Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:12:52.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring antecedents of experimentation and implementation of the balanced scorecard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Geert Braam  and
Ed Nijssen
Geert Braam
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Ed Nijssen
Affiliation:
Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adoption of management innovations like the balanced scorecard is generally a complex process. Many subdecisions are involved and customization is often required before firms can enjoy the benefits of these innovations. Consequently, firms tend to experiment before finally implementing such complex innovations. We develop a framework differentiating between antecedents of experimentation with and actual implementation of the balanced scorecard, a distinction that has largely been neglected in the literature. Focusing on a small set of firms that experimented with the balanced scorecard, we provide initial empirical evidence. The results support the framework showing that top management involvement, innovation-contingent departments and organizational-context factors play a significant positive role in the experimentation stage, while interdepartmental communication and formalization are important variables with positive and negative influences in the implementation stage. We discuss the findings and their managerial implications.

Keywords

adoptionexperimentationbalanced scorecardmanagement innovations
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 17 , Issue 6: 25th ANZAM Anniversary Edition Remembering 2011: Managing for the Human Spirit , November 2011 , pp. 714 - 728
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahn, H. (2001). Applying the balanced scorecard concept: An experience report. Long Range Planning, 34(4), 441–461.Google Scholar
Assiri, A., Zairi, M., & Eid, R. (2006). How to profit from the balanced scorecard. An implementation roadmap. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 106(7), 937–952.Google Scholar
Baines, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Antecedents of management accounting change: A structural equation approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7-8), 675–698.Google Scholar
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285–309.Google Scholar
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modelling. In Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organization: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17, 215–236.Google Scholar
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1203–1218.Google Scholar
De Geuser, F., Mooraj, S., & Oyon, D. (2009). Does the balanced scorecard add value? Empirical evidence on its effect on performance. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 93–122.Google Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption. A multilevel framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55, 163–176.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top management. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.Google Scholar
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), 1–15.Google Scholar
Ittner, C. D. (2008). Does measuring intangibles for management purposes improve performance? A review of the evidence. Accounting and Business Research, 38(3), 261–272.Google Scholar
Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Randall, T. (2003). Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7-8), 715–741.Google Scholar
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. H. (1993). Market orientation - Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.Google Scholar
Jenkins, M., & Meer, D. (2005). Organic growth, profiting from union of finance and marketing. Financial Executive, 21(8), 39–44.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. S. (2010, 03). Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. Working Paper 10-074, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard - Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70, 71–79.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy focused organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangibles assets into tangible outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). Alignment: Using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Krumwiede, K. R. (1998). The implementations stages of activity-based costing and the impact of contextual and organizational factors. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 239–277.Google Scholar
Lee, C., Chu, P. Y., & Tseng, H. L. (2009). Exploring the relationship between information technology adoption and business process reengineering. Journal of Management & Organization, 15(2), 170–185.Google Scholar
Malmi, T. (2001). Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies: A research note. Management Accounting Research, 12(2), 207–220.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. D., & Goes, J. B. (1988). Organizational assimilation of innovation: A multilevel contextual analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 897–923.Google Scholar
Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39–54.Google Scholar
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1–25.Google Scholar
Modell, S. (2009). Bundling management control in innovations: A field study of organizational experimenting with total quality management and the balanced scorecard. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(1), 59–90.Google Scholar
Naman, J., & Slevin, D. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 137–153.Google Scholar
Olshavsky, R. W., & Spreng, R. A. (1996). An exploratory study of the innovation evaluation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(6), 512–529.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (1981). The power in organizations. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1977). Organizational context and the characteristics and tenure of hospital administrators. Academy of Management, 20(1), 74–88.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S, & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta version). Accessed from http://www.smartpls.deGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Santa, R., Ferrer, M., Bretherton, P., & Hyland, P. (2009). The necessary alignment between technology innovation effectiveness and operational effectiveness. Journal of Management & Organization, 15(2), 155–169.Google Scholar
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), 361–387.Google Scholar
Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 405–431.Google Scholar
Wouters, M. J. F., & Wilderom, C. P. (2008). Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics department. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 488–516.Google Scholar
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar