Appendix CHR Balanced Score CardMetric(Name of Metric)Form.docx

Appendix C
HR Balanced Score Card
Metric**
(Name of Metric)Formula
(Numerator/Denominator)% Met or Exceeded*
HR Routine Metrics
1.
2.
3.
AHROP
HR Strategy Metrics
1.
2.
3.
4.

HR Organizational
Oversight Metrics
1.
2.
3.
*Leave this column blank for future calculations by staff using
this form to report data
**You may add lines as need to each of the 3 categories
Journal of Management Development
The balanced scorecard: a new challenge
Meena Chavan,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Meena Chavan, (2009) "The balanced scorecard: a new
challenge", Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 28 Issue: 5, pp.393-406,
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910955930
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910955930
Downloaded on: 15 June 2018, At: 16:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 23 other
documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 35909 times
since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2004),"Third-generation balanced scorecard: evolution of an
effective strategic control tool", International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53
Iss 7 pp. 611-623 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/17410400410561231">https://doi.org/10.1108/1
7410400410561231</a>
(2012),"The politics of the balanced scorecard", Journal of
Accounting & Organizational
Change, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 475-489 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/18325911211273482">https://
doi.org/10.1108/18325911211273482</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald
subscription provided by emerald-srm:552352 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald
publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to
the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350
books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The
organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and
the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de
n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A

t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910955930
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910955930
The balanced scorecard:
a new challenge
Meena Chavan
Business Department, Division of Economic and Financial
Studies,
Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia
Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on one strategy
known as “The Balanced Scorecard”,
discussing the growing importance of balanced scorecard
performance systems, exploring issues that
organizations face in building and implementing scorecard
systems, and sharing lessons learned from
Australian organizations that have taken the balanced scorecard
journey.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach taken is the case
study methodology to depict the
real world examples of organisations that have confidence in the
“Balanced scorecard performance
system“ so that other organisations can follow suit.
Findings – The paper concludes that the balanced scorecard
approach may require some substantial
changes in culture within the organization.. The balanced
scorecard requires understanding,
commitment and support from the very top of the business
down. The balanced scorecard will evolve.
As culture changes and develops to accept the new approach and
members of the organisation mature
within the new culture, the organisation will find new things to
measure, new goals in different areas,
to make the balanced scorecard even more balanced and
effective in supporting a living, growing,
viable organisation. Different organisations have quite different
needs, market areas, people, products
and services, and will end up with significantly different
balanced scorecards.
Research limitations/implications – The outcomes were based
on two multinational corporations
and may differ with small and medium enterprises.

Practical implications – The balanced scorecard is balanced in
another dimension – not just a
balance of measures of essential areas of the business, but also
a balance of goals versus
accountability. If people do not accept accountability for
achievement of the balanced measures and
goals of the balanced scorecard, there is no balanced scorecard.
The people of the organisation are the
key to the success of the balanced scorecard system.
Originality/value – The paper specifically looks at the
implementation of the “Balanced Score Card
Performance Management System” in Australian corporations.
Keywords Balanced scorecard, Performance management
systems, Human capital, Customers,
Organizational culture, Australia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
As we embark on the twenty-first century, managers are
challenged by sweeping
changes in the global arena. Add to these transitions – sweeping
economic
fluctuations in an economically interdependent world, and the
burgeoning use of
computers, and a dynamic global business environment
emerges. Skilled managers
face a complex business environment, full of opportunities but
pitted with risks, in
which they can make effective business decisions, improve
interpersonal relations and
meet societal obligations with the right strategy.
This paper focuses on one such strategy known as “The

Balanced Scorecard”. This
paper discusses how to develop a balanced scorecard
performance system and explores
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
The balanced
scorecard
393
Received 3 January 2005
Revised 24 February 2007
Accepted 29 November 2007
Journal of Management Development
Vol. 28 No. 5, 2009
pp. 393-406
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/02621710910955930
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d

by
W
al
de
n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P

T
)
issues that organizations face in building and implementing
scorecard systems, and
shares lessons learned from Australian organizations that have
taken the balanced
scorecard journey.
This approach to strategic evaluation was developed by Kaplan
and Norton in the
early 1990s, it is claimed that the scorecard with four
perspectives- financial,
customers, internal business processes, and innovation, learning
and growth provides
an excellent balanced solution for facing these challenges. The
concept of the balanced
scorecard enables organizations to achieve an integrated and
aligned balanced focus
between these four perspectives, which collectively underpin
the achievement of the
organization’s vision.
The process by which a firm’s managers evaluate the future
prospects of the firm
and decides on appropriate strategies to achieve long- term
objectives is called
strategic planning. Strategic planning is often tempered or
changed at some point by a
more incremental, sometimes messy, process of strategic
decision making by some
managers. “When a new CEO is hired, for example he or she
will often call for a radical

