Balanced scorecard design and performance impacts: some Australian evidence

Bedford, DS; Brown, DA; Malmi, T; Sivabalan, P

Balanced scorecard design and performance impacts: some Australian evidence

Bedford, DS

Brown, DA Malmi, T Sivabalan, P

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 2008, 6 (2), pp. 17 - 36
Issue Date:: 2008-07-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Bedford et al. (2008 JAMAR).pdf	Published Version	84.06 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bedford, DS https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5895-7241	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Brown, DA	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Malmi, T	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sivabalan, P https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7112-2385	en_US
dc.date.issued	2008-07-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 2008, 6 (2), pp. 17 - 36	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1443-9905	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/43713
dc.description.abstract	Academic literature is giving increased consideration to the use of performance measurement systems, notably the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). However, there has been limited empirical investigation into the particular benefits that result from the use of the BSC (Ittner and Larcker, 1998). This study empirically examines how the BSC has been applied in practice and whether different BSC designs result in varying performance outcomes. Data is from a cross sectional survey, which provided a sample of 92 Australian firms using BSC. It is hypothesised that the BSC provides greater benefits when 1) cause and effect logic is used between measures 2) nonfinancial measures are tied to compensation and 3) implemented at multiple levels within the organisation. Results support the first proposition, although cause and effect logic appears to be more important if the BSC is tied to compensation. These results are discussed, and implications for practice and future research are presented.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research	en_US
dc.title	Balanced scorecard design and performance impacts: some Australian evidence	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	6	en_US
utslib.for	1501 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Accounting Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	6	en_US

Abstract:

Academic literature is giving increased consideration to the use of performance measurement systems, notably the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). However, there has been limited empirical investigation into the particular benefits that result from the use of the BSC (Ittner and Larcker, 1998). This study empirically examines how the BSC has been applied in practice and whether different BSC designs result in varying performance outcomes. Data is from a cross sectional survey, which provided a sample of 92 Australian firms using BSC. It is hypothesised that the BSC provides greater benefits when 1) cause and effect logic is used between measures 2) nonfinancial measures are tied to compensation and 3) implemented at multiple levels within the organisation. Results support the first proposition, although cause and effect logic appears to be more important if the BSC is tied to compensation. These results are discussed, and implications for practice and future research are presented.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/43713