INTRODUCTION
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a strategic performance management tool - a semi-
standard structured report, supported by proven design methods and automation tools, that
can be used by managers to keep track of the execution of activities by the staff within their
control and to monitor the consequences arising from these actions. It is perhaps the best
known of several such frameworks (it is the most widely adopted performance management
framework reported in the annual survey of management tools undertaken by Bain &
Company, and has been widely adopted in English-speaking western countries and
Scandinavia in the early 1990s). Since 2000, use of the Balanced Scorecard, its derivatives
(e.g., Performance Prism), and other similar tools (e.g., Results Based Management) has also
become common in the Middle East, Asia and Spanish-speaking countries.
The characteristic 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.
As a model of performance, the Balanced Scorecard is effective in that "it articulates the links
between leading inputs (human and physical), processes, and lagging outcomes and focuses
on the importance of managing these components to achieve the organization's strategic
priorities.
The Balance Scorecard
NEED FOR BALANCED SCORECARD
Accountants communicate with financial statements. Engineers communicate with as-built
drawings. Architects communicate with physical models. It seems that almost every
profession has some means of communicating clearly to the end user. However, for people
engaged in strategic planning there has been an on-going dilemma. The finished product, the
strategic plan, has not communicated and reached the end user. Sure strategic plans are nice
to look at, full of bar charts, nice covers, well written, and professionally prepared; but they
simply have not impacted the people who must execute the strategic plan. The end result has
been poor execution of the strategic plan throughout the entire organization. And the sad fact
of the matter is that execution of the strategic plan is everybody’s business, not just upper
level management. Upper level management creates the strategy, but execution takes place
from the bottom up.
There are four barriers to strategic implementation:
Vision Barrier – No one in the organization understands the strategies of the organization.
People Barrier – Most people have objectives that are not linked to the strategy of the
organization.
Resource Barrier – Time, energy, and money are not allocated to those things that are
critical to the organization. For example, budgets are not linked to strategy, resulting in
wasted resources.
Management Barrier – Management spends too little time on strategy and too much time
on short-term tactical decision-making.
Only 5% of the workforce understands their company strategy.
Only 25% of managers have incentives linked to strategy.
60% of organizations don’t link budgets to strategy.
86% of executive teams spend less than one hour per month discussing strategy
Therefore, we need a new way of communicating strategy to the end-user. Enter the Balanced
Scorecard. At long last, strategic planners now have a crisp and clear way of communicating
strategy. With balanced scorecards, strategy reaches everyone in a language that makes sense.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 2
The Balance Scorecard
When strategy is expressed in terms of measurements and targets, the employee can relate to
what must happen. This leads to much better execution of strategy.
One should think of the Balanced Scorecard as a management system, not just another
performance measurement program. And since strategy is at the center of value-creation for
the organization, the Balanced Scorecard has become a critical management system for any
organization. In 1997, Harvard Business Review called the Balanced Scorecard one of the
most significant business developments of the previous 75 years.
“Balanced Scorecards tell you the knowledge, skills and systems that your employees
will need (learning and growth) to innovate and build the right strategic capabilities and
efficiencies (internal processes) that deliver specific value to the market (customer)
which will eventually lead to higher shareholder value (financial). ”
Terminology-
Cause Effect Relationship : The natural flow of business performance from a lower
level to an upper level within or between perspectives. For example, training
employees on customer relation’s leads to better customer service which in turn leads
to improved financial results. One side is the leader or driver, producing an end result
or effect on the other side.
Goal : An overall achievement that is considered critical to the future success of the
organization Goals express where the organization wants to be.
Measurement : A way of monitoring and tracking the progress of strategic objectives.
Measurements can be leading indicators of performance (leads to an end result) or
lagging indicators (the end results).
Objective : What specifically must be done to execute the strategy; i.e. what is critical
to the future success of our strategy? What the organization must do to reach its goals.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 3
The Balance Scorecard
Perspectives : Four or five different views of what drives the organization.
Perspectives provide a framework for measurement. The four most common
perspectives are: Financial (final outcomes), Customer, Internal Processes, and
Learning & Growth.
Programs : Major initiatives or projects that must be undertaken in order to meet one
or more strategic objectives.
Strategic Area : A major strategic thrust for the organization, such as maximizing
shareholder value or improving the efficiency of operations. Strategic areas define the
scope for building the balanced scorecard system.
Strategic Grid : A logical framework for organizing a collection of strategic
objectives over four or more perspectives. Everything is linked to capture a cause and
effect relationship. Strategic grids are the foundation for building the Balanced
Scorecard.
Strategic Model : The combination of all strategic objectives over a strategic grid,
well connected and complete, providing one single model or structure for managing
the strategic area.
Strategy : An expression of what the organization must do to get from one reference
point to another reference point. Strategy is often expressed in terms of a mission
statement, vision, goals, and objectives. Strategy is usually developed at the top levels
of the organization, but executed by lower levels within the organization.
Target : An expected level of performance or improvement required in the future.
Templates : Visual tools for assisting people with building a balanced scorecard,
typically used for capturing and comparing data within the four components of the
Balanced Scorecard: Strategic Grids, Measurements, Targets, and Programs.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 4
The Balance Scorecard
Vision : An overall statement of how the organization wants to be perceived over the
long-term (3 to 5 years).
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 5
The Balance Scorecard
BALANCED SCORECARD - THE PROCESS
1. Strategic Foundation
When designing a balanced scorecard, we always start by asking: “What is your
strategy?” Once we understand the strategy, we can build a new framework for
describing the strategy, which we call a strategy map.
Elongating this quote, we can further deduce it to the more technical term of Strategic
Alignment.
a crystal clear and sharp strategic plan for feeding our balanced scorecard. A clear
strategy requires two things: Specific objectives that tell people what to do and a set
of targets for communicating what is expected.The second key ingredients for a clear
strategy are targets. Targets put teeth into a strategy by imposing criteria that the
organization must achieve.
Once you have defined a clear strategy (objectives and targets), then you must rally
the organization around it.
2. Strategic Area
The organization should a selected area for achieving strategic success; otherwise the
organization may find itself trying to do too many things. The strategic thrust of the
organization needs to be confined to a few major areas. The strategic thrust of the
organization will revolve around stakeholder groups; such as customers, shareholders,
and employees. Additionally, each strategic area will flow across all four perspectives
of the Balanced Scorecard: Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning and
Growth.
3. Strategic Grid
To develop strategic objectives and placing them into the correct layers for all
strategic grids is probably the most difficult step in building the Balanced Scorecard.
We look into some main aspects of a strategic Grid
Operational Efficiency – Value for customers through competitive pricing, superior
quality, on-time delivery or diverse product lines.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 6
The Balance Scorecard
Customer Relationships – Value for customers through personal service, building
trust, brand loyalty, providing customized solutions, and other one-to-one
relationships.
Innovative Products & Services – Inventing new products and features, fast delivery
of products and services, forming partnerships to expand product lines, and other
product leadership initiatives.
Different strategies that can fit with our current strategic grid:
Competencies – Skills and knowledge of the work force.
Technologies – Applications and systems for execution of internal processes.
Change Culture – Organizational alignment, employee motivation, executive
leadership, communication, and other qualities of empowering the organization.
4. Measurement
Basic Guidelines for Measurements are:
Linked : Measurements communicate what is strategically important by linking back
to your strategic objectives.
Repeatable : Measurements are continuous over time, allowing comparisons.
Leading : Measurements can be used for establishing targets, leading to future
performance.
Accountable : Measurements are reliable, verifiable, and accurate.
Available : Measurements can be derived when they are needed.
Moving onto Result Categories;
Internal Process Perspective can be broken down into three result categories:
Pre Delivery Results => Innovative Processes that meet customer needs, provide
solutions, and address emerging trends. Example of Leading Indicator => Number
of new products introduced.
Delivery Results => Operations that produce and deliver products and services to
customers. Example of Leading Indicator => Delivery Response Time to Customer.
Post Delivery Results => Value added services provided to customers once products
and / or services have been delivered. Example of Leading Indicator => Cycle Time
for Resolving Customer Complaint.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 7
The Balance Scorecard
5. Targets:
Measurement alone is not good enough. We must drive behavioral changes within the
organization if we expect to execute strategy. This requires establishing a target for each
measurement within the Balanced Scorecard. Targets are designed to stretch and push the
organization in meeting its strategic objectives.
Targets need to be realistic so that people feel comfortable about trying to execute on the
target. Therefore, targets should be mutually agreed upon between management and the
person held responsible for hitting the target. One good place to start in setting a target is
to look at past performance. Past trends can be extended for modest improvement. Your
strategic goals can also give you clues as to what your targets should be.
6. Programs:
The final design step is to close the loop and put specific programs in place to make
everything happen. This is perhaps the fun part in the entire process. How do we actually
hit these targets and meet our strategic objectives? What major initiatives must the
organization undertake to make all of this happen? Programs are the major projects that
facilitate execution of everything downstream within the scorecard. Some typical
examples of programs include quality improvement programs, marketing initiatives,
enterprise resource planning, customer relation’s management, and supply chain
management.
Programs usually have certain characteristics:
Sponsored by upper level management
Utilizes designated leaders and cross-functional teams
Consists of deliverables, milestones, and a timeline
Requires resources (people, facilities, allocated budget, etc.)
Once programs have been established and sold to various stakeholders, they tend to add some
degree of strategic value or impact. However, getting a major program initially launched can
be difficult due to funding, apprehension, politics, and other obstacles. If existing programs
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 8
The Balance Scorecard
lose funding, then you need to work back through your scorecard, adjusting your targets and
making sure everything still fits.
One of the critical steps in selecting programs is to plot programs against all strategic
objectives and assess the strategic impact. This can be extremely important since executive
management will routinely demand cost reductions. You don’t want to cut programs with the
biggest strategic impact. This would undercut your ability in meeting strategic objectives.
Programs with little or no strategic impact should get lowest priority within the organization.
Once we have designed the Balanced Scorecard, we need to implement it throughout the
entire organization. This requires careful planning and coordination with all parts of the
organization. We should have learned several lessons from our first stage scorecard:
How to organize and kick off the process
How to coordinate and gain consensus
How to identify the benefits and difficulties associated with the Balanced Scorecard
An understanding of project deliverables
Also, we should have knowledge about what factors influence implementation of the
Balanced Scorecard, such as:
Time required to develop a balanced scorecard
Availability of data and resources for building the Balanced Scorecard
Degree of support from upper level management
The deployment phase will involve reviewing and aligning the first scorecard with other parts
of the business (divisions, operating units, departments, etc.). We want to integrate the
Corporate or Business Unit Scorecard into lower level scorecards. As we move the scorecard
forward, a more formal collection and reporting system should emerge for the Balanced
Scorecard. Once we get more and more scorecards working, we will begin to explore the
possibility of linking compensation to the measurements within the Balanced Scorecard.
Since strategizing takes place at the upper level of the organization, one place to start
building the Balanced Scorecard is at the corporate level. Once again, we can go back to our
four to five rule: Build your scorecard at the upper layer of the organization, corporate; work
your way down to the second layer, operating; then work your way down to shared service
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 9
The Balance Scorecard
departments; next work your way down to the lowest levels such as department, teams, and
individuals. By following this process, we ensure alignment.
However, most organizations elect to build their first scorecard at the strategic business unit
level (such as operating units or divisions within the business). The reason is simple. You
want to build a balanced scorecard that covers the entire value chain; i.e. customers,
production, sales, innovation, and all elements that go into making a “complete” scorecard.
Also, by letting other business units start the process, you may get stronger “buy in” to the
Balanced Scorecard. For example, if executive management pushes the scorecard down to
divisions, the divisions may see the scorecard as just another phony management program.
By letting each division review the scorecard first and report back to executive management,
the organization is better positioned for full-scale deployment of the Balanced Scorecard.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 10
The Balance Scorecard
THE BALANCED SCORECARD FRAMEWORK
The BSC Method of Kaplan and Norton is a strategic approach performance management
system that enables organizations to translate a company’s vision and strategy into
implementation, working from the 4 perspectives:
1. Financial Perspective
2. Customer Perspective
3. Business Process Perspective
4. Learning and Growth Perspective
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 11
The Balance Scorecard
1) Financial Perspective: Kaplan and Norton do not disregard the traditional need for
financial data. Timely and accurate funding data will always be a priority, and
managers will do whatever necessary to provide it. In fact, often there is more than
enough handling and processing of financial data. With the implementation of a
corporate database, it is hoped that more of the processing can be centralized and
automated. But the point is that the current emphasis on financials leads to the
"unbalanced" situation with regard to other perspectives. There is perhaps a need to
include additional financial-related data, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit data,
in this category.
2) Customer Perspective: Recent management philosophy has shown an increasing
realization of the importance of customer focus and customer satisfaction in any
business. These are leading indicators: if customers are not satisfied, they will
eventually find other suppliers that will meet their needs. Poor performance from this
perspective is thus a leading indicator of future decline, even though the current
financial picture may look good.
In developing metrics for satisfaction, customers should be analyzed in terms of
kinds of customers and the kinds of processes for which we are providing a product or
service to those customer groups.
3) Business Process Perspective: This perspective refers to internal business processes.
Metrics based on this perspective allow the managers to know how well their business
is running, and whether its products and services conform to customer requirements
(the mission). These metrics have to be carefully designed by those who know these
processes most intimately; with our unique missions these are not something that can
be developed by outside consultants.
4) Learning and Growth Perspective: This perspective includes employee training and
corporate cultural attitudes related to both individual and corporate self-improvement.
In a knowledge-worker organization, people -- the only repository of knowledge -- are
the main resource. In the current climate of rapid technological change, it is becoming
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 12
The Balance Scorecard
necessary for knowledge workers to be in a continuous learning mode. Metrics can be
put into place to guide managers in focusing training funds where they can help the
most. In any case, learning and growth constitute the essential foundation for success
of any knowledge-worker organization.
Kaplan and Norton emphasize that 'learning' is more than 'training'; it also includes
things like mentors and tutors within the organization, as well as that ease of
communication among workers that allows them to readily get help on a problem
when it is needed. It also includes technological tools; what the Baldrige criteria call
"high performance work systems."
An example of Constructing the Sorecard is given below:
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 13
The Balance Scorecard
KEY BENEFITS OF USING BALANCED SCORECARDS
Research has shown that organisations that use a Balanced Scorecard approach tend to
outperform organisations without a formal approach to strategic performance management.
The key benefits of using a BSC include:
Better Strategic Planning – The Balanced Scorecard provides a powerful framework for
building and communicating strategy. The business model is visualised in a Strategy Map
which forces managers to think about cause-and-effect relationships. The process of creating
a Strategy Map ensures that consensus is reached over a set of interrelated strategic
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 14
The Balance Scorecard
objectives. It means that performance outcomes as well as key enablers or drivers of future
performance (such as the intangibles) are identified to create a complete picture of the
strategy.
Improved Strategy Communication & Execution – The fact that the strategy with all its
interrelated objectives is mapped on one piece of paper allows companies to easily
communicate strategy internally and externally. We have known for a long time that a picture
is worth a thousand words. This ‘plan on a page’ facilities the understanding of the strategy
and helps to engage staff and external stakeholders in the delivery and review of strategy. In
the end it is impossible to execute a strategy that is not understood by everybody.
Better Management Information – The Balanced Scorecard approach forces organisations
to design key performance indicators for their various strategic objectives. This ensures that
companies are measuring what actually matters. Research shows that companies with a BSC
approach tend to report higher quality management information and gain increasing benefits
from the way this information is used to guide management and decision making.
Improved Performance Reporting – companies using a Balanced Scorecard approach tend
to produce better performance reports than organisations without such a structured approach
to performance management. Increasing needs and requirements for transparency can be met
if companies create meaningful management reports and dashboards to communicate
performance both internally and externally.
Better Strategic Alignment – organisations with a Balanced Scorecard are able to better
align their organisation with the strategic objectives. In order to execute a plan well,
organisations need to ensure that all business and support units are working towards the same
goals. Cascading the Balanced Scorecard into those units will help to achieve that and link
strategy to operations.
Better Organisational Alignment – well implemented Balanced Scorecards also help to
align organisational processes such as budgeting, risk management and analytics with the
strategic priorities. This will help to create a truly strategy focused organisation.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 15
The Balance Scorecard
CASE STUDY: SAATCHI & SAATCHI WORLDWIDE
Headquartered in New York City, and with annual billings topping $US 7 billion, Saatchi &
Saatchi is one of the world’s leading creating organizations. The corporation has more than
7,000 employees in 84 countries. Services range from communication and marketing
strategy, advertising scripts for production, consumer research and forecasting, among others.
