Strategy Revitalization in academe : a balanced scorecard approach

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

IJEM 22,1

32

Strategy revitalization in academe: a balanced scorecard approach Roselie McDevitt, Catherine Giapponi and Norman Solomon Charles F. Dolan School of Business, Fairfield University, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a unique version of the balanced scorecard developed and applied by the faculty of a university division. experiences Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses a case study approach and uses the experiences of the fac facult ulty y of a bus busine iness ss sch school ool to des descri cribe be the pro proces cesss and bene benefits fits of dev develop eloping ing a cus custom tom bala balance nced d scorecard. Findings – The unique version of the scorecard revitalized the faculty and resulted in a process model of organizational change based on the balanced scorecard that can be used in many academic divisions. Practical implications – This unique version of the scorecard helped to establish a program of continuous improvement and facilitated the formulation of strategic initiatives. The documentation provided in the scorecard supports requests for increased budgets and grant applications. Originality/value – University and faculty administrators can use the model developed in this paper as a basis of a change program that can help design improvement improvement programs, facilitate strategy strategy development, develop ment, and suppor supportt funding requests. requests. Keywords Business schools, Balanced scorecard, Continuous improvement, Higher education, Strategic management Paper type Case study

Introduction Univers Univ ersitie itiess mus mustt rem remain ain comp competi etitive tive to mee meett the dem demands ands of accr accredi editing ting bod bodies. ies. Administrators face increasing demands for quality and accountability from internal and external forces and constituents, and in the past have looked to the business manageme mana gement nt lite literatu rature re for hel help p in dev develop eloping ing prog programs rams that kee keep p pace with the demands of a competitive environment (Welsh and Metcalf, 2003). For example, the balanced scorecard developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992) introduces a new way of measuring business unit performance that is directly linked to mission and strategic goal setting, by using measurements from four perspectives: (1) fina financi ncial; al; (2) interna internall business business processe processes; s; International Journal of Educational Management Vol. 22 No. 1, 2008 pp. 32-47 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0951-354X DOI 10.1108/09513540810844549

(3) cus custome tomer; r; and (4) inn innovat ovation ion and and learning learning.. The authors would like to than thank k the Eastern Eastern Acad Academy emy of Mana Managem gement’ ent’ss 2006 Conference Conference reviewers and discussants for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Unlike performance performance measure measurement ment approaches that focus on controlling behaviour, behaviour, the balanced bala nced scor scoreca ecard rd aff affords ords opp opportu ortuniti nities es to mot motivat ivatee orga organiza nization tional al mem members bers to achieve goals that support long-term vision. Through new and expanded applications, the scorecard can play a central role in integrating strategic management systems by linking long-term strategic objectives with short-term actions (Kaplan and Norton, 1996a, 1996b). The balanced scorecard was develope developed d and adopted by “for-profit” companies such as Rockwater, and FMC Corporat Corporation ion (Kaplan and Norton, 1993). Its usefulness has also been recognized by public and private non-profit organizations. Applications of the balanced scorecard in the healthcare industry (Oliveira, 2001), and in government and public sector organizations have been successfully implemented (Griffiths, 2003). There are reports of colleges using the balanced scorecard to develop frameworks forr me fo measu asurin ring g in inst stitu ituti tiona onall ef effe fect ctive ivene ness ss on th thee ma macro cro le leve vell (Ka (Karat rathan hanos os an and d Karathanos, 2005; Ruben, 1999). Such adaptations provide university administrators with a measurement system that is not only linked to mission and strategy, but is also a le lear arnin ning g mo mode dell th that at su supp ppor orts ts con conti tinu nuous ous im impr prov ovem emen entt an and d en envi viro ronm nmen ental tal responsiveness. Unlike previous institutional level applications, this study examines the process of creating a balanced scorecard scorecard at the academic division level, and results in a process model that can facilitate the adoption of the balanced scorecard by any academic division.

