Search results

To develop and apply the social enterprise balanced scorecard (SEBS) as an amended balanced scorecard technique for use evaluating UK social enterprises.

The study involved exploring the potential mainstream application of the balanced scorecard in UK social enterprises to learn how this process show the ways in which social enterprises can develop, and implement and track the performance of their socially driven strategies. Describes the development of an SEBS and its testing by 12 social enterprises in a pilot training programme (August 2004‐December 2004).

The results indicated that the SEBS had changed participant views about their organizations in terms of: increased employee understanding about their organization as a business; the usefulness as a business planning tool for social enterprises; the natural fit of the SEBS alongside the existing UK quality accreditation scheme of Investors In People; the power of the SEBS to be an effective means to engage staff and team members as an early‐warning system for potential problems; helping to redress the balance between purely financial gains and social purpose; and providing focus, clarity, and the ability to remove non‐essential detail from strategic planning. Concludes that: Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard is capable of being adapted to suit social enterprises; positive outcomes include creating a common language through which social entrepreneurs can share and compare experience, even if they operate in different industries; and the application of the SEBS can enable organizations to become better businesses, while demonstrating social value added to stakeholders.

Reveals the benefits of extending the balanced scorecard approach to the evaluation of social enterprises.

The purpose of this study is to develop BSC model of social enterprise. Performance analysis tool of BSC have been brought over from the business world, designed and created from the perspectives of profit‐based businesses. The BSC is a strategic performance measurement and management tool designed for the private sector acting as a communication/information and learning system, to measure “where we are now” and “where to aim for next”. It prescribes a plan for translating “vision” and “strategy” into concrete action across four perspectives at different stages, depending on the business. These perspectives are “financial”, “customer”, “internal processes” and “learning and growth”, each of which is connected by cause‐and‐effect relationships that reflect the firm’s strategy. Social aims of social enterprise are to accomplish desired outcomes which are to employ vulnerable people and to provide social services. The measurement factors of financial perspective are stable funding, efficiency of budgeting, stakeholders’ financial supports, and trade profit. The measurement factors of customer perspective are government, social service users, employees, local communities, supplier, social activity company, and partnership with external organizations. The measurement factors of internal process perspective are organizational culture, organizational structure/management, internal/external communication, quality of products and services, information sharing. The measurement factors of learning and growth perspective are training and development, management participation, knowledge sharing, leadership of CEO and manager, and learning culture.

While distribution channels of theses and dissertations have changed significantly in the digital age, they are generally still considered grey literature. This paper aims to argue the applicability of the concept of grey to electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs).

The paper is presented as a debate between two contradictory opinions on the application of the grey literature concept to ETDs.

The paper provides a definition of grey literature and then discusses its application to electronic dissertations and theses. In particular, it assesses the aspects of acquisition, quality, access and preservation. Some arguments highlight the “grey nature” of ETDs, such as the limited access via institutional and other repositories. Other arguments (e.g. the development of ETD infrastructures and the quality of ETDs) question this grey approach to ETDs. The paper concludes that “greyness” remains a challenge for ETDs, a problem waiting for solution on the way to open science through the application of the FAIR (findability, accessibility, interoperability reusability) principles.

Library and information science (LIS) professionals and scientists should be careful about using the concept of grey literature. The debate will help academic librarians and LIS researchers to better understand the nature of grey literature and its coverage, here in the field of ETDs.

Some definitions from the print age may not be applicable to the digital age. The contradictory character of the debate helps clarify the similitudes and differences of grey literature and ETDs and highlights the challenge of ETDs, in particular, their accessibility and findability.