The document discusses the development of a balanced scorecard to enhance communication quality within organizations. It highlights the importance of professionalizing communication management, offering insights into accountability and quality control, and emphasizes key competence areas and dimensions of communication quality. The balanced scorecard serves as a tool for assessment and improvement, providing a structured approach to evaluate communication effectiveness in municipalities.

1. A Balanced Scorecard developed
to measure and improve
communication quality
Measuring
Organizational Communication & PR
prof. Marita Vos PhD, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

2. Sources /more info:
 Vos, M. & H. Schoemaker (2004), Accountability of communication
management; a balanced scorecard for communication
quality, Amsterdam, Boom-Lemma. (free download Google Books)
 Vos, M. (2009), Communication quality and added value: a measurement
instrument for municipalities, Journal of Communication
Management, Vol.13, Issue 4, pp.362-377.
 Vos, M. & H. Schoemaker (2011), Integrated Communication; concern, internal
and marketing communication, The Hague, Eleven Publishing, 4rd edition
(Dutch version 9th edition 2011 published by Boom Lemma, Den Haag).
 For Dutch publications and support materials see www.vos-schoemaker.com
marita.vos@jyu.fi 2

3. Why a balanced scorecard for
communication?
 Professionalising communication
management
 From promotion of communication
to prioritising, overview
 Accountability
 Quality control
marita.vos@jyu.fi 3

4. Communication management
 One of the functional areas of an
organization
 Strenghtening the basis for interaction
with parties in the social environment
marita.vos@jyu.fi 4

5. Field of forces, arena
jobmarket
trends social
trends
personnel,
unions, internal relations
pressure groups
consumers,
media clients technological
trends trends
intermediaries,
suppliers
media organization
financiers,
general public,
shareholders
neighbours
economical
political governement, trends
politicians competitors
trends
marita.vos@jyu.fi 5

6. Communication contributes to:
(source: Vos&Schoemaker, 2011, Integrated Communication)
 Input problems:
people, finance, information
(reputation, concern
communication)
 Throughput problems: cooperation
(internal communication)
 Output: products and services
(marketing communication)
marita.vos@jyu.fi 6

7. Key competence areas
(source: Vos&Schoemaker, 2011, Integrated Communication)
Interface Interface
function function
Organization
Input: Throughput: Output:
- materials - production - goods
- people - cooperation - services
- money process
Concern Com Internal com Market. Com
Social environment Developments

8. The contribution of communication
to the organizational policy aimed at
Organizational policy
Communication
by the organization
Communication department
sum of activities
The individual activities
marita.vos@jyu.fi 8

9. Communication quality
Allocation of Allocation of
manpower budget
Do we do the right
things (choices made)?
+
Do we do them right
(results, criteria)?
marita.vos@jyu.fi 9

10. Quality dimensions
Source: Vos&Schoemaker (2004) , Accountability of Communication
A. Concern B. Marketing C. Internal D. Organization of
communication communication communication communication
1. Clarity
2. Environment orientation
3. Consistency
4. Responsivity
5. Effectivity and efficiency
marita.vos@jyu.fi 10

11. marita.vos@jyu.fi 11

12. Useful for:
 Professional reflection
 Team discussion
 Quick scan
 Structural quality control:
assessment, based on facts available
1 2 3 4 5
marita.vos@jyu.fi 12

13. A quality system
 Setting 4. Measurement by auditors 5. Team discusses
using the balanced scorecard
standards, criteria results and priorities
 Measuring
6. Action (plan)
3. Auditors adapt and evaluation
 Improvement the instrument
 Evaluation 2. Preparation
in team
 New targets 1. Start meeting
with pilot
marita.vos@jyu.fi 13

14. Case studies:
Source: Vos (2009), Communication quality and added value, Journal of Communication Management 13 (4).
 What is the communication quality in
4 municipalities?
 How is the measurement method
evaluated?
marita.vos@jyu.fi 14

15. Transparancy
Accessibility
Publicity
Responsiveness
Interactive policy
Communication policy
Effectivity and efficiency
20 40 60 80 100
M1
M2 Policy Communication
M3
M4

16. Cobweb with quality dimensions
Corporate
Policy
Transparancy Organization-bound
80
Average
60
Effectivity and efficiency Accessibility
40
20
0
Communication policy Publicity
Interactive policy Responsiveness

17. What is the communication quality
in the municipalities?
 Accessibility and Publicity are
high, older criteria than
Responsiveness; Transparency needs
improving
 Corporate communication has high
scores; in Policy areas communication
is not yet well integrated; much variation
in Internal communication
marita.vos@jyu.fi 17

18. How is the measurement method
evaluated?
 Less time-consuming than expected
 Timing is key
 It lead to improvement plans and
supported early stages of consensus
 Useful in dialogue with top managers
 More research needed
See Vos (2009), Communication quality and added value, Journal of Communication Management 13 (4)
marita.vos@jyu.fi 18