One such management tool is the‘Log

One such management tool is the
‘Logical Framework’, a performance management device widely used in the NonGovernmental Organisation (NGO) and Development Organisation (DO) sections of the
public sector.
Logical Framework, an analytical device used to plan, monitor and evaluate projects,
originated in work carried out for the US Department of Defense in the 1960s (Odame,
2001). Logical Framework (or LogFrame) was found to be helpful as a planning and
evaluation tool in complex and unpredictable environments in which outcomes are not
clearly measurable, and the required interventions are difficult to predict. Initially adopted
by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), during the 1970s it was
widely applied by many DOs for planning, and to support the newly emerging discipline of
‘monitoring and evaluation’ (M&E).
Results Sought

Performance
Indicators

Means of
Verification

Assumptions /
Risks

Impact
Outcome
Outputs
Activity
Figure 1: the Logical Framework (LogFrame) matrix
As represented in Figure 1, the vertical axis describes the causal relationships between the
activities going into a programme (or other organisational effort) and the results produced as
a consequence. (A ‘result’ is characterised as a “describable or measurable change in state
that is derived from a cause and effect relationship”). The horizontal axis describes the
results sought at each level of the hierarchy and how these will be measured. All sixteen
boxes are completed with descriptive text. A completed LogFrame provides a one-page
summary of the programme’s ‘strategic logic’: the performance expected from the
programme at multiple levels and the means of assessing this performance over time. Good
LogFrames are completed by a combination of programme managers, M&E specialists and
external stakeholders, for example intermediary partners and government representatives.

!4

Balanced Scorecard and Results-Based Management:
Convergent Performance Management Systems


Copyright © 2GC Limited, 2015

2 April 2015

2GC Conference Paper

By the end of the 1980s, DOs were using LogFrame to plan activity centrally and to measure/
assess delivery remotely. But new pressures were emerging that would trigger the
development of a new framework derived from LogFrame called Results-Based Management
(RBM).
Private sector interest in formalised performance management (PM) frameworks possibly
dates from the pioneering work of F.W. Taylor in the early 20th Century, but it is only since
the 1960s that private sector managers and researchers have observed the limitations of
financial measures (e.g. Dearden 1969) and the value of non-financial measures (Report of
the Committee on Non-Financial Measures of Effectiveness 1971) in support of improved
decision-making. During the 1970s, the concept of planning, not measurement, rose in
importance – good strategies and plans were seen as the route to organisational success.
This decade saw the arrival of the global strategy consultancies – McKinsey, Bain and the
Boston Consulting Group, for example – who sought to develop the best possible business
strategies and plans for their clients. Over the next two decades, however, it became
apparent that this determinist approach to organisational performance was flawed (e.g.
Johnson and Kaplan 1987): good plans were not always delivered, or even deliverable. One
study found that 90% of surveyed managers believed their organisation to have a good
strategy, but only 35% thought they executed it well.
During the 1980s, the concept of ‘emergent strategy’ appeared to counter this 1970s
determinism. Now, strategy involved being clear on long-term goals, but adapting shorter
terms activities and outputs to changing circumstances (Mintzberg & Waters 1985). With
this element of ‘learning by doing’ came the need for managers to develop a deeper
understand of what was ‘going on’ in the business. Private sector organisations began to
address an historic over-reliance on financial reports, seeking out non-financial measures of
performance to better control strategy and its delivery.
During the late 1980s, Robert Kaplan and his associate, David Norton, were engaged in a cooperative research programme that brought them into contact with Analog Devices, a Silicon
Valley manufacturer of integrated circuits. Analog Devices was using a simple but effective
management reporting system that included both financial and non-financial measures
called ‘The Balanced Scorecard’ (Stata 1989). The framework organised the firm’s measures
into four ‘perspectives’: ‘Financial’, ‘Customer’, ‘Internal Process’ and ‘Learning & Growth’.
Kaplan and Norton took this idea and reported it in a 1992 paper.
This early version of the Balanced Scorecard was attractive – a simple (if vaguely defined)
means of addressing a problem many managers had noted for years – a dearth of useful
non-financial measures of organisational performance. From 1992 firms began to adopt
Balanced Scorecard in earnest (Rigby 2001, 2003), to be followed some years later by public
sector organisations, initially within OECD counties.

Evolution of Balanced Scorecard
A recent survey determined that companies use an average of 13 management tools or
frameworks at the corporate level. Many of these are tools intended to help measure or
monitor the performance of an organisation, and within this list the most popular

!5

Balanced Scorecard and Results-Based Management:
Convergent Performance Management Systems


Copyright © 2GC Limited, 2015

2 April 2015

2GC Conference Paper

performance related framework was the Balanced Scorecard (57% reporting use of a
Balanced Scorecard) (Rigby and Bilbodeau 2005). This is a remarkable achievement for a
simple framework introduced only about ten years earlier. A key contributor to this longterm success has been the steady evolution of the Balanced Scorecard framework in the light
mainly of practical experience (Guidoum 2000, Lawrie & Cobbold 2004), but also to some
extent from theoretical development by academics and others (Kennerley & Neely 2000, Lipe
& Salterio 2000, Shulver & Antarkar 2001).
Many early adopters of Balanced Scorecard had found it difficult to design. Part of the
problem related to filtering: many more measures were available to managers than could be
practically used. In the absence of a basic strategic context (as available within the Logical
Framework, for example), managers found it hard to agree on an appropriate set of
measures of organisational performance (Butler et al 1997, Ahn 2001, Irwin 2002). One
resolution to this difficulty was to agree to delegate the selection process: either to outside
agents (e.g. consultants) or to a specialist team within the organisation.
While this at least relocated the selection problem out of the management team itself, it was
soon found that Balanced Scorecards developed in this manner were perceived to be
unhelpful by the managers charged with using them, contributing to a high rate of
abandonment for these ‘first generation’ Balanced Scorecards (Lingle & Schieman 1996,
Schneiderman 1999, Malina & Selto 2001).
Researchers and practitioners proposed several improvements to the design process for
Balanced Scorecard to address these design problems. In 1993, Kaplan and Norton wrote a
follow-up paper introducing the concept of ‘strategic objectives’ – short sentences describing
the ‘goals’ introduced in the 1992 paper. The authors proposed that there should be a direct
mapping between each of the several strategic objectives attached to each of the four
perspectives and one or more performance measures. This innovation provided a basic
context for measure (indicator) selection and helped with measure filtering – the strategic
objectives provided the logic for choosing one measure over another within each
perspective.
A second innovation helpful to Balanced Scorecard measure selection came from research
into causal relationships or ‘linkages’, between measures, across perspectives. Managers
began to hypothesise the relationships between business objectives (not measures) and in
the mid 1990s Balanced Scorecard documentation began appearing that recorded these
objective-to-objective relationships. Alternatively called Strategy Maps or Strategic Linkage
Models (SLM), these graphical illustrations of objective hierarchy typically sought, from the
Kaplan and Norton perspective, to connect ‘Learning & Growth’ objectives with ‘Internal
Process’ objectives, thence with ‘Customer’ objectives, and finally to ‘Financial’ objectives.
This type of Balanced Scorecard – consisting of a four-perspective SLM plus a set of measures
– had been hinted at in papers emerging from 1995 onwards, but the first unambiguous
description of this type of Balanced Scorecard appeared in a Swedish publication in 1997
(Olve & Wetter, 1999), and in a book by Kaplan & Norton in 1999 (Kaplan & Norton, 1999).
Many observers consider this ‘second generation’ Balanced Scorecard to be current standard
practice. A wide range of variations to this second generation Balanced Scorecard design

!6

Balanced Scorecard and Results-Based Management:
Convergent Performance Management Systems


Copyright © 2GC Limited, 2015

2 April 2015

2GC Conference Paper

have been proposed (e.g. Butler et al 1997, Brignall 2002) but without having much impact
on general practice.
But while the use of strategy mapping and linkage models during the second half of the
1990s is seen to have made easier the task of measure selection, new problems appeared.
Predictably, these problems related to choosing the strategic objectives themselves – Kaplan
and Norton’s concept of ‘perspective goals’ did not provide sufficient context for the
selection of strategic objectives. Management teams found it difficult to agree the few
(typically 12 to 20 on an SLM), most important things for them to focus on (Lawrie &
Cobbold, 2004).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

One such management tool is the‘Logical Framework’, a performance management device widely used in the NonGovernmental Organisation (NGO) and Development Organisation (DO) sections of thepublic sector.Logical Framework, an analytical device used to plan, monitor and evaluate projects,originated in work carried out for the US Department of Defense in the 1960s (Odame,2001). Logical Framework (or LogFrame) was found to be helpful as a planning andevaluation tool in complex and unpredictable environments in which outcomes are notclearly measurable, and the required interventions are difficult to predict. Initially adoptedby the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), during the 1970s it waswidely applied by many DOs for planning, and to support the newly emerging discipline of‘monitoring and evaluation’ (M&E).Results SoughtPerformanceIndicatorsMeans ofVerificationAssumptions /RisksImpactOutcomeOutputsActivityFigure 1: the Logical Framework (LogFrame) matrixAs represented in Figure 1, the vertical axis describes the causal relationships between theactivities going into a programme (or other organisational effort) and the results produced asa consequence. (A ‘result’ is characterised as a “describable or measurable change in statethat is derived from a cause and effect relationship”). The horizontal axis describes theresults sought at each level of the hierarchy and how these will be measured. All sixteenkotak selesai dengan teks deskriptif. LogFrame selesai menyediakan satu halamanRingkasan dalam program 'strategis logika': kinerja yang diharapkan dariprogram di berbagai tingkat dan cara untuk menilai kinerja ini dari waktu ke waktu. BagusLogFrames selesai oleh kombinasi dari manajer program, spesialis M & E danpemangku kepentingan eksternal, misalnya perantara mitra dan wakil-wakil pemerintah.! 4Balanced Scorecard dan manajemen berbasis hasil:Sistem manajemen kinerja konvergen Hak cipta © 2GC terbatas, 2015 2 April 2015 2GC konferensi kertasPada akhir 1980-an, DOs menggunakan LogFrame untuk merencanakan aktivitas sentral dan untuk mengukur /menilai pengiriman jarak jauh. Tetapi tekanan baru muncul yang akan memicupengembangan kerangka kerja baru yang berasal dari LogFrame disebut manajemen berbasis hasil(RBM).Sektor swasta menarik di dirasmikan kinerja manajemen (PM) kerangka mungkintanggal dari karya perintis F.W. Taylor di awal abad 20, tetapi itu adalah hanya sejaktahun 1960-an bahwa sektor swasta manajer dan para peneliti telah mengamati keterbatasanukuran keuangan (misalnya Dearden 1969) dan nilai tindakan non-keuangan (laporanKomite pada tindakan Non-keuangan Effectiveness 1971) mendukung peningkatanpengambilan keputusan. Selama 1970-an, konsep perencanaan, bukan pengukuran, naikpenting-baik strategi dan rencana dipandang sebagai rute ke keberhasilan organisasi.This decade saw the arrival of the global strategy consultancies – McKinsey, Bain and theBoston Consulting Group, for example – who sought to develop the best possible businessstrategies and plans for their clients. Over the next two decades, however, it becameapparent that this determinist approach to organisational performance was flawed (e.g.Johnson and Kaplan 1987): good plans were not always delivered, or even deliverable. Onestudy found that 90% of surveyed managers believed their organisation to have a goodstrategy, but only 35% thought they executed it well.During the 1980s, the concept of ‘emergent strategy’ appeared to counter this 1970sdeterminism. Now, strategy involved being clear on long-term goals, but adapting shorterterms activities and outputs to changing circumstances (Mintzberg & Waters 1985). Withthis element of ‘learning by doing’ came the need for managers to develop a deeperunderstand of what was ‘going on’ in the business. Private sector organisations began toaddress an historic over-reliance on financial reports, seeking out non-financial measures ofperformance to better control strategy and its delivery.During the late 1980s, Robert Kaplan and his associate, David Norton, were engaged in a cooperative research programme that brought them into contact with Analog Devices, a SiliconValley manufacturer of integrated circuits. Analog Devices was using a simple but effectivemanagement reporting system that included both financial and non-financial measurescalled ‘The Balanced Scorecard’ (Stata 1989). The framework organised the firm’s measuresinto four ‘perspectives’: ‘Financial’, ‘Customer’, ‘Internal