Its impressive client list includes household names such as Carlsberg, General Mills, Lexus,
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 16
The Balance Scorecard
Procter & Gamble, Sony Ericsson and Visa International. The organization positions itself
not as an advertising agency, but as an ‘ideas company’.
Since 1997, the Balanced Scorecard has been central to implementing the purpose, or vision,
of Saatchi & Saatchi. In this case study we focus mainly on the early years of scorecard usage
in the corporation, and what was one of the truly great balanced scorecard success stories.
A Classic Burning Platform
In September 2000, the Paris, France, Headquartered Publicis Groupe SA purchased Saatchi
& Saatchi for close on $2.5 billion. Equating to about 4.5 times Saatchi & Saatchi’s then net
worth, the purchase price is remarkable in that just three years earlier the corporation was
teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
Experiencing a classic burning platform due to over-extension through acquisition throughout
the 1980s, coupled with severe financial pressures in the recession of the early 1990s,
turnaround started with the appointment of a new senior management team in the mid-1990s.
Bob Seelert became chairman and he appointed Kevin Roberts as CEO Worldwide, and Bill
Cochrane as CFO Worldwide. They still hold these positions and were, as a team, catalytic
for the scorecard implementation that was to follow.
Setting Stretch Targets
First though was the requirement for significant organizational restructuring and cost
reduction. A key trigger for this was the December 1997 de-merger of Saatchi & Saatchi
from Cordiant Communications. With Saatchi & Saatchi now on its own, the senior team
presented to its stakeholders a detailed strategic blueprint for recovery, which included the
following three very ambitious targets with a timeframe of three years.
1. Growing the revenue base better than the market
2. Converting 30% of that incremental revenue to operation profit
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 17
The Balance Scorecard
3. Doubling its earnings per share
These goals were to support the new vision: ‘To be revered as the hothouse for world-
clanging creating ideas that transform our clients’ businesses, brands and reputations.’
The corporation had an ambitious vision and even more ambitious stretch targets. But the
trick would be to deliver on its goals, which would require a rapid implementation of its new
strategy. And given the high failure rates of strategy implementation, coupled with the
corporation’s precarious financial position, this would not be without a significant risk of
failure.
Choosing the Balanced Scorecard
After spending about three months on the road during late 1997 visiting the majority of the
organization’s 45+ globally dispersed agencies, Kevin Roberts realized that although great
work was being done, each location was essentially working on its own agenda. Simply put,
there was no commonality of purpose or cohesion of identity – not surprising as the
organization had grown through acquisition. Roberts therefore realized that he required a
management tool that would help communicate and make operational the new vision in a
commonly understood process and language.
A Balanced Scorecard Steering Committee to lead the scorecard program was appointed,
comprising three representatives from Renaissance and three from Saatchi & Saatchi – Paul
Melter and colleagues from client services and strategic planning. The committee had to
report to the executive management team on a weekly basis.
Creating the Strategy Map
The corporate level CompaSS was built in a three month period from September to
November 1998. The corporate Strategy Map that was used until 2003 is shown in Figure 1.
Note that despite the pressure that the organization was under at the time it first created the
scorecard, and the complexities of managing a global organization, the Strategy Map is
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 18
The Balance Scorecard
remarkably simple, comprising just 12 strategic objectives. The simplicity was purposeful,
says Melter:
“A Strategy Map should show the critical few objectives that will make the difference in
delivering to the strategy. And these should be strategic objectives, not operational. Too
many Strategy Maps include both.”
RASCIs
From the steering committee evolved a process of setting out RASCIs – an acronym for
Responsible, Approval, Support, Consult and Inform. They identified a theme owner for each
perspective (therefore responsible for that perspective). For Finance it was Bill Cochrane, for
Client it was a Senior Executive/Regional Director from Asia. For Product and Process it was
another Senior Executive/Regional Director from Australia, and for People and Culture, it
was another Senior Executive/Regional Director from China.
These ‘Rs’ then worked with the steering committee to choose objectives that would
eventually be essential links in the Strategy Map. Having just one ‘A’ and just one ‘R’ for
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 19
The Balance Scorecard
each perspective was vital for taking out any bottlenecks and ensuring the process moved
rapidly.
From here, further ‘Rs’, typically CEOs from agencies around the global network, were
assigned responsibility for detailing how specific objectives would be achieved, such as
identifying the key measures. These ‘Rs’ also worked closely with the steering committee in
delivering to this task.
Global Rollout
With the Corporate level CompaSS in place, the next process step was global rollout to the
45+ business units. Keeping with the goal of commonality of purpose and the desire to keep
the scorecard simple and focused, devolved Strategy Maps are essentially the same as at the
corporate level. Importantly, the corporate map defined the performance conversations with
the regions. Responsibility for performance within each unit ultimately lied with the local
CEOs as Melter explains:
“Without having the unconditional, unequivocal backing of the senior executive team this
will fail. All of the 45+ unit-based CEOs have mentors among the senior executive team and
if there’s a feeling that the CompaSS doesn’t have to be done this month, or if they believe
that there is something more important then it will fade. But our three executive leaders make
it clear to all the local unit CEOs that it is a great tool and this is the way we manage the
business.”
Facilitating the Scorecard Process
The management of each unit does receive proper training and ongoing support in how to
work with the scorecard. Paul Melter is the full-time CompaSS director and is supported by
two fulltime staff. One is involved in managing and developing the scorecard software
system and the other is involved in quality control. Melter also has the support of over 40
part-time scorecard champions in the units who are responsible for collecting and collating
their own CompaSS and forwarding theses to the centre.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 20
The Balance Scorecard
As an important learning, Melter is convinced that in a global organization, responsibility for
the scorecard has to be a full time vocation.
The job isn’t over when CompaSS is up and running. You get into managing the scorecard as
an ongoing program, and using the scorecard with the aim of building a strategy-focused
organization. The scorecard therefore impacts planning, communication, people and culture,
budgeting and feedback, as examples. It focuses the discussions of every management
meeting. In short, the scorecard is an essential tool in the way they manage their global
organization. It is the means for setting priorities and allocating resources.
CONCLUSION
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 21
The Balance Scorecard
Despite the undoubted success, there have been challenges along the way. One has been the
complexity of reporting the scorecard results from the business units back up to the corporate
level in a meaningful fashion.
Scorecard results are delivered quarterly, and expressed through the “traffic-light” reporting
system of green (ahead of target), yellow (meeting target) and red (off target). When green,
executives are expected to share best practices for use elsewhere in the organization (thus
strengthening the ‘one team, one dream’ people and culture objective). When managers were
reporting green for people, process and customer but red for financial it highlighted a
strategic disconnect that needs to be addressed. Identifying such disconnects is, one of the
strengths of the scorecard system.
This was achieved by predefining the financial measures based on conditional formatting.
Therefore making them either red or green there was rarely ever a yellow status.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 22
The Balance Scorecard
BIBLOGRAPHY
Websites
http://www.balancedscorecard.org/bscresources/examplessuccessstories/tabid/57/
default.aspx
http://www.netmba.com/accounting/mgmt/balanced-scorecard
http://www.symphonytech.com/articles/bscard.htm
http://managementhelp.org/org_perf/bal_card.htm
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_balancedscorecard.html
http://www.citehr.com/37492-balance-score-card-case-study.html
http://www.business-intelligence.co.uk/reports/strat_bsc/casestudies.asp
http://www.epmreview.com/Resources/Case-Studies/Saatchi-Saatchi-Worldwide.html
www.verslobanga.lt/lt/zb.download/3f1a601f9edd1/BCS_Saatchi.pdf
http://www.brainmass.com/homework-help/business/accounting-business-analysis-
financial-reporting/266949
Books
Cost and Management Accounting by Ravi Kishore, Taxmann Publications, 4th
Edition.
Cost Management: A Strategic Emphasis by Edward Blocher, Kung H. Chen, W.
Thomas Lin, Mcgraw-Hill Professional, 3rd Edition.
Succeeding with the Balanced Scorecard by James Creelman, Naresh Makhijani,
Wiley – India Edition, 2006.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Page 23