Measuring Business Excellence

Emerald Article: An experiment in the usefulness of a strategy map Nopadol Rompho

Article information:
To cite this document: Nopadol Rompho, (2012),"An experiment in the usefulness of a strategy map", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 16 Iss: 2 pp. 55 - 69 Permanent link to this document: Downloaded on: 15-10-2012 References: This document contains references to 100 other documents To copy this document:

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Saudi Digital Library For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit for more information. About Emerald With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Unlike many studies that employ the survey method in which confounding variables cannot be controlled. Experimentation. Introduction It is widely accepted that a performance measurement and management framework plays a very important role in managing an organization and can improve business performance (Sharma et al. Thailand. Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy. such as a correlation between strategic measures in the strategy map or guidelines for the use of the map. 1996. 1996. Design/methodology/approach – An experimental design is used in this study. Kaplan and Norton. DOI 10. More details. could help make a strategy map more useful. Bangkok.. Thammasat University. 1993. 1999) and the assessment of its uses (Dixon et al. The multiple regression technique is used as the analysis tool in this study. Practical implications – Results obtained from this research suggest that a strategy map alone is not an effective tool to help managers make better decisions. Decision making. Business performance Paper type Research paper 1. many organizations fail to realize the benefit gained by employing these tools (Meyer and Gupta. Each participant completed two rounds of the experiment covering 24 decisions using a simulation game. substantial effort has been put into the design and implementation of performance measurement systems (Eccles and Pyburn. Performance measurement systems.An experiment in the usefulness of a strategy map Nopadol Rompho Nopadol Rompho is Assistant Professor in the Department of Operations Management.. Research limitations/implications – This research employs the laboratory experimental design. Despite the effort spent to set up these frameworks. 16 NO. Olve et al. 2001. 2000. 1999. 1990. Both for-profit and nonprofit organizations have invested substantially in the attempt to set up a framework that will over the course of time lead to successful management of the organization. The author received a research grant from the Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy. Thammasat University. The interest in this topic has increased significantly in the last 20 years (Taticchi. 1992.1108/13683041211230320 VOL. 2006). This finding can thus be valuable to managers who are considering using a strategy map as a management tool. Avella et al. Over the last two decades. Balanced scorecard.. ISSN 1368-3047 j MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE j PAGE 55 .. Thus the external validity (the generalizability) is limited. Unahabhokha et al. 2 2012. 1998).. A total of 24 participants were randomly assigned into two groups – a control group and a treatment group. Originality/value – This study tests the cause and effect relationship between using a strategy map and the results of decisions made. Bititci et al. 2008) and it is attracting increasing attention in business and management literature (Neely. Findings – The results show that strategy maps do not affect the performance of participants’ decision making.. 2005). pp. results from this experiment suggest that a simple strategy map alone does not improve the quality of decision making. Summary Purpose – The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of a strategy map on the quality of decision making. 2000. 55-69. Keywords Strategy map. Neely et al..

Each perspective in the balanced scorecard has four main components that need to be clarified. 2001). 1998. The third component is a target value. the project or activity that should be performed to help the organization achieve its objective. This cause and effect linkage is made explicit by the illustration of a strategy map. 2008). 2001a. and 5. This is the numerical value that is set up as a guideline to judge the level of success of each objective. 1998.. 4. 1999. Malmi.. 16 NO.. A strategy map is a logical and comprehensive tool for describing strategy by identifying the critical elements and their linkages within an organization’s strategy (Kaplan and Norton. 2. 1999. Once strategic objectives are identified. PAGE 56 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. customer. According to Kaplan and Norton (2004b). a strategy map is based on five principles: 1. 1991. 2001). 2003) The balanced scorecard has been found to be the most popular performance and management framework (Silk. regardless of whether or not the balanced scorecard is used (Eccles. Finally. and 28 percent in Germany and Austria) have adopted this tool (Rigby. Townley et al.. Lewy and Du Mee.e. A study found that 44 percent of organizations in North America (Rigby. This framework. Bourguignon et al. 2001.b. The balanced scorecard is not a method of categorizing measures into four perspectives. It is suggested that the graphic presentation of the strategy map may contribute to rapid adoption and implementation of the balanced scorecard through its flexibility. Strategy maps The strategy map is the tool Kaplan and Norton proposed to help make strategy more explicit than a vague presentation in some passage (Kaplan and Norton. In a more recent work. originating in research conducted by Professor Dr Robert S. The first component is ‘‘strategic objective’’.. Bourne et al. it starts at the learning and growth perspective. 2004) use the Balanced Scorecard..000 companies used the balanced scorecard in 2007 (Thompson and Mathys. 2011). Once customers are satisfied. 2003). 2002. 46 percent in the US. and learning and growth (Kaplan and Norton. Schneiderman. 2004a. 3. strategy balances contradictory forces. which will have a direct effect on the organization’s internal processes and lead to customer satisfaction. which is the outcome the manager expects in that particular perspective if the strategy is implemented successfully. 2000. Young and O’Byrne. Thus it can be argued that the balanced scorecard can translate strategy (strategic objectives) into action (initiatives). Kaplan and Dr David P. (2004) also found that the balanced scorecard is most cited performance measurement system. internal processes. 2003a. 2010). 2. 1997. For a for-profit organization. 2001b). strategy consists of simultaneous. strategy is based on a differentiated customer value proposition. The strategic objective for each perspective must show a cause and effect relationship. 2 2012 j j . strategic initiatives must be proposed (the fourth component). proposed that an organization should pay attention to both financial and non-financial performance from four perspectives: financial. 1998. rationalizing management processes and empowering management action (Free and Qu. 1995. Copeland et al. 1996. which is one of the strongest points of the balanced scorecard (Norreklit. Norton in 1992. This concept is generally accepted to be useful for strategy implementation.. Those measures must be related to organization strategy and related to each other (Hoque and James. 2000). complementary themes. Kaplan et al. Speckbacher et al. McCunn. Gomes et al. 1992). Bierbusse and Siesfeld. the measure of each objective (the second component) must then be proposed. Meekings. strategic alignment determines the value of intangible assets.1994. It is also reported that over 40 percent of organizations worldwide (57 percent in the UK. 2001) and 35 percent of large US firms (Marr et al. value is created through internal business processes. i. 2000. a good financial outcome will follow. it has also been reported that 40 percent of Fortune magazine’s top 1. 2003. 2004).

1997. those studies do not directly address the issue of whether the use of strategy maps contribute to the success. Lipe and Salterio (2000) found that decision makers tend to compare the measures that are common across different units and ignore the measures that are unique to individual business units. For instance. For example. 1993. including the strategy map. VOL. Quezada et al. Although a number of studies show a positive relationship between strategic performance measures and a firm’s financial performance (Anderson et al. 2001a.b). the proposed methodology does not indicate whether the decision makers gain benefit by using the strategy maps. This use of strategy map is a ‘‘strategic learning loop’’... De Geuser et al. Many times. These results were confirmed by the study of Banker et al. 2003. also. Ittner and Larcker. 2001.A strategy map not only makes strategy more explicit. 16 NO. Other scholars who support the resources-based view of a company (Grant. (2009) proposed a simple tool that helps in the creation of the strategy map. these findings could be interpreted in another way as showing that successful companies have the luxury of time and thus tend to pay more attention to a strategy map than unsuccessful companies that are fighting for survival and might not have time for this tool.. There have been attempts to suggest a way to create a strategy map. 2003). These findings indicate a strategy map does have an effect on evaluator decision-making. Thus a strategy map is a ‘‘double-loop learning’’ tool (Kaplan and Norton. 2000. they do not provide concrete evidence to support that claim. It was found that the performance evaluators are more influenced by strategically linked measures than non-linked measures only when details about strategy. The map will explicitly illustrate the cause and effect linkage. Petergraf. Lucianetti (2010) also found that employees in companies that use strategy maps perceive more benefit from the balanced scorecard than those who do not have a strategy map. the better they can implement strategies and they thus claim that strategy maps are a tool to help employees better understand strategy . are given to evaluators. Some studies addressed the effect of performance measures and strategy maps on decision making. 1993. 2001. These arguments have raised serious doubts as to the usefulness of a strategy map. Barney.but again. the cause can be easily identified. designed to show only a unidirectional cause and effect linkage. Kaplan and Norton (2000) emphasized that the better employees understand strategy. 1991. it can also be used as a tool to help managers review their organization’s performance. Anderson et al. and lacking a feedback loop (Norreklit. 2000. This is essentially an operational control loop that can assist managers to focus on the real issue and not blame everything on unrelated factors. This finding was supported by the work of Marr (2005).. managers can review the organization’s performance against the strategy map. In a more recent work. 2009). indicating that firms using a causal model had better performance than those that did not use it. it was found that companies with scorecards and strategy maps outperformed other companies.. In the work of Wilkes (2005). 2007. too simple and difficult to validate.. so every step has to be done subjectively (Abrain and Buglioni. This means that the strategy map. Banker et al. is then not conceptually correct. However. 2001) also note that the company consists of a bundle of resources in which the different assets depend on each other to create value and thus the valuation of intangible assets on a stand-alone basis is impossible (Lev. 2 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 57 j j . Banker et al. none of these findings prove a causal linkage between use of a strategy map and performance since there are number of uncontrollable factors. 1996. (2004) in which an experiment was conducted to test the judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy. a strategy map could stimulate managers to ascertain whether the current strategy is applicable to the current situation and eventually lead to a revision of current strategy. Kunc. not considering time lag effect among measures. even if a clear explanation is not demonstrated. 1998a. Despite the use of strategy map as previously described and the belief that strategy maps can be use as a double-loop learning tool. 2001). Malina et al. Barney et al. If one area is found to be underperforming.. Still. 2008). At the end of the year (or the period each organization uses as its review period). it has been criticized as not discriminating among logical and causal linkages. Ahn. It also does not provide a concrete technique to consolidate individual perspective. 1994.

e. The effect of each investment would be for that quarter only. and US$60 million for quarters 9-12). grade point average. In each quarter each participant has a specified bankroll for investment (US$10 million for quarters 1-4.. Studies have shown that age was found to influence decision-making (Taylor. any investment would immediately be deducted as expense in that quarter. i. To answer this research question. 2 2012 j j . Anderson and Morrice. In this study. no one knows exactly how long since the achievement of one objective will have an effect on the achievement of the other objective. Note PAGE 58 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. Gladstein and Reilly. 2004). The unused bankroll could not be carried over to another quarter. it becomes more difficult to test the cause and effect relationship between the usage of strategy map and the result of decision making in a real-life scenario compared to a simulated setting. 2009. each participant needed to decide in which strategic initiative(s) he/she wants to invest. It is even harder to test this cause and effect linkage if the situation is constantly changing and nothing can be controlled. and grade in BA 701 (the course that is related to performance measurement). very few studies examine whether it has any effect on decisions made by managers and eventually leads to the correct decision. spent more time viewing and reviewing less information than younger people (Johnson. Even if a strategy map is assumed to be valid. Each participant was able to see the performance result of their decisions at the end of each quarter. 2009). instead of a real-life scenario. 2000. 3.There are very few studies. 16 NO. Cantor and Macdonald. 1990). 24 MBA students were recruited to participate in the experiment. Each quarter. thus. if any. researcher constructed a simulation game called ‘‘Managing through measures (MTM)’’ and used this as a tool for the experiment. Random assignment in this study was used to reduce selection bias. 1981. that address a linkage between the use of strategy maps and decision-making leading to successful performance. they are equally weighted. Thus. Participants in both the control and treatment groups attended a session at which the researcher explained the research methodology. there can be a significant amount of uncontrollable factors that can influence the outcome. Capelo and Dias. However this study does not address how to test the validity of a strategy map in an organization: it is aimed only at answering the question ‘‘if the strategy map is valid. These measures are considered to be equally important in the experiment. Of the participants. can it help managers make better decisions?’’ The methodology of study is presented in the following section. This might be due to the fact that it is very difficult to test the cause and effect of each strategic objective in the map taking into account the time lag effect. to test the performance of decision making is not new. These three factors were controlled in the belief they may have an effect on decision-making. Each participant was told to use this bankroll to invest in any initiative in any amount or to not invest at all. Table I shows the list of initiatives and performance measures. The reason to use the simulation game instead of a real-life scenario is that in a real-life setting. It has been found in literature for many years (see for example. Risk-taking has also been shown to diminish as age increases (Deakin et al. 1985. 2005. Thus this study tries to close the gap by testing the effect of strategy maps on the quality of decision-making. The idea of using the simulation game. This game is specifically designed by the researcher for the purpose of this research. In each quarter. Research methodology This study employs the experimental research design as it aims to prove the causal relationship between using a strategy map and the results of making decisions. This game ran for 12 quarters. Grade point average was used to indicate the business knowledge that MBA students gained during the time of the experiment and the final grade for BA701 (performance management and value creation) represents knowledge of performance measurement systems in general. Hogarth and Makridakis. US$30 million for quarters 5-8. Anderson. These measures were selected to include both leading and lagging indicators among perspectives in the balanced scorecard (see also in Figure 1). 12 were randomly assigned as the control group and the other 12 as the treatment group. 1975): older people used less information. Random assignment was employed to ensure that the two groups were similar in age.

the customer satisfaction index would be improved. the customer satisfaction index can be changed by VOL. 2 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 59 j j .Table I List of initiatives and performance measures Initiative Customer relationship management project Performance measure Customer satisfaction index Type of measure Leading indicator for number of repeat customers/total number of customers Lagging indicator for percent of defects in production process and percent on-time delivery Leading indicator for total revenue Lagging indicator for number of new customers/total number of customers and number of repeat customers/total number of customers Leading indicator for percent market share Lagging indicator for number of new products developed per quarter Leading indicator for percent market share Lagging indicator for customer satisfaction index Leading indicator for customer satisfaction index and reputation score Lagging indicator for employee capability index Leading indicator for customer satisfaction index and reputation score Lagging indicator for employee capability index Leading indicator for number of new customers/total number of customers Lagging indicator for employee capability index Leading indicator for number of new customers/total number of customers Lagging indicator for employee satisfaction index and percent of defects in production process Leading indicator for reputation score and employee capability index Leading indicator for number of new products developed per quarter. 16 NO. For example. Each participant was also informed that each performance measure would be affected by investment in a particular initiative as shown in Table I. percent on-time delivery. and percent of defects in production process Lagging indicator for employee satisfaction index Advertising campaign Percent market share Promotion campaign Number of new customers/total number of customers Number of repeat customers/total number of customers Percent on-time delivery Value customer project Six sigma project Total quality management project Percent of defects in production process Number of new products developed per quarter Reputation score Innovation project Public relations campaign Bonus bank project Training Employee satisfaction index Employee capability index Figure 1 Strategy map used in the experiment Profit Revenue Expense Financial Customer Market Share Customer Acquisition Customer Retention Customer Satisfaction Organizational Reputation New Product Development On time delivery Quality of Product Internal Process Employee Satisfaction Employee Capabilities Learning & Growth that. At the same time. the type of measure (leading/lagging indicator) as presented in Table I was not shown to the participants during the experiment. if the participant invested in the customer relationship management project.

the researcher debriefed the participants and showed them the results. total expenses and net profit. Each participant’s objective was to maximize accumulated profit (the sum of profit over all 12 quarters). This strategy map was created based on the relationship that the researcher created in the simulation game. For a validity test. The reason to set profit as a single objective is that the aim of this study is to test the quality of decision making with or without the strategy map. Note that each Table II The design of the experiment Group Control Treatment First round (pre-test) O1 O3 Strategy map (X) Second round (post-test) O2 O4 X PAGE 60 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. This condition was expressed by an economic index. the game was used as a tool to teach students enrolled in an undergraduate level performance management course. These results were not shown in the four perspectives in the balanced scorecard format. participants in the test will only have to focus on one thing.other factors. It was tested successfully. Each quarter. which resulted from the analysis of the performance measures. every participant. This is thus not a hypothesized strategy map but a true cause and effect relationship. As a result. The game was also reviewed by two experts in this field. including net profit. The strategy map given to those in the treatment group is shown in Figure 1. A higher economic index meant that the participant could get a better result. If the same amount of investment was input into the same initiative in the same situation (economic index). Its reliability was also tested for every initiative. the participant was only told the mechanism of the game as previously indicated. This index is the constant number input by the researcher in each quarter. Thus. The reason to introduce the strategy map in the second round of the experiment is to ensure that both control and treatment groups have similar abilities. the desired outcome. The economic conditions set for each quarter also differed. a number ranging from 0.7-1.e. its validity was confirmed. as it can be observed in the difference of performance of both groups in the first round. the simulation game was tested for validity and reliability. 2 2012 j j . All of these performance measures are linked with each other and also have an effect on either total revenue or total expense. then the difference of the performance of both groups in the first round should be minimal. in both the control and treatment groups. Before used. For example even if a participant did not invest in the customer relationship management project. as observed via the performance measures. However the cause and effect relationship is not made explicit at the beginning of the experiment. When including more than one objective it becomes more difficult to measure how good participant’s decisions are and can lead to inconclusive results. only as a list of thirteen separate measures. when those two groups had the same information. was reported to participant immediately. In the first round. the simulation game was run by the researcher and the result of the performance measures. 16 NO. only those in the treatment group were given additional information. three additional measures were also reported: total revenue. the reliability of the game was confirmed. If the abilities of both groups are at the same level. Thus. Once the decision was made. There were two rounds in this experiment. i. which finally lead to profit – the desired outcome of the game. The profit. by using only one dependent variable. In the second round. was asked to make decisions each quarter. Once the second round experiment finished. The participants in the control group were given nothing and all conditions and rules in the second round were the same as in the first. reflected the right decisions. the customer satisfaction index would improve if other performance measures are improved. from a smaller investment than when the economic index was lower.2. the strategy map. the profit and other performance measures were found to be exactly the same.

there were one hundred and forty-four (O2 – O1) and 144 (O4 – O3). each participant’s grade for BA701.118. GPA. Multiple regression technique was employed as the tool for analysis of this study.15 0. Age ¼ age of participant.83 33. the value of (O4 – O3) and (O2 – O1) were calculated for each quarter (from quarter 1 to 12) for each participant. US$30 million for Q5-Q8 and US$60 million for Q9-Q12). This finding could be due to the greater experience and knowledge for each participant when making decisions in the second round than in the first round.54 3.16 Variable D Profit (US$) Age GPA BA 701 Investment (US$) Economic VOL.467). The control variables included in the analysis are age.669 2. These figures (O2 – O1) and (O4 – O3) are termed D Profit and are treated as a dependent variable. Table III Descriptive statistics for variables in the study Control (treatment ¼ 0) Standard Average deviation 3.17 3. profit in the second round of the experiment was better than in the first round.16 0.360.117. the difference between O4 and O3 (O4 – O3) must be larger than the difference between O2 and O1 (O2 – O1).16 Total Average 3. The design of the experiment is summarized in Table II. As there were 12 participants in the control group and 12 participants in the treatment group. This was not surprising.16 0.736 1.115 27. Since the conditions in each quarter are different (economic index and investment bankroll).768 0. 4. Before being used. When no strategy map was presented to either group.49 0.983 5. Results and discussion For the 24 participants. p-value .728.983 Standard deviation 6. which is statistically greater than 0 (t-score ¼ 8. it was also found that the difference of profit between control group and treatment group in the first round was insignificant (t-score ¼ 0. If a strategy map is a tool that helps improve decision-making.67 33. GPA ¼ grade point average of participant. 0.333. and 1 ¼ error in estimation.32. when the game is new. 16 NO. 2 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 61 j j .750 29.117.30 20.951.814 0.98 0.583.29 20. Economic ¼ economic index for each quarter.117.56 3.participant was given approximately ten minutes to make a decision each quarter.76 33. The latter two controlled variables are included because both varied from quarter to quarter in the simulation game. O1 – O4 in Table II refers to net profit that results after the participant makes a decision. The independent variable in this experiment is the group of participants. as for each quarter. BA701 ¼ participant grade for BA701.30 0. which is treated as a dummy variable (0 ¼ control group and 1 ¼ treatment group).333 0.768 0. thus confirming that the abilities of participants in those two groups were at the same level.333 0.01). X refers to the existence of a strategy map in the experiment (only participants in treatment group were given the strategy map). Investment ¼ investment bankroll (US$10 million for Q1-Q4. the average D Profit is US$3.764.333.933. Thus it might affect D Profit. The regression equation is as follows: DProfit ¼ a þ b1 Treatment þ b2 Age þ b3 GPA þ b4 BA701 þ b5 Investment þ b6 Economic þ 1 Where D Profit¼ (O2 – O1) for control group or (O4 – O3) for treatment group.21 3.619.26 20.619. Treatment ¼ 0 for control group and 1 for treatment group.077 2. Thus the two rounds of 12 quarters each took approximately four hours.16 Treatment (treatment ¼ 1) Standard Average deviation 3. or in other words (O4 – O3) – (O2 – O1) must be positive.333.333 0.25 3.933 28. investment bankroll and economic index. p-value ¼ 0.58 3.983 6. a ¼ constant. all assumptions for multiple regression analysis were tested and the results showed that all assumptions are met.

Finally. US$30. Table III shows the descriptive statistics for the variables in this study. further analysis was performed via multiple regression and treating D Profit as a dependent variable. and US$60 million according to the rules of the simulation game. Additionally.039 and p-value for the overall model ¼ 0.. Ittner and Larcker.666 2 0.128 2 0.116 0. This number supports the study of Speckbacher et al. Participants in the treatment group in this study who were given a strategy map might see each measure as independent and as not mirroring the cause and effect logic. The average of the investment bankroll is the simple average of the US$10. the findings in this study indicate that a strategy map does not have any relationship with performances resulting from decisions made. Although a strategy map is said to be a visual representation of the cause and effect relationships within a company’s critical objective (Kaplan and Norton. This result is consistent with the findings obtained from many scholars that highlighted the inadequate definition and utilization of the performance indicators as a main drawback of the balanced scorecard (Lingle and Schiemann. This possible explanation was also confirmed by interviewing all participants in the treatment group. in which half of the companies adopting balanced scorecard did not develop a causal model of their strategies and a study by Davis and Albright (2004) that found that 77 per cent of the companies adopting the Table IV Results from the regression analysis Standardized coefficients (Constant) Treatment Age GPA Grade in BA 701 Investment Economic Index t 1. which is similar to those used in many organizations.405 2 1. Some participants even stated that they did not believe that the strategy map actually helped them make better decisions and that the only information they needed to make decisions was the result of each performance measure. They may simply ignore the strategy map when making decisions.148 0. participants did not test the causal effect in the strategy map quantitatively. 1998. 2 2012 j j . the information in the strategy map provided to them did not help them make better decisions. This means that strategy map (treatment) had no effect on the results of the decision-making. Stivers et al. not the linkage in the strategy map.455 2 0. has performance measures that are not clearly defined.306 p-value 0. 1992).073 2 0. 1996. Thus.However the improvement in profit on average is similar between the treatment group and the control group. 2004a) and might help users better understand strategy because a graphical presentation makes it easier to identify relationships and produces better comprehension (Wittrock. since the economic index was set in the simulation game and not changed for the second.021 1. 1998b.043 2 0. Kourilsky and Wittrock. Speckbacher et al. In order to ascertain the variables that could explain the change in profit. It is interesting to note that the average age of the participants in the control group is greater than that of the treatment group. while GPA and final grade for BA701 are greater for the treatment group than for the control group. This can be explained by the fact that the strategy map used in this study.538). 2000.540 0. Glenberg and Langston. 1987. 16 NO.064 2 0. the average of the index is identical for both the control and treatment groups.615 2 0. 1974. Lipe and Salterio. 2001.146 0. As a result. Malmi.686 0.760 2 0. 2003). This phenomenon is consistent with the findings of Ittner and Larcker (1998b) who reported that only 23 per cent of the 157 organizations survey tested the causal model of strategy maps.462 2 0. (2003).027 PAGE 62 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL.. participants might not be very clear about the definition of each performance measure used in this study.309 0. Table IV shows the results of the regression analysis.506 0. This revealed that none of the independent and control variables used in this study could be used to explain the variance of D Profit (the regression model r 2¼ 0.

After managers discover the results of their decisions. Thus in our case.. In the decision-making process. It can be argued that the decision to introduce the strategy map for the treatment group in the second round might have influenced the findings of the experiment. 1983). without the map. every participant received feedback in terms of performance measures. in addition to the strategy map. 1998. A more detailed strategy map illustrating the exhaustive relationships among the different measures can also yield different results as it is more difficult for a manager to make a decision without the help of the map. as evidenced in the study of Ittner et al. Mathieu et al. Managers make decisions and learn about their decisions in the context of feedback loops (Forrester. people use a mental model to describe. resulting in the insignificant difference between the performances of the two groups.. a strategy map must provide information that managers cannot obtain simply by using their own mental model. Quality of feedback has been found to definitely affect the quality of the decision-making process (Sterman.. The successful case studies can also be good examples for managers to demonstrate how to use a strategy map. Managers also build their mental models as they engage in business decisions (Capelo and Dias. 2009). This could explain why the results of their decisions are not statistically different than for the participants in treatment group. it can be implied that a strategy map alone does not improve decision-making. 16 NO. there are twelve decisions to be made in each of the two rounds. taking into account that the participants in this study are middle managers who are currently studying for their MBA degrees. it is interesting to note that the strategy map used in this study can be too simplistic to influence the decision makers. 2000). These findings explain why many organizations that use a balanced scorecard fail to improve their performance. Conclusion Based on the findings of this study. By then. 2004. In this study. If this argument is true. 1943. Otherwise. 1996. Johnson-Laird. Davis and Yi. it is possible that the participants in the control group. 2005). VOL. In every simulation game quarter. managers should be given more details. Nevertheless. Managers can learn from their own mental models without using a strategy map at all. They will make better decisions if their mental models are similar to reality (Rowe and Cooke. 1976). managers can imagine that higher customer satisfaction can lead to higher customer retention or more market share can cause more revenue. Steps must be taken to convince managers that strategy maps provide useful information and can be a very powerful tool that helps them make better decisions. The second possible explanation for this finding is mental model of the participant. Stout et al. it even confirms that the strategy map does not provide any additional information. A simple cause and effect relationship is thus not sufficient to provide understanding of complex relationships (Voelpel et al. managers may ignore the map on the grounds that the map provides them with nothing more than a graphical representation of organizational strategies. They then do not need a documented strategy map to help them make decisions. (2003) and Hendricks et al. 2006). This feedback may have had a high enough quality to help them make better decisions without using the strategy map. who did not have a strategy map when making decisions. As a result. Wyman and Randel. In the end. they use that feedback to modify their mental model (Argyris. explain and predict a system’s behavior (Craik. 2 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 63 j j . This includes the training of what a strategy map is and how to use it effectively.balanced scorecard fail to develop the casual model of their strategies. The final possible explanation of what was found in this study is due to the quality of feedback. such as correlation between each measure in the map and a detailed explanation of how to interpret the map. 2000. For example. (2004). 1995. were able to build a mental model that closely aligns to a strategy map. 1961). 5. managers in both groups would have already known the linkage between one initiative and another. Only the results of performance measures reported after decision-making would seem to be adequate if this was the case. A strategy map is simple enough that managers can build their own mental model similar to the map.

Thus. Journal of Education for Business. Anderson. productivity.J. which. the time between enhancing customer satisfaction until it reflects the improvement of customer retention should be estimated. Vol. This step will ensure that the strategy map is valid and up-to-date and can be used to help managers make better decisions. Anderson. Wiley. E. pp. and Morrice. i. Fomell. Production and Operations Management. Advances in Engineering Software. Anderson. Argyris. pp. L. 16. Vol. This study is not without limitations. 9. this was not tested in this experiment. (1994). A field experiment could be employed by asking managers to make decisions with and without a strategy map in a real work setting. NY. International Journal of Production Economics. PAGE 64 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. (1997). a strategy map should be statistically tested for validity.J. pp. Therefore the decision-making process may vary from real life situations. ‘‘A multidimensional performance model for consolidating balanced scorecards’’.. ‘‘Customer satisfaction. (2001). 2 2012 j j . Vol. A strategy map with detailed guidelines and correlation between each measure could thus be tested as to whether it has an effect on a manager’s decision making. E.. In order to enhance the external validity by conducting the experiment in a natural setting. while it yields high internal validity (proof of the cause and effect relationship). Avella. Fernandez. It should be updated when strategies are changed or every time that performance is reviewed. and Buglioni. Once there is enough data for each performance measure. it is interesting to include more independent variables and test whether the strategy map will have a relationship with the performance of decision making.R. H. (2000). Fomell.e. 34 No. ‘‘Applying the balanced scorecard concept: an experience report’’. 16 NO. 339-49. 4. C. ‘‘Customer satisfaction. Vol. D. 139-57. The usefulness of the strategy map and a method of using it can be investigated based on managers’ perception. the effect of using a strategy map can be tested empirically in a real-life setting. W. However. J. Increasing Leadership Effectiveness. 72. one of the strengths of the use of a strategy map is its ability to communicate articulated strategies to subordinates in a hierarchy or to peers of other units. 81 No. ‘‘Analysis of manufacturing strategy as an explanatory factor of competitiveness in the large Spanish industrial firm’’. and Rust. 2. which is the result of decision making. R.. For example. pp. 441-61. More research on this topic is clearly needed. Ahn. Then.G. is not in a natural setting. E. and profitability: differences between goods and services’’. 40-55. (2005). Vol. C. 34. (2001). It has also been observed in this study that none of independent variables used in this study can be used to explain the variance of improvement in profit. Anderson. Long Range Planning. The strategy map could diagrammatically show how one strategy leads to outcomes. 58. 129-45. (1976). ‘‘A simulation game for teaching service-oriented supply chain management: does information sharing help managers with service capacity decisions?’’. Finally the characteristics of ‘‘successful’’ strategy maps can be identified in order to help managers create the right strategy map for their organizations. References Abrain. A. Subordinates and peers of other divisions could well see how they contribute to the performance or achievements of an organization as a whole. market share. pp. and Vazquez. The experiment in this study was also designed to test the use of a strategy map at one level of management. Since the research approach employed in this study is a laboratory experiment. pp. (2003). D. New York. the assumption of time lag between measures needs to be considered. Vol. Marketing Science. ‘‘The relationship between student perceptions of team dynamics and simulation game outcomes: an individual-level analysis’’. W. 85-90. and Lehman. L. and profitability: findings from Sweden’’. This limits the external validity (generalizability) of this study. However.Additionally. 53-66. pp. the manager himself making the decision leading to results. E. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. a strategy map must be reviewed consistently.

Jr (2001). and Murrin. (1993). and Mills. Deakin. Journal of Management. (2002). Neely. J. M. 16 NO. (2003a). C. T. Wilcox. Cambridge. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Platts. 245-69. Robbins. 1288-310. 5. pp. ‘‘Does the balanced scorecard add value? Empirical evidence on its effect on performance’’. R. (2004).. K. and the role of knowledge structures’’. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. R. J.. (1997). 2. 220-32. K. 590-8. pp. (1996). M. ‘‘Implementing performance measurement systems: a literature review’’. and Yi. Banker. Bourne.S. K. D. S. D. 1. pp. 509-23. International Journal of Business Performance Management... 75 No. symbolic mental rehearsal.F. V. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol.. John Wiley & Sons.W. ‘‘Reporting manufacturing performance measures to workers: an empirical study’’.W. ‘‘Risk taking during decision-making in normal volunteers changes with age’’. Aitken. Cambridge University Press. J. J. De Geuser. Barney. Bourne. 1 No. (2009). Capelo. and Srinivasan. pp. Bourne. and Ketchen. (2004). Vol. International Journal of Business Performance Management. ‘‘Why some performance measurement initiatives fail: lessons from the change management literature’’. Vol. Vol. System Dynamics Review. ‘‘The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy’’. 107-34. VOL. (2000). 11. 1. M. (2009). J. Control. 9-13. A. J. J.F. NY. 135-53. Potter.D. Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement.. 65-92. Vol. A.. 1. 15 No.. Vol. Chang.E. (2004). pp.. Vol.. ‘‘An investigation of the effect of balanced scorecard implementation on financial performance’’. 27 No. 1-23. A. 93-122. (2004). (2004). M. Craik. Hamblin. pp.S. A.. 22 No. Davis. Bourne. 5 Nos 2/3. 10 No.. Vol.J. 6-11. and Albright. pp. K. 25 No. pp. International Journal of Business Performance Measurement. 27 No. (1998). The Nature of Explanation. ‘‘Performance measurement system design: testing a process approach in manufacturing companies’’. and Oyon. and Wilcox. 33-55.. M. 15. G. Mooraj. pp.C. 2. M. pp. Barney. Vol. Academy of Management Review. D. M. Bititci. and Norreklit. 6. 7. and Turner. ‘‘Diagnosing the integrity of your performance measurement system’’.J. ‘‘Decision-making in the supply chain: examining problem solving approaches and information availability’’. Mills.D.J. Platts. 3. T. Potter. J. M. P.B. ‘‘Improving computer skill training: behavior modeling.. pp. Vol. Neely. 41-56. 26 No. Vol.. J. ‘‘Measures that matter’’.D. 1. 18 No. U. S. K. Mills. and Schroeder. Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies. pp. Journal of Operations Management. and Sahakian. Bourguignon. R. 4. Mills. pp.J. Mills.F. D. R. T. A...S. 2. and Platts. Banker.Banker. F. G. Bicheno. (1999). Carrie. Vol. 89.F.B. K. 1. Vol. 1-34. implementing and updating performance measurement systems’’. The Accounting Review. (2009). International Journal of Operations & Production Management..S. F. (2003b).. 79 No.F. ‘‘Designing. ‘‘A system dynamics-based simulation experiment for testing mental model and performance effects of using the balanced scorecard’’. 1-24. Davis. ‘‘The success and failure of performance measurement initiatives: the perceptions of participating managers’’. A.. Vol. pp.C. B..D. and Siesfeld.. Malleret. M.D. H. Vol. European Accounting Review.F.D. Neely. pp. and Platts. pp. Bourne. and Dias. 754-71. J. 625-43. Platts. A. Vol. 20 No. 154-70. 5 No. D. New York. Vol. pp. ‘‘An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes non-financial performance measures’’. ‘‘The resource based view of the firm: ten years after 1991’’. Vol. The Accounting Review.. pp. T. and Macdonald. 1 No. Copeland. M. (2000). Neely. T. (1943). Management Accounting Research. J. and Pizzini. ‘‘Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes’’. ‘‘The American balanced scorecard versus the French tableau de bord: the ideological dimension’’.. Bierbusse. Wright. Koller. T. pp. H. Journal of Management Accounting Research. 2 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 65 j j . Cantor. (2001). 1. J. Neely. Management Accounting Research.

131-7. Kaplan. M. Kaplan. (1992). Journal of Accounting Research. Johnson. Pegasus Communications. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language. pp. R. Larcker. W.S. R. Gomes. pp. (2000). D. and Makridakis. 28. 16 NO. 45 No. ‘‘Group decision making under threat: the tycoon game’’.J.S.. 1. Vol. Forrester. Dow Jones-Irwin.Q. 27 No. 1-37.Dixon. R. and Wiedman. (1996).M. (2011). Accounting. 2. (1991). S. L. (2004).S. 134-42. 71 No. Menor. R. Eccles. T. pp. ‘‘Measuring the impact of quality initiatives on firm financial performance’’. 69. ‘‘The performance measurement manifesto’’. C. 28 No. 5. Journal of Technology Management. J. Vol. Vol. Harvard Business Review. R.S. ‘‘Age differences in decision making: a process methodology for examining strategic information processing’’.. (2003). ‘‘Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms’’. S.M. pp. C. 511-30. 93-107. D. D. Johnson-Laird. Vol. Organizations and Society.E. (1990). T. Vol. Ittner. MA. 33 No. The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive In The New Business Environment. pp. Nanni. Kaplan. D. A. Kaplan. (1961). November/December. 7 No. (1993).P. C. (2000). 1-15. Hendricks. D. PAGE 66 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. ‘‘The balanced scorecard: to adopt or not to adopt?’’. and Norton. Kaplan. ‘‘Comprehension of illustrated text: pictures help to build mental models’’. Gladstein. 1-35. Boston. Harvard Business School Press. Advances in the Management of Organizational Quality. Journal of Management Accounting Research.S. California Management Review. (1981). 70 No. Harvard Business Review. Management Science.P. 613-27. and Larcker. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change. Vol. Hoque. Ittner.V. C. pp. P. 12 No.. pp. 3. R. Industrial Dynamics. Vol. Inference and Consciousness. Harvard Business School Press.R. ‘‘Creating a comprehensive system to measure performance’’.S. 6. J. and Larcker. Ittner. pp. and Qu. 1. pp. C.P. and Norton. A. pp. Journal of Gerontology. (1998b). R. Cambridge. 2. Waltham. Boston. and Larcker. October. (1991). K. 15 No. Homewood. 2 2012 j j . D. (2004). IL. (1998a).P. Glenberg. ‘‘The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation’’. ‘‘The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance’’. pp. MA. Academy of Management Journal. ‘‘Are non-financial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction’’. The New Performance Challenge – Measuring Operations for World-class Competition. 3.J. MA. Management Accounting. 715-41. and Vollmann. Ivey Business Journal.M. Vol.. (1983). 14-35. 1992-2010’’. P. pp. M. ‘‘Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: impact on organizational performance’’. Vol. 78 No. Harvard University Press.F. Vol. The Balanced Scorecard – Translating Strategy Into Action. pp. Vol. pp. Vol. ‘‘The value of decision making in a complex environment: an experimental approach’’. 5. D. 75-8. Hogarth. and Norton. 71-9. Z. J. 1.P. Vol. and Langston. ‘‘Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it’’.P. pp. and Norton. Ittner. ‘‘The use of graphics in promoting management ideas: an analysis of the balanced scorecard. Harvard Business Review. ‘‘Innovations in performance measurement: trends and research implications’’. pp. Journal of Management Accounting Research. (1990). 167-76. Yasin. (2001a). C. and James. Vol. 31. Grant.L. N. Harvard Business Review. 10. 205-38. and Randall. 41-4. Eccles. R. 1-7. D. (1985).G. 158-89. ‘‘Putting the balanced scorecard to work’’. 129-51. D. R. Free. (1992). and Reilly. Vol. MA. (1992). D. and Pyburn. C. and Norton. (1996). and Lisboa. 1. Journal of Memory and Language. pp. W. ‘‘Literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research’’. pp.

and performance measurement models’’. Neely. MA. 5. 21-36. D. 56-61. (2005). pp. pp. S. 205-28.J. Cannon-Bowers.. Research in Organizational Behavior. Kourilsky. 114-20. R. ‘‘Business performance measurement – what is the state of use in large US firms’’. pp. M.W. and Cannon-Bowers. Measurement.S. P. ‘‘The strategy map: guide to aligning intangible assets’’. Kaplan. H. ‘‘The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next’’. A. Meyer. J. 15 No. M. pp. Gregory.S. and Richards.H. Management Control and Accounting. (2004). Kunc. ‘‘From balanced scorecard to strategic gauges: is measurement worth it?’’. (2000). pp. R. Management Accounting Research. Goodwin. J. Malina. M. Vol. T. International Journal of Production Economics. (1999). Intangibles: Management. ‘‘The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance’’. ‘‘The ten commandments of balanced scorecard implementation’’. 24 No.. Norton. Cranfield. 85. and Norton. Vol. Vol. Vol. and Wittrock. J. Lucianetti. Cranfield University. Management Review. Vol. and Norton. 3 No..S. (2004b). Vol. H. The Brookings Institution. 16 NO. 2 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 67 j j . 1. Kaplan. Journal of Applied Psychology. D. pp. Vol. ‘‘Relations among measures. (1995). (2010). Lingle. M. 10-17. Teaching & Teacher Education.S. 19 No. B.P. 46. A. and Selto.P. 12 No. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Neely. Goodwin. M. B. ‘‘Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies’’. J. and Du Mee. pp. 32 No. 309-69. B.S. M.F. 935-82. T. J.. 16. and Reporting. climate of control.. 3. (2001). Kaplan. K. and Gupta. D. Boston. G.P. Franco. Public Money & Management. Vol. R. DC. (2007). (1994). pp.S. 12 No. Vol.A. (2010). 1-12. ‘‘The performance paradox’’. ‘‘Unlocking the potential of performance measurement: a guide to practical implementation’’. (1998). Management Decision. October-December. 75 No. Vol.. ‘‘The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures’’. Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets Into Tangible Outcomes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. T. (2001). E. and Rugelsjoen. B. Meekings. W. 26. Contemporary Accounting Research. pp. (1987). April.F. Vol.A. Adams. McCunn. Proceedings of Performance Measurement and Management: Public and Private. L.. (2001b). Vol. Vol. (2005).. 56-62. ‘‘The balanced scorecard: the eleventh commandment’’. ‘‘Using systems thinking to enhance strategy maps’’. 1-8. ‘‘Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: part I’’. D. Mills. 87-104. Wilcox. 9 No. E. Strategy & Leadership. (1998). Marr.. Heffner. 2. pp. Accounting Horizons. 423-31. pp. and Norton. ‘‘Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: equifinality and normative comparisons’’.. Mason. 627-34. M. pp. ‘‘Managing alliances with the balanced scorecard’’.. (1996).P. 46 Nos 5-6. pp. J. pp. G. (2004a). S. Vol. and Salas. 1.D. M. (2000). C. ‘‘Performance measurement system design: should process based approaches be adopted?’’.E. (2008). pp. 1. 1. Vol. Lev. International Journal of Business Performance Management. Neely. A. April. pp. 37-56. Washington. Harvard Business Review.. 273-83. Vol. Harvard Business School Press. 85. 761-78. Platts. pp. V. 2. 34-6.. VOL. 3.. Mathieu. D. M.G. (1996). 34-6. Marr. 283-98. Measuring Business Excellence. ‘‘The impact of the strategy maps on balanced scorecard performance’’.. 207-20. Norreklit.. Malmi. Heffner. pp. Centre for Business Performance. A. M. Bourne. The Accounting Review. M. Management Accounting. 88 No. and Schiemann. C. pp.O. ‘‘Verbal and graphical strategies in the teaching of economics’’. pp.Kaplan. Salas. 3. F. R.. Lipe. and Kennerley. and Salterio. Mathieu. ‘‘Business performance measurement: an overview of the current state of use in the USA’’. Lewy.

10. New York.J. K. pp. pp. 361-87. 2. B. and Tan. Vol. ‘‘The balance on the balanced scorecard – a critical analysis of some of its assumptions’’. ‘‘The tyranny of the balanced scorecard in the innovation economy’’. K. ‘‘The balanced scorecard: what is the score? A rhetorical analysis of the balanced scorecard’’. B. 18 No. Speckbacher. 43-60. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. (1999). (2003). pp. Vol. D. R. 14. pp. and Kraiger. 46-9.K. pp. 308-29. 16 NO. Unahabhokha. D. P. C. (2009). pp. 2. Quezada. 38-44. 1119-45. Educational Psychologist. 20 No. J.D. Platts. Stivers. Rigby. ‘‘Performance measures and the rationalization of organizations’’. Management Accounting. Vol. and Wetter. 11. pp. and Cooke. Vol. G. T. (2003). 24 No. Cordova.. Wilkes. Norreklit. 492-500. J. Sharma. (2008). and Mathys. F. Management Accounting Research. G. Human Resource Development Quarterly. pp. (1998). E. 3.. Chichester. R. pp. Schneiderman. ‘‘Practice of performance measurement: experience from Indian SMEs’’. Godoy.. ‘‘The role of trainee knowledge structures in aviation team environments’’.Neely. 2 2012 j j . (2000). and Smalt.D. Vol. A. Organizational Dynamics. M. The Academy of Management Journal.. H. Vol. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. S. (1993). Taticchi. (1995).A. (1999). G. PAGE 68 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. NY. Organization Studies. ‘‘How nonfinancial performance measures are used’’. 378-93.. California Management Review. Townley. Measuring Business Excellence. ‘‘Leading and lagging practices in performance management’’. 66-88. International Journal of Production Economics. 44. 6-11. 28 No. Cooper. Hall. pp. (2005). (2003). 1 No. J. A. 183-213. Vol.M. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 41-6.J. K. 7.S. 9 No. M.. Vol. ‘‘Business performance measurement and management: implementation of principles in SMEs and enterprise networks’’. S. 1. 122. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management. Leibold. J. 179-88. Norreklit.P.G. K. 4. 11 No. pp. Vol. H. Bischof. 37 No. M. Bhagwat.F. and Oakes. M. (2005). M. Vol.E. H. ‘‘A framework for developing and using a predictive delivery performance measurement system’’. pp.. Vol.J. pp. Management Accounting. Accounting. ‘‘Learning as generative processes’’. (2006). N.R. Thompson. Sterman. (1996). Voelpel. (1998). 4. Covin. 591-619. International Journal of Aviation Psychology. S. A. (2001). 14. and Kennerley.. Bourne. ‘‘Management tools and techniques: a survey’’. Petergraf. (2000). N. Vol. Richards. (1975). Perugia. Vol. (1974). 79 No. 7. K. Taylor. pp. Vol. pp. Palominos.. ‘‘Measuring mental models: choosing the right tools for the job’’.. January. P. and Dangayach. Rowe. Salas. Roy.C.. Vol. ‘‘The aligned balanced scorecard: an improved tool for building high performance organizations’’. 139-60. J. and Eckhoff. Platts.. Vol. pp.N. N. Olve. 6. 6. Stout. Vol. ‘‘The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view’’. M. (2008). ‘‘Age and experience as determinants of managerial information processing and decision making performance’’. Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement. PhD thesis. 8 No. Silk. 1. K. Irwin McGraw-Hill. M. 243-55. pp. ‘‘Why balanced scorecards fail’’. 11.. University of Perugia.A. and Ross. and Pfeiffer. 235-350. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business. Management Accounting Research. 7 No. Organizations and Society. J. R. 1045-71.. ‘‘Method for identifying strategic objectives in strategy maps’’. 87-95. A Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard. pp. (2006). (2000). M. Gregory. T.. pp. Wittrock.. 1. 43 No. D.. Vol. L. Mills. ‘‘Automating the balanced scorecard’’. L. ‘‘A descriptive analysis on the implementation of balanced scorecards in German-speaking countries’’. ‘‘Performance measurement system design: developing and testing a process-based approach’’. Wiley.

he worked in oil and gas companies as an engineer and business analyst. and O’Byrne. His primary research interest is in the area of performance measurement and operations management. (2003). D. S. About the author Dr Nopadol Rompho joined Thammasat Business School in 2003. C. 16 NO. ‘‘The relation of knowledge organization to performance of a complex cognitive task’’. 88-95. 251-64. UK in 2006. 2 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 69 j j .com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight. Master of Science in Chemical Engineering from Oregon State University. (1998). J. Further reading Ittner.Wyman. Nopadol Rompho can be contacted at: nrompho@tu. ‘‘Coming up short on non-financial performance measurement’’. EVA and Value-Based Management. Young. S. pp. and Larcker. Vol. USA in 1997. and Randel. New York. Applied Cognitive Psychology. (2001). pp. Thailand in 2001. Harvard Business Review. He obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering (2nd Class Honors) from Chulalongkorn University. McGraw-Hill. 12. Before joining the VOL. Thailand in 1995. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. and Doctor of Philosophy from University of Glasgow. November. Master of Business Administration from Thammasat University.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful