Repository logo
 

The balanced scorecard : structure and use in Canadian companies

dc.contributor.advisorKalagnanam, Sureshen_US
dc.contributor.committeeMemberVaidyanathan, Ganeshen_US
dc.contributor.committeeMemberSheehan, Norman T.en_US
dc.creatorSoderberg, Marvin J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-26T15:40:22Zen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-04T04:29:57Z
dc.date.available2007-04-28T08:00:00Zen_US
dc.date.available2013-01-04T04:29:57Z
dc.date.created2006-04en_US
dc.date.issued2006-04-24en_US
dc.date.submittedApril 2006en_US
dc.description.abstractThis thesis develops a balanced scorecard model based on the attributes of Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard (1992, 1996, 2001). The model is then operationalized using a survey that is administered to CMAs (Certified Management Accountants) employed by for profit, Canadian companies with greater than 51 employees. One hundred and forty nine usable responses were received. The thesis attempts to answer two research questions: (1) What attributes of a Kaplan & Norton (hereafter K&N) Balanced Scorecard (BSC) are present in the performance measurement systems of Canadian organizations? and (2) What are the differences between organizations with different levels of K&N Balanced Scorecard adoption? Of the 149 responses, 110 (73.8%) organizations were classified as BSC firms (Levels 1 to 4) and 39 (26.2%) were classified as non-BSC firms. The 110 BSC firms were further classified as follows: 15 (13.6%) as Level 1 BSC firms, 14 (12.7%) as Level 2A BSC firms, 20 (18.2%) as Level 2B BSC firms, 25 (22.7%) as Level 3 BSC firms and 36 (32.7%) as Level 4 BSC firms. Thus, based on our conceptual model, we can say that 32.7% of the BSC firms (24.2% of the total respondents) had a fully developed K&N BSC. The study found several differences between Level 4 and Level 1 BSC organizations. For example, respondents in 83% of the Level 4 organizations, versus in 67% of the Level 1 organizations, indicated that their organizations reviewed their performance measures when their strategy changed. This study adds to academic research by conceptualizing Kaplan and Norton’s (1996, 2001) Balanced Scorecard and comparing this to the performance measurement systems of Canadian companies. Although there are numerous academic studies on the balanced scorecard (e.g., Chan & Ho 2000; Hoque & James 2000; Lipe & Salterio 2000, 2002; Malina & Selto 2001; Ittner & Larcker 2003; Speckbacher et al. 2003; Stemsrudhagen 2004), only the Speckbacker et al. 2003 study has developed a conceptual model of Kaplan and Norton’s (1992, 1996, 2001) Balanced Scorecard and used it to examine the extent of its adoption. Our study mirrors theirs, with two notable exceptions: we have a different and noteworthy conceptualization of Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard and we apply this to a Canadian setting.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10388/etd-04262006-154022en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectBalanced Scorecarden_US
dc.subjectcausal linkagesen_US
dc.subjectbalanced scorcard structureen_US
dc.subjectbalanceen_US
dc.subjectdouble loop learningen_US
dc.subjectderived from strategyen_US
dc.titleThe balanced scorecard : structure and use in Canadian companiesen_US
dc.type.genreThesisen_US
dc.type.materialtexten_US
thesis.degree.departmentAccountingen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineAccountingen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Saskatchewanen_US
thesis.degree.levelMastersen_US
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Science (M.Sc.)en_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
BSC.pdf
Size:
261.81 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
905 B
Format:
Plain Text
Description: