segunda-feira, junho 06, 2016

Quando é que um BSC não é um BSC

Faz hoje 10 anos e um mês que escrevemos "Balanced Scorecard 3ª geração". Em Outubro de 2008 escrevemos acerca da visão comatosa do balanced scorecard.
Agora, em "When is a balanced scorecard a balanced scorecard?" publicado em 2011 em International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60 Iss 7 pp. 688 - 708, encontro:
"if the organization’s performance measures are not derived from its strategy, the organization’s performance measurement system cannot be called a Balanced Scorecard.
Since establishing a connection between strategy and the performance measures is a precursor for any subsequent variants of BSC implementation, we classify organizations with a BSC with this attribute as a Level 1 BSC organization.
The BSC taxonomy can be summarized as follows (see Figure 1); each level denotes a progressively more complete implementation of the BSC by an organization:
. Level 1 BSC – performance measures are derived from the organization’s strategy;
. Level 2a BSC – Level 1 plus the attribute of balance;
. Level 2b BSC – Level 1 plus the attribute of causal linkages;
. Level 3 BSC – Level 1 plus the attributes of both balance and causal linkages;
. Level 4a BSC – Level 3 plus the attribute of double-loop learning;
. Level 4b BSC – Level 3 plus the attribute of linkage to compensation; and
. Level 5 BSC – Level 3 plus the attributes of double-loop learning and linkage to
E ainda:
"When we examine the firms in each level it would seem that the major differences are between Level 1 and Level 5 organizations. The most marked difference being for the senior management involvement, inappropriate performance measures and/or measures not linked in cause-effect relationships, and success of the performance measurement system."
Acerca do double-loop learning, recordar:

Sem comentários: