Talk:Balanced scorecard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.


I think one of the redirected links that brings you here is typed wrong. It leaves of the letter "d" in the word "Balanced". Even the article is named "Balanced Scorecard". Searching for "Balanced Score Card" does not bring you here directly. Instead you have to find "Balance Score Card". If someone does not type "scorecard" as one word, they may miss this article.

There is nothing mentioned about Hoshin Kanri. A link to a whole article on Hoshin Kanri would be nice.

The first two paragraphs are taken almost verbatim from one word has been changed, and the order of the paragraphs switched. -- 13:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree and have removed them adding a link to the site you have identified - thank you--Andrew Gardner 16:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Treacy and Wiersema[edit]

The customer perspective comment on operational excellence, customer intimacy or product leadership, which are the 3 value disciplines define by TGreacy and Wiersema, without reference. Further, value disciplines could be mapped to the other perspectives as well.

Bmarcoux (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Overuse of Jargon[edit]

This article seems to draw heavily from business jargon, and quite alot of it is informal speech inside quotation marks. it could stand to be much more academic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur M. Schneiderman[edit]

Could someone give me a quotable reference, that the BSC was first developed by A.M. Schneiderman? I could only find not-quotable ppt and pdf on his website. I'm currently working on my masters thesis about the BSC. Kaplan/Norton are claiming that the BSC is their "child". Thanks a lot!!!

Does this help?

It is a letter from Kaplan.

Software vendors[edit]

I have re-ordered the list of companies in the Software Tools section to be alphabetical. I know that puts my company first (at the moment) but I couldn't think of any other way to avoid disputes about what the order should be. --Matthew C. Clarke 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Do we need a list of vendors at all - doesn't it make the article nothing more than an advert? --Andrew Gardner 09:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia etiquette, but I would think that an article such as this is incomplete without a list of examples of how the methodology is implemented. But if that is contrary to the practice in other parts of Wikipedia, fine. --Matthew C. Clarke 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to a list of Certified IT Products/Companies that supports BSC Methodology: The certification is given by the authors of the Methodology (Kaplan and Norton) from the BSC Collaborative (Part of the Palladium Company) Certified BSC Software

Hi there, I added a list of Open Source Software providers (Free, no one makes money form the use of these products) and they were deleted, I dont beleive this was an advert ? why do people keep on deleting it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a random list of software helps understand the topic. We're writing an encyclopedic article about the balanced scorecard, not building a software directory. Please see WP:NOT. If you'd like to add highly referenced material about notable software that is related, feel free to draft something. Kuru talk

12:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC):I am not sure how familiar you are with the subject matter or implementing a balanced scorecard, but every single professional practitioner out there using this framework is using some kind of software to achieve the results. By removing the links to actually software that allow people to implement such a framework your denying people the practical implementation / application of the framework, without which an encyclopaedia entry on the subject is not better than a common dictionary entry, besides which why would you even have a Software tools entry in the first place.

I have added the following line," Alternatively, several Open Source Packages are available as an alternative to commercial software" as I feel that this is a more efficient alternative then telling people that they should seek a solution using spreadsheet software, word-process, presentation software.

Deleting Mike Cline Contributions[edit]

I am deleting or reverting any contributions I have previously made to this article for the following reason. I work for a company that practices and teaches Strategic Planning methodologies thus making my contribution to any article related to Strategy topics a conflict of interest an in violation of Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines WP:COI --Mike Cline 13:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"warning" that belonged in talk[edit]

There was a "Warning" posted in the article section comparing balanced scorecard to AIE:

WARNING: Applied Information Economics is not as established as balanced scorecards. This section may have been added as an attempt to market this methodology which was developed by a consulting group. An automated bot prevents deletion of a complete section of material, so this remains, but please keep this caveat in mind.

Such notes do not belong within the article text. Perhaps a COI tag would have been more appropriate.

However, I checked the references and it seems like a simply factual explanation of an independent government study comparing the two methods. Whether balanced scorecard is more "established" has no bearing on the validity of this section. I don't disagree with the original author's point that balanced scorecard lacks any theoretical foundation so being "established" apparently just means "more widely used". I changed a comment in that section to reflect that but I think it needs a citation.

By the way, if being more widely used make balanced scorecard more "established" than AIE, then atrology is more established than either one of these.BillGosset 13:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to David Norton[edit]

The link to David Norton in the first part of this page goes to the page for David L Norton, not David P Norton, which it should. For David P Norton, co-author of the Balanced Scorecard book, the first Google link directs you to, which is for Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, an organization of which he and Kaplan are co-founders.

submitted by Ant Davey

Conceptual limitations in the article[edit]

I think that this article substantially misses the point of the balanced scorecard in that it is, essentially, a tool for strategic conversation and one that encourages a systemic view of strategy. Later work by Norton and Kaplan make that very clear. It is also a deeply educative tool in that it requires careful thinking about outcomes and drivers, lagging and leading measures, and it requires the development and practice of disciplines - e.g. the choice of few amongst many possible options.

This point seems to be misunderstood in many implementations of the BSC - leading to inappropriate expectations and a process managed as if it were a measuring, rather than learning one.

I think that the addition of these points would improve both the conceptual depth and the tutility of the article.

Fosterp 20:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Link to legitimate Balanced Scorecard Site[edit]

I atttempted to add a link to "", the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative. This is the company that Drs. David P. Norton and Robert S. Kaplan started in 1992 to provide Balanced Scorecard consulting, education, and strategy. Since David Norton and Robert Kaplan are the founders of the Balanced Scorecard Methodology, and are still on the board and active in the running of this company, it seems that this article is incomplete without a link to this site.

Moreover, this site does contain a link to a competing site "" (The Balanced Scorecard Institute) - Misleading anyone reading this article to believe not only that the company behind the Balanced Scorecard Metholodogy is the "Balanced Scorecard Institute", but that they are the leading experts in this field.Afarkas 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the link to the Balance Scorecard Collaborative, now Palladium Group. Anon 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) I fully agree with this - any measures and targets set by an organisation should be meaningful to that organisation, and be the result of strategic discussion and planning. i think that this is the reason that many organisations do not get the success they expect when using a scorecard. they have not done the strategic planning front end, identified outcomes etc.Chris-ardkeen (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional Balanced Scorecard Resources[edit]

I would like to add a link to "" and "," both of which are resources to help connect global Balanced Scorecard users and advance the knowledge of the community. The community and wiki are managed by people with over 10 years of experience in the Balanced Scorecard field and open to everyone with no cost or advertising associated with it. I believe these external links would help deepen the understanding of the concept and improve the page.Dmiyake —Preceding comment was added at 13:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. They both appear to be mostly empty, low content, branded sites. I don't see how they add significant value to the article. Please read our external link guidelines when you get an opportunity. Thanks. Kuru talk 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional External Links[edit]

I added aditional link (site in english and portuguese). It is a fantastic site with a lot of free material. They are fixing the site but provides a lot cases. Very good site to acquire some tools. Dejunior13 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejunior13 (talkcontribs) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing much there, sorry. Lots of promotional junk at the moment - could you be specific as to what you think it is providing? Kuru talk 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kuru: thanks for your comments. I had the opportunity to acquire some material at this site for free. Really good stuff. They are fixing the site but the email can be a solution. I would not recommend if was not true. They also have some real cases for free that are really usefull. Thanks and hope I have been able to contribute with our community (allow me to say our)Take care Dejunior13 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dejunior. Please read up on the wikipedia external linking policy WP:EL, and note that linking to any of your own sites (or articles) is considered a conflict of interest. You could propose a link or citation on the talk pages, but if everyone else disagrees, then its best not to fight the consensus. SteveLoughran (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted inconsistency[edit]

Have deleted the following

It was developed and first used at Analog Devices in 1987.

as it is a) unreferenced and b) chronologically inconsistent. If it can be referenced accordingly, please stick it back in. --Technopat (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, please read the reference to Schneiderman above. This should not be deleted; it is attempting to rewrite history. The sentence was added back. Parveson —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

The Generations of the Balanced Scorecard[edit]

Are there really the four named generations of the BSC? e.g. I didn't find any proof for the following part of the article:

In 2007, the 4th Generation was evolved in the work by Hannabarger, Buchman and Economy. They created linkages between the Strategic, Operational and Tactical levels within organizations through Scorecards and Dashboards that provide drill down / up capability to identify sources and root causes for under-performing scorecard metrics. Soon after this work, Kaplan and Norton revised their approach and acknowledged it had lacked the ability to give focus on measures to the here and now, day-to-day operational and tactical levels within organizations that the Hannabarger, Buchman and Economy work provides.

I don't see anything meaningful in the "generations" talk except marketing. These authors are promoting their book here. Parveson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parveson (talkcontribs) 16:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Parveson: I don't know about the '4th Generation' - I had never come across it until reading in this version of the article. Maybe it is marketing speak - who knows. But with regard to Generations 1 through 3, these are not 'marketing' but terms developed in a research paper published by myself and a colleague initially in 2002 a conference paper, and subsequently in the International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. The paper is one of the two citations for Lawrie & Cobbold already attached to the wiki article. The paper looks at the various 'types' of Balanced Scorecard that have emerged over the time since 1992 and looks to explain why the changes appeared, and what they are good for. In the process it identifies that there Balanced Scorecard designs have move through three distinct "types" over this period. Being consistent with terms used in other fields for tracking how things evolve over time, the authors coined the phrase 'Generations' for these developments. At the time of writing, there are still only three generations of Balanced Scorecard in use, based on the criteria set out in the paper. I will read up on the 4th Generation Balanced Scorecard if I can find it, but suspect it is probably a 2nd Generation design at its core (most designs are these days). Hope this helps clarify things.Glawrie (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


I regard with some suspicion the statistics provided by a private firm that says 3/3 of polled users were using some sort of Score Card system. I doubt that it breaks down into 3 groups and don't doubt that the vast majority are using nothing. Additionally, the "inability to use effectively" should have its own slice of that pie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As it states that survey respondents were 'self-selected', one can presume that 'the company uses a scorecard' is a precept for the 'study'. Concur that a random sample would produce radically different results, and I question the validity of any research using self-selected samples. Kuru talk 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

David Norton Quote[edit]

Is the David Norton here the same as the one quoted here. (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No - two different individuals. Kuru (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

student needs help[edit]

i am going to use BSC approach to measure the relationship between corporate environmental responsibility and organizational performance but I couldnot found questionnaire that can be used in such issues. could some one please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)