Ioannis Salmon, Ilias Pappas, Athanasios Spyridakos, Issak Vryzidis


The Balance Scorecard (BSc) constitutes one of the most important tools developed in recent years supporting the strategic planning and change management of large firms and organisations. The main advantages of BSc are that: a) provides a multi-dimensional measurement system for organizational success based on the four pillars (Financial, Customers, Internal process and Learning and Innovation) which are further analysed in objectives, indices, goals and actions, b) supports the linking of the four pillars with the strategic vision and business goals, c) a value system of indices is developed aiding the top management to track the achievements according to the desired progress. This research work presents the utilization of the Multicirteria Decision Aid WAP method into the BSc in order to identify priorities of the objectives expressed in weight vectors at each BSc level. The WAP method could estimate robust weight vectors in regards with the preferences of the Decision Maker (DM), requiring limited preference information and utilizing Linear Programming techniques. The proposed enrichment of the BSC method with weight vectors from the WAP method has advantages since: a) the preferences of the DM according to the strategic goals are taken into consideration, b) provides flexibility to handle the changes process while can be adapted according to the DM attitudes, c) enriches the rationality of the value system while the weights vectors are reflecting the DM preferences eliminating the arbitrary, d) supports the decision making process for the appropriate action plan selection to be adopted increasing the effectiveness of the change management. The proposed methodological adaptation of the BSc is illustrated through a real world case study concerning a large firm which is attainting to expand in other international markets.


Change Management, Balanced Scorecard, Multicriteria Decision Aid

Full Text:



Bana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J.-C., 2008. A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities

in AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 187, 1422–1428. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.022

Bana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J.-C., 1994. MACBETH—An interactive path towards the construction of

cardinal value functions. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 1, 489–500.

Bhattacharya, A., Mohapatra, P., Kumar, V., Dey, P.K., Brady, M., Tiwari, M.K., Nudurupati, S.S., 2014. Green

supply chain performance measurement using fuzzy ANP-based balanced scorecard: a collaborative

decision-making approach. Prod. Plan. Control 25, 698–714. doi:10.1080/09537287.2013.798088

Butler, J.B., Henderson, S.C., Raiborn, C., 2011. Sustainability and the balanced scorecard: Integrating green

measures into business reporting. Manag. Account. Q. 12, 1–10.

Cebeci, U., 2009. Fuzzy AHP-based decision support system for selecting ERP systems in textile industry by

using balanced scorecard. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 8900–8909. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.046

Chenhall, R.H., Langfield-Smith, K., 2007. Multiple Perspectives of Performance Measures. Eur. Manag. J. 25,


Delias, P., Doulamis, A., Matsatsinis, N., 2008. Simulating Agents as Balanced Scorecard Objectives. Proc.

IEEE SMC Int. Conf. Distrib. Hum.-Mach. Syst. March 9-12, Athens, Greece, 121–126.

DeWayne, L.., 2004. Aligning the Balanced Scorecard and a Firm’s Strategy Using the Analytic Hierarchy

Process. Manag. Account. Q. 5, 1–10.

Feili, H.R., Farahani, N.V., Vesaghi, N., 2011. Integration of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) with

balance score card (BSC) in order to evaluate the performance of information technology in industry.

J. Math. Comput. Sci. 2, 271–283.

Ferreira, F.A.F., 2013. Measuring trade-offs among criteria in a balanced scorecard framework: possible

contributions from the multiple criteria decision analysis research field. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 14, 433–


Figueira, J., Roy, B., 2002. Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised

Simos’ procedure. Eur. J. Oper. Res., EURO XVI: O.R. for Innovation and Quality of Life 139, 317–

Fishburn, P.C., 1970. Utility theory for decision making, Wiley, New York. ed.

Fletcher, H.D., Smith, D.B., 2004. Managing for Value: Developing a Performance Measurement System

Integrating Economic Value Added and the Balanced Scorecard in Strategic Planning. J. Bus. Strateg.

, 1–17.

Grigoroudis, E., Orfanoudaki, E., Zopounidis, C., 2012. Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare

organisation: A multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard. Omega 40, 104–119.

Grigoroudis, E., Siskos, Y., 2002. Preference disaggregation for measuring and analysing customer satisfaction:

The MUSA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 143, 148–170.

Hoque, Z., 2014. 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and

opportunities for future research. Br. Account. Rev. 46, 33–59. doi:10.1016/

Jacquet-Lagreze, E., Siskos, J., 1982. Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decisionmaking,

the UTA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 10, 151–164.

Johnson, B., 2014. Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems, 60754th edition. ed.

H R D Press, Amherst, Mass.

Kalender, Z.T., Vayvay, Ö., 2016. The Fifth Pillar of the Balanced Scorecard: Sustainability. Procedia - Soc.

Behav. Sci., 12th International Strategic Management Conference, ISMC 2016, 28-30 October 2016,

Antalya, Turkey 235, 76–83. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.027

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D., 1996a. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harv. Bus.

Rev. 74, 75–85.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D., 1993. Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Harv. Bus. Rev. 71, 134–147.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D., 1992. The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance. Harv. Bus. Rev.

, 71–79.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2008a. Mastering the Management System. Spec. Issue HBS Centen. Harv. Bus.

Rev. 86, 62–77.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2008b. The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive

Advantage, 1st edition. ed. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, Mass.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2005. The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business

School Publishing.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 1996b. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, 1 edition. ed.

Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, Mass.

Karra, E.D., Papadopoulos, D.L., 2005. Measuring performance of Theagenion Hospital of Thessaloniki,

Greece through a Balanced Scorecard. Oper. Res. 5, 289. doi:10.1007/BF02944314

Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John

Wiley & Sons, New York. ed.

Kellert, S.H., 1993. In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in Dynamical Systems. University of Chicago


Kunz, R.E., Siebert, J., Mütterlein, J., 2016. Combining Value-focused Thinking and Balanced Scorecard to

Improve Decision-making in Strategic Management. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 23, 225–241.


Laitinen, E.K., 2002. A dynamic performance measurement system: evidence from small Finnish technology

companies. Scand. J. Manag. 18, 65–99.

Lee, A.H.I., Chen, W.-C., Chang, C.-J., 2008. A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of

IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Syst. Appl. 34, 96–107.


Leung, L.C., Lam, K.C., Cao, D., 2006. Implementing the Balanced Scorecard Using the Analytic Hierarchy

Process & the Analytic Network Process. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 57, 682–691. doi:10.2307/4102352

Montanari, A., Young, G., Savenije, H.H.G., Hughes, D., Wagener, T., Ren, L.L., Koutsoyiannis, D., Cudennec,

C., Toth, E., Grimaldi, S., Blöschl, G., Sivapalan, M., Beven, K., Gupta, H., Hipsey, M., Schaefli, B.,

Arheimer, B., Boegh, E., Schymanski, S.J., Baldassarre, G.D., Yu, B., Hubert, P., Huang, Y.,

Schumann, A., Post, D.A., Srinivasan, V., Harman, C., Thompson, S., Rogger, M., Viglione, A.,

McMillan, H., Characklis, G., Pang, Z., Belyaev, V., 2013. “Panta Rhei—Everything Flows”: Change

in hydrology and society—The IAHS Scientific Decade 2013–2022. Hydrol. Sci. J. 58, 1256–1275.


Niven, P.R., 2006. Balanced scorecard step-by-step: maximizing performance and maintaining results, 2nd ed.

ed. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.

Norreklit, H., 2000. The balance on the balanced scorecard: a critical analysis of some of its assumptions.

Manag. Account. Res. 11, 65–88.

Pérez, C.Á., Montequín, V.R., Fernández, F.O., Balsera, J.V., 2017. Integration of Balanced Scorecard (BSC),

Strategy Map, and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) for a Sustainability Business Framework:

A Case Study of a Spanish Software Factory in the Financial Sector. Sustainability 9, 527.


Rabbani, A., Zamani, M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Zavadskas, E.K., 2014. Proposing a new integrated model

based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approaches by using linguistic variables

for the performance evaluation of oil producing companies. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 7316–7327.


Reisinger, H., Cravens, K.S., Tell, N., 2003. Prioritizing Performance Measures Within the Balanced Scorecard

Framework. MIR Manag. Int. Rev. 43, 429–437. doi:10.2307/40835943

Roy, B., 1990. The Outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Read. Mult. Criteria Decis.

Aid Bana e Costa (Ed.), Springer, Berlin, 155–183.

Roy, B., 1985. Méthodologie multicritere d’Aide à la Decision, Economica, Paris. ed.

Saaty, T.L., 1996. Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process.

Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill International, New York. ed.

Santos, M.A.R. dos, Salomon, V.A.P., Marins, F.A.S., 2015. Analytic Network Process and Balanced Scorecard

Applied to the Performance Evaluation of Public Health Systems. Pesqui. Oper. 35, 353–361.


Simos, J., 1990a. Evaluer l’impact sur l’environnement: Une approche originale par l’analyse multicritère et la

négociation, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne. ed.

Simos, J., 1990b. L’évaluation environnementale: Un processus cognitif négocié. Thèse de doctorat,. DGF

EPFL, Lausanne.

Siskos, E., Tsotsolas, N., 2015. Elicitation of criteria importance weights through the Simos method: A

robustness concern. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 246, 543–553. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.037

Siskos, Y., Spyridakos, A., 1999. Intelligent multicriteria decision support: Overview and perspectives. Eur. J.

Oper. Res. 113, 236–246.

Spyridakos, A., Tsotsolas, N., Yannacopoulos, D., Siskos, E., 2015. Estimating criteria weights exploiting

priorities of the criteria and techniques of robustness analysis. Proceeding 4th Int. Symp. 26th Natl.

Conf. Oper. Res. June 4-6, Chania-Greece, 225–229.

Tavana, M., Mousavi, N., Golara, S., 2013. A fuzzy-QFD approach to balanced scorecard using an analytic

network process. Int. J. Inf. Decis. Sci. 5, 331–363.

Tsotsolas, N., Spyridakos, A., Siskos, E., Salmon, I., 2016. Criteria weights assessment through prioritizations

(WAP) using linear programming techniques and visualizations. Oper. Res. 1–16. doi:10.1007/s12351-


Yu, L., Perera, S., Crowe, S., 2008. Effectiveness of the balanced scorecard: The impact of strategy and causal

links. J. Appl. Manag. Account. Res. 6, 37.

Yüksel, .Ihsan, Dağdeviren, M., 2010. Using the Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (ANP) for Balanced

Scorecard (BSC): A Case Study for a Manufacturing Firm. Expert Syst Appl 37, 1270–1278.



  • There are currently no refbacks.