You are on page 1of 9

Dueling Scorecards

How Two Colleges Utilize the Popular
Planning Method
Subhead blurb to come.

by Howard Ballentine and Jay Eckles

Howard Ballentine currently serves as dean
for enrollment management and planning at Colleges and universities across the country use a variety
Jefferson College of Health Sciences in of methods for assessing their progress toward short- and
Roanoke, Virginia. He has worked in various long-term institutional goals. There are as many methods of
aspects of institutional research, planning,
strategic planning and assessment as there are institutions.
and enrollment for the past nine years. He
Many of these methods, however, leave the institution to
serves in the leadership position for planning
at Jefferson College, which has utilized the
overcome significant challenges, in part because they tend
Balanced Scorecard since 2003. He presented to focus on a particular voice or perspective to the exclusion
the Balanced Scorecard concept at the 2006 of other critical areas. For example, many business planning
annual meeting of the Southern Association models make the financial perspective the single lens
of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Commission through which the process is viewed. Higher education,
on Colleges, as well as at numerous internal in contrast, has traditionally focused on academic issues as
workshops for various constituencies. He is
a means to gauge quality (Doerfel and Ruben 2002). In
currently completing his Ph.D. in educational
addition, these methods often fail to recognize the interaction
leadership and policy studies at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. among strategic objectives. The result is a myopic view of
the institution that prevents trustees, presidents, and other
Jay Eckles currently serves as director of leaders from making the best management decisions.
information services at Rhodes College in
The Balanced Scorecard, first introduced in the
Memphis, Tennessee. His professional
Harvard Business Review by Robert Kaplan and David
experience is in software engineering,
information systems management, quality, Norton (1992), attempts to address these challenges.
assessment, and institutional research. He Although this model is widely used in business, it has not
has provided strategic information to trustees been widely embraced in higher education (Karathanos and
at Rhodes College since 2005 and helped Karathanos 2005). The Balanced Scorecard can be adapted
develop the college’s initial Balanced Scorecard to provide a comprehensive view of a higher education
in 2006. He presented an overview of an
institution and measure its progress toward meeting
adaptation of the Balanced Scorecard for
short- and long-term goals (Chang and Chow 1999).
higher education at the 2006 conference of the
Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium.
This becomes even more important as institutions face
He is pursuing an Ed.D. in higher education increased scrutiny from accrediting bodies, legislators, and
at the University of Memphis. other stakeholders interested in accountability in higher

Copyright © Society for College and University Planning (SCUP). All rights reserved. | Planning for Higher Education 27
Howard Ballentine and Jay Eckles

education (Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin 2001). The purpose Rhodes College, in Memphis, Tennessee, is a small,
of this article is to describe how two higher education private liberal arts college with an enrollment of nearly
institutions, Jefferson College of Health Sciences (Jefferson) 1,700 students, nearly all of whom are traditional-aged,
and Rhodes College (Rhodes), use the Balanced Scorecard full-time undergraduates. Fewer than 15 students pursue
model as a core component of their planning processes. the college’s sole graduate degree, a master’s of science
Jefferson and Rhodes are interesting institutions to in accounting. The college has no discipline-based
consider in evaluating the application of the Balanced accreditations beyond its regional accreditation from
Scorecard to higher education. Both are regionally-accredited, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
private colleges with enrollments under 2,000 students. Approximately 57 percent of Rhodes students are female;
Previous literature on adaptations of the Balanced Scorecard about 82 percent are White non-Hispanic, 6 percent are
in higher education has typically concerned mid-sized Black non-Hispanic, 5 percent are Asian or Pacific Islander,
comprehensive universities like University of Wisconsin-Stout and 1.5 percent are Hispanic. Slightly more than half of the
or very large state institutions such as Rutgers University college’s students come from the southeastern United
and The Ohio State University (Karathanos and Karathanos States. Rhodes is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church
2005; Ruben 1999; Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin 2001). In (USA), although it is governed by an independent board of
addition, unlike most higher education institutions that have trustees. The planning process is driven primarily by the
adapted the Balanced Scorecard, Jefferson and Rhodes president’s office with support from numerous areas. In
chose to retain the original four perspectives developed particular, data and institutional research are provided by
by Kaplan and Norton. However, the two colleges differ the director of information service and the vice president of
sufficiently in their institutional characteristics, their information services. Rhodes first turned to the Balanced
planning processes, and the development of their Scorecard in late 2005 as a way to communicate to
scorecards to showcase the flexibility inherent in the trustees the tension between competing strategic goals
Balanced Scorecard model. and the trade-offs—in particular, the nonfinancial impacts—
that exist when attempting to maximize the pursuit of any
Institutional Descriptions one goal.

Jefferson College of Health Sciences, in Roanoke, Virginia, The Balanced Scorecard Model
is a small, private college specializing in allied health
education. The college annually enrolls 1,000 students in The Balanced Scorecard is a performance model frequently
15 disciplines. Degrees are offered from the associate’s used in business. The origin of the model can be traced back
level to the master’s level in areas including nursing, to the early 1990s, when Robert Kaplan, a professor at
physician assistant, and occupational therapy. Most of the Harvard University, and David Norton, a consultant from the
college’s students are female (80 percent), most enroll Boston area, joined forces to lead a research project designed
with some form of transfer credit (80 percent), and many to explore new methods of performance management.
continue to work while enrolled. The college is an affiliate They studied the strategic planning processes of a dozen
of Carilion Clinic, the largest health system and employer in companies and concluded that the overall focus on the
southwest Virginia. Jefferson is accredited by the Southern financial aspects of business negatively affected a
Association of Colleges and Schools, and most disciplines company’s ability to create value (Kaplan and Norton 1996;
are accredited by individual professional organizations. Niven 2002). The researchers decided that a more balanced
Currently, the college’s planning process is overseen by approach that considered multiple aspects of a company
the dean for enrollment management and planning, with would lead to increased performance. They dubbed their
assistance from the institutional research manager. In model the Balanced Scorecard and published their results
addition, the college uses various committees to provide in the Harvard Business Review (Kaplan and Norton 1992).
input into the planning process and make recommendations The Balanced Scorecard model was devised to give
for the review of material. Jefferson first implemented the top managers a fast but comprehensive view of their
Balanced Scorecard in 2003 after seeing the success of the organization. The model focuses on the vision and strategy
model in the Carilion Clinic. of the organization and meshes traditional financial

28 April–June 2009 | Search and read online at:
Dueling Scorecards: How Two Colleges
Utilize the Popular Planning Method

measures with measures of operations, customer satisfaction, core model. Most significantly, institutions like The Ohio State
and internal processes (Moore, Rowe, and Widener 2001). University and Rutgers University have discarded the original
Goals and measures are grouped under four perspectives: four perspectives developed by Kaplan and Norton (finance,
(1) the financial perspective, (2) the customer perspective, customer, innovation and learning, and internal business
(3) the innovation and learning perspective, and (4) the process) and replaced them with other perspectives with
internal business perspective. Each perspective is designed a decidedly educational focus. The Ohio State University
to highlight the organization from a different point of view has five perspectives on its scorecard: diversity, student
(Kaplan and Norton 1992). One strength of the Balanced learning, academic excellence, outreach and engagement,
Scorecard is that it directs an organization to widen its and resource management (Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin
focus from the financial to encompass other perspectives 2001). Rutgers University likewise has five perspectives:
(Kaplan and Norton 1996). This allows the organization to teaching/learning, service/outreach, scholarship/research,
communicate the progress made in achieving strategic workplace satisfaction, and financial (Ruben 1999).
objectives to external stakeholders, employees, and There is no reason, however, to presume that the
customers. It also allows the organization to produce a same principals used in business cannot be applied to
comprehensive analysis of how the achievement of its higher education. One could argue that every measure
strategic objectives leads to the achievement of its present in both The Ohio State University and Rutgers
mission and vision (Bose and Thomas 2007). The Balanced University scorecards could find a home in one of the four
Scorecard outlines specific data to be collected, which can Kaplan and Norton perspectives. The finance, customer,
then be systematically reviewed to create an overall picture innovation and learning, and internal business process
of progress toward long-term goals. This continuous cycle perspectives give a comprehensive overview of an
of data collection and review allows the organization to institution and can be applied to departments within
learn about and improve its strategies for achieving its the institution as well.
vision of the future.
The Balanced Scorecard is not itself a strategic Development of the Balanced Scorecard
management system. It is a tool to communicate the at Jefferson and Rhodes
current health of an organization and its progress toward
its strategic objectives. It is not a means of setting those Historically, Jefferson used a system in which it developed
objectives; it is a means of measuring them. Kaplan and long-term college goals that were then expanded to include
Norton have subsequently published a strategic management yearly goals. Individual departments then tied their goals
system called Strategy Maps that employs the Balanced and budgets to college initiatives. While this system was
Scorecard as a control mechanism, but the Balanced functional, administrators were not satisfied that it provided
Scorecard is just as useful as a control mechanism within a comprehensive view of the college. In addition, the system
any strategic management or planning process (Kaplan and created several layers of goals and metrics that were not
Norton 1996; Scholey and Armitage 2006). Strategy Mapping always easy to connect to daily operations. Similarly, before
is the process of expanding objectives to represent not experimenting with the Balanced Scorecard, Rhodes relied
only what you are measuring, but the processes, strategies, on a traditional set of indicators that were not directly
and resources that will be used to achieve positive results. connected to goals or daily operations. Rhodes provided its
In this scenario, the Balanced Scorecard provides a trustees with an annual “institutional profile” that included
framework that drives allocation of resources and much of what one expects to find in a college fact book:
processes that result in overall success. enrollment, financial aid, and finance information.
Jefferson was introduced to the Balanced Scorecard
by its affiliate, Carilion Clinic, in 2003, when the health
Overall focus on the financial negatively
system began using the model with great success. After
affects the ability to create value. reviewing the documentation with internal and external
stakeholders, Jefferson decided to employ the Balanced
Most previous adaptations of the Balanced Scorecard Scorecard model for its planning purposes. Administrators
in higher education have involved major changes to the at Rhodes found the Balanced Scorecard in the Harvard

Planning for Higher Education | Search and read online at: 29
Howard Ballentine and Jay Eckles

Business Review while looking for a mechanism by which a trustee packet is prepared that previously included only a
they could better link indicators with strategic goals and traditional institutional profile or fact book, but that now
more effectively communicate the trade-offs inherent in includes the Balanced Scorecard as well. The decision to
pursuing any given strategy. make the addition to the packet was driven by the college
One of the distinguishing characteristics of the president and the vice president of information services.
Balanced Scorecard implementation at both Jefferson and Together, the vice president of information services and the
Rhodes was the choice not to substantively change Kaplan director of information services created the first draft of the
and Norton’s terminology. While Jefferson maintained much Balanced Scorecard. Their approach was based in part on a
of the terminology verbatim, Rhodes made minor changes diagram in the Harvard Business Review describing how
to appeal to higher education professionals. For example, the Balanced Scorecard can be a component of a strategic
rather than a “customer” perspective, Rhodes refers to a management system (Kaplan and Norton 1996). Specifically,
“constituent” perspective; rather than an internal “business” this involved identifying the questions that each perspective
perspective, the college refers to an internal “processes” could be interpreted as answering (figure 1). [cr]
perspective. At both colleges, administrators worked to After identifying the questions, the vice president and
educate their audiences on how the four perspectives director then sought to determine what data could be easily
related to college departments and functions. This allowed collected to answer them. Their draft was presented to
individuals to make a direct link to their college’s model the trustees; the college subsequently developed multiple
when reading literature about and reviewing external iterations of the Balanced Scorecard that incorporated
examples of Balanced Scorecards. trustee suggestions for both revisions to the measures
At Jefferson, once the decision to employ the Balanced and their visual presentation. Whereas the old institutional
Scorecard was made, the College Planning Council (the profile was merely a set of facts, the Balanced Scorecard
committee charged with oversight of the planning process) allows those facts to be presented as measurements of
was charged with drafting goals and metrics based on the trustee-set objectives.
current model, future endeavors, and areas that had not
previously been addressed. The council’s recommendations Presentation of the Balanced Scorecard
were reviewed by the administration and board of directors
before agreement was reached on a final version. Insofar as the Balanced Scorecard is a tool for giving
At Rhodes, strategic planning is tied to semiannual decision makers a complete and balanced picture of an
meetings of the board of trustees. Prior to each meeting, institution’s performance, an important part of employing

Figure 1 Rhodes: Questions Answered by Kaplan and Norton’s Four Perspectives

Perspective Question

Financial What resources do we have now, what will we likely have
in the future, and how well do we use what we have?

Customer (Constituent) Whom do we serve, and how do they perceive us?

Internal business (internal processes) What do we do, and how well do we do it?

Innovation and learning (human and Who does our work, and are they getting better at it?
organizational development)

30 April–June 2009 | Search and read online at:
Dueling Scorecards: How Two Colleges
Utilize the Popular Planning Method

Figure 2 Representation of Jefferson Spider Chart with Fictional Data

Customer Metric 1
Customer Metric 2 Financial Metric 4


Customer Metric 3 Financial Metric 3


Customer Metric 4 Financial Metric 2

Internal Metric 1 Financial Metric 1


Internal Metric 2 Learning & Growth Metric 4

100% 75%

Internal Metric 3 Learning & Growth Metric 3

97% 150%

Internal Metric 4 Learning & Growth Metric 2
Learning & Growth Metric 1

the scorecard is its visual presentation. While diagrams from the center denotes one of the metrics used to assess
in various Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996) articles give a the success of the institution’s strategic objectives. Current
starting point, much of the visual presentation work is left levels of achievement by individual metric are plotted along
up to the implementers. these lines and shaded to give constituents a snapshot
Jefferson uses a tiered approach in the presentation of success for that metric. The chart, which can also be
of its Balanced Scorecard. An overview is presented in the organized by quadrant to show overall success by perspective,
form of a spider chart that shows the college’s current is the most easily understood representation of institutional
progress toward each metric at a glance (figure 2). [cr] The achievement. The chart is presented to the board of trustees
spider chart is a series of concentric circles that are set at and published in the faculty/staff newsletter to ensure that the
predetermined intervals (25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, college community is well aware of the institution’s progress.
etc.). The boldly colored circle represents 100 percent Jefferson also employs a more detailed spreadsheet
achievement of any goal or objective. Each line projecting that documents the specific metrics used to evaluate each

Planning for Higher Education | Search and read online at: 31
Howard Ballentine and Jay Eckles

strategic objective. This spreadsheet is maintained by the heading is the question that the perspective purports to
administrative team and presented to the College Planning answer. Under that question are five columns. The first
Council during the college’s semiannual planning retreats. column identifies the objective; for example, one objective
Through feedback and discussion, retreat participants under the financial perspective is “manage risk effectively.”
determine the best methods for achieving success on any The remaining columns are dedicated to information
item that may be of concern. The spreadsheet also serves concerning specific measurements for each objective. For
as the place to document any changes implemented as a example, there are two measurements for the “manage risk
result of the data collected. At year’s end, the spreadsheet effectively” objective: debt burden ratio and viability ratio.
is updated with a final analysis of each metric, plans for The second column presents a “sparkline” showing
how the college will go forward, and notes of changes that the values for each specific measurement over the past
will be made to ensure that the college continues to few years. A sparkline is useful because it provides in a very
progress in a given area. small space a quick understanding of the measurement’s
Additionally, Jefferson uses a database that allows trend relative to that measurement’s goals (Tufte 2006).
departments to tie their own strategic objectives to the The third column displays the current-period value for the
college Balanced Scorecard. Administrators can quickly see measurement; that value is superimposed on a green,
which departments are undertaking initiatives directly yellow, or red background indicating whether the value
linked to college strategic objectives and can guarantee that falls into the defined range for excellent, satisfactory, or
the appropriate departments are working to ensure progress unsatisfactory performance. The colored backgrounds make
at the institutional level. Each department identifies the it possible to instantly see the overall health of the institution.
institutional-level strategic objective linked to its departmental The fourth column identifies the measurement, both
goal, how the department’s activities will support that by an operational name like “debt burden ratio” and by a
strategic objective, and any budget implications. During brief definition (in the case of debt burden ratio, “mandatory
the year, the department updates its goals and notes any debt service/total expenditures”). The fifth and final
adjustments required based on progress to date. column describes the interpretive boundary values for the
At Rhodes, the visual presentation of the Balanced measurement and on what those boundaries are based.
Scorecard (in the form of a Microsoft Excel workbook) has For example, based on Moody’s bond rating medians,
evolved to meet multiple needs. First and foremost is the Rhodes considers a debt burden ratio greater than seven
need for the scorecard to provide a one-page visual summary percent to be unsatisfactory and anything less than five
of the state of the institution. At the briefest glance, a trustee percent to be excellent (with the five to seven percent
should have a general idea about how the college is doing range implicitly classified as satisfactory).
from each of the four perspectives. Second, the scorecard There are four other worksheets in Rhodes’ Balanced
needs to place the current state of the institution in the Scorecard workbook, one dedicated to each perspective.
context of its recent historical performance. Third, the On each perspective worksheet is the perspective’s
scorecard needs to readily identify how each objective is question, a table providing each year’s value for each
being measured and what constitutes excellent, satisfactory, measurement for each objective (going back as far as
or unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the scorecard 10 years), and a table of contextual information. The
needs to provide detailed metrics and relevant contextual contextual information consists of items that are not
information for those leaders who wish to dig deeper into direct measurements of any given objective but that are
any one perspective. useful in interpreting those measurements. For example,
The first three needs (a one-page visual summary, in the case of the financial perspective, the contextual
current performance in context of historical performance, information includes income broken down (by dollars)
and means of measurement with interpretive boundary into five categories and expenditures broken down (by
values) are addressed on the first worksheet of the percentage) into nine categories. There is also room on
workbook (a representation of this sheet with fictional data the worksheet for any narrative necessary to explain
is presented as figure 3). [cr] Each perspective is listed unusual data or results.
from top to bottom on the page. Under each perspective

32 April–June 2009 | Search and read online at:
Dueling Scorecards: How Two Colleges
Utilize the Popular Planning Method

Figure 3 Rhodes Balanced Scorecard Summary with Fictional Data

Financial Perspective
What resources do we have now? What will we likely have in the future? How well do we use what we have?

Historically Currently
Operating Income Ratio (Operating Red: <50% [operational necessity]
Maximize Core

Income/Educational and General Expenditures) Green: >60% [operational necessity]

Resources per Student Red: <$150,000 [peer comparisons]
$299,999 (Assets per FTE Faculty) Green: >$300,000 [peer comparisons]

Resources per Faculty Red: <$1,000,000 [peer comparisons]
$1,999,999 Green: >$2,000,000 [peer comparisons]
(Assets per FTE Faculty)
Efficiently Effectively

Debt Burden Ratio Red: >7% [Moody’s bond rating medians]


(Mandatory debt service/Total expenditures) Green: <5% [Moody’s bond rating medians]

Viability Ratio Red: <2 [Moody’s bond rating medians]
3.10 Green: >3 [Moody’s bond rating medians]
(Expendable net assets/long term debt)

Service Expenses Red: <70% [peer comparisons]
76% (as percent of total expenses) Green: >75% [peer comparisons]

Constituent Perspective
Whom do we serve, and how do they perceive us?
Historically Currently
Student evaluation of educational Red: <3.19 [NSSE average]

3.49 experience overall (NSSE Question 13) Green: >3.48 [CTCL average]

3.58 Student eval. of educational experience Red: <3.24 [NSSE average]
as foundation (NSSE Question 11a) Green: >3.57 [CTCL average]

Recruiting - Multiple Goals Red: <33 [multi-factorial]


Green: >66 [multi-factorial]

(estimated average of all admissions goals)

Minority Recruitment (known first-year Red: <9% [admisions goal]
12% Green: >12% [admisions goal]
students of color/total first year class)

Average % need met Red: <95% [arbitrary]
94% (need met/gross need for all students) Green: ≤100% [target]

Internal Processes Perspective
What we do, and how well we do it?
Historically Currently

Average grad school placement rates Red: <92.3% [5 year low]

95% (class of 2005 reporting application information) Green: >94.8% [5 year mean]

First-to-second year retention rate Red: <92% [minimum to achieve 85% grad rate]

(% of first-year cohort registering for Fall of soph. year) Green: >95% [minimum to achieve 85% grad rate]

Six year graduation rate Red: <80% [recent high]
79% (% of first-year cohort graduating within six years) Green: >85% [target]

Human & Organizational Development Perspective
Who does our work, and are they getting better at it?

Historically Currently


Number internships filled Red: <130 [Career Services goal]
141 Green: >140 [Career Services goal]
(internships filled in academic year)

Planning for Higher Education | Search and read online at: 33
Howard Ballentine and Jay Eckles

Discussion sink. The investment of time, energy, and goodwill spent
developing a new set of perspectives would be much
The implementation of the Balanced Scorecard for use in better spent on devising measures for the existing four
the college and university setting is not an easy task. The perspectives and creating a means of presenting the
higher education environment is grounded in tradition and message that your Balanced Scorecard is trying to convey.
history. To that end, one may find that change is resisted, Second, prototyping is a valuable technique in the
especially by those who have experience in higher educa- development of a Balanced Scorecard. As with most areas
tion planning and who may have seen a myriad of models of organizational management, attempting to produce a
come and go over the years. To some people the Balanced perfect product on the first iteration will likely result in little
Scorecard may represent just another in a long line of more than delay and frustration. Instead, we suggest that
models, plans, or processes that do nothing more than you base your initial set of metrics on data that are easily
waste time and resources (Birnbaum 2000). accessible, even if those data are imperfect proxies for
what you are actually trying to measure. Next, we suggest
that you create an initial prototype of your Balanced
The Balanced Scorecard makes visible Scorecard using those initial metrics that you can present
the tensions among competing priorities. to your institutional decision makers for feedback. It is
important to expect to make—and tell your decision
However, the strength of the Balanced Scorecard is makers to expect to make—substantial, perhaps radical
that it places before decision makers those presumably changes to your prototype based on this feedback. A
overlooked areas that are of concern to many faculty, staff, prototype never directly becomes a final product; its purpose
and students. The Balanced Scorecard can be used as a is to bring shape to hitherto theoretical conversations, to
powerful tool to guide an institution toward its long-range reveal defects in theory and application, and to suggest
goals. It allows administrators to view the institution from improvements for the first “real” iteration.
multiple perspectives, including (but not limited to) the Third, we recommend that you make sure that any
financial. By also focusing on internal processes, customers, iteration of the scorecard is aligned with the mission and
and employee development, the Balanced Scorecard can vision of the institution (Bloomquist and Yeager 2008).
help a higher education institution continuously improve Although the scorecard allows administrators to look at the
while achieving the goals that support its mission and organization through multiple frames, there should still be
vision for the future. These goals in turn contribute to the only one endpoint. This endpoint should be well-defined
future financial stability of the institution (Papenhausen and communicated throughout the development process
and Einstein 2006). By forcing the institution to look at to ensure that the metrics used will indeed show that
nontraditional metrics, the Balanced Scorecard makes progress is being made. Communication should be driven
visible the tensions that exist among competing priorities. from the top of the organization. For the Balanced
In addition, the Balanced Scorecard shows outside Scorecard to be successful, there must be both initial
constituents that the institution is interested in momentum for change as well as continued effort to
improvement in all areas. sustain the process at multiple levels throughout the
Based on our experience in developing Balanced institution (Gumbus 2005).
Scorecards for higher education institutions, we offer the
following advice to those looking to do the same at their The scorecard translates institutional
own colleges or universities:
First, it is unnecessary to recreate the Balanced strategy into action.
Scorecard model; the four perspectives proposed by Kaplan
and Norton are appropriate to the management of a nonprofit In conclusion, we believe that the Balanced Scorecard
higher education institution. These four perspectives together can be an effective tool for translating institutional strategy
represent the voices of the business, the constituents, the into action in higher education. The scorecard provides
faculty and staff, and the process of teaching and learning. a framework for viewing the institution from multiple
Attempting to develop a new set of perspectives is a time perspectives, ensuring that all areas are focused on

34 April–June 2009 | Search and read online at:
Dueling Scorecards: How Two Colleges
Utilize the Popular Planning Method

improvement, and it is a valuable tool for communicating Gumbus, A. 2005. Introducing the Balanced Scorecard: Creating
with internal and external stakeholders. Perhaps most Metrics to Measure Performance. Journal of Management
importantly, the Balanced Scorecard can provide a college Education 29 (4): 617–30.
Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard—
or university with a means for tracking improvement and
Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review
progress toward its short- and long-term institutional goals.
70 (1): 71–79.
This is vital as institutions strive to comply with increasing ———. 1996. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic
accountability and accreditation requirements. The Balanced Management System. Harvard Business Review 74 (1): 75–85.
Scorecard can demonstrate a clear linkage between an Karathanos, D., and P. Karathanos. 2005. Applying the Balanced
institution’s mission, vision, and strategic objectives and Scorecard to Education. Journal of Education for Business
help close the loop in the assessment process. 80 (4): 222–30.
Moore, C., B. J. Rowe, and S. K. Widener. 2001. HCS: Designing
a Balanced Scorecard in a Knowledge-Based Firm. Issues in
References Accounting Education 16 (4): 569–601.
Niven, P. R. 2002. Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step: Maximizing
Birnbaum, R. 2000. Management Fads in Higher Education: Performance and Maintaining Results. New York: John Wiley
Where They Come From, What They Do, Why They Fail. & Sons.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Papenhausen, C., and W. Einstein. 2006. Implementing the
Bloomquist, P., and J. Yeager. 2008. Using Balanced Scorecards Balanced Scorecard at a College of Business. Measuring
to Align Organizational Strategies. Healthcare Executive Business Excellence 10 (3): 15–22.
23 (1): 24–28. Ruben, B. 1999. Toward a Balanced Scorecard for Higher
Bose, S., and K. Thomas. 2007. Applying the Balanced Scorecard Education: Rethinking the College and University Excellence
for Better Performance of Intellectual Capital. Journal of Indicators Framework. Higher Education Forum, QCI, Center
Intellectual Capital 8 (4): 653–65. for Organizational Development and Leadership 99 (2): 1–10.
Chang, O. H., and C. W. Chow. 1999. The Balanced Scoreboard: Scholey, C., and H. Armitage. 2006. Hands-on Scorecarding in the
A Potential Tool for Supporting Change and Continuous Higher Education Sector. Planning for Higher Education 35 (1):
Improvement in Accounting Education. Issues in Accounting 31–41.
Education 14 (3): 395–412. Stewart, A. C., and J. Carpenter-Hubin. 2001. The Balanced
Doerfel, M. L., and B. D. Ruben. 2002. Developing More Adaptive, Scorecard: Beyond Reports and Rankings. Planning for
Innovative, and Interactive Organizations. New Directions for Higher Education 29 (2): 37–42.
Higher Education 118: 5–27. Tufte, E. R. 2006. Beautiful Evidence. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Planning for Higher Education | Search and read online at: 35