Process’ and ‘Learning & Growth’.Kaplan and Norton took this idea and reported it in a 1992 paper.This early version of the Balanced Scorecard was attractive – a simple (if vaguely defined)means of addressing a problem many managers had noted for years – a dearth of usefulnon-financial measures of organisational performance. From 1992 firms began to adoptBalanced Scorecard in earnest (Rigby 2001, 2003), to be followed some years later by publicsector organisations, initially within OECD counties.Evolution of Balanced ScorecardA recent survey determined that companies use an average of 13 management tools orframeworks at the corporate level. Many of these are tools intended to help measure ormonitor the performance of an organisation, and within this list the most popular!5Balanced Scorecard and Results-Based Management:Convergent Performance Management Systems Copyright © 2GC Limited, 2015 2 April 2015 2GC Conference Paperperformance related framework was the Balanced Scorecard (57% reporting use of aBalanced Scorecard) (Rigby and Bilbodeau 2005). This is a remarkable achievement for asimple framework introduced only about ten years earlier. A key contributor to this longterm success has been the steady evolution of the Balanced Scorecard framework in the lightmainly of practical experience (Guidoum 2000, Lawrie & Cobbold 2004), but also to someextent from theoretical development by academics and others (Kennerley & Neely 2000, Lipe& Salterio 2000, Shulver & Antarkar 2001).Many early adopters of Balanced Scorecard had found it difficult to design. Part of theproblem related to filtering: many more measures were available to managers than could bepractically used. In the absence of a basic strategic context (as available within the LogicalFramework, for example), managers found it hard to agree on an appropriate set ofmeasures of organisational performance (Butler et al 1997, Ahn 2001, Irwin 2002). Oneresolution to this difficulty was to agree to delegate the selection process: either to outsideagents (e.g. consultants) or to a specialist team within the organisation.While this at least relocated the selection problem out of the management team itself, it wassoon found that Balanced Scorecards developed in this manner were perceived to beunhelpful by the managers charged with using them, contributing to a high rate ofabandonment for these ‘first generation’ Balanced Scorecards (Lingle & Schieman 1996,Schneiderman 1999, Malina & Selto 2001).Researchers and practitioners proposed several improvements to the design process for
Balanced Scorecard to address these design problems. In 1993, Kaplan and Norton wrote a
follow-up paper introducing the concept of ‘strategic objectives’ – short sentences describing
the ‘goals’ introduced in the 1992 paper. The authors proposed that there should be a direct
mapping between each of the several strategic objectives attached to each of the four
perspectives and one or more performance measures. This innovation provided a basic
context for measure (indicator) selection and helped with measure filtering – the strategic
objectives provided the logic for choosing one measure over another within each
perspective.
A second innovation helpful to Balanced Scorecard measure selection came from research
into causal relationships or ‘linkages’, between measures, across perspectives. Managers
began to hypothesise the relationships between business objectives (not measures) and in
the mid 1990s Balanced Scorecard documentation began appearing that recorded these
objective-to-objective relationships. Alternatively called Strategy Maps or Strategic Linkage
Models (SLM), these graphical illustrations of objective hierarchy typically sought, from the
Kaplan and Norton perspective, to connect ‘Learning & Growth’ objectives with ‘Internal
Process’ objectives, thence with ‘Customer’ objectives, and finally to ‘Financial’ objectives.
This type of Balanced Scorecard – consisting of a four-perspective SLM plus a set of measures
– had been hinted at in papers emerging from 1995 onwards, but the first unambiguous
description of this type of Balanced Scorecard appeared in a Swedish publication in 1997
(Olve & Wetter, 1999), and in a book by Kaplan & Norton in 1999 (Kaplan & Norton, 1999).
Many observers consider this ‘second generation’ Balanced Scorecard to be current standard
practice. A wide range of variations to this second generation Balanced Scorecard design

!6

Balanced Scorecard and Results-Based Management:
Convergent Performance Management Systems


Copyright © 2GC Limited, 2015

2 April 2015

2GC Conference Paper

have been proposed (e.g. Butler et al 1997, Brignall 2002) but without having much impact
on general practice.
But while the use of strategy mapping and linkage models during the second half of the
1990s is seen to have made easier the task of measure selection, new problems appeared.
Predictably, these problems related to choosing the strategic objectives themselves – Kaplan
and Norton’s concept of ‘perspective goals’ did not provide sufficient context for the
selection of strategic objectives. Management teams found it difficult to agree the few
(typically 12 to 20 on an SLM), most important things for them to focus on (Lawrie &
Cobbold, 2004).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Salah satu alat manajemen tersebut adalah
'Kerangka Logis', perangkat manajemen kinerja secara luas digunakan dalam Organisasi non-pemerintah (NGO) dan Pengembangan Organisasi (DO) bagian dari
sektor publik.
Kerangka Kerja Logis, perangkat analisis yang digunakan untuk merencanakan, memantau dan mengevaluasi proyek-proyek ,
berasal pekerjaan yang dilakukan untuk Departemen Pertahanan AS pada tahun 1960 (Odame,
2001). Kerangka logis (logframe atau) ditemukan untuk membantu sebagai perencanaan dan
evaluasi alat dalam lingkungan yang kompleks dan tak terduga di mana hasil yang tidak
jelas terukur, dan intervensi yang diperlukan adalah di FFI kultus untuk memprediksi. Awalnya diadopsi
oleh Badan Amerika Serikat untuk Pembangunan Internasional (USAID), selama tahun 1970 itu
banyak diterapkan oleh banyak Dos untuk perencanaan, dan untuk mendukung disiplin yang baru muncul dari
'monitoring dan evaluasi' (M & E).
Hasil Berusaha Kinerja Indikator Sarana Verifikasi Asumsi / Risiko Dampak Hasil Keluaran Kegiatan Gambar 1: Kerangka Logis (logframe) matriks Seperti digambarkan dalam Gambar 1, sumbu vertikal menggambarkan hubungan kausal antara kegiatan yang terjadi ke dalam program (atau organisasi lainnya e ff ort) dan hasilnya diproduksi sebagai sebuah konsekuensi. (A 'hasil' ditandai sebagai "perubahan describable atau terukur dalam keadaan yang berasal dari penyebab dan e ff ect hubungan"). Sumbu horizontal menggambarkan hasil dicari pada setiap tingkat hirarki dan bagaimana ini akan diukur. Semua enam belas kotak diselesaikan dengan teks deskriptif. Sebuah menyelesaikan Logframe menyediakan satu halaman ringkasan dari program 'logika strategis': kinerja yang diharapkan dari program yang pada berbagai tingkat dan sarana menilai kinerja ini dari waktu ke waktu. Baik perlulah selesai dengan kombinasi manajer program, spesialis M & E dan pemangku kepentingan eksternal, misalnya mitra perantara dan perwakilan pemerintah. 4! Manajemen Scorecard dan Seimbang Berbasis Hasil: Kinerja Konvergen Sistem Manajemen
 Copyright © 2GC Limited, 2015
 2 April 2015 2GC Conference Kertas Pada akhir 1980-an, DOS yang menggunakan logframe untuk merencanakan kegiatan terpusat dan untuk mengukur / menilai pengiriman jarak jauh. Tapi tekanan baru muncul yang akan memicu pengembangan kerangka baru yang berasal dari logframe disebut Hasil Manajemen Berbasis (RBM). Minat sektor swasta dalam pengelolaan kinerja formal (PM) kerangka mungkin tanggal dari karya perintis dari FW Taylor di 20 awal abad, tetapi hanya karena tahun 1960-an bahwa manajer sektor swasta dan peneliti telah mengamati keterbatasan ukuran finansial (misalnya Dearden 1969) dan nilai tindakan-tindakan non-keuangan (Laporan Komite Tindakan Non-Keuangan E ff Efektivitas 1971) di dukungan ditingkatkan pengambilan keputusan. Selama tahun 1970-an, konsep perencanaan, tidak pengukuran, naik penting -. Strategi yang baik dan rencana dipandang sebagai rute ke keberhasilan organisasi dekade ini melihat kedatangan konsultan strategi global - McKinsey, Bain dan Boston Consulting Group, untuk Contoh - yang berusaha untuk mengembangkan bisnis terbaik mungkin strategi dan rencana untuk klien mereka. Selama dua dekade berikutnya, bagaimanapun, menjadi jelas bahwa pendekatan determinis ini untuk kinerja organisasi itu cacat (misalnya Johnson dan Kaplan 1987): rencana yang baik tidak selalu disampaikan, atau bahkan deliverable. Satu studi menemukan bahwa 90% dari manajer yang disurvei percaya organisasi mereka memiliki baik strategi, tetapi hanya 35% berpikir mereka dieksekusi dengan baik. Selama tahun 1980, konsep strategi muncul 'muncul untuk melawan 1970 ini determinisme. Sekarang, strategi yang terlibat menjadi jelas pada tujuan jangka panjang, tetapi mengadaptasi pendek kegiatan syarat dan output untuk mengubah keadaan (Mintzberg & Waters 1985). Dengan elemen ini 'learning by doing' datang kebutuhan untuk manajer untuk mengembangkan lebih memahami apa yang 'terjadi' dalam bisnis. Organisasi sektor swasta mulai mengatasi bersejarah over-ketergantungan pada laporan keuangan, mencari tindakan-tindakan non-keuangan dari kinerja untuk strategi pengendalian yang lebih baik dan pengiriman. Selama akhir 1980-an, Robert Kaplan dan rekannya, David Norton, yang terlibat dalam koperasi program penelitian yang membawa mereka ke dalam kontak dengan Analog Devices, Silicon produsen Lembah sirkuit terpadu. Analog Devices menggunakan tetapi e ff efektif sederhana manajemen sistem pelaporan yang mencakup baik keuangan dan tindakan-tindakan non-keuangan disebut 'Balanced Scorecard' (Stata 1989). Kerangka kerja ini diselenggarakan langkah perusahaan ke dalam empat 'perspektif':. 'Keuangan', 'Pelanggan', 'Proses internal' dan 'Learning & Growth' Kaplan dan Norton mengambil ide ini dan dilaporkan dalam sebuah makalah 1992. Versi awal ini dari seimbang Scorecard adalah menarik - sederhana (jika didefinisikan samar-samar) berarti menangani masalah banyak manajer telah mencatat selama bertahun-tahun - kelangkaan berguna tindakan-tindakan non-keuangan dari kinerja organisasi. Dari 1.992 perusahaan mulai mengadopsi Balanced Scorecard dengan sungguh-sungguh (Rigby 2001, 2003), yang akan diikuti beberapa tahun kemudian oleh masyarakat organisasi sektor, awalnya dalam kabupaten OECD. Evolusi Balance Scorecard Sebuah survei terbaru menetapkan bahwa perusahaan menggunakan rata-rata 13 alat manajemen atau kerangka kerja di tingkat perusahaan. Banyak dari ini alat dimaksudkan untuk membantu mengukur atau memonitor kinerja organisasi, dan dalam daftar ini paling populer 5! Balance Scorecard dan Hasil Manajemen Berbasis: Konvergen Kinerja Sistem Manajemen
 Copyright © 2GC Limited, 2015
 2 April 2015 2GC Conference Paper Kinerja kerangka terkait adalah Balanced Scorecard (penggunaan pelaporan 57% dari Balanced Scorecard) (Rigby dan Bilbodeau 2005). Ini merupakan prestasi yang luar biasa untuk kerangka sederhana diperkenalkan hanya sekitar sepuluh tahun sebelumnya. Seorang kontributor kunci keberhasilan jangka panjang ini telah menjadi evolusi stabil dari kerangka Balanced Scorecard dalam terang terutama dari pengalaman praktis (Guidoum 2000, Lawrie & Cobbold 2004), tetapi juga untuk beberapa sejauh dari pengembangan teori oleh para akademisi dan lain-lain (Kennerley & Neely 2000, Lipe & Salterio 2000, Shulver & Antarkar 2001). Banyak pengadopsi awal dari Balanced Scorecard telah menemukan itu di FFI kultus untuk merancang. Bagian dari masalah yang berkaitan dengan penyaringan: lebih banyak tindakan yang tersedia untuk manajer daripada yang dapat praktis digunakan. Dengan tidak adanya konteks strategis dasar (seperti yang tersedia dalam Logical Framework, misalnya), manajer merasa sulit untuk menyetujui set sesuai ukuran kinerja organisasi (Butler et al 1997, Ahn 2001, Irwin 2002). Salah satu resolusi untuk di FFI ini culty adalah setuju untuk mendelegasikan proses seleksi: baik untuk luar. Agen (misalnya konsultan) atau tim spesialis dalam organisasi Sementara ini setidaknya direlokasi masalah pemilihan dari tim manajemen itu sendiri, itu segera ditemukan bahwa Balanced Scorecard dikembangkan dengan cara ini yang dianggap tidak membantu oleh manajer dituduh menggunakan mereka, memberikan kontribusi untuk tingkat tinggi ditinggalkan untuk ini 'generasi pertama' Seimbang Scorecard (Lingle & Schieman 1996, Schneiderman 1999, Malina & selto 2001). peneliti dan praktisi mengusulkan beberapa perbaikan pada proses desain untuk Balanced Scorecard untuk mengatasi masalah desain ini. Pada tahun 1993, Kaplan dan Norton menulis makalah tindak lanjut memperkenalkan konsep 'tujuan strategis' - kalimat pendek yang menggambarkan para 'tujuan' diperkenalkan di tahun 1992 kertas. Para penulis mengusulkan bahwa harus ada langsung pemetaan antara masing-masing beberapa tujuan strategis melekat pada setiap dari empat perspektif dan satu atau lebih ukuran kinerja. Inovasi ini memberikan dasar konteks untuk mengukur (indikator) seleksi dan membantu dengan ukuran filtering - strategis tujuan yang disediakan logika untuk memilih salah satu ukuran di atas yang lain dalam setiap perspektif. Sebuah inovasi kedua membantu untuk Seimbang pilihan ukuran Scorecard berasal dari penelitian ke dalam hubungan kausal atau 'hubungan', antara langkah-langkah, di perspektif. Manajer mulai hypothesise hubungan antara tujuan bisnis (bukan tindakan) dan di pertengahan 1990-an dokumentasi Balanced Scorecard mulai muncul yang tercatat ini hubungan tujuan-ke-tujuan. Atau disebut Strategi Maps atau Linkage Strategis Model (SLM), ini ilustrasi grafis dari hirarki tujuan biasanya dicari, dari perspektif Kaplan dan Norton, untuk menghubungkan 'Learning & Growth' tujuan dengan 'internal Proses' tujuan, situ dengan 'Pelanggan' tujuan, dan akhirnya ke tujuan 'Keuangan'. Jenis Balanced Scorecard - yang terdiri dari SLM empat perspektif ditambah satu set langkah-langkah - telah diisyaratkan dalam makalah yang muncul dari tahun 1995 dan seterusnya, tapi jelas pertama deskripsi jenis Balanced Scorecard muncul dalam publikasi Swedia pada tahun 1997 (olve & Wetter, 1999), dan dalam sebuah buku oleh Kaplan & Norton pada tahun 1999 (Kaplan & Norton, 1999). Banyak pengamat menganggap ini 'generasi kedua' Balanced Scorecard menjadi standar saat latihan. Berbagai macam variasi untuk generasi kedua ini desain Balanced Scorecard 6! Seimbang Manajemen Scorecard dan Berbasis Hasil: Kinerja Konvergen Sistem Manajemen
 Copyright © 2GC Limited, 2015
 2 April 2015 2GC Conference Paper telah diusulkan (misalnya Butler et al 1997, Brignall 2002 ) tapi tanpa banyak dampak pada praktek umum. Tapi sementara penggunaan strategi pemetaan dan linkage model selama paruh kedua tahun 1990-an terlihat telah membuat lebih mudah tugas seleksi ukuran, masalah baru muncul. Bisa ditebak, masalah ini terkait dengan memilih tujuan strategis sendiri - Kaplan dan Norton konsep dari 'tujuan perspektif' tidak memberikan su konteks FFI efisien untuk pemilihan tujuan strategis. Tim manajemen menemukannya di FFI kultus setuju beberapa (biasanya 12 sampai 20 pada SLM), hal yang paling penting bagi mereka untuk fokus pada (Lawrie & Cobbold, 2004).