balanced scorecard application in universities_daryush farid, _mehran nejati, heydar mirfakhredini

Daryush Farid, Mehran Nejati, Heydar Mirfakhredini, Balanced scorecard application in universities and higher education

institutes: Implementation guide in an iranian context / Annals of University of Bucharest, Economic and Administrative

Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

BALANCED SCORECARD APPLICATION IN UNIVERSITIES

AND HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTES: IMPLEMENTATION

GUIDE IN AN IRANIAN CONTEXT

DARYUSH FARID, MَEHRAN NEJATI, HEYDAR MIRFAKHREDINI∗∗∗∗

Close compete of universities and higher education institutes in recent year in order to

offer high quality services and achieve higher national and International rank, has led to an

increase in their demand for a customized approach for assessing and improving their

performance. This paper studies the application of Balanced Scorecard (BSC), as a powerful

measurement and assessment system, in universities and higher education institutes. Reviewing

the existing literature, the paper also provides an implementation guide for BSC in an Iranian

perspective. Eventually, the performance indicators for measurement purposes of the introduced

case study are proposed.

Keywords: Balanced Scorecard, BSC, Performance Assessment, Higher Education,

Universities, Iran.

Introduction

In today’s world of global competition, providing quality service is a key

for success, and many experts concur that the most powerful competitive trend

currently shaping marketing and business strategy is service quality (Abdullah,

2006, p. 31). Institutes of higher education are also focusing on ways to render

high quality education to their educators and have a better performance.

Higher education institutes are facing new challenges in order to improve

the quality of education. There is a pressure for restructuring and reforming

higher education in order to provide quality education and bring up graduates

who become fruitful members of their societies. Therefore, these institutes are

trying to recognize the dimensions of a quality education and define strategies

to reach their pre-defined standards and goals.

The purpose of this article is to examine the concept of quality education within

higher education institutes and universities, and explore the use of performance models

and goal-setting in universities as a means for higher education excellence. The article

discusses the most practical models for universities' performance enhancement,

and proposes an improved Balanced Scorecard model to improve quality in

∗ Yazd University, Iran.

Daryush Farid, Mehran Nejati, Heydar Mirfakhredini – Balanced scorecard application in universities and higher education


Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

32

higher education. It also suggests the related performance indicators as well as

quality improvement approaches for higher education institutes.

Quality in higher education

Quality in higher education is a complex and multifaceted concept and a

single appropriate definition of quality is lacking (Harvey and Green, 1993). As

a consequence, consensus concerning “the best way to define and measure

service quality” (Clewes, 2003, p. 71) does not as yet exist. Every stakeholder

in higher education (e.g., students, government, professional bodies) has a

particular view of quality dependent on their specific needs.

O'Neill and Palmer (2004, p. 42) define service quality in higher education as

“the difference between what a student expects to receive and his/her perceptions of

actual delivery”. Guolla (1999) shows that students' perceived service quality is

an antecedent to student satisfaction. Positive perceptions of service quality can

lead to student satisfaction and satisfied students may attract new students

through word-of-mouth communication and return themselves to the university

to take further courses (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005; Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002;

Mavondo et al., 2004; Schertzer and Schertzer, 2004).

Zeithaml et al. (1993) distinguish between three types of service expectations:

desired service, adequate service, and predicted service. Customers have a desired

level of service which they hope to receive comprising what customers believe

can be performed and what should be performed. Customers also have a

minimum level of acceptable service as they realize that service will not always

reach the desired levels; this is the adequate service level. Between these two

service levels is a zone of tolerance that customers are willing to accept. Finally,

customers have a predicted level of service, which is the level of service they

believe the company will perform.

The balanced scorecard

Robert S Kaplan and David P Norton (1992) first introduced the concept of

balance scorecard in their Harvard Business Review article “The Balance

Scorecard – Measures that Drive Performance”. Focusing on the fact that managers

needed a balanced presentation of both financial and operational measures they

propounded four perspectives as the drivers of future financial performance:

(1) Customer perspective – how do customers see us?



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

33

(2) Internal perspective – what must we excel at?

(3) Innovation and learning perspective – can we continue to improve

and create value?

(4) Financial perspective – how do we look to stakeholders?

The scorecard provides executives with a comprehensive framework that

translates a company’s strategic objectives into a coherent set of performance

measures. It represents a fundamental change in the underlying assumptions

about performance measurement and helps focus the strategic vision.

The financial and customer perspectives describe the desired outcomes

sought by the organization. However, these measures may contain many lagged

indicators of performance. The internal processes and internal growth perspectives,

on the other hand, show how the organization creates these desired outcomes. In

this way, managers can identify a causal chain from the performance drivers to

financial outcomes. From the top of the chain on down, desired financial

outcomes can only be accomplished only if customers are satisfied. To realize

the customer value propositions, internal processes must be created and

delivered. Finally, the internal processes must be supported by an organization’s

learning and growth. As Kaplan and Norton (2004, p. 42) explain “Aligning

objectives in these four perspectives is the key to value creation, and, hence, to

a focused and internal consistent strategy”.

In developing a structure that links from cause to effect, Kaplan and

Norton (2004) created a tool called the strategy map. The strategy map is a

visual representation of an organization’s strategy that describes the logic of the

strategy by representing the objectives for the critical internal processes that

create value and the organizational learning and growth that support those

processes. These objectives are then translated by the balanced scorecard into

targets and measures. The internal processes most critical to creating the

customer’s value propositions are referred to as strategic themes.

BSC for non-profit organizations

The BSC has been widely used in manufacturing organizations, service

organizations, non-profit organizations, and governmental organizations with

excellent effects (Kaplan and Norton, 2001b). Kaplan and Norton (2001a) have

pointed out that financial measurement alone does not reflect the organizational

mission of governmental and non-profit organizations; rather the mission of

government or non-profit organization should be placed at top of the BSC in

measuring whether such an organization has been successful. This can also help

to keep the long-term mission of organization clear and precise. Hence, the



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

34

greatest difference between businesses and non-profit organizations lies in the

achievement of the mission. To do this, both the financial perspective and the

customer perspective must be used to enhance the perspectives of internal

processes and learning and growth. Although financial performance is not the

main target of most governmental and non-profit organizations, the original

sequence of the BSC perspectives can be rearranged with the customer

perspective moving to the top (Kaplan and Norton, 2001b) (cited in Chen et al.,

2006) (Fig. 1). The BSC can thus be adjusted according to the individual

circumstances of any case. Indeed, some organizations focus on their key

strategies to set up another perspective (Kaplan and Norton, 2001a). For

example, some public sector organizations institute a social responsibility

perspective or a cultural perspective.

Fig. 1. BSC for non-profit organizations (Source: Kaplan and Norton, 2001a)

With respect to the implementation of the BSC in non-profit organizations,

Kaplan and Norton (2001a) reported that United Way of Southeastern New

England (UWSENE) was the first non-profit organization to introduce BSC. In

doing so, UWSENE focused on the financial and customer perspectives treating

donors as target customers’. According to Kaplan and Norton (2001b), non-profit

organizations tend to structure their BSC with mission as the top perspective,

followed by the customer perspective, the internal process perspective, the

learning and growth perspective, and finally the financial perspective. However,

Lawrence and Sharma (2002) have pointed out that the BSC constructed by a

corporate university, the DXL University, was based entirely



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

35

on a BSC that had mission and strategic targets on the top, followed by the

financial perspective, and then other concepts. Wilson et al. (2003) observed

that the BSC established by the Canada National department of British

Columbia Buildings Corporation (BCBC) changed a financial perspective into a

shareholder perspective, and placed this BSC system on the same level as the

customer perspective. Wilson et al. (2003) also noted that three national

departments, the Norwegian Directorate of Public Construction and Property,

the US General Service Administration (GSA), and the Nation Property Board

of Sweden (NPB), all had BSC or strategic map as business type (with the

financial perspective at the top), but Wilson et al. (2003) did not explain that the

BSC established by these three departments might have been related to the

organizational culture of these departments which expected them to emphasize

financial performance management as do corporations. The above literature

review reveals that the four major perspectives of the BSC can be adjusted

according to the individual needs of the organization. Nevertheless, some public

sector and non-profit organizations adopt a similar BSC structure to that of

business organizations.

Application of BSC in education

It is evident that the BSC has been widely adopted in the business sector

but the education sector has not embraced the BSC concept widely as indicated

by the dearth of published research on this topic (Karathanos and Karathanos,

2005). Cullen et al., (2003) proposed that BSC be used in educational

institutions for reinforcement of the importance of managing rather than just

monitoring performance. Sutherland (2000), (cited in Karathanos and

Karathanos, 2005) reported that the Rossier School of Education at University

of Southern California adopted the BSC to assess its academic program and

planning process. Also Chang and Chow (1999) reported in a survey of 69

accounting department’s heads that they were generally supportive of the BSC

applicability and benefits to accounting education programs. Ivy (2001) studied

how universities in both UK and South Africa use marketing to differentiate

their images in the higher education market. At a time when higher educational

institutions around the globe face declining student numbers and decreasing

funding grants it becomes imperative for them to determine their images in the

eyes of their various publics. Karathanos and Karathanos (2005) describe how

the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence has adapted the

concept of BSC to education and discuss significant differences as well as

similarities between BSC for Business and BSC for education.



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

36

In higher education as in business there are acceptable conventions of

measuring excellence. Rather than emphasizing financial performance, higher

education has emphasized academic measures. As in the case of business the

demands of external accountability and comparability, measurement in higher

education has generally emphasized those academic variables that are most

easily quantifiable (Ruben, 1999).

These measures usually are built on and around such aspects as faculty/

student numbers (ratios), demographics; student pass percentages and dispersion of

scores; class rank, percentile scores; graduation rates; percentage graduates

employed on graduation; faculty teaching load; faculty research/publications;

statistics on physical resource (see library, computer laboratories etc.).

Ruben (1999) indicates that one area deserving greater attention in this

process of measurement is – the student, faculty and staff expectations and

satisfaction levels. He opines that in most higher education centers very little

attention is paid to systematically measuring students’, faculty and staff

satisfaction despite sharing the widely accepted viewpoint that attracting and

retaining the best talent/people is the primary goal and critical success factor for

institutions of higher learning.

In a study conducted by Ewell, (1994) (cited in Ruben, 1999), the

measures used in 10 states in the USA in performance reports of higher

education institutions, were:

• Enrolment/graduation rates by gender, ethnicity and program.

• Degree completion and time to degree.

• Persistence and retention rates by gender, ethnicity and program.

• Remediation activities and indicators of their effectiveness.

• Transfer rates to and from two and four year institutions.

• Pass rates on professional exams.

• Job placement data on graduates and graduates’ satisfaction with their jobs.

• Faculty workload and productivity in the form of student/faculty ratios

and instructional contact hours.

Armitage and Scholey (2004) successfully applied the BSC to a specific

master’s degree program in business, entrepreneurship and technology. Karathanos

and Karathanos (2005) have compared the Baldrige Award and BSC criteria in

the context of education and have come out with measures closely aligned

amongst both the instruments.



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

37

Balanced scorecard implementation guide in universities and higher

education institutes

Educational institutes are just beginning to view themselves as part of a

service industry, and many are doing so reluctantly (Gold, 2001) (Cited in

Banwet and Datta, 2003), often as a result of an enrollment crisis (Wallace,

1999). Canic and McCarthy (2000) suggest that for many years, the notions of

service quality and higher education seemed about as compatible as oil and

water and decades-old institutions were not readily amenable to continuous

quality improvement initiatives. Low (2000) notes that the provision of quality

service to students on campus is a key element in attracting and retaining

students. Failure to attract or satisfy students, would negatively impact student

enrollment and retention, funding, job security and viability of a university or

educational institute. Finally, service quality can lead to excellence in business

education (LeBlanc and Nguyen, 1997).

Introduction of the BSC in an educational institution requires faculty staff

to work together. It begins with senior supervisors who are responsible for

policy making and execution in a top-to-bottom hierarchy. In the ultimate, the

introduction of the BSC will create a cause-and-effect linkage involving

feedback from staff members and communication among corresponding

functions. Five basic principles are involved in the establishment of the BSC as

part of the strategic core of an organization (Kaplan and Norton, 2001a, c):

(1) Translating the strategy to operational terms.

(2) Aligning the organization to the strategy.

(3) Making the strategy part of everyone everyday job.

(4) Making strategy a continuous process.

(5) Mobilizing change through leadership.

Below, we try to help the reader comprehend the BSC method as a

management strategy and understand each strategic theme as it relates to

initiatives, targets and measurement for a management department. We apply

the BSC to the authors’ own department, in Yazd University, a public university

in Iran. We begin with our mission statement, in which we set out the general

goals and purpose of the organization: To prepare students to become managers

and leaders who will add value to their organizations and communities and

create sustainable development in society through:



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

38

• Offering high quality graduate and undergraduate programs.

• Training creative and innovative entrepreneurs and managers.

• Supporting research.

Based on this mission, the BSC strategy map will develop a strategy map

like the one shown in Fig. 2 (Adapted from Kaplan and Norton, 2004, p. 51)

(cited in Papenhausen and Einstein, 2006, p. 18).



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

39

Fig. 2. BSC strategy map



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

40

After the strategy map is drawn, the next step is the development of a balanced scorecard showing multiple goals and measures for each perspective. Even though the number of measures in each perspective varies, it is important that each measure aligns with the organization’s strategy. The measurements used are adapted from Bailey et al. (1999) (cited in Papenhausen and Einstein, 2006), but were tailored to apply to our specific management department.

Financial perspective The financial perspective contains the tangible outcomes in traditional financial

terms. Table 1 is an overview of the financial perspective’s goals and measurements.

Table 1 Overview of the financial perspective’s goals and measurements

Type Goal Measurement

Fund Raising Building endowment/fund

raising/ annual giving

Size/growth of endowment

Donor support for new

initiatives

Total funds raised

Increased research grants Volume and number of

research grants received

Increased state appropriation % of funding relative to others

in system

Increased student fees % of contribution cost

Revenue from operations

Increase teaching productivity Student/faculty ratio

Financial management To be financially sound

Balanced budgets

Extend budget submissions

cover all essential

requirements

Cost per unit of production

relative to peers

Market growth

To financially succeed Rate of increase in fee-paying

students

Stakeholder perspective

Value propositions are created to meet the needs of each stakeholder.

These value propositions are those that hold the greatest value to each

stakeholder and represent outcomes of the college’s internal processes.

Satisfactory realization of the value propositions translate into financial

outcomes outlined in the financial perspective. Table 2 is an overview of the

stakeholder perspective’s goals and measurements.



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

41

Table 2 Overview of the stakeholder perspective’s goals and measurements

Stakeholder Goal Measurement

Attract high-quality

students

No. and quality of students

Persistence rate

Applications to programs

% admitted

Market share

Geographic draw area

Develop high-

quality students

Quality of teaching and advising

Department GPA

Graduate high-

quality students

Starting salaries

Quality and no. of on-campus recruiters

Internship programs

Students

Student satisfaction

Ability to get access to “needed” courses

Ease in getting “good” job

Student evaluations of faculty/ courses

Graduate exit surveys

Community –

employers,

alumni,

parents

Business

community

(employer)

Employer survey rating graduates’ effectiveness

No. of faculty involved in community/business

service

Faculty Faculty satisfaction

Encouragement given faculty to engage in

development activities

Effectiveness of orientation and inculcation process

for new faculty

Availability of well-defined personnel policies and

procedures available to faculty

Office space and computer availability

University Service to the

university

Adequacy of participation in campus-wide activities

Quality of relationships with other elements on

campus

Teaching quality

Corporate evaluation of curriculum

Qualifications of faculty

Focus on up-to-date teaching practices

Academic

excellence

Quality of students admitted

Quality of faculty

Accreditation status

General

Quality research

contributions

No. of faculty publications/ citations in ISI Journals

No. of faculty publications/ citations in other

International research journals

No. of faculty publications/ citations in national

research journals

No. of faculty members’ presentations and speaks in

International conferences

No. of faculty members’ presentations and speaks in

national conferences



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

42

Internal process The internal process perspective describes the critical internal processes

that drive the stakeholder satisfaction and the college’s financial outcomes. Internal business processes deliver the value proposition to stakeholders and drive the financial effectiveness. Table 3 illustrates this perspective’s strategic themes (critical internal processes), goals, and measurements.

Table 3 Overview of the internal process perspective’s goals and measurements

Strategic

theme Goal Measurement

Teaching

excellence

Student satisfaction

Employer satisfaction

Teaching awards

Course evaluations

Peer and outside reviews Teaching/

learning

excellence Excellence in

developing

learning and

learning skills

Grade point standards

Pass rates on professional exams

Opportunities for writing and oral presentations

Assessments by course

No. of students going to graduate/professional schools

Advancement of alumni in profession

Degree of deployment of technology in learning experience

Curriculum

excellence and

innovation

No. of new courses developed

Degree of innovation

Degree to which curriculum is up-to-date with

educational, business, and commercial trends

Program internationalization

Periodic review of each program on a rolling schedule

Curriculum/

program

excellence

and

innovation Introduction of

new programs/

innovations

Concept to implementation time

Timeliness of delivery of new products

Quality faculty

Faculty credentials

Faculty appraisals

Endowed chairs

Faculty development plans Quality and

currency of

faculty Currency of faculty

and classroom

material/

experiences

Contacts with business and industry

Utilization rate of multimedia in classroom

Production

efficiency

% of students completing undergraduate program in 4 years

% of students completing graduate program in 2 years

Teaching costs/student

Administrative costs/student

% of budget dedicated directly to learning

Efficiency

and

effectiveness

of service Student services

effectiveness

Type and no. of services provided

Time required to register

Availability of internships – co-ops



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

43

Learning and growth perspective The learning and growth perspective identifies the sets of skills and

processes that drive the college to continuously improve its critical internal processes. The learning and growth areas that feed into internal processes subsequently drive stakeholder satisfaction and ultimately financial outcomes. Table 4 is an overview of this perspective’s goals and measurements.

Table 4 Overview of the Learning and growth perspective’s goals and measurements

Type Goal Measurement

Faculty development

Rials (Iranian Currency) for

research, travel, library,

computer hardware/software

Teaching assessments

Technology leadership (use,

development, application)

Student and faculty

satisfaction

Degree to which technology is

used in specific courses

Expenditures on

hardware/software

Teaching/learning

excellence and innovation

Teaching/learning

innovations

Development of assessment

device/ technique for each

innovation

Measure, reward, and

evaluate goal attainment

Evaluation of measuring and

reward system in college Mission-driven processes

and reward system Establish broad-based and

continuous strategic planning

process

Evaluation of strategic

planning

Quality of facilities Adequate physical facilities

Adequacy of classroom and

equipment facilities for

providing globally relevant

management education

It must not be forgotten that support from senior administrators is critical

to implementing a successful BSC in any organization.

Conclusions The development of the balanced scorecard is a fundamental process that

enables continuous improvement and enhancement. It is better to start to

improve than wait for a perfect solution before the implementation of the

strategy. The experience of authors shows that organisational change does not

happen at one point in time, but is a continuous management process. The



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

44

implementation of a strategy requires active contributions by everyone in the

organization. Each member of the college needs to understand this strategy and,

beyond that, to conduct day-to-day business in ways that contribute to the

success of the strategy. This paper aimed to provide investigate the application

of BSC in universities and higher education institutes and propose an

implementation guide for BSC implementation in an Iranian context.

REFERENCES

ARMITAGE, H., SCHOLEY, C. (2004), “Hands-On Scorecarding”, CMA Management, Vol. 78,

No. 6, pp. 34-38.

BAILEY, A., CHOW, C., HADDAD, K. (1999), ‘‘Continuous Improvement in Business Education:

Insights from the For-Profit Sector and Business Deans’’, Journal of Education for Business,

Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 165-180.

BANWET, D. K., DATTA, B. (2003), “A Study of the Effect of Preceived Lecture Quality on

Post-Lecture Intentions”, Work Study, Vol. 52, No. 5, pp. 234-243.

CANIC, M. J., MCCARTHY, P. M. (2000), “Service Quality and Higher Education Do Mix: A

Case Study”, Quality Progress, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 41-46.

CHANG, O. H., CHOW, C. W. (1999), “The Balanced Scorecard: A Potential Tool for Supporting

Change and Continuous Improvement in Accounting Education”, Issues in Accounting

Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 395-412.

CHEN, S. H., YANG, C. C., SHIAU, J. Y. (2006), “The Application of Balanced Scorecard in the

Performance Evaluation of Higher Education”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 190-205.

CLEWES, D. (2003), “A Student-Centred Conceptual Model of Service Quality in Higher Education”,

Qual. High. Educ., Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69-85.

CULLEN, J., JOYCE, J., HASSALL, T., BROADBENT, M. (2003), “Quality in Higher Education:

From Monitoring to Management”, Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Vol. 11, No. 1,

pp. 30-34.

GOLD, E. (2001), “Customer Service: A Key Unifying Force for Today's Campus”, Net results,

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 22 January, available at:

www.naspa.org/netresults (accessed 7 March, 2003).

GUOLLA, M. (1999), “Assessing the Teaching Quality to Student Satisfaction Relationship:

Applied Customer Satisfaction Research in the Classroom”, J. Mark. Theory Pract., Vol. 7,

No. 3, pp. 87-97.

IVY, J. (2001), “Higher Education Institution Image: A Correspondence Analysis Approach”, The

International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15, No. 6 and 7, pp. 276-282.

KAPLAN, R. S., NORTON, D. P. (1992), “The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that Drive

Performance”, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 71-79.

KAPLAN, R. S., NORTON, D. P. (2001a), “The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced

Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment”, Harvard Business

School Press, Boston, MA.

KAPLAN, R. S., NORTON, D. P. (2001b), “Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from

Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part I”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15,

No. 1, pp. 87-104.



Series, Nr. 2 (2008) 31-45

45

KAPLAN, R. S., NORTON, D. P. (2001c), “Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from

Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part II”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15,

No. 2, pp. 147-160.

KAPLAN, R. S., NORTON, D. P. (2004), Strategy Maps, Harvard Business School Publishing

Corp., Boston, MA.

KARATHANOS, D., KARATHANOS, P. (2005), “Applying the Balanced Scorecard to

Education”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 80, No. 4, pp. 222-230.

LAWRENCE, S., SHARMA, U. (2002), “Commodification of Education and Academic Labour

Using the Balanced Scorecard in a University Setting”, Critical Visions on Accounting,

Vol. 13, pp. 661-677.

LEBLANC, G., NGUYEN, N. (1997), “Searching for Excellence in Business Education: An

Exploratory Study of Customer Impressions of Service Quality”, International Journal of

Educational Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 72-79.

LOW, L. (2000), Are College Students Satisfied? A National Analysis of Changing Expectations,

Noel-Levitz, Iowa City, IA.

MARZO-NAVARRO, M., PEDRAJA-IGLESIAS, M., RIVERA-TORRES, M. P. (2005),

“Measuring Customer Satisfaction in Summer Courses”, Qual. Assur. Educ., Vol. 13, No. 1,

pp. 53-65.

MAVONDO, F. T., TSARENKO, Y., GABBOTT, M. (2004), “International and Local Student

Satisfaction: Resources and Capabilities Perspective”, J. Mark. High. Educ.., Vol. 14, No. 1,

pp. 41-60.

O'NEILL, M. A., PALMER, A. (2004), “Importance–Performance Analysis: A Useful Tool for

Directing Continuous Quality Improvement in Higher Education”, Qual. Assur. Educ., Vol. 12,

No. 1, pp. 39-52.

PAPENHAUSEN, C., EINSTEIN, W. (2006), “Insights from the Balanced Scorecard Implementing the

Balanced Scorecard at a College of Business”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 10, No.

3, pp. 15-22.

SCHERTZER, C. B. and SCHERTZER, S. M. B. (2004), “Student Satisfaction and Retention: A

Conceptual Model”, J. Mark. High. Educ., Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 79-91.

RUBEN, B. D. (2004), “Pursuing Excellence in Higher Education: Eight Fundamental

Challenges”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

WALLACE, J. B. (1999), “The Case for Student as Customer”, Quality Progress, Vol. 32, No. 2,

pp. 47-51.

WILSON, C., HAGARTY, D., GAUTHIER, J. (2003), “Result Using the Balanced Scorecard in

the Public Sector”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 53-63.

WIERS-JENSSEN, J., STENSAKER, B., GROGAARD, J. B. (2002), “Student Satisfaction:

Towards an Empirical Deconstruction of the Concept”, Qual. High. Educ., Vol. 8, No. 2,

pp. 183-195.

ZEITHAML, V. A, BERRY, L. L., PARASURAMAN, A. (1993), “The Nature and Determinants of

Customer Expectations of Services”, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1-12.

balanced scorecard application in universities_daryush farid, _mehran nejati, heydar mirfakhredini

Documents