Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Setting benchmarks and evaluating balanced scorecards with data envelopment analysis
Robert C. Rickards
Article information:
To cite this document:
Robert C. Rickards, (2003),"Setting benchmarks and evaluating balanced scorecards with data
envelopment analysis", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 3 pp. 226 - 245
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770310477762
Downloaded on: 27 June 2016, At: 16:03 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:472283 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
BIJ
10,3 Setting benchmarks and
evaluating balanced
226
scorecards with data
envelopment analysis
Robert C. Rickards
The Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Handelshochschule
Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany and Hochschule Harz, Wernigerode, Germany
Keywords Benchmarking, Control, Data envelopment analysis, Performance measurement,
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
Strategic management
Abstract Balanced scorecards are having a major impact on executives strategic decision
making by encouraging their use of future-oriented, non-monetary success indicators. This article
explains how to create a balanced scorecard with a reasonable number of indicators, set
appropriate benchmarks for them, and evaluate overall management performance against those
benchmarks. In doing so, it relies heavily on a controlling tool that is new to the business sector:
data envelopment analysis. After discussing the theoretical foundations of this nonparametric
optimization procedure and defining several key terms, the article presents a practical example.
The example assesses managements performance from several perspectives, paying particular
attention to implications of the analytic results for a firms strategic and operational controlling.
The article also offers an overview of various models for data envelopment analysis, describes
limits to its use, and concludes with a summary of key findings.
Introduction
The increasing use of balanced scorecards (BSCs) is changing the way top
managers run their companies. When envisioning a firms future development,
they no longer focus chiefly on monetary success indicators in the financial
area. Instead, they now also devote roughly equal attention to non-monetary
variables in three other areas. As shown in Table I, those areas are: customer
relations; business processes; and both the commitment and the capacity to
innovate of their employees. This expanded focus is having major
consequences for controlling and management accounting staffs.
To help top management realize its visions, these staffs are assisting in
developing appropriate strategies, setting new goals, establishing standards or
benchmarks, measuring progress, and reporting results pertaining to both
monetary and non-monetary variables. Here is the rub. The BSCs goals are
interrelated. Efforts undertaken to attain, say, monetary goals therefore also
have effects on non-monetary results and vice versa.
Benchmarking: An International
Journal Hence, the BSC clearly confronts managers with an extraordinarily complex
Vol. 10 No. 3, 2003
pp. 226-245
optimization problem. As explained below, the complexity stems partly from
q MCB UP Limited
1463-5771
the large number of variables often included on a BSC. Frequently, there are 40
DOI 10.1108/14635770310477762 or 50 of them. Some larger organizations even try to track hundreds of success
factors. Additional complexity arises from the lack of a common scale of Data
measurement. While money is the common denominator for many financial envelopment
variables, business processes often involve time, and both customer relations analysis
and employee commitment/innovative capacity make heavy use of qualitative
measures. Moreover, dimensionless ratios and index numbers may appear in
any one or all four of the variable groups. Fortunately, data envelopment
analysis (DEA) can be a helpful tool in dealing with this complexity. 227
Although widely employed to evaluate efficiency in both non-profit and
governmental organizations, DEA is less well known within the business
sector. That probably will change as more decision makers recognize how
useful DEA can be in setting benchmarks and evaluating BSC results.
Therefore, after briefly discussing key aspects of the BSC, this article examines
problems associated with traditional efficiency measures. Next, it sketches the
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
Customer
Finances relations Processes Employees/innovation
Shareholder/investor trust Customer Supplier Employee motivation
commitment commitment
Table I.
Cash flow/cash-flow return on Market Internal service Capacity for learning The four areas of a
investment/economic or resistance quality BSC with
shareholder value added representative
Investments securing the Public Time Manager evaluation strategic success
firms future image/trust indicators
BIJ Thereafter, decision makers in the firms various operating units adopt
10,3 measures to attain the strategic goals top management has set for them. Again
working with the controlling and management accounting staffs, these
midlevel managers adapt the overall strategy to the individual circumstances
of their respective units. They also flesh out the strategic indicator system with
additional, unit-specific, operational goals, variables, and standards or
228 benchmarks. Once implemented, periodic reviews then assess scorecard
results with regard to both top managements strategic vision and unit
operations (Olve et al., 2000).
