Balanced Scorecard (BSC)

Balanced Scorecard (BSC) Strategy Alignment: Case Study of a Malaysian Company

By Hazeline Ayoup Lecturer Faculty of Accountancy & Accounting Research Institute Universiti Teknologi MARA, MALAYSIA & Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, MALAYSIA Email:[email protected] Normah Hj Omar (PhD) Faculty of Accountancy & Accounting Research Institute Universiti Teknologi MARA, MALAYSIA Email: [email protected] Ibrahim Kamal Abdul Rahman (PhD) Faculty of Accountancy & Accounting Research Institute Universiti Teknologi MARA, MALAYSIA Email: [email protected] Faridah Maarof (PhD) Multimedia University Malaysia Email: [email protected]

Abstract The study aims at illustrating how a big organization strives to create organizational alignment between its corporate and strategic business units (SBUs) objectives using the BSC framework. This study utilized the qualitative research design. Data were gathered using interviews with the company’s managers at various levels to gather information on the processes involve and factors impede creation of strategy alignment in the company.

Introduction One of the major advantages of adopting the BSC as a strategic management tool as addressed by it founder Kaplan and Norton (2006) is it facilitates organization to achieve alignment between its different parts such as the corporate level, SBUs and support units. Studies shows that companies which manage to align its strategies and activities between its various division have better performance (Chenhall, 1996; Bergeron, Raymond and Rivard, 2003; Drew and Kaye, 2004; Stede, Chow and Lin, 2006; Hyvonen, 2007) Traditional management theories have emphasized the benefits of decentralization as a way towards effective management. Many big organizations today operates in segments and division based on its functions and located all around the world. Despite creating clear decision making line, decentralization has raised another issue for managers to handle that is alignment between the different parts of an organization towards achieving its business objectives. Thus, creating organizational alignment has become a topic of discussion since 1969 when Skinner first addressed the need to align manufacturing strategy and activities towards achieving company’s mission and vision. The BSC which has been introduce by Kaplan and Norton (1992) has been cited in many studies as a tool which could help companies to create alignment however evidence on this is very rare in the literature. Furthermore, studies show mixed result on how the BSC helps create strategy alignment. Therefore, this study aims at exploring this issue to explain how an organization which implements BSC would achieve strategy alignment between its different divisions, SBUs, corporate and customers and external partners in order to sustain its competitive advantage in the industry. This study will address two questions that are as follows: RQ1: How does company create alignment of strategy between the corporate and strategic business units? RQ2: What are the factors affect alignment of strategy between corporate and strategic business units? Strategy alignment in this study is defined as alignment of strategy, objectives, measures and targets between the corporate level and company’s SBUs. SBUs in this case refer to a business unit created under an organization which has autonomy to manage its own business. It operates as a complete business unit with its own functional divisions targeting to achieve certain level of performance which is related to the main company performance. Based on strategic alignment theory, this study assumes that a company which manage to align its corporate and SBUs strategy will have a better performance. Strategy alignment in this case is viewed as the consensus regarding the strategy among the corporate and SBUs managers. Lindman et al. (2001) demonstrated in their study on SBUs that consensus among managers regarding the SBUs overall competitive strategy will ultimately improve the SBUs performance. Kaplan and Norton (2006) organizational alignment model is partially used to guide this study where this model addressed the need to align the company’s strategy and its’ SBUs strategy. However, in assisting researcher to explore on the factors affecting alignment processes, Nadler and Tushman (1997) congruence model is applied.

Diagram 1: Nadler and Tushman (1997) Congruence Model

Nadler and Tushman congruence model pointed out that looking at the process, organizations is composed of four components that are the organizations’ day to day activities, the people, formal organization that is the structure, system and policies and the informal organization such as organizational values and norms are all dependent are all dependent on each other. Based on these two models, this study aims at explaining how organizations work to align its corporate and SBUs strategy. Review of Previous Studies The Application of BSC Since its introduction, the BSC has received wide attention from practitioners and academicians. Increasing number of companies all over the world is interested to implement it for various purposes from performance measurement and management tools to strategic management tools. Study by Bain and Company (2007) in the US reveals that 66% of the sample companies which include companies from US and Canada, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and other countries used BSC. Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996, 2001, 2004 and 2006) highlighted that BSC would improve firm performance. The benefits of implementing BSC are (1) it help managers to clearly identify the measures which could clearly represent organization’s long term strategy;(2) facilitates leaders to mobilize organizational change towards performance improvement; (3) provide comprehensive framework form managers to translate companies’ mission and vision into a coherent and link set of performance measures;(4) improve firm ability to align its corporate, business units, support units, external partners and its board with the strategy; (5) increase employee motivations towards; (6) the measures can be used as a communication, information

and learning system to articulate companies business strategy, communicate the strategy throughout the organization and help align individuals, departments and organizational to strive for a common goals; (7) measures used provide balance between desired outcomes and the drivers of the outcomes; hard (objectives) and soft (subjective) measures; and (8) BSC can be used to make explicit the financial strategy of a business unit and how to customize financial objectives and measures to business unit strategy. The BSC has been utilized by companies for various purposes as evidence in many studies. For example, Cronje and Vermaak (2004) looked at BSC as an instrument for strategic planning and performance improvement for universities in South Africa and Australia, Milis and Rogers (2004) investigates how the BSC is used in evaluating information and communication technology projects performance, Crawford and Sealetta (2005) highlighted how the BSC could help aligning corporate social responsibility and business performance, Craig and Moores (2005) illustrate how the BSC can be applied to manage performance of family firms. Osama (2006) explore the used of BSC in Research and Development (R&D). The BSC were also used as a tools to create strategic fit as stressed by Kettunen (2006), Witcher and Chau (2007) and Bloomquist and Yearger (2008). Series of studies has been conducted by research to assess BSC implementations. Malina and Selto (2001) assess the effectiveness of the used of BSC to reports on the effectiveness of BSC as a control and communication tools. Their findings indicate that the BSC can be an effective tool for controlling corporate strategy however as a communication tool, BSC can de-motivate employees if not carefully design and implemented. Davis and Albright (2004) compares the differences between banks branches which implement and non implementers. Their study reveals indicate that there are significant differences in financial performance of the implementers and non implementers. Braam and Nijssen (2004) studied the performance effects of using the BSC in the Dutch companies. They suggested that the used of the BSC does not automatically improve firm performance. The used of BSC should be related to a firm’s corporate strategy, while BSC uses which are not related to strategy may decrease firm performance. Study by Greatbanks and Tapp (2007) reveals that the used of BSC within a public service city council in New Zealand enables the its employees to clearly appreciate their role and focus on delivery of performance related measures which support the organizational strategy. However, recent study by Atkinson (2006) highlighted that only 30% of BSC implementer enjoyed the benefits of its implementation. Survey by Rigby (2007) also reveals that the satisfaction rate of BSC implementers is below average. Kaplan and Norton (2006) have identified during their involvement with the BSC adopters where they suggested that the difference between the high and low benefit BSC users are in their ability to create alignment. However, alignment as mention by Kaplan and Norton is the whole organizational alignment. They also developed the BSC organizational alignment model which is used to guide this study. Tough the model developed by Kaplan and Norton is a comprehensive organizational context model; this study will only focus on alignment of strategy between the corporate and SBUs in the case company.

Organizational Alignment Organizational alignment is not a new topic of discussion in the strategic management literature. Studies on alignment in an organization start when Skinner (1969) highlighted the missing link between corporate level strategies and its different parts.

“we have continually change our business and the way we do business, What we are actually trying to do is to preach stable values as well as change in the dynamic environment” Jazayeri and Scapen (2008) Achieving alignment is not an easy task for the management. In sustaining it competitive advantages, organizations need to deal with changes in many internal and external factors such as technological advancement, deregulations and customers demand. Therefore it is crucial for organizations and its SBUs to align it strategies with all types of forces affecting its competitive business position. Studies show that firms ability to create strategic alignment lead to better financial and nonfinancial performance. For instance, Chenhall (1996) conclude in their study that the used of non financial measures enhance performance for firm which employed manufacturing flexibility strategy. Hyvonen (2007) alignment between firms information technology and its strategy have a significant relationship with it’s customer perspective performance measures. Drew and Kaye (2007) highlighted that alignment between firm’s board attention and its strategic activities may improve firms’ performance. However, Stede, Chow and Lin (2006) study on alignment between strategy, choice of measures and performance only partially support the view that strategy and measurement fit affect firm performance. Bergeron, Raymond and Rivard (2004) contended that low performing firm show signs of conflicts between business structure and strategies employed. As mention before, achieving strategic alignment is not easy. Dealing with the dynamics business environment, many factors affect the processes of creating and sustaining alignments in organizations. Kathuria, Joshi and Porth (2007) list nine factors which affects alignment that are staffs tenure, its management structures, types of business industry, firms’ marketing strategy, types of business environment, managers’ experience and relationship with partners. Melynk et al. (2005) study focused on the use of measures to create alignment highlighted that types of measures used may affect the process. The extent of employees trust on the measures, it operationalization, standard use and extent of monitoring and maintenance also determined successfulness of the process. Hung, Yang, Lien, McLean and Kuo (2009) study on process alignment found that dynamic capabilities indirectly influence processes alignment. Kathuria et al. (2007) also highlighted limited studies on factors affecting alignment which is explored in this study.

Needs to align corporate and SBUs’ strategies.

In today complex business organization, big companies decentralized its staff into SBUs to ensure effective flows of information and faster decision making process. Functionality is still the major organizational design (Galpin and Hilpirt, 2007). In many cases, SBUs were determined based on business segments or geographical boundaries. Though was expected that this way of managing organization would improve decision making and improve firm performance, Nadler and Tushman (1988, 1997) stressed that it would also raise another issues that it coherence between these units and the corporate level. Studies on alignment suggested that well linked strategies between firms different parts lead to improve coordinated effort for achieving main goal across organization (see Bouillon, Ferrier, Stuebs and West, 2006; Thompson and Mathys, 2008; and Cheng, Chang and Fu, 2008) Alignment of strategies between corporate and SBUs is the focus of this study. Kaplan and Norton (2006) described the needs to align strategies, objectives and measures between corporate and SBUs as vital for successful BSC implementation criteria which benefits it implementer and in turn improve firm performance.

Enterprise Strategy Map

Board of Directors

2

Enterprise Strategy Update

CUSTOMER VENDORS/ ALLIANCES

IT

3

Finance

Functional Strategy Update

Corporate Functional Strategy Map

Board Strategy Map


4

HR


1

SBU Strategy Map

Enterprise Functional Strategy Map

8

Business Unit Functional Map

Finance

SBU Strategy Map

6 SBU Strategy Update

7

IT

5

HR

Functional Strategy Update

Support Unit Services

Support Unit

Source: Kaplan and Norton (2006, p 12)

X

Alignment Checkpoint

However, studies on alignment of strategies between corporate and SBUs is very limited. Most studies concentrates on alignment of measures (Chenhall, 1996; Cheng, Chang and Fu, 2008) between corporate and departmental strategies especially information technology department (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993; Knoll and Javenpaa, 1994; Teo and King, 1997; Tallon and Kramer, 1999; Simonsen, 1999; Luftman, 2000; Bergeron, Raymond and Rivard, 2004; Coleman and Papp, 2006 and Cheng, Chang and Fu, 2008) Strategy implementation operationalized based on inappropriate measures will not improve firm financial performance (Kaplan and Norton, 1996, 2004, 2006; Jusoh and Parnell, 2008).

Another study in Malaysia, Jusoh, Ibrahim and Zainuddin (2006) conducted a study on the alignment between business strategy and various performance measures using an interaction approach. Performance measures were based on the BSC perspective while types of strategy were based on Miles and Snow (1978) strategy typology. Their finding shows that the used of customers and learning and growth measures when interacted with prospector strategy have significant positive impact on firm performance. On the other hands, the used of financial measures provide significant positive impact on performance when interacted with companies which employed defender strategy. Jusoh et al. (2007) also provide evidence on that in Malaysian companies, the used of non-financial measures enhances firm performance. Despite its importance, very limited studies have been conducted to explain how organizations align its corporate level and SBUs strategies. Therefore, this study aims at filling this gap to provide useful practical organizational practices in searching for better way to create strategy alignment between corporate and SBUs. Research Design Aiming at understanding the process of creating alignment between company’s strategies, objectives and measures and identifying factors that affect successfulness of the process, this study employed qualitative research design that is using a case study approach. The company which is chosen for this study is a company which has received best management accounting practices award in Malaysia. It has implemented BSC for more than ten years. This fact is important for this study because it focus on the organizational issue which usually may not be explored in a company which is at the early stage of implementing the tool. Due to confidentiality issue the company is named as TD Berhad (TDB). Data were collected mainly through interviews. Ten interviews with managers at top, middle and lower managerial level has been conducted to in order to explain the process of creating alignment as practice by the case company. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were then analyzed using qualitative data analysis software that is the Atlas.ti. For the first research question that is to understand the process of creating organizational alignment, data and few documents gathered from the interviews were analyses to explain the processes. The second research questions which requires researcher to identify factors affecting the process, data were carefully analyze using open and axial coding to see the themes and pattern emerging from it. Research Findings This study aims at exploring the application of BSC in facilitating organization in aligning the corporate and SBUs strategies, objectives and measures and activities to ensure the whole components of an organization is working towards the same goals. TDB operates involve in telecommunication industry where business environment is very dynamic. Rapid advancement of information technology, government deregulation and increase

competition has force TBD to review its performance management system. As a result, top management has decided to adopt BSC to improve the previous system. TDB organizational structure is very complex. Its business operations are segmentize according to its customers segmentation which become its main SBUs. There are basically four SBUs which generates major income for the company. Therefore, the SBUs are obviously does not interact with each other in managing their customer as confirm by the General Manager (GM)

“we have our specific business segment which we have to handle. We don’t compete with each other in terms of getting customers, however we do compete with the other SBUs and division especially when its it about acquiring budget for activities and initiatives” Figure 1: TDB New Business Model BUSINESS SEGMENT Consumer

SME

Enterprise

Government

Wholesale

Global

Support Business

PRODUCT

BUSINESS FUNCTION

HSBB TECHNOLOGY CONSUMER SERVICE MANAGEMENT

CENTRAL FUNCTION

GROUP FINANCE GROUP LC GROUP

GROUP PROCUREMENT CORPORATE COM

GROUP HCM GROUPMARKETING CORPORATE OFFICE

TDB has a very structured way of implementing the BSC and also handling the issues of alignment. The managers see that alignment is an important issue need to handle since TDB operates in a decentralized manner. Its organizational structure has many layers from the top to the middle and operational levels. Though managers know the importance of aligning its strategies and operations vertically and horizontally, in most of the cases, managers emphasized more on vertical alignment as

“when we cascaded our, strategies, objectives and measures, we will make sure that it will support our up one level on top of our position, it is always like that because we have to ensure that what we are doing will support our boss and our divisional goals”

In search for strategy alignment between the corporate and its SBUs, managers are highly dependent on the use of strategy maps and scorecard cascading process. It is obvious that the process starts with the development of corporate strategy maps. This map is developed based on predetermined set of companies mission, vision and specific company’s future direction approved by the company’s Board. The corporate strategy map was then disseminated to all SBUs and support units. Managers at this units will then developed their divisional strategy map and scorecard based on the main strategy map. This way, managers assume that the lower level (SBUs and support units) strategies, objectives, measures, target and initiatives will support the corporate strategies. Interviews also reveals that company’s emphasized more on vertical alignment, which is aligning the SBUs and corporate strategy. Horizontal alignment (alignment between the SBUs or divisions) was not very much emphasized by the managers. It is formally handle at the corporate level. A task force called the BSC resource team was form to handle horizontal alignment issue at the corporate level. To ensure and monitor, vertical and horizontal alignment between the corporate and SBUs, the task force has design a so-called BSC Key Performance Indicators Matrix. This Matrix provides a clear table of content for on objectives, measures and targets for the corporate and SBUs in one picture. However, until up to date, TBD does not have any systematic way or instrument to assess the level of alignment. It is all based on personal judgment of managers’ incharge of developing and determining the KPIs for each SBUs. Though meeting and discussion were conducted in order to decide on appropriate strategy, objectives, measures targets and initiatives, is a top down process. The second research objective is to identify factors affecting the process of aligning corporate and SBUs strategies. Based on Nadler and Tushmen (1997) model, findings from interviews highlighted four main factors affecting the process that are: 1) The work. It is noted from the interviews that with the used of BSC, it does not change many of the company’s internal business process. The day-to-day work does not change much. the BSC was used only to put a specific performance measurement to the process without much improvement towards the process itself. However, managers agrees that the used of BSC has facilitates to streamline their strategy and objectives from the corporate level, to the SBUs, divisional and finally individual strategies. The BSC measures help communicate strategies and how to operationalized more objectively. Managers are now clear on what are their targeted performance results. 2) The people. a) Middle Managers Commitment In order to create strategy alignment between corporate and SBUs level, it is vital for both to get high commitment not only from the top management but also from the middle managers who are the implementers of the system. Commitment in many aspects is required for instance; the middle managers who have to spend time to determined the right strategy for the SBUs which will support corporate level strategy.

This requires, time, knowledge, skills and more important is the managers willingness to put an effort to ensure quality of the process. b) Learning Culture It is also important that the people have good learning culture because in ensuring appropriate strategy is used and implemented at the corporate level and the SBUs, knowledge is very important. Managers have to learn from training sessions, experience and other sources to be able to deliver the task. In some cases, managers who have gone to BSC training session do not fully understand the process and its impact to company’s performance. Learn from previous mistakes enable managers to improve their ability to determine an appropriate performance driving strategy for the SBUs and corporate levels. 3) Informal Structure and Process. a) Effective communication. In disseminating company’s corporate strategies to the lower levels (SBUs), BSC resources team will usually conducted series of sharing session with the SBUs. The session was conducted to provide platform for the BSC representatives in the SBUs to discussed and clarify any unclear strategy map and scorecard items. This is to ensure the corporate strategy is understood at the SBUs level. b) Knowledge and Skills. Another important factor is the knowledge and skills of the managers involve in developing scorecard for the SBUs. It is vital for that the managers to have wide knowledge on the business industry and processes involve to be able to determined appropriate strategy, goals and measures for the division and at the same to ensuring vertical and horizontal alignment from the top managerial levels to the individual levels who are responsible to ensure activities are performed to support achievement of corporate and SBUs strategies. It is noted that the highly structured cascading process employed by TDB, in certain cases impede effectiveness of the process where high impact objectives, measures and targets are cannot be utilized. c) Management Commitment. In the early implementation of the BSC, TDB top management was very committed towards its usage. However, as management change, level of commitment was also decreased. Management change affect their commitment towards BSC and it alignment process. Managers have different view on the BSC framework and it performance items. 4) Formal Organization TDB formal organizational structured has been change since the BSC was used. Previous structure shows a more complicated multilayer structure. Since 2007, the Board and top management has decided to focus its business into only wired business segment. With this strategy demerger with one of it SBUs take place in 2008. This has changed its organizational structure into new simpler structure to enables easier flow of information from the corporate

level to the SBUs. As a consequent making the process of communicating corporate strategy to the SBUs more effective.

Discussion and Conclusion Aligning corporate strategy and SBUs strategies is still a challenge to the managers. In managing and making strategic decision, determining appropriate strategy for the organization as a whole and the SBUs requires managers to consider various internal and external factors affecting the company and its SBUs. Kaplan and Norton (2006) have addressed the need to align strategy of the different organizational components. Though it can be easily understood, the process of aligning strategies between these different parts remains unexplained. Nadler and Tushmen (1997) congruence model only highlighted the key factors affecting the process. Their model does not fully explain the process in the real company context. Lack of study in explaining the process involves in creating strategy alignment between corporate level and the SBUs has drive researcher to conduct this study. Result shows that the successful process of creating strategy alignment maybe affected by the level of middle manager commitment, management change, learning culture, effective strategy communication, managers knowledge and skill and management commitment. This element does not explain in the Nadler and Tushman congruence model. The model only provide skeletal framework on alignment. However, the finding of this study is limited to the case where other company may have different practices on this issue. In addition, findings were also derived only from ten interviews. Future study may be conducted to include multiple cases to better explain the issue and further testing the relationship between the variable derived towards strategy alignment levels may be performed.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: a role for the balanced scorecard?. Management Decision, 44(10), 1441-1460. Bloomquist, P., & Yeager, J. (2008). Using Balanced Scorecards to Align Organizational Strategies. Healthcare Executive, 23(1), 24-28. Bergeron, F., Raymond, L. & Rivard, S. (2003). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance. Information & Management,41, 1003-1020. Braam, G. J., & Nijssen, E. J. (2004). Performance effects of using the balanced scorecard: a note on the Dutch experience. Long Range Planning, 37, 335-349. Cheng, C.B., Chang, B.G., & Fu, C.J. (2008). Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Balanced Scorecard System Implemented in a Functional Organization. Journal of International Management Studies, 266-274. Chenhall, R,.H. (1996). Strategies of manufacturing flexibility, manufacturing performance measures and organizational performance: an empirical investigation. Integrated Manufacturing System, 7(5), 25-32. Coleman, P. & Papp, R. (2006). Strategic Alignment: Analysis of Perspective. Southern Association for Information System Conference. Craig, J., & Moores, K. (2005). Balanced Scorecard to Drive the Strategic Planning of Family Firms. Family Business Review, 18(2), 105-122. Crawford, D. & Scaletta, T. (2005).The Balanced Scorecard and Corporate Social: Aligning Values. CMA Management, 79(6), 20-27. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approach (Vol. 2). London: Sage Publication. Cronje, C.J.,& Vermaak, F.N.S. (2004). The Balanced Scorecard as a Potential Instrument for Supporting Planning and Improvement in Accounting Education: Comparative Survey Findings. SAJEMS NS,7(3), 480-491. Davis, S., & Albright, T. (2004). An Investigation of the Effect of Balanced Scorecard Implementation on Financial Performance. Management Accounting Research, 15, 135153. Decoene, V., & Bruggeman, W. (2006). Strategic alignment and middle-level managers' motivation in a balanced score... International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(3/4), 429-448.

Drew, S. A., & Kaye, R. (2007). Engaging Boards in Corporate Direction-Setting: Strategic Scorecards. European Management Journal, 25(5), 359-369. Galpin, T. & Hilpirt, R. (2007).The Connected Enterprise: Beyond Division of Labor. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(2), 38-47. Greatbanks, R., & Tapp, D. (2007). The Impact of Balanced Scorecards in a Public Sector Environment: Empirical Evidence from Dunedin City Council, New Zealand. Industrial Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(8), 846-873. Henderson, J.C., & Venkatraman, N. (1999). Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations. IBM System Journal, 38(2&3), 472-484. Richard Yu Yuan Hung, R.Y.Y., Yang, B., Lien, B.Y., McLean, G.N. & Kuo, Y. (2009). Dynamic Capability: Impact of process alignment and organizational learning culture on performance. Journal of World Business, 401,1-10. Hyvonen, J. (2007). Strategy, performance measurement techniques and information technology of the firm and their links to organizational performance. Management Accounting Research, 18, 343-366. Jazayeri, M., & Scapen, R.W. (2008). The Business Values Scorecard within BAE Systems: The evolution of a performance measurement system. The British Accounting Review, 40, 48-70. Jusoh, R., Ibrahim, D.S. & Zainuddin, Y. (2006). Assessing the Alignment Between Business Strategy and Use of Multiple Performance Measures Using Interaction Approach. The Business Review, 5(1), 51-60. Jusoh,R., & Parnell, J.A. (2008). Competitive strategy and performance measurement in the Malaysian context: an exploratory study. Management Decision, 46(1), 5-31. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business review. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The Strategy Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Strive in the New Business Environment. Massacchuset: Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies (Vol. 1). Boston Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Kathuria, R., Joshi, M. P., & Porth, S. J. (2007). Organizational alignment and performance: past, present and future. Management Decision, 45(3), 503-517. Kettunen, J. (2006). Strategies for the Cooperation of Educational Institutions and Companies in Mechanical Engineering. Industrial Journal of Educational Management, 20(1), 19-28. Knoll, K., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1994). Information Technology Alignment or Fit in Highly Turbulent Environments: The Concept of Flexibility. SIGCPR, 3(94), 1-14. Luftman, J. (2000). Assessing Business-IT Alignment Maturity. Communication of AIS, 4 (14), 149. Malina, M.A., & Selto, F.H. (2001). Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=278939&rec=1&srcabs=400120 Melnyk, S.A., Calantone, R.J., Luft, J., Stewart, D.M., & Zsidisin, G.A. (2005). An empirical investigation of the metrics alignment process. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(5/6), 312-324. Miles R.E., & Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York: McGraw Hill. Milis, K.,& Mercken, R. (2004). The Used of the Balanced Scorecard for the Evaluation of Information and Communication Technology Projects. Industrial Journal of Project Management, 22, 87-97. Nadler, D.A.,& Tushman, M.L. (1997). Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture. New York:Oxford University Press. Paul P Tallon, P.P., & Kraemer, K.L. (1998). A Process-oriented Assessment of the Alignment of Information Syatems and Business Strategy: Implication for IT Business Value. Paper Presented in Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Baltimore. Rigby, D. (2007). Management Tools and Trends. Bain & Company. Simonsen, J. (1999). How do we take care of strategic alignment? Scandinavian Journal of Information System, 11(X-Y), 1-22. Skinner, W. (1969). Manufacturing- Missing Link in Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business Review, May- June, 1-10. Stede, W.V., Chow, C.W., & Lin, T.W. (2006). Strategy, Choice of Performance Measures, and Performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting,18, 185-205.

Teo, T.S.H., & King, W.R. (1997). Integration between Business Planning and Information System Plannning: An Evolutionary- Contingency Perspective. Journal of Management Information System, 14(1), 185-214. Thompson, K.R., & Mathys, N.J. (2008). The Aligned Balanced Scorecard: An Improved Tool for Building High Performance Organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 378-393. Witcher, B.J.,& Chau, V.S. (2007). Balanced Scorecard and Honshin Kanri: Dynamic Capabilities for Managing Strategic Fit. Management Decision, 45(3), 518-538.