Design issues in Balanced Scorecards: The "what" and "how" of control

European Management Journal

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 327-339

  Agostino, Deborah ^a   Arnaboldi, Michela ^a  

^a POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Balanced Scorecard; Control style; Diagnosis; Interaction; Performance Measurement System

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862755241     PISSN: 02632373     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2012.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Abernethy M.A., Bouwens J., van Lent L. Leadership and control system design. Management Accounting Research 2010, 21:2-16.
2. Ahn H. Applying the balanced scorecard concept: An experience report. Long Range Planning 2001, 34:441-461.
3. Ahrens T., Chapman C.S. Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: A field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain. Contemporary Accounting Research 2004, 21:271-301.
4. Argyris C. Organizational learning and management information systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1977, 2:113-123.
5. Atkinson A. Strategic performance measurement and incentive compensation. European Management Journal 1998, 16:552-561.
6. Bonner S.E., Sprinkle G.B. The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2002, 27:303-345.
7. Brignall S., Modell S. An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the 'new public sector'. Management Accounting Research 2000, 11:281-306.
8. Broadbent J., Laughlin R. Performance management systems: A conceptual model. Management Accounting Research 2009, 20:283-295.
9. Burchell S., Clubb C., Hopwood A., Hughes A. The roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting Organization and Society 1980, 5:5-27.
10. Chapman C.S. Reflections on a contingent view of accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society 1997, 22:189-205.
11. Chenhall R.H. Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting Organizations and Society 2003, 28:127-168.
12. de Haas M., Kleingeld A. Multilevel design of performance measurement systems: Enhancing strategic dialogue throughout the organization. Management Accounting Research 1999, 10:233-261.
13. Decoene V., Bruggeman W. Strategic alignment and middle-level managers' motivation in a balanced scorecard setting. International Journal of Operations and Production Managers 2006, 26:429-448.
14. Denzin N.K. The Research Act 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York. 2nd ed.
15. Eisenhardt K.M. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review 1989, 14:532-550.
16. Eisenhardt K.M., Graebner M.E. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 2007, 50:25-32.
17. Epstein M., Manzoni J.F. Implementing corporate strategy: From Tableaux de Bord to Balanced Scorecards 1998, 16:190-203.
18. Fernandes K.J., Raja V., Whalley A. Lessons from implementing the balanced scorecard in a small and medium size manufacturing organization. Technovation 2006, 26:623-634.
19. Ferreira A., Otley D. The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research 2009, 20:263-282.
20. Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009b). Design and use of management control systems: An analysis of the interaction between design misfit and intensity of use. Working paper.
21. Fink A., Marr B., Siebe A., Kuhle J.P. The future scorecard: Combining external and internal scenarios to create strategic foresight. Management Decision 2005, 43:360-381.
22. Fried A. Performance measurement systems and their relation to strategic learning: A case study in a software-developing organization. Critical Perspective on Accounting 2010, 21:118-133.
23. Gautreau A., Kleiner H. Recent trends in performance measurement systems - The balanced scorecard approach. Management Research News 2001, 24:153-156.
24. Gerdin J., Greve J. Forms of contingency fit in management accounting research - a critical review. Accounting Organizations and Society 2004, 29:303-326.
25. Gurd B., Gao T. Lives in the balance: An analysis of the balanced scorecard (BSC) in healthcare organizations. International Journal of productivity and Performance Management 2007, 57:6-21.
26. Hall M. Accounting information and managerial work. Accounting Organizations and Society 2010, 35:301-315.
27. Henri J.F. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Accounting Organizations and Society 2006, 31:77-103.
28. Henri J.F. Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective. Accounting Organizations and Society 2006, 31:529-558.
29. Hopwood A.G. An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research 1972, 10:156-182.
30. Hoques Z., James W. Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: Impact on organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research 2000, 12:1-17.
31. Ittner C.D., Larcker D.F., Randall T. Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms'. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2003, 28:715-741.
32. Ittner C.D., Larcker D.F., Meyer M.W. Subjectivity and weighting of performance measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard. The Accounting Review 2003, 78:725-758.
33. Kald M., Nilsson F. Performance measurement at Nordic companies. European Management Journal 2000, 18:113-127.
34. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 1992, 70:71-79.
35. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic measurement system. Harvard Business Review 1996, 74:75-85.
36. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. The strategy-focused organization 2001, Harvard Business School Press, Harvard.
37. Li P., Tang G. Performance measurement design within its organisational context - Evidence from China. Management Accounting Research 2009, 20:193-207.
38. Libby T. The influence of voice and explanation on performance in a participative budgeting setting. Accounting Organizations and Society 1999, 24:125-137.
39. Lipe M.G., Salterio S.E. The Balanced Scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The Accounting Review 2000, 75:283-298.
40. Lüneborg J.L., Nielsen J.F. Customer-focused technology and performance in small and large banks. European Management Journal 2003, 21:258-269.
41. Magner N., Welker R.B., Campbell T.L. The interactive effect of budgetary participation and budget favorability on attitudes toward budgetary decision makers: A research note. Accounting Organizations and Society 1995, 20:611-618.
42. Malmi T. Balanced Scorecards in Finnish companies: A research note. Management Accounting Research 2001, 12:207-220.
43. Malina M., Selto F. Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Management Accounting Research 2001, 13:47-90.
44. Modell S. Goals versus institutions: The development of performance measurement in the Swedish university sector. Management Accounting Research 2003, 14:333-359.
45. Nielsen S., Sorensen R. Motives, diffusion and utilisation of the balanced scorecard in Denmark. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation 2004, 1:103-124.
46. Nilsson F., Kald M. Recent advances in performance management: The Nordic case. European Management Journal 2002, 20:235-245.
47. Otley D. The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and prognosis. Accounting Organizations and Society 1980, 5:413-428.
48. Otley D. Performance management: A framework for management control system research. Management Accounting Research 1999, 10:363-382.
49. Shields J.F., Shields M.D. Antecedents of participative budgeting. Accounting Organizations and Society 1998, 23:49-76.
50. Simons R. Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems. Strategic Management Journal 1991, 12:49-62.
51. Simons R. How new top management use control systems. Strategic Management Journal 1994, 15:169-189.
52. Simons R. Control in the age of the empowerment. Harvard Business Review 1995, 67:80-88.
53. Speckbacher G., Bischof J., Pfeiffer T. A descriptive analysis on the implementation of Balanced Scorecards in German-speaking countries. Management Accounting Research 2003, 14:361-387.
54. Tuomela T.S. The interplay of different levers of control: A case study of introducing a new performance measurement system. Management Accounting Research 2005, 16:293-320.
55. van Veen-Dirks P. Different uses of performance measures: The evaluation versus reward of production managers. Accounting Organizations and Society 2010, 35:141-164.
56. Van de ven A.H., Drazin R. The concept of fit in contingency theory. Research in Organizational Behaviour 1985, 7:333-365.
57. Verbeeten F.H.M., Boons A.N.A.M. Strategic priorities, performance measures and performance: An empirical analysis in Dutch firms. European Management Journal 2009, 27:113-128.
58. Yin R.K. Case study research: Design and methods 2003, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 3rd ed.
59. Waterhouse J.H., Tissen P. A contingency framework for management accounting systems research. Accounting Organizations and Society 1978, 3:65-76.
60. Wong-On-Wing B., Guo L., Li W., Yang D. Reducing conflict in balanced scorecard evaluations. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2007, 32:363-377.
61. Wouters M. A developmental approach to performance measures - Results from a longitudinal case study. European Management Journal 2009, 27:64-78.