Organizational context This case involves a School of Business that is one of six academic divisions and is led by a Dean, and two Assistant Deans who work with approxim approximately ately 40 full time faculty members. There are approximately 1,200 undergraduate students, and 200 graduate students in the school. The five departments include: accounting, finance, information systems, management, and marketing. The Department Chairpersons work with the Deans through a Chairs’ Council. Three major faculty committees report directly to the facult fac ulty: y: Gra Gradua duate te Com Commit mittee tee,, Und Underg ergrad raduat uatee Cur Curricu riculum lum Com Commit mitte tee, e, and the Continu Con tinuous ous Imp Improve rovemen mentt and Ass Assess essment ment Com Committ mittee ee (CI (CIAC). AC). The These se comm committe ittees es give the School the characteristics of a matrix organization with representation across the academic academic disc discipli iplines nes mix mixed ed wit with h mem members bers of the administrat administration ion as show shown n in Figure 1. The need to develop a program of improvement, strategy setting, and evaluation was precipitated by four major factors: (1) an increase increase in the number of faculty faculty members members in the school; school; (2) a change change in lead leadersh ership; ip; (3) a change in the demand demand for bus busines inesss school graduate graduates; s; and (4) the the ne need ed to foc focus us on ass asses essm smen entt an and d co cont ntinu inuou ouss im impr prove oveme ment nt ini initia tiativ tives es required by accrediting agencies. The CIAC considered several strategy setting models before selecting the balanced score sc orecar card d as th thee fra frame mewor work k for a st strat rateg egy-c y-cen ente tered red as asses sessm smen entt an and d con conti tinu nuous ous improvement.

Strategy revitalizatio revita lization n in academe

33

IJEM 22,1

34

Figure 1. Identifying key players in a School of Business committee matrix

Strategy revitalization: a process model Applying the model resulted in clearly defined business school goals and objectives, greater faculty involvement, involvement, and guidelin guidelines es for managing the process itself. As shown in Figure 2, the final model depicts six phases in the revitalization process that can guide strategic planning, evaluation, and continuous improvement. Phase I: Founda Foundation tion building The four steps in Phase I require the organization to: (1) det determi ermine ne the need need for change; change; (2) ide identif ntify y and organize organize the key play players ers in the process; process; (3) evaluate and articulate articulate leadership leadership vision; vision; and and (4) review mission mission statement statement and and align with with vision. Examples of a need for change include: a liberal arts institution may decide that the “Department of Business” is too large to operate as a department and that it should be a “School of Business”, the university has not kept up with technological change, the university is conducting an organization-wide reevaluation program, or a new leader is hired whose vision does not align with that of the previous leader. Since each ea ch ac acad adem emic ic or orga gani niza zati tion on is un uniq ique ue,, th thei eirr sp spec ecifi ificc ne need edss sh shou ould ld dr driv ivee th thee revitalization process. Ourr cha Ou chang ngee ini initia tiativ tivee be began gan wi with th th thee ap appoi point ntme ment nt of a ne new w De Dean an.. Th Thee De Dean an familiarized himself with the internal environment by: .

.

reviewing the existing vision, mission, goals and objectives of the school; and interviewing University administrators, School of Business Department Chairs, faculty members, and student representatives.


35

Figure 2. Phases of the strategy revitalization process using the balanced scorecard

IJEM 22,1

Next, he examined the external pressures of a changing marketplace by: .

.

36

.

.

.

reviewing reviewin g a rece recently ntly com complet pleted ed Uni Univers versity ity wide mark market et stu study dy tha thatt inc include luded d information specific to the School of Business; hosting working meetings with the School of Business Advisory Council which included break out sessions; conducting focus groups with recent graduates led by a faculty expert; meeting meet ing wi with th th thee Ca Caree reerr Pl Plann annin ing g Dir Direc ecto torr to de dete term rmine ine how th thee Sc Schoo hooll of Business was perceived by the recruiters that hired our students; and by meetings with business leaders in the surrounding area.

Lastly, the requirements of the principal accrediting agency, AACSB International, were ascertained. ascertained. Clearly, there was a need for goals and strategies that would not only support the goals of the School of Business, but also meet the requirements of the University and satisfy accreditation standards. He identified four strong factors that pointed to the need for change: (1) the existing existing strategic plan plan was completed five five years prior and did not address address the needs identified in the Dean’s examination of the internal and external pressures; (2) the new leader leader brought a participative participative managemen managementt style with him; him; (3) the number number of faculty faculty members members had increased increased by over 40 percent percent to mee meett the needs of an expanding program as defined by the accrediting body; and (4) the demand demand for business business school graduates graduates was changing changing as determined determined by the University’s Univer sity’s market study. Based Base d on th thee Be Beck cker er et al (2001) 01) re recom comme menda ndatio tion n th that at tw two o sp spons onsors ors lea lead d th thee al.. (20 implementation of an organizational change program (a line and an administrative person), two sponsors sponsors in the School of Business were were identified. identified. The Dean served served as the administrative sponsor and the Chair of the CIAC was the line sponsor. As a means of mobilizing mobilizin g commitm commitment, ent, the Assistant Deans, Department Department Chairs, and members of the four main School of Business Committees were identified as the key players as shown in Figure 1. The revitalization process was led by the CIAC, whose work was reviewed by the other key players and ultimately by the business school faculty as a whole. At this juncture, the CIAC felt it was important to establish a communication network and review mechanism, which included information sessions, updates at faculty meetings, meetings, faculty perspective group meetings (defined later in the text), electronic updates, and hard copy reports. It is important that the leader’s vision is clear (Levin, 2000) and that it is adequately aligned with the position, goals and objectives of the academic unit. Once the Dean had articulated his vision, the current organizational mission had to be examined. There are several ways to evaluate the current mission statement (See Campbell, 1997) including: distributing distributing copies of the mission statement statement to all faculty members for their th eir co comm mmen ents, ts, or hos hostin ting g one or mo more re me meet etin ings gs to dis discus cusss th thee cu curre rrent nt mi miss ssion ion statement. Whatever method is chosen, it is vital that all faculty members understand that their input is important in building the foundation for strategy revision. The

division’s mission statement was reexamined by all of the constitu division’s constituents ents of the School to insu in sure re th that at it sup suppor porte ted d th thee bro broad ader er Un Unive iversi rsity ty mi miss ssion ion,, th thee req requi uirem remen ents ts of accrediting agencies, and the goals of the faculty (see Figure 3). In this case, the CIAC summarized faculty recommendations and submitted them to the School of Business faculty members for final approval. Rais Ra ised ed fa facu cult lty y aw awar aren enes esss wa wass on onee of th thee mo most st im impo port rtan antt ou outc tcom omes es of th this is examina exa mination tion,, esp especia ecially lly beca because use appr approxim oximatel ately y 40 perc percent ent of the mem members bers of the facu fa culty lty were hi hired red after after th thee old mi miss ssion ion st stat ateme ement nt had be been en ad adopt opted. ed. Jus Justt as sig signifi nifica cant nt,, senior faculty were given the opportunity to re-evaluate and comment on its continue continued d viability. Activities like this help to build a foundation for a strategy that fosters alignment of leadership vision, organizational and unit level missions, and strategic goals.


37

Phase II: Score Phase Scorecard card develo development pment The CIAC recommended the balanced scorecard framework because it enables the formulation formulat ion of strategi strategies es that focus on continuou continuouss improvement efforts that are linked to vision and mission. Two major strengths are: it was a business approach that was familiar to some members of the business school’s faculty increasing the likelihood of increased participation; and it points to critical activities and objectives, and suggests ways of measuring them and presenting the results in a concise and organized fashion. The CIAC also recognized that the balanced scorecard had weaknesses. Originally a priva pr ivate te se sect ctor or ap appro proach ach:: it wa wass com comple plex; x; dat data a av avail ailab abili ility ty was a pro probl blem; em; an and d it required constant alignment with strategy and vision. The CIAC, however, felt that the strengths strengt hs outweig outweighed hed the weaknes weaknesses. ses. With Wi th th thee vi visio sion n and mi missi ssion on st state ateme ment ntss cle clearl arly y art articu iculat lated ed an and d the bal balanc anced ed scorecard framework selected, the task of developing the scorecard began. At this stag st agee th thee CI CIAC AC em empha phasiz sized ed ho how w im impor portan tantt it wa wass to en enlis listt fac facult ulty y su supp pport ort and maintain the high level of participation necessary throughout the planning process to ensure a successful outcome (See Briggs et al., 2003). There were two activities in the education program selected by the CIAC. First, a comprehensive reading list was compiled and key articles were distributed to the constituents with a memo asking them to review the readings. Second, a seminar was held to discuss the readings which included:

Figure 3. Strategic alignment

IJEM 22,1

.

.

.

38

Kaplan’s and Norton’s, 1996a article which describes the balanced scorecard as a holistic model of strategy; Kaplan’s and Norton’s 1996b article which advocates participative change; and Kaplan’s and Norton’s, 2001 article which points out that the balanced scorecard is a “powerful tool for driving change initiatives”.

After the faculty reviewed the reading materials, a full day seminar was held to begin the discussion process. Giving the faculty members the opportunity to discuss the appropriateness of using the balanced scorecard in their school was a key factor in fostering their acceptance. In addition, faculty familiarity with the scorecard was a factor that led to their acceptance. Thee ba Th balan lanced ced sc score oreca card rd de deve velop loped ed by Ka Kapl plan an an and d No Norto rton n (19 (1992) 92) loo looks ks at an organization from four perspectives: (1) fina financi ncial; al; (2) int interna ernall busines business; s; (3) cus custome tomer; r; and (4) inn innovat ovation ion and and learning learning.. While these perspectives perspectives are appropriate in a business setting, they are not suitable for an aca acade demic mic un unit. it. A br brain ainst storm ormin ing g se sess ssion ion wa wass par partt of a se semin minar ar he held ld to de define fine perspect pers pectives ives appr appropria opriate te for an acad academic emic uni unit. t. Thr Through ough open disc discussi ussion, on, fac faculty ulty members mem bers quic quickly kly rec recogni ognized zed the str streng ength th of exa examini mining ng an orga organiza nization tion thro through ugh multi mu ltiple ple pe persp rspec ectiv tives es as pre presc scrib ribed ed in th thee bal balanc anced ed sc score orecar card. d. As a res resul ult, t, fiv fivee perspectives emerged: (1) Gro Growth wth and Deve Developm lopment ent.. (2) Sch Scholars olarship hip and and Research Research.. (3) Tea Teachi ching ng and Learn Learning. ing. (4) Ser Service vice and and Outrea Outreach. ch. (5) Fin Financi ancial al Resources Resources (see (see Figure Figure 4). Faculty Facul ty me memb mbers ers vol volun unte teere ered d to wor work k in one of fiv fivee su subc bcomm ommit itte tees es for formed med to represen repr esentt each per perspec spectiv tive. e. The These se pers perspec pective tive grou groups ps met met,, sele selected cted a lead leader, er, and worked work ed on per perspec spective tive worksheet worksheetss des designe igned d to ins insure ure that the results results of the five groups’ grou ps’ dis discuss cussions ions were sub submit mitted ted to the com committ mittee ee in a com comparab parable le form format. at. Tabl Tablee I is an example of a preliminary worksheet. Finally, perspective group leaders presented the work prepared by their groups to the faculty for discussion. This discussion created a shared understanding of the objectives and strategic initiatives defined across perspective groups. In the following weeks, facilitators from the CIAC organized the work prepared by the perspective groups. To maintain the communication links between the CIAC and the working groups, they accumulated and summarized the perspective groups’ input on a regular basis. Based on feedback, each perspective was evaluated and improved several times. For instance, one of the perspect perspective ive groups included every possible goal and objective that they could identify, ignoring the idea that only key measures are


39

Figure 4. Balanced scorecard – first draft

Perspective IV Goal

Productivity To improve the productivity of intellectual contributions and scholarship

Objective

Scholarship and research Measure

To assess productivity in research output

Number of public publications ations

Peer-reviewed: journal articles, notes, proceedings, etc. Editor-reviewed: Books, Chapters in books, Commentaries, Book reviews, etc. Number of presentations at conferences

included in the balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996a). Therefo Therefore, re, major goals had to be distilled from the many that were proposed. The CIAC created the first complete draft of the balanced scorecard from the final drafts of the worksheets submitted by the perspective groups. An analysis of the scorecard and its supporting worksheets revealed overlap in the goals and objectives across acro ss per perspec spective tive grou groups. ps. The Therefo refore, re, the sub subcomm committe ittees es wer weree aske asked d to refi refine ne thei theirr work and elim eliminat inatee redu redundan ndancy. cy. Afte Afterr the revi revised sed work workshee sheets ts were sub submit mitted, ted, the CIA CIAC C mad madee some editorial adjustments and created a second draft of the balanced scorecard. The directing committee began to examine the availability of the performance meas me asure uress re requ quire ired d by ea each ch pe persp rspec ectiv tive. e. As ex expec pecte ted, d, mo most st ava availa ilable ble me measu asures res supported administrators’ objectives, and the measures for many of the faculty defined objectives were not available. The committee created Balanced Scorecard Mapping Worksheets (see Table II) as a means of identifying available measures and where in thee Un th Unive ivers rsity ity th thee in infor format mation ion was ge gene nerat rated ed.. Thi Thiss ve versi rsion on of th thee wor works kshee heets ts

Table I. Sample perspective group preliminary worksheet

IJEM 22,1

Perspective IV Objective

40

Productivity To improve the productivity of intellectual contributions and scholarship

Table II. Balanced scorecard mapping worksheet

Measure

Scholarship and research Source of information

Number of public publications ations

Peer-reviewed: journal articles, notes, proceedings, etc. Editor-reviewed: Books, Chapters in books, Commentaries, Book reviews, etc. Number of prese presentation ntationss at conferences

Department Chairs Department Chairs’’ Annual Reports Department Depart ment Chairs Chairs’’ Annual Reports

Department Chairs Department Chairs’’ Annual Reports

expanded the content of the previous round of worksheets by adding columns to show the existing sources of information. In the Scholarship and Research Perspective, the columns reflected how many articles were published and where that information was recorded. This step revealed that some of the information was available, but difficult to access, and some was just not available. For example, in the Teaching and Learning Perspec Per spective tive,, the there re were mult multiple iple inst instrum ruments ents that mea measure sured d stu studen dentt lear learning ning or satisfac sati sfaction tion bec because ause eac each h dep departm artment ent had gath gathere ered d info informat rmation ion pert pertinen inentt to the their ir majors, making it impossible to organize the data in a meaning meaningful ful way. To address the need for consistent information, the School adopted the Educational Benchmark Inc. (EBI) (EB I) pr progr ogram am fo forr as asse sess ssmen mentt dat data. a. An Anoth other er ex exam ample ple of inf inform ormati ation on no nott bei being ng availa ava ilable ble wa wass fo found und in th thee Se Servi rvice ce and Ou Outre treach ach Pe Persp rspec ecti tive ve.. In Incr creas eased ed alu alumn mnii involvement in classroom programs was a goal, but there was no way to capture this information and results could not be reported. The CIAC created an electronically adminis admi nistere tered d annu annual al facu faculty lty surve survey y which which now acc accumul umulate atess this this and oth other er fac faculty ulty data to support the scorecard. At the end of Phase II, the balanced scorecard as shown in Figure 4 had been completed and was ready to use in the evaluation of the academic unit’s performance as defined by the members of the faculty. Each of the five perspectives: Teaching and Learning;; Service and Outreac Learning Outreach; h; Growth and Development; Development; Scholarsh Scholarship ip and Research Research;; and Financial Resources were supported by perspective group worksheets.

Phase III: Comp Compile ile measur measures es Since it was expected that the balanced scorecard would require continuous evaluation and improvement, Phase III had two primary functions: (1) to compile performanc performancee results based based on available data; data; and (2) to identify identify measures measures for which which data was not availabl available. e. At the end of the school’s academic year, the CIAC used the most recent iteration of the balanced scorecard to compile performance results. For those goals that had measures available, a baseline was establis established hed against which future outcome measures could be compared. For example, the admissions office supplied the new student enrollment information needed to complete the measures defined in the Financial Perspective. On

the other hand hand,, some necessary necessary performance performance measures measures wer weree not avai availabl lablee or not currently captured. For example, in the Service and Outreach Perspective, the faculty members had set an increase in alumni involvement as a goal, but there was no mechanism to collect the necessary information.

Phase IV: Analyse results It was not enough to simply report the performance measures in a balanced scorecard. The information had to be used for continuous improvement and strategy setting. Therefore, this phase was used to: determine the success of the faculty in meeting their goals; and reevaluate the metrics selected. .

.

Thus, in Phase IV, actual performance was analysed and the quality of the metrics was evaluated. The completed scorecard was discussed by the individual perspective groups, the Chairs’ Council, CIAC, and other key players identified early in the process. It was circulated and discussed at a faculty meeting. The discussions centered on: .

sugges sugg estio tions ns to im impro prove ve pe perfo rforma rmanc ncee on th thee goa goals ls th that at cou could ld cu curre rrent ntly ly be measured;

.

what to do about missing data;

.

the quality and relevance of the metrics; and

.

suggestions to improve the scorecard itself.

Phase V: Recom Phase Recommend mend chang changes es Phase V of the model requires the formulati formulation on of improved objectives, objectives, metrics, targets, strategic strateg ic initiati initiatives, ves, and process improvements. improvements. In this case, the scorecard was revised to reflect new and existing strategic goals. The strategic initiatives became clearer as the balanced scorecard improved over time. Three types of recomme recommendations ndations emerged in Phase V: (1) Rec Recomme ommendat ndations ions for future future strategic strategic initiativ initiatives es – one goal was to exp expose ose student stu dentss to the app applicat lication ion of bus busines inesss the theory ory in prac practice tice.. The sup support porting ing objective to reach this goal was to bring alumni on campus to speak to classes and clubs. Therefore, it was necessary to create a strategic initiative initiative that would get more alumni involved. (2) Recommendations Recommendations to to revise the objective objectives, s, the measures, measures, and the the targets – the first round of mapping worksheets looked for the sources of existing measures, but sub subseq sequent uent versions versions of the bala balance nced d sco scoreca recard rd rec recogni ognized zed the link linkages ages between perspectives as well as the direction of those linkages. The mapping process helps to identify areas where strategy is weak (Kaplan and Norton, 2000). For example, the objective of one strategic initiative initiative is to get more alumni involv inv olved ed in st stud udent ent rel relate ated d pr progr ograms ams.. Th Thee sup suppor portt for th this is st strat rateg egy y ma may y involve funding more joint alumni and faculty activities. The linkage would begin in the Financial Perspective Perspective with a program that would provide funds for alumni activities, move to the Teaching and Learning Perspective with alumni participating in classroom activities, and ending in the Service and Outreach Perspective with the measure of alumni involvement (see Panel A of Figure 5).


41

IJEM 22,1

42

Figure 5. Strategic initiatives – examples of interactions

But alumni involvement involvement can support other goals as well. For instance, the same funds that were provided for alumni activities in the example above can result in research opportunities and end in the Scholarship and Research Perspective with a faculty publication publication (see Panel B of Figure 5). The true linkages related to any strategic strategic initiativ initiativee represent represent multipl multiplee interactions interactions as presented presented in Panel C of Figure 5. (3) General General recommend recommendatio ations ns to imp improve rove and fac facilit ilitate ate the bala balanced nced scorecard scorecard process proc ess – the proc process ess impr improvem ovement entss reco recomme mmended nded to fac facilit ilitate ate gath gatherin ering g missing data were to: create a worksheet (faculty survey) to be completed by individual faculty members. This worksheet was meant to facilitate faculty report rep orting ing and gu guara arant ntee ee rep report orting ing con consi sist stenc ency y acr acros osss de depar partm tmen ents ts.. As a secondary outcome, outcome, the faculty worksheet worksheet was a personal reminder of the goals and objectives of the School of Business as it related to each individual faculty member.

Phase VI: Revise and implement initiatives and metrics Annu An nual al re revi visi sion on an and d up upda dati ting ng ac acti tivi viti ties es ar aree ba base sed d on th thee Ph Phas asee V pr prop opos osed ed recommendations. After the appropriate members of the administration evaluate the recommendations for new strategic initiatives, plans for implementing those that are deemed dee med fea feasibl siblee and/ and/or or affo affordab rdable le foll follow. ow. Jus Justt as imp importa ortant, nt, reco recommen mmendat dations ions for process changes need to be evaluated and initiated by the faculty where appropriate. In this case, the end of the first annual cycle resulted in an incomplete scorecard. Where the information was available to complete the performance measure, a baseline meas me asure ure was es estab tablis lishe hed, d, and sp spec ecific ific ob objec jecti tive vess we were re se sett so th that at su subse bseque quent nt performance performan ce could be evaluated evaluated.. For instance, instance, if 40 refereed publication publicationss were achieved achieved this year, an objective may be set to: maintain this level of publication; or increase it each year. Where no first year measures were developed, no baseline was set, but would be once the data source was identified. Afte Af terr th thee fir first st ye year ar th thee pr proce ocess ss be begin ginss at Ph Phase ase II III. I. Th Thee foc focus us is on pr proce ocess ss impro im provem vemen entt in im imple pleme ment nting ing th thee ba balan lance ce sc score oreca card rd an and d de deve velop loping ing st strat rateg egic ic initiati init iatives ves.. As mor moree link linkages ages bet between ween pers perspec pective tivess are defi defined ned,, the new str strateg ategic ic initiatives initiativ es will become easier to identify. Ideally, the time needed to complete the steps in Phase III through Phase VI will be greatly reduced over the years. However, given the dynamic nature of strategy, periodic changes in vision and mission may occur, and require more formal reexamination of the organizational direction and strategy. It is anticipated that this type of formal review will occur once every five years. Summary and conclusions The key deliverables from using the balanced scorecard in this kind of revitalization program include: .

.

.

the definition of the School of Business’ identity and direction as separate and distinct from that of the University; the cr the crea eati tion on of a ne new w co comm mmun unic icat atio ion n ne netw twor ork k am amon ong g th thee fa facu cult lty y an and d administration; the increase in faculty awareness of the goals and objectives of the school;


43

IJEM 22,1

.

.

44

the documentation of needs that can be submitted to the administration for funding; and the method for integrating strategic planning, implementing strategic initiatives, and monitoring the success of the strategic programs.

In the case described, the balanced scorecard put the academic unit in a strong position to request university funds for strategic initiatives that met its clearly defined goals and objectives. This resulted in the allocation of resources for four major programs: (1) revision of of the undergraduat undergraduatee and graduate graduate programs; programs; (2) alignm alignmen entt of th those ose pr progr ogram amss wit with h th thee go goals als art artic icula ulate ted d in th thee ba balan lance ced d scorecard; (3) exp expans ansion ion of the physica physicall plant; plant; and (4) cre creation ation of three three endowed endowed chairs in the School of Business. Business. In addition, another positive outcome worth noting is that the balanced scorecard metrics have been integrated into the Dean’s annual report which provides an ongoing measure of the School of Business’ progress toward its strategic goals. The annual report facilitates faculty dialogue around the scorecard, thereby reinforcing a common understanding of strategic priorities. This understanding makes it easier to mobilize faculty facu lty mem members bers in new stra strategi tegicc init initiati iatives. ves. Fin Finally ally,, the str strateg ategic ic man managem agement ent proces pro cesss de deve velop loped ed by th thee Sc Schoo hooll of Bu Busin sines esss ha hass con contr tribu ibute ted d to th thee su succ cces essf sful ul extension of its accreditation for undergraduate and graduate business programs by AACSB. The process which was driven by the School of Business faculty faculty and adminis administrators trators emphasi emp hasized zed con continu tinuous ous imp improvem rovement ent and ass assess essment ment and sup support ported ed the stra strategy tegy setting process of the academic unit. Figure 6 shows a recent iteration of the balanced scorecard scor ecard.. Unf Unfortu ortunate nately, ly, not all obje objectiv ctives es cou could ld be show shown n for each perspectiv perspectivee because of the length of the scorecard and the complexity of the interactions. interactions. However, the selected objectives shown can give the reader some insight into the basics of a balanced scorecard for an academic unit. The succ success essful ful imp impleme lementa ntation tion of the bala balanced nced scor scoreca ecard rd revi revitali talizat zation ion proc process ess was dependent on building enabling systems. In this application each of the four requir req uireme ement ntss of an en enabl abling ing sy syst stem em su sugg gges este ted d by Be Becke ckerr et al. (20 (2001) 01) we were re achieved: (1) key player playerss were identi identified fied;; (2) a subcommittee subcommittee infrastructure infrastructure was created created to support participants; participants; (3) sharing sharing measureme measurement nt out outcom comes es was achieved achieved thro through ugh written reports reports and faculty meetings; and (4) funding was was made available available to achieve these these outcomes. outcomes. The process model that emerged from the activities of the business school faculty was successful successf ul in: .

attaining attainin g greater involvement;

.

clarifying the goals and objectives of the school; and

.

establishing guidelines for the administration of the steps in the process.


