Designing a strategic management system using the third‐generation balanced scorecard: A case study

Abstract

This paper describes a project to design and implement a strategic performance management system within Zamil Air Conditioners (ZAC). In 2001 ZAC had developed its first ever strategic plan using traditional rationalist methods, but with little effect. In 2002, they began a project to introduce a system to help it manage the implementation of its strategy based on an advanced version of the balanced scorecard framework referred to as third‐generation balanced scorecard. This paper describes this project and offers some insights into the application of strategic performance management methods and systems derived from this and prior experiences. This paper examines closely the methodologies employed in the formulation and implementation of strategy and begins by reviewing the literature surrounding the variety of methodologies observed by management authors. The paper then uses this literature to examine the ZAC operating practices prior to the new strategic management system, the choices made during the design process and how the new system changed the organisation. The paper concludes by offering some insights and recommendations about the design process and the physical outputs relating to the balanced scorecard and demonstrating in a practical situation why third‐generation balanced scorecard offers enhanced utility and practicality over previous designs. These benefits and recommendations are drawn from the viewpoints of both the consultants who facilitated the design process and the management team who developed the content of the management system. Although the design process for third‐generation balanced scorecard has been used numerous times in practice, this is the first case study on the specific assessment of the new process.

Citation

Cobbold, I., Lawrie, G. and Issa, K. (2004), "Designing a strategic management system using the third‐generation balanced scorecard: A case study", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 624-633. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400410561240