THE BALANCED SCORECARD: STRUCTURE AND USE IN CANADIAN COMPANIES
A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
in the Department of Accounting
University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon
Marvin
هذه الرسالة الهدف منها تطوير نموذج لبطاقة قياس الأداء المتوازن، التي إبتكرها Kaplan and Norton في الفترة من 1992 – 2001، تصميم النموذج إعتمد على مسح عينة المؤسسات الكندية، هذه الرسالة تجيب عن سؤالين بحثثين
السؤال الأول: سمات النموذج الذي قدمة كابلن ونورتون والمطبق في المنظات الكندية
السؤال الثاني: ما هو الإختلاف بين المنظمات بمستوياتها المختلفة طبقا لبطاقات الأداء المتوازن.
تم تقسيم المنظمات إلى أربع مستويات
نسبة الإستجابة للمسح 149 إستمارة ، منها 110 بنسبة 73.8% للمؤسسات المصنفة في المستوى من 1-4 ،( 13.6 % في المستوى الأول، 12.&% في المستوى الثاني، 18.2% في المستوى الثالث، 32.7% في المستوىالرابع و39 بنسبة 26.2% المؤسسات التي لا تطبق قياس الأداء المتوازن.
وتوصلت الدراسة إلى ان هناك إختلافات بين بين المنظمات وبين مستويات في تطبيق بطاقات الأجاء المتوازن. على سبيل المثال 83% من مؤسسات المستوى الرابع مقابل 67% لمؤسسات المستوى الأول .
وتمثل هذه الدراسة إضافة في مجال تطبيق بطاقات الأداء المتوازن Balanced Scorecard ، حيث قدمت الدراسة تصورا لبطاقات الأداء المتوازن وقامت بإختباره في الواقع العملي
ABSTRACT
This thesis develops a balanced scorecard model based on the attributes of Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard (1992, 1996, 2001). The model is then operationalized using a survey that is administered to CMAs (Certified Management Accountants) employed by for profit, Canadian companies with greater than 51 employees. Onehundred and forty nine usable responses were received. The thesis attempts to answer two research questions: (1) What attributes of a Kaplan & Norton (hereafter K&N) Balanced Scorecard (BSC) are present in the performance measurement systems of Canadian organizations? and (2) What are the differences between organizations with different levels of K&N Balanced Scorecard adoption? Of the 149 responses, 110 (73.8%) organizations were classified as BSC firms (Levels 1 to 4) and 39 (26.2%) were classified as non-BSC firms. The 110 BSC firms were further classified as follows: 15 (13.6%) as Level 1 BSC firms, 14 (12.7%) as Level 2A BSC firms, 20 (18.2%) as Level 2B BSC firms, 25 (22.7%) as Level 3 BSC firms and 36 (32.7%) as Level 4 BSC firms. Thus, based on our conceptual model, we can say that 32.7% of the BSC firms (24.2% of the total respondents) had a fully developed K&N
BSC.
The study found several differences between Level 4 and Level 1 BSC organizations. For example, respondents in 83% of the Level 4 organizations, versus in 67% of the Level 1 organizations, indicated that their organizations reviewed their performance measures when their strategy changed.
This study adds to academic research by conceptualizing Kaplan and Norton’s (1996, 2001) Balanced Scorecard and comparing this to the performance measurement systems of Canadian companies. Although there are numerous academic studies on the balanced scorecard (e.g., Chan & Ho 2000; Hoque & James 2000; Lipe & Salterio 2000, 2002; Malina & Selto 2001; Ittner & Larcker 2003; Speckbacher et al. 2003;
Stemsrudhagen 2004), only the Speckbacker et al. 2003 study has developed a conceptual model of Kaplan and Norton’s (1992, 1996, 2001) Balanced Scorecard and used it to examine the extent of its adoption. Our study mirrors theirs, with two notable exceptions:
we have a different and noteworthy conceptualization of Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard and we apply this to a Canadian setting
