Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Does the balance scorecard work: an empirical investigation

By Andrew Neely


Commentators suggest that between 30 and 60% of large US firms have adopted the Balanced Scorecard, first described by Bob Kaplan and David Norton in their seminal Harvard Business Review paper of 1992 (Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Marr et al, 2004). Empirical evidence that explores the performance impact of the balanced scorecard, however, is extremely rare and much that is available is anecdotal at best. This paper reports a study that set out to explore the performance impact of the balanced scorecard by employing a quasi-experimental design. Up to three years worth of financial data were collected from two sister divisions of an electrical wholesale chain based in the UK, one of which had implemented the balanced scorecard and one of which had not. The relative performance improvements of geographically matched pairs of branches were compared to establish what, if any, performance differentials existed between the branches that had implemented the balanced scorecard and those that had not. The key findings of the study are that while the Electrical division – the division that implemented the balanced scorecard – sees improvements in sales and gross profit; similar performance improvements are also observed in the sister division. Hence the performance impact of the balanced scorecard has to be questioned. Clearly further work on this important topic is required in similar settings where natural experiments occur

Topics: Performance measurements, Performance management, Performance impact, Balanced scorecard
Publisher: Cranfield University School of Management
Year: 2008
OAI identifier:
Provided by: Cranfield CERES

Suggested articles


  1. (2003). A Descriptive Analysis on the Implementation of Balanced Scorecards in German-Speaking Countries. doi
  2. (1999). Aligning Strategic Performance Measures and Results.
  3. (2004). An investigation of the effect of Balanced Scorecard implementation on financial performance. doi
  4. (2000). Assessing Some Distinctive Dimensions of Performance Feedback Information in High Performing Plants. doi
  5. (1998). Automating the Balanced Scorecard. doi
  6. (2001). Balanced Performance Measurement Systems and Manager Satisfaction - Empirical Evidence from a German Study. WHU - Otto Beisheim Graduate School of Management.
  7. (1999). Balanced Scorecards: A Rising Trend in Strategic Performance Measurement.
  8. (2003). Behavioral Factors Important for the Successful Implementation and Use of Performance Management Systems. doi
  9. (2004). Business Performance Measurement What is the State of the Art in Large US Firms? edn.
  10. (2000). CMG Survey on Performance Measurement: The Evolution of Performance Measurement Systems.
  11. (2003). Coming up Short on Nonfinancial Performance Measurement.
  12. (2001). Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. doi
  13. (1997). Designing Performance Measures: A Structured Approach. doi
  14. (2000). Designing, Implementing and Updating Performance Measurement Systems. doi
  15. (1956). Dysfunctional Consequences of Performance Measurements. doi
  16. (1996). From Balanced Scorecard to Strategy Gauges: Is Measurement Worth It? Management Review 56-62.
  17. (2002). Getting the Measure of your Business. Cambridge: doi
  18. (2000). Having Trouble with your Strategy? Then Map It.
  19. (2001). Information Flows for High-Performance Manufacturing. doi
  20. (2005). Integrative Strategic Performance Measurement Systems, Strategic Alignment of Manufacturing, Learning and Strategic Outcomes: An Exploratory Study. Accounting Organizations and doi
  21. (1990). Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: In search of a new theory. doi
  22. (1994). Making Best Use of Performance-Measures and Information. doi
  23. (2005). Management Tools doi
  24. (2001). Management Tools and Techniques: A Survey. doi
  25. (2004). Metrics and Performance Measurement in Operations Management: Dealing With the Metrics Maze. doi
  26. (2003). Performance Implications of Strategic Performance Measurement in Financial Services Firms. Accounting Organizations and doi
  27. (2000). Performance Measurement System Design: Developing and Testing a ProcessBased Approach. doi
  28. (1988). Relevance Lost - The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, doi
  29. (2003). Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence From a Balanced Scorecard. doi
  30. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive Performance.
  31. (2003). The Balanced Scorecard: What Is the Score? A Rhetorical Analysis of the Balanced Scorecard. doi
  32. (2003). The Benefits of a Scorecard System.
  33. (1988). The Impact of Key Success Factors on Company Performance. Long Range Planning doi
  34. (1999). The Performance Measurement Revolution: Why Now and What Next? doi
  35. (2002). The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Stakeholder Success, edn. London: Financial Times/Prentice
  36. (2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, doi
  37. (2007). Towards a Definition of a Business Performance Measurement System. doi
  38. (1998). What is a Key Success Factor? doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.