Editing Balanced scorecard (section)

== Variants ==
Since the balanced scorecard was popularized in the early 1990s, a large number of alternatives to the original 'four box' balanced scorecard promoted by Kaplan and Norton<ref name=Kaplan_Norton_1992/> in their various articles and books have emerged. Most have very limited application, and are typically proposed either by academics as vehicles for expanding the dialogue beyond the financial bottom line – e.g. Brignall (2002)<ref name=Brignall_2002 /> or consultants as an attempt at differentiation to promote sales of books and / or consultancy (e.g. Neely et al. (2002),<ref name=Prism_2002>{{cite book|last=Neely|first=Andy|title=The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Business Success: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Stakeholder Relationships|date=27 May 2002|publisher=Prentice Hall|location=London|isbn=978-0-273-65334-9|author2=Adams C. |author3=Kennerley M. }}</ref> Bourne (2002),<ref name=Bourne_2002>{{cite book|last=Bourne|first=Mike|title=Balanced Scorecard in a Week|date=29 November 2002|publisher=Hodder & Stoughton|location=London|isbn=978-0-340-84945-3|author2=Bourne P. }}</ref> Niven (2002)<ref name=Niven_2002>{{cite book|last=Niven|first=Paul R.|title=Balanced Scorecard Step-by-step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results|date=18 April 2002|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|location=New York|isbn=978-0-471-07872-2|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/balancedscorecar0000nive_z0u1}}</ref>).

Many of the structural variations proposed are broadly similar, and a research paper published in 2004<ref name=Lawrie_Cobbold_2004 /> attempted to identify a pattern in these alternatives – noting three distinct types of variation. The variations appeared to be part of an evolution of the balanced scorecard concept, and so the paper refers to these distinct types as "generations". Broadly, the original 'measures in four boxes' type design (as initially proposed by Kaplan & Norton<ref name=Kaplan_Norton_1992/>) constitutes the 1st generation balanced scorecard design; balanced scorecard designs that include a 'strategy map' or 'strategic linkage model' (e.g. the Performance Prism,<ref name=Prism_2002 /> later Kaplan & Norton designs,<ref name=Kaplan_Norton_Book_2008 /> and the Performance Driver model of Olve, Roy & Wetter (first published in Swedish, 1997; English translation, 1999,<ref name=Olve_1999 />) constitute the 2nd Generation of Balanced Scorecard designs; and designs that augment the strategy map / strategic linkage model with a separate document describing the long-term outcomes sought from the strategy (the "destination statement" idea) comprise the 3rd generation balanced scorecard design.

Variants that feature adaptations of the structure of the balanced scorecard to suit better a particular viewpoint or agenda are numerous. Examples of the focus of such adaptations include the [[triple bottom line]],<ref name=Brignall_2002 /> decision support,<ref name=Ioppolo>{{cite journal|last1=Ioppolo|first1=Giuseppe|last2=Saija|first2=Giuseppe|last3=Salomone|first3=Roberta|title=Developing a Territory Balanced Scorecard approach to manage projects for local development: Two case studies|journal=Land Use Policy|date=July 2012|volume=29|issue=3|pages=629–640|doi=10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.10.005}}</ref> public sector management,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Northcott|first1=Deryl|last2=Taulapapa|first2=Tuivaiti Ma'amora|title=Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector organizations|journal=The International Journal of Public Sector Management|date=2012|volume=25|issue=3|pages=166–191|doi=10.1108/09513551211224234}}</ref> and health care management.<ref name=Moullin_PSS>{{cite journal|last1=Moullin|first1=Max|last2=Soady|first2=John|last3=Skinner|first3=John|last4=Price|first4=Charles|last5=Cullen|first5=John|last6=Gilligan|first6=Christine|title=Using the Public Sector Scorecard in Public Health|journal=International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance|date=2007|volume=20|issue=4|pages=281–289|doi=10.1108/09526860710754352}}</ref> The performance management elements of the UN's [[Results Based Management]] system have strong design and structural similarities to those used in the 3rd Generation Balanced Scorecard design approach.<ref name=Lawrie_Kalff_Andersen_2005 />

The balanced scorecard is also linked to [[quality management]] tools and activities.<ref name="gardiner_2003">{{cite journal|last1=Gardiner|first1=P. D.|last2=Simmons|first2=J. E. L.|title=Performance measurement tools: The balanced scorecard and the EFQM excellence model|journal=Measuring Business Excellence|date=2003|volume=7|issue=1|pages=14–29|doi=10.1108/13683040310466690}}</ref> Although there are clear areas of cross-over and association, the two sets of tools are complementary rather than duplicative.<ref name=andersen_lawrie_2004>{{cite journal|last1=Andersen|first1=Henrik V.|last2=Lawrie|first2=Gavin|last3=Savič|first3=Nenad|title=Effective quality management through third-generation balanced scorecard|journal=International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management|date=2004|volume=53|issue=7|pages=634–645|doi=10.1108/17410400410561259|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235283963|access-date=11 July 2017}}</ref>

The balanced scorecard is also used to support the payments of incentives,<ref name=2GC_Survey /> even though it was not designed for this purpose and is not particularly suited to it.<ref name=What_is_BSC_FAQ /><ref name=2GC_IPM_2003>{{cite web|title=How do I link corporate and individual performance management systems?|url=https://2gc.eu/resources/research/designing-incentive-systems-linking-people-performance-and-reward|publisher=2GC Active Management|access-date=11 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140528144138/http://2gc.eu/files/resources/2GC-WP-LCIPMS-090311.pdf|archive-date=28 May 2014}}</ref>