Você está na página 1de 15

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1834-7649.htm

Firm characteristics and


balanced scorecard usage in
Singaporean manufacturing
firms
Ling Liu
Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Wisconsin-Eau
Claire, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA

Firm
characteristics
and balanced
scorecard
209
Received 21 May 2013
Revised 26 July 2013
Accepted 20 August 2013

Janek Ratnatunga
School of Commerce, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia, and

Lee J. Yao
Department of Accounting, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine the effects of balanced scorecard (BSC) usage on performances
in the context of four contingent variables in Singaporean manufacturing firms. The results show that
firms are more likely to adopt BSC if they are large in size, have products at an early product lifecycle
(PLC) stage, operate in highly uncertain environments or adopt differentiation strategies. However, the
adoption of BSC improves performance only in firms that are large or have products at an early PLC
stage. The results suggest that contingent factors in which a firm operates can exert significant effects
on the results of adopting BSC.
Design/methodology/approach Survey data are collected, then the authors check data
correlations, principle components analysis, run regression analysis and ANOVA.
Findings BSC use is positively and significantly correlated with PLC stage, external environment
and performance. Size and strategy are positively correlated with BSC usage, but are not statistically
significant. Higher BSC use is found in large firms with products at an early PLC stage or operating in
a highly uncertain environment. Companies with a cost leadership strategy are significantly associated
with BSC use.
Research limitations/implications This study has small sample size and uses survey research
method. The measurements to capture all aspects of BSC usage are non-exhausting. Future research can
use different methodologies, such as field studies, case studies and lab experiments, to examine other
industries than manufacturing.
Practical implications The authors results show the positive association between BSC use and
certain firm characteristics. Firms with those characteristics should get insights about the benefit of
using BSC and extract the maximum benefit from their investment on the BSC use and those firms
which dont have BSC in implication may think of implementing the BSC use.
Social implications Firms contingent factors affect the value of adopting BSC. With the authors
research result, firms will be aware of how to extract the most value out of BSC and improve the social
wealth of the manufacturing industries.
Originality/value The authors paper is the first paper to use survey method to examine the
association between BSC and firms contingent factors in the Singaporean manufacturing firms setting.

International Journal of Accounting


& Information Management
Vol. 22 No. 3, 2014
pp. 209-222
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1834-7649
DOI 10.1108/IJAIM-05-2013-0038

IJAIM
22,3

210

Keywords Balanced scorecard, Organizational performance, Environmental uncertainty, Product


lifecycle, Singaporean manufacturing firms
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Balanced scorecard (BSC) has been widely adopted by businesses since the introduction
of the concept by Kaplan and Norton (1992). A worldwide survey conducted by Bain
(2006) shows approximately 70 per cent of the firms responding to the survey adopted
BSC[1]. These firms differ in size, organizational structure, strategy, operating
environments, country, tasks and operating results from adopting BSC. Contingency
theory suggests an organization needs to match the BSC with its contingency factors to
be successful (Donaldson, 1995). Sisaye and Birnberg (2010) suggest that management
accounting researchers pay particular attention to an organizations approach to
diffusion and adoption strategies of innovation, particularly, the extent and scope
dimensions when designing and implementing process innovation programs.
Fleischman et al. (2010) provided evidence to support the contention that there are
significant perceptual differences about management accounting system services
between providers and users. Hoque and James (2000) examined the impact of an
organizations size, product lifecycle (PLC) and market position on BSC usage. They
found that an organizations operating environment plays an important role in BSC
adoption. Firms operating in different countries are subject to vastly different cultures.
The literature has so far focused on the BSC adoption experience of US companies. Only
a few studies have investigated BSC in non-US firms (Hoque and James, 2000;
Speckbacher et al., 2003; Sandhu et al., 2008).
This paper examines the impact of culture and other organizational contingent
factors on the effectiveness of BSC adopted by Singaporean manufacturing firms.
Singapore has limited natural resources, a small labor force and a small domestic market
with manufacturing and service as two major economic sectors (Quazi et al., 1998).
Singaporean companies depend heavily on the export market to compete globally.
Rapid economic developments in other countries have greatly intensified competition
for Singapores manufacturing sector (Ghosh et al., 2001). Many companies in Singapore
have adopted innovative management accounting practices such as total quality
management (TQM) (Quazi et al., 1998), business process reengineering (BPR)
(Ranganathan and Dhaliwal, 2001) and BSC to improve their competitive effectiveness.
Mandatory BSC usage by all government agencies further increases the awareness and
popularity of BSC among Singaporean businesses (Chia and Hum, 2000).
This study examines how contingency factors lead to differences in BSC usage and
operating results among Singaporean manufacturing firms. Contingency theorys
general presumption is that there is no one best organizational structure and the most
appropriate organizational structure should match the various contingency factors such
as size, strategy and firm environment (Donaldson, 1995). Hoque and James (2000)
examined Australian manufacturing companies regarding the relationships between
BSC and companies size, PLC and market position. Our study extends theirs by
incorporating four contingent variables of Singaporean manufacturing firms: size; PLC
stage; environmental uncertainty; and strategy.
Although Kaplan and Norton (1992) view BSC as a generic system applicable to
various settings, Sandhu et al. (2008) conclude from their case study that the BSC is a

messy object with different connotations depending on how the BSC is translated into
local settings. The inclusion of environmental uncertainty in our study provides more
insights about its effect on BSC usage and results[2].
The next section discusses the literature and hypotheses development, followed by
the discussion of findings, the limitations of this study and future research suggestions.

Firm
characteristics
and balanced
scorecard

Literature review and hypotheses development


Contingency theory has been a major research paradigm in management accounting
(Donaldson, 1995) since the 1960s. The theory posits that there is no one best
organizational structure for all firms; the best organizational structure adapts to its
contingent factors such as size, local environment, business strategies and technologies
(Donaldson, 2001). Hoque and James (2000) surveyed Australian manufacturing
companies to find that large firms with new products are more likely to use BSC, market
position is not related to BSC usage and adoption of BSC improved firm performance
which did not depend on organization size, lifecycle stage of the firms products and
market position. Chang et al. (2003) tested relationships between contingency factors
such as task uncertainty and decentralization in the context of accounting information
systems (AIS) and found that users satisfaction improved when AIS provided a broad
scope of timely and aggregated information in situations with high task variability
and/or in a highly decentralized organization. These studies suggest that contingency
factors influence usage of management controls and its success in an organization.

211

Management accounting research on firms in Singapore


Singaporean manufacturing firms are deemed to be among the most cost effective and
globally competitive manufacturers[3]. Harrison et al. (1994) compared organizational
designs and management planning and control systems between AngloAmerican
companies (Australia and the USA) and East Asian companies (Singapore and Hong
Kong). They found significant association between national cultural differences and the
differences in organizational design and management planning and control. Chia
and Hum (2000) reported significant associations between the characteristics of
management accounting system information and decentralization and managerial
performance of Singaporean firms. Ghosh et al. (2001) identified key success factors and
strategic choices of top small manufacturing entities in Singapore. Quazi et al. (1998)
examined the critical factors for success in TQM practices of Singaporean firms and
found these factors to be consistent with those of firms in the USA, United Arab
Emirates and India. Ranganathan and Dhaliwal (2001) found a high percentage and
increasing number of Singaporean firms engaged in BPR practices. The lack of human
and financial resources and information technology expertise are major factors that
hindered the adoption of BPR by Singaporean firms. Williams and Seaman (2001) found
that national culture-based power distance, organization capacity and industry
category affect changes in the management accounting systems of Singaporean firms.
These prior studies suggest that contingent factors and the local setting of a firm drive
the success of BSC implementation (Sandhu et al., 2008) and emphasize the importance
of understanding the drivers.
Balanced scorecard
Shortcomings of the traditional finance-based performance measurement systems led
researchers to recommend inclusion of both financial and non-financial measurements

IJAIM
22,3

212

in performance evaluations to provide a balanced and complete picture (Kaplan and


