The E-Balanced Scorecard (e-BSC) for Measuring Academic Staff Performance Excellence

Author(s): May Leen Yu, Suraya Hamid, Mohamad Taha Ijab and Hsaio Pei Soo
Source: Higher Education, Vol. 57, No. 6 (Jun., 2009), pp. 813-828
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40269160
Accessed: 17-10-2019 08:25 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40269160?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher
Education

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:813-828
DOI 10.1007/sl0734-009-9197-x

The e-balanced scorecard (e-BSC) for measuring

academic staff performance excellence

May Leen Yu * Suraya Hamid • Mohamad Taha Ijab •

Hsaio Pei Soo

Published online: 22 January 2009

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This research paper is a pilot study that investigated the suitability of adoptin
automated balanced scorecard for managing and measuring the performance excellence
academic staffs in the higher education setting. A comprehensive study of related litera
with requirements elicited from the target population in a selected premier university
Malaysia through document analysis, interviews and survey questionnaires provided
foundation for the system development. By adopting the balanced scorecard, the prop
system provided a means for top down alignment of organisational objectives while creatin
medium of communication between the lecturers and management. Though the met
suggested in this study primarily focuses on the academic staff, it addresses the lack
representative form of performance measurement for lecturers that accommodates the com
plexities of the profession while providing the potential adoption of an unconventional met
to encourage excellence and development amongst all levels of employees in the indust

Keywords Balanced scorecard • BSC • Performance management •

Performance measurement • Academic staff • Higher education

Introduction

In Malaysia, public institutions of higher education have come under public scrutiny for
failing to improve or at least sustain international rankings with regards to offering

M. L. Yu (El) • S. Hamid • M. T. Ijab • H. P. Soo

Department of Information Science, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology,
University Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e-mail: mayleen08@gmail.com
S. Hamid
e-mail: suraya_hamid@ um.edu .my

M. T. Ijab
e-mail: cpb314@yahoo.com
H. P. Soo
e-mail: hpsoo0912@um.edu.my

Ê Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 814 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828

outstanding education (Mohamed 2

conducted between August 2006 an
evaluated the quality of local public u
outstanding rankings. The problem
tutions to look back and investigate o
situation. To resolve the problem, p
check on the university's performanc
executed.
In every situation, be it organisational or individual, performance has to be managed
and measured to ensure continuous excellence. Most, if not all, organisations have at least
one performance management system that is used to manage and assess the overall
organisational achievements. It is likely to assume that, unlike profit-oriented organisa-
tions, public higher education institutions need not provide and ensure continuous excellent
performance as the government will constantly provide funding. On the contrary, these
institutions are performance-oriented organisations which are constantly observed by the
public for the education offered. Moreover, the proper management of funds by these
bodies is constantly questioned.
Apart from excellent management, the performance of the employees holds the key to
the success of the organisation. An organisation is doomed to fail and is unable to
achieve long term goals if the operational goals of its employees are not aligned towards
realising the corporate vision and missions. Great emphasis has to be placed on mea-
suring the competency and accomplishments of the staff that carry out short term
strategies that are in line with long term goals, to ensure an organisation wide
cooperation.
This research examines the use of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard (BSC),
developed in 1992, for the performance management and measurement of lecturers.
BSC is a management model used to measure the activities of an organisation with
regards to accomplishing vision and missions. Instead of focusing on financial mea-
sures only, that reflect past performances, the scorecard emphasises on balancing
organisational efforts with the perspectives of the customers, internal processes and
employees. Preliminary research shows that most conventional performance measure-
ment (PM) models emphasised on financial achievement (Kaplan and Norton 1996)
and neglected other important aspects in sustaining an organisation's success. Fur-
thermore, for the educational context, complete emphasis on financial gains may be
unsuitable.

While there has been extensive research on the adoption of BSC for measuring the
performance of an organisation, to date little research has been conducted on the
employment of the model for measuring the performance of individual staff in non-profit
oriented agencies (Chen et al. 2006), especially in a higher education context where the
various job scopes of the teaching staff are complex and diverse (Storey 2002). In this
study, the scorecard will be evaluated for its effectiveness on measuring the performance of
and managing academic staff through the development of the e-balanced scorecard (e-
BSC) prototype. By adopting the BSC's basic structure, the e-BSC enables the academic
staff to set targets (start of the year), monitor and track personal performance (year-round)
and evaluate individual achievements (year-end), thereby promoting performance planning
as well as endorse a balanced performance management and measurement at the faculty
level.

£l Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828 8 1 5

Literature review

Performance

According to the Oxford english dictionary, performance is defined as 'the action or

process of performing*. Another definition of the word represents the "capabilities of a
machine or product'. Meanwhile, Lebas (1995) defines performance as the prospective
likelihood to carry out particular actions in order to successfully achieve set goals within
the given time frame and constraints of the stakeholder and the situation. Performance also
can be defined as the actual results achieved compared to the desired results (Dess and
Robinson 1984).
From this, it is clear that different schools of thought have differing ideas about what
performance actually represents (Venkatraman and Raman ujam 1986; Armstrong 2000).
Performance in one context can carry a completely different meaning when used in a
disparate environment. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy to remember that performance
should not be about producing reports. Instead it should be about the decision made or
direction taken with the available information of the current situation.

Performance management versus PM

Prior to recommending new methods to improve performance, the difference between the
terms performance management and PM has to be clarified. Often there is a misunder-
standing of the meaning of each resulting in both being used interchangeably (Radnor and
McGuire 2004). PM can be literally described as a means of assessing the achievements of
an individual, group or an organisation with regards to meeting set objectives through
statistical evidence which can come in the form of financial data, market share, or even the
assets one possess. Customary, PM was often linked to achieving favourable financial
expansion where metrics formed for measurement relied heavily on monetary gains
(Bipath 2007).
On the other hand, performance management is described as activities and processes
that provide the environment for PM where relevant actions and communication with
respect to the performance achieved are made. As clearly described by the Gartner group
(Geishecker 2002), 'performance management is an umbrella term. It comprises all pro-
cesses, methodologies, metrics and technologies that enterprises use to measure, monitor
and manage business performance'. In other words, performance management can be said
to be the practices that create the culture for excellence and procedures that assess progress
unlike PM which are only measures for performance (Armstrong 2000). Armstrong further
describes performance management as being both tactical and integrated simultaneously
where it strategically attempts issues that concern the whole picture with respect to
performance.
According to Lebas (1995), performance management occurs prior to PM, where the
latter supports the former. Figure 1 was derived to illustrate PM as the subset or the yolk of
performance management where the separation of both elements is deemed impossible as
PM provides the supporting justifications for actions taken in performance management.
Alternatively, some may think that PM can be independent without performance man-
agement. However, the independence of PM would not produce any beneficial effect if
corresponding actions in performance management with regards to the performance
achieved is not executed.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 816 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828

Fig. 1 Relationship between

performance management and
PM

Fig. 2 Performance management cycle

Performance management can be vi

that work toward achieving the desir
foremost, performance planning det
this stage, it is important for manag
employees in terms of targets to be
planned and reached. Simultaneously,
of employees to be able to achieve
contract outlines the objectives, r
indicators (KPIs), performance measu
organisational goals (Horton and Fa
When the contract is agreed by all
where the superior of an individu
encouragements with regards to acc
constantly given to address issues
employees are given ample time to im
is important to note that feedbacks s
seek to gain the opinions from employ
could be done differently. A conti
between managers and employees w
angles (Mulvaney et al. 2006). Continu
would be based on the agreed perfor

4Q Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828 817

Finally the performance apprais

achievements at the end of an evalu
feedbacks relating
attai to the results
Performance should not revolve ar
about how competent a unit is in ac
involvesperformance planning that bu
contracting) in attempts to achieve ex
in focusing organisations towards ac
objectives can be accurately aligned
mance management can be seen as a p
organisation wide effort towards achie
place year-round and is typically d
measures achievements with respect

PM in the educational context

It is often misunderstood that large student number intakes, high graduation rates, state of
the art facilities and good scholastic rankings best represent the quality of education offered
in a university (Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin 2001). To date, educational institutions are
still judged based on similar measures which should only be used as external performance
indicators of how well the institution is doing compared to others. External indicators are
targeted towards a particular audience, namely the students and parents, education ministry
and potential sponsors to uphold image management in maintaining a favourable reputation.
Excellent external indicators may not necessarily indicate that an institution is successful
internally. In reality, such management style would not add well towards the achievement of
long term objectives of most higher education institutions (Umashankar and Dutta 2007).
Instead, to ensure a healthy culture, the institution has to ensure that internal performance
measures are linked to the corporate goals that attempt to improve the organisation's
operations and not simply competing with peer institutions (Hamid et al. 2007). Similarly,
the management in higher education should focus on internal measures according to the
nature of work of the staff and link them to the strategic goals of the organisation which
attempt to solve external pressures and consequently resulting in academic excellence.
Typically internal performance measures are identified based on the nature of work of
the faculty members, administrators and so on. To encourage excellence, these measures
should also be connected to organisational goals to ensure long term objectives of the
institution are achievable (Hamid et al. 2008). Well linked performance measures would
not only guarantee desired results, it would also give a competitive edge to an organisation
over others. It is important to realize that equal emphasis should be given to both external
and internal performance measures. Neglecting either one category or overemphasizing on
one aspect may result in undesirable consequences. Placing higher importance on internal
measures only may result in the failure to acknowledge the influence of a dynamic envi-
ronment to continually sustain in the industry. On the other hand, extreme emphasis on
external measures may cause the organisation to overlook the fact that the staff are an
intellectual asset. In such a situation, valuable employees may be lost as a consequence.

Balanced scorecard (BSC)

The evolution of the BSC began in 1990 when a study, "Measuring Performance in the
Organisation of the Future", on 12 companies by the Nolan Norton Institute was conducted

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 818 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828

to produce a new PM model that co

companies in that era. Several concl
complete reliance on conventional fin
overall health of an organisation. The
(Kaplan and Norton 1992).
The BSC is used by organisations t
achievement of set objectives, visio
separates the model from other mana
aspects in addition to financial outcom
performance management. Basically,

(1) Customer - how do customers p

(2) Internal business process - what
(3) Financial - how do our sharehold
(4) Learning and growth - how do
In each perspective, objectives and
established. Ideally, the measures us
balancing these four perspectives
accomplishing future goals while
organisation. Ballantine et al. (1996
perspectives should be maintained by e
one perspective, the same is applied o
the balance of the scorecard can be maintained.
The Gartner group reported in a 1998 study that "at least 40% of Fortune 1,000
companies will implement a new management philosophy... the Balanced scorecard... by
the year 2000". According to Fielden (1999 cited by Pineno 2004), some 54% of com-
panies surveyed, were already using the scorecard for performance management. This is
later confirmed by Kaplan and Norton (2001) who reported that the scorecard has been
adopted by 50% of Fortune 1,000 companies in North America in addition to 40% of
companies in Europe that use a variant of the scorecard. The vast adoption of the BSC
worldwide has proven the effectiveness of the model.
Since its introduction, the scorecard has undergone different adjustments and refine-
ments usually made by organisations to suit distinct needs (Cardoso et al. 2005; Chen et al.
2006). Numerous organisations such as United Way Southeastern New England (UW-
SENE) as reported by Kaplan and Norton (2001) have personalised the BSC to fit the needs

Fig. 3 The balance in the balanced scorecard

4y Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828 819

of the organisation. As such, the emp

can be modified to follow its long ter

BSC for the educational context

Some have the perception that the BSC may not be suitable for the academic industry and
may be more appropriate for profit-oriented organisations. As mentioned earlier the
scorecard can be personalised to attend to the needs of the organisation. In a similar
manner, the Rossier School of Education at University of Southern California used the
BSC to gauge the effectiveness of its academic programme (Sutherland 2000 cited by
Umashankar and Dutta 2007). Other examples of universities worldwide that have adopted
the BSC are University of Edinburgh, University of Southern California, Ohio State
University, University of California, University of Akron and so on (Walker and Ains-
worth 2007; Balanced Scorecard Institute 1998-2008; Karathanos and Karathanos 2005;
Umashankar and Dutta 2007).

Complexities in the education profession

With the introduction of technology as aids for teaching, especially during the 1990s, the
job of an educator has grown in complexity to involve not only disseminating knowledge
but to keep oneself up to date with new knowledge (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin
1995) while conducting research on new discoveries besides giving pastoral care to stu-
dents. With such diversity, it is difficult to put into words, how the education profession
can and should be measured. Nevertheless, instead of using a common PM system for all
staff in a higher education institution, one should be especially dedicated to academic staff
to take into account the rich complexities of the job (Storey 2002).

Methodology

This study used numerous fact finding methods to obtain further information and
requirements for the proposed system. Primary data was obtained by: (1) document
analysis on the selected university's official strategic planning documents; (2) in depth
interviews with the Strategic Planning Unit (SPU) and several faculty deans pertaining to
the university's strategic planning process; (3) observations on the current staff PM system;
and (4) cross-sectional survey was conducted on a sample of lecturers to collect feedbacks
from the potential users of the proposed system.
Since this is a pilot research on providing new means of measuring the performance of
lecturers in higher education, only one faculty from the premier university was selected to
observe the requirements of and the response to the system. A judgment sample of 20
lecturers from the selected faculty who currently hold or previously held positions of head
of departments or have served at least 3-5 years were chosen to participate in the survey.
In contrast to random sampling, judgement sampling, sometimes called non-probability
sampling or purposive sampling, involves selecting specific respondents for a survey based
on the discretion of the researcher. In judgement sampling, the participants are chosen
based on certain characteristics that need to be possessed to ensure accurate responses are
obtained (Fraenkel and Wallen 1990; Marshall 1996). In this research, the participants had
to have served a minimal number of years to be familiar with the practices and expecta-
tions from the university. Besides that, responses from the current and previous head of

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 820 High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828

departments would be necessary to ga

reviews.

e-BSC framework and design

Based on the findings from the litera

gathering process, the potential users
identified as illustrated below (Fig. 4). F
different stakeholders, namely: (1) staff
achievements and keeping track of in
monitor the performance of individual
scores individuals at the end of a perf
relevant to the faculty from the list of
the faculty; and (4) system administrat
The following processes as depicted
detailed description of the e-BSC showi
formation of the corporate scorecard is
faculty (la) to populate the faculty scor
the faculty level. The dean also assig
formulation of the faculty scorecard
scorecard of lecturers (2) to conform t
of objectives. Consequently, communica
with regards to targets set is initiat
agreement from both parties is achieve
The academic staff will then continu
(4a) while the appraiser monitors the p
this stage, the current performance of
ongoing feedbacks from the superio
immediately. evaluati When the formal
final performance (5) by entering th
automatically calculates scores (6) to
performance reports that can be viewe
performance of the department (7c) or
faculty performance (7b). To ensure th
trator constantly performs system ma
the system.
In various parts of the system, indicators display the current performance (during the
Tracking stage) as illustrated below (Fig. 6). A green indicator is displayed if targets as set
during the contracting stage are achieved. Meanwhile a red indicator shows otherwise.
At the end of a formal evaluation period, performance charts are generated by the system
based on the calculated scores and overall average points as exemplified in Fig. 7a, b.