45

Figure 6. Balanced scorecard – School of Business

IJEM 22,1

46

Unlike other change models as related to motivation and acceptance, the uniqueness of the balanced scorecard is that it provides a comprehensive view of organizational perfo pe rforma rmanc ncee us using ing mu multi ltiple ple pe persp rspec ecti tive vess and su supp pport ortss an int integ egrat rative ive st strat rateg egic ic management manageme nt system by linking long-term strategic strategic objectiv objectives es with short-ter short-term m actions. Significantly, the faculty gained a richer understanding of the school’s mission and goals as they related to the tactical initiatives developed to achieve those goals. That understanding continues to help faculty members design courses to achieve those goals as they see fit. Adaptations of the process presented here can be used by other academic units in their revitalization programs. There are, however, several important challenges: .

sustaining the momentum of the program;

.

reaching consensus within and among the groups;

.

developing effective communication across working groups; and

.

developing measures for long-term qualitative goals.

The gro The group up te tend ndenc ency y was to foc focus us on th thee goa goals ls and objectiv objectives es th that at we were re eas easily ily measu me asurab rable le.. Th Throu rough gh mu much ch fa facu culty lty di disc scus ussio sion n it was det deter ermin mined ed th that at ind indire irect ct measures could be developed for qualitative goals and in the case where this was not possible, the goals were set aside for inclusion in later iterations of the scorecard. This solution is consistent with a program of continuous improvement, which requires that the balanced scorecard not be treated as a static instrument. The contributions of this research extend beyond the development of a process model. The use and adaptation of the balanced scorecard in a revitalization effort that emphasizes continuous improvement and strategic positioning at the academic unit level lev el,, rat rathe herr th than an th thee org organ aniza izatio tional nal lev level el,, pr provi ovide dess a un uniq ique ue app applic licati ation on of th thee framework. References Becker, B., Huselid, M. and Ulrich, D. (2001), The HR Score Scorecard: card: Linking People, People, Strat Strategy, egy, and Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Briggs, C.L., C.L., Stark, J.S. and Roland-P Roland-Poplawski, oplawski, J. (2003), “How do we know a continuous planning planning acade ac ademi micc pro progra gram m wh when en we see one one?” ?”,, The Jou Vol. l. 74 74,, pp pp.. 36 3611-85 85.. Journa rnall of Hig Higher her Edu Educat cation ion, Vo Campbell, A. (1997), “Mission statements”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 931-2. Griffiths, J. (2003), “Balanced scorecard use in New Zealand government departments and crown Griffiths, entities”, Australian Journal of Public Administration , Vol Vol.. 62, pp. 70-80. Kaplan, Kapl an, R.S R.S.. and Nor Norton, ton, D.P D.P.. (199 (1992), 2), “The bala balanced nced scor scorecar ecard-m d-measu easures res that driv drivee perf performa ormance” nce”,, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 71-9. Kaplan Kap lan,, R. R.S. S. and No Norto rton, n, D. D.P. P. (1 (1993 993), ), “P “Putt uttin ing g the bal balanc anced ed sc score oreca card rd to wo work” rk”, Harvard ,Harvard Busi Business ness Review, September-October, pp. 134-47. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management management system”, Harvard Business Review , January-February, pp. 75-85. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), “Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy”, California Management Review , Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 53-79. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2000), “Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it”,Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 3-11.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001), “Leading change with the balanced scorecard”, Financial Executive, Vol. 17, pp. 64-70. Karathanos, D. and Karathanos, P. (2005), “Applying the balanced scorecard to education”, Journal of Education for Business , Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 222-30.


Levin, I.M. (2000), “Vision revisited”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , Vol. 36, pp. 91-107. Oliveira, J. (2001), “The balanced scorecard: an integrativ Oliveira, integrativee approach to performance evaluation”, Healthcare Financial Management , Vol. 55, pp. 42-6. Ruben, B. (1999), “Toward a balanced scorecard for higher education: rethinking the college and university excellence indicators framework”, Higher Education Forum QCI Center for Organizational Development and Leadership , Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 1-10. Welsh We lsh,, J. J.F. F. and Me Metca tcalf, lf, J. (20 (2003) 03),, “F “Facu acult lty y and adm admini inistr strat ative ive sup suppor portt for in insti stitut tutio ional nal effectiveness activities: a bridge across the chasm?”, The Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 74, pp. 361-85.

Further reading Zajac, E.J., Kraatz, M.S. and Bresser, R.F. (2000), “Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: a normative approach to strategic change”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 429-53.

Corresponding author Roselie McDevitt can be contacted at: [email protected]field.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

47

Strategy Revitalization in academe : a balanced scorecard approach

Recommend Documents