ing (August) (1997), 21–27.
[2] H.T. Johnson and R.S. Kaplan, Relevance Lost,HarvardBusi-
ness School Press, Boston, MA, 1987.
[3] J. Hoffecker and C. Goldenberg, Using the balanced scorecard
to develop Epstein and measure, Cost Management (1994), 6.
[4] R.S. Kaplan and D.P. Norton, The balanced scorecard – Mea-
sures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review (Janu-
ary/February) (1992), 71–79.
[5] M. Christopher, How the right measure help teams excel, Har-
vard Business Review (May/June) (1994).
[6] L.S. Maisel, The balanced scorecard approach, Journal of Cost
Management (Summer) (1992), 47–52.
[7] M. Zeleny, Human Systems Management Integrating Knowl-
edge, Management and Systems, World Scientific, 2005.
[8] A.A. Atkinson, J.H. Waterhouse and R.B. Wells, A stakeholder
approach to strategic performance measurement, Sloan Man-

agement Review (Spring) (1997), 25–37.
[9] V.D. Zee and B.D. Jong, Alignment is not enough: Integrating
business and information technology management with the bal-
anced business scorecard, Journal of Management Information
System 16(2) (1999), 137–156.
[10] P.R. Niven, Balanced Scorecard Step by Step: Maximizing Per-
formance and Maintaining Results, Wiley, 2002.
[11] R. Martin, Do we practice quality principles in the performance
measurement of critical success factors, Total Quality Manage-
ment (Dec.) (1997), 429–444.
M H. Hwang and H. Rau / Design and planning of the balanced scorecard 227
[12] S.J. Berman, Using the balanced scorecard in strategic com-
pensation, ACA News (Jun.) (1988), 16–19.
[13] J. Hanson, The balanced scorecard: Not just another fad, Credit
Union Executive (Jan./Feb.) (2000), 12–16.
[14] S. MacStravic, A really balanced scorecard, Health Forum
(May/Jun.) (1999), 64–67.
[15] M.L. Frigo and K. Kip, 1998 CMG survey on performance
measurement, Tips on Management Update (May) (1998), 1–3.
[16] N.G. Olve, J. Roy and M. Wetter, in: Performance Drivers –
a Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard, Wiley,
1998, pp. 48–49.
[17] M.E. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing
Industries and Competitors, The Free Press, New York, 1980.