Test data analysis

To substantiate the study, a user acceptance test was conducted with 17 potential end users
of the system comprising a mixture of lecturers and the dean of the selected faculty,
members of the human resource department, representative from SPU, IT personnel and a
BSC expert. A questionnaire was prepared with several questions as listed in Fig. 8, which

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828 82 1

au
et

I
U
en
CQ

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
822 High Educ (2009) 57:81 3-828

Fig. 5 e-BSC workflow

Fig. 6 Performance tracking indicators

required the participants to evaluate

Likert scale with the values 1 for 'St
for 'Agree' and 5 for 'Strongly Agre
The results as depicted in Fig. 9 below
the system to exhibit most of the cha

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828 823

Fig. 7 a Performance chart with yearly pe

score calculation details

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
824 High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828

Fig. 8 System evaluation questions

Fig. 9 Results from the e-BSC system evalua

uncertainty is obvious in the responses

the effectiveness of the system in aligni
supporting staff to develop positive w
these two questions also recorded slig

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:813-828 825

Table 1 e-BSC
evaluation descriptive statistics '
system Qu
Ql 2 5 4.12 .781
Q2 3 5 3.82 .636
Q3 3 5 4.06 .659
Q4 3 5 4.00 .791
Q5 1 5 4.00 1.061
Q6 3 5 3.71 .772
Q7 3 5 3.59 .795
Q8 2 5 4.06 .827

Fig. 10 Results for the quality/e

this result will be used to fu

features more obvious and
Figure 10 also shows result
e-BSC system for measurin
mostly agreed with a high
slight modifications. Neve
quate and very effective, r
The following pie chart sh
compared to the current PM
shows a noteworthy feedba

Fig. 11 Significance of the e-BS

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 826 High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828

asdelivering significant improvement i

BSC to have slight improvement over t
However, the results from the accep
amongst are: (1) since every institutio
tations from the academic staff, the e-B
be suitable in the respective institution
populate the lectures' personal scorec
allowed to select the relevant KPIs f
contribute to the university. In other w
choose a specific number of KPIs from
empower appraisers during the revie
evaluated staff in a single display.

Conclusion and recommendations for future work

This paper presented the research and development of the e-BSC designed to specially
measure and manage the performance of academic staffs in the higher education setting.
The system provides a new method for aligning the objectives of individual lecturers to the
organisational goals while offering a way for the individuals to plan goals and take cor-
rective actions ahead of time. The main significance of the system can be seen as top level
objectives are clearer and expectations from individuals are better understood while pro-
viding an improved means of communication between the staff and the management. With
comprehensible targets, performance excellence is not impossible. Note however, that this
initial version of the e-BSC was designed based on the job scopes of the academic staff in
the selected university and therefore has to be customised if used in a different institution
of higher education. As it has been noted, there is still room for improvement where
functionalities to address detailed needs can be fulfilled to further enhance to system.
Nevertheless, based on the results, the e-BSC has exhibited to be effective and its structure
is suitable for academic staff performance management and measurement and could
potentially be used for all levels of staff in a similar context.

Acknowledgments This research is fully funded by the Research University Grant FR 199/2007 A. Sincere
gratitude to the research team members and everyone who are giving their undivided support and assistance
to this project.

References

Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organisational behaviour by embracing
performance management research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 139-145. doi:
10.1002/job.493.
Armstrong, M. (2000). Performance Management: Key strategies ana practical guidelines yina ea.j.
London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Azizan, H. (2007). Ready for the big leap. The Star Newspaper. 18 November, http://thestar.com.my/
news/story. asp?file=/2007/l 1/1 8/education/19484775&sec=education.
Balanced Scorecard Institute. (1998-2008). Balanced scorecard adopters. http://www.balancedscorecard.
org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/BalancedScorecardAdopters/tabid/1367Default.aspx
Ballantine, JM Levy, M., & Powell, P. (1996). Against Taylor-made solutions: lntormation systems strategy
in a learning organisation. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Special Interest Group on Computer
Personnel Research Annual conference on Computer personnel research. 11-13 April 1996, Denver,
Colorado, United States. ACM: NY, USA. 36-48.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828 827

Bipath, M. (2007). The dynamic effects of lead

organisational performance. Thesis (PhD). Univ
Cardoso, E., Trigueiros, M. J., & Narciso, P. (2
Quality-driven Universities. In Proceedings of
Information Systems EUNIS 2005 - Leadership
June 2005, University of Manchester, UK.
Chen, S. H., Yang, C. C, & Shiau, J. Y. (2006). T
evaluation of higher education. The TQM Mag
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (19
era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-
Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B., Jr. (1984). Me
objective measures: The case of the privately
Management Journal, 5(3), 265-273. doi :10.10
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to de
McGraw Hill Publishing Co.
Geishecker, L. (2002). Manage corporate perfor
COM- 18-3797.
Hamid, S., Yu, M. L., & Soo, H. P. (2007). Measuring the performance and excellence of academicians
through the e-Balanced scorecard (e-BSC). In 9th IBIMA Conference information management in
modern organisations. 4-6 January 2008. Marrakech, Morocco. ISBN: 0-9753393-8-9.
Hamid, S., Yu, M. L., Soo, H. P., & Ijab, M. T. (2008). Using e-Balanced Scorecard in Managing the
Performance and Excellence of Academicians. Pacific Asia Conference on Information System (PA-
CIS 2008) on July 3-7 2008. Suzhou, China. ISBN: 978-962-442-3013.
Horton, S., & Farnham, D. (2007). Turning leadership into performance management. In R. Koch & J.
Dixon (Eds.), Public governance and leadership (pp. 429-455). Germany: DUV.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced scorecard-measures that drive Performance. Harvard
Business Review, (Summer), 123-145.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the Balanced scorecard as a strategic management system.
Harvard Business Review (January-February), 1-13.
Kaplan, P. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organisation: How balanced scorecard com-
panies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Karathanos, D., & Karathanos, P. (2005). Applying the balanced scorecard to education. Journal of Edu-
cation for Business, 2005(March/April), 222-231.
Lebas, M. J. (1995). Performance measurement and performance management. International Journal of
Production Economics, 47(1-3), 23-35. doi: 10. 1016/0925-5273(95)0008 1-X.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research (vol. 13(6), pp. 522-525). Oxford University
Press.
Mohamed, M. (2007). Plan to shape varsities of world class. The Star Newspaper. 14 November.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story .asp?file=/2007/ 11/1 4/nation/ 1 9464095&sec=nation.
Mulvaney, R. R. H., Zwahr, M., & Baranowski, L. (2006). The trend toward accountability: What does it
mean for HR managers? Human Resource Management Review, 16(3), 431^42. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.
2006.06.003.
Pineno, C. J. (2004). Balanced scorecard applications and model building: A survey and comparison of the
manufactured homes and motor homes industries. Management Accounting Quarterly, 6(1), 21-28.
Pulakos, E. D. (2007). Performance measurement. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied mea-
surement: Industrial psychology in human resource management (pp. 293-3 1 8). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Radnor, Z., & McGuire, M. (2004). Performance management in the public sector: Factor fiction? Inter-
national Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(3), 245-260. doi: 10. 1108/
17410400410523783.
Ramachandran, S., & Foo, H. (2007). Public Universities Fail Outstanding Test. The News Straits Times. 3
November, p. 6. http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/Frontpage/2075659/Article/
indexjitml.
Stewart, A. C, & Carpenter-Hubin, J. (2001). The balanced scorecard, beyond reports and rankings: More
commonly used in the commercial sector, this approach to strategic assessment can be adapted to
higher education. Planning for Higher Education, 29(2), 37-42.
Storey, A. (2002). Performance management in schools: Could the balanced scorecard help? School
Leadership & Management, 22(3), 321-338. doi: 10. 1080/1 363243022000020435.
Umashankar, V., & Dutta, K. (2007). Balanced scorecards in managing higher education institutions: An
Indian perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 2/(7), 54-67. doi: 10. 1108/
09513540710716821.

4y Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 828 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828

Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). M

comparison of approaches. Academy of
Walker, K. B., & Ainsworth, P. L. (2007). A
Management principles and the balanced
Journal, 7/(1), 65-82.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms