strategy revitalization in academe : a balanced scorecard approach

8/9/2019 Strategy Revitalization in academe : a balanced scorecard approach

1/16

Strategy revitalization inacademe: a balanced scorecard

approachRoselie McDevitt, Catherine Giapponi and Norman Solomon

Charles F. Dolan School of Business, Fairfield University, Fairfield,Connecticut, USA

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a unique version of the balanced scorecarddeveloped and applied by the faculty of a university division.

Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a case study approach and uses the experiencesof the faculty of a business school to describe the process and benefits of developing a custom balanced

scorecard.

Findings The unique version of the scorecard revitalized the faculty and resulted in a processmodel of organizational change based on the balanced scorecard that can be used in many academicdivisions.

Practical implications This unique version of the scorecard helped to establish a program ofcontinuous improvement and facilitated the formulation of strategic initiatives. The documentationprovided in the scorecard supports requests for increased budgets and grant applications.

Originality/value University and faculty administrators can use the model developed in thispaper as a basis of a change program that can help design improvement programs, facilitate strategydevelopment, and support funding requests.

Keywords Business schools, Balanced scorecard, Continuous improvement, Higher education,Strategic management

Paper type Case study

IntroductionUniversities must remain competitive to meet the demands of accrediting bodies.Administrators face increasing demands for quality and accountability from internaland external forces and constituents, and in the past have looked to the businessmanagement literature for help in developing programs that keep pace with thedemands of a competitive environment (Welsh and Metcalf, 2003). For example, thebalanced scorecard developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992) introduces a new way ofmeasuring business unit performance that is directly linked to mission and strategicgoal setting, by using measurements from four perspectives:

(1) financial;

(2) internal business processes;

(3) customer; and

(4) innovation and learning.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

The authors would like to thank the Eastern Academy of Managements 2006 Conferencereviewers and discussants for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.

IJEM22,1

32

International Journal of Educational

Management

Vol. 22 No. 1, 2008

pp. 32-47

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0951-354X

DOI 10.1108/09513540810844549


2/16

Unlike performance measurement approaches that focus on controlling behaviour, thebalanced scorecard affords opportunities to motivate organizational members toachieve goals that support long-term vision. Through new and expanded applications,the scorecard can play a central role in integrating strategic management systems by

linking long-term strategic objectives with short-term actions (Kaplan and Norton,1996a, 1996b).

The balanced scorecard was developed and adopted by for-profit companies suchas Rockwater, and FMC Corporation (Kaplan and Norton, 1993). Its usefulness has alsobeen recognized by public and private non-profit organizations. Applications of thebalanced scorecard in the healthcare industry (Oliveira, 2001), and in government andpublic sector organizations have been successfully implemented (Griffiths, 2003).

There are reports of colleges using the balanced scorecard to develop frameworksfor measuring institutional effectiveness on the macro level (Karathanos andKarathanos, 2005; Ruben, 1999). Such adaptations provide university administratorswith a measurement system that is not only linked to mission and strategy, but is also

a learning model that supports continuous improvement and environmentalresponsiveness. Unlike previous institutional level applications, this study examinesthe process of creating a balanced scorecard at the academic division level, and resultsin a process model that can facilitate the adoption of the balanced scorecard by anyacademic division.

Organizational contextThis case involves a School of Business that is one of six academic divisions and is ledby a Dean, and two Assistant Deans who work with approximately 40 full time facultymembers. There are approximately 1,200 undergraduate students, and 200 graduate

students in the school. The five departments include: accounting, finance, informationsystems, management, and marketing. The Department Chairpersons work with theDeans through a Chairs Council. Three major faculty committees report directly to thefaculty: Graduate Committee, Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, and theContinuous Improvement and Assessment Committee (CIAC). These committeesgive the School the characteristics of a matrix organization with representation acrossthe academic disciplines mixed with members of the administration as shown inFigure 1.

The need to develop a program of improvement, strategy setting, and evaluationwas precipitated by four major factors:

(1) an increase in the number of faculty members in the school;

(2) a change in leadership;(3) a change in the demand for business school graduates; and

(4) the need to focus on assessment and continuous improvement initiativesrequired by accrediting agencies.

The CIAC considered several strategy setting models before selecting the balancedscorecard as the framework for a strategy-centered assessment and continuousimprovement.

Strategyrevitalization in

academe

33


3/16

Strategy revitalization: a process modelApplying the model resulted in clearly defined business school goals and objectives,greater faculty involvement, and guidelines for managing the process itself. As shownin Figure 2, the final model depicts six phases in the revitalization process that canguide strategic planning, evaluation, and continuous improvement.

Phase I: Foundation buildingThe four steps in Phase I require the organization to:

(1) determine the need for change;

(2) identify and organize the key players in the process;

(3) evaluate and articulate leadership vision; and

(4) review mission statement and align with vision.

Examples of a need for change include: a liberal arts institution may decide that theDepartment of Business is too large to operate as a department and that it shouldbe a School of Business, the university has not kept up with technological change,the university is conducting an organization-wide reevaluation program, or a new

leader is hired whose vision does not align with that of the previous leader. Sinceeach academic organization is unique, their specific needs should drive therevitalization process.

Our change initiative began with the appointment of a new Dean. The Deanfamiliarized himself with the internal environment by:

. reviewing the existing vision, mission, goals and objectives of the school; and

. interviewing University administrators, School of Business Department Chairs,faculty members, and student representatives.

Figure 1.Identifying key players in

a School of Businesscommittee matrix

IJEM22,1

34


4/16

Figure 2.Phases of the strategy

revitalization processusing the balanced

scorecard


academe

35


5/16

Next, he examined the external pressures of a changing marketplace by:

. reviewing a recently completed University wide market study that includedinformation specific to the School of Business;

.

hosting working meetings with the School of Business Advisory Council whichincluded break out sessions;

. conducting focus groups with recent graduates led by a faculty expert;

. meeting with the Career Planning Director to determine how the School ofBusiness was perceived by the recruiters that hired our students; and

. by meetings with business leaders in the surrounding area.

Lastly, the requirements of the principal accrediting agency, AACSB International,were ascertained. Clearly, there was a need for goals and strategies that would not onlysupport the goals of the School of Business, but also meet the requirements of theUniversity and satisfy accreditation standards. He identified four strong factors that

pointed to the need for change:(1) the existing strategic plan was completed five years prior and did not address

the needs identified in the Deans examination of the internal and externalpressures;

(2) the new leader brought a participative management style with him;

(3) the number of faculty members had increased by over 40 percent to meet theneeds of an expanding program as defined by the accrediting body; and

(4) the demand for business school graduates was changing as determined by theUniversitys market study.

Based on the Becker et al. (2001) recommendation that two sponsors lead the

implementation of an organizational change program (a line and an administrativeperson), two sponsors in the School of Business were identified. The Dean served as theadministrative sponsor and the Chair of the CIAC was the line sponsor. As a means ofmobilizing commitment, the Assistant Deans, Department Chairs, and members of thefour main School of Business Committees were identified as the key players as shownin Figure 1.

The revitalization process was led by the CIAC, whose work was reviewed by theother key players and ultimately by the business school faculty as a whole. At this

juncture, the CIAC felt it was important to establish a communication network andreview mechanism, which included information sessions, updates at faculty meetings,faculty perspective group meetings (defined later in the text), electronic updates, andhard copy reports.

It is important that the leaders vision is clear (Levin, 2000) and that it is adequatelyaligned with the position, goals and objectives of the academic unit. Once the Dean hadarticulated his vision, the current organizational mission had to be examined.

There are several ways to evaluate the current mission statement (See Campbell,1997) including: distributing copies of the mission statement to all faculty members fortheir comments, or hosting one or more meetings to discuss the current missionstatement. Whatever method is chosen, it is vital that all faculty members understandthat their input is important in building the foundation for strategy revision. The

IJEM22,1

36


6/16

divisions mission statement was reexamined by all of the constituents of the School toinsure that it supported the broader University mission, the requirements ofaccrediting agencies, and the goals of the faculty (see Figure 3). In this case, the CIACsummarized faculty recommendations and submitted them to the School of Business

faculty members for final approval.Raised faculty awareness was one of the most important outcomes of this

examination, especially because approximately 40 percent of the members of thefaculty were hired after the old mission statement had been adopted. Just as significant,senior faculty were given the opportunity to re-evaluate and comment on its continuedviability. Activities like this help to build a foundation for a strategy that fostersalignment of leadership vision, organizational and unit level missions, and strategicgoals.

Phase II: Scorecard developmentThe CIAC recommended the balanced scorecard framework because it enables theformulation of strategies that focus on continuous improvement efforts that are linked

to vision and mission. Two major strengths are: it was a business approach that wasfamiliar to some members of the business schools faculty increasing the likelihood ofincreased participation; and it points to critical activities and objectives, and suggestsways of measuring them and presenting the results in a concise and organized fashion.The CIAC also recognized that the balanced scorecard had weaknesses. Originally aprivate sector approach: it was complex; data availability was a problem; and itrequired constant alignment with strategy and vision. The CIAC, however, felt that thestrengths outweighed the weaknesses.

With the vision and mission statements clearly articulated and the balancedscorecard framework selected, the task of developing the scorecard began. At thisstage the CIAC emphasized how important it was to enlist faculty support andmaintain the high level of participation necessary throughout the planning process toensure a successful outcome (See Briggs et al., 2003).

There were two activities in the education program selected by the CIAC. First, acomprehensive reading list was compiled and key articles were distributed to theconstituents with a memo asking them to review the readings. Second, a seminar washeld to discuss the readings which included:

Figure 3.Strategic alignment


academe

37


7/16

. Kaplans and Nortons, 1996a article which describes the balanced scorecard as aholistic model of strategy;

. Kaplans and Nortons 1996b article which advocates participative change; and

.

Kaplans and Nortons, 2001 article which points out that the balanced scorecardis a powerful tool for driving change initiatives.

After the faculty reviewed the reading materials, a full day seminar was held to beginthe discussion process. Giving the faculty members the opportunity to discuss theappropriateness of using the balanced scorecard in their school was a key factor infostering their acceptance. In addition, faculty familiarity with the scorecard was afactor that led to their acceptance.

The balanced scorecard developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992) looks at anorganization from four perspectives:

(1) financial;

(2) internal business;(3) customer; and

(4) innovation and learning.

While these perspectives are appropriate in a business setting, they are not suitable foran academic unit. A brainstorming session was part of a seminar held to defineperspectives appropriate for an academic unit. Through open discussion, facultymembers quickly recognized the strength of examining an organization throughmultiple perspectives as prescribed in the balanced scorecard. As a result, fiveperspectives emerged:

(1) Growth and Development.

(2) Scholarship and Research.(3) Teaching and Learning.

(4) Service and Outreach.

(5) Financial Resources (see Figure 4).

Faculty members volunteered to work in one of five subcommittees formed torepresent each perspective. These perspective groups met, selected a leader, andworked on perspective worksheets designed to insure that the results of the fivegroups discussions were submitted to the committee in a comparable format. Table I isan example of a preliminary worksheet.

Finally, perspective group leaders presented the work prepared by their groups to

the faculty for discussion. This discussion created a shared understanding of theobjectives and strategic initiatives defined across perspective groups.

In the following weeks, facilitators from the CIAC organized the work prepared bythe perspective groups. To maintain the communication links between the CIAC andthe working groups, they accumulated and summarized the perspective groups inputon a regular basis. Based on feedback, each perspective was evaluated and improvedseveral times. For instance, one of the perspective groups included every possible goaland objective that they could identify, ignoring the idea that only key measures are

IJEM22,1

38


8/16

included in the balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996a). Therefore, major goalshad to be distilled from the many that were proposed.

The CIAC created the first complete draft of the balanced scorecard from the final

drafts of the worksheets submitted by the perspective groups. An analysis of thescorecard and its supporting worksheets revealed overlap in the goals and objectivesacross perspective groups. Therefore, the subcommittees were asked to refine their work

and eliminate redundancy. After the revised worksheets were submitted, the CIAC madesome editorial adjustments and created a second draft of the balanced scorecard.

The directing committee began to examine the availability of the performancemeasures required by each perspective. As expected, most available measuressupported administrators objectives, and the measures for many of the faculty definedobjectives were not available. The committee created Balanced Scorecard Mapping

Worksheets (see Table II) as a means of identifying available measures and where inthe University the information was generated. This version of the worksheets

Perspective IV Scholarship and researchGoal Objective Measure

ProductivityTo improve the productivity ofintellectual contributions andscholarship

To assess productivity inresearch output

Number of publications

Peer-reviewed: journal articles,notes, proceedings, etc.Editor-reviewed: Books,Chapters in books,Commentaries, Book reviews,etc.Number of presentations atconferences

Table I.Sample perspective group

preliminary worksheet

Figure 4.Balanced scorecard first

draft


academe

39


9/16

expanded the content of the previous round of worksheets by adding columns to showthe existing sources of information. In the Scholarship and Research Perspective, thecolumns reflected how many articles were published and where that information wasrecorded. This step revealed that some of the information was available, but difficult toaccess, and some was just not available. For example, in the Teaching and LearningPerspective, there were multiple instruments that measured student learning orsatisfaction because each department had gathered information pertinent to theirmajors, making it impossible to organize the data in a meaningful way. To address theneed for consistent information, the School adopted the Educational Benchmark Inc.(EBI) program for assessment data. Another example of information not beingavailable was found in the Service and Outreach Perspective. Increased alumniinvolvement in classroom programs was a goal, but there was no way to capture this

information and results could not be reported. The CIAC created an electronicallyadministered annual faculty survey which now accumulates this and other faculty datato support the scorecard.

At the end of Phase II, the balanced scorecard as shown in Figure 4 had beencompleted and was ready to use in the evaluation of the academic units performanceas defined by the members of the faculty. Each of the five perspectives: Teaching andLearning; Service and Outreach; Growth and Development; Scholarship and Research;and Financial Resources were supported by perspective group worksheets.

Phase III: Compile measuresSince it was expected that the balanced scorecard would require continuous evaluationand improvement, Phase III had two primary functions:

(1) to compile performance results based on available data; and

(2) to identify measures for which data was not available.

At the end of the schools academic year, the CIAC used the most recent iteration of thebalanced scorecard to compile performance results. For those goals that had measuresavailable, a baseline was established against which future outcome measures could becompared. For example, the admissions office supplied the new student enrollmentinformation needed to complete the measures defined in the Financial Perspective. On

Perspective IV Scholarship and researchObjective Measure Source of information

Productivity

To improve the productivity ofintellectual contributions andscholarship

Number of publications

Peer-reviewed: journal articles,notes, proceedings, etc.

Department Chairs AnnualReports

Editor-reviewed: Books,Chapters in books,Commentaries, Book reviews,etc.


Number of presentations atconferences


Table II.Balanced scorecardmapping worksheet

IJEM22,1

40


10/16

the other hand, some necessary performance measures were not available or notcurrently captured. For example, in the Service and Outreach Perspective, the facultymembers had set an increase in alumni involvement as a goal, but there was nomechanism to collect the necessary information.

Phase IV: Analyse resultsIt was not enough to simply report the performance measures in a balanced scorecard.The information had to be used for continuous improvement and strategy setting.Therefore, this phase was used to:

. determine the success of the faculty in meeting their goals; and

. reevaluate the metrics selected.

Thus, in Phase IV, actual performance was analysed andthe quality of the metrics wasevaluated.

The completed scorecard was discussed by the individual perspective groups, theChairs Council, CIAC, and other key players identified early in the process. It wascirculated and discussed at a faculty meeting. The discussions centered on:

. suggestions to improve performance on the goals that could currently bemeasured;

. what to do about missing data;

. the quality and relevance of the metrics; and

. suggestions to improve the scorecard itself.

Phase V: Recommend changesPhase V of the model requires the formulation of improved objectives, metrics, targets,strategic initiatives, and process improvements. In this case, the scorecard was revised

to reflect new and existing strategic goals. The strategic initiatives became clearer asthe balanced scorecard improved over time. Three types of recommendations emergedin Phase V:

(1) Recommendations for future strategic initiatives one goal was to exposestudents to the application of business theory in practice. The supportingobjective to reach this goal was to bring alumni on campus to speak to classesand clubs. Therefore, it was necessary to create a strategic initiative that wouldget more alumni involved.

(2) Recommendations to revise the objectives, the measures, and the targets thefirst round of mapping worksheets looked for the sources of existing measures,but subsequent versions of the balanced scorecard recognized the linkagesbetween perspectives as well as the direction of those linkages. The mappingprocess helps to identify areas where strategy is weak (Kaplan and Norton,2000). For example, the objective of one strategic initiative is to get more alumniinvolved in student related programs. The support for this strategy mayinvolve funding more joint alumni and faculty activities. The linkage wouldbegin in the Financial Perspective with a program that would provide funds foralumni activities, move to the Teaching and Learning Perspective with alumniparticipating in classroom activities, and ending in the Service and OutreachPerspective with the measure of alumni involvement (see Panel A of Figure 5).


academe

41


11/16

Figure 5.Strategic initiatives examples of interactions

IJEM22,1

42


12/16

But alumni involvement can support other goals as well. For instance, the samefunds that were provided for alumni activities in the example above can resultin research opportunities and end in the Scholarship and Research Perspectivewith a faculty publication (see Panel B of Figure 5). The true linkages related to

any strategic initiative represent multiple interactions as presented in Panel C ofFigure 5.

(3) General recommendations to improve and facilitate the balanced scorecardprocess the process improvements recommended to facilitate gatheringmissing data were to: create a worksheet (faculty survey) to be completed byindividual faculty members. This worksheet was meant to facilitate facultyreporting and guarantee reporting consistency across departments. As asecondary outcome, the faculty worksheet was a personal reminder of the goalsand objectives of the School of Business as it related to each individual facultymember.

Phase VI: Revise and implement initiatives and metricsAnnual revision and updating activities are based on the Phase V proposedrecommendations. After the appropriate members of the administration evaluate therecommendations for new strategic initiatives, plans for implementing those that aredeemed feasible and/or affordable follow. Just as important, recommendations forprocess changes need to be evaluated and initiated by the faculty where appropriate.

In this case, the end of the first annual cycle resulted in an incomplete scorecard.Where the information was available to complete the performance measure, a baselinemeasure was established, and specific objectives were set so that subsequentperformance could be evaluated. For instance, if 40 refereed publications were achievedthis year, an objective may be set to: maintain this level of publication; or increase iteach year. Where no first year measures were developed, no baseline was set, but

would be once the data source was identified.After the first year the process begins at Phase III. The focus is on process

improvement in implementing the balance scorecard and developing strategicinitiatives. As more linkages between perspectives are defined, the new strategicinitiatives will become easier to identify. Ideally, the time needed to complete the stepsin Phase III through Phase VI will be greatly reduced over the years. However, giventhe dynamic nature of strategy, periodic changes in vision and mission may occur, andrequire more formal reexamination of the organizational direction and strategy. It isanticipated that this type of formal review will occur once every five years.

Summary and conclusionsThe key deliverables from using the balanced scorecard in this kind of revitalizationprogram include:

. the definition of the School of Business identity and direction as separate anddistinct from that of the University;

. the creation of a new communication network among the faculty andadministration;

. the increase in faculty awareness of the goals and objectives of the school;


academe

43


13/16

. the documentation of needs that can be submitted to the administration forfunding; and

. the method for integrating strategic planning, implementing strategic initiatives,and monitoring the success of the strategic programs.

In the case described, the balanced scorecard put the academic unit in a strong positionto request university funds for strategic initiatives that met its clearly defined goalsand objectives. This resulted in the allocation of resources for four major programs:

(1) revision of the undergraduate and graduate programs;

(2) alignment of those programs with the goals articulated in the balancedscorecard;

(3) expansion of the physical plant; and

(4) creation of three endowed chairs in the School of Business.

In addition, another positive outcome worth noting is that the balanced scorecard

metrics have been integrated into the Deans annual report which provides an ongoingmeasure of the School of Business progress toward its strategic goals. The annualreport facilitates faculty dialogue around the scorecard, thereby reinforcing a commonunderstanding of strategic priorities. This understanding makes it easier to mobilizefaculty members in new strategic initiatives. Finally, the strategic managementprocess developed by the School of Business has contributed to the successfulextension of its accreditation for undergraduate and graduate business programs byAACSB.

The process which was driven by the School of Business faculty and administratorsemphasized continuous improvement and assessment and supported the strategysetting process of the academic unit. Figure 6 shows a recent iteration of the balancedscorecard. Unfortunately, not all objectives could be shown for each perspectivebecause of the length of the scorecard and the complexity of the interactions. However,the selected objectives shown can give the reader some insight into the basics of abalanced scorecard for an academic unit.

The successful implementation of the balanced scorecard revitalization processwas dependent on building enabling systems. In this application each of the fourrequirements of an enabling system suggested by Becker et al. (2001) wereachieved:

(1) key players were identified;

(2) a subcommittee infrastructure was created to support participants;

(3) sharing measurement outcomes was achieved through written reports andfaculty meetings; and

(4) funding was made available to achieve these outcomes.

The process model that emerged from the activities of the business school faculty wassuccessful in:

. attaining greater involvement;

. clarifying the goals and objectives of the school; and

. establishing guidelines for the administration of the steps in the process.

IJEM22,1

44


14/16

Figure 6.Balanced scorecard

School of Business


academe

45


15/16

Unlike other change models as related to motivation and acceptance, the uniqueness ofthe balanced scorecard is that it provides a comprehensive view of organizationalperformance using multiple perspectives and supports an integrative strategicmanagement system by linking long-term strategic objectives with short-term actions.

Significantly, the faculty gained a richer understanding of the schools mission andgoals as they related to the tactical initiatives developed to achieve those goals. Thatunderstanding continues to help faculty members design courses to achieve thosegoals as they see fit.

Adaptations of the process presented here can be used by other academic units intheir revitalization programs. There are, however, several important challenges:

. sustaining the momentum of the program;

. reaching consensus within and among the groups;

. developing effective communication across working groups; and

. developing measures for long-term qualitative goals.

The group tendency was to focus on the goals and objectives that were easilymeasurable. Through much faculty discussion it was determined that indirectmeasures could be developed for qualitative goals and in the case where this was notpossible, the goals were set aside for inclusion in later iterations of the scorecard. Thissolution is consistent with a program of continuous improvement, which requires thatthe balanced scorecard not be treated as a static instrument.

The contributions of this research extend beyond the development of a processmodel. The use and adaptation of the balanced scorecard in a revitalization effort thatemphasizes continuous improvement and strategic positioning at the academic unitlevel, rather than the organizational level, provides a unique application of theframework.

References

Becker, B., Huselid, M. and Ulrich, D. (2001), The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, andPerformance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Briggs, C.L., Stark, J.S. and Roland-Poplawski, J. (2003), How do we know a continuous planningacademic program when we see one?, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 74, pp. 361-85.

Campbell, A. (1997), Mission statements, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 931-2.

Griffiths, J. (2003), Balanced scorecard use in New Zealand government departments and crownentities, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 62, pp. 70-80.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance,Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 71-9.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), Putting the balanced scorecard to work,Harvard BusinessReview, September-October, pp. 134-47.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic managementsystem, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 75-85.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 53-79.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2000), Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it, HarvardBusiness Review, September-October, pp. 3-11.

IJEM22,1

46


16/16

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001), Leading change with the balanced scorecard, FinancialExecutive, Vol. 17, pp. 64-70.

Karathanos, D. and Karathanos, P. (2005), Applying the balanced scorecard to education, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 222-30.

Levin, I.M. (2000), Vision revisited, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 36, pp. 91-107.

Oliveira, J. (2001), The balanced scorecard: an integrative approach to performance evaluation,Healthcare Financial Management, Vol. 55, pp. 42-6.

Ruben, B. (1999), Toward a balanced scorecard for higher education: rethinking the college anduniversity excellence indicators framework, Higher Education Forum QCI Center forOrganizational Development and Leadership, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 1-10.

Welsh, J.F. and Metcalf, J. (2003), Faculty and administrative support for institutionaleffectiveness activities: a bridge across the chasm?, The Journal of Higher Education,Vol. 74, pp. 361-85.

Further reading

Zajac, E.J., Kraatz, M.S. and Bresser, R.F. (2000), Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: anormative approach to strategic change, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4,pp. 429-53.

Corresponding authorRoselie McDevitt can be contacted at: [email protected]


academe

47

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

strategy revitalization in academe : a balanced scorecard approach

Documents