A Case Study: Application of the Balanced Scorecard

in Higher Education

by

Andrea Mae Rollins

A dissertation submitted to the faculty of

San Diego State University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Educational Leadership

June 28, 2011

 iii

Copyright © 2011

by

Andrea Mae Rollins

 iv

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my brother Jason, from as early as I can remember he has

always been proud of his little sister and her accomplishments; his pride, his love, and

his support will forever be cherished and means more than he will ever know,

and

To my grandmother Dollie, who sacrificed so much in order to provide for me the life

I needed; she taught me to be kind and generous and to ask for help when needed,

but most importantly she taught me anything is possible,

and

To my dear friends, who give me more credit than I deserve and love me unconditionally;

I am extremely fortunate to have such a wonderful group of amazing women in my life,

and

To Fred, who never gave up on me; his confidence in my abilities gave me the strength

to push through all obstacles and make it to the finish line.

 v

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the application of the Balanced

Scorecard as a management tool within the External and Business Affairs (EBA) unit at

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Specially, the study sought to examine how

the Balanced Scorecard was communicated throughout the organization, how the data are

used within the organization, and how the data are used for decision making, paying

particular attention to the four perspectives of UCSD’s EBA’s personalized Balanced

Scorecard. These four perspectives are financial/stakeholder, internal processes,

innovation and learning, and the customer.

This descriptive case study, a review of program records, a quantitative survey

and qualitative interviews with EBA employees utilizing the constant comparative

method and descriptive statistics, identified four lessons learned: the truly informed

employees are at the top of the organization and they find value in the Balanced

Scorecard, most employees are unaware of availability and usefulness of the Balanced

Scorecard data, even an unbalanced Scorecard improves business operations and the

annual performance evaluation process is an opportunity to reinforce the Balanced

Scorecard.

The study includes three recommendations for EBA. The recommendations are

EBA leadership needs to communicate the Balanced Scorecard process, outcomes, and

application with greater clarity to all employees in the organization; there needs to be an

institutional plan for sustainability of the Balanced Scorecard to ensure it transcends the

current people and environment; and the Balanced Scorecard process within EBA must

be flexible for future organizational evolution.

 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background: The Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Site of the Case Study: University of California, San Diego. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

External and Business Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Problem Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Significance of This Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Purpose Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Limitations of the Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Delimitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Role of the Researcher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Organization of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

CHAPTER 2—REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Roles and Expectations of Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Higher Education in California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 vii

Reengineering Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Performance Funding.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Accreditation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Organizational Structure and Management Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28*

Total Quality Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

The Malcolm Baldrige Award Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Balanced Scorecard and Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Organizational Change and the Case Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Research Design.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Participants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Data Collection and Analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Program Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Ethical Principles Based on Human Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Role of the Researcher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

 viii

Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

CHAPTER 4—FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Participant Profiles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Source of Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Program Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Historical Perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Lessons Learned.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Recent Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Interview Themes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

A Tool With Many Names.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Communication Is an Individual Choice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

An Unbalanced Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

The Impact Is Personal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Visionaries Can Be Found at All Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

CHAPTER 5—DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Lessons Learned.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
 ix

Informed Employee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Availability and Usefulness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Unbalanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Performance Evaluation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Communicate With Clarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Sustainability Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Flexibility.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Future Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Process Mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Balanced Scorecard Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Balanced Scorecard Components.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Traditional Academic Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Quantitative Outcome Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

APPENDICES

A. Vice Chancellor—External and Business Affairs

Organization Chart.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

B. Balanced Scorecard Example.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

 x

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. External and Business Affairs’ Personalized Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . 8

Table 2. Unit Affiliation of Survey Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 3. Years of Service of Survey Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 4. Position of Survey Participants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 5. Interview Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 6. Survey Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1. The Balanced Scorecard visual created by Kaplan and Norton.. . . . . . . . . 3

 xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their support and patience in

the completion of this study. Thank you to Dr. Fred McFarlane for always making time

to hear me. There were many excuses used, but you never seemed frustrated or

disappointed but rather your continued support kept me motivated and committed. Thank

you to Dr. Shaila Mulholland for continuously pushing me a bit further and your

continued support while doing so. Thank you to Dr. Mark Tucker for your careful review

of this work and your sound advice and guidance.

I would also like to thank Dr. Angela Song and the UCSD community. Dr. Song,

throughout this entire process, if felt as though I had a partner in you. Your generosity in

terms of sharing your time and knowledge meant a lot and was a significant contributor to

my success. To the UCSD community, thank you for your honesty and openness.

Lastly, I want to thank my friends and family. Thank you for always believing in

me. Your encouragement and support helped make this possible. A final thanks goes to

Bailey and Hershey for their unconditional love, especially in those moments when I had

little time and attention for them; they rode this wave with me.
 1

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

Steven Covey is quoted as saying, “People and their managers are working so

hard to be sure things are done right, that they hardly have time to decide if they are doing

the right things” (Rohm, 2002, p. 1). Managing an organization is a balancing act. This

balancing act requires the organization and all its members to ensure the development of

good business strategies that allow for efficient operations and practices. The Balanced

Scorecard is a performance management tool that assists the organization in finding its

balance (Rohm, 2002). According to Kaplan and Norton (2007), “The balanced

Scorecard supplemented traditional financial measures with criteria that measured

performance from three additional perspectives—those of customers, internal business,

and learning and growth” (p. 2).

This case study examines the application of The Balanced Scorecard in External

and Business Affairs (EBA) at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

Specifically, it looks at the personalized Balanced Scorecard that UCSD developed for

their implementation.

Background: The Balanced Scorecard

The Balanced Scorecard, developed in 1992, provides organizations with an

opportunity to measure more than financial performance indicators. Kaplan and Norton

(1992) developed the Balanced Scorecard so that “managers should not have to choose

between financial and operational measures” (p. 71). The development of the balanced

scorecard was in response to a changing and more competitive environment where

executives felt traditional measures of financial performance were not sufficient. The

Balanced Scorecard was designed as a model for measuring several dimensions of

 2

performance. The model provided managers with a format that allowed them the

opportunity to incorporate additional perspectives beyond financial performance

measures. By using this model, organizations are able to complement their financial

measures with additional nonfinancial performance measures for the purpose of planning

future growth and creating an organization with more collaborative leadership (Kaplan &

Norton, 2007).

Kaplan and Norton (1992) completed a yearlong research project that was

comprised of 12 companies that they described as being at the leading edge of

performance management. The result of this yearlong research project is the Balanced

Scorecard, which is an assessment tool comprised of a set of measures that go beyond the

traditional measures of financial criteria to include measures that are inclusive of both

financial and operational indicators. The Balanced Scorecard “provides answers to four

basic questions: 1) How do customers see us? 2) What must we excel at? 3) Can we

continue to improve and create value? and 4) How do we look to shareholders?” (Kaplan

& Norton, 1992, p. 72). Kaplan and Norton argue that by giving managers the answers to

these four basic questions, they will have multiple measures to judge the performance of

their organization, but will not be overloaded by a large number of measures.

Additionally, the variety of measures requires the financial and operational leaders

to work together. The Balanced Scorecard serves as an easy tool for determining

whether the success in one area occurs to the detriment of another, as well as identifying

if success in one area is associated with strong performance in another area (Kaplan &

Norton, 1992). By considering the four perspectives altogether, the Balanced Scorecard

indicates when a process that serves a benefit to your customers may in fact hinder the
 3

organization from the innovation and learning perspectives. Figure 1 is a visual of the

tool Kaplan and Norton created to describe the Balanced Scorecard.

Figure 1. The Balanced Scorecard visual created by Kaplan and Norton. Adapted from

“The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance,” by R. S. Kaplan & D. P.

Norton, January-February 1992, Harvard Business Review, p. 72.

The tool provides the four questions of the Balanced Scorecard in relationship to

one another and links the questions to the perspective to which they are responding.

Additionally, the Balanced Scorecard provides the format for tracking the data, which

they break up into goals and measures. The four perspectives are: Financial, Internal

Business, Innovation and Learning, and Customer (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). These four

questions are the foundation of the Balanced Scorecard. Goal setting and tracking
 4

measures help to make the Balanced Scorecard a successful performance measurement

tool for organizations.

Site of the Case Study: University of California, San Diego

In recognition of its “innovative approach to cutting costs, solving problems, and

increasing efficiency” (UCSD, 2003, para. 1) the University of California, San Diego was

inducted into the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame in 2003 (External and Business

Affairs [EBA], 2011b). Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton founded the Palladium

Group (2010), a global organization that provides, among other services, consulting in

strategy and performance management. The Palladium Group developed the Balanced

Scorecard Hall of Fame, which honors organizations that have achieved performance

excellence through the use of the Balanced Scorecard. There is a formal application

process, and the selection criteria requires an organization to have implemented the

Balanced Scorecard methodology, have completed a breakthrough in performance results

for at least 24 months, and have provided a testimonial that the organization’s success is,

at least in part, due to the Kaplan-Norton approach. In 2010, there were more than 130

current Hall of Fame Members. Members included domestic and international

organizations. They were presented in the following industry groups: consumer,

education and nonprofits, energy and utilities, financials, government, healthcare,

materials and industrials, and telecommunications and information technologies (The

Palladium Group, 2010). In 2003, UCSD was the first university to be added to the Hall

of Fame. The recognition came 10 years after adopting the performance management

system in 1993. There are only two other universities that have been inducted into the
 5

Hall of Fame. These two universities are the University of Leeds located in the United

Kingdom and the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

University of California, San Diego, one of the 10 campuses in California’s

University of California system, was founded in 1960. University of California, San

Diego is highly regarded nationwide as both an outstanding institution of higher learning

and as a top tier research institution. In the 2011 “America’s Best Colleges Guidebook,”

issued by U.S. News and World Report (as cited in UCSD, 2010a), UCSD was ranked as

the 7th best public university in the nation. In 2010, there were five Nobel Prize winners

among UCSD’s faculty body (UCSD, 2010a). University of California, San Diego has

significant ties to the local community, specifically related to the amount of jobs it

provides for members of the local community. University of California, San Diego is the

third largest employer in San Diego County, employing nearly 26,000 employees. Its

faculty and alumni have contributed to at least 193 start-up companies in the San Diego

community. The impact of the research at UCSD extends throughout California, which

notes that “UC San Diego contributes more than $7.2 billion in direct and indirect

spending and personal income each year to the California economy and generates 39,400

jobs, based on an independent study conducted by CBRE Consulting released in” 2008”

(UCSD, 2010a, para. 7). The work of the students, faculty, researchers and alumni has a

local, state, and national influence and a global reach. The campus consists of six

undergraduate colleges, five academic divisions and five graduate and professional

schools. In the fall of 2010, the total campus enrollment was 29,899 students. The

annual revenues for UCSD are approximately $2.6 billion with 22% of the revenues
 6

coming from federally funded research and 11.5% coming from the State of California

(UCSD, 2010a).

The Washington Monthly is a different ranking guide that ranks higher education

organizations on an annual basis on their contribution to the public good. The categories

for the college guide and rankings for the award are Social Mobility—recruiting and

graduating low income students; Research—producing cutting-edge scholarship and

PhDs; and Service—encouraging students to give something back to their country. In

2010, UCSD ranked number one on the Washington Monthly list. Washington Monthly

explains their rankings are unlike U.S. News and World Reports and other guides because

they do not look at what colleges can do for the individual but rather what the colleges do

for the country (“College Guide,” 2010).

External and Business Affairs

The mission of UCSD focuses primarily on education and research. The

leadership structure of the university is divided into seven vice chancellor areas. Three of

the vice chancellor areas hold academic appointments and directly serve the education

and research mission of UCSD. The other four vice chancellor areas serve this mission,

as well, but in more of a peripheral role. The External and Business Affairs (EBA) vice

chancellor area serves the university by providing leadership and management for the

business and administrative functions. Despite the fact that UCSD is recognized by the

Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame, only EBA has implemented the Balanced Scorecard.

The overall mission of EBA is “raising financial support for UCSD’s research, teaching

and patient care, while delivering superior service to our stakeholders in a responsive and

cost-effective manner” (EBA, 2011a, para. 1). The organizational units in the EBA
 7

include Administrative Computing and Telecommunications, Human Resources,

Business and Fiscal Services, Housing, Dining and Hospitality Services, Alumni Affairs,

University and Health Sciences Development, and the UCSD Foundation and

Advancement Services. A full description of the organizational unit is found in

Appendix A.

Currently, Steven W. Relyea serves as the Vice Chancellor for EBA. Through his

leadership, UCSD’s EBA adopted the Balanced Scorecard in 1993. When honored as a

member of the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame in 2003, UCSD had saved more than

$6 million since the Balanced Scorecard was adopted. Mr. Relyea is quoted as saying:

The Balanced Scorecard process provides UCSD with a roadmap which indicates

where it should focus its energies, priorities, and resources in providing

administrative services for UCSD. During difficult budgetary times, this

approach is indispensable. While some may have viewed an approach such as the

Balanced Scorecard as optional in the past, many will find it a key to survival in

this era of shrinking funds. (UCSD, 2003, para. 6)

Stemming from the basic four questions outlined by Kaplan and Norton (1992) in

the Balanced Scorecard (i.e., “1) How do customers see us? 2) What must we excel at?

3) Can we continue to improve and create value? and 4) How do we look to

shareholders?” [p. 72]), UCSD created four perspectives for the focus of their Balanced

Scorecard tool. The four perspectives of UCSD’s Balanced Scorecard focus on: the

financial/stakeholder, the internal processes, innovation and learning, and the customer.

These four perspectives link to Kaplan and Norton’s questions as follows: the

financial/stakeholder perspective responds to Kaplan and Norton’s question number four;

 8

the internal process perspective responds to question number two; the innovation and

learning perspective responds to question number three; and the customer perspective

responds to question number one.

University of California, San Diego prides itself on being a strategic,

forward-thinking organization. University of California, San Diego’s EBA kept this

framework as their foundation when personalizing the four perspectives and outlining

their foci for the implementation and application of the Balanced Scorecard. External and

Business Affairs values these four perspectives (see Table 1) as tools and provides the

organization with the following foci to further define the perspectives.

Table 1

External and Business Affairs’ Personalized Balanced Scorecard

Perspective Focus
Financial/Stakeholder Looking Backwards
Internal Process Process Performance
Innovation and Learning Employee Satisfaction and Wellness
Customer Customer Satisfaction

University of California, San Diego has described their benefits from the Balanced

Scorecard as the ability to align customer priorities with business priorities, the ability to

track progress over time, the method for the evaluation of process changes, the method

for identification of opportunities for initiatives and partnerships, the source for

accountability to constituents, and the source for the development of action plans and

setting strategic direction. University of California, San Diego as an institution benefits

by the application of the Balanced Scorecard within EBA. Despite EBA being the only
 9

vice chancellor area that has implemented and applied the Balanced Scorecard, the

benefits extend through all areas of the institution given that the services EBA provides to

faculty and staff extends throughout the entire institution.

Problem Statement

In tight fiscal times, challenges and expectations increase for higher education

organizations. The concept of a higher education organization running more like a

corporation serves as a basis for criticism of the organization. In tight fiscal times, critics

are extremely outspoken about the business of higher education. They challenge

everything from the manner in which higher education organizations are organized and

their funding decisions, to their staffing choices. Higher education organizations are

viewed as a key component in overcoming tight fiscal times, therefore providing hope for

the nation. However, their resources do not increase while their expectations by the

students and other customers do increase over time. Higher education organizations

face external pressures to adapt and manage change by utilizing market and business

strategies. The financing of higher education organizations is cyclical. Therefore, tight

fiscal times are either on the horizon or currently present for most publically supported

higher education organizations. Alexander (2000) described this issue when discussing

the concept of higher education accountability. He stated that “a new economic

motivation is driving states to redefine relationships by pressuring organizations to

become more accountable, more efficient, and more productive in the use of publicly

generated resources” (p. 411). A related perspective is provided by Kotler and Murphy

(1981), who wrote about tight fiscal times in higher education in the 1980s. Almost

30 years later their arguments are still very relevant given the cyclical nature of the
 10

financing of higher education. They viewed the economic condition as a motivator,

rather than seeing only setbacks and challenges. They looked at the economic condition

as an opportunity to strategically move the organization forward. When fiscal times are

tight, they see opportunities for higher education organizations. From their perspective,

tight fiscal times are opportunities for planning and strategizing about the organization’s

future. If the higher education organization can look introspectively and begin to analyze

their current situation rather than focusing simply on daily operations, they can look to the

future and find new opportunities (Kotler & Murphy, 1981). Presently higher education

organizations face dilemmas of accountability. They are challenged to operate more

strategically and are tasked with finding greater process efficiencies. Green (2003)

argued that traditional approaches for managing higher education organizations are no

longer relevant. Organizations need to reengineer themselves to be relevant in today’s

society. Higher education organizations must identify, explore, and implement strategies

that can assist them in responding to these new expectations. In 1993, when EBA

implemented the Balanced Scorecard, it was partially in response to tight fiscal times

and increased federal regulations. Consistent with Green’s argument, EBA was looking

for a way to reengineer their organization in order to respond to the challenges of

disappearing resources and increased regulation while finding a way to be strategic and

accountable.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were used in this study.

1. Balanced Scorecard refers to the performance management tool developed by

Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton in 1992.

 11

2. Balanced Scorecard foci refer to the foci established at UCSD in conjunction

with their personalized Balanced Scorecard perspectives.

3. Balanced Scorecard perspectives refer to the personalized Balanced Scorecard

at UCSD.

4. External Business and Affairs (EBA) refers to the vice chancellor unit at UCSD

that has implemented the Balanced Scorecard.

5. Higher Education organizations refer to public and private nonprofit 2-year

colleges and public and private nonprofit 4-year universities.

6. University of California, San Diego (UCSD) refers to the study site for this

case study.

7. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) is the accrediting

commission for Senior Colleges and Universities in the Western Region of the

United States.

Significance of This Study

In light of the current and future expectations, higher education organizations

require examples of successful implementation and adaptation of management strategies

that address the need to become more productive, accountable and efficient. The

Balanced Scorecard, which utilizes measures beyond financial performance, is a tool that

can assist higher education organizations to become more efficient and accountable. This

case study took an in-depth look at the application of the Balanced Scorecard in units

within the EBA vice chancellor area at UCSD. The results of the case study will provide

other higher education organizations with a detailed view of how the Balanced Scorecard

is communicated throughout the units, examples of what type of data elements are
 12

tracked, and how these data elements are used for decision making. This detailed view of

the Balanced Scorecard application will be useful for higher education administrators

who are both internal and external to UCSD. For current UCSD administrators, this

study provided them with a new view of the Balanced Scorecard. For external higher

education administrators, this study will provide them with another model for doing

business. This detailed view will provide them with examples of how one higher

education organization has applied their Balanced Scorecard and impacted its

performance.

Purpose Statement

This case study examined the application of the Balanced Scorecard as a

management tool, and explored how the Balanced Scorecard and UCSD’s EBA

personalized perspectives/foci were communicated throughout the organization. The

results identified the data elements that the Balanced Scorecard tracks and described how

the data were used for decision making. This case study paid particular attention to the

four perspectives of UCSD’s EBA which were personalized for their application. These

four perspectives are financial/stakeholder, internal processes, innovation and learning,

and the customer.

Theoretical Framework

This study was informed by Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations:

Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Bolman and Deal, in 2008, the fifth release of work

that was first published in 1984, provide a four-frame model that views “organizations

as factories, families, jungles, and temples” (p. vii). The four frames are the structural

frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. A frame,
 13

as defined by Bolman and Deal, is a mental model. It is “a set of ideas and assumptions

that you carry in your head to help you understand and negotiate a particular territory”

(p. 11). Frames are necessary so individuals within organizations can quickly create a

mental model of their current situation so they know how to appropriately navigate the

situation. Bolman and Deal explain that although it is key to have mental models (i.e.,

frames in order to negotiate day to day situations), it is also important for individuals to

have the ability to break frames; they call this “reframing.” They argue that learning to

apply all four frames creates a deeper appreciation and understanding of the organization.

Bolman and Deal (2008) outline the frames with the following descriptions. The

structural frame or the “factory” emphasizes organizational architecture and the formal

roles and relationships in an organization. The “structure” of an organization is found in

an organization’s organizational charts, the linear or vertical relationships that have been

defined and provided to employees. The human resources frame or the “family”

emphasizes relationships, particularly interpersonal relationships. The human resource

frame is concerned with the individual in the organization, their feelings and their needs.

The political frame or the “jungle” refers to the political nature of an organization

including the struggles of power, competition, and coalition building, as well as including

the much needed negotiation and consensus building. The symbolic frame or “temples”

refers to the “informal culture” of the organization. The symbolic frame emphasizes

symbols and rituals within an organization. In the context of the case study, it was

important for the researcher to have an understanding of organizational theory. These

four frames were selected by the researcher to guide her research design and methodology

and to provide her lens for gathering and analyzing data due to the fact that the four frame
 14

model provided by Bolman and Deal are inclusive of the entire organization. The theory

they have been working on since 1984 provided an appropriate context to study the

Balanced Scorecard at UCSD; it describes the organization in four competing and

complementary frames, similar to the concept of the Balanced Scorecard.

Research Questions

In order to understand the application and management of the Balanced Scorecard

in UCSD’s EBA, the following questions were answered through this case study:

1. How are the four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard communicated in the

EBA?

2. How are the data from the Balanced Scorecard used within the organization of

the EBA?

3. What impact does the Balanced Scorecard have on decision making in the

EBA?

Limitations of the Study

A limitation of this study is that all higher education organizations operate in a

very distinct and unique manner. It may be difficult for some higher education

organizations to find connections to this case study given the differences in mission, size,

operations, and organizational structures of their institution when compared to UCSD.

A second limitation is that since EBA is primarily a financial and administration

unit within a high education organization, their processes and applications may not work

for nonfinancial units.

 15

Delimitations of the Study

A delimitation of this study was the study site. The researcher selected UCSD

based on proximity and familiarity. Within UCSD, the EBA is the only vice chancellor

area that has adopted Balanced Scorecard. The other six vice chancellor areas have not

adopted the Balanced Scorecard.

Another delimitation of the study was that the researcher focused only on the

Balanced Scorecard performance management tool rather than other performance

management tools which are utilized at UCSD in the other vice chancellor areas.

Role of the Researcher

The researcher is currently a Director at UCSD in the Health Sciences Vice

Chancellor area. The Health Sciences’ organizational unit has not adopted the Balanced

Scorecard as a management tool; however, the researcher works with offices on a regular

basis that have adopted the Balanced Scorecard. The researcher was invested in this case

study because she wanted to gain a greater understanding of how the Balanced Scorecard

has been implemented and how this can be modeled throughout UCSD and other higher

education organizations nationwide. Even though she is an employee at UCSD, she

attempted to be unbiased and fair.

Organization of the Study

This research study is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 includes an

introduction to the study, the purpose statement, the significance of this study, research

questions, definition of terms, the limitations and delimitations of the study, and the role

of the researcher. Chapter 2 includes a review of the literature and research on the

Balanced Scorecard and its role in higher education. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of
 16

the methodology that was used in the study. Chapter 4 includes the results and analysis

that emerged from the study. Finally, Chapter 5 includes a summary of the study and

lessons learned and recommendations based on the findings.

 17

CHAPTER 2—REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The roles and expectations of higher education organizations have significantly

changed in the last decade. Higher education organizations are expected to provide a

multitude of services in addition to providing the highest quality education for their

students. Higher education organizations are expected to serve as a significant

contributor to the nation’s economic state. They are expected to contribute to their

communities via the students they educate. The students should transition quickly into

productive workers in society as both skilled and knowledge workers. They are expected

to contribute via technology advances and business start ups that emerge from academic

research. Stemming from the academic research, they are expected to contribute via

innovations that lead to new products, services, and new collaboration with industry

(Berdahl, 2009; Douglass, 2010a; Gumport & Sporn, 1999; Serrano-Valarde, 2010).

Role and Expectations of Higher Education

The new roles of the higher education organizations and the expectations placed

on them have stemmed from societal expectations, public polices, and technological

innovations. Higher education organizations are seen as a spark that once ignited can

create vast benefits for society. This new role and the expectations of higher education

organizations have created a need for university leaders to become increasingly

accountable and to develop organizational structures that can support and fulfill current

and future expectations. Higher education organizations are now being assessed on their

ability to problem solve, their ability to provide a high quality product in a low cost

environment, their ability to continue to maintain a level of access despite budget cuts,

and to produce graduates as knowledgeable and skilled workers in a reasonable

 18

timeframe. The demands upon higher education organizations require them to become

more strategic in nature, and to explore discussions of restructuring, resource

management, and quality assurance. Despite the new expectations, higher education

organizations are not expected to receive additional funding or secure new funding

streams. Rather, the reality is their operating budgets will continue to decrease (Gumport

& Sporn, 1999). As an example, it was reported in January 2011 that higher education

organizations in California should expect budget cuts of approximately $1.4 billion for

fiscal year 2011-2012 (Keller, 2011).

Higher education organizations are increasingly challenged to meet these new

expectations, given the current budget situation and the forecast of a bleak financial

future. It is the opinion of many that 2011 and future years may be equally as troubling

financially as the recent reductions higher education organizations have faced (Atkinson,

2009; Douglass, 2010a, 2010b). According to Douglass (2010b), the demand for higher

education and societal gains from higher education organizations go up during economic

downturns. There is an important relationship between the need to educate students and

provide support for academic research and the funding available during times of

economic downturn. Douglas (2010b) argues, “Education funding and enrollment

capacity may be as important as any other policy level to cope with the economic

downturn” (p. 2). Additional or continual budget cuts simply provide further limitations

on the higher education organization’s ability to meet these new expectations. The

current budget cuts will have a significant impact on graduation rates and future worker

shortages. Douglass (2010b) continues his argument, speaking specifically about the

state of affairs of higher education in California by stating, “[It is] undergoing a possibly
 19

significant redefinition, driven solely by severe budget cuts and without a long-term

strategic plan” (p. 9).

Higher Education in California

Focusing on the state of affairs of higher education in California, Douglass

(2010a) describes the near collapse of the system. The near collapse has been brought on

by the state’s fiscal weakness and therefore a lack of funding to its three-tiered structure,

the University of California System, the California State University System, and the

California Community College System. Public support for student funding has

plummeted in California and, despite the continued growth of applicants, the three-tiered

system is unable to accommodate qualified students. In addition to their capacity issues,

California is challenged by its inability to graduate students, which continues to add to the

worker shortage in the state. Many students in California are displaced and looking to

nonprofit (i.e., National University) and for-profit universities (i.e., the University of

Phoenix and Argosy University) to fill the void left by the state-supported three-tiered

system. The number of displaced students is predicted to continue to grow given that the

population in California will increase exponentially in the next 40 years. The U.S.

Census Bureau (2010) cites the current population in California at 36,961,664. It is

projected to reach 60 million by 2050 (California Department of Finance, 2007;

Douglass, 2010a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Douglass (2010c) describes the for-profit

universities as providing a lesser quality product. It may be more accessible, but it often

comes with a larger cost and a decreased level of quality. The movement to for-profit

universities as a result of lack of access is not unique to California or the United States.

Douglass (2010c) describes this phenomenon as the “Brazilian Effect.” The Brazilian
 20

Effect is “when public education cannot keep pace with the growing public demand for

access and programs. For-profits rush to fill that gap, and become a much larger

provider” (Douglass, 2010c, p. 5). The Brazilian Effect is usually more prevalent in

developing nations—nations that consist of large areas of high poverty rates, low high

school graduation rates, and limited access to higher education. The research indicates

this is more prevalent in countries such as Brazil, Korea, and Poland. California presently

is experiencing these same qualities seen in developing nations. Douglass (2010c) argues

the Brazilian Effect is presently being seen in California.

In a response to California’s near collapse, Douglass (2010b) argues for a smart

growth plan. This smart growth plan “seek[s] clear goals such as degree attainment rates,

with an appropriate restructuring of higher education, containment of costs for taxpayers

and students, and a seriously revised funding model” (Douglass, 2010b, p. 18). Of

concern for California’s three-tiered system is its lack of management, vision, and

planning for the future. It is this lack of a strategic plan that Douglass referred to that

opens the door for extensive criticism surrounding the management of higher education

organizations. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) serves as the

accreditation body for higher education organizations in the state of California and other

western states and territories. The chief goals of the senior commission of WASC,

which serves as the accrediting body for 161 institutions in California, Hawaii, and the

Pacific Basin, are the promotion of institutional engagement in issues of educational

effectiveness and student learning, the development of a culture of evidence that

informs decision making, and the fostering of an active interchange among public and

independent institutions (WASC, n.d.a). Under these goals, WASC can support higher
 21

education organizations in their development of “smart growth plans” if they choose such

a plan during the assessment of the organization. The WASC describes their purpose as

assessing academic quality, educational effectiveness and institutional structures,

processes, and resources (WASC, n.d.b). However, it does not appear this has translated

to successful management and leadership in higher education organizations in California.

Reengineering Education

As a result of the new expectations for higher education organizations, attempts

have begun to occur to reengineer higher education organizations to achieve closer

alignment with market principles and management strategies, which have proven

successful in the private sector. Green (2003) suggested that supporters of this

“reengineering” movement include leaders from educational administration, state

governments, and the business world. He argued that “traditional approaches to higher

education organizations and management are increasingly out of step with demographic

trends, technological innovations, and the accelerating pace of change found in other

sectors of society” (p. 196). Green labeled most higher education organizations as

“bureaucratic” based on their organizational structure of being rigid, hierarchal, and

inflexible. Kotler and Murphy (1981), who wrote on the topic 30 years ago, also depicted

higher education organizations in a similar fashion. They described higher education

organizations as being “characterized by a high concentration of professionals and usually

a significant amount of organizational inflexibility” (p. 472). Kotler and Murphy also

acknowledged that management strategies in higher education organizations do not

parallel the processes in a business setting. Keeling, Underhile, and Wall (2007)

discussed the silo nature of higher education organizations. They suggested the silos are
 22

due to a primarily vertical organizational structure, where members of the organization

are often competing amongst themselves for scarce resources. Green (2003) provided an

alternate option to a “bureaucracy,” that being “adhocracy.” An “adhocracy,” a term

popularized by Alvin Toffler in 1970 (as cited in Travica, 1999), is a flexible

organization, which operates collaboratively with cross-functional teams and matrix

management. An adhocracy represents an organizational structure of the future; not many

examples of true adhocracies exist.

Performance Funding

Another option being explored by some is the concept of performance funding.

Performance funding is the mechanism of being paid based on the higher education

organization’s accomplishments. Alexander (2000) explained that “this transformation

has resulted from the realization that to strengthen their competitive positioning, states

and nations must increase their involvement in the development of human capital and

research through higher education” (p. 412). Consistent with the increased expectations

of higher education organizations, there has also been a change in the interaction between

higher education organizations and the government. Governments are seeking a greater

level of production from higher education organizations, as well as an increased level of

accountability and efficiency in the organization’s use of public funds. Similar to societal

expectations, the government’s expectation of higher education organizations has

increased in terms of the organization’s return on its investment. The government

expects expanded access and enrollment growth and is continuing to seek out new ways

to measure productivity and efficiency in higher education organizations. Performance

based funding has seen its largest increase in the last decade. In 2000, three-quarters of
 23

the states linked a portion of the state funding for higher education to performance

measures. Higher education organizations continue to find themselves responsible to new

state-mandated measures which require tracking and reporting of those measures

(Petrides, McClelland, & Nodine, 2004). Liefner (2003) wrote about performance

funding. He suggested that performance funding should be defined at the organization

level. Governments should allow higher education organizations the ability to manage

their organization on an individual basis and define goals based on the historical and

culturally accepted framework of the organization versus being forced by an external

body. Petrides and colleagues (2004) concurred with Liefner. Their research suggested

responses to external mandates are not necessarily drivers of performance. External

mandates are becoming more and more prominent in higher education funding provided

by the federal government. Field (2010) explained, in an article in The Chronicle of

Higher Education, that President Obama, more than his predecessors, is demanding

results in exchange for funding. She explains that some administrators have seen this as

meddling in their academic affairs. She states, “Not surprisingly, the plans met with

skepticism from colleges. Some community-college leaders worried that benchmarking

could shift the balance of power from state and local governing boards to Washington,

setting the stage for federal meddling in curricula” (para. 18). Advocates, however, are

praising him for increased accountability and assessment. The article concludes by

explaining that higher education organizations will need to make the case for the funding

they receive. This could be viewed as another form of performance funding; but

regardless how you label it, this requires higher education organizations to have an

infrastructure that supports data gathering and metrics in order to be able to respond to the
 24

requirements from the federal government to obtain funding that is required to run their

organization.

Accreditation

A historically accepted manner to evaluate the quality of higher education

organizations is accreditation. Accreditation is defined by the federal government as:

Recognition that an institution maintains standards requisite for its graduates to

gain admission to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve

credentials for professional practice. The goal of accreditation is to ensure that

education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of

quality. (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, n.d.,

para. 1)

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA, 2003) described accreditation

as “a process of external quality review used by higher education to scrutinize colleges,

universities and educational programs for quality assurance and quality improvement”

(p. 4). In the United States, there are multiple bodies of accreditation for higher

education organizations. Accreditation is regional, national, and specialized to individual

disciplines. The definitions provided by the federal government and the CHEA speak

specifically of quality. Quality within higher education organizations, however, has as

many definitions as the number of people you ask. From the accreditator’s perspective,

quality focuses more on the educational product delivered to the student rather than

providing a direct linkage to the new expectations higher education organizations are

facing. Specifically, the WASC, Senior Commission identifies four standards for

accreditation. These are Standard I: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring

 25

Educational Objectives; Standard II: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core

Functions; Standard III: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational

Structures to Ensure Sustainability; and Standard IV: Creating an Organization

Committed to Learning and Improvement (WASC, n.d.c). Within each standard, there

are references to leadership, vision, and strategic planning. However, none of the

standards clearly articulates these new expectations, let alone the evaluation requirements

to determine whether or not higher education organizations are meeting these

expectations. The lack of focus provided by accreditation bodies on these new

expectations, higher education organizations’ role in contributing to the nation’s

economic state perpetuates the systematic issues higher education organizations face with

little accountability, inefficient practices, and insufficient leadership. Higher education

organizations, in order to maintain appropriate accreditation, are required to meet the

WASC defined standards. If accountability, efficiency, and strategic leadership was

clearly defined and articulated in terms of the new expectations of higher education

organizations by WASC, then we would see an increased number of higher education

organizations with these strengths.

As indicated by the literature, the current state of higher education in America, as

we looked specifically at California, is volatile. The current budget state, the societal

expectations, the lack of resources and bureaucratic organizational structures show higher

education to be at a state of necessary change. Higher education organizations continue

to cling to organizational systems and structure that have served them in the past, but

these systems and structures are unstable and lack the forward-thinking, strategic
 26

leadership that is necessary for higher education organizations to survive, let alone thrive

and evolve into organizations that can be successful today and into the future.

Organizational Structure and Management Tools

Despite the trend for accreditation to focus on program outcomes, quality is not

explored in terms of higher education’s role in the nation’s economic state either via the

student’s productivity in the workforce or via academic research. Given this notion

that accreditation is not providing higher education organizations with a checklist for

evaluation, organizations are forced to find ways to manage this internally. In order

to meet the new expectations, higher education organizations must examine their

organizational structure and management strategies to restructure, change, and implement

management tools that will allow them to evaluate how well they are responding to the

new expectations.

Keeling and colleagues (2007) discuss higher education organizations in the

following manner:

The organization of institutions of higher education has been seen as operating

with ambiguous purposes in vertically oriented structures that are only loosely

connected. The rationale for this ambiguity is twofold: (1) to allow for creative

thinking, and (2) to respect and even encourage the autonomy of different

disciplines. But ambiguity of purpose and vertical organization are at odds with

thinking and expectations in an era of accountability and assessment, in which

cross-institutional, or horizontal, reporting and measurement of institutional

performance are highly regarded and increasingly demanded. (p. 22)

 27

Keeling and colleagues’ argument was consistent with the new expectations of higher

education organizations. The current structure of higher education organizations no

longer fit in this era of accountability, efficiency, and productivity. Serrano-Valarde

(2010) provided a similar argument, when she discussed the role of management

consultants in higher education organizations. She described the new expectation of

higher education as a shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. The shift, she explained, was

a “shift in the perception of responsibility to society . . . to [provide] a locus for individual

development, transmission of civic values and basic research . . . to became directly

accountable for the nation’s economic well-being” (p. 126). Serrano-Valarde discussed

the role of management consultants in the academic culture within higher education

organizations. Prior to the shift of perception that Serrano-Valarde wrote of in 2010,

Kotler and Murphy (1981) discussed the need for higher education leaders who had the

strategic vision to serve as change agents. More than 30 years prior to Serrano-Valarde

describing the need for management consultants, Kotler and Murphy argued “few leaders

are able and willing to focus systematically on change; they are largely taken up in

today’s operations and results” (pp. 470-471). This inability to lead change in higher

education organizations still exists 30 years later, and Serrano-Valarde explained that this

has created a need for management consultants who, once inserted in the organization,

can serve as the change agents that most higher education organizations are lacking.

Management consultants, regardless of the cause for their presence, open the door

for higher education organizations to explore and implement strategies similar to

business. The exploration of these strategies is necessary as a response to the new

expectations of higher education organizations: the need for greater accountability,

 28

efficiency, and productivity. Gumport and Sporn (1999) described opportunities within

higher education organizations, which allow for the injection of management strategies,

the opportunities for “quality expectations [which] focus on public accountability, student

learning, faculty productivity and performance, program effectiveness, and institutional

evaluation” (p. 11). They acknowledged, however, that management strategies primarily

benefit the administrative structures and processes within higher education organizations.

They argued that over time the strategies may reach and therefore benefit the academic

side of the organization, as well. Common management strategies explored in higher

education organizations include Total Quality Management (TQM), the Baldrige Program

Award, and the Balanced Scorecard.

Total Quality Management

Total Quality Management provides higher education organizations an

opportunity to improve quality, increase performance, and decrease cost by utilizing the

mechanisms of continuous improvement and cultural change throughout the organization

(Chaffee & Sherr, 1992). According to Lozier and Teeter (1996), the early adopters of

TQM, in the mid 1980s, were largely community and technical colleges; the training

component of their missions fit nicely with the principles of TQM. Lozier and Teeter

explain, in order for higher education organizations to appropriately implement TQM,

they need to first define quality as it relates to their organization. Secondly, the need

to define their mission and vision and lastly implement processes which allow for

continuous improvement. Total Quality Management relies on a total transformation of

the organization, which is often difficult for higher education organizations which do not
 29

operate in the pure top-down model like much of the corporate world where TQM has

shown to be most successful.

The Malcolm Baldrige Award Framework

The award, which is a government program initially developed for industry, was

converted into an award for education organizations in 1999. The Malcolm Baldrige

Award evaluates organizations on seven categories including Leadership, Strategic

Planning, Customer Focus, Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management,

Workforce Focus, Operations Focus and Results (Karathanos & Karathanos, 2005).

Since 2001, the recipients of the Baldrige award have been mixed between K-12 schools

and higher education organizations. The award recipients have been recognized for their

improvement of academic ratings, graduation rates, test scores, decreased turnover rates,

and job placement for graduates, to provide some examples.

The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program website (National Institute of

Standards and Technology [NIST], 2010) summarizes accomplishments of the recent

winners. The summaries are driven by statistical improvements from previous years and

focus, in many instances, on test scores (NIST, 2010). Winn and Cameron (1998) explain

that the framework established in 1988 with the Malcolm Baldrige award has been used

across the United States, and that it provides a template for state and regional

organizational excellence awards. The framework was developed by quality theorists in

North America and Asia and covers seven dimensions: quality leadership, quality

information and analysis, strategic quality planning, human resource development and

management, management of process quality, quality and operational results, and

customer focus and satisfaction. Winn and Cameron completed a study to examine the
 30

applicability and validity of the Malcolm Baldrige framework in higher education. They

found higher education organizations were not at this level of organizational quality, but

rather the framework could be used if the higher education organization wanted to

implement a quality improvement effort. This type of quality improvement effort,

however, would require a full, systematic change of the organization given the

complexity of the elements which make up the framework.

Balanced Scorecard

The Balanced Scorecard is a management strategy. It was developed by Robert S.

Kaplan and David P. Norton in 1992 as a result of a yearlong research project which was

comprised of 12 companies who Kaplan and Norton described as being at the leading

edge of performance management. They argued the Balanced Scorecard provides

organizations with an opportunity to manage their organizations by using performance

measures, which go beyond the traditional method of simply using financial performance

as an indicator. Kaplan and Norton believed it was necessary for the organization to be

able to go beyond the traditional measures of financial performance and look at additional

key nonfinancial indicators that are essential for future success and growth. They

explained that during the industrial era these measures were sufficient, but in today’s

advanced society the exclusion of additional measures is out of step with the

competencies high performing organization must master to be successful today (Kaplan

& Norton, 1992, 2007).

The Balanced Scorecard “provides answers to four basic questions: 1) How do

customers see us?; 2) What must we excel at?; 3) Can we continue to improve and create

value?; and 4) How do we look to shareholders?” (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, p. 72). It is
 31

their opinion that the act of answering these four basic questions provides all the

information an organization requires for managing their organization. The four questions

are beneficial to the organization as follows: How do customers see us? This question

requires organizations to articulate their goals in terms of customer satisfaction.

Typically, these goals respond to issues of time, quality, performance, and service. Once

the goals are articulated, they must be translated into specific measures. An example of

this measure is issuing surveys to an organization’s customers to determine the level of

performance they perceive they are receiving. Question 2 asks, “What must we excel at?”

This question allows the organization an opportunity to focus on their internal process(es)

that have the greatest impact on customer satisfaction. Examples of the internal

process(es) they could focus on include processes that have an impact on cycle time,

quality, employee skills, and productivity. Question 3 asks, “Can we continue to improve

and create value?” This question examines the organization’s ability to be innovative.

This question focuses on the organization’s ability to innovate, improve, and learn. An

example of the measures are the continuing survey of processes and how employees in

the organizations feel about those processes. Question 4 asks, “How do we look to

shareholders?” The last quadrant of the Balanced Scorecard examines whether the

organization’s implementation and execution of strategy are contributing to the bottom

line. This is where the financial measures are found in the Balanced Scorecard, the profit

and loss statements (Kaplan & Norton, 1992).

Kaplan and Norton (1996) described the Balanced Scorecard as a strategy that

“influences managers to concentrate on improving or reengineering the processes most

critical to the organization’s strategic success” (p. 83). The Balanced Scorecard, which
 32

is currently utilized in many industries including business, healthcare, nonprofit

organizations, and education, can be used to reengineer the organization’s process to

establish strategic success. Kaplan and Norton explained that by aligning the

management processes within an organization, this strategy can assist the organization in

implementing a long term strategy and vision. The Balanced Scorecard is not a tool to

replace traditional financial measures but rather a strategy that complements the financial

measures an organization is currently using. The Balanced Scorecard is a strategy that

should be customized for each organization. It will mean different things and serve a

different role in each organization (Kaplan & Norton, 1996, 2007; Rohm, 2008). Rohm

(2002) discussed this concept, stating that the Balanced Scorecard was:

Originally developed as a framework to measure private industry nonfinancial

performance, Balanced Scorecard systems are equally applicable to public sector

organizations, but only after changes are made to account for the government

mission and mandates, not profitability, that are unique to almost all public sector

entities. (p. 1)

As a management strategy, the Balanced Scorecard has been applied to the healthcare,

nonprofit, and education industries in addition to business. Zelman, Pink, and Matthias

(2003) acknowledged that within the healthcare industry they faced some unique

challenges in adapting and customizing the Balanced Scorecard. The challenges included

medical staff relations and quality of care and professional autonomy of physicians within

the hospital setting. They were able to overcome these challenges through

personalization. For nonprofit organizations, it is equally important to adapt and

customize the Balanced Scorecard for the organization’s unique need. Kaplan (2001)
 33

argued that performance management is urgent in nonprofit organizations, specifically

citing the scarcity of funding in terms of donor, foundational, and government support.

He stated that although “the initial focus and application of the Balanced Scorecard was

in the for-profit [private] sector the opportunity for the scorecard to improve the

management of nonprofits should be even greater” (p. 354).

Balanced Scorecard and Higher Education

Total Quality Management, the Malcolm Baldrige Award Framework, and the

Balanced Scorecard have been discussed as common management strategies explored

within higher education organizations. However, the Balanced Scorecard, unlike TQM

or the Malcolm Baldrige Award Framework, serves as a tool for the organization to

implement and develop as they choose. Buy-in is necessary to get behind the Balanced

Scorecard. For it to be successful, however, its simplicity makes it an easier tool to

implement and obtain quick benefits. It is a tool that can be successfully used to respond

to the new expectations that were recently thrust upon higher education organizations.

“The Balanced Scorecard provides a framework for managing the implementation of

strategies while also allowing the strategy itself to evolve in response to changes in the

company’s competitive market, and technological environments” (Kaplan & Norton,

1996, p. 85). The new expectations require higher education organizations to become

increasingly more accountable, efficient, and productive. The Balanced Scorecard as

both a performance management strategy and a strategy for long-term strategic thinking

appropriately responds to the current needs of higher education organizations.

Green (2003) called for a reengineering of higher education, which he described

as an alternative to bureaucracy. Gumport and Sporn (1999) argued higher education

 34

organizations need to focus on public accountability, productivity, and effectiveness; and

Douglass (2010a) called for smart growth. The higher education organizations can

address these critics with the Balanced Scorecard. Douglass (2010b) described the state

of affairs of higher education in California as a system that is undergoing significant

changes in organization, staffing, and services as a result of budget cuts but having no

link to a long term strategic plan or vision for future success and growth. A management

strategy such as the Balanced Scorecard is needed to strengthen higher education

organizations. The Balanced Scorecard provides organizations the foundation to respond

to the extreme budget cuts, while maintaining their ability to meet society’s expectations;

expectations that include a direct contribution to the nation’s economy and a new level of

accountability, efficiency, and productivity. Performance funding is a real possibility for

higher education organizations, and having a performance management tool such as the

Balanced Scorecard will help prepare the organization in their response to the creative

ways the government will look to them to provide measurements of their productivity and

efficient use of public resources (Alexander, 2000). Liefner (2003) suggested higher

education organizations should be able to manage themselves at the organizational level,

but without a proven management strategy, many of these organizations will have

difficulties doing so.

Organizational Change and the Case Study

Dawson (2003) defines organizational change in its simplest form as “new ways

of organizing and working” (p. 11). He provides this simplistic definition as a definition

only. He acknowledges that it is extremely difficult to ever have one universal theory of

organizational change. Change is fluid with many moving parts; it means something
 35

different to the organization than to the individual, and it is difficult to adequately

document, even after living through it. The literature suggests that higher education

organizations need to change, or reengineer, as Green (2003) labels it. The complex

organizational and governance structures of higher education organizations will, however,

continue to restrict and limit large scale, systematic change. The Balanced Scorecard can

be successfully implemented without, at least initially, a large scale, systematic change.

In order to be successful in this implementation, higher education organizations need to

have a model, an example of a successfully implemented application of what the

Balanced Scorecard looks like.

Yin (2009) explains that, although using a case study for research purposes

remains a challenge in social science endeavors, he argues that when case studies are

developed with a rigorous methodology, it protects threats to validity. Understanding the

strengths of case study research is important in order to understand its value. The primary

strength of case study research, which is beneficial for higher education organizations, is

that the case study contributes to our knowledge of a particular phenomenon. The review

of the literature indicated there is little written on the Balanced Scorecard in higher

education and how this management strategy is or is not beneficial to meeting the new

expectations higher education organizations face. The case study method arose from the

need to understand complex social phenomena. In order for an organization to change,

leaders must understand where they are going; hence, they must have an understanding of

the phenomena and they must have a vision for the future. It is not likely that this case

study will model the exact future for other higher education organizations, but it does

provide an example that is presently lacking.

 36

Summary

In summary, higher education organizations will continue to face significant

changes in their roles and expectations. The evolution that has occurred over the last

decade requires higher education organizations to be forward thinking, to have skilled

leaders who are strategic and have the proper management strategies to respond to their

new role and expectations. These new expectations, specifically the expectation to

contribute to the nation’s economic state, provide higher education organizations with

new and unexpected challenges. These new and unexpected challenges combined with

the uncertainty of funding, whether it is performance based or unrestricted funds from

state government, will continue to put stress on the existing organizational structure of

higher education organizations. Higher education organizations must find new ways to

do business, new methods for organizing themselves and managing their performance, in

order to be successful. The Balanced Scorecard can be utilized to “enable [higher

education organizations] to align initiatives, departments, and individuals to work in ways

that reinforce each other so that dramatic performance improvements can be achieved,

used in this way, all organizational resources become aligned to accomplishing

organizational objectives” (Kaplan, 2001, p. 369).

 37

CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY

A case study research design was used to study the application of the Balanced

Scorecard in the EBA at UCSD. This chapter restates the research questions and provides

the outline for the methodology that was used in the case study. This chapter covers

descriptions of the setting, the participant stakeholders, the data collection strategies, the

analysis of the data, and the study’s limitations.

Research Design

The case study methodology was utilized to examine the Balanced Scorecard

in the EBA at UCSD. Yin (2009) explained that the “case study method allows

investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events such

as . . . organizational and managerial processes” (p. 4). Since the Balanced Scorecard’s

implementation in 1993, there has been a considerable amount of praise and recognition

granted to the Balanced Scorecard and its impact on the UCSD university community by

administrators who were involved in its implementation and application. The choice to

design a case study was informed by the need to develop a valid study to describe the

phenomena which is the Balanced Scorecard at UCSD. Stake (1995) explained, “a case

study is intended to catch the complexity of a single case” (p. xi). A case study is used

when you want to study the uniqueness and complexity of a single case in order to

understand a program in depth. A case study is about concentrating on one situation; it is

not research based upon large samples. Therefore, a case study is unlikely to provide a

strong representation of others, meaning we do not study cases to understand other cases;

but the hope is by understanding one case we can have a greater understanding when we

complete other case studies exploring a similar phenomena.

 38

This case study was organized with the intention of answering three research

questions; therefore, it is an instrumental case study. The case study is instrumental for

accomplishing the answer to the three research questions. An instrumental case study is

utilized when the researcher feels they “may get insight into the question by studying a

particular case” (Stake, 1995, p. 3). The data were gathered and analyzed utilizing

qualitative research methods.

Research Questions

In order to understand the application and management of the Balanced Scorecard

in UCSD’s EBA, the following questions were examined:

1. How are the four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard communicated in the

EBA?

2. How are the data from the Balanced Scorecard used within the organization of

the EBA?

3. What impact does the Balanced Scorecard have on decision making in the

EBA?

Setting

University of California, San Diego is located in La Jolla, California. In 2010, it

had an undergraduate enrollment of 23,143 students and a graduate enrollment of 4,274

students (UCSD, 2010b). University of California, San Diego has a significant economic

impact on the San Diego community. “UC San Diego contributes more than $7.2 billion

in direct and indirect spending and personal income each year to the California economy

and generates 39,400 jobs, based on an independent study conducted by CBRE

Consulting released” in 2008” (UCSD, 2010a, para. 7). University of California, San
 39

Diego is the third largest employer in San Diego County, employing nearly 26,000

employees. Their faculty and alumni have contributed to at least 193 start-up companies

in the San Diego community. University of California, San Diego has been ranked by

U.S. News and World Report as the seventh best public university in the nation. There

are currently five Nobel Prize winners in UCSD’s faculty body (UCSD, 2010a).

University of California, San Diego is divided into seven vice chancellor areas.

Within the seven vice chancellor areas, EBA is the focus of this study. External and

Business Affairs was selected since it is the only vice chancellor area at UCSD that has

fully implemented the Balanced Scorecard. Although there are single units throughout

UCSD that have implemented the Balanced Scorecard, and it could be argued that the

Balanced Scorecard impacts the entire campus, the only complete implementation has

been in EBA, which was the basis for choosing this area to focus the study only on EBA.

Dr. Angela Song, who currently holds the position of Director of Organizational

Performance Effectiveness in EBA, served a vital role in this case study. Dr. Song’s

position requires her to be intimately familiar with the Balanced Scorecard program and

with its data. Given her expert knowledge, she served in an advisory capacity to the

researcher. Stake (1995) asserts cases should be selected based on the ease and

cooperation of the people involved in the study. Dr. Song supported the researcher

numerous times. By including Dr. Song in an advisory capacity, the researcher was able

to gain beneficial and critical knowledge of the program to meet the objectives of the

research study, despite not having been intimately involved in the Balanced Scorecard

program.
 40

Participants

External and Business Affairs is comprised of the following seven organizational

units: Administrative Computing and Telecommunications, Human Resources, Business

and Financial Services, Housing, Dining and Hospitality Services, Alumni Affairs,

University and Health Sciences Development, and the UCSD Foundation and

Advancement Services. The participants were identified via purposive sampling; this

method is used when the researcher intends to capture a full range of participants by

allowing the researcher to select people who represent defined conditions (Weiss, 1998).

All employees in EBA were invited to complete a questionnaire, and 11 participants were

interviewed. The participants were strategically identified in order to obtain a complete

picture of the organization and how the Balanced Scorecard is part of the organization.

They were strategically identified with the assistance of Dr. Angela Song. In consultation

with Dr. Song, the emphasis, when identifying the participants, was placed on their

position in the EBA organization. The rationale for identifying three different levels in

the organization was individuals at different levels may have different reactions to the

Balanced Scorecard in terms of how it is communicated and used for decision making.

Also of interest were the responses of individuals who had been in the organization for

differing amounts of time, as they may have different responses based on the amount of

time they have spent in the organization and the amount of time using the Balanced

Scorecard.

The identified participants were given an opportunity to participate or opt out of

the study. The intention of the study was described to them in order to assist them with

making their decision. The participants in this study were also stakeholders. It was
 41

important that the participants understood their dual role of stakeholder and participant.

This case study may have interrupted staff routines and intruded in the work domain of

staff. The researcher was aware of this and was respectful of it. Special attention was

paid to the potential vulnerable state of the participants. The special attention was paid in

order to impress the confidentially of the conversations and information shared (Weiss,

1998).

Data Collection and Analysis

A descriptive case study approach was used for this study. The qualitative

data collection methods included the interviews, while surveys were used to collect

quantitative data. In addition to collecting data for the study, the researcher reviewed

program records currently utilized in EBA, and completed observations of unit websites.

The program records are the completed Balanced Scorecards for units within EBA. Data

collection began with an initial interview with Steve W. Relyea; that interview was

followed by an interview with Dr. Angela Song. Mr. Relyea serves as the Vice

Chancellor for External and Business Affairs and was a key player in making the decision

to implement the Balanced Scorecard at UCSD. Dr. Song serves as the Director of

Organizational Performance Effectiveness. Mr. Relyea and Dr. Song provided both an

historical context of the Balanced Scorecard at UCSD and the current state of the

application of the Balanced Scorecard at UCSD. The following questions were asked of

Mr. Relyea:

• What led to the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard?

• What other performance management tools did you consider?

• How has the application of the Balanced Scorecard evolved since 1993?
 42

• In what ways are the Balanced Scorecard principles and results communicated

throughout the organization?

• In what ways are the data utilized for decision making?

• In what ways has the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard surprised you?

• What changes are anticipated for the Balanced Scorecard at UCSD?

• If you had the opportunity to ask employees one question about the use of the

Balanced Scorecard, what would it be?

The following questions were asked of Dr. Song:

• What led to the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard?

• What other performance management tools did you consider?

• How has the application of the Balanced Scorecard evolved since 1993?

• In what ways are the Balanced Scorecard principles and results communicated

throughout the organization?

• In what ways are the data utilized for decision making?

• In what ways has the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard surprised you?

• What changes are anticipated for the Balanced Scorecard at UCSD?

Interviews

Three units were selected for interviews. The three units selected were Unit A,

Unit B, and Unit C. These three units were selected based on their diversity in size,

scope, and length of involvement in the Balanced Scorecard. Unit A consisted of

13 subunits and 79 employees, Unit B consisted of 6 subunits and 250 employees, and

Unit C consisted of 10 subunits and 24 employees. Both Unit A and Unit B have been

involved in the Balanced Scorecard since implementation in 1993, while Unit C was
 43

reorganized into EBA in 2009 and has only been involved in the Balanced Scorecard

since 2010. Each unit is led by an Assistant Vice Chancellor (AVC) and the three AVC’s

have differing lengths of tenure in their positions.

Within each unit, the AVC, a subunit manager, and a first level supervisor within

the same subunit were interviewed. Nine confidential interviews were completed and the

following questions were asked:

• In your own words, what is the Balanced Scorecard?

• In what ways is the Balanced Scorecard communicated throughout the

organization?

• In what ways are the data utilized for decision making?

• What primary impact do you believe the Balanced Scorecard has on the

organization?

• How can the Balanced Scorecard be made more useful to you? (Mr. Relyea’s

question: see the eighth question under Mr. Relyea’s interview questions.)

All interviews lasted between 15 and 30 minutes and followed a structured format, with

the possibility for the researcher to follow up on their answers as needed. The interview

questions focused on communication of the Balanced Scorecard and the impact the

Balanced Scorecard data have made in decision making. Each interview was audio

recorded and was transcribed verbatim. The interviewees were given an opportunity to

review their answers prior to them being “final” and included in the results. Although

names were used during the interview process, the transcripts contained no identifying

markers. All information recorded in these interviews was destroyed upon completion of

this dissertation research.

 44

Survey

This was an anonymous survey that was sent out electronically to over 1,000

employees within EBA. The survey consisted of five yes/no questions. The survey was

intended to obtain a contextual understanding of the Balanced Scorecard and the

familiarity the employees in EBA had with it. The survey focused on communication, the

method in which the Balanced Scorecard is communication within EBA, access to data,

how accessible the Balanced Scorecard data is to the employees in EBA and decision

making, and how the Balanced Scorecard is used within EBA for making decisions. The

survey responses were anonymous; names were not collected on the survey. The survey

asked for the employee’s unit affiliation, years worked in EBA, and role within the unit.

The following questions were asked in the survey:

• Have you heard the term Balanced Scorecard used in your unit/department?

Yes or No

• Is the Balanced Scorecard discussed in the meetings held in your unit/

department?

Yes or No

• Is the Balanced Scorecard data used when setting the goals for your unit/

department?

Yes or No

• Do you know how to access data gathered from the Balanced Scorecard?

Yes or No
 45

• Do you feel the Balanced Scorecard is a significant factor in the decision

making in your unit?

Yes or No

• Please share any additional comments regarding the Balanced Scorecard.

Program Records

The same three units, Unit A, Unit B, and Unit C, identified for interviews

provided completed examples of their Balanced Scorecard. These scorecards were used

to identify what data are collected for each unit and how it was used in the organization

for decision making. The Scorecards provided the researcher with a clear view of the

four perspectives that Balanced Scorecard focuses on. Each Scorecard provided the data

they collect for each of the four perspectives, Financial/Stakeholder, Internal Process,

Innovation and Learning, and Customer. The collected data were:

1. Financial/stakeholder perspective, which utilizes tools such as profit/loss

statements, balance sheets, and budget reports.

2. Internal process perspective, which measures productivity and effectiveness

through benchmarks.

3. Innovation & learning perspective, which measures how employees feel

through a survey titled Staff@Work which is conducted annually.

4. Customer perspective, which measures customers views through customer

surveys conducted annually for staff, faculty, and students.

An example of the Balanced Scorecard template can be found in Appendix B. The

researcher reviewed 5 years of Balanced Scorecards for Unit A and Unit B and 2 years

for Unit C, because unit C only had 2 years. Additionally, the researcher observed the
 46

websites for the three units, Unit A, Unit B, and Unit C, identified for interviews. The

observations were important for the researcher to examine how the information regarding

the Balanced Scorecard is available electronically.

Data Analysis

A descriptive case study approach was selected for this study in order to evaluate

the depth and breadth of the Balanced Scorecard. Specifically, the interviews with

Mr. Relyea and Dr. Song, as well as the review of the Balanced Scorecards and

observations, provided the context for the case study. The interviews within each unit

(i.e., Unit A, Unit B, and Unit C) allowed the researcher to discuss in greater depth

communication, access to data, and use in decision making with multiple employees

within each unit who were employed at varying levels, thus providing the depth of

responses for the case study. The data obtained through the survey, interviews, review of

program records, and observations were triangulated in order to answer the study’s

research questions. Multiple methods of data collection were used to increase the

confidence of the researcher. In having multiple data sources, the researcher was able to

examine agreement and discrepancies across methods and participants. Data analysis in

descriptive case study research is an iterative process; it requires the researcher to be

flexible and allow the data to drive the research. In a case study, the researcher attempts

to truly understand the case; the researcher is simultaneously examining meaning while

redirecting the observations to refine and substantiate those meanings (Stake, 1995). The

researcher obtained the raw data. As she obtained the data, she remained flexible and

reflective in order to follow where the data lead. She organized and prepared the data for

analysis. The Glaser and Strauss (as cited in Taylor & Bogdan, 1998) constant
 47

comparative method was utilized for data analysis for both the open-ended portion of

surveys and interviews. The yes/no section of the surveys were quantified and totaled to

provide response totals, which were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the program

records and website were reviewed using content analysis. These methods allowed the

researcher to code and analyze the data simultaneously (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998).

Themes were identified from the data, which were then interpreted for meaning. Validity

was obtained through triangulation as the themes were obtained from different sources of

data (Creswell, 2009).

Timeline

Data collection commenced in April 2011 and was completed in May 2011. The

interviews with Mr. Relyea and Dr. Song occurred first, followed by the individual

interviews, then the survey, and lastly the review of program records and observations in

conjunction with the review of data collected.

Ethical Principles Based on Human Subjects

The principle of respect for persons states that participants’ thoughts and

decisions must be honored. All participants provided their consent via the informed

consent process. In order to ensure the application of this principle, a form was provided

to the participants which outlined, for the participants’ clarification, the study’s purpose,

potential risks and benefits of participating in the study, as well as statements about

confidentiality. Participants who intended to participate were asked to read the form and

were told that by participating they were providing informed consent. The study was

designed to minimize all potential risks to the participants. The information provided by

the participants remained anonymous. All collected data were absent of identifiable
 48

markers and were stored on the researcher’s personal computer. The researcher was the

only person with access to the data. The computer files were password protected.

Role of the Researcher

The researcher for this study was an employee at UCSD but was not employed in

EBA. The researcher was a senior leader in a different vice chancellor area with differing

levels of interactions with the various organizational units in EBA. Therefore, the

researcher in some respects appeared to the participants as an outsider and in other

respects someone with whom they were intimately familiar. It was important that the

researcher’s role in the organization not create biases in the study.

Limitations

Consistent will all studies, there were limitations that apply to the methodologies

of this case study. For the surveys, one limitation was participation. The study was

impacted by the number of respondents to the surveys. Limitations for the interviews

included the identification of participants, the individual who identified the participants

could “stack the deck” in order to allow for a certain result. Additionally, there was no

anonymity for the interviewees; although the interview responses once transcribed was

removed of identifying information, the interview was completed with the researcher. The

researcher, therefore, must assume that interviewees provided honest and factual answers.

Another limitation for the study is the data are partially derived from secondary sources.

Summary

In order to fully address the study’s research questions, a case study was

completed utilizing interviews, surveys, review of program records, and observations.

 49

The data were collected utilizing different data sources. The data were analyzed using the

constant comparative method and descriptive statistics.

 50

CHAPTER 4—FINDINGS

This chapter examines the application and management of the Balanced Scorecard

at UCSD. Utilizing a case study methodology, the researcher took an in-depth look at the

application of the Balanced Scorecard in the EBA vice chancellor area at UCSD. The

application of the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool was examined to see how

one higher education organization has applied the Balanced Scorecard. This case study

explored in which ways the personalized perspectives/foci were communicated

throughout the organization and how the Balanced Scorecard was used for decision

making. This detailed view of a Balanced Scorecard application within a higher

education organization will provide other higher education organizations an example that

is missing in the existing literature.

In this chapter, the researcher provides the findings of the case study. The chapter

is organized to first provide information regarding the participants in the case study;

second, description of the data sources; and lastly, providing the themes that emerged

from the data collection. Within each of the data sources, the researcher identified

themes that emerged from that data source. In order to determine lessons learned from

the case study, the researcher did not use one data set to inform conclusions; rather, the

researcher used all the data sources holistically. In Chapter 5, the researcher will provide

the lessons learned. The lessons learned emerged from reviewing the findings in a

holistic manner. The themes that are discussed within this chapter will provide the

foundation for lessons learned discussed in Chapter 5, which are a result of the researcher

identifying the interrelations of the findings from each data source.

 51

The researcher utilized the following research questions to identify and describe

the themes that emerged during this case study:

1. How are the four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard communicated in the

EBA?

2. How are the data from the Balanced Scorecard used within the organization of

the EBA?

3. What impact does the Balanced Scorecard have on decision making in the

EBA?

Participant Profiles

The participants in this case study were employees in the EBA. The researcher

completed a quantitative survey with all employees and qualitative interviews with 11

selected employees in the EBA. All employees in the EBA were invited to participant in

the quantitative survey. The 11 employees interviewed represented three units within the

EBA. They were selected to provide a closer look at how the organization communicates

and utilizes data for decision making in regards to the Balanced Scorecard. The survey

and interview participants are described below.

Survey

All employees within the EBA were invited to participate in a five-question

yes/no survey. The survey was sent electronically to over 1,000 employees within the

EBA. The following tables represent the survey participants. Of the more than 1,000

employees invited to complete the survey, 164 employees completed the survey.

Within the EBA, there are seven units. They are Administrative Computing and

Telecommunications (ACT), Human Resources (HR), Business and Fiscal Services

 52

(BFS), Housing, Dining, and Hospitality Services (HDHS), Alumni Affairs (AA),

University and Health Sciences Development (UHSD), and the UCSD Foundation and

Advancement Services (UFAS). An organizational view of the units is found in

Appendix A.

The 164 participants were asked to state their unit affiliation. Of those who

participated, 23 declined to identify their unit affiliation. Table 2 provides the EBA unit

affiliation for the 164 participants. The unit affiliation of the participants were as

follows: 6.7% were from ACT, 6.7% were from HR, 33.5% were from BFS, 27.4% were

from HDHS, 2.4% were from AA, 6.7% were from UHSD, 2.4% were from UFAS, and

14.0% declined to identify their unit affiliation. The distribution of the units who

participated in the survey is not typical of the distribution of employees in the units within

EBA. In terms of survey participation, BFS and HDHS had the greatest representation of

the EBA units; BFS and HDHS are large units, however HR and ACT are also large units

and had little participation. It is unclear the motivation of the participants who

participated from each of the units.

Table 2

Unit Affiliation of Survey Participants

Unit

Declined
% or n ACT HR BFS HDHS AA UHSD UFAS to identify

% 6.7 6.7 33.5 27.4 2.4 6.7 2.4 14.0

n 11 11 55 45 4 11 4 23

The 164 participants were asked to state their number of years of service. Of the

164 participants, 136 participants provided their years of service, while 28 declined to
 53

identify their years of service. The years of service for the participants are stated in

Table 3 and as follows: 8.5% have been employed for 1 year or less, 28.7% have been

employed for 2 to 5 years, 18.3% have been employed for 6 to 10 years, 10.4% have been

employed for 11 to 15 years, 5.5% have been employed for 16 to 20 years, 6.1% have

been employed for 21 to 25 years, 1.8% have been employed for 26 to 30 years, 3.7%

have been employed for more than 30 years, and 17.1% declined to identify their years of

services.

Table 3

Years of Service of Survey Participants

Years

Declined
% or n 0-1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 30+ to identify

% 8.5 28.7 18.3 10.4 5.5 6.1 1.8 3.7 17.1

n 14 47 30 17 9 10 3 6 28

The majority of the participants, 98, have been employed in the organization less

than 15 years. The years of service distribution is not consistent with the distribution of

employee years of service within the organization. External and Business Affairs has a

workforce that has extensive experience and commitment to the organization, which has

been created by employees who have worked in the organization for many years. The

motivation for participation in the survey is unclear. The years of service does not appear

to be reflective of the years of service for the entire EBA organization.

The 164 participants were asked to state their role in the unit. Of the 164

participants, 138 stated their role within their unit, while 26 participants declined to

identify their role. The unit roles are provided in Table 4 and as follows: of the 164
 54

participants 11.6% were assistants, 12.8% were specialists, 27.4% were analysts, 7.3%

were managers, 18.3% were directors, 6.7% identified themselves as other, and 15.9%

declined to identify.

Table 4

Position of Survey Participants

Position

Declined to
% or n Assistant Specialist Analyst Manager Director Other identify

% 11.6 12.8 27.4 7.3 18.3 6.7 15.9

n 19 21 45 12 30 11 26

The position distribution of the participants is not consistent with the distribution

within EBA. The fact that Directors are a large percentage and second to the analyst

category, suggests they were interested in providing their feedback on the Balanced

Scorecard. At the Director level. it would seem they should be more informed about the

Balanced Scorecard than some others within the organization who are at a lower level.

The survey was sent to over 1,000 employees in the organization and only 164

choose to participate. External and Business Affairs employees received an invitation

that outlined the survey and provided a brief introduction of the study. The explanation

for the limited participation is unclear. The distribution of the 164 survey participants

may not be representative of the general EBA population, and there were a large amount

of participants who declined to identify descriptive information.

Interviews

The interviewees represented three units within the EBA: Unit A, Unit B, and

Unit C. These three units were selected based on their diversity in size, scope, and length
 55

of involvement in the Balanced Scorecard. Unit A consisted of 13 subunits and

79 employees, Unit B consisted of 6 subunits and 250 employees, and Unit C consisted of

10 subunits and 24 employees. Both Unit A and Unit B had been involved in the

Balanced Scorecard since implementation in 1993, while Unit C was reorganized into

EBA in 2009 and has only been involved in the Balanced Scorecard since 2010. Each

unit is led by an Assistant Vice Chancellor (AVC). The three AVCs had differing lengths

of tenure in their positions. Within each unit, three employees were identified based on

their position within the unit. With the exception of Mr. Relyea and Dr. Song,

pseudonyms were used to protect confidentiality. Table 5 provides a summary view of

the participants that were interviewed. Each of the three units selected for interviews

were typical units that are found in higher education organizations. Unit A and Unit B

were primarily transactional organizations that provide largely transactional business

services to the entire campus, as well as providing services to limited external entities.

Unit C primarily served external entities and its services were less transactional business

services. Four of the 11 interviewees had been employed in the EBA since the

implementation of the Balanced Scorecard. The AVC of Unit A and Unit B were leaders

within EBA when the Balanced Scorecard was implemented, while the AVC of Unit C

was new to the EBA and to the Balanced Scorecard. The first line supervisor in Unit B

had been with EBA since the Balanced Scorecard implementation, while all other

employees in Unit A and B had been in EBA for at least 8 years. All employees in Unit C

had been in EBA since a campus-wide reorganization in 2009.

 56

Table 5

Interview Participants

Years worked with the

Interviewee Position Years of service Balanced Scorecard
Mr. Relyea Vice Chancellor for EBA 34 Since implementation
Dr. Song Director of Organizational 8 8
Performance Effectiveness
Mr. Ryon Unit A, AVC 20 Since implementation
Mr. Tomin Unit A, Subunit Manager 9 9
Mr. Pearson Unit A, First Line Supervisor 9 9
Mr. Rowan Unit B, AVC 19 Since implementation
Ms. Duncan Unit B, Subunit Manager 20 11
Mr. Troy Unit B, First Line Supervisor 20 Since implementation
Mr. Hershel Unit C, AVC 14 2
Ms. Logan Unit C, Subunit Manager 16 2
Ms. Bailey Unit C, First Line Supervisor 3 2

Source of Findings

In order to fully examine the application and management of the Balanced

Scorecard, multiple sources were used during the case study. The data sources included

review of program records, website observations, a quantitative survey, and qualitative

interviews.

Program Records

The researcher reviewed program records which are the subunit’s Balanced

Scorecards and supporting documents that are instrumental for the Balanced Scorecard

process. These include data from the surveys the EBA collected annually, the

performance evaluation from the EBA, and a review of the unit’s websites. The subunit
 57

refers to the organization in which the subunit manager and first line supervisor work.

The program records and website observations provided the context for the case study in

order to adequately answer the research questions. The subunit’s Balanced Scorecard

provided the researcher with a view of the data the subunit utilizes for their decision

making in terms of the Balanced Scorecard.

The secondary sources were reviewed in order to provide the researcher the

context for the participant’s responses in the survey and interviews. The researcher

reviewed the secondary sources to validate the responses that were provided by the

participants; the researcher used content analysis to analyze the secondary sources. In

reviewing the program records and observing the websites, the researcher was able to see

the depth of data captured by the Balanced Scorecard and the extent to which the data are

shared within EBA and publicly via the unit’s websites.

There was one primary theme that emerged during the review of the program

records, the Balanced Scorecards, and the review of the website. The data provided are

extremely detailed and very extensive. In reviewing a sample scorecard (a sample is

provided in Appendix B), the information is concisely documented on one page. It

provides years of data which shows trends over time. The website also provides detailed

and extensive information, which is available to any individual regardless of their

affiliation with EBA.

Survey

The researcher invited all EBA employees to participate in a five question yes/no

survey. The survey was intended to provide the context for the case study. One hundred
 58

sixty-four employees participated in the survey; the responses of the survey are presented

in Table 6.

Table 6

Survey Responses

Yes No

Did not
Question % n % n respond (n)
1. Have you heard the term Balanced 68.6 94 3.14 44 24
Scorecard used in your unit/
department?
2. Is the Balanced Scorecard discussed 52.9 72 47.1 64 28
in the meetings held in your unit/
department?
3. Is the Balanced Scorecard data used 58.2 78 41.8 56 30
when setting the goals for your unit/
department?
4. Do you know how to access data 32.9 46 67.1 94 24
gathered from the Balanced
Scorecard?
5. Do you feel the Balanced Scorecard 48.1 63 51.9 68 33
is a significant factor in the
decision making in your unit?

The survey provided information on how well the Balanced Scorecard is

communicated within EBA. For question 1, of the 164 participants, excluding the 24 that

did not respond, 68.6% of the participants had heard of the Balanced Scorecard; however,

31.4% had never heard of it before. For question 2, although 68.6% of the participants

had heard of the Balanced Scorecard before, only 52.9% stated the Balanced Scorecard

was discussed in unit/department meetings. Forty-seven percent stated they had not

discussed the Balanced Scorecard in unit/department meetings, and 28 of the 164

participants did not respond to the question. For question 3, 58.2% of the participants, 30
 59

did not respond, stated the Balanced Scorecard data were used when goals were set in the

unit/department; 41.8% stated it was not used for goal setting in the unit/department. For

question 4, 24 of the 164 participants did not respond when asked if they knew how to

access the data from the Balanced Scorecard. Of the participants that did respond, 32.9%

stated they did know how to access the data, while 67.1% did not know how to access it.

For question 5, the participants were asked if they felt the Balanced Scorecard played a

significant factor in decision making within the unit. Thirty-three participants chose not

to respond. Of those who did, 48.1% felt the Balanced Scorecard was significant in

decision making, while 51.9% felt it was not a significant factor in decision making.

The participants were also given an opportunity to provide any additional

comments regarding the Balanced Scorecard. Fifty open-ended responses were received.

The responses were clustered into three primary categories. The three categories were:

the Balanced Scorecard is extremely valuable in the organization, there is no value in the

Balanced Scorecard/it’s a management ploy, and they have never heard of the Balanced

Scorecard before. There were 13 responses which spoke of the value of the Balanced

Scorecard. Examples of these responses were “an extremely high level of importance is

placed upon the data obtained through this tool and drives much of our direction and

change-management”; “Mr. Relyea had [an] incredible vision to adopt this valuable

program”; and “in conjunction with the Customer Satisfaction Survey, the Balanced

Scorecard informs our strategic planning process.” There were seven negative responses

about the Balanced Scorecard and how the management tool was more of a ploy rather

than a tool that provided any real value to the organization. Sample responses were: “it’s

a good front for management justification for bad decisions, but they hardly acted in
 60

earnest”; and “its used more for appearance than real decision making. We don’t even

really know what some of the scores mean, but we dutifully play along because that’s

what the leadership wants to see.” Eighteen of the responses indicated they had never

heard of the Balanced Scorecard before; sample responses from this category included:

“unfamiliar with Scorecard”; “I did not know what a Balanced Scorecard was used or

what it is. It would be nice to know what this is and how the information obtained helps

management create goals for our unit”; and “I have no idea what a Balanced Scorecard is,

this is the first time I have seen this term used.”

Ultimately, the survey provided the researcher with information regarding how

employees throughout the organization, those who chose to participate, felt about the

Balanced Scorecard. The researcher was not able to generalize the survey responses to all

of EBA, given the participant distribution was not consistent with the EBA population,

and only 164 of the 1000 employees chose to participate, a response rate of approximately

16%. The researcher acknowledges these are limitations to the survey results; however,

the information shared by the participants is helpful for obtaining context for this study.

The primary theme which emerged from the survey, from the yes/no questions and the

open-ended responses, is there is a general lack of knowledge and understanding of the

Balanced Scorecard.

Interviews

Eleven interviews were completed in order to obtain firsthand responses regarding

how the Balanced Scorecard is communicated throughout the organization, how the data

is used in the organization, and the impact it has on decision making.

 61

Historical Perspective

Mr. Relyea, Vice Chancellor for EBA and Dr. Song, Director of Organizational

Performance Effectiveness, were interviewed to obtain context for the case study by

providing a historical perspective of the Balanced Scorecard at UCSD. Mr. Relyea, in

his position as the Vice Chancellor for EBA, is the visionary, the champion, and the

executive leader in the organization for the Balanced Scorecard. Dr. Song directs all

components of the Balanced Scorecard. She serves as the organization’s expert and

provides all the analysis and interpretation of the Balanced Scorecard data. She consults

internally and externally on Balanced Scorecard matters and provides recommendations

within the organization. In conjunction with her team, she ensures the validity and

maintenance of the Balanced Scorecard data.

Implementation

Mr. Relyea recalled during our interview that implementation occurred after he

read and shared with his leadership team the initial Balanced Scorecard article, “The

Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance,” which was written by Bob

Kaplan and David Norton (1992) and published in the Harvard Business Review. He

shared that the university at that time, in 1993, similar to our current fiscal climate, was

going through budget cuts. Dr. Song confirmed and added it was a time of increased

federal regulations, similar to today. As a senior leader within the organization,

Mr. Relyea viewed the concepts identified by Kaplan and Norton and felt the Balanced

Scorecard as described by Kaplan and Norton was a “reasonable tool” that could be

successfully adapted to work in the university environment. One of the benefits

Mr. Relyea saw in the Balanced Scorecard was that it:

 62

Seemed to be a very straightforward, understandable, practical way of getting your

head around what the organization is doing and where it’s heading and what is the

delta between where you are now and where you want to be and how you can take

actions.

The decision was first made to try the Balanced Scorecard out for 1 year. After

the first year, it was decided to do it again for a second year. The leadership team at

UCSD found that the longer the Balanced Scorecard was used the more valuable it

became, particularly because over time the leadership team was able to identify trends in

the data and act on those trends for the betterment of the organization. Mr. Relyea

explained that one of the reasons the Balanced Scorecard became more valuable over

time was that the organization “get[s] better at it.” In the beginning, the four perspectives

which were provided by Kaplan and Norton were examined by Mr. Relyea and his

leadership team to determine their applicability at UCSD. Mr. Relyea explained that the

level of personalization that occurred depended on the Balanced Scorecard perspective;

Financial, Internal Business, Innovation, and Learning and Customer (Kaplan & Norton,

1992). He shared that the customer’s perspective required the least amount of

personalization, whereas the financial perspective required the most personalization. This

was due to the fact that the initial work on the Balanced Scorecard by Kaplan and Norton

focused on for-profit companies. Mr. Relyea shared that in terms of the financial

perspectives, business process metrics were easier and more straightforward in cases such

as the campus bookstore and campus restaurants, while it was much more difficult in

areas such as IT. A lot of tweaking of the metrics, he acknowledged, was required.

Through the years the leadership at UCSD has relied on social scientist consultants to
 63

assist in the evolution of the Balanced Scorecard in terms of defining and reviewing the

metrics and tools for obtaining the data in order to maintain its applicability and

usefulness. Mr. Relyea clearly articulated that the “rule of Balanced Scorecard [is], what

you measure is what you get.”

Lessons Learned

Mr. Relyea shared some of the lessons that have been learned over the years; one

of the primary lessons was that less value was provided by measuring EBA and UCSD

against other higher education organizations. Leadership within UCSD gained the most

value from measuring their metrics against themselves over time. Mr. Relyea explained,

What has been valuable is comparing ourselves to ourselves over a period of time

because we have been so regular, consistent about doing this and not monkeying

around with metrics too much where they can’t be compared from year to year.

Another lesson Mr. Relyea shared was that he would not force other parts of campus to

implement the Balanced Scorecard. He acknowledged that he has been pleased to see the

Balanced Scorecard spread to other parts of the campus, but he is not going to “lead them

into it.” A lesson that surprised Mr. Relyea was the process in which UCSD leadership,

via the Balanced Scorecard, were able to shift the culture. Mr. Relyea relayed that he

expected push back when the Balanced Scorecard was implemented throughout the

organization. He was surprised, however, where the primary pushback came from,

I thought the biggest push back would be from the people on the front lines . . . the

people who are at the transactional level would say okay management is hoisting

upon us this crazy management paradigm . . . . Guess what, I was wrong. People

in the front lines loved it, why did they love it . . . it forced management to
 64

articulate what was expected of them, what was important and what the rules

were.

He shared that middle management was initially the most resistant because now it was

clear what the metrics were; there was essentially a direct line of communication from top

management to the front lines saying this is what is important to us. When it was

articulated that this is what we are going to measure, people started stepping up to show

improvement, Mr. Relyea explained, “That is just human nature.”

Recent Changes

Mr. Relyea shared that his organization had recently changed. In 2009,

Mr. Relyea’s organization, EBA, took on new units and began exposing them to the

Balanced Scorecard:: “I have taken on some additional units which are not exposed to

this methodology and so we’re kind of slowly introducing those units.” Dr. Song shared

that activities have taken place to set up metrics for these new units and include them in

the data gathering activities involved in the Balanced Scorecard.

Interview Themes

Responses from the nine interviewees, the AVC, subunit manager, and first line

supervisor for each of the three units are summarized below. The responses are

summarized separately for each unit in order to provide trends or lack thereof in

responses to each question within that unit. However, interview themes for each question

are described as well. Mr. Relyea’s and Dr. Song’s responses are excluded in these

summaries and therefore the interview themes. Their responses to these questions are

included, however, in the overall study themes which emerged utilizing all data gathered

within the study. The interview responses from Ms. Bailey, the first line supervisor in
 65

Unit C, are not included in the summaries below. She was unable to answer any

questions about the Balanced Scorecard because of the choice Mr. Hershel, the AVC for

Unit C, has made to translate the Balanced Scorecard data into more familiar terms within

his unit initially, since this is their second year using the Balanced Scorecard, and he is

managing this transition to full Balanced Scorecard utilization carefully.

A Tool With Many Names

Each interviewee was asked to define the Balanced Scorecard. Within Unit A,

Mr. Ryon, the AVC for Unit A, described the Balanced Scorecard as “a business model

that allows us to take a look at the scope of services [they] are providing; it assists us as a

diagnostic tool.” While his direct report, Mr. Tomin, the subunit manager for Unit A,

defined it as “a measurement tool,” and Mr. Pearson, the first line supervisor for Unit A

described it as a goal setting tool, adding that at his level he does not refer to it as the

Balanced Scorecard: “I never call it the Balanced Scorecard, so in my words I look at it as

more of, it is our goal setting.” Within Unit A, each of the interviewees sees the

Balanced Scorecard as a tool which is beneficial for them to do their business. Despite

the fact that Mr. Pearson does not refer to the Balanced Scorecard by name, it seems as

though he is using it with his staff to impact the way they do business in terms of goal

setting.

Within Unit B, Mr. Rowan, the AVC for Unit B, explained that the Balanced

Scorecard is “a management method . . . a way to look at what is really key in our success

as a business.” Ms. Duncan, the subunit manager for Unit B, defined the Balanced

Scorecard as “an organizational approach to doing business.” Mr. Troy, the first line

supervisor for Unit B, however, explained the specific components of the Balanced
 66

Scorecard in detail but shared that this is not something that is discussed other than at

performance evaluation time. Mr. Rowan and Ms. Duncan spoke of the Balanced

Scorecard and its impact on business within their unit. Mr. Troy was able to speak in

detail to describe the Balanced Scorecard; however, he spoke of its value while

completing performance evaluations.

Within Unit C, Mr. Hershel, the AVC for Unit C, the unit which has only been

involved in the Balanced Scorecard for 2 years, described the Balanced Scorecard as “an

organizational construct or framework that enables organization leadership to evaluate, to

plan, evaluate and monitor the performance of an organization along four primary areas.”

Ms. Logan, the subunit manager of Unit C, defined it as “an evaluation or report card.”

Given that Unit C is new to the Balanced Scorecard, they are still working to fully

implement it within their organization and fully adapt to the new concepts. Mr. Hershel

and Ms. Logan are discussing this concept within their unit and looking at how the tool

can be utilized fully.

Communication Is an Individual Choice

Each interviewee was asked to discuss the ways in which the Balanced Scorecard

is communicated throughout the organization. Within Unit A, Mr. Ryon, the AVC for

Unit A, shared that in his unit, he discusses it regularly at all-staff meetings. He added,

“Its kept visible with the entire staff, not only in these group forms but very much

individually as well.” He relies on his managers to assist in sharing the message; he

stated, “the Balanced Scorecard is something that each of my managers in this department

utilizes in sitting down with their staff.” Mr. Tomin, the subunit manager in Unit A,
 67

confirmed Mr. Ryon’s statements. He stated that in his unit, “it comes from the top

through Mr. Ryon.” He added:

Basically every year we will do a review or goal setting based upon the Balanced

Scorecard. So we’re required to set our goals so Mr. Ryon will say, here’s the

Balanced Scorecard agenda so go through it within your teams and then come

back and decide what, you know, what goals you will be working towards; and

then he will decide, okay yeah, that is a good one or give you suggestions on some

other things to shoot for.

Mr. Pearson, the first line supervisor in Unit A, also confirmed Mr. Ryon’s statement. He

shared within Unit A, “the Balanced Scorecard results themselves typically are going to

go to Mr. Ryon and then Mr. Ryon will provide, share the information usually to us at

staff meetings.” He added, “If the results came out in a timeframe where the meeting

wasn’t going to be soon, [he] would share with the Directors and [they] brought [it] down

to myself, then my staff. We’re always made aware.” It seemed that within Unit A there

is a conscious attempt by Mr. Tomin and those who report to him to share the information

learned as a result of the Balanced Scorecard activities. Mr. Pearson may not have

significant impact at his level to respond to the Balanced Scorecard data results, but at his

level he is kept informed.

Within Unit B, Mr. Rowan, the AVC in Unit B, shared that in his unit, the

Balanced Scorecard is “communicated on our websites, we communicated verbally, in

written communication, when we gather our employees together we talk about what this

means and how we use it.” He spoke specifically of data that are captured and provided

on Unit B’s website: “We have a sharepoint site that has all of the results of the surveys
 68

and other benchmark information that we gather on that site for every division at Unit B.”

Ms. Duncan, the subunit manager for Unit B, acknowledged that it comes from

Mr. Rowan. She shared,

I think that it is communicated through several presentations, communication that

trickles down from Mr. Rowan to a leadership team, within our [the subunit of

Unit B] organization the Balanced Scorecard is communicated through the

performance evaluation, our goal and defining what our mission is, as well as the

constant discussion through our meetings.

Mr. Troy, the first supervisor for Unit B, confirmed that the Balanced Scorecard is

communicated through the performance evaluation process; however, he added, “I think

at one point in time it was communicated very effectively years ago. It hasn’t been

revisited.” Within Unit B, it seems the attempt is made to carefully and consistently

communicate the Balanced Scorecard within the organization. Mr. Rowan discusses the

use of websites such as sharepoint and meetings, which Ms. Duncan confirms; however,

Mr. Troy, at his level, as a first line supervisor, shared he felt it is not being

communicated effectively. Mr. Rowan and Ms. Duncan seemed very confident that the

Balanced Scorecard was being successfully communicated within Unit B; however,

Mr. Troy felt it needed to be revisited.

Within Unit C, Mr. Hershel, the AVC for Unit C, being new to the Balanced

Scorecard, shared that his unit has begun to incorporate it into their culture. He stated

that,

I’ve shared it with our [unit], the Scorecard’s been shared, it’s been a challenge

for me . . . we review them once at a management team meeting, but I mainly take
 69

the translation responsibility right now . . . what I do is make sure they understand

we have customer accountabilities, efficiency, and you know operational

excellence.

Given that Mr. Hershel takes the responsibility to translate the Balanced Scorecard

currently for his unit, neither the subunit manager nor first line supervisor provided a

relevant response to this question. This is a choice Mr. Hershel has made within his unit

as he determined handling it in this manner would allow for the implementation of it to

be more successful.

An Unbalanced Balanced Scorecard

Each interviewee was asked to discuss the ways the data are utilized for decision

making. Within Unit A, Mr. Ryon, the AVC for Unit A, responded largely to the value

the data from the Customer perspective is used within his unit. He shared, “We utilized it

from the stand point of if our customers are indicating that they would like to see more

emphasis on certain kinds of services or if they would like to see a change in focus in

what we’re doing.” He added,

Of adjusting our game plan, we do this by the way also; it would not be effective

if we did just in a vacuum without taking the results and going back to our

customers . . . it really helps us avoid putting out programs that do not connect

with our customers.

Mr. Tomin, the subunit manager, spoke primarily from the Customer perspective as well.

He shared, “We get graphs that come back, and we look at the areas that we then

obviously improved on and where we have slipped a little bit.” Mr. Pearson stated

decision making occurred at the higher levels, and once the decisions are made they are
 70

shared with employees within their unit. He shared, “They are pretty good in that. We’re

not in the dark.” Mr. Pearson, speaking in generalities, again acknowledged that at his

level, as a first line supervisor, he is kept informed. Unit A provides a service to the

campus, which therefore requires them to provide quality customer service. However, the

emphasis on solely this perspective out of the four Balanced Scorecard perspectives

seemed to indicate a lack of balance from their perspective of the Balanced Scorecard.

Within Unit B, Mr. Rowan, the AVC for Unit B, discussed the process of strategic

planning as a result of receiving the data results. He shared:

We use the information that we gather relative to our customer service that we

deliver, relative to how effective our business processes are, relative to what is our

environment like for an employee to work here, and also relative to the

responsibility we have to our stakeholders, people who provide us funding; and

we use that information actually to do our strategic planning. All of our strategic

plans are structured according to the Balanced Scorecards.

Consistently, Ms. Duncan, subunit manager of Unit B, also spoke about the value of the

data for strategic planning. She stated:

If the decision has to do with attempting a new process or a project, the Balanced

Scorecard, the concept of the Balanced Scorecard is used in kind of weighing

where the scale is going to lean toward certain parts of the project and how we

tackle those parts of the project.

Mr. Troy, first line supervisor for subunit B, who stated the Balanced Scorecard needs to

be revisited, acknowledged that his supervisor shares at times the data with the leadership

team within Unit B; however, he did not clarify to what extent the Balanced Scorecard
 71

data is used for decision making. Mr. Rowan’s response to the question indicated a

balanced approach when he discussed strategic planning; however, he did not do so

explicitly. Ms. Duncan, on the other hand, spoke only to the concept of strategic planning

and not in the context of the four perspectives.

Within Unit C, Mr. Hershel, the AVC for Unit C, responded to this question in

terms of the Customer perspective and Innovation/Learning perspective. He shared that

once the data was received, his unit devoted a “full day all-staff retreat to responding to

the findings.” In preparation for the staff retreat, he worked with his management team to

mine the data and provide themes for the staff retreat agenda. He stated:

So we took about 10 of those measures that we saw as opportunities and then we

developed the full day agenda based on both team development, content,

presentation, and role playing and those types of things that drew those out.

Ms. Logan, the subunit manager, confirmed the activity. Mr. Hershel discussed and

shared, “[we] took a look at data and some of the findings and moral, and talked about

things that we could do to improve.” Similarly to Unit A, the responses to this question

by Mr. Hershel and Ms. Logan were unbalanced. Unlike Unit A who spoke primarily of

the Customer perspective, Unit C spoke solely of the Innovation/Learning perspective.

Unit C, unlike Unit A, is a traditionally academic unit and therefore services less

customers internally; their primary “customers” are external entities. Given that Unit C

is new to the Balanced Scorecard, they have may not have had internal employee

satisfaction metrics in the past, which could be one of the reasons why this perspective is

so valuable to them.
 72

The Impact Is Personal

The interviewees were asked what they believed to be the primary impact of the

Balanced Scorecard. Within Unit A, Mr. Ryon, the AVC for Unit A, shared:

The best description of using the Balanced Scorecard not only from the planning

standpoint, but from the customer feedback is a barometric reading . . . it’s really a

barometric reading because there are many, many things that we do in Unit A and

a number of the departments in central offices and EBA do where you have to say

no. I mean you’re not doing your job. I mean I would really be concerned if we

had nothing but fives across the board, because sometimes you have to say no . . .

so again this is where that optimal word of balance comes into play. The balance

between service and control and insuring that we provide options and flexibility.

So I think the Balanced Scorecard really helps us with that concept.

Mr. Ryon’s response is consistent with the type of organization that Unit A is. It provides

a service internally, but it is highly regulated and requires saying no much of the time.

Mr. Tomin, the subunit manager in Unit A, shared a different perspective; he explained,

“Knowing where you’re going is vital to getting there, so with the Balanced Scorecard it

helps to understand where you’re going, what we’re trying to achieve from at least a fiscal

year standpoint. So for that reason I think its valuable.” He added, “I think that’s the

impact it has, it helps us achieve our goals. . . . I think it’s a tool that puts light on what

your goals are and is kind of like a road map.” In our interview, it became clear that

Mr. Tomin is a strategic thinker; he shared examples of initiatives he has implemented

within his unit, which have proven to be successful. He has connected the Balanced

Scorecard to his ability to do so. On the other hand, Mr. Pearson, the first line supervisor
 73

of Unit A, provided that from his perspective, this impact is: “We know what our

strengths are, our weaknesses, what do we need to improve in.”

Within Unit B, Mr. Rowan, the AVC of Unit B, responded to this question from

the Customer perspective. He shared he believes the impact was “it’s made us a whole

lot better. I hope our customers feel it’s made us more responsive. I mean not necessarily

on any given phone call, but made us more responsive, you know, over the long haul.”

He added, “It drives what our mission is, it aligns with that just very, very well.” From

Ms. Duncan’s perspective, the subunit manager for Unit B:

It provides transparency to everyone in the organization and it allows them and

gives them the understanding of why decisions are made and what the objective

for each decision is. And the Balanced Scorecard just puts it into context and

makes it very, very apparent to the employees.

Whereas, Mr. Troy, the first line supervisor, shared that from his perspective he believes

the impact is that “it does bring some balance when you think about the different

quadrants.”

Within Unit C, Mr. Hershel, the AVC for Unit C, which is new to the Balanced

Scorecard, spoke of the primary impact from a personal perspective; he shared:

My motto had been from day one since I got into this job is that if you cannot

measure it, you will not do it. So that’s my motto; most of my staff meetings start

with that, most of my annuals retreats start with that. So what has been the

biggest impact is that I have had external validation for the Vice Chancellor, from

the peers, I have something else to be able to say why metrics matter.
 74

Ms. Logan, subunit manager for Unit C, provided another perspective; she explained for

her the impact is “definite[ly] awareness and understanding of where we are as an

organization, feeling and work wise.”

The impact the Balanced Scorecard plays for each interviewee is different. It is

clear that each interviewee sees the Balanced Scorecard and the role it plays in their unit,

at their level, to be different. This leads it to have a different meaning and, therefore,

different impact to each of them. It is interesting to hear the different perspectives and

similarly it is interesting to learn the impact they see that Balanced Scorecard has within

the organization.

Visionaries Can Be Found at All Levels

Mr. Relyea was asked if there was a question he would like answered relating to

the Balanced Scorecard. The question he wanted answered was: How, as an individual,

can the Balanced Scorecard be made more useful to you? Within Unit A, Mr. Ryon, the

AVC for Unit A, responded to this question in the context of the current landscape of

higher education. His response was, “I think the biggest thing that I would say has to do

with our need to be, I think, increasingly flexible with the Balanced Scorecard.” He

explained that this need for flexibility was due to the tough fiscal climate higher

education organizations are operating within and their need to restructure to live within

their means. This restricting will impact the legacy data the Balanced Scorecard has

captured over the years and will provide EBA with challenges of maintaining trends so as

an organization being flexible with the Balanced Scorecard, he hopes, will assist in this

transition. Mr. Ryon’s direct report, Mr. Tomin, the subunit manager for Unit A, stated,

“I actually think it’s useful the way that it is. It’s simple. You start to make it
 75

complicated, people aren’t going to use it” Mr. Pearson, the first line supervisor in

Unit A, agreed with Mr. Tomin.

Within Unit B, Mr. Rowan, the AVC of Unit B, responded to the question

regarding usefulness by discussing the organization of the Balanced Scorecard process.

He stated:

There’s one major way, I’m not sure would be more useful, but I wouldn’t mind

trying it. Because, right now, it’s pretty much a top down process, and I have

always wondered what would it be if it was a bottom up process. What would it

be like it we started with the staff, they got all the results, and they said, and we

just ask them, what are [the staff] going to do about it.

Whereas, Ms. Duncan, the subunit manager for Unit B, discussed a desire for more

management tools. She explained:

I think in terms of, not push the Balanced Scorecard, but tools that can be used

with the Balanced Scorecard that have proven effectiveness, you know, and that

can kind of scale and relate to the Balanced Scorecard. There are many tools

out there, but, you know, they may not necessarily be conducive to a Balanced

Scorecard approach, and I just want to know more about those different tools that

are out there.

Mr. Troy, the first line supervisor for Unit B, reinforced his previous comment regarding

communication of the Balanced Scorecard when responding to this question. He stated,

“I think just revisiting it.” He seemed to want the Balanced Scorecard revisited because

he did value it as a tool; he recalled the times when it had been consistently discussed and

the benefits seen then.

 76

Within Unit C, Mr. Hershel, the AVC for Unit C, discussed this in the context of

his organization being new to the Balanced Scorecard. In regards to usefulness, he

explained:

Now that we’ve adopted this, how does this translate into a systemic and

systematic incentivizing and reward and, you know, recognition programs that

really nurtures your talents, skills, and knowledge? If I can’t, we can all drive

business, but adopting something new like this is exciting because what you can

do is you can go back to your stakeholders, including your employees and say,

what we, by embracing this and by being focused on this you become better

professional, you nurture your talents, we foster your learning and development

needs, we fulfill the customers through delight and enchanted experiences.

On the other hand, Ms. Logan, the subunit manager for Unit C, suggested the concept of

some sort of rubric. She felt,

If there were some clear recommendations, like if there was some kind of, I

don’t know, if its individually based or computer based but some kind of

recommendations like based on these findings, these would be the following

recommendations to look at it as an organization and set goals around, you know

work life balance, delineation of duties . . . a quick and easy summary sheet that

was like recommendations; that might be helpful.

Regardless of the response provided by the interviewee, they seemed pleased to be

asked the question. The Balanced Scorecard is a formal process, one that has been

systematically designed and applied over many years in order to ensure validity and

consistency of metrics and data results. The interviewees, understanding the significance
 77

of the Balanced Scorecard within the organization, appeared to be pleased that they were

given an opportunity to share their opinion of the usefulness of the tool and how it could

better serve them.

In summary, the Balanced Scorecard is a tool. To quote Mr. Relyea, “The main

objective of the Balanced Scorecard is simply a tool to make better decisions. If it

doesn’t do that, it’s probably not worth doing. If you can’t make better decisions, why go

to the hassle of doing this.” Mr. Hershel explains that “by embracing this [tool] and by

being focused on this, you become better professionals.” Ms. Duncan provides the

analogy that this tool is like a spinning top that has four sides constantly spinning and

remaining in balance.

Summary

This chapter shares the findings for each of the data sources used by the researcher

in the case study. The theme which emerged when reviewing the program records, the

themes which emerged within the survey results, and themes from the interviews. In

Chapter 5, the researcher will draw conclusions utilizing these various themes to outline

the lessons learned and provide recommendations.

 78

CHAPTER 5—DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Higher education organizations are currently faced with numerous challenges. Of

these challenges, the two primary challenges are their changing roles and expanded

expectations and their limited funding. These challenges require higher education

organizations to reengineer and operate outside of the traditional higher education

structure (Green, 2003; Gumport & Sporn, 1999). External and Business Affairs, through

its use of the Balanced Scorecard, operates outside of the traditional higher education

structure. It is atypical that higher education organizations have a performance

management tool that drives their organization. External and Business Affairs has

implemented the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool that provides the organization

with an operating framework for collecting data and utilizing it for decision making.

The focus of this study was to answer the following research questions:

1. How are the four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard communicated in the

EBA?

2. How are the data from the Balanced Scorecard used within the organization of

the EBA?

3. What impact does the Balanced Scorecard have on decision making in the

EBA?

Multiple data sources were used to yield findings with significant depth. Four lessons

were learned from the research findings, provided in Chapter 4. In this chapter, the

lessons learned will be discussed, recommendations will be provided, and topics for

further research will be shared.

 79

Lessons Learned

Utilizing the multiple sources of data, the researcher feels confident in the lessons

learned that emerged vis-a-vis the study’s research questions. Four lessons were learned

as a result of the findings. The researcher, utilizing the constant comparative method for

the program records, open-ended survey question and interview questions, and descriptive

statistics for the yes/no survey, analyzed all data sources and identified four lessons

learned:

1. The truly informed employees are at the top of the organization and they find

value in the Balanced Scorecard.

2. Most employees are unaware of the availability and the usefulness of the

Balanced Scorecard data.

3. Even an unbalanced Scorecard improves business operations.

4. The annual performance evaluation process is an opportunity to reinforce the

Balanced Scorecard.

Informed Employee

The Balanced Scorecard is a valuable tool at the top of the organization.

Mr. Relyea, Dr. Song, and the AVCs interviewed, all acknowledged that the Balanced

Scorecard plays a significant role in the organization. Benefits to the organization

include collaboration, sound decision making, responding to tough fiscal times, and

accountability. In order to obtain these benefits from the Balanced Scorecard, the data

must be communicated within the organization. The data, which is captured annually, are

shared first at a 2-day retreat with the senior management team. Mr. Relyea and Dr. Song
 80

described the 2-day retreat that is held annually to review the data associated with the four

perspectives. Mr. Relyea explained,

At my level what I do is have a 2-day series of meetings with my management

team, and we go though all four perspectives for each of the departments. . . .

ahead of time, the managers are all cued as to what they need to do and that is

present the information . . . cite those areas where they think they’re on track, cite

those areas where they may not be on track, where the metrics show that we’re

underperforming . . . where customers are not happy with the service.

Dr. Song explained that in addition to the 2-day retreat with senior managers, the senior

managers are expected to share the results with the rest of their organization. Dr. Song

stated, “From there, the senior managers should be having their own separate strategic

planning meetings of some kind with their leaders based on those results and the feedback

that came up from that retreat.”

Consistent with Mr. Relyea and Dr. Song, all AVCs confirmed that annual retreats

occur where they review their data and prepare action plans as a senior management team.

They stated they then take that information and share it with their direct reports in their

units. Mr. Ryon, the AVC of Unit A, stated, “I talk to my group about this, the

department at regular all staff meetings.” He added that the Balanced Scorecard is

“woven into the fabric of how we do business. It’s kept visible with the entire staff, not

only in these group forums, but very much individually as well.” Mr. Rowan, the AVC of

Unit B, explained that for his unit “we communicate on our websites, we communicate

verbally, in written communication. When we gather our employees together, we talk

about what this means and how we use it.” Mr. Hershel, the AVC of Unit C,
 81

acknowledged that since his unit was new to the Balanced Scorecard process, he currently

translates the data into non-Balanced Scorecard terms. During my interviews with the

subunit manager and first line supervisor, it was clear that Mr. Hershel, the AVC,

translated the information when speaking to them as their familiarity with the Balanced

Scorecard was extremely limited. He took the Balanced Scorecard data and shared it with

his employees, however not in the context of the Balanced Scorecard.

At the annual retreats with senior management, action plans are developed in

response to the results. Dr. Song shared that action plans are designed in response to the

data. These action plans are used to state how the unit will respond to low, unfavorable

scores. Mr. Relyea spoke about the action plan process in terms of on-campus dining

facilities. He explained that one campus dining facility received an uncharacteristically

low score and from exploring the data a decision was made to remodel the facility. He

stated:

It was looking at what our goal was, what was reality, the difference, where we

wanted to be, and then making an action plan that said that’s where we’re going . .

. much more customer centric . . . then [we] invest the resources, make the budget

decisions to make that happen and then reassess it in the following year and see if

we hit our mark.

Another example Mr. Relyea provided of positive results from the 2-day retreats

reviewing the data and action plans was the collaboration that ensued. The benefit of

having Mr. Relyea’s diverse management team together reviewing the data and action

items allowed for each member of the management team to contribute from their

respective area their specific knowledge and experience. Mr. Relyea explained,
 82

That’s one of the values . . . oftentimes something that looks like it might be a

housing issue is really an IT issue or an HR [issue], or a combination of things.

So, for example, we might as part of the Balanced Scorecard, the residents in our

housing facilities may say, you what? I like this and that, I like my roommate, but

man, your wireless server sucks. So now you’ve got the head of housing sitting

right next to the CIO, and the CIO said I didn’t know that . . . which leads to a

collaborative solution.

Dr. Song shared,

You can see from year to year that when we look, when we measure, you actually

see something changing. So whether it is a score that is low and we focus

energies to it, you can definitely see a shift in the next year.

Mr. Hershel spoke about the value the data have for him in his unit, Unit C. He stated,

I honestly believe that we will excel and continue to do better if we are honest,

transparent, we set goals, you know benchmarks, and again if we can’t measure it,

we won’t be doing it. So it works for us, but it’s not painless.

The annual retreat and the development of action plans occur annually, regardless

of other obligations or challenges the university or senior leadership is facing.

Mr. Relyea explained that the Balanced Scorecard is even more necessary in tough budget

times rather than during the best budget times. He stated,

My view is in the worst budget times you need this more than during the best

budget times, and the best budget times you can afford to be a little sloppy. I hate

to put it this way, but when there’s plenty of resources to get the job done, you can

make errors in investments that are not necessarily right on target and still at least
 83

survive. I am not sure you can succeed but you can survive. At times when

you’re cutting your budgets to the bare bone, you need to make sure you’re on

your game.

He added that he knew “this has been something that has happened in other institutions is

that the first time a budget comes, either the Balanced Scorecard or similar management

performance, the performance management thing goes away.” Similarly, in regards to

tough budget times, Mr. Rowan, AVC for Unit B, stated, “What kind of message are we

sending if we say, well things are bad so we’re going to stop asking you guys how you

feel.”

It is clear through my interviews with Mr. Relyea, Dr. Song, and the AVCs that

the Balanced Scorecard, the annual retreats, and action plans provide value in the

organization. However, despite the interview responses from Mr. Relyea, Dr. Song, and

the AVCs, the survey data and the interviews with the first line supervisors indicated that

the Balanced Scorecard is not being communication consistently throughout the

organization. The quantitative survey responses suggest that many employees within

EBA are not aware of the Balanced Scorecard. As shown in Table 6, 31.4% of employees

have never heard of the term the Balanced Scorecard, and 47.1% state it has not been

discussed in the unit meetings.

Additionally, in the short answer portion of the survey, the response to the

question, please share any additional comments regarding the Balanced Scorecard,

resulted in 18 of 50 stating they had never heard of the Balanced Scorecard before, and

seven employees had a negative statement about it. Examples of the negative statements

received are: “it’s a good front for management justification for bad decisions, but hardly
 84

acted upon in earnest,” and “this is something we have to do but it has low marginal

utility.” Mr. Troy, the first line supervisor for Unit B stated that “at one point in time it

was communicated very effectively . . . it has not been revisited,” while also stating that

his manager does share the raw data with the leadership team. Mr. Tomin, the first line

supervisor in Unit A, shared that the Balanced Scorecard is communicated verbally at

staff meetings, but at his level it is not referred to as the Balanced Scorecard. Similarly,

Ms. Bailey, the first line supervisor in Unit C, being new to EBA and the Balanced

Scorecard, does not refer to it as the Balanced Scorecard either. This suggests that

despite how valuable of a tool that the Balanced Scorecard is at the top of the

organization, it has not been articulated by leadership or understood by the employees

consistently within EBA. It is therefore seen by some employees in the organization as a

management tactic without substance or true value to the organization.

It is evident by the research findings that the Balanced Scorecard is a valuable tool

within the organization, specifically at the top of the organization. The interview

responses from Mr. Relyea, Dr. Song, and the AVCs for each unit clearly indicate there is

significant value provided by the Balanced Scorecard to the organization. At the top of

the organization, the Balanced Scorecard is successful communicated so that it is clear to

those senior leaders the data that are obtained for each perspective within the Balanced

Scorecard and what decisions are made utilizing the data results. As you move further

through the organization, the significance and therefore value of the Balanced Scorecard

dissipates. At the senior leaders level, the benefits of the Balanced Scorecard which

include collaboration, sound decision making, responding to tough fiscal times, and

accountability are evident; however, it does not appear that they are clearly or consistently
 85

translated to those at lower levels within the organization. An analogy for this is a blown

up balloon. At the top of the organization the balloon is in pristine condition; however,

with each level of the organization a hole or two is poked into the balloon and air starts to

slowly flow out of the balloon until it is completely empty. The balloon may become

empty at differing levels within each unit because they manage communication in their

own ways.

It is unfortunate that this message does not seem to be consistently trickled down

to all of the EBA employees. However, a source of pride for the organization is that,

despite the limited level of understanding that employees within EBA have in terms of

the Balanced Scorecard, it has received significant attention from external entities.

Through the years, UCSD has shared their processes and results with numerous visitors

looking to implement the Balanced Scorecard in their organizations. Kaplan and Norton,

out of respect for UCSD’s accomplishments with the Balanced Scorecard, have written

about them in their books on the subject. In Kaplan and Norton’s The Strategy Focused

Organization, published in 2001, Kaplan and Norton discuss UCSD as a leading

institution that has successfully applied the Balanced Scorecard in an educational

environment. One example of UCSD’s success with the Balanced Scorecard provided by

Kaplan and Norton is, “The scorecard [at UCSD] and the customer feedback helped the

units to focus on improving critical processes. In the human resources department, hiring

costs were slashed through use of new electronic and web-based technology and

cross-functional team efforts” (p. 203). Other industry recognition includes a 1999

Rochester Institute of Technology/USA Today Quality Cup for Education. University of

California, San Diego was inducted into the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame in 2003.
 86

Availability and Usefulness

The Balanced Scorecard is available to all members in the EBA; however, most

employees are unaware of the information that is available to them. Mr. Relyea

confirmed that the data are available on the website. He stated,

We put a website together that’s available to everybody on the campus, so not just

the people in our vice chancellor area but people outside, particularly those that

we consider our customers and our stakeholders and our constituents, and we

broadcast it and it displayed all the results from the Balanced Scorecard in all four

quadrants.

The researcher has confirmed that these data are available on the university’s website

with easy accessibility. The survey results, however, indicated that many employees were

not aware of the data availability. The results of the survey, shown in Table 6, showed

67.1% of employees did not know how to access data gathered from the Balanced

Scorecard.

Similarly, Mr. Rowan, the AVC for Unit B, also discussed the public availability

of the Balanced Scorecard data. He explained it is important to provide data to their

employees and customers because we want them

To be able to see this is what we’re doing . . . we are asking you what your

opinions are, and we’re not hiding what you’ve told us, you know. We’re going

to show you what you said, and then we’re going to show you what we’ve done.

Dr. Song, confirming this, added that leadership within EBA is open to sharing the data

obtained through the Balanced Scorecard. Good, bad, or ugly—all data are displayed on
 87

the website, “it may be part of the culture here at UCSD, how open we are to sharing this

data.” Dr. Song added,

I think that it is really important in terms of trust for folks to know that

something’s going to be done with the scores, just accountability that always

surprised me how willing people are to have their scores up there openly for all to

see.

The researcher confirmed that data are maintained on a public website,

http://blink.ucsd.edu/sponsor/VCBA/perf-measurements.html. This site is housed in the

business link (blink) portion of UCSD’s website. Blink is the main hub for information

for faculty and staff. In addition to providing the Balanced Scorecard data, EBA attempts

to explain to employees the background, uses, and benefits of the Balanced Scorecard.

The research findings suggest that employees are not aware of the publically accessible

data from the Balanced Scorecard. The survey results, which show only 32.9% of the

participants know how to obtain Balanced Scorecard data, whereas 67.1% do not—and

the fact that 51.9% of the survey participants do not feel that the Balanced Scorecard has

a significant impact on decision making—leads the researcher to believe that many

employees are not aware of the data availability or its usefulness.

However, despite the lack of understanding internally of the data and their impact

on decision making, the interview responses provided by Mr. Relyea, Dr. Song, and the

AVCs for each unit lead the researcher to believe the Balanced Scorecard has created a

significant impact on the rest of campus. The units selected for this case study support

the entire campus; therefore, any benefit gained within the unit is a benefit gained by the

entire campus. For example, the customers scoring Unit A are customers campus-wide;
 88

this means they feel they are receiving better service and therefore provide the unit with a

higher score. Another example is that when Unit B speaks about strategic plans that are

developed in response to the data gathered, the plans are developed to impact the entire

campus in many instances versus solely their unit. Another example in which Mr. Relyea

and Dr. Song take pride is that many other units outside of EBA have chosen to

implement components of the Balanced Scorecard within their unit.

Mr. Relyea acknowledged in his interview that he had no plans to force the

Balanced Scorecard on to other Vice Chancellor Areas (VCA) at UCSD. He stated,

Initially, it was always our intention to keep it focused on just my area because we

could control that, we could not control other VCAs. We couldn’t apply this to

say the research activities on the campus, or the teaching activities, or the patient

care activities; we didn’t feel we had any business doing that. But what has

happened, what has evolved over time is that certain portions of [the Balanced

Scorecard] other parts of the campuses adopted . . . it just kind of exploded over a

period of time . . . so that’s one evolution has been kind of unintentional is that its

spread to other parts of the campus, which is probably a good thing.

Unbalanced Scorecard

The Balanced Scorecard, due to its metrics, positively impacts customer service

and employee satisfaction within the EBA. The Balanced Scorecard has a quadrant for

customers and a quadrant for innovation and learning. Data/metrics for the customer

quadrant is an annual customer service survey, which is completed by all employees at

UCSD, not simply EBA employees. Data/metrics for the innovation and learning
 89

quadrant comes from a Staff at Work survey, which is a questionnaire that is given to all

employees in EBA.

In terms of customer service, Mr. Tomin, the subunit manager in Unit A, spent a

significant amount of time during our interview discussing how the Balanced Scorecard

impacts customer service within the organization. He explained that the customer service

survey, which is completed annually by all employees within UCSD, not just EBA,

provides his organization with valuable customer service results. When he began in his

position, the unit’s scores were lower than the standard, and over time they have

increased. He acknowledged that annually it is not a dramatic tick up or tick down, but

over time he has been able to see the organization significantly improve. In his opinion,

“customer service . . . is just helping people understand why we’re doing it . . . they still

might not like the answer, but at least now they know why.” He attributes the increase in

customer service scores to the work his team has done in this area. It helps that the data

captured by the Balanced Scorecard support the work his team has done over time.

Similarly, Mr. Ryon, the AVC for Unit A, spoke about the value of the customer

service survey. He shared, “If we are finding, for example, that there is just not a lot of

enthusiasm or support for specific programs that we have going, we will very likely shift

the funding from a program or a service.” He explained the verbatim comments received

as part of the customer service survey and provided to leadership are very specific,

extremely valuable feedback to the organization. He added that “we might have a unit or

somebody saying too slow, turnaround time is too slow, and that leads us to providing

additional resources or additional staff to that function.” Mr. Rowan, the AVC for
 90

Unit B, explained that in terms of customer service, employees buy into the process. He

stated, “Frankly it’s a source of pride and it’s a source of challenge for people.”

In terms of employee satisfaction, Ms. Logan, the subunit manager in Unit C,

which is new to the Balanced Scorecard, shared that during their first experience with the

Staff at Work Survey, the survey used for the Innovation and Learning quadrant provided

her unit with valuable responses regarding employee morale. She explained that “the last

years were pretty positive, but we had some, a few morale things that we are looking at.”

Ms. Logan added, “It was kind of nice to see an actual case study that, you know, this

wasn’t good and these are the areas that we want to improve upon and this year we see

the improvement.” Mr. Hershel, her supervisor, the AVC in Unit C, explained that

through the survey he learned that some of his employees were not satisfied with their

employment, specifically their classification level. Following the survey results, he began

to see some employees leave the organization voluntarily. He assumes those were the

individuals who were unsatisfied. In his opinion, “they’re happy so there was nothing

bad, they realized maybe I’m not, I don’t want to be part of a high performance or

metric-based organization, and that’s okay.”

The Staff at Work survey, the survey instrument for Innovation/Learning

perspective, provided Mr. Hershel with the tools to hear from his employees, while

sharing with them the organization’s focus and value of metrics within the Balanced

Scorecard. Mr. Rowan, the AVC in Unit B, also explained that due to the data from the

Balanced Scorecard, “we have a much, much better appreciation for instance for the value

of training and development for folks than we ever had before.” Mr. Troy, the first line

supervisor for Unit B shared, “The staff at work survey has driven us to be more aware
 91

internally of what our employees want; they want empowerment, they want learning

opportunities so it has driven that.”

Acknowledging this important benefit of the Balanced Scorecard and the

consistency in which it was found in the research findings, when reviewing the research

findings, one question that comes to mind is how balanced is the Balanced Scorecard?

Depending on the employees’ level in the organization, their interaction and

understanding of the Balanced Scorecard varies. It appears that mid-level and first line

supervisors utilize two of the perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard primarily, those

perspectives being the Innovation/Learning and Customer perspective. The senior leaders

of the organization may not view the Balanced Scorecard in this “unbalanced” manner;

however, it also appears that they are not communicating or assigning value to the other

perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard with all of the employees in the organization.

Despite this potential “unbalanced” use, these two perspectives provide a positive

impact on customer service and employee satisfaction within the EBA. In addition to

providing this positive impact, it also serves as an effective tool for managers. The

annual Staff at Work Survey, which is used to obtain the metrics for the Innovation/

Learning Perspective, provides managers within the organization with a valuable tool for

managing their employees. The survey results provide the manager with data on how

their employees feel about their working environment and therefore information to

improve it if the results are negative. The Customer Service survey which provides each

unit with feedback from their customers allows the manager to work internally with the

staff to improve the service they provide their customers. There were numerous
 92

examples seen by the researcher relating how the Balanced Scorecard utilizing these two

perspectives has assisted managers in being effective.

This, in the researcher’s opinion, is not the primary purpose of the Balanced

Scorecard but rather a positive by-product. Additionally, it is the researcher’s opinion

that it takes a savvy manager at any level to realize the value in using these metrics to

improve the service they provide to their customers, as well as the environment they

provide internally for their employees. Even if this provides the appearance on an

unbalanced scorecard, the value that improved employee work environments and

improved customer services is worth it. Ideally, however, managers, regardless of the

level, will have a basic understanding of their entire scorecard results and metrics, not

simply the Customer and Innovation/Learning perspectives.

Performance Evaluation Process

The Balanced Scorecard is consistently reinforced in the annual performance

evaluation process. Although not specifically addressed in questions posed in either the

survey or interview, the responses received discussed the fact that the annual performance

approval process included goal setting utilizing the four quadrants of the balanced

scorecard. The researcher viewed the performance evaluation template as part of her

review of the program records which validated the responses. Mr. Troy, the first line

supervisor for Unit B, discussed the value that this plays in his organization. Mr. Troy

shared the Balanced Scorecard had not been formally revisited in some time but annually

he is able to address goal setting in terms of the Balanced Scorecard quadrants. It allows

him to work with his team to set well-rounded goals. An example he provided from his

own goal setting was, “the employee’s side, the innovation and learning, my goal is to
 93

enroll in personal growth classes. For the customer service perspective, my goal is to

participate in a Unit B-wide team.” He acknowledged however that some employees are

extremely nervous during the performance evaluation process and may not realize or

connect the goal setting process to the Balanced Scorecard. One of the survey comments

supported Mr. Troy’s statement regarding the performance evaluation process: “I only see

and hear mention of it on the year end performance evaluation.”

Likewise, Mr. Rowan, AVC for Unit B, explained that this piece of the

performance evaluation process is a component of overall success of the Balanced

Scorecard and its objectives. He stated,

We make sure that the performance objectives that each individual has are aligned

to what those objectives are . . . and so when we’re, you know, asking our people

to do something, or we’ve said this is what we want you to focus on, we’re sure

that it aligns with what we’re trying to accomplish on an overall basis.

He continued to explain the overall process of responding to the Balanced Scorecard data

results where the performance evaluation component is extremely valuable. Ms. Duncan,

subunit manager, Unit B, confirmed Mr. Rowan’s statement, she shared, “within our

organization the Balanced Scorecard is communicated through the performance

evaluation.” She clarified that, through the performance evaluation process, the employee

is able to tie in their goals to the Balanced Scorecard quadrants and address deficiencies.

She explained,

We may have three goals and they only address process, they don’t address

customer satisfaction, employee morale . . . my staff and my leadership team will

 94

include or try to insert, it is more balanced, so it is visible in the performance

evaluation when you look at some of these goals for the following year.

The researcher was impressed to see that the Balanced Scorecard was included in

the annual employee performance appraisal. The decision to include the Balanced

Scorecard framework into the annual employee performance evaluation process is an

effective way to re-affirm annually the perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard. If used

effectively, this could serve as a beneficial tool for revisiting the concept of the Balanced

Scorecard and its perspectives annually with all employees.

The findings suggest, however, that despite the inclusion of the Balanced

Scorecard framework in the performance evaluation system, the concept of the Balanced

Scorecard is not being discussed with employees. It was not clear by the research

findings that discussions were really occurring that explained what the Balanced

Scorecard was, its value and why goal setting was being completed in the four

perspective format. The supervisor and employee may go through the motions of goal

setting, and in doing so identify a goal or multiple goals within each of the Balanced

Scorecard perspectives; it does not seem as though the perspective itself is being

reinforced during the process. If it were, more survey participants would have stated they

had heard of the term the Balanced Scorecard. Value could be added to this process by

training supervisors to take advantage of the annual performance evaluation process to

revisit the Balanced Scorecard. The results of this study clearly find that revisiting the

Balanced Scorecard is necessary so that all employees understand what it is and its value.
 95

Theoretical Framework

This study was informed by Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organization: Artistry,

Choice, and Leadership. Bolman and Deal (2008) provided the theoretical framework for

this study in which their four frames, the structural frame, the human resource frame, the

political frame, and the symbolic frame, are used as the basis for discussions and

recommendations that result from this study. These four frames provide competing yet

complementary frames for an organization. Bolman and Deal provide the following

descriptions: The structural frame emphasizes organizational structure and the formal

roles and relationships in an organization. The human resources frame emphasizes

relationships, particularly interpersonal relationships. The political frame refers to the

political nature of an organization including the struggles of power, competition, and

coalition building. The symbolic frame refers to the “informal culture” of the

organization. The symbolic frame emphasizes symbols and rituals within an

organization. It is the goal of the organization to learn to exist utilizing and leveraging

each of the four frames together. In completing this study, the researcher found that the

Balanced Scorecard within EBA fell into each of the four frames.

In terms of the Structural Frame, the Balanced Scorecard, as evident by the

research findings, follows a top-down organizational structure. Although the data are

available for all employees within the organization, it is primarily and consistently used

by the individuals at the top of the organizational structure. The leadership team attempts

to review the data in collaboration to avoid organizational silos; however, communication

still operates very much in a vertical manner. The research finding suggests that the
 96

levels within the organizational structure are in many ways barriers to understanding and

using the Balanced Scorecard.

The Balanced Scorecard supports the Human Resources Frame in that two

perspectives within the Balanced Scorecard framework impact people. Both the

Customer perspective and the Innovation/Learning perspective fall into the Human

Resources Frame. Through the Customer Perspective, it is apparent through the research

findings that managers at all levels felt they benefitted greatly by having the Customer

Service Survey and its findings. The benefit it provides is the customer service data

shows how their customers feel about their service. In almost all cases, these customers

are internal to EBA and UCSD as a whole. Therefore, the Customer perspective of the

Balanced Scorecard supports the people in the organization. Through the Innovation/

Learning perspective, the data that are gained from the Staff at Work survey provides data

which focuses on the employee’s needs. These results can be used by managers to

improve the environment for their employees. Additionally, given that the leaders within

each unit choose how they communicate and share the data within their unit, there is no

formal structure for communicating and sharing data, the researcher believes that the

relationships within the unit are organic. These organic relationships, relationships that

are naturally reinforced by the organizational structure, drive, or in many cases, limit

communication of the Balanced Scorecard throughout the organization.

The research findings provided less of a connection to the Political Frame to the

other three frames. However, one area where the Political Frame was seen was in the

survey responses where the participants saw the Balanced Scorecard as a ploy, rather than

as a legitimate, effective management tool. This plays a role in the Symbolic Frame as
 97

well; in terms of the Political Frame, it shows that employees of the organization see the

Balanced Scorecard as a “political” game that is played in order to sell to the employee

that management deserve the power and control they have. In terms of the Symbolic

Frame, the Balanced Scorecard, as it is displayed on the websites and discussed by

leadership, provides a basis for the culture of the organization. The Balanced Scorecard,

from the perspective of some of the participants in the study, is an intricate piece of the

organization and every action, choice, and decision is driven by the values of this

management tool. In the view of others, however, it is a management ploy and, therefore,

it is a false symbol and not something that has true value for the organization.

Recommendations

The structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the

symbolic frame are used as the basis for recommendations that result from this study.

There are three recommendations the researcher provides at the conclusion of this case

study. The three recommendations are:

1. External and Business Affairs leadership needs to communicate the Balanced

Scorecard process, outcomes, and application with greater clarity to all

employees in the organization.

2. There needs to be an institutional plan for sustainability of the Balanced

Scorecard to ensure it transcends the current people and environment.

3. The Balanced Scorecard process within EBA must be flexible for future

organizational evolution.
 98

Communicate With Clarity

Bolman and Deal (2008) discuss the symbolic frame as the “temples” or “informal

culture” of the organization. The research findings clearly indicate that the Balanced

Scorecard is a symbol within the organization. Despite being a symbol within the

organization, the research findings led the researcher to recommend that the leadership

within EBA dedicate additional attention to providing greater clarity about the Balanced

Scorecard process, outcomes, and applications to the EBA employees. The researcher,

based on the research findings, believes the Balanced Scorecard plays a significant role in

the EBA organization, and it benefits all within the organization. However, it is not

clearly communicated to the departments, nor are data and its impact on decision making,

although public, widely discussed, and shared throughout the organization.

Mr. Troy, the first line supervisor in Unit B, confirms this point. He mentioned in

the 1990s when the Balanced Scorecard was new to the organization, he attended

meetings and was aware that the university and Mr. Relyea had received awards for their

work with the Balanced Scorecard; but it has been years since the organization had

discussed it formally. This finding is supported by the employee survey data. As shown

in Table 6, consistently EBA departments did not have the knowledge of the Balanced

Scorecard that would allow them to understand its process and outcomes. Mr. Rowan,

AVC for Unit B, discussed the concept of involving employees in the decision making

process. His idea is to give the data to the front level employees and give them a chance

to develop action plans, instead of being solely driven from the senior leadership. He

states,
 99

Right now, it’s pretty much a top down process. And I have always wondered,

what would it be like if it was a bottom up process? What would it be like if we

started with the staff, they got the results and they said, and we just ask them,

what are you going to do about it? . . . would it be more effective if the strategies

really came from people doing the work?

He acknowledged that “it would take a much larger investment of Mr. Relyea’s time and

all of management’s time.” The researcher acknowledges that this type of change is

significant and would require a complete shift in the organization’s structural and human

resources frames. She, therefore, is not saying that it is necessary for the senior

management to make this dramatic and significant change; however, she is strongly

encouraging the organization to build internal processes to consistently revisit the

Balanced Scorecard with all employees.

Sustainability Plan

As a symbol within the organization, the Balanced Scorecard should be effectively

rooted in the organization. It is necessary that there is an institutional plan for the

sustainability of the Balanced Scorecard. The institutional plan should address how the

Balanced Scorecard will be sustained, regardless of the people and the environment.

University of California, San Diego, similar to many organizations, has an aging

workforce. As indicated by the years of service the interviewees have, particularly the

leaders within each unit, there is a concern for their continued tenure in the organization.

It is vital that when the leaders within the organization retire, the Balanced Scorecard is

not left to slowly dissipate into a tool that no longer provides benefit to the organization.

The research findings indicate that the lower down in the organization, the less
 100

understanding the employees have with the Balanced Scorecard. Concurrent with the

needs to develop employees and implement successful succession plans, a plan for

sustainability for the Balanced Scorecard is essential in order for the core elements of the

Balanced Scorecard to be maintained as an effective management tool.

A successful institutional plan for sustainability will ensure that the Balanced

Scorecard legacy, the metric and trend data will continue to live on past the current

leadership of the organization. An important first step in the institutional plan requires

recommendation one to be addressed internally within the organization. The complete

organization must be aware of the Balanced Scorecard in order to value it and therefore

understand why the legacy must be maintained. Once the organization has identified

ways to consistently revisit the Balanced Scorecard for all employees, regardless of their

level, the organization will need to periodically evaluate their success in revisiting it. The

researcher feels strongly that EBA is an organization that values continuous improvement

and therefore periodic assessment to ensure the steps they are taking to revisit the

Balanced Scorecard are successful. Once this is accomplished, it will be easier for the

senior leaders to build the Balanced Scorecard into the work they are doing in terms of

succession planning, given the aging workforce.

Flexibility

Bolman and Deal (2008) discuss the Structural Frame and the role it plays within

an organization. The formal structure of most organizations can be found in the

organizational charts that are provided in meetings and on websites. Formal structures

within organizations typically do not change much over time. However, the landscape

within higher education is changing dramatically. Given the tight fiscal climate and
 101

increased regulations, there is a need for higher education organizations to restructure

themselves. University of California, San Diego is presently exploring opportunities to

restructure. Mr. Ryon, the AVC for Unit A, shared,

We have entered really a new era here at University of California and the

organizational structure is going to look very, very different . . . because of the

incredible budgetary dilemma that we are in here, they are doing everything they

can to reduce payroll as you might imagine and make things more efficient . . . the

Office of the President is looking for more of a corporate kind of an approach

now, where instead of let’s say a benefits unit at San Diego, one at Irvine, one at

Riverside, one at LA, what if we set up a service center up at Oakland that people

can call?

Mr. Ryon explained that, as a result of these significant changes, it will be

necessary for the Balanced Scorecard to be as flexible as possible. It will not be possible

to continue to capture the same data that have been captured since the beginning. He

states, “In my mind, we are entering a whole new era for the use of the Balanced

Scorecard, and we’re going to have to be agile and use finesse, be very flexible and

address how we utilize it going forward with these changes.” He adds, “If we go to this

new model is that really fair to benchmark it, it’s not apples to apples it’s good to look at

what’s this new configuration to what we’ve gotten in the past.” As the future structure

of the organization changes due to the budget situation, the leadership within EBA must

find a way to maintain the Balanced Scorecard legacy, while being flexible to move into

the future.
 102

Further Research

This study sought to understand the application and management of the Balanced

Scorecard at UCSD. It utilized a case study methodology in order to take an in-depth

look at the application of the Balanced Scorecard in units within the EBA vice chancellor

area at UCSD. It looked at the application of the Balanced Scorecard as a management

tool to see how it is communicated throughout the organization, how the data is used in

the organization, and the impact it has on decision making. The findings of this study

have been described in Chapter 4 and in this chapter. It is important for the researcher to

share opportunities for future research. The future topics for future research identified by

the researcher are:

1. Process mapping of the Balanced Scorecard in EBA at UCSD.

2. Case study of the implementation process within EBA at UCSD,

3. Further detailed case study exploring the Balanced Scorecard components, not

simply referencing the term the Balanced Scorecard.

4. Case study of the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard in a traditionally

academic unit.

5. Study that focuses exclusively on the quantitative outcome measures.

Process Mapping

This study does not provide a complete view of the Balanced Scorecard within

EBA and UCSD. Value would be gained if the complete Balanced Scorecard process

within EBA at UCSD were to be documented and process mapped. The Balanced

Scorecard process is complex and intricate, and there are many parts to the process which

are required to make it complete and flow within the organization. It would be valuable
 103

to add to the literature what that complete process looks like. The process mapping

should include all activities in which as a whole EBA and UCSD partake. This includes

all surveys, metrics, data analysis, as well as communication and decision making.

Balanced Scorecard Implementation

The researcher for the purposes of this study did not explore the implementation

of the Balanced Scorecard within EBA and UCSD. In order to understand the Balanced

Scorecard fully at UCSD, it would be beneficial to understand the complete

implementation. It would be of value to complete further research on the steps taken for

implementation, including the work completed during the initial years, the design of the

surveys and metrics, as well as documenting how they changed over the years.

Additionally, discussion on the use of consultants would be helpful for a higher education

organization to understand what components of the implementation process were

completed by EBA’s leadership and which were completed with the assistance of external

consultants. Discussion of challenges and how they were addressed would be beneficial

to other higher education organizations.

Balanced Scorecard Components

This study asked participants about the Balanced Scorecard; it did not ask

participants about activities that fell within the scope of the Balanced Scorecard. The

researcher did not discuss the Customer Service Survey or Staff at Work Survey or other

metrics tracked as part of the Balanced Scorecard. The researcher believes that she would

obtain different findings if the questions were posed to the general audience that asked

less questions calling out the specific title of the Balanced Scorecard and more questions

regarding activities that fall within the scope of the Balanced Scorecard. This is
 104

supported by the open-ended responses in the employee survey. Responses that support

this include “I have no idea what the term Balanced Scorecard means. We have metrics,

anecdotes to support the accomplished goals”; “I have heard the Balanced Scorecard

categories mentioned periodically but not referenced as Balanced Scorecard”; and “to be

honest, I’m not precisely certain what it is. Is it tied to our new measurement and

evaluation metrics?”

Traditional Academic Unit

This case study targeted three units within EBA, Unit A, Unit B, and Unit C. Unit

A and Unit B are units which are primarily transactional, business units. Although these

units would require some transition if placed in a market-driven organization, they are

units that you would find in most market-driven organizations. Unit C, on the other hand,

is much less of a transactional, business unit; it is a unit that would not fit in a market-

driven organization. More than Unit A and Unit B, Unit C is a traditional academic unit.

It would provide value to the literature if Unit C were reviewed in greater detail to see

how this unit, a traditional academic unit, implements, applies, and manages the Balanced

Scorecard. During this study Mr. Hershel, the AVC for Unit C, acknowledged that “it’s a

big cultural shift and it’s a new norm.” He added, “[my] colleagues jobs in business and

financial services because they do transaction processing, the campus customers are well

known, the cycle times, the quadrants are perfect for a service unit.”

Quantitative Outcome Measures

This case study sought to answer three research questions: how the Balanced

Scorecard is communicated, how the data are used within the organization, and the

impact it has on decision making. The study answered these research questions from a
 105

perceptional and qualitative perspective. The design of this study was not to answer these

questions from a quantitative outcome perspective. A study which looks at outcomes of

the Balanced Scorecard from a solely quantitative perspective would be a beneficial

contribution to the existing literature.

Summary

In summary, the Balanced Scorecard is a valuable tool as it is used within EBA.

Since its implementation in 1993, it has shaped the EBA organization and allowed for

EBA to operate outside of the traditional higher education structure. This tool provides

EBA, and therefore UCSD, with an advantage over other higher education organizations

in meeting the new roles and expectations of higher education and responding to the

limited funding, because it operates in a metrics-driven environment that is not typical of

most higher education organizations.

 106

REFERENCES

Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing

institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education,

71(4), 411-431.

Atkinson, R. C. (2009, December). Defining the University of California of the future.

Center for Studies in Higher Education, Research & Occasional Paper Series, 1-5.

Berdahl, R. M. (2009). Research universities: Their value to society extends well beyond

research. Washington, DC: Association of American Universities.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and

leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

California Department of Finance. (2007, July). New state projections show 25 million

more California’s by 2050; Hispanics to be State’s majority ethnic group by

2042. Retrieved from http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/

projections/p-1/documents/P1_Press_Release_7-07.pdf

Chaffee, E. E., & Sherr, L. A. (1992). Quality: Transforming postsecondary education.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED350972)

College guide. (2010). Washington Monthly. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/toc_2010.php

Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). (2003). Profile of accreditation:

Fact sheet. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 107

Dawson, P. (2003). Understanding organizational change: The contemporary experience

of people at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Douglass, J. A. (2010a). From chaos to order and back? Center for Studies in Higher

Education, Research & Occasional Paper Series, 1-20.

Douglass, J. A. (2010b). Higher education budgets and the global recession. Center for

Studies in Higher Education, Research & Occasional Paper Series, 1-20.

Douglass, J. A. (2010c). Re-Imagining California higher education. Center for Studies in

Higher Education, Research & Occasional Paper Series, 1-16.

External and Business Affairs (EBA). (2011a). External and Business Affairs:

Mission/objectives. Retrieved from http://blink.ucsd.edu/sponsor/VCBA/

mission-objectives.html

External and Business Affairs (EBA). (2011b). External and Business Affairs:

Performance measures. Retrieved from http://blink.ucsd.edu/sponsor/VCBA/

perf-measurements.html

Field, K. (2010). Delivering an influx of Federal dollars: Obama administration wants

results. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Return-for-Federal-Dollars/124861/

Green, R. (2003). Markets, management and “reengineering” higher education. Annals of

the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585, 196-210.

Gumport, P. J., & Sporn, B. (1999). Institutional adaptation: Demands for management

report and university administration. Stanford, CA: National Center for

Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford University.

 108

Kaplan, R. S. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit

organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3), 353-370.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992, January-February). The Balanced Scorecard:

Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 71-79.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996, January-February). Using the Balanced Scorecards

as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 75-85.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy focused organization: How Balanced

Scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2007, July-August). Using the Balanced Scorecard as a

strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 1-14.

Karathanos, D., & Karathanos, P. (2005). Applying the Balanced Scorecard to education.

Journal of Education for Business, 80(4), 222-230.

Keeling, R. P., Underhile, R., & Wall, A. F. (2007). The dynamics of organization in

higher education. Liberal Education, 93(4), 22-31.

Keller, J. (2011). California's public colleges face $1.4-billion in new budget cuts. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/

Californias-Public-Colleges/125910/

Kotler, P., & Murphy, P. E. (1981). Strategic planning for higher education. Journal of

Higher Education, 52(5), 470-489.

Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education

systems. Higher Education, 46, 469-489.

 109

Lozier, G. G., & Teeter, D. J. (1996). Quality improvement pursuits in American higher

Education. Total Quality Management, 7(2), 189-201.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2010). Baldridge Performance

Excellence Program: Results with Baldrige in education. Retrieved from

http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/enter/results_ed.cfm

The Palladium Group. (2010). Overview. Retrieved from http://www.thepalladiumgroup.

com/about/Pages/Overview.aspx

Petrides, L. A., McClelland, S. I., & Nodine, T. R. (2004, September-November). Using

external accountability mandates to create internal change. Planning for Higher

Education, 44-50.

Rohm, H. (2002). A balancing act: Developing and using Balanced Scorecard

performance systems. Perform Magazine, 2(2), 1-8.

Rohm, H. (2008, January). Using the Balanced Scorecard to align your organization.

Balanced Scorecard Institute, 1-4.

Serrano-Valarde, K. (2010). A fish out of water? Management consultants in academia.

Minerva, 48, 125-144.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The

search for meanings (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Travica, B. (1999). New organizational designs: Information aspects. Stamford, CT:

Ablex Publishing Corp.

 110

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). (2003). UCSD honored for innovative

management practices. Retrieved from http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/awards/

balanced_scorecard.htm

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). (2010a). About UC San Diego. Retrieved

from http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/about/

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). (2010b). UC San Diego facts and campus

profile. Retrieved from http://www.ucsd.edu/explore/about/facts.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). California quickfacts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.

census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (n.d.). FAQs about

accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/

FAQAccr.aspx

Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). (n.d.a). The commission.

Retrieved from http://www.wascsenior.org/commission

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). (n.d.b). Purposes of

accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.wascsenior.org/about/

purposeofaccreditation

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). (n.d.c). Standards at a glance.

Retrieved from http://www.wascsenior.org/findit/files/forms/Standards_at_a_

Glance __12_08_.pdf
 111

Winn, B. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1998). Organizational quality: An examination of the

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Framework. Research in Higher Education,

39(5), 491-512.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Zelman, W. N., Pink, G. H., & Matthias, C. B. (2003). Use of the Balanced Scorecard in

health care. Journal of Health Care Finance, 29(40), 1-16.

 Appendix A

Vice Chancellor—External and Business Affairs Organization Chart

112
 Appendix B

Balanced Scorecard Example

113