




































American International Journal of Social Science Research; Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

ISSN 2576-103X   E-ISSN 2576-1048 

Published by Centre for Research on Islamic Banking & Finance and Business, USA 

   

 

1 
 

Balance Scorecard Implementation Challenges in Institution of 

Higher Learning: Overview of Prior Studies 
  

 

Peter U. Anuforo
1
, Hazeline Ayoup

2
 & Nasiru Saidu

3 

 
1
Department of Accounting, University of Maiduguri Nigeria, Nigeria 

2
Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy (TISSA-UUM), College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 

06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia 
3
Department of Business Administration, Bauchi State University Gadau, Nigeria 

 

Correspondence: Peter U. Anuforo, Department of Accounting, University of Maiduguri Nigeria, E-mail: 

peteru.love@gmail.com 

 

 

Received: May 22, 2018                                  Accepted: May 30, 2018                        Online Published: June 8, 2018  

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract 

The incessant decline in the performance of Malaysian public institution of higher learning since 2007 to date has 

brought to fore the question of its performance management process. Studies have shown that performance 

management is a general phenomenon in the institution of higher learning worldwide. The implementation issues of 

Balance scorecard (BSC) is more pronounced in the non-profit outfit and governmental organizations (NPGOs) 

compared to the profit-oriented outfit. Reasons being that the BSC was originally developed and (or) meant for the 

profit-oriented outfit and not exactly the other way round. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the 

issues of performance management in the institution of higher learning and specifically regarding the 

implementation issues of BSC encountered among Malaysia public institution of higher learning. This study 

provides a review of previous literature on the BSC implementation issues. Several implementation issues identified 

from the literatures are strategy misalignment, strategy communication issues, manager’s acceptance/employees 

buy-in, the issue of clarity of vision, mission, strategy, and outcome, and strategy map implementation issues. 

Findings revealed that the implementation issues of the BSC among Malaysia public institution actually helps to 

unravel the pitfalls of BSC project and provides a roadmap show that can improve and sustain effective performance 

management. The implication of this study is aimed at providing the means by which the Malaysian public 

institution of higher learning can identify the issues inherent in BSC implementation or strategy implementation and 

the way forward. 

 

Keywords: Balance scorecard, Malaysia Public Institution of Higher Learning, Performance Management, Strategy 

Alignment, Strategy Map. 

  

1.Introduction  

The incessant decline in the performance of Malaysian public institution of higher learning since 2007 to date has 

brought to fore the question of its performance management process. Studies have shown that performance 

management is a general phenomenon in the institution of higher learning worldwide. Thus, the main key 

determinant for success is “effective management”(Lee2006). In spite of the fact that the BSC has been developed 

for over 20 years now, it still suffers from several implementation issues coupled with its lack of standard rules for 

implementation especially in the non-profit outfit and governmental organizations (NPGOs). Therefore, 

understanding the cause of BSC implementation failure is fundamental to implementing a successful one. A good 

number of studies have indicated that organization that have decided to embark on adopting the BSC have 

encountered series of BSC implementation system issues such as manager’s acceptance/employees buy-in, strategy 

misalignment etc.(Evans, 2005; Mac Phail, &Halbert, 2005; Kaplan & Norton, 2006a; Ayoup, Omar, & Rahman, 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

2 
 

2015a). Studies on the challenges encountered in BSC implementation process is very scarce, as such, this study 

aims to fill the gap in the literature. Moreover, the purpose of this paper is to provide an insight into the issue of 

performance management in the institution of higher learning. 

This research is structured as follows; section one outlines the overview of BSC concept, section two briefly 

discusses the BSC as a performance management system, section three gave a recap on the performance 

management in Malaysia institution of higher learning which serves as a basis for discussing BSC implementation in 

institution of higher learning; found in section four, and then section five research method, section six presents the 

core of the study which is BSC implementation issues, thereafter section seven conclusion and recommendations. 

Lastly section eight acknowledgements. 

2.Overview of BSC Concept 

According to Kaplan and Norton(1996), the four perspectives of BSC are basically the factor that affects the 

performance of the organization, as such the misalignment of these perspectives in the BSC implementation process 

will inevitably lead to failure of the organization’s strategy. Each perspective of the BSC tries to answer vital 

performance question. The strategic alignment of BSC perspectives is regarded as fundamental because it serves as a 

building block of organizations performance, for example, Lee (2006), described the four perspectives of BSC as 

performance determinants as mentioned in his findings “there exist significant cause-effect relationships between 

performance determinants and the overall performance of the schools”. Thus, the cause and effect relationship of 

BSC is a very vital determinant of the successful BSC implementation process. Although, studies such as Ittner, 

Larcker, and Randall, (2003a) reported that 75% of financial service firms ignored the cause and effect relationship 

of BSC perspectives. 

3.The BSC as a Performance Management System 

The BSC is regarded as one of the most influential contemporary performance management and measurement 

concept that aligns both short-term strategic actions and long-term strategic goals of institutions (Marr &Schiuma, 

2003; Anjomshoae, Hassan, Kunz, Wong, & de Leeuw, 2017). The BSC model functions as both a performance 

measurement and management have attracted the interest of researchers, management scholars and practitioners 

since its introduction. It is used to measure the performance of both public and private sectors aimed at improving 

performance and achieving organization’s key strategies and objectives (Zhijun, Zengbiao, & Zhang, 2014; 

Shukri&Ramli 2015; Gamal, &Soemantri, 2017).The key vital element of BSC is that it provides a unique system 

for measuring and managing all the various aspects of an institution’s performance and also plays the role of 

providing the needed clarity and specificity that makes firm’s strategy, vision and mission statement meaningful, 

actionable and achievable. The implementation issues of BSC are more pronounced in NPGOs compared to the 

profit-oriented outfit. Reasons being that the BSC was originally developed and (or) meant for the profit-oriented 

outfit and not exactly the other way round. The failure rate in strategy implementation, especially in terms of BSC 

implementation in the recent years, is becoming alarming and uncalled for (Alexander 1985, Sterling 2003; Kaplan 

&Norton, 2004;Kaplan, Norton, & Barrows, 2008; Mankins & Steele, 2005; Cândido& Santos, 2015; Hu, Leopold-

Wildburger, &Strohhecker, 2017).However, in spite of all the overwhelming impact of BSC on improving and 

sustaining firm’s performance, the BSC still suffers a great deal of implementation issues leading to failure of the 

BSC project. For example, Atkinson (2006) reported that about 70% of BSC implementation initiative failed over 

the years. Hence, the need to identify the causes of BSC implementation pitfall is very paramount, so as to eliminate 

or minimize the failure rate cases, which is the main motive of this study. Moreover, there is limited available 

evidence on studies that identified BSC implementation issues especially in the NPGOs. 

4.Performance Management in Malaysia Institution of Higher Learning 

In Malaysia, virtually all the institutions of higher learning are facing the issue of performance management, 

coupled with the rising height of competition both within and international academy arena. In a government research 

conducted between August 2006 and July 2007 on the assessment of the quality of Malaysian public universities, 

reports revealed that public institutions of higher education in Malaysia have been subjected under serious public 

scrutiny for failing to improve or at least emerge in international rankings with regards to offering outstanding 

education (Mohamed 2007; Azizan 2007; Ramachandran & Foo 2007; Yu, Hamid,Ijab, & Soo, 2009). Also, Binden, 

Mziu, andSuhaimi, (2014) reported that since the establishment of the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) in 

2004 the Higher Education in Malaysia has become an important trend. Deliberate efforts have been made in several 

ways possible to support and develop higher education in Malaysia from different sectors of the economy be it the 

media, people and the government. Similarly, in order to ensure the existence of a conducive ecosystem, which will 

eventually catapult into knowledge and excellence. Thus, the ministry has introduced various policies to reinforce 

the national higher education. Specifically, before 2020 the government is strategizing an articulated effort towards 

making Malaysia the regional hub for higher education, as well as the main choice for international students and 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

3 
 

intellectuals. Moreover, how to go about achieving these targets is tasking considering the complexity of 

implementing the BSC project.  

The performance system of the institution of higher learning is a multifaceted socialized system that requires a 

holistic approach. Thus, selection of appropriate performance management nowadays is very vital to the institution 

of higher learning because at the end of the day the outcome of the performance of such institution will determine 

the ranking profile of the university among its competing counterparts. For example, recently, there was a policy 

that was issued by the gov’t of one of the African countries (i.e. Nigeria) regarding its student’s enrolment in the 

Malaysian university. Five best Malaysian public universities were selected in this policy; as such this new policy 

affected the number of student’s enrolment in any of the Malaysian university that fails to meet this criterion of “five 

best Malaysian universities”. Consequently, the choice of appropriate performance management such as BSC and 

the strategic implementation process is fundamental to the success and improvement of the ranking profile of 

contemporary institutions of higher learning, especially among the public Malaysian universities.  

Significant studies have provided evidence showing that BSC methodology is good performance management 

system especially when it is implemented properly (Davis & Albright, 2003; Maiga & Jacobs, 2003; Braam & 

Nijssen, 2004; Kaplan & Norton, 2006b). Studies also show that whether a BSC project is successful or not, heavily 

depends on how the BSC is being implemented, used and interpreted (Braam & Nijssen, 2004; Madsen, & 

Stenheim, 2014). Similarly, Danesh Haeri, and Jafari, (2017, p.1), reported that “the momentous issue, in the 

implementation of BSC, is the proper selection of measures”. 

5. BSC Implementation in Institution of Higher Learning  

Kaplan and Norton introduced the concept of BSC in1990 and presented it as both a financial and non-financial 

performance measures (Karpagam & Suganthi, 2012; Philbin, 2011; Taylor & Baines, 2012). Articles on BSC have 

indicated the BSC model is particularly well-suited for the non-profit outfit and governmental organizations 

(NPGOs) (Niven 2008; Pietrzak, Paliszkiewicz & Klepacki 2015; Praptapa, &Yahya, 2016; Gamal, & Soemantri, 

2017). North cottand Taulapapa (2012) highlighted that the NPGOs adopted the private sector performance 

management model (i.e. the BSC) with the aim of improving and demonstrating their accountability and 

performance to the central government. Additionally, Dimitropoulos, Kosmas, and Douvis, (2017) stressed that the 

application of BSC model in public sector is due to its “ability to link financial performance measures with customer 

focus, the improvement of internal processes and the enhancement of innovation and learning”. Moreover, Northcott 

and Taulapapa (2012) highlighted that BSC implementation in public organizations promotes and emphasizes 

performance excellence, enhances top management commitment, improves staff training and promotes clear 

organizational strategy and objectives. Although, one of the difficulty of implementing the BSC model is the need to 

modify the concept to reflect the peculiarity of the organization in question especially in terms of the institution’s 

mission, vision, strategy, technology, and culture; otherwise the intended result or benefit may not be achieved 

(Kim, Suh, & Hwang, 2003; Khomba, Vermaak, & Hanif, 2012; Chimtengo, et al., 2017).Thus, to achieve a 

successful BSC implementation requires the proper articulation and implementation of the holistic framework of 

BSC as presented by Kaplan and Norton (Ayoup, et al., 2015a). 

6. BSC Implementation Issues 

BSC implementation issues basically stem from the causal linkage of organization vision and strategy that is 

embedded in the four perspectives of the BSC and how the strategies in each perspective are integrated. The BSC 

suffers from several implementation issues despite the claim that it is the most regarded contemporary strategic 

management accounting tools that helps in improving organization performance (Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1996, 

2001, 2004 and 2006; Modell, 2012; Ayoup, et al., 2016). Several studies have also reported the significant positive 

impact of BSC implementation on firm performance (Hoque& James, 2000; Malina & Selto, 2001; Maiga & Jacobs, 

2003; Davis & Albright, 2004; Braam & Nijssen, 2004; Ayoup, et al., 2015). In general, significant numbers of 

studies have highlighted the challenges encountered in performance management system (PMS) implementation 

process to include among others communication strategy, support from information systems and top management, as 

well as employees/manager’s involvement commitment, and coordination (Neely,Adams & Crowe, 2001; Keating & 

Harrington, 2003; Kwak & Anbari, 2006; Fernandes, Raja & Whalley, 2006; Umashev & Willett, 2008;Martello, 

Watson & Fischer, 2016). Although, several studies have attempted to focus on one or at most two issues of BSC 

implementation rather than focusing on the holistic view of the issues. To fill the gap in the literature, this paper 

aims to provide insight into the holistic cause of BSC implementation issues. Hence, the key issues that are 

associated with BSC implementation can be categorized under the following headings; 

 Strategy misalignment 

 Strategy communication issues 

 The challenges of manager’s acceptance/employees buy-in 

 The issue of clarity of vision, mission, strategy, and outcome 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

4 
 

 Strategy map implementation issues 

Note that the above issues are so much inter-related such that the failure of one automatically affects the 

implementation process. For example, regarding communication of organization’s strategies between employees and 

management, findings by Trahant (2008) indicate that there is “a strong correlation between effective employee 

communication and superior organizational performance”. 

6.1Strategy Misalignment 

Strategic alignment within the context of this study refers to the alignment of organization’s objectives, strategies, 

measures, targets and initiatives (Ayoup et al., 2016). Strategy alignment process involves the means (strategy map) 

by which the management communicates and streamline the organization’s broad objectives in line with its mission, 

vision, and strategy. It also entails the alignment of both financial and non-financial measures and the cause and 

effect relationship among the BSC perspective measures. 

In 2006, Kaplan and Norton introduced the concept of organizational alignment model which is aimed at curbing 

strategy misalignment in BSC implementation process (Ayoup et al., 2016). According to Skinner (1969), strategy 

misalignment is the missing link between “corporate level strategies and its different parts”. Several studies have 

identified factors that affect strategic alignment (Nadler &Tushman 1997; Melnyk, Calantone, Luft, Stewart, & 

Zsidisin, 2005; Kathuria, Joshi, &Porth, 2007). Moreover, one of the major issues of BSC implementation is 

strategy misalignment. For example, firms that implement BSC and is still experiencing low performance, in most 

cases the problem can be attributable to strategy misalignment among other issues (Bergeron, Raymond &Rivard, 

2004). 

BSC as a strategic tool that promotes strategy alignment has brought to fore so many mixed results, especially 

among the practitioner and researcher. Contrary to the strategy misalignment that may be encountered during the 

course BSC implementation; the BSC facilitates the alignment of all facets of organization’s objective by linking the 

mission, vision, and strategy (Kaplan & Norton, 2006; Ayoup et al., 2016). Ayoup et al. (2016, p1) stressed that the 

organizational alignment model of Kaplan and Norton “is specially developed to complement the BSC 

implementation process in managing strategy misalignment”. In spite of the model developed by Kaplan and 

Norton, the issue of strategic alignment still persist perhaps is due to the point raised by Schneiderman (2001) which 

suggest that “the key to linking strategic alignment is not the BSC itself, but the underlying processes that make it”. 

Vaidyanathan (2005) supported this view by highlighting that understanding the links between organization’s 

activities, resources, and the desired outcome promotes the implementation of organizational strategies.  

The management of strategic alignment entails a change process (Kaplan & Norton, 2006; Ayoup et al., 2015a). 

Thus, managing strategy misalignment involves “managing all organizational hard (such as the system, policies, and 

procedures) and soft elements” (Nadler & Tushman, 1997; Ayoup, et al., 2016). Another cause of strategic 

misalignment is due to focusing on limited functional strategy and lack of utilizing the holistic strategic alignment 

framework of BSC during the implementation process (Ayoup, et al., 2015a). According to Ayoup, et al. (2015a) 

strategy misalignment may lead to “undesirable implications such as unaligned strategic objectives between the 

divisions; measures that may neither be fully understood nor implemented; targets could be compromised or 

unattainable; key initiatives and investments may not be prioritized, lack of optimal or inadequate funding which 

may require costly corrections”. More so, the results of the findings of Ayoup et al. (2015b, p1) on factors affecting 

strategic alignment indicates that “top management commitment, effective communication, management intention, 

manager’s acceptance to the system and its measures and trust have implications on successful BSC implementation 

and strategic alignment process”. In addition, studies such as Decoene and Bruggerman (2006) also highlighted 

some negative impact of strategy misalignment on firm performance especially in terms of managers’ intrinsic 

motivation on improving firm performance.  

6.2The Issues of Manager’s Acceptance/Employees Buy-in 

To get the buy-in of employees is very vital because the employees are indispensable and integral part of every 

organizational function and are considered as the backbone of successful BSC implementation (Kaplan & Norton 

1996a; Kaplan & Norton 2006b). In most cases, an organization that successfully implement BSC tend to be the 

ones in which their employees understand clearly the institution’s strategy and vision (Slavica, et al., 2017). Thus, 

this is mostly being achieved by aligning employee’s incentives and reward system with the institution’s strategies. 

For example, some articles on BSC have identified the impact of lack of developing a suitable link between 

employees reward system and organization’s KPIs (Ittner, Larcker& Meyer, 1997; Roest 1997; Kaplan & Norton, 

2001, 2004; Chan 2004; Ayoup, et al., 2012). Also, in order to get the buy-in of employees/manager will involve 

achieving the objectives of the learning and growth perspective of BSC. Thus, this involves communicating the 

institutions’ strategy to the employees, integrating the institution’s strategy with the on-going management process 

and integrating employee’s task and incentives to their reward system. Employees buy-in entails their involvement, 

commitment and dedication in the BSC implementation process (Ayoup, et al., 2016). The failure of the above-



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

5 
 

mentioned points may warrant and constitutes the pitfalls of BSC implementation strategy. For example, the 

findings of Malina and Selto (2001) show that if the BSC is not properly designed and implemented, it can actually 

de-motivate employees. 

Issues involving employees/manager’s buy-in can also arise as a result of poor management roles in the 

implementation process, lack of communication and commitment to the stipulated strategy (Aaltonen & Ikavalko, 

2002). The findings of Mayer and Gavin (2005) shows that employees’ trust in managers and top management team 

enables them to focus more on value-producing activities. More so, strategic consensus between the manager and 

employees in BSC implementation process is very vital because according to Schaap (2012) strategic consensus 

fosters shared values and attitudes as well as enhances “frequent top-down and bottom-up communication within the 

organizational structure”. 

According to Ayoup et al (2015a), “the BSC provides a common frame of reference for all managers in making 

decisions and helps clarify the choices of performance measures that would strategically align the various 

components in a company”. Also, the strategy map provides a clear presentation of organizational strategy to the 

manager but the issue encountered by the managers in most cases, is the difficulty of understanding the information 

provided and the usage (Ayoup, et al., 2016). According to De Waal and Coevert (2007), successful BSC 

implementation suffers, when a manager fails to understand that his role in the implementation process has a way of 

exerting an impact on organization’s performance. 

Essentially, Kaplan and Norton (2001) stressed that one of the main reasons that causes BSC implementation failure 

is due to lack of commitment on the part of the senior management team. Thus, manager’s acceptance is vital 

because they are considered as the drivers and implementers of the BSC. Similarly, articles on BSC have indicated 

that the employees also are the key pivotal mechanism for success, especially in the service sectors, since they play a 

significant role in. virtually all the perspectives of BSC (Ittner,Larcker & Randall 2003; Lau & Sholihin 2005; 

Dimitropoulos, et al., 2017). Overall, Kaplan and Norton (2004) have identified that one of the critical success factor 

(CSF) of BSC implementation is getting adequate support from both managers and employees at all levels of the 

organization, hence anything short of this criterion may produce undesirable performance result. Although, the 

difficulty here, is how to cascade the strategies to the top-down individual managerial level. 

In general, according to Dimitropouloset al. (2017, p17) “good preparation and training are very important for the 

proper implementation of BSC but the key element is dedication toward performance management starting from the 

top management to employees”. Similarly, findings by Ferreira, (2017) while employing the qualitative case study 

approach supported this view, in that “findings suggests that the involvement of top manager and/or executive 

management is one of the critical success factors of the BSC project”. Moreover, according to Kaplan and Norton 

(2001), the lack of this key element of dedication or commitment on the part of the senior team management to a 

large extent heavily affects BSC implementation project. Akin to this view is the study by Othman, Domil, Senik, 

Abdullah, and Hamzah (2008) on Malaysian organization which revealed some peculiar BSC implementation issues. 

One of the issues identified by Othman et al., (2008) regarding BSC implementation system in Malaysia 

organization is basically lack of support from managers. Similarly, a good number of studies have identified that 

manager’s lack of knowledge and skills as well as the clear purpose of the organization’s BSC implementation 

constitutes the bulk of BSC implementation failure (Moore 2003; Chan 2004; McPhail, Herington, & Guilding, 

2008; Ayoup, et al., 2012). 

6.3Strategy Communication Issues 

Strategy communication is described as “the process of communicating organizational strategic vision, mission, and 

corporate objectives to employees at all the levels of the organization management process (Kaplan & Norton, 2001, 

2006b)”. According to Kaplan and Norton, (2001, p3), “nowadays, organizations need a language that serve as a 

medium of communicating strategy as well as information systems and processes that enable them to implement 

strategy and gain feedback about their strategy”. In performance management system (PMS) implementation, 

communication has been regarded as one of the vital criteria for success (Beer &Eisenstat, 2000; Ahn, 2001; Kaplan 

& Norton, 2001, 2006; Atkinson, 2006; Ayoup, et al., 2016). Studies have indicated that during the course of 

strategy implementation process of BSC, strategy communication is heavily emphasized. Kaplan and Norton (2001) 

emphasized the critical role of BSC by highlighting that the BSC provides a framework of communication strategy 

that assist in aligning organizational strategy.  

The issue of communication strategy in BSC implementation process can be addressed through proper and suitable 

adoption/adaption of the BSC (Atkinson, 2006). Merchant (1987) pointed out that communication failure is one of 

the major cause of weak strategy implementation. According to Malina and Selto (2001) effective organizational 

communication strategy includes providing valid message, knowledge sharing and supporting the organizational 

culture. Another issue encountered during the course of communicating organizational strategy in BSC 

implementation is the difficulty in documenting the detail processes and procedures of the BSC project (Ayoup et 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

6 
 

al., 2010). Also, the issue of how to communicate the content and process of the strategy (Ayoup, et al., 

2016).Another overwhelming issue of BSC implementation system is the level of support and link between 

organizational information and communication system (Kaplan & Norton’s 2001; Richardson, 2004; Pandey 2005; 

Ayoup, et al., 2012). 

6.4Improper Strategy Map Design and the Causal Model Development 

The strategy map which functions as a causal relationship between the perspectives of BSC enables the managers to 

understand how outcome or lagging indicators or (i.e. financial and customer perspectives) are affected by 

performance drivers or leading indicators (process and learning and growth perspective) (Kaplan & Norton, 2004; 

Park, et al., 2017). Kaplan and Norton (2004) also described the strategy map “as a pictorial diagram used by 

managers to explicitly describe their strategy and it cause-and-effect relationship among the four performance 

perspectives”. Kaplan and Norton (2004) stressed that strategy map is one of the critical success factors of BSC 

implementation. Additionally, Othman (2006) outlined that the strategy map helps in supporting effective BSC 

implementation. On the contrary, significant criticism has been leveled against strategy map by both practitioners 

and researchers especially on the basis of its application.  

Strategy map illustrates the causal relationship that links the internal business process and learning and growth as the 

drivers of the desired outcomes in customer and financial perspectives measures. The strategy map is regarded as the 

core and heart of BSC medium of communication, in the sense that any mistake or failure in the development 

process could eventually lead to miscommunication of strategy. Thus, the issues inherent in strategy map 

development includes; how to choose the best objectives from the list of strategy themes, measurability of the 

objectives, alignment of the selected objective with that of upper level division, cause and effect relationship linkage 

of the BSC perspectives, translation of the institutions’ mission, vision and strategy into measures and objectives, 

managers’ level of competency and commitment.   

The strength and central idea of BSC lie in developing a strategic causal model, which according to Davis and 

Albright (2004) about 77% of BSC implementers in the USA recorded failure simply because of improper 

development of the causal model strategy. Although, Othman, (2008) stressed that one of the fundamental problems 

of the causal model strategy of BSC is rooted in the limitations of the strategy map as a tool that represents the 

causal relationship of organization’s strategy. As a solution to the foregoing issue, Othman, (2008), suggested that 

understanding the causal relationship between the performance drivers and the desired outcomes is a prerequisite to 

developing a good strategic causal model. 

The lack of standard rule in BSC implementation process constitutes a major challenge in developing a suitable 

strategy map because according to the originator of the concept, it has to be adopted and modified to reflect the 

peculiarity of the institution or organization concerned (Roest, 1997 and Kaplan & Norton 2004). Similarly, studies 

have indicated that the lack of a specific method to guide organizations in developing a causal model of their 

strategy contribute to BSC pitfalls (Malmi, 2001; Speckbacher, Bischof, & Pfeiffer, 2003; Othman, 2008). 

Although, Kaplan and Norton (1992, 2004, p5) outlined that in order to ensure successful implementation of strategy 

map “every organization” should implement their strategy map such that it will reflect the uniqueness and 

peculiarity of their organization’ mission, vision, and strategy. Note that the failure of this stage of BSC 

implementation process will eventually lead to misalignment of organizational strategy, a breach in communication 

strategy, lack of clear vision, mission and strategy, and ultimately failure of employees/managers buy-in due to 

“missing link between strategy formulation and execution”. Hence, the importance of the strategy map in BSC 

implementation cannot be overemphasized. More so, the improper implementation of the strategy map may render 

the strategic communication value of strategy map futile. Because fundamentally, the strategy map functions as a 

communication tool by which organization communicates their strategic vision and mission to all the managerial 

levels (Ayoup, et al., 2010).  

6.5Lack of Clarity of Vision, Mission, Strategy and Outcome 

Studies by Ahn (2001) indicated that failure in strategy formulation constitutes poor implementation of the strategy. 

Atkinson (2006) findings revealed that due to the issues encountered in BSC implementation, only as low as 30% 

BSC implementers derived its usefulness. Consistent with the findings of Atkinson is the survey result conducted by 

Rigby (2007), which shows that the level of satisfaction derived from BSC implementers is less than average. Beer 

and Eisenstat (2000) also identified that lack of clear strategy, misplaced priorities, and poor communication 

constitutes the issues of strategy implementation failure. 

Several studies have indicated that lack of adequate awareness on the part of the employees to know the need to 

align the organization’s strategy with objective constitutes BSC implementation issues (Langfield-Smith, 2008; 

Chan, Hons, Chan &Okumus 2012; Mithas, Tafti, & Mitchell, 2013; Ayoup, et al., 2015). Also, using the case study 

qualitative approach, the findings of Ayoup et al. (2015) revealed that three vital steps undertaken by the company 

to ensure strategic alignment in their BSC implementation process involves “creating awareness on the need for 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

7 
 

alignment, setting a common understanding of the issue and developing a systematic and formal implementation 

procedure”, hence any deviation from this norm or strategy may constitute an unpleasant performance outcome.  

According to Ayoup (2009), while employing the qualitative case study approach found out that the development of 

corporate mission and vision is essentially the starting point in BSC implementation process and also added that this 

is the stage that serves as “the basis for the top management of the company to develop its strategic company’s 

direction or objectives and goal”. Hence, any error at this level of BSC implementation process will constitute a 

serious implementation issue. In as much as there is lack of understanding of the BSC concept, with regards to the 

best measures applicable to a specific objective, failure is bound to occur regardless of whether the organization in 

question has fully adopted the BSC tools or not (Kaplan & Norton 1992and Moore 2003). 

7. Research Methodology  

This paper aims to discuss previous research that is related to BSC implementation. Thus, this study is replete with 

prior studies on BSC which mainly focuses on BSC implementation issues. Moreover, this study provides an 

extensive literature review search, using the keywords “BSC implementation issues” to search for relevant extant 

articles and conference papers from different online database sources such as google scholar, research gate, emerald 

management plus etc. The articles used in this study are from reputable journal with high impact factor. Also, 

articles on BSC ranging from the inception of the concept (i.e. 1992) to 2018 were used in this study.  

8.Conclusion and Recommendation 

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the issue of performance management in the institution of higher 

learning and specifically regarding the implementation issues of BSC encountered among Malaysia public 

institution of higher learning. Also, the motivation of this study also gained weight since it is in response to the call 

for a future study by Dimitropoulos, et al., 2017).  

Findings indicate that the major reason for the poor performance of BSC implementers especially among the 

Malaysian public institution of higher learning is due to the issues bordering the BSC implementation process. BSC 

implementation issues are so much inter-related such that the failure of one automatically affects the implementation 

process. And these issues include strategy misalignment, strategy communication issues, manager’s 

acceptance/employees buy-in, the issue of clarity of vision, mission, strategy, and outcome, and strategy map 

implementation issues. Hence, this study serves as a basis to guide BSC adopters, especially among the Malaysian 

educational institution. Thus, identification of the issues bordering the BSC implementation process helps to provide 

an institution of higher learning with a more crystal clear view on how to successfully implement BSC devoid of any 

sort of flaws or at worst with minimal pitfalls. In other words, identifying the implementation issues of BSC is 

critical to successfully designing and developing a BSC system, particularly in the institution of higher learning. 

Additionally, the findings of this study indicate that a successful implementation of BSC depends solely in the 

organization’s ability to identify the key issues inherent in the strategy implementation process, which invariably 

provides the organization with a better understanding of the BSC implementation project. 

Moreover, findings show that the implementation issues of the BSC among Malaysia Public institution actually 

helps to unravel the implementation pitfalls of BSC which provides a roadmap showing how the institution of higher 

learning can improve and sustain effective performance management. Essentially, this finding supports the findings 

of Dimitropouloset al.,(2017) even though their study relates to BSC implementation in a “local government sports 

organization”  

The implication of this study lies in both theoretical and practical contribution. This study provides a valuable 

insight into the main key issues of BSC implementation, particularly in the public sector. In other words, this study 

basically provides the means by which the Malaysian public institution of higher learning can identify the issues 

inherent in BSC implementation or strategy implementation and the way forward. Thus, the study sets a roadmap to 

show the implementing a hitch-free BSC that is devoid of the issues bordering the implementation process, hence 

ensures the sustenance of effective performance management 

As a recommendation, understanding these key issues of BSC pitfall will assist in giving valuable insight to 

managers, especially those that are struggling with the BSC implementation process or other related management 

concepts. To achieve a successful BSC implementation requires the proper articulation and implementation of the 

holistic framework of BSC as presented by Kaplan and Norton. Moreover, based on the outcome of this study, as a 

prerequisite to implementing a successful BSC, it is highly recommended that institution of higher learning needs to 

identify the issues bordering its BSC implementation process so as to be able to derive the benefit arising from 

implementing a successful BSC model thereby improving and sustaining its overall performance.  

The major limitation of this study stems from the conceptuality of the research. Thus, future studies should consider 

conducting the empirical study so as to ensure more detail investigations into BSC implementation pitfalls and 

dysfunctions because different types of BSC implementation issues can arise at a different point during the course of 

BSC implementation process, particularly in the NPGOs. 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

8 
 

Acknowledgements 

I want express my sincere heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Hazeline Ayoup for her valuable input and contribution. This 

article would not have been possible without her resourceful supervision and guidance. 

References  

Aaltonen, P., &Ikävalko, H. (2002).Implementing strategies successfully.Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(6), 

415-418. 

Ahn, H. (2001). Applying the balanced scorecard concept: an experience report.Long range planning, 34(4), 441-

461. 

Alexander, L. D. (1985). Successfully implementing strategic decisions.Long range planning, 18(3), 91-97. 

Al-Zwyalif, I. M. (2012). The possibility of implementing balanced scorecard in Jordanian private universities. 

International Business Research, 5(11), 113. 

Anjomshoae, A., Hassan, A., Kunz, N., Wong, K. Y., & de Leeuw, S. (2017). Toward a dynamic balanced scorecard 

model for humanitarian relief organizations’ performance management.Journal of Humanitarian Logistics 

and Supply Chain Management, 7(2), 194-218. 

Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: a role for the balanced scorecard? Management Decision, 44(10), 

1441-1460. 

Ayoup, H. (2009). Observational Assessment of the Balanced Scorecard Strategic Alignment Process: A Study of a 

Utility Company. 

Ayoup, H., Omar, N. H., & Rahman, I. K. A. (2010, December). Strategy maps as a communication tool in 

Balanced Scorecard implementation: Study of a Malaysian utility company. In Science and Social 

Research (CSSR), 2010 International Conference on (pp. 48-52). IEEE. 

Ayoup, H., Omar, N., & Rahman, I. K. A. (2015a).Behavioural Factors Affecting Strategic Alignment Based on the 

Balanced Scorecard Framework: Evidence from A Malaysian Company. 

Ayoup, H., Omar, N., & Rahman, I. K. A. (2016). Balanced scorecard and strategic alignment: A Malaysian case. 

International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(4S). 

Ayoup, H., Omar, N., & Rahman, I. K. A. (2015b). Managing strategic alignment using the balanced scorecard: A 

Malaysian Company’s experience. 

Azizan, H. (2007).Ready for the big leap.The Star Newspaper. 18 November, 

http://thestar.com.my/news/story,asp?file=/2007/11/1/8/education/19484775&sec=education 

Beer, M., &Eisenstat, R. A. (2000).The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning.Sloan management 

review, 41(4), 29. 

Bergeron, F., Raymond, L. &Rivard, S. (2003). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business 

performance.Information & Management, 41, 1003-1020. 

Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., &Rivard, S. (2004). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business 

performance.Information & management, 41(8), 1003-1020. 

Binden, W., Mziu, H., &Suhaimi, M. A. (2014).Employing the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) to Measure Performance 

in Higher Education–Malaysia.International Journal of Information and Communication Technology 

Research, 4(1). 

Braam, G. J., &Nijssen, E. J. (2004). Performance effects of using the balanced scorecard: a note on the Dutch 

experience. Long range planning, 37(4), 335-349. 

Cândido, C. J., & Santos, S. P. (2015). Strategy implementation: What is the failure rate?.Journal of Management & 

Organization, 21(2), 237-262. 

Cano, J. A., Vergara, J. J., &Puerta, F. A. (2017). Design and implementation of a balanced scorecard in a 

colombian company. RevistaEspacios, 38(31). 

Chan, Y. C. L. (2004). Performance Measurement and Adoption of Balanced Scorecards: A Survey of Municipal 

Governments in the USA and Canada, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17, 3: 204-

221.   

Chimtengo, S., Mkandawire, K., &Hanif, R. (2017).An evaluation of performance using the balanced scorecard 

model for the University of Malawi's Polytechnic.African Journal of Business Management, 11(4), 84. 

DaneshAsgari, S., Haeri, A., &Jafari, M. (2017).Integration of Balanced Scorecard and Three-stage Data 

Envelopment Analysis Approaches.Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 10(2), 527-550. 

Davis, S. & Albright, T. (2004). An Investigation of the Effect of Balanced Scorecard Implementation on Financial 

Performance, Management Accounting Research, 15: 135-153. 

Decoene, V., Bruggeman, W. (2006), Strategic alignment and middle-level managers’ motivation in a balanced 

score.International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26(3-4), 429-448. 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

9 
 

DeWaal, A.A. &Coevert, V. (2007). The Effect of Performance Management on the Organizational Results of a 

Bank, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56, 5/6: 397- 416. 

Dimitropoulos, P., Kosmas, I., &Douvis, I. (2017).Implementing the balanced scorecard in a local government sport 

organization: Evidence from Greece.International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 

66(3), 362-379. 

Evans, N. (2005). Assessing the Balanced Scorecard as a Management Tool for Hotels, International Journal of 

Contemporary Hospitality Management Accounting, 17, 5: 376-390. 

Fernandes, K. J., Raja, V., &Whalley, A. (2006).Lessons from implementing the balanced scorecard in a small and 

medium size manufacturing organization.Technovation, 26(5-6), 623-634. 

Ferreira, A. M. S. C. (2017). How managers use the balanced scorecard to support strategy implementation and 

formulation processes. Tékhne-Review of Applied Management Studies, (1), 2-15. 

Gamal, A., &Soemantri, A. I. (2017).The Effect of Balanced Scorecard on the Private College Performance (Case 

Study at the University of WR Supratman Surabaya).Archives of Business Research, 5(5). 

Hladchenko, M. (2015).Balanced Scorecard–a strategic management system of the higher education 

institution.International Journal of Educational Management, 29(2), 167-176.Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & 

Sons Inc. 

Hoque, Z., James, W. (2000), Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: Impact on 

organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12, 1-17. 

Hu, B., Leopold-Wildburger, U., &Strohhecker, J. (2017). Strategy map concepts in a balanced scorecard cockpit 

improve performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 664-676. 

Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Meyer, M. W. (1997).Performance, compensation, and the Balanced 

Scorecard.Unpublished, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1. 

Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Randall, T. (2003a).Performance implications of strategic performance measurement 

in financial services firms.Accounting, organizations and society, 28(7-8), 715-741. 

Ittner, C.D. &Larcker, D.F. (2003b), “Coming up short on non-financial performance Measurement”, Harvard 

Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 11, pp. 88-95. 

Kaplan R.S. & Norton D.P. (1992): The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business 

Review, 70.1: 71-79. 

Kaplan R.S. and Norton D.P. (1996): The Balanced Scorecard. Translating Strategy into Action.Mcgraw-Hill, 

Boston, MA. 

Kaplan R.S. and Norton D.P. (2004): Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. 

Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. 

Kaplan, A. M., &Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social 

Media.Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68. 

Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2001), “Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to 

strategic management: part I”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 87-104. 

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006a). Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies 

(Vol. 1). Boston Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. 

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006b). How to implement a new strategy without disrupting your 

organization.Harvard business review, 84(3), 100. 

Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P., & Barrows, E. A. (2008).Developing the strategy: Vision, value gaps, and 

analysis.Balanced scorecard report, 10(1), 1-5. 

Karpagam, U. P., &Suganthi, L. (2012).A strategy map of balanced scorecard in academic institutions for 

performance improvement.IUP Journal of Business Strategy, 9(3), 7. 

Kathuria, R., Joshi, M. P., &Porth, S. J. (2007). Organizational alignment and performance: past, present and future. 

Management Decision, 45(3), 503-517. 

Keating, M., & Harrington, D. (2003).The challenges of implementing quality in the Irish hotel industry.Journal of 

European Industrial Training, 27(9), 441-453. 

Khomba, J. K., Vermaak, F. N., &Hanif, R. (2012). Relevance of the balanced scorecard model in Africa: 

Shareholder-centred or stakeholder-centred?.African Journal of Business Management, 6(17), 5773. 

Kim, J., Suh, E., & Hwang, H. (2003).A model for evaluating the effectiveness of CRM using the balanced 

scorecard.Journal of interactive Marketing, 17(2), 5-19. 

Kwak, Y. H., &Anbari, F. T. (2006). Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach. Technovation, 26(5-6), 

708-715. 

Lau, C.M. and Sholihin, M. (2005), “Financial and non-financial performance measures: how do they affect job 

satisfaction?”,British Accounting Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 389-413. 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

10 
 

Lee N (2006). Measuring the performance of public sector organisations: A case study on Public Schools in 

Malaysia.Measuring Business Excellence 10(4):50-64. 

MacPhail, A., &Halbert, J. (2005). The implementation of a revised physical education syllabus in Ireland: 

circumstances, rewards and costs. European Physical Education Review, 11(3), 287-308. 

Madsen, D. Ø.,&Stenheim, T. (2014). Perceived problems associated with the implementation of the balanced 

scorecard: evidence from Scandinavia. 

Maiga, A. S., & Jacobs, F. A. (2003). Balanced scorecard, activity based costing and company performance: an 

empirical analysis. Journal of Management Issues, 15(3), 283-301.  

Malina, M. A., &Selto, F. H. (2001). Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of the 

effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of management accounting research, 13(1), 47-90. 

 Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2005).Turning great strategy into great performance.Harvard business 

review, 2607. 

Marr, B., &Schiuma, G. (2003).Business performance measurement – past, present and future.Management 

decision, 41(8), 680–687.doi:10.1108/00251740310496198 

Martello, M., Watson, J. and Fischer, M. (2008), Implementing a Balanced Scorecard in a Not-for-profit 

Organization, Journal of Business and Economics Research, 6(9), pp.67-80. 

Martello, M., Watson, J. G., & Fischer, M. J. (2016).Implementing a balanced scorecard in a not-for-profit 

organization.Journal of Business & Economics Research (Online), 14(3), 61. 

Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who minds the shop while the 

employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874-888. 

McPhail, R., Herington, C., &Guilding, C. (2008).Human resource managers’ perceptions of the applications and 

merit of the balanced scorecard in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(4), 623-631. 

Melnyk, S.A., Calantone, R.J., Luft, J., Stewart, D.M., &Zsidisin, G.A. (2005).An empirical investigation of the 

metrics alignment process.International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(5/6), 

312-324. 

Merchant, K. A. (1987). How and why firms disregard the controllability principle. Accounting and management: 

Field study perspectives, 316-338. 

Mithas, S., Tafti, A., & Mitchell, W. (2013). How a firm’s competitive environment and digital strategic posture 

influence digital business strategy. Mis Quarterly, 37(2), 511-536. 

Modell, S. (2012), The politics of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 8(4), 

475-489. 

Mohamed, M. (2007). Plan to shape varsities of world class. The Star Newspaper, 14 November. 

http://thestar.com.my/news/story .asp?file=/2007/ 11/1 4/nation/ 1 9464095&se 

Moore, M. H. (2003). The Public Value Scorecard: A Rejoinder and an Alternative to Strategic Performance 

Measurement and Management in Non-Profit Organization by Robert Kaplan, Social Science Research 

Network Electronic Paper Collection, Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/ abstract=402880 

Nadler, D.A.,&Tushman, M.L. (1997). Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture.New York: 

Oxford University Press. 

Neely, A., Adams, C., & Crowe, P. (2001).The performance prism in practice.Measuring business excellence, 5(2), 

6-13. 

Niven, P.R. (2008). Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies,organizational 

performance in the hotel sector.Tourism Management 26 (5),690-702.  

Northcott, D. &Taulapapa, T.M. (2012), “Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector 

organizations: issues and challenges”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, 

pp. 166-191. 

Othman, R. (2006). Balanced scorecard and causal model development: preliminary findings. Management 

Decision, 44(5), 690-702. 

Othman, R. (2008). Enhancing the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard with scenario planning.International 

Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(3), 259-266. 

Pandey, I. M. (2005). Balanced scorecard: myth and reality. Vikalpa,30(1), 51-66. 

Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G., &Prastacos, G. P. (2004).Implementing the balanced scorecard in Greece: a 

software firm’s experience.Long Range Planning, 37(4), 351-366. 

Park, S., Lee, H., &Chae, S. W. (2017). Rethinking balanced scorecard (BSC) measures: formative versus reflective 

measurement models. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(1), 92-110. 

Philbin, S. P. (2011). Design and implementation of the Balanced Scorecard at a university institute. Measuring 

Business Excellence, 15(3), 34-45. 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 2; 2018 

11 
 

Pietrzak, M., Paliszkiewicz, J., &Klepacki, B. (2015).The application of the balanced scorecard (BSC) in the higher 

education setting of a Polish university.Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 3(1), 151-164. 

Pongatichat, P., Johnston, R. (2008), Exploring strategy-misaligned performance measurement.International 

Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(3), 207-222.Press, Boston, MA. 

Praptapa, A., &Yahya, M. A. B. The Use of Balance Scorecard for Performance Control: Case of Water Supply 

Company in Indonesia. 

Ramachandran, S., & Foo, H. (2007). Public universities fail outstanding test. New Straits Times, 6. 

Richard, R.Y.Y., Yang, B., Lien, B.Y., McLean, G.N. &Kuo, Y. (2009). Dynamic Capability: Impact of process 

alignment and organizational learning culture on performance. Journal of World Business, 401,1-10. 

Richardson, S. (2004). The key elements of Balanced Scorecard success.Ivey Business Journal, 69(2), 7-9. 

Rigby, D., &Bilodeau, B. (2007).Management tools & trends. Bain & Company.Available at: 

http://www.bain.com/management_tools/home.asp. 

Roest, P. (1997). The golden rules for implementing the balanced business scorecard.Information Management & 

Computer Security, 5(5), 163-165. 

Schaap, J. I. (2012). Strategy implementations-can organizations attain outstanding performance. Strategic 

Management Review, 6(1), 98-121. 

Schneiderman, A. M. (2001). How to Build a Balanced Scorecard, part 3: Selecting Scorecard Metrics. 

Shukri, N. F. M., &Ramli, A. (2015). Organizational structure and performances of responsible Malaysian 

healthcare providers: A balanced scorecard perspective. Procedia Economics and Finance, 28, 202-212. 

Skinner, W. (1969).Manufacturing- Missing Link in Corporate Strategy.Harvard Business Review, May- June, 1-10. 

Slavica, T., Ljubica, K., &Jelena, J. (2017).The modern concept of measuring efficiency-Implementation and 

attitudes of BSC.TEM JOURNAL-TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATICS, 6(3), 

525-533. 

Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J., & Pfeiffer, T. (2003).A descriptive analysis on the implementation of balanced 

scorecards in German-speaking countries.Management accounting research, 14(4), 361-388. 

Sterling, J. (2003). Translating strategy into effective implementation: dispelling the myths and highlighting what 

works. Strategy & Leadership, 31(3), 27-34. 

Taylor, J., & Baines, C. (2012). Performance management in UK universities: implementing the Balanced 

Scorecard. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(2), 111-124. 

Trahant, B. (2008). Six communication secrets of top-performing organizations.Public manager, 37(3), 68. 

Turco, M. (2017). Development Perspective of Balance Scorecard through “multi-dimensional” value measurement. 

GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR), 3(3). 

Umashev, C., & Willett, R. (2008). Challenges to implementing strategic performance measurement systems in 

multi‐objective organizations: the case of a large local government authority. Abacus, 44(4), 377-398. 

Vaidyanathan, S. (2005), Enterprise architecture in the context of organizational strategy.BPTrends, 9, 1-9 

Yu, M. L., Hamid, S., Ijab, M. T., & Soo, H. P. (2009). The e-balanced scorecard (e-BSC) for measuring academic 

staff performance excellence.Higher Education, 57(6), 813-828. 

Zhijun, L. I. N., Y. U. Zengbiao, and Liqun Zhang."Performance outcomes of balanced scorecard application in 

hospital administration in China."China Economic Review 30 (2014): 1-15. 

 

 

 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.  

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) 