But creating and using a BSC involves challenges too. First, it is necessary to
decide how many units within a given organization really require one.
Observation suggests firms typically allow every strategic business unit to
have its own BSC. The resulting instruments have proved especially useful for
new units produced by mergers or acquisitions and for carve outs spun off to
become independent firms (Scharioth and Huber, 2002, p. 52).
The second challenge has to do with the number of variables reported in
each area of a BSC. Jack Welch, arguably the twentieth centurys most
successful executive, believes top management has to deal with too many
numbers. In his view, just three numerical indicators are enough to direct any
firm on earth: cash flow; customer commitment; and employee motivation
(Welch and Byrne, 2001). Together, these three variables comprise the worlds
shortest BSC! All the same, they cover three of the four areas or perspectives
mentioned by BSC originators Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1993, 1996b).
This anecdote conveys the important message that, for controlling purposes,
less often is more. Hence, as illustrated in Table I, the optimal number of
strategic indicators for many companies probably lies somewhere between
eight and 12. Aside from the simple variables cash flow, investments, and time,
however, all the other indicators in Table I are indices involving at least some
qualitative measurements. The third challenge therefore is how to construct
such indices.
Their interaction scarcely goes beyond the most basic business activities.
Essentially, the customers are open to offers from every competitor.
Thousands of firms have commissioned surveys yielding empirical results
for this kind of standardized index. For instance, the German benchmark
values for customer commitment, internal service quality, and employee
motivation currently are 68, 56, and 59, respectively (Scharioth and Huber,
2002, p. 55). Apparently, there is ample room for German firms to improve on
all three of these BSC indices. Nonetheless, their performance is relatively
better with regard to customer commitment than it is in relation to internal
service quality and employee motivation.
Having met the challenges of deciding which units require a BSC, limited the
choice of strategic variables for inclusion, and constructed meaningful indices,
a fourth challenge still remains. How can executives evaluate overall unit
performance on the basis of scores for various strategic and operational
indicators?
Figure 1.
DEA and regression
analysis
BIJ all observed plants or firms combine their input factors in the same way. But, in
10,3 practice, the production technology involved typically varies (see Atkinson and
Stiglitz, 1969; Freeman, 1994; Imai and Yamazaki, 1992; Vromen, 1995). Second,
regression analysis only can determine average values, which probably do not
actually occur in any of the units examined. The results therefore hardly can
serve as benchmarks and standard costs because they neither represent best
232 practice nor do they exist in the real world (the case illustrated in Figure 1)
(Charnes et al., 1994, p. 5). Third, although regression equations indeed can
include several inputs, one only can use them to analyze a single output at a
time. Accordingly, one must repeat the regression analysis as often as the
number of the criteria included on the BSC.
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
Figure 2.
Reference DMUs,
technical and allocative
efficiency
point L to point N represents the technical inefficiency in DMU 1s combination Data
of the productive factors relative to DMU 3. envelopment
Nevertheless, production at point N is allocatively inefficient because it does
not lie on the minimum cost tangent JJ. To optimize the input amounts with
analysis
respect to their factor prices would require movement along isoquant KK to the
cost efficient point O, where DMU 4 operates. Because point Q, which is the
intersection between the minimal cost tangent and the production line, 235
embodies the least-cost input combination, the distance from point Q to point N
indicates the allocative inefficiency associated with DMU 3.
Thus, depending on ones objective, a DEA can measure either or both these
kinds of efficiency. In any event, though, the values determined always pertain
to a decision units efficiency with regard to the performance of other DMUs.
So, when interpreting analytic results, it is important to remember that one is
dealing with relative, as opposed to absolute, measures of efficiency (Burkle,
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
Figure 3.
Slack
BIJ analysis from the output perspective. The difference Y 2 Z embodies the
10,3 amount of slack present. In other words, by operating more efficiently, DMU 6
at point Z could increase output 1 until it reached the efficiency of DMU 5 at
point Y, without any reduction in its production of output 2. Consequently, one
also says that DMU 5 dominates DMU 6 with regard to efficiency.
Therefore, as depicted in Figures 2 and 3, slack refers either to output
236 foregone or to input wastage. In practice, where slacks are present over time,
one should check whether it wouldnt be worthwhile to make use of the
available improvement potential. For a DEA, that means the interpretation of
observed inefficiencies always should take slacks relative to dominant points
into consideration.
Technical efficiency
For the purposes of benchmarking and performance evaluation, one now may
wish to have answers to the following kinds of questions. Is it really fair to
compare the two DMUs with one another? How large is each DMUs technical
efficiency? Where a DMU wastes inputs or outputs, which ones are they? By
how much could that DMU decrease its input consumption or increase its
output production? For given levels of machine capacity, personnel, salesroom
floor space, and advertising expenditure, how high should the levels of cash
flow, customer commitment, internal service quality, and employee motivation
be? Or, the other way around, how high must input levels be so that one can
expect a DMU to attain certain output levels? To demonstrate how to answer
such questions by analyzing BSCs with DEA, the example first examines the
technical input and output efficiencies, then the usage efficiency of each DMUs
customer potential.
Accordingly, the analysis begins by comparing the structures of the DMUs
studied. The results of this comparison appear in Table IV. They reveal that
Reference DMU 36 43
Input efficiency 0.71 0.89
Machine capacity waste (%) 2 36 27
Table IV. Personnel waste (%) 2 11 214
Technical input Salesroom floor space waste (%) 2 23 24
efficiency Advertising outlay waste (%) 2 39 27
Reference DMU 36 43
Output efficiency 1.21 1.07
Cash flow (%) +60 16
Table V. Customer commitment (%) +7 5
Technical output Internal service quality (%) +8 3
efficiency Employee motivation (%) +9 4
must increase its output by 21 percent in order to reach the level of reference Data
DMU 36. Spread across the BSCs four areas, that would require an increase in envelopment
cash flow of +60 percent, in customer commitment of +7 percent, in internal analysis
service quality of +8, and in employee motivation of +9 percent.
Because unit 27 works much more efficiently, it only would have to increase
its output by 7 percent overall in order to attain the levels of reference DMU 43.
In this case, the increase in cash flow would have to be +16 percent, in customer 239
commitment +5 percent, in internal service quality +3 percent, and in employee
motivation +4 percent.
Usage efficiency
With additional information taken from the firms database, one also can
analyze how efficiently each DMU uses its customer potential[4]. Table VI
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
summarizes relevant data for DMUs 11 and 27. Table VI shows that small
jobbers comprise the majority of each DMUs potential customers. It also is
apparent that DMU 11 has absolutely more customers than DMU 27. However,
large builders and retail outlets are relatively more important for the former,
while middle-sized general contractors and small jobbers are relatively more
important for the latter. That is entirely plausible because, for example,
economic structures in highly urbanized areas tend to differ from the ones
present in more rural regions.
In analyzing these data, the first step again was to form reference groups,
taking into consideration the DMUs different customer bases and business
structures. Table VII presents analytic results from the output-oriented
perspective. For DMUs 11 and 27, the reference DMUs now are units 63 and 14,
respectively. Apparently, the customer/output structures of DMUs 11 and 27
Reference DMU 63 14
Efficiency 0.75 0.83
Increase in small jobbers (%) +17 +23
Increase in middle-sized general contractors (%) +28 +7 Table VII.
Increase in large builders (%) +36 +11 Customer potential
Increase in retail outlets (%) +21 +9 usage efficiency
BIJ differ not only from one another, but also from their respective technical
10,3 input/output structures.
Compared with the respective reference DMU, neither unit 11 nor unit 27
exhausts its customer potential (efficiency 0:75 and 0.83, respectively).
Although the gap between the two branch locations in this regard is not as
large as it is in the case of their technical efficiency, unit 27 also performs
240 relatively better in exhausting the available customer potential. Nevertheless, it
is important for both DMUs to identify and eliminate obstacles in the
operations area, so that they can increase their usage efficiency. As described
below, the identification and elimination of these obstacles have further
consequences for the DMUs strategic planning and development.
If we had had different results here, e.g. if unit 11 had a high level of
technical inefficiency, but were perfectly efficient in the usage of its customer
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
DEA models
Four types of models are available for DEA applications[5]. Table VIII presents
an overview of them, together with several of their most important
characteristics. In 1978, Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (CCR) developed a
basic DEA model for determining either input or output efficiency. As shown in
the example above, with it one calculates an efficiency indicator number, h0, for
242
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
Figure 4.
A nonlinear input/output
correlation
the considerable effort necessary to discover what has led to the inefficiencies
and how to reduce or eliminate them.
Still, in comparison with other methods for estimating efficiency, DEAs
possibilities far outweigh these limitations. DEA is a robust, standardized, and
transparent methodology. It allows a controller or management accountant to
analyze simultaneously a relatively large number of inputs and outputs
measured on different scales. This feature permits inclusion of qualitative data,
such as observations on the satisfaction of various stakeholder groups,
essential for setting benchmarks to evaluate BSCs. The objectivity stemming
from weighting variables during the optimization procedure furthermore frees
the analysis from subjective estimates and randomness. That, in turn, increases
the acceptability of its results by affected parties. In addition, the results both
identify appropriate reference DMUs and include easily interpretable efficiency
parameters. They are especially helpful in setting realistic, currently attainable
standards or benchmarks. Finally, a DEA quantifies inefficiencies precisely,
while also indicating starting points to discover their sources and eliminate
them.
Summary conclusions
Inclusion of large numbers of variables and lack of an overall success indicator
often frustrate management efforts to implement strategy and evaluate
performance with a BSC. This article has shown how indices can reduce the
number of variables under consideration. It also has demonstrated the utility of
DEA both in setting benchmarks for the variables/indices employed and in
generating overall performance measures. Along the way, it has pointed out
how to determine objectively:
.
whether one fairly can compare the performance of two DMUs;
.
the degree of a DMUs technical efficiency;
.
where and how much a DMU wastes inputs or outputs; and
.
the extent to which a DMU exploits its customer potential.
BIJ Through a simple example, the article furthermore has described how a
10,3 business-sector controller can use this information to guide strategy
implementation and operational decision making. Lastly, it has drawn
attention to the availability of alternative DEA models and explained limits to
the procedures use in connection with BSCs.
244
Notes
1. The interested reader can find formal mathematical treatments of DEA in Charnes et al.
(1978, 1994), Cooper (1996), Sengupta (1995) and Suhren (1997).
2. See, for example, the chapters by S. Covey, C. K. Prahalad, M. Hammer, E. Goldratt, P. Senge,
W. Bennis, J. Kotter, A. Ries and J. Trout, and P. Kotler in Gibson (1997).
3. Determining whether this divergence is due to the employment of different technologies,
different scales of operations, different national operating environments, or other factors
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
References
Atkinson, A.B. and Stiglitz, J.E. (1969), A new view of technological change, Economic Journal,
Vol. 79, pp. 573-8.
Burkle, B. (1997), Effizienzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Moglichkeiten und Grenzen der Data
Envelopment Analyse anhand von Anwendungen aus dem Krankenhausbereich,
Forschungsgruppe Medizinokonomie am Lehrstuhl fur Betriebswirtschaftslehre und
Operationsresearch der Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg, Nuremberg.
Gibson, R. (Ed.) (1994), Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications,
Kluwer Academic Pulishers, Boston, MA/Dordrecht/London.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978), Measuring the efficiency of decision-making
units, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, p. 429 ff.
Chen, T.Y. (1997), Bank efficiency and ownership in taiwan: an evolution with data envelopment
analysis, Chung-Hua Institute for Economic Research, Tapei.
Cooper, W.W. (1996), Extensions and New Developments in Data Envelopment Analysis, Baltzer
Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
Freeman, C. (1994), The economics of technical change, Cambridge Journal of Economics,
Vol. 18, pp. 463-514.
Gibson, R. (Ed.) (1997), Rethinking the Future, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London/Sonoma, CA.
Horngren, C.T., Foster, G. and Datar, S. (1997), Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 9th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Imai, K. and Yamazaki, A. (1992), Dynamics of the Japanese industrial system from a
Schumpeterian perspective, discussion paper presented at the International J.A.
Schumpeter Society Conference, Kyoto.
Institut der Wirtschaftsprufer (1999), Die Prufung des Risiko-Fruherkennungssystem nach 317 Data
Abs. 4 HGB (IDW PS 340), Wirtschaftsprufung, pp. 658-62.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The balanced scorecard measures that drive
envelopment
performance, Harvard Business Review, pp. 71-9. analysis
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), Putting the balanced scorecard to work, Harvard Business
Review, pp. 134-47.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management 245
system, Harvard Business Review, pp. 75-85.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Naumann, H. and Zeis, J. (2000), Risiko-Controlling unter den Bedingungen des KonTraG, Der
Controlling-Berater, Heft 1, pp. 101-22.
Olve, N.-G., Roy, J. and Wetter, M. (2000), Performance Drivers A Practical Guide to Using the
Balanced Scorecard, J. Wiley, New York, NY/Chichester.
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
Further reading
Benz, E. (n.d.), TQM als integriertes Managementkonzept und Controlling, Der Controlling-
Berater, pp. 7/143-196.
Mayer, G. (n.d.) KAIZEN: Management-Philosophie zur Erfolgssteigerung, Der Controlling-
Berater, pp. 7/197-232.
Reichmann, T. (1997), Controlling mit Kennzahlen und Managementberichten: Grundlagen einer
Systemgestutzten Controlling-Konzeption, 5th ed., Vahlen, Munich.
Stermetz, E. (1999), Wertorientiertes Controlling die wichtigsten Kennzahlen im Uberblick,
Der Controlling-Berater, Heft 6, pp. 121-42.
This article has been cited by:
1. Sangeeta Sahney Vinod Gupta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India
Jitesh Thakkar Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, India. . 2016. A comparative assessment of the performance of select higher education
institutes in India. Quality Assurance in Education 24:2, 278-302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Panagiotis D. Zervopoulos, Theodora S. Brisimi, Ali Emrouznejad, Gang Cheng. 2016. Performance
measurement with multiple interrelated variables and threshold target levels: Evidence from retail firms
in the US. European Journal of Operational Research 250:1, 262-272. [CrossRef]
3. Peter A Aghimien Department of Accounting, Indiana University South Bend, South Bend, Indiana,
USA Fakarudin Kamarudin Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia Mohamad Hamid Universiti
Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia Bany Noordin Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia . 2016.
Efficiency of Gulf Cooperation Council Banks. Review of International Business and Strategy 26:1, 118-136.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Elisa Kusrini, Subagyo, Nur Aini Masruroh. 2016. Designing Performance Measurement For Supply
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
Chain's Actors And Regulator Using Scale Balanced Scorecard And Data Envelopment Analysis. IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 105, 012032. [CrossRef]
5. Te-Min Chang, Chao-Hsien Sung, Guo-Hsin Hu, Ming-Fu Hsu, Keng-Pei LinIdentifying Highly
Potential Enterprises with Social Computing on Supply Chain Networks 261-266. [CrossRef]
6. Ali Azadeh, Mansour Zarrin, Mohammad Abdollahi, Saeid Noury, Shabnam Farahmand. 2015. Leanness
assessment and optimization by fuzzy cognitive map and multivariate analysis. Expert Systems with
Applications 42:15-16, 6050-6064. [CrossRef]
7. Morteza Shafiee, Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, Hilda Saleh. 2014. Supply chain performance evaluation
with data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard approach. Applied Mathematical Modelling
38:21-22, 5092-5112. [CrossRef]
8. Mohamed A.M. El-Hindawy, Adnan M.S. Alamasi. 2014. Measurement of the Strategic Performance of
Hospitality in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a balanced scorecard Approach (BSC). Arab Economic and
Business Journal 9:1, 12-26. [CrossRef]
9. Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, Gholam Reza Jahanshahloo, Mohsen Vaez-Ghasemi, Zohreh Moghaddas.
2013. Evaluation progress and regress of balanced scorecards by multi-stage Malmquist Productivity Index.
Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 30:5, 345-354. [CrossRef]
10. Nikos Kartalis, John Velentzas, Georgia Broni. 2013. Balance Scorecard and Performance Measurement
in a Greek Industry. Procedia Economics and Finance 5, 413-422. [CrossRef]
11. Teresa Garca Valderrama, Vanesa Rodrguez Cornejo, Daniel Revuelta Bordoy. 2013. Balanced Scorecard
and Efficiency: Design and Empirical Validation of a Strategic Map in the University by Means of DEA.
American Journal of Operations Research 03:01, 30-52. [CrossRef]
12. Carla A.F. Amado, Srgio P. Santos, Pedro M. Marques. 2012. Integrating the Data Envelopment Analysis
and the Balanced Scorecard approaches for enhanced performance assessment. Omega 40:3, 390-403.
[CrossRef]
13. Ioannis E. Tsolas. 2011. Modelling profitability and effectiveness of Greek-listed construction firms: an
integrated DEA and ratio analysis. Construction Management and Economics 29:8, 795-807. [CrossRef]
14. Reza Farzipoor SaenDepartment of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting,
Islamic Azad UniversityKaraj Branch, Karaj, Iran. 2010. Performance measurement of power plants in
the existence of weight restrictions via slacksbased model. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:5,
677-691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Mohamed M. MostafaCollege of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA. 2010. A neuro
computational intelligence analysis of the US retailers' efficiency. International Journal of Intelligent
Computing and Cybernetics 3:1, 135-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Mohamed M. MostafaNew York Institute of Technology, Global Program in Bahrain, Adliya, Bahrain.
2010. Does efficiency matter?. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 59:3,
255-273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Chwan-Yi Chiang, Binshan Lin. 2009. An integration of balanced scorecards and data envelopment
analysis for firm's benchmarking management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 20:11,
1153-1172. [CrossRef]
18. Teresa Garca-Valderrama, Eva Mulero-Mendigorri, Daniel Revuelta-Bordoy. 2009. Relating the
perspectives of the balanced scorecard for R&D by means of DEA. European Journal of Operational
Research 196:3, 1177-1189. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)
19. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2009. Modeling the competitive market efficiency of Egyptian companies: A
probabilistic neural network analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 36:5, 8839-8848. [CrossRef]
20. Mohamed M. MostafaCollege of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA. 2009.
Benchmarking the US specialty retailers and food consumer stores using data envelopment analysis.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 37:8, 661-679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2009. A probabilistic neural network approach for modelling and classifying
efficiency of GCC banks. International Journal of Business Performance Management 11:3, 236. [CrossRef]
22. HeBoong KwonCollege of Business, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington, USA
Philipp A. StoeberlJohn Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri, USA
SeongJong JooCollege of Business, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington, USA.
2008. Measuring comparative efficiencies and merger impacts of wireless communication companies.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 15:3, 212-224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Wai Peng WongDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore Kuan Yew WongFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.
2008. A review on benchmarking of supply chain performance measures. Benchmarking: An International
Journal 15:1, 25-51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Mohamed M. MostafaGulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait. 2007. Evaluating
the competitive market efficiency of top listed companies in Egypt. Journal of Economic Studies 34:5,
430-452. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Mohamed MostafaGulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait. 2007. Modeling the
efficiency of GCC banks: a data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 56:7, 623-643. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Katja RajaniemiABB Corporate Research, BadenDattwil, Switzerland ABB Distribution Automation,
Mustasaari, Finland. 2007. Internetbased scanning of the competitive environment. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 14:4, 465-481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Mohamed MostafaGulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait. 2007. Benchmarking
top Arab banks' efficiency through efficient frontier analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107:6,
802-823. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Robert C. RickardsThe Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Handelshochschule Leipzig, Leipzig,
Germany Hochschule Harz, Wernigerode, Germany. 2007. BSC and benchmark development for an e
commerce SME. Benchmarking: An International Journal 14:2, 222-250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Wai Peng WongDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore Kuan Yew WongFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai,
Malaysia. 2007. Supply chain performance measurement system using DEA modeling. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 107:3, 361-381. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Salaman Abbasian-Naghneh, Mahboobeh Samiei, Marziyeh Felahat, Marziyeh MahdaviA New Integrative
Approach Based on Balanced Scorecard, Data Envelopment Analysis, and Management Performance to
Prioritize Research and Development Projects 324-348. [CrossRef]
31. Abdel Latef Anouze, Ibrahim H. OsmanMismanagement or Mismeasurement: 276-322. [CrossRef]
32. Ibrahim H. Osman, Abdel Latef AnouzeA Cognitive Analytics Management Framework (CAM-Part 1):
1-79. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Ghana At 16:03 27 June 2016 (PT)