Mesmo a melhor ferramenta pode ser um desastre se mal aplicada

O artigo "How the BSC implementation process shapes its outcome" de Deborah Agostino e Michela Arnaboldi, publicado no International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management (Vol. 60 No. 2, 2011).
.
Chama a atenção para um pormenor muitas vezes ignorado nas discussões sobre a aplicação de uma ferramenta. Os resultados dependem da forma como se implementa!!!
.
"Management accounting innovations are defined “so fluid, unstable and heterogeneous that it would appear miraculous to find the same management accounting technique implemented in different organizations in the same manner”
...
In order to understand the reasons behind the fluidity of practice, Granlund and Lukka (1998) focused on organizational culture. Studying management accounting in six Finnish companies, they concluded that both the culture and people within an organization influence the practice.
...
We have found three different change process patterns generated by the different reasons for the BSC adoption. They, in turn, give rise to different approaches for the design and the implementation, which translate into different BSC outcomes.
.
The first pattern is the one of the BSC that is introduced because of coercive compliance (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), where the technique has the objective of providing the HQ with a report that can be compared with those of the other subsidiaries. The BSC is therefore designed using a top-down approach, with only the involvement of the corporate CFO. Line managers play a passive role, both during the design and the implementation phases. They simply execute the guidelines defined at upper levels and are responsible for filling in the report every quarter.
...
The second pattern corresponds to the need to introduce the BSC to synthesise the business... The senior managers require a monthly synthesis of the overall situation of the business. The design phase is characterized by a bi-directional approach with the involvement of line mangers, in order to identify the areas that need to be monitored and the measures that need to be included. Interviews with the involved managers are conducted to understand these aspects. ... In this case, the BSC is an instrument which is not used
to support discussions, but is merely a device used by the CEO and CFO to control the
business.
...
The third pattern occurs when the BSC is introduced because of a voluntary decision concerning strategic translation. It has the objective of linking strategic guidelines with every day actions. The involvement of the users is necessary during the entire implementation process. During the design phase, a bi-directional approach is adopted with perspectives and KPIs that are defined together with the line managers, who are spokesmen of the users’ needs. During the implementation, lower level managers actively participate in the data collection process. The continuous interaction between different levels is still maintained during use, and this interaction is defined here as “Centrifugal interaction”. There are frequent discussions to analyse the obtained results and the senior managers and lower levels pay continuous attention to the technique. The approaches that are adopted implicitly allow targets to be set and the BSC to be considered as necessary. As far as its structure is concerned, the BSC is cascaded at lower levels and KPIs are both financial and non financial, considering the collaborative approach in the selection of the measures. The diffusion of the scorecard to local levels allows the reward system to be linked to its measures. In fact, it is here easier to identify specific responsibilities compared to the case of a unique corporate BSC."