Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Balanced Scoecad System Implemented in a Functional Oganization Chi-Bin Cheng, Depatment of Infomation Management, Tamkang Univesity, Taiwan Bao-Guang Chang, Depatment of Accounting, Tamkang Univesity, Taiwan Chung-Jen Fu, Depatment of Accounting, National Yunlin U. of Science and Technology, Taiwan ABSTRACT Recognizing that the stategic pefomance of a business can not be evaluated using taditional financial measues alone, the balanced scoe cad (BSC) complements financial measues with non-financial measues in the expectation that the non-financial pefomance will dive the financial success of the business. Howeve, when the BSC is deployed at the depatmental level, the commonly used hieachical and top-down appoach tends to ignoe the need fo coss-depatmental coopeation and teamwok and thus leads to an inappopiate assignment of the stategic objectives to individual depatments. Accodingly, this study poposes a diagnostic pocess fo calibating both the fim level and the depatmental level pefomance measues of a BSC implemented within a functional oganization. In the poposed appoach, a questionnaie-based suvey is conducted to ascetain employees opinions egading the elevance of the depatmental pefomance measues as egads thei contibution to the achievement of the fim level measues. Causal stength matixes ae then employed to summaize the suvey esults and to analyze the usefulness of the individual depatment s pefomance measues. The poposed appoach is demonstated using an example of a machine tool manufactue in Taiwan fo illustation puposes. Keywods: Balanced scoecad, Stategic management, Functional oganization, Pefomance measues INTRODUCTION The balanced scoecad (BSC), devised by Kaplan and Noton in 1992, tanslates a company s vision and stategy into specific pefomance measues in ode to facilitate the implementation of the company s stategic objectives. In the past, companies geneally emphasized the impotance of achieving shot-tem financial goals, and thus failed to establish a link between thei long-tem stategy and thei shot-tem actions, esulting in a gap between the planned stategic development and its actual implementation. In an attempt to esolve this poblem, the BSC complements taditional financial measues with pefomance measues elating to othe pespectives of the company s business, typically categoized in tems of the custome, intenal business pocess, and leaning and gowth aspects of the business, espectively. Although non-financial in natue, these measues ae nonetheless dives of the company s futue financial pefomance. The defining chaacteistic of BSC systems is the setting of tagets fo stategy implementation which not only help the staff to undestand the vision and stategy of the company moe clealy, but also allow management to monito the esults of stategy implementation moe easily. The meits of the BSC in enabling management to fomulate an integated stategic plan have been well addessed by Kaplan and Noton (1996). Many eseaches have demonstated the powe of BSC in fomulating copoate stategy (Figge, Hahn, Schaltegge and Wagne 2002; Banke, Chang and Pizzini 2004). Howeve, empiical evidence suggests that cuent methods fo developing BSC systems do not necessaily delive the anticipated esults (Ruhtz 2001). Fo example, a study of the top 200 companies in Gemany, of which 46% had implemented a BSC system, epoted that only a minoity of espondents felt that the BSC impoved thei planning, budgeting and esouce allocation, stategic leaning, o bottom line (Kause 2003). The espondents cited paticula difficulties in developing cause-and-effect chains and in defining meaningful metics. Moeove, the empiical evidence evealed that the tools used fo BSC implementation lacked opeational qualities (Kause 2003). 266 Jounal of Intenational Management Studies * Febuay 2008
Kause (2000, 2001, 2002) analyzed vaious commonly used methods fo developing pefomance management systems and highlighted a numbe of shotcomings. Of these vaious shotcomings, one of the most poblematic is that the development of such systems is geneally based on the company s existing oganizational stuctue athe than on the desied business pocesses even though these pocesses ae the means by which an oganization achieves its goals (Kause 2003). Pefomance management systems developed in this way decouple the linkage between the pefomance measues and the expected pefomance: As oganizational pefomance is diven by people and esides in its pocesses, the common oganizational stuctue diven appoach is a seious flaw. It esults in a disconnection between pefomance planning and pefomance geneation. This disconnection has its oot in the failue to link outcomes to the citical success factos at the level of oganization-specific pocesses (Kause 2003). Recent findings (Beiman and Sun 2003) egading the implementation of BSC systems in China suppot this agument. Fo instance, it was found that the intoduction of a BSC ceated consideable tension between depatments within a joint ventue company (Beiman and Sun 2003). Though a pocess of infomation gatheing and an analysis of the goals specified at the company and depatmental levels, espectively, Beiman and Sun (2003) concluded that an impotant cause of this tension was that the company objectives had been set functionally without consideing the need fo coss-depatmental coopeation and teamwok. The BSC is not only a stategic measuement system, but also a stategic contol system capable of aligning depatmental and pesonal goals with those of the company s oveall stategy (Kaplan and Noton 1996). Howeve, this expectation can be ealized only when the pefomance measues ae appopiately fomulated at the depatmental and individual employee levels. Kause (2003) and Beiman and Sun (2003) both epoted that the implementation of BSC in functional oganizations often pe-engages in its physical stuctue and ignoes the teamwok and coopeation equied in such oganizations. Such ignoance may esult in the setting of inappopiate pefomance measues which ae inconsistent with the stategic objectives of the company and esult in a dysfunctional oganizational behavio and sub-optimal pefomance (de Haas and Kleineld 1999, p.244). To optimize thei opeations, entepises adopt diffeent oganizational designs o even multiple oganizational designs within a single unit. Two oganizational designs of paticula pevalence ae the functional oganization based on specialized poficiency and the coss-functional matix oganization based on business pocesses (Doge and Gemain 1989; Silvesto and Westley 2002). Of the two designs, the functional oganization is the most commonly adopted design and paticulaly pevalent in small- and medium-sized entepises (SMEs) (Nebel, Ruthefod, and Schaffe 1995). Even though the BSC has been widely studied ove the past decade, the liteatue focuses pimaily on the fomulation and implementation of the BSC at the stategic level athe than on the deployment of the stategic-level BSC at the functional depatmental level. Beiman and Sun (2003) cited the sepaation between functional depatments as one of the majo obstacles in executing stategy and stated that this sepaation was a majo souce of the difficulties encounteed duing the ealy stages of a BSC implementation within functional oganizations. The authos commented that by analyzing and impoving its coss-functional business pocesses, a company could pefom moe effectively and with significantly impoved teamwok acoss depatmental boundaies. Howeve, appopiate techniques fo analyzing the poblem and fomulating appopiate coective actions wee not discussed. In geneal, the expeience, techniques and knowledge of pefomance management system pojects possessed by an oganization ae not eadily accessible, and hence the solutions developed fo each new poject ae not easily eused (Kause 2003). Theefoe, a equiement exists fo a simple, systematic, and easy-to-opeate appoach to assist functionally oganized companies to esolve thei difficulties when implementing BSC systems. Accodingly, the pesent study develops a pocess fo eviewing a BSC system unde development o implemented within a functional oganization. The aim of the eview pocess is to detemine whethe o not the pefomance measues fomulated fo each functional depatment ae consistent with the oveall objectives of the oganization as pescibed by the fim level pefomance measues. The following section of this pape discusses the paticula chaacteistics of functional oganizations and eviews the potential difficulties which may aise when implementing a BSC system in such oganizations. Section 3 intoduces the poposed pocess fo evaluating the Jounal of Intenational Management Studies * Febuay 2008 267
appopiateness of the pefomance measues fomulated at the depatmental level. Section 4 pesents a case-study company with typical BSC implementation pocesses and descibes its poblems. Section 5 applies the poposed pocess to the company s BSC system and descibes the eview esults. Finally, Section 6 povides some bief concluding emaks and indicates the intended diection of futue eseach. FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES IN BSC IMPLEMENTATION The pocess of implementing a BSC system commences with a claification of the fim s vision, and then poceeds to an elicitation of the fim s goals, the fomulation of stategies, the deployment of these stategies to a set of pespectives, the deivation of pefomance measues within each pespective, and eventually a beakdown of the fim level pefomance measues to depatmental o even pesonal pefomance indicatos. This pocess implies causal elationship between the company s objectives and the depatmental pefomance indicatos povided that the latte ae appopiately fomulated, and the fomulation of the pefomance measues must take into account the teamwok and coopeation equied within completing tasks within the oganization. Table 1 BSC of the Case-Study Company Pespective Stategic Pefomance Depatment objective measue GA MF QA LG FI RD MS S1 P1 P2 S2 Financial P3 S3 P4 P5 S4 P6 100% P7 100% Custome S5 P8 100% P9 100% P10 100% S6 P11 P12 100% P13 100% S7 P14 100% P15 100% P16 100% P17 100% Intenal S8 P18 100% pocess P19 50% 50% P20 100% S9 P21 50% 50% P22 100% P23 100% S10 P24 50% 50% P25 100% S11 P26 100% Leaning & P27 100% gowth S12 P28 100% S13 P29 100% GA: Geneal Administation; MF: Manufactuing; QA: Quality Assuance; LG: Logistics; FI: Finance; RD: Reseach and Development; MS: Maketing and Sales As pointed out by Noeklit (2000), the method with which Kaplan and Noton (1996) implement the BSC is hieachical and top-down. In this manne, top management defines the local conditions and local units cannot act on 268 Jounal of Intenational Management Studies * Febuay 2008
thei own (Mouitsen et al. 1995). The deployment of the fim level BSC at the depatmental level is a top-down pocess in which fim level pefomance measues ae assigned to functional depatments within the oganization. In implementing this pocess, ignoing the teamwok and coopeation aspects of a functional oganization will esult in an inappopiate setting of the pefomance measues at the depatmental level. Table 1 pesents the BSC of the company consideed in the pesent study. As shown, the fou pespectives ae fomulated as thiteen stategic objectives, S1~S13, and these objectives ae futhe beak down to 29 fim level pefomance measues which ae then diectly assigned to designated depatments. Fo example, pefomance measue P6 is assigned solely to the Maketing and Sales depatment, while pefomance measue P24 is assigned jointly to the Reseach and Development and Maketing and Sales depatments. Based on these assignments, the individual depatments then fomulate thei own pefomance measues. In a top-down appoach, these assignments ae detemined by top management executives within the company without consideing the suppot equied by the individual depatments fom othe depatments in achieving these pefomance measues. Howeve, adopting this method of assigning the fim level pefomance measues can be poblematic, as illustated by the following scenaio. Suppose that in pactice the Maketing and Sales depatment can not achieve pefomance measue P6 alone, but equies the suppot of the Manufactuing depatment. Since this pefomance measue was not assigned to the Manufactuing depatment, the Manufactuing depatment will most likely be eluctant to povide its assistance, and thus the Maketing and Sales depatment must face the failue of its assigned objective alone. Futhemoe, if the Manufactuing depatment decides to suppot the Maketing and Sales depatment, but eceives no ecognition o ewad fo doing so, it will inevitably distust the BSC system, esulting in its eventual failue. REVIEW PROCESS FOR DETERMINING APPROPRIATENESS OF BSC DEPLOYED IN FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION The objective of the eview pocess is to claify two questions, namely whethe o not the fomulated pefomance indicatos link to the company s objectives, i.e. the existence of the causal elation, and whethe the inteactions equied between individual depatments ae explicitly ecognized in the fomulation of pefomance indicatos. The eview pocess consists of two stages. The pocess commences by pefoming a questionnaie-based suvey of the individuals involved in the BSC poject, including the membes of the BSC implementation team, the depatmental manages and the membes of staff who paticipated in its deployment. The pupose of this suvey is to collect opinions egading the causal stength between the fim level and the depatmental level pefomance measues as well as the degee of equiement fo coss-depatmental suppot in achieving the vaious pefomance measues. The data acquied fom the suvey ae then fomatted in a matix fom and analyzed to answe the two questions posed above. Questionnaie design The cuent study emphasizes the impotance of establishing a stong causal elationship between the pefomance measues at the depatmental level and those at the fim level as a means of ensuing the achievement of a company s objectives. Accodingly, the pincipal aim of the questionnaie is to investigate the espondents peceptions of the stength of the linkage between the two sets of pefomance measues. In addition, the questionnaie also identifies the suppot equied by a depatment fom othe depatments in achieving its pefomance measues. In completing the questionnaie, the espondents indicate thei judgment egading the stength of the causal elationship between the pefomance measues deployed in thei depatment and the fim level pefomance measues assigned to them by top management using Liket scales (1932) with five degees, namely unelated, weakly elated, moe o less elated, modeately elated, and stongly elated, espectively. The layout of the questionnaie is illustated in Figue 1, in which the lines dawn in diffeent styles expess the degee of causal stength coesponds to the Liket scale, i.e. double, double-dotted, single-solid and single-dotted lines epesent the degee of causal elation vaying fom stongly elated to weakly elated, espectively, and no line is dawn in the event that a pai of measues is deemed to be unelated. Meanwhile, the espondents use the check boxes to indicate whethe o not they feel that suppot is equied fom othe depatments to satisfy each depatmental pefomance measue. Jounal of Intenational Management Studies * Febuay 2008 269
Suppot equiement fom othe depatments? Yes No Depatment pefomance measues MS1 Fim level pefomance measues P1 MS2 P2 MS3 P3 MS4 P4 MS5 MS6 Figue 1 Sample Questionnaie Result Questionnaie analysis The analysis involves eviewing the usefulness of the depatmental pefomance measues, i.e. detemining whethe a paticula depatmental pefomance measue links to the fim level pefomance measues which ae assigned to this depatment. To facilitate the analysis, the Liket scale data ae conveted to a numeical scale of 1~5 in an ascending ode of causal stength, and the questionnaie esults ae then compiled in matix fom, as illustated in Table 2. Table 2 Causal Stength Matix fo a Depatment max K = max{ }, K 1 11 12 K 2 21 22.. K m E j = ij 3 / m P 1 P 2 P n ij i j {j P j is assigned to this depatment} j ij In this table, P j, j=1,, n denote the fim level pefomance measues, while K i, i=1,, m ae the pefomance measues deployed in a paticula depatment. Meanwhile, the cell enties,, indicate the aveage scoe assigned by ij the espondents when evaluating the causal stength of the linkage between K i and P j. The ow of E j computes the atio of the depatment s pefomance measues that ae at least modeately elated to P j. A small E j indicates that most of the depatment s measues ae not elated to P j. The ow maximum K is defined as the maximum scoe of K i among all the pefomance measues P j that ae assigned to this depatment, and it is used to evaluate the usefulness of the pefomance measue K i. A small K indicates that the inclusion of K i in the BSC is poblematic. max i The check boxes in the questionnaie elating to the suppot equied by a depatment in achieving its pefomance measue povide an additional souce of useful infomation when eviewing the appopiateness of the fim max i 270 Jounal of Intenational Management Studies * Febuay 2008
level pefomance measue assignments given in Table 1. In the event that a depatment has a high suppot equiement fom othe depatments to satisfy a fim level pefomance measue but such a situation was not consideed in the assignment in Table 1, then top-management should edesign such an assignment. ILLUSTRATION BY CASE-STUDY COMPANY In this section, the eview pocess descibed above is applied to an intenationally known machine tool manufactue based in Taiwan. The company has 2000 employees, supplies dilling machines and vaious woodwoking machines to moe than 70 counties aound the wold, and has subsidiaies and manufactuing sites not only in Taiwan, but also thoughout China, Ameica, Euope and Japan. As shown in Figue 2, the company is functionally oganized into seven depatments, namely Geneal Administation, Manufactuing, Quality Assuance, Logistics, Reseach and Development, Maketing and Sales, and Finance. The Geneal Administation depatment is oganized into thee sub-depatments, i.e. Infomation Management, Human Resouces and Business Management. Geneal Manage Geneal Administation Maketing and Sales Reseach and Development Finance Logistic Quality Assuance Manufactuing Figue 2 Oganizational Stuctue of the Exemplified Company Suvey of the case-study company management and employees Inteviewing the manages who had paticipated in the oiginal BSC implementation pocedue, two paticula chaacteistics of the implementation pocess became clea. Fistly, the fim level pefomance measues wee geneally assigned to a single depatment only; the measues wee assigned to multiple depatments only in the case whee a debate existed egading the most appopiate depatment. As a esult, just 3 out of 29 of the fim level pefomance measues wee assigned to multiple depatments (see Table 1). Secondly, the inteviews evealed that the depatments tended to fomulate pefomance measues which wee lagely ielevant to the assigned fim level measues, but wee designed instead to satisfy thei own intenal equiements. The questionnaie illustated in Section 3 was used to conduct a suvey of the employees at the case-study company. Howeve, to simplify the suvey, the fim pefomance measues wee eplaced by the stategic objectives. To eflect the vaying content of each depatment s BSC, nine diffeent questionnaies (each with the fomat shown in Figue 1) wee distibuted to the six depatments (i.e. Manufactuing, Quality Assuance, Logistics, Reseach and Development, Maketing and Sales, and Finance) and thee Geneal Administation sub-depatments (Infomation Management, Human Resouces, and Business Management). The espondents tageted in the suvey included both the oiginal BSC poject membes and the manages and membes of staff of each depatment. A total of 53 questionnaies wee distibuted, of which 31 wee etuned, epesenting a etun ate of 59%. All of the etuned samples wee completely and coectly compiled. Of the 31 espondents, 9.7% wee manages, 38.7% wee poject membes, and 51.6% wee depatmental staff membes. Futhemoe, 19.4% wee in possession of a Jounal of Intenational Management Studies * Febuay 2008 271
maste degee o highe, 74.2% held a college degee, and 6.5% had a high school diploma. In tems of thei length of sevice, 19.4% had seved with the company fo moe than 10 yeas, 35.5% fo between 5 and 10 yeas, 35.5% fo between 3 and 5 yeas, and 9.7% fo less than 3 yeas. The eliability (i.e. consistency) of the etuned questionnaies was evaluated via the Conbach s α value. Since the suvey contained a total of nine diffeent questionnaies, the Conbach s α value was calculated based on the common questions among the diffeent questionnaies. The Conbach s αvalue was found to vay between 0.7 and 0.8, thus confiming the eliability of the esults. Analysis esults As descibed in Section 3.2, the questionnaie esults wee summaized in the fom of causal stength matixes to facilitate thei analysis. Table 3 pesents the esults acquied fo the Maketing and Sales depatment. (Note that the equivalent causal stength matices fo the othe depatments ae omitted hee due to space constaints). Table 3 Causal Stength Matix of Maketing and Sales Depatment S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Max MS1 4.40 5.00 1.60 3.80 3.20 2.20 4.00 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 4.00 MS2 4.80 4.80 1.60 5.00 4.60 2.20 4.60 1.60 2.20 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 5.00 MS3 4.80 5.00 1.60 5.00 2.40 1.60 3.80 1.60 2.20 1.60 1.60 1.60 2.20 5.00 MS4 1.60 3.00 3.00 3.20 2.60 1.80 3.40 2.40 1.40 2.40 2.20 2.20 2.00 3.40 MS5 2.40 3.60 3.80 2.00 2.20 1.40 3.80 1.60 1.40 2.40 4.00 2.60 2.20 4.00 MS6 3.40 5.00 1.60 2.80 2.00 1.80 4.80 1.60 2.00 2.20 1.60 1.80 2.40 4.80 MS7 2.20 1.60 2.40 1.40 1.40 1.00 1.60 2.20 3.00 1.60 2.20 2.00 2.80 2.20 MS8 5.00 3.60 1.40 2.20 3.00 1.80 2.40 1.60 2.20 1.60 2.20 1.60 1.60 3.00 MS9 5.00 3.60 1.40 2.00 3.60 2.40 2.40 1.60 3.00 1.60 2.00 1.60 1.60 3.60 MS10 3.00 3.60 3.20 2.00 1.40 3.60 2.20 1.60 4.60 4.20 1.60 1.60 1.60 4.20 MS11 1.60 1.60 2.80 2.00 1.40 2.40 1.40 3.00 2.00 2.20 3.40 4.20 3.40 3.40 E 0.54 0.82 0.27 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.54 0.09 0.27 0.09 0.18 0.09 0.09 The esult in Table 3 indicates that the pefomance measue fomulation of the Maketing and Sales depatment was not successful. Although stategic objectives S4, S5, S7, S8, S10 and S11 wee assigned to this depatment (Table 1), the atios of the depatment s pefomance measues that coincide to these assignments ae vey low, i.e., 0.36 fo S4, 0.36 fo S5, 0.54 fo S7, 0.09 fo S8, 0.09 fo S10, and 0.18 fo S11. Contadictoily, this atio is vey high (0.82) fo S2, which was not assigned to any depatment. This esult also implies that the assignments in Table 1 to this depatment may not be appopiate. As fo individual pefomance measue of this depatment, The maximum scoe of MS7 and MS8 ae elative low, i.e. 2.20 and 3.00 espectively. The econsideation of these two measues is demanded immediately. The analysis pocess fo othe depatments is simila to the above discussion. Due to space constaints, hee we only povide in Table 4 a geneal distibution of the scoes of pefomance measues within all depatments. Fom inspection, it seems that only the Reseach and Development depatment and the Maketing and Sales depatment pefom well in thei pefomance measue designs. Howeve, if combining with the esult in Table 5, we ealize that the pefomance measues of the Maketing and Sales depatment ae not coincided with the assignments in Table 1. Thus, we can conclude that the company s BSC was not appopiately fomulated. 272 Jounal of Intenational Management Studies * Febuay 2008
Table 4 Scoes of Pefomance Measues of All Depatments Scoes Depatment 5 points 3~4 points 2 points o below GA IM 0.0% 7.7% 92.3% HR 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% BM 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% MF 61.5% 0.0% 38.5% QA 21.4% 14.3% 64.3% LG 33.3% 26.7% 40.0% FI 13.6% 54.6% 31.8% RD 61.5% 30.8% 7.7% MS 81.8% 18.2% 0.0% Aveage 36.8% 29.0% 34.2% GA: Geneal Administation; IM: Infomation Management, HR: Human Resouces, BM: Business Management; MF: Manufactuing; QA: Quality Assuance; LG: Logistics; FI: Finance; RD: Reseach and Development; MS: Maketing and Sales In the questionnaie, the equiement fo suppot fom othe depatments is also indicated via the use of check boxes located next to each pefomance measue (see Figue 1). Table 5 indicates the pecentage of pefomance measues within each depatment equiing suppot fom othe depatments. As shown, all of the depatments equie coss-depatmental suppot to achieve the majoity of thei pefomance measues (74.87% on aveage). Table 5 Pecentage of Pefomance Measues Requiing Suppot fom othe Depatments GA MF QA LG FI RD MS Aveage Need 77.37% 84.62% 64.29% 73.33% 68.18% 73.08% 78.18% 74.87% No need 22.63% 15.38% 35.71% 26.67% 31.82% 26.92% 21.82% 25.13% GA: Geneal Administation; MF: Manufactuing; QA: Quality Assuance; LG: Logistics; FI: Finance; RD: Reseach and Development; MS: Maketing and Sales In the inteview pocess, the majoity of the inteviewees epoted that the assignation of a fim pefomance measue to a single depatment was unealistic. Futhemoe, they pointed out that the assignment of fim level pefomance measues to single depatments esulted in inte-depatmental conflict. Although some poject membes commented that they had aised this potential poblem duing the initial stage of the BSC implementation, the assignment of the fim pefomance measues to the individual depatments was not adjusted in esponse to thei concens. The inteviewees commented that the inappopiateness of the esulting assignment had caused some employees to lose faith in the BSC, and to question its value o even esist its use. CONCLUSIONS In geneal, BSC systems complement financial measues with non-financial measues unde the assumption that these non-financial measues ae diect dives of the company s futue financial pefomance. When designing the pefomance measues at the lowe level, the causal elationship between the lowe-level measues and the fim level pefomance measues must also be guaanteed. Unfotunately, such a causal linkage is often missing in the BSC deployment pocess. In paticula, the functional stuctue adopted in many oganizations may esult in flaws in the deployment pocess if the effects and impotance of teamwok and coopeation between the functional divisions ae not taken into account. To enable the identification of inappopiate pefomance measue designs at the depatmental level of a functional oganization, this study has poposed a eview pocess fo veifying the BSC system following its implementation. The pocess consists of a questionnaie designed to investigate employees opinions egading the stength of the causal elationship between the depatmental pefomance measues and the fim level measues (o the Jounal of Intenational Management Studies * Febuay 2008 273
fim s stategic objectives) and a set of causal stength matixes to enable analyses to be pefomed to assess the usefulness of the depatment s pefomance measues in achieving the fim s objectives. The poposed appoach has been demonstated using a machine tool manufactue in Taiwan. In the case-study company, the BSC was deployed using a hieachical, top-down pocess. In the implementation pocess, the fim level pefomance measues wee diectly assigned to a single depatment o to a small numbe of depatments without consideing the equiement fo coss-depatmental suppot. The case study esults evealed that the pefomance measue designs of depatments did not align with the fim level pefomance measues assigned to depatments. In addition, the functional depatments consideed that 74.87% of thei pefomance measues equied the suppot of one o moe othe depatments; a fact which was geneally ignoed by senio management when assigning the fim level pefomance measues to the depatments. Inteviewing the employees, it was found that this inappopiate assignment of the fim level pefomance measues esulted in some membes of the fim questioning the value of the entie BSC system and esisting its opeation. ACKNOWLEDGE This study was suppoted by the National Science Council of Taiwan unde Gant No. NSC 90-2213-E324-017. The authos wish to expess thei gatitude to M. Kuan-Cho Yang fo conducting the questionnaie suvey epoted in this study. REFERENCES Banke, R. D., Chang, H., and Pizzini, M. J. (2004). The balanced scoecad: Judgmental effects of pefomance measues linked to stategy. The Accounting Review, 79 (1), 1-23. Beiman, I. and Sun, Y. (2003). Implementing a balanced scoecad in China: Steps fo success. China Staff, 9(9), 11-17. Doge, C. and Gemain, R. (1989). The impact of the centalized stuctuing of logistics activities on span of contol, fomalization and pefomance. Academy of Maketing Science Jounal, 17(1), 83-89. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegge, S., and Wagne, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scoecad - linking sustainability management to business stategy. Business Stategy and the Envionment, 11(5), 269-284. de Haas, M. and Kleineld, A. (1999). Multilevel design of pefomance measuement systems: enhancing stategic dialogue thoughout the oganization. Management Accounting Reseach, 10, 233-261. Kaplan, R. S. and, Noton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scoecad: Tanslating stategy into action. Boston: Havad Business School Pess. Kause, O. (2000). Management knowledge engineeing a toolkit to enginee adaptive management systems. In Neely, A. (Ed.), Pefomance Measuement Past, Pesent and Futue, UK: Cente fo Business Pefomance, Canfield School of Management, 307-314. Kause, O. (2001). Methodische gestatung wandlungstanige managementpozesse. Tagungsband PTK 2001 Untenehmenswete duch Technologie, IPK Belin, 211-218. Kause, O. (2002). A method fo the ealization of business models with management systems. In Neely, A. and Austin, R. (Eds), Poceedings of PMA 2002, Boston, 17-19 July. Kause, O. (2003). Beyond BSC: A pocess based appoach to pefomance management. Measuing Business Excellence, 7(3), 4-14. Liket, R.(1932), A technique fo the measuement of attitudes. Achives of Psychology, 140, 1-55 Mouitsen, J., Hoholt, J. and Jogensen, A. A. V., (1995-96). De nye og de gamle ikke-finansielle nogletal. Okonomistying and Infomatik, 387-409. Nebel, E., Ruthefod, D. and Schaffe, J. D. (1994). Reengineeing the hotel oganization. Conell Hotel and Restauant Administation Quately, 35(5), 88-95. Noeklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scoecad A citical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Reseach, 11, 65-88. Ruhtz, V. (2001). Balanced scoecad im paxistest: wie zufieden sind die anwende? Hsg PxC Deutsche Revision, Fankfut a.m. Silvesto, R. and Westley, C. (2002). Challenging the paadigm of the pocess entepise: a case-study analysis of BPR implementation. Omega, 30(3), 215-225. 274 Jounal of Intenational Management Studies * Febuay 2008