IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00479526.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Le Balanced Scorecard Revisite A Travers Le Modele Des Leviers De Controle : Les Enseignements De Deux Etudes De Cas

Author

Listed:
  • Gérald Naro

    (ERFI - Equipe de Recherche sur la Firme et l'Industrie - UM - Université de Montpellier)

  • Denis Travaillé

    (CREGOR - Centre de Recherche sur la Gestion des Organisations - UM2 - Université Montpellier 2 - Sciences et Techniques)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to confront the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) with Simons' (1995) levers of control model and to discuss its role in the various phases of the strategic process. Whereas Kaplan & Norton present the BSC above all as a diagnostic control system, Simons' (1995) levers of control model leads us to privilege a representation of the BSC in the form of an interactive process. This situates our research from the point of view of recent work on the concepts of "strategizing" and "controlling" (Chapman, 2005), who studied the role of management control in the strategic processes. Our research is based on a longitudinal methodology of the research-action type based on the study of two cases. The results show that the BSC generates a process of collective elucidation favouring the forming of emergent strategies. The BSC thus seems to be a relevant tool for interactive control.

Suggested Citation

  • Gérald Naro & Denis Travaillé, 2010. "Le Balanced Scorecard Revisite A Travers Le Modele Des Leviers De Controle : Les Enseignements De Deux Etudes De Cas," Post-Print hal-00479526, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00479526
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00479526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00479526/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Ahrens, Thomas & Chapman, Christopher S., 2006. "Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 819-841, November.
    3. Mooraj, Stella & Oyon, Daniel & Hostettler, Didier, 1999. "The balanced scorecard: a necessary good or an unnecessary evil?," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 481-491, October.
    4. Yann Chabin & Gérald Naro & Denis Travaillé, 2003. "Les Tableaux de bord stratégiques entre conception et action : propos d'étape d'une recherche intervention," Post-Print halshs-00582745, HAL.
    5. Pettigrew, Andrew M., 1997. "What is a processual analysis?," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 337-348, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alain George & Michel Mannarini, 2013. "L'Hopital, Un Systeme Organise De Territoires Et De Processus Oriente Performance Et Controle," Post-Print hal-00996789, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gérald Naro & Denis Travaillé, 2010. "Construire les stratégies avec le Balanced Scorecard:vers une approche interactive du modèle de Kaplan et Norton," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 13(2), pages 33-66., June.
    2. Gérald Naro & Denis Travaillé, 2009. "À La Recherche Des Fondements Conceptuels Et Methodologiques Du Balanced Scorecard : Le Modele De Kaplan Et Norton Revisité À Travers Le Cadre Conceptuel Des Leviers De Controle," Post-Print halshs-00458890, HAL.
    3. Selena Aureli & Andrea Cardoni & Mara Del Baldo & Rosa Lombardi, 2018. "The Balanced Scorecard Logic in The Management Control and Reporting of Small Business Company Networks: A Case Study," Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, Faculty of Accounting and Management Information Systems, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 17(2), pages 191-215, June.
    4. Macpherson, Allan & Holt, Robin, 2007. "Knowledge, learning and small firm growth: A systematic review of the evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 172-192, March.
    5. Huygens, M.W. & Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. & van den Bosch, F.A.J. & Volberda, H.W., 2001. "Coevolution of Firm Capabilities and Industry Competition," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-61-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    6. Denis Choffel & François Meyssonnier, 2005. "Dix Ans De Debats Autour Du Balanced Scorecard," Post-Print halshs-00581157, HAL.
    7. Dimitratos, Pavlos & Plakoyiannaki, Emmanuella & Thanos, Ioannis C. & Förbom, Yrjö Kristian, 2014. "The overlooked distinction of multinational enterprise subsidiary learning: Its managerial and entrepreneurial learning modes," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 102-114.
    8. Magnani, Giovanna & Zucchella, Antonella, 2021. "Portfolios of learning in entrepreneurial internationalisation," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(2).
    9. Sminia, Harry & Ates, Aylin & Paton, Steve & Smith, Marisa, 2019. "High value manufacturing: Capability, appropriation, and governance," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 516-528.
    10. Martin Johanson & Jan Johanson, 2006. "Turbulence, discovery and foreign market entry: A longitudinal study of an entry into the Russian market," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 179-205, March.
    11. Pereira, Vijay & Giudice, Manlio Del & Malik, Ashish & Tarba, Shlomo & Temouri, Yama & Budhwar, Pawan & Patnaik, Swetketu, 2021. "A longitudinal investigation into multilevel agile & ambidextrous strategic dualities in an information technology high performing EMNE," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    13. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    14. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    15. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    16. Tomasz Helbin & Amy Van Looy, 2021. "Is Business Process Management (BPM) Ready for Ambidexterity? Conceptualization, Implementation Guidelines and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    17. Son K. Lam & Thomas E. DeCarlo & Ashish Sharma, 2019. "Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: do customer base characteristics matter?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 659-680, July.
    18. Jonathan H. Reed, 2022. "Operational and strategic change during temporary turbulence: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 589-608, June.
    19. Alan Hevner & Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau & Jacky Akoka & Nicolas Prat, 2018. "A pragmatic approach for identifying and managing design science research goals and evaluation criteria," Post-Print hal-02283783, HAL.
    20. Felipe A. Csaszar & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2010. "How Much to Copy? Determinants of Effective Imitation Breadth," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 661-676, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00479526. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.