change in strategy. That is why new leaders are very carefully
chosen on the basis of
what they are expected to do. So while this paper discusses the
rational strategic
planning process here, because it is the ideal, inclusive method
of determining
long-term plans, we need to remember that, throughout, there
are people making
decisions, and their own personal judgment, experiences and
motivations will shape
the ultimate strategic directions” (Gautreau and Kleiner, 2001).
This paper puts forward a balanced scorecard approach to
strategic management
via Australian case studies. There are various important key
success factors to look at
whilst developing a balanced scorecard but the one most
important aspect not to be
forgotten are the people in the organization.
In an environment dominated by innovation, social
responsibility and constant
change it is argued that recruitment and retention of high
quality employees must be
the primary focuses of any business that wishes to succeed in
the 21st century. Can the
Balanced Scorecard approach work here?
Literature review
Several years ago, the Balanced Scorecard was introduced by
Kaplan and Norton. At
the time, we thought the Balanced Scorecard was about
measurement, not about
strategy. We began with the premise that an exclusive reliance
on financial measures
in a management system was causing organizations to do the

wrong things. Financial
measures are lag indicators; they report on outcomes, the
consequences of past actions.
Exclusive reliance on financial indicators promoted short-term
behaviour that
sacrificed long-term value creation for short-term performance.
The Balanced
Scorecard approach retained measures of financial performance,
the lagging
indicators, but supplemented them with measures on the drivers,
the lead indicators,
of future financial performance (Brown, 2000).
But what were the appropriate measures of future performance?
If financial
measures were causing organizations to do the wrong things,
what measures would
prompt them to do the right things? The answer turned out to be
obvious: Measure the
strategy! Thus all of the objectives and measures on a Balanced
Scorecard – financial
and nonfinancial – should be derived from the organization’s
vision and strategy.
JMD
28,5
394
D
ow
nl
oa
de

d
by
W
al
de
n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(

P
T
)
Although we may not have appreciated the implications at the
time, the Balanced
Scorecard soon became a tool for managing strategy – a tool for
dealing with the 90
percent failure rate (Kaplan and Norton, 2001b).
The concept of the balanced scorecard (BSC) was first
presented in the early 1990s.
By 2000 some surveys indicated that a majority of firms in the
United States, and
Scandinavia used scorecards – or at least intended to do so
soon. Others, like Bain’s
management tools survey, indicated a slight drop in usage to 36
per cent, but with a
high average satisfaction with the tool. The number of software
packages for scorecard
on the market was growing and exceeds 100 today. In only ten
years, the idea of the
balanced scorecard has certainly made its mark. (Gadenne,
2000)
What is the balanced scorecard?
Robert Kaplan and David Norton from Harvard Business School
first presented the
“Balanced Score Card” in an article “The Balanced Scorecard –
Measures that Drive
Performance”, Harvard Business Review, January/February
1992.

There is nothing new or original about the notion of combining
a number of
measures in a compact description of an operation. Traditional
methods of measuring
performance focussed on financial indicators.
Even within the profit sector, financial statements cannot
properly capture the kind
of measurements that companies need today. High quality
services, intellectual capital,
skilled employees, prompt and reliable services, responsiveness
efficient and adaptable
business processes are all intangible assets which are important
but their presence or
absence does not show up on a balance sheet and does not alert
employees, customers,
shareholders and the community to the real worth of an
company or enterprise. The
Balanced scorecard emphasizes that financial and nonfinancial
measures are all part of
a system that gives information to every part of the organisation
(Brewer and Speh,
2000).
They are part of a top down driven process, driven by the
mission and strategy of
the “Business Unit”. The measures are a balance between
external measures for
customers and shareholders and internal measures of business
processes, innovation
and learning and growth. A balance must also be struck between
measures of past
performance and measures that drive future performance. It is
possible to use the
balanced scorecard as a strategic management system to manage
strategy over the

long run (Poll, 2001).
The process of balanced scorecard in a nutshell
. Clarify and translate vision into strategy.
. Communicate and link strategic objectives and measures.
. Plan, set targets and align strategic initiatives.
. Enhance strategic feedback and learning.
Traditionally, organisations measured their performance on
short-term financial
measures; however the balanced scorecard approach extends
this to including
measures of performance relating to customer, internal
processes and learning and
growth needs of their people (Latshaw and Choi, 2002).
The balanced
scorecard
395
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de

n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)
This broader focus brings in a longer term, strategic dimension

to the business, by
not only looking at the short-term financial performance, but
also how the organisation
is going about delivering the results, and checking on the
overall “strategic health” of
the organisation. By also focusing on these non-financial
dimensions, the organisation
can assess its performance in building key capabilities, required
in terms of its strategy
to survive and prosper into the future. This is particularly
relevant to companies
seeking longer-term superior returns, embarking on new
strategies or under
competitive threat, where the lack of these organisational
capabilities will threaten
the organisation’s longer-term sustainability (Hagood and
Friedman, 2002).
At the highest level within an organisation the strategy will
define the specific
performance measures and standards required in each of these
non-financial areas.
This process requires the leadership to define in very specific
terms the “definition of
success” in each of these non-financial areas, together with
their relative importance
weightings, to enable employees to embrace these requirements
in their day to day
activities. Once this is completed for the organisation as a unit,
these measures are
transferred to individuals throughout the organisation, by
creating individual
“Balanced Scorecards”:
A key part of the Balance Scorecard approach is the feedback
and learning step, where an

organisation is able to quantify where it is on its strategic
capability building journey, in the
context of its current performance, and possible changing
business environment. This
information should enable the leadership to determine whether
the organisation is on track,
and what, if any, interventions/changes need to be made. If
changes are required, these could
be in the definition of the destination, the pace of the journey,
or the redesign of the initiatives
designed to build the capability.
This information and the subsequent decision to change
something is critical to the
strategic learning process, which should continuously modify
strategies to reflect this
“real time learning” (Johnsen, 2001).
The Balanced Scorecard approach extends into linking employee
rewards to
performance in all four areas, with suitable weightings applied
reflecting the relative
importance of each area. In some instances companies see the
non-financial measures
of such importance that a “threshold” level of performance is
set for each of the
non-financials. Only if an individual exceeds these threshold
levels, can they qualify for
performance related rewards linked to the financial performance
results. This
approach clearly indicates to employees the level of importance
the organisation places
on future capability building and strategic issues, while at the
same time recognising
shorter-term financial performance (Gadenne, 2000).

A Balanced Scorecard is a format for describing the activities of
an organization
through a number of measures for each of the four perspectives.
A simplified balanced
scorecard may resemble Figure 1. Business activity is described
from four different
perspectives, using a small number of measures for each. The
description may refer to
the business’s current performance or to its goals for the next
period (Brown and
McDonnell, 1995).
Some would say that this is just another performance report,
combining financial
and non-financial metrics. But there is more to the scorecard
than immediately meets
the eye. The scorecard is made up of the following four
perspectives:
JMD
28,5
396
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W

al
de
n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)

(1) Financial perspective: to succeed financially how should we
appear to our shareholders?
Measures:
. return on capital;
. improved shareholder value; and
. asset utililization.
(2) Customer perspective: to achieve our vision how should we
appear to our customers?
Measures:
. product/service attributes;
. customer relationships; and
. image and reputation.
(3) Internal business processes: to satisfy our shareholders and
customers, at what
business processes must we excel?
Measures:
. develop products and services;
. deliver products and services; and
. “post-sales” services.
(4) Learning and growth perspective: to achieve our vision, how
will we sustain our
ability to change and improve?

Measures:
. employee capabilities;
. information system capabilities;
. motivation; and
. empowerment and alignment.
Figure 1.
Basic design of a balanced
scorecard performance
system
The balanced
scorecard
397
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de

n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/
02621710910955930&iName=master.img-
001.jpg&w=332&h=185

The purpose of the balanced scorecard is to guide, control and
challenge an entire
organisation towards realising a shared conception of the future.
Within the
perspectives the vision is expressed as a number of more
specific objectives. Measures
and targets are set and the organization then puts in place action
plans to meet the set
targets. Will strategic planning and the balanced scorecard bring
our customers true
happiness? (Waal, 2003).
The scorecard is balanced: the four perspectives aim for a
complete description of
what you need to know about the business. First, there is a time
dimension going from
bottom to top. Current profitability, etc. may largely be a
consequence of what was
done last quarter or last year; if new skills are added now it
should have consequences
for next year’s efficiency and finance.
The scorecard is also balanced in another way: it shows both
internal and external
aspects of the business. It is obvious that a “well-oiled
machinery” of internal processes
is important in any business, and may not always correlate with
external perceptions.
On the other hand, customers’ views and the contacts that have
been established in the
market-place are obviously important too. The scorecard shows
both (Arora, 2002).
Finally, the scorecard is linked through cause-and-effect

assumptions. Among its
most important uses is to reflect on how strong these linkages
are, what time delays
they involve, and how certain we can be about them in the face
of external competition
and change. The balanced scorecard contains a diverse set of
performance measures,
spanning financial performance, customer relations, internal
business processes, and
the organization’s learning and growth activities (Kaplan and
Norton, 1992). This large
set of measures is designed to capture the firms’ desired
business strategy and to
include drivers of performance in all areas importance to the
firm (Kaplan and Norton,
1993, 1996a, 1996b). Use of the balanced scorecard should
improve managerial decision
making by aligning performance measures with the goals and
strategies of the firm
and the firm’s business units (Lipe and Salterio, 2000).
The balanced scorecard is relatively costly to develop so the net
benefits gained in
adopting the balanced scorecard depends on the extent to which
it improves managers’
decisions. In this study, we explore how managers’ cognitive
limitations may prevent
an organization from fully benefiting from the Balanced
Scorecards information. We
examine observable characteristics of the balanced scorecard
(i.e. measures common to
multiple units v. measures unique to particular units) that may
limit managers’ ability
to fully exploit the information found in a diverse set of
performance measures.

Each business unit in the organization develops its own
balanced scorecard
measures to reflect its goals and strategy. While some of these
measures are likely to be
common across all subsidiaries or units, other measures will be
unique to each
business unit (Kaplan and Norton, 2001a). Judgment and
decision-making research
suggests that decision makers faced with both common and
unique measures may
place more weight on common measures than unique measures.
Therefore, managers
evaluating multiple subordinated units (i.e. superior managers)
may under use or even
ignore the unique measures designed for each unit. Judgmental
difficulties in using
unique measures may be compounded when the manager who
carries out a unit’s
performance evaluation does not actively participate in
developing that unit’s
scorecard and, consequently, may not appreciate the
significance of the unique
measures. Under use of unique measures reduces the potential
benefits of the balanced
JMD
28,5
398
D
ow
nl
oa

de
d
by
W
al
de
n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18

(
P
T
)
scorecard because the unique measures are important in
capturing the unit’s business
strategy (Appelbaum and Reichart, 1998).
Case 1: The Big W case – “Live Big for Less”
Faced with plans for significant business growth, Big W
developed an HR strategy to
help realise the company’s vision.
Big W (n.d.) is the discount department store division of
Woolworths. Once
Woolworths’ main poor performer, Big W was rated by
Business Review Weekly
(4 August 1997) as a remarkable success story. In the past ten
years its annual sales
have risen from $530 million to $1.8 billion – moving from a
loss of $47 million to a
profit of $60 million. In the six months to 11 January 1998 it
posted a record Earnings
before Interest and Taxes (EBIT) to Sales margin of 5.13 per
cent.
Paralleling the growth in turnover and profitability has been the
growth in the
number of stores and staff. In 1993, Big W operated 58 stores
but the last five years
have seen a 41 per cent increase to 85 stores. Staffing levels at
the end of March 1998

are approximately 19,500 with the majority (12,000-13,000)
being front line staff. Big W
plans to have a number of additional stores opened which will
give it the critical mass
to optimise returns to shareholders without the need for
investment in additional
infrastructure.
The business imperative
According to Big W’s executive management, the company’s
growth has been driven
by a simple proposition – it will not be beaten on price. Big W
believes that the
integrity of its brand has been, and will continue to be, built on
its “everyday low
prices” position and that this will play a key part in the future
success of the business.
The vision for Big W is firmly grounded in the strategic
positioning of the business.
The vision is simply: “We Sell for Less”.
Faced with plans for significant business growth, Big W’s HR
Executives needed to
develop a Human Resource Strategy that would align with the
business direction.
In 1995 the HR implications for growth were seen to be the
need to recruit more
external people; to promote existing staff faster than would
have been planned; and to
create an environment where all staff could grow with the
organisation.
Above all, Big W management needed an assurance that all staff
– whether newly

recruited, or existing would be able to actively contribute to the
achievement of the Big
W vision. This gave rise to a question, “how can people make
sense of what they do, or
what they are expected to do, in terms of the organisation’s
vision?”
To answer this question Big W needed to have in place a
performance management
system which would be both valid and reliable and which would
be able to measure
performance that could ultimately be tested against the
organisation’s vision. Big W
recognised that it needed to translate the vision systematically
and methodically into
terms that would be meaningful to all staff. The company
determined to develop
competencies (which could be appraised) that would be
intelligible in a hierarchy
starting with the vision, then mission then the values to which
the organisation
aspired.
As one Big W human resource executive put it: “People can
understand that if I
learn these competencies, I can carry out these actions. If I
carry out these actions I can
The balanced
scorecard
399
D
ow

nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de
n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e

20
18
(
P
T
)
achieve these tasks. If I achieve these tasks I meet the
objectives of the job. If I meet the
objectives of the job I meet the values of the organisation which
assist the achievement
of the mission and vision.”
Big W also recognised that such an exercise would require
significant investment in
terms of management effort and decided to target a key group –
their 70 store
managers.
The company chose to integrate new technology into its plans,
installing, an
integrated performance management technology that captures
information relating to
key performance indicators, competency identification, position
profiling, recruitment,
quantitative multi-source assessment, training and development
and, succession
planning.
This provided Big W with a tool to help in (amongst other
things) introducing an
appraisal system for store managers.

The first task was to identify the competencies required for the
store manager
position. Initially, planning was conducted with other
Woolworths HR personnel to
ensure that there would be some consistency within the broader
context of
Woolworths’ operations.
Six core competencies were developed in consultation with
managers and other
senior staff who had responsibility for or involvement in, store
operations. These were:
inventory productivity, loss prevention, management leadership,
merchandising,
people management, and store operations.
Subordinate competencies were also developed for each core
competency and these
were recorded on the database of the newly installed integrated
performance
management technology.
Each core competency was related to one or more of Big W’s
Values which had been
agreed as: “Pride in our people”; “Exceeding customer
expectations”; “Everyday low
prices”; and “Return on investment”.
The values had, in turn, been derived from Big W’s Mission,
which was given as:
. to provide our customers with the best quality merchandise at
the best possible
prices every day;
. to provide our shareholders with a fair and growing return on

investment; and
. to provide our Big W team with a happy and safe working
environment.
For Big W, the principal early benefit provided by the system
was that it satisfied a
key element of Big W’s business framework – it allowed the
definition of competencies
which “live” the values. Big W also appreciated that the
integrated system was
inherently flexible and could grow and change as Big W itself
grew and changed.
Once competencies had been defined, Big W had the basis on
which to appraise the
performance of existing store managers. Initially, this was
carried out conventionally
by an up-line assessment. But progressively the concept of 360
degree assessment was
introduced. Big W said that the biggest step it had to take was
to acknowledge that the
people who would give managers the best information about
their performance were
the people who worked nearest to the managers.
Big W introduced a variant to 360 degree feedback and did not
include a peer review
because store managers operated in isolation of other managers
often under different
JMD
28,5
400
D

ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de
n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un

e
20
18
(
P
T
)
market and socio-economic conditions. Feedback was obtained
from supervisors,
buyers and subordinate staff.
Initially, the 360 degree feedback was provided for information
only because Big W
acknowledged that the process could be perceived as threatening
and could founder if
it was introduced too quickly. Over time, the feedback was
incorporated into the
regular performance review cycle with ownership of the
outcomes being accepted by
both the manager being reported on as well as the manager’s
immediate supervisor.
Defining competencies
The work completed on store manager competencies quickly
saw the system also
being used in three other HR processes – recruitment, training
and succession
planning.
Big W found that the identification of internally validated

competencies ensured
that prospective new employees could be selected with more
certainty that their skills
and knowledge would better match the organisation’s values.
Big W also found that
reference checking was more precise because areas of both
strength and weakness, as
revealed by applicants’ self-rating their level of competence,
could be verified far more
precisely.
When it came to training, Big W found that its investment could
be targeted to
obtain the best return by focusing on competency gaps. The
company now has a twin
training focus – training in the competencies and training to
reflect its values.
Big W has found that planning for succession can now be
carried out consistently
within the organisation. A by-product of the assessment process
is the production of a
development plan for each manager, including the development
of competencies which
will position employees for new or different responsibilities.
The company recognises
that for succession planning, “up is not the only way”. Through
the assessment process
employees have been given opportunities to extend their
experience in areas other than
that in which they are presently employed.
Big W has not only built competencies into each step of its
performance
management system but has now incorporated competencies in
all position

descriptions for store managers and buyers.
The company was committed to ensuring that, in a period of
significant growth, its
core values would be retained and reinforced. It set about
systematically documenting
the competencies for one of its key employment categories and
integrating these
competencies throughout its main HR processes.
Has the balanced scorecard worked for Big W? It sure has as
can be seen in the
current changes. In 2006, Woolworths along with Big W rolled
out new Retalix point of
sale systems running on IBM POS hardware with LCD touch
screens throughout all its
stores.
In October 2007, Woolworths announced a $1 billion makeover
of Big W, including
a new store format, logo and slogan. The first store with the
new format is located in
the Rouse Hill Town Centre in New South Wales, which first
opened on March 6, 2008.
The new logo started appearing in advertisements, store
dockets, and a redesigned Big
W web site on October 24, 2007. The former tagline “We sell
for less” was replaced with
“Live big for less”.
The balanced
scorecard
401
D

e
20
18
(
P
T
)
Currently, Big W has over 140 stores with 25,000 employees
and is growing rapidly
plans to revamp more than half its stores and develop new
stores. In 2009 the
development of the Hallett Cove, South Australia Big W,
spanning 35,000 sq.m will be
completed as part of the Hallett Cove Mall renovation. Another
store is planned for
opening in 2011 as part of the Castle Towers redevelopment,
which is awaiting
approval.
Case 2: Standards Australia – managing performance into the
twenty-first
century
Standards Australia is a not-for-profit organization that employs
in excess of 600
people and is Australia’s leading standards and technical
information provider.
Standards Australia have also pioneered the move to
internationally aligned Standards
and related services and is the Australian representative on the
two major international

Standardizing bodies, the International Standards
Organization(ISO) and the
International Electro-technical Commission (IEC). It also
coordinates the attendance
of Australian experts at international meetings.
Change management imperative
Since Standards Australia was founded 75 years ago the role of
management in
Australia has undergone considerable change. Mike Conway,
Director of Corporate
Development and Strategy, recently headed up a change
management team
responsible for preparing management and staff to provide
internal higher quality
standards at lower production costs.
To prepare the way the Standards Change Team took an “X-ray”
of the organization
that subsequently pinpointed areas for attention.
The investigation focused on:
. objectives of the individual business units with the overall key
result areas of the
organization;
. standards and priority of departmental activities;
. skills of the individual with the objectives of the business;
. improving key processes;
. organizational efforts on the change initiative;
. the priority process for improvement;
. success of actions taken;
. generate a rigorous single minded focus with the organization
that would result
in a continuous improvement routine;

. organization had to seek the mantle of leadership so as to meet
the performance
expectations of the wider community; and
. improvement would only occur with an integrated approach.
Integrated technology
The ultimate success of the change strategy greatly depended on
how the change was
to be introduced and implemented rather than the merit of the
strategy itself. In order
to harness the complete potential of the Standards Australia
workforce and to ensure
JMD
28,5
402
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de
n
U

ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)
integration, ownership, and empowerment were the results of
their initiatives, a fully
integrated performance management technology, (from

Integrated Performance
Strategies) was implemented.
This allowed management to set goals for the individual, team
and the whole
organization, build performance criteria, assess competencies,
identify strengths and
weaknesses and provide feedback. Barriers and information
gaps that stood between
the individual business managers, the team and the organization
were identified. This
approach efficiently linked individual business outputs to
competencies on an
integrated HR platform that changed the way people thought
about their role at
Standards Australia.
Management involvement and endorsement
Mike Conway, General Manager, Standards Australia, says,
“The true opportunity for
Standards Australia was to get every manager and team member
to do ordinary things
in an extraordinary way whilst maintaining mutual
understanding and acceptance for
the need for change and the direction of change”. Mike Conway
also says, “Without the
full personal support and endorsement of the senior executive
team, the transition to a
true performance empowerment culture, would not have been
possible.”
The preparatory work identified the jobs that had high value in
relation to
Standards’ strategies and structure. By reviewing the business
plans, interviewing
management and staff and creating an organisational directory

of relevant position
profiles that incorporated Key Result Areas, Competencies and
Performance Criteria,
the management team has been able to introduce and
continuously monitor a process
of superior performance.
Matching people and jobs
One of the first steps in developing position profiles has been to
identify the criteria or
measures that define superior or effective performance on the
job. These have, in the
main been developed as “hard” outcome measures such as sales
and profit data for line
managers. In addition ratings by management and staff have
also been sought so as to
identify effective performance.
The hard criteria and ratings gathered have been invaluable in
identifying good
performance. The framework established has enabled Standards
Australia to create
future job profiles linked to the strategic plan and recruit to
those profiles. Selection is
the process of matching people and jobs, either people outside
the organisation
(recruiting and new hire selection) or inside (placement and
promotion). The better the
fit between the requirements of a job and competencies of the
jobholder, the higher
performance and job satisfaction achieved.
Outcomes
The outcomes for Standards Australia from the project have
been as follows:

. They are now able to provide leadership and a context for
employees to
determine improvement initiatives that align organizational
effort to key
outcomes.
. They are now able to identify and take responsibility for their
own performance
issues whilst being linked to the key strategies of their own
workgroup and team.
The balanced
scorecard
403
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de
n
U
ni
ve

rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)
. They are now able to monitor employee progress against
defined competencies
at regular intervals with a view to assist low performers and
design career plans
for high performers.

. The appointment of external candidates is now based on more
accurate position
profiles and performance criteria. Comparing internal
successors with
incumbents on a best to least fit basis can be done effectively
and audited.
. Workgroups and teams have now achieved ownership of and
commitment to
using key result areas linked to competencies and performance
criteria that
achieve significant performance improvement both to internal
people and
external clients.
Ongoing ownership
The technology has played an important role in achieving the
end result and continues
to provide an integrated approach to the implementation of
change in a way all
stakeholders develop ownership in the performance process.
A cooperative partnership has been established that allows
management to provide
leadership or the need for change and the direction for that
change on an ongoing basis.
A final word from Mike Conway, “Integration and ownership
are generated by the
ongoing interactions between leadership and empowerment.
This has been achieved in
Standards Australia by creating and maintaining an
organizational culture where
significant authority and decision making is shared with
employees.”

Conclusion
Based on business principles and corporate objectives, the
balanced scorecard is
tailored for each part of the organisation to allow each to
contribute in a holistic way to
the corporate objectives. Downward alignment of vision and
direction allows each
business unit to tailor its own objectives to contribute
effectively to the company’s
objectives. Business unit scorecards turn further into
individuals’ personal scorecards,
which become the subject of regular dialogues (known in
another dialect as
“performance appraisals”.
The process of creating the balanced scorecard is a fairly
involved process which
requires a lot of understanding and commitment, and for some
business unit leaders, a
lot of facilitation (help). The business unit also has to focus on
those aspects of
corporate objectives to which it can realistically contribute.
Translating the corporate scorecard into a business unit
scorecard, and indeed a
personal scorecard, requires one to “think customer”. Ask –
“what are the customers’
expectations?”
When considering external customers, one has to think of the
customers’
expectations as well as corporate expectations with respect to
those customers.
How do you find out what the customers’ expectations are? Ask
them!

The Balanced Scorecard is balanced in another dimension – not
just a balance of
measures of essential areas of the business, but also a balance
of goals versus
accountability. If people do not accept accountability for
achievement of the balanced
measures and goals of the balanced scorecard, there is no
balanced scorecard.
JMD
28,5
404
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de
n
U
ni
ve

rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)
The balanced scorecard approach may require some substantial
changes in culture
within the business. The balanced scorecard requires
understanding, commitment and
support from the very top of the business down.
The balanced scorecard will evolve. As culture changes and

develops to accept the
new approach and members of the organisation mature within
the new culture, the
organisation will find new things to measure, new goals in
different areas, to make the
balanced scorecard even more balanced and effective in
supporting a living, growing,
viable organisation.
Different organisations have quite different needs, market areas,
people, products
and services, and will end up with significantly different
balanced scorecards than
Siemens or Big W above if they are successful in implementing
such a scorecard.
Business models are often made to appear easy to adopt,
probably with the aim of
selling them to a company. The balanced scorecard model
described
Here seems to be hard to implement. It seems to take a lot of
work and effort and
time to achieve a result that, and constantly evolving, will help
the business grow.
We can conclude that if we want to use a balanced scorecard or
any other business
model we have to be prepared for some difficult learning,
substantial culture change,
and a lot of hard work, especially for those who champion such
a change.
References
Appelbaum, R.H. and Reichart, W. (1998), “How to measure an

organization’s learning ability:
the facilitating factors, Part One”, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 9 No. 7.
Arora, R. (2002), “Implementing KM – a balanced score card
approach”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 240-9.
Big W (n.d.), Big W – The Australian Store, available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_W
(accessed 17 August 2008).
Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.W. (2000), “Using the balanced
scorecard to measure supply chain
performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp.
75-93.
Brown, M.G. (2000), Winning Score: How to Design and
Implement Organizational Score Cards,
Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Brown, P.C. and McDonnell, B. (1995), “The balanced
scorecard: short-term guest or long-term
resident?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 7-11.
Gadenne, D. (2000), ““Brave new world: how can business meet
new challenges in the
21st century?”, inaugural professorial lecture, 6 September,
Central Queensland
University, Rockingham.
Gautreau, A. and Kleiner, B.H. (2001), “Recent trends in
performance measurement systems –
the balanced scorecard approach”, Management Research News,

Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 153-6.
Hagood, W.O. and Friedman, L. (2002), “Using the balanced
scorecard to measure the
performance of your HR information system”, Public Personnel
Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 543-57.
Johnsen, A. (2001), “Balanced scorecard: theoretical
perspectives and public management
implications”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp.
319-30.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard –
measures that drive performance”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-9.
The balanced
scorecard
405
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de

n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108
%2F02621710910955930&system=10.1108%2F1367327021043

4340&citationId=p_2
%2F02621710910955930&system=10.1108%2F1367327021043
4340&citationId=p_2
%2F02621710910955930&crossref=10.1177%2F0091026002031
00410&citationId=p_9
%2F02621710910955930&system=10.1108%2F0959611951014
6751&citationId=p_6
%2F02621710910955930&system=10.1108%2F0268690011039
%2F02621710910955930&system=10.1108%2F0140917011078
2793&citationId=p_8
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), “Putting the balanced
scorecard to work”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 134-47.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), “Using the balanced
scorecard as a strategic management
system”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 75-85.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), “Linking the balanced
scorecard to strategy”, California
Management Review, Vol. 39, pp. 53-79.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001a), The Strategy-Focused
Organization: How Balanced
Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment,
Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001b), “Transforming the
balanced scorecard from performance
measurement to strategic management: Part 1”, Accounting
Horizons, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 87-104.
Latshaw, C.A. and Choi, Y. (2002), “The balanced scorecard
and the accountant as a valued
strategic partner”, Review of Business, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 27-9.
Lipe, M.G. and Salterio, S.E. (2000), “The balanced scorecard:
judgmental effects of common and
unique performance measures”, The Accounting Review, Vol.
75 No. 3, pp. 283-6.
Poll, R. (2001), “Performance, processes and costs: managing
service quality with the balanced
scorecard”, Library Trends, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 709-17.
Waal, A.A. (2003), “The future of the balanced scorecard: an
interview with Professor Dr Robert
S. Kaplan”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp.
30-5.
Further reading
(The) Balanced Score Card in Australia (2006), The Balanced
Score Card in Australia, September,
available at: www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-
3F57FECB-FD44C9BF/cpa/
20061030_BSC.pdf (accessed 17 August 2008).
Dapo Consulting (n.d.), Dapo Consulting, available at:
www.balancedscorecard.com.au/
mi_studies.html (accessed 10 January 2004).

Sim, K.L. and Koh, H.C. (2001), “Balanced scorecard: a rising
trend in strategic performance
measurement”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 18-26.
Corresponding author
Meena Chavan can be contacted at: [email protected]
JMD
28,5
406
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de
n
U
ni

ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16
:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)
%2F02621710910955930&crossref=10.2308%2Faccr.2000.75.3.
283&citationId=p_18
%2F02621710910955930&system=10.1108%2F1368304011039

%2F02621710910955930&system=10.1108%2F1368304031046
%2F02621710910955930&crossref=10.2307%2F41165876&cita
tionId=p_14
%2F02621710910955930&crossref=10.2307%2F41165876&cita
tionId=p_14
%2F02621710910955930&crossref=10.2308%2Facch.2001.15.1.
87&citationId=p_16
This article has been cited by:
1. HamidNurdjannah, Nurdjannah Hamid. 2018. Use balanced
scorecard for measuring competitive
advantage of infrastructure assets of state-owned ports in
Indonesia. Journal of Management Development
37:2, 114-126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. RedaNigusse W., Nigusse W. Reda. 2017. Balanced scorecard
in higher education institutions. Quality
Assurance in Education 25:4, 489-499. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
3. KumarRavinder, Ravinder Kumar, Kumar SinghRajesh,
Rajesh Kumar Singh. 2017. Coordination and
responsiveness issues in SME supply chains: a review.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 24:3,
635-650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Hourneaux JrFlavio, Flavio Hourneaux Jr, Carneiro-da-
CunhaJulio Araujo, Julio Araujo Carneiro-da-
Cunha, CorrêaHamilton Luiz, Hamilton Luiz Corrêa. 2017.
Performance measurement and management

systems. Managerial Auditing Journal 32:2, 148-166. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
5. Mohammed Mesabbah, Amr Arisha. 2016. Performance
management of the public healthcare services in
Ireland: a review. International Journal of Health Care Quality
Assurance 29:2, 209-235. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
6. Jaakko Nuutila, Sirpa Kurppa. 2016. The Finnish organic
food chain—an activity theory approach.
Organic Agriculture 6:1, 49-56. [Crossref]
7. Theognosia Tellidou, Chris Grose, Persefoni Polychronidou,
Theodore Kargidis, Stergios Anatolitis.
2016. Corporate Governance for A.S.E. Listed Firms. Scientific
Annals of Economics and Business 63:1. .
[Crossref]
8. James Kamwachale Khomba. 2015. Conceptualisation of the
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) model.
International Journal of Commerce and Management 25:4, 424-
441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Heather Nachtmann, Terry Collins, Justin R. Chimka,
Jingjing Tong. 2015. Development of a balanced
scorecard for flight line maintenance activities. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering 21:4,
10. Antônio André Cunha Callado, Lisa Jack. 2015. Balanced
scorecard metrics and specific supply chain
roles. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 64:2, 288-300. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]

11. Fawzy Soliman. Could Cloud Systems Drive Sustainable
Competitive Advantages in Supply—Demand
Chains? 11-35. [Crossref]
12. A.M. Casado, J.I. Peláez. 2014. Intangible management
monitors and tools: Reviews. Expert Systems with
Applications 41:4, 1509-1529. [Crossref]
13. Sarah M. Passonneau. 2013. Library assessment activities.
Performance Measurement and Metrics 14:3,
14. Mattias Elg, Klara Palmberg Broryd, Beata Kollberg. 2013.
Performance measurement to drive
improvements in healthcare practice. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management
33:11/12, 1623-1651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. A. Y. A. Upadhyay, A. K. Upadhyay, S. Palo. 2013.
Strategy Implementation Using Balanced Scorecard:
Achieving Success through Personal Values of Leaders and
Employees. Management and Labour Studies
38:4, 447-469. [Crossref]
16. Archana Yemeshvary Ashok Upadhyay, Sasmita Palo. 2013.
Engaging employees through balanced
scorecard implementation. Strategic HR Review 12:6, 302-307.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
ow
nl
oa
de

P
T
)
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-12-2016-0313
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JMD-12-
2016-0313
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JMD-12-
2016-0313
https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-09-2015-0038
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/QAE-09-
2015-0038
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/QAE-09-
2015-0038
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2016-0041
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/BIJ-03-2016-
0041
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/BIJ-03-
2016-0041
https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2015-1277
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/MAJ-11-
2015-1277
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/MAJ-11-
2015-1277
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2014-0079
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-
2014-0079
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-
2014-0079
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJHCQA-
07-2014-0079
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-015-0114-6
https://doi.org/10.1515/saeb-2016-0107
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCoMA-12-2012-0077
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJCoMA-12-

2012-0077
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJCoMA-
12-2012-0077
https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-07-2012-0023
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JQME-07-
2012-0023
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JQME-07-
2012-0023
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-05-2014-0071
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJPPM-05-
2014-0071
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJPPM-05-
2014-0071
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJPPM-
05-2014-0071
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137324245_2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.08.048
https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-05-2013-0015
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/PMM-05-
2013-0015
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/PMM-05-
2013-0015
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2010-0208
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJOPM-07-
2010-0208
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJOPM-
07-2010-0208
https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X13516596
https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-08-2012-0057
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SHR-08-2012-
0057
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/SHR-08-
2012-0057
17. Naqi Sayed. 2013. Ratify, reject or revise: balanced

scorecard and universities. International Journal of
Educational Management 27:3, 203-220. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
18. Max Houck, Paul J. Speaker, Arron Scott Fleming, Richard
A. Riley. 2012. The balanced scorecard:
Sustainable performance assessment for forensic laboratories.
Science & Justice 52:4, 209-216. [Crossref]
19. Luu Trong Tuan. 2012. From unbalanced to balanced:
performance measures in a Vietnamese hospital.
Leadership in Health Services 25:4, 288-305. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
20. Amik Garg, S.G. Deshmukh. 2012. Designing balanced
scorecard for multi echelon repair inventory
systems. Journal of Modelling in Management 7:1, 59-96.
21. Beata Kollberg, Mattias Elg. 2011. The practice of the
Balanced Scorecard in health care services.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 60:5, 427-445. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
22. Gero Weimer, Stefan Seuring. 2009. Performance
measurement in business process outsourcing decisions.
Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 2:3, 275-292.
23. Salwa Alhamoudi. Knowledge Management Strategies 184-
194. [Crossref]
24. Salwa Alhamoudi. Knowledge Management Strategies 857-
867. [Crossref]
25. Josiah Edmond, Fawzy Soliman. The Impact of Balance
Score Card Implementation on Supply Chain

Firms 557-575. [Crossref]
26. Josiah Edmond, Fawzy Soliman. The Impact of Balance
Score Card Implementation on Supply Chain
Firms 240-257. [Crossref]
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
W
al
de
n
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
16

:1
4
15
J
un
e
20
18
(
P
T
)
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311306440
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09513541311
306440
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09513541
311306440
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.05.006
https://doi.org/10.1108/17511871211268937
268937
211268937
https://doi.org/10.1108/17465661211208811
208811
211208811
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401111140374

140374
111140374
https://doi.org/10.1108/17538290911005171
005171
911005171
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-7332-8.ch009
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8195-8.ch043
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1837-2.ch026
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6445-6.ch016

Appendix CHR Balanced Score CardMetric(Name of Metric)Form.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Appendix CHR Balanced Score CardMetric(Name of Metric)Form.docx

Similar to Appendix CHR Balanced Score CardMetric(Name of Metric)Form.docx (20)

More from justine1simpson78276

More from justine1simpson78276 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Appendix CHR Balanced Score CardMetric(Name of Metric)Form.docx