Editing Balanced scorecard (section)

== Characteristics ==
The characteristic feature of the balanced scorecard and its derivatives is the presentation of a mixture of financial and non-financial measures each compared to a 'target' value within a single concise report. The report is not meant to be a replacement for traditional financial or operational reports but a succinct summary that captures the information most relevant to those reading it. It is the method by which this 'most relevant' information is determined (i.e., the design processes used to select the content) that most differentiates the various versions of the tool in circulation. The balanced scorecard indirectly also provides a useful insight into an organization's strategy – by requiring general strategic statements (e.g. mission, vision) to be precipitated into more specific/tangible forms.<ref name=Shulver_Antarkar_2001>{{cite journal|last=Shulver|first=Michael J.|author2=Antarkar, N. |title=The Balanced Scorecard as a Communication Protocol for Managing Across Intra-Organizational Borders|journal=Proceedings from the 12th Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, Orlando, Florida, USA.|year=2001}}</ref>

The first versions of Kaplan and Norton's interpretation of the balanced scorecard asserted that relevance should derive from the [[corporate strategy]], and proposed design methods that focused on choosing measures and targets associated with the main activities required to implement the strategy. As the initial audience for this were the readers of the ''[[Harvard Business Review]]'', the proposal was translated into a form that made sense to a typical reader of that journal – managers of US commercial businesses. Accordingly, initial designs were encouraged to measure three categories of non-financial measure in addition to financial outputs – those of "customer," "internal business processes" and "learning and growth." These categories were not so relevant to public sector or non-profit organizations,<ref name=Moulin_PSS>{{cite journal|last=Moulin|first=Max|title=Improving and evaluating performance with the Public Sector Scorecard|journal=International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management|year=2017|volume=66|issue=4|pages=442–458|doi=10.1108/IJPPM-06-2015-0092|s2cid=43702511 |url=http://shura.shu.ac.uk/27799/1/Moullin-ImprovingEvaluatingPerformance%28AM%29.pdf}}</ref> or units within complex organizations (which might have high degrees of internal specialization), and much of the early literature on balanced scorecard focused on suggestions of alternative 'perspectives' that might have more relevance to these groups (e.g. Butler et al. (1997),<ref name=Butler_1997>{{cite journal|last=Butler|first=A.|author2=Letza S. R. |author3=Neale B. |title=Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy|journal=Long Range Planning|year=1997|volume=30|issue=2|pages=242–253|doi=10.1016/s0024-6301(96)00116-1}}</ref> Ahn (2001),<ref name=Ahn_2001>{{cite journal|last=Ahn|first=H|title=Applying the Balanced Scorecard Concept: An Experience Report|journal=Long Range Planning|year=2001|volume=34|issue=4|pages=441–461|doi=10.1016/s0024-6301(01)00057-7}}</ref> Elefalke (2001),<ref name=Elefalke_2001>{{cite journal|last=Elefalke|first=K.|title=The Balanced Scorecard of the Swedish Police Service: 7000 officers in total quality management project|journal=Total Quality Management|year=2001|volume=12|issue=7|pages=958–966|doi=10.1080/09544120120096106}}</ref> Brignall (2002),<ref name=Brignall_2002>{{cite journal|last=Brignal|first=S.|title=The UnBalanced Scorecard: a Social and Environmental Critique|journal=Proceedings, Third International Conference on Performance Measurement and Management (PMA2002)|year=2002}}</ref> Irwin (2002),<ref name=Irwin_2002>{{cite journal|last=Irwin|first=D.|title=Strategy Mapping in the Public Sector|journal=International Journal of Strategic Management|year=2002|volume=35|issue=6|pages=563–672}}</ref> Radnor et al. (2003)<ref name=Radnor_2003>{{cite journal|last=Radnor|first=Z.|author2=Lovell, W. |title=Defining, justifying and implementing the Balanced Scorecard in the National Health Service|journal=International Journal of Medical Marketing|year=2003|volume=3|issue=3|pages=174–188|doi=10.1057/palgrave.jmm.5040117}}</ref>).

Modern balanced scorecards have evolved since the initial ideas proposed in the late 1980s and early 1990s and are significantly improved – being both more flexible (to suit a wider range of organizational types) and more effective (as design methods have evolved to make them easier to design, and use).<ref name=Malina_2001>{{cite journal|last=Malina|first=M. A.|author2=Selto, F. H. |title=Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard|journal=Journal of Management Accounting Research|year=2001|volume=13|pages=47–90|doi=10.2308/jmar.2001.13.1.47|citeseerx=10.1.1.200.2892}}</ref>