Enhancing strategy design and planning in public utilities through "Dynamic" balanced scorecards: Insights from a project in a city water company

System Dynamics Review

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 175-213

  Bianchi, Carmine ^a   Montemaggiore, Giovan Battista ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PALERMO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DESIGN; FINANCIAL SYSTEM; PLANNING PROCESS; STRATEGIC APPROACH; URBAN AREA; WATER INDUSTRY;

EID: 50449096100     PISSN: 08837066     EISSN: 10991727     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sdr.395     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Akkermans HA, van Oorschot KE. 2005. Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(8): 931-941.
2. Balderstone SJ. 1999. Increasing user confidence in system dynamics models through use of an established set of logic rules to enhance Forrester and Senge's validation tests. In 17th International System Dynamics Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, July.
3. Barlas Y. 1996. Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. System Dynamics Review 12(3): 183-210.
4. Braam G, Heusinkveld S, Benders J, Aubel A. 2002. The reception pattern of the balanced scorecard: accounting for interpretative viability. Research School Systems, Organization and Management, Research report 02G29.
5. Bracegirdle P. 2003. International experience in municipal performance measurement. In 3rd International Conference on Decentralization, Manila, October.
6. Davis FD, Venkatesh, V. 1996. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45:19-45.
7. Doyle JK, Ford DN. 1998. Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review 14(1): 3-29.
8. Forrester JW, Senge PM. 1980. Tests for building confidence in system dynamics models. TIMS Studies in Management Science 14: 209-228. North-Holland.
9. Hammond KR, Rohrbaugh J, Mumpower J, Adelman L. 1975. Social judgment theory: applications in policy formation. In Human Judgment and Decision Processes in Applied Settings, Kaplan MF, Schwartz S (eds). Academic Press: New York; 271-312.
10. Horváth TM, Gábor P. 2001. Regulation and competition in the local utility sector in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI), Annual Report, Open Society Institute.
11. Howie E, Sy S, Ford L, Vicente KJ. 2000. Human-computer interface design can reduce misperceptions of feedback. System Dynamics Review 16(3): 151-171.
12. Kanungo S. 2003. Understanding the dynamics of information system use. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, New York, July. (CD-ROM).
13. Kaplan R, Norton D. 1992. The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70 January/February: 71-79.
14. Kaplan R, Norton D. 1996a. Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. California Management Review 39(1): 53-79.
15. Kaplan R, Norton D. 1996b. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
16. Linard K. 1996. Public sector performance management now and for the future. In Asia Business Forum: Performance Management in the Public Sector, Kuala Lumpa, August.
17. Linard K, Dvorsky L. 2001. People - not human resources: the system dynamics of human capital accounting. In Operations Research Society Conference, University of Bath, UK, September.
18. Linard K, Fleming C, Dvorsky L. 2002. System dynamics as the link between corporate vision and key performance indicators. In 20th System Dynamics International Conference, Palermo, July. (CD-ROM).
19. Malina MA, Selto FH. 2001. Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Managerial Accounting Research 13: 47-90.
20. Malmi T. 2001. Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies: a research note. Management Accounting Research 12: 207-220.
21. Martinsons M, Davison R, Tse D. 1999. The balanced scorecard: a foundation for the strategic management of information systems. Decision Support Systems 25(1): 71-88.
22. Mathieu JE, Goodwin GF, Heffner TS, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2): 273-283.
23. Mooraj S, Oyon D, Hostettler D. 1999. The balanced scorecard: a necessary good or an unnecessary evil? European Management Journal 17(5): 481-491.
24. Morecroft J. 2007. Strategic Modelling and Business Dynamics: A Feedback System Approach. Wiley: Chichester.
25. Morecroft J, Sterman JD. 1994. Modeling for Learning Organizations. Productivity Press: Portland, OR. (Now available from Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA.)
26. Morisawa T. 2002. Building performance measurement systems with the balanced scorecard approach. NRI papers 45 April: 1-15.
27. Neely A, Marr B, Roos G, Pike S, Gupta O. 2003. Towards the third generation of performance measurement. Controlling 3/4 March/April: 129-135.
28. Niven P. 1999. Cascading the balanced scorecard: a case study on Nova Scotia Power, Inc. Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement April/May: 5-12.
29. Norreklit H. 2000. The balance on the balanced scorecard - a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research 11: 65-88.
30. Norton D. 2000. Is management finally ready for the "systems" approach? Balanced Scorecard Report 2(5): 14-15.
31. Norton D. 2001. Building strategy maps. Part 3: the importance of time-phasing the strategy. In Balanced Scorecard: Insight, Experience and Ideas for Strategy Focused organizations. Harvard Business School, March/April; 1-4.
32. Olve N, Petri CJ, Roy J, Roy S. 2004. Twelve years later: understanding and realizing the value of balanced scorecards. Ivey Business Journal May/June: 1-7.
33. Richmond B. 2001. A new language for leveraging scorecard-driven learning. Reprinted from Balanced Scorecard Report, Vol. 3(1). Harvard Business School; 11-14.
34. Ritchie-Dunham JL. 2001. Informing mental models for strategic decision making with ERPs and the balanced scorecard: a simulation-based experiment. In Proceedings of the 19th System Dynamics International Conference, Atlanta, GA. (CD-ROM).
35. Ritchie-Dunham JL. 2002. Balanced scorecards, mental models, and organizational performance. PhD thesis, Department of Management Science and Information Systems, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
36. Simon HA. 1997. Administrative Behavior. Free Press: New York.
37. Sloper P, Linard K, Paterson D. 1999. Towards a dynamic feedback framework for public sector performance management. In 17th International System Dynamics Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, July. (CD-ROM).
38. Sterman JD. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modelling for a Complex World. Irwin McGraw-Hill: New York.
39. Todd D, Palmer E. 2001. Development and design of a "dynamic" balanced scorecard in local government. In Proceedings of the European Operations Management Association 8th International Annual Conference, Bath, UK, June.
40. Vennix J. 1996. Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. Wiley: Chichester.
41. Wang WT, Liu CY. 2005. The application of the technology acceptance model: a new way to evaluate information system success. in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Boston, MA, July. (CD-ROM).
42. Warren K. 2002. Competitive Strategy Dynamics. Wiley: Chichester.
43. Wisniewski M, Dickson A. 2001. Measuring performance in Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary with the balanced scorecard. Journal of the Operational Research Society 52: 1057-1066.
44. Zingales F, Hokerts K. 2002. Balanced scorecard and sustainability: examples from literature and practice. In Nachhalting managen mit der Balanced Scorecard. Konzept und fallstudien, Schaltegger S, Dyllick T (eds) (English version). Wiesbaden: Gabler; 151-166.