Norton, 2000, 2004, 2006). Designed initially as a multi-dimensional measurement
system for management control and evaluation purposes, the BSC has evolved into
a strategic management system (Malina and Selto, 2001; Banker et al., 2004).
Schneiderman (2001) documented that BSC adoptions have led to dramatic
improvements in customer satisfaction and operating efficiency and contributed in part
to a hundred-fold increase in stockholder value. A 2007 survey conducted by the
management consulting firm Bain[4] shows that in 2006, 66 per cent of firms worldwide
and 71 per cent of companies in Asia used the BSC. It is evident that BSC has gained
prominence for integrating financial and non-financial performance measures (Ruhl,
1997; Simons, 2000).
Contingent factors
The literature above has reported size, PLC stage, environmental uncertainty and
strategy as significant contingent factors affecting BSC adoption and its success (Chow
et al., 1997; Hayes, 1977; Hoque and James, 2000.) This study addresses whether the four
abovementioned contextual variables are systematically related to BSC usage and it
attempts to postulate a fit between the four contextual variables and BSC usage. The
framework for the research is illustrated in Figure 1. Lets now discuss these four
contextual variables.
Size
An organizations increase in size is likely to lead to more dispersed and complicated
management processes. Large firms are likely to be more highly decentralized, thus the
top management often faces information overload, which demands a more formal,
specialized and sophisticated management control system (Speckbacher et al., 2003).
Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998) found a majority of large Australian firms have
adopted a range of management accounting tools that emphasize non-financial
information with a strategic focus. Speckbacher et al. (2003) found a strong positive
association between organizational size and BSC usage among German companies. In
contrast, small or local companies often find the use of elaborate management tools
either unnecessary or ineffective (Chow et al., 1997). A small business owner, who is also
likely both the strategy setter and strategy implementer, does not need to rely on

Organizational Size

Product Life Cycle


Stage

External
Environment

Figure 1.
Research framework

Organizational
Strategy

Balanced
Scorecard
Use

Organizational
Performance

sophisticated management tools for effective communication and decision making


(Brady, 1995). More often than not, the management at all levels of small firms is close to
the market situation and is highly responsive to the needs of the customers without any
formal monitoring devices. This leads to the first hypothesis, stated in alternative form:
H1. Large firms are more likely than small firms to use the BSC performance
measurement system.
PLC stage
Products pass through sales lifecycle stages and a successful firm often sets strategies
and goals tailored to a products lifecycle stages. Identifying a products lifecycle stage
allows firms to gain insights into a products competitive dynamics (Kotler, 2001).
The five common PLC stages are development, introduction, growth, maturity and
decline. Hoque and James (2000) found a positive association between BSC and the early
PLC stages, but their analyses of four BSC perspectives indicate that firms are more
likely to use non-financial measures for new products and an organization with products
at an early PLC stage may find the BSC useful only because of its inclusion of both
financial and non-financial measures. One reason is that financial outcomes are less
certain for products at early stages and financial successes often are not confirmed until
later stages. This leads to the second hypothesis:
H2. Firms in the early stages of PLC are more likely to use a BSC performance
measurement system than firms at later stages of the cycle.
Environmental uncertainty
Facing an uncertain environment, firms are likely to seek information to reduce the
perceived uncertainty and increase comfort levels in decision-making. By linking
lagging and leading measures of financial and non-financial performance, the BSC can
help with decision-making towards achieving better operating results. Thus, facing
heightened environmental uncertainty, firms are likely to increase the use of the BSC,
which leads to the third hypothesis:
H3. Firms that operate in a highly uncertain environment are more likely to use a
BSC performance measurement system than firms that operate in a less
uncertain environment.
Strategy
An organization with defender strategy competing on low product prices adopts a
cost leadership strategy. An organization with a prospector strategy competing on
unique product features adopts a differentiation strategy (Porter, 1985). Regardless of
the strategy a firm chooses to compete with, the BSC can align the goals of a department
or an individual with the overall organizational strategy (Kaplan and Norton, 1992).
The relevance of short-term financial measures for manufacturing firms pursuing
differentiation strategies, however, is controversial. Design and implementation of a
system to accommodate product variations often creates complex and multifunctional
situations (Abernethy and Lillis, 1995). The inability to define optimal input/output
relationships renders financial metrics alone inadequate as the sole measure of
manufacturing performance (Hayes, 1977) and necessitates that firms undergo a
fundamental shift from financial metrics to a broader set of measures. Therefore:

Firm
characteristics
and balanced
scorecard
213

IJAIM
22,3

214

H4. Firms with a differentiation strategy are more likely to use a BSC performance
measurement system than firms with a low cost strategy.
Interaction effects
Prior research shows that performance improved when the BSC fits into the contextual
variables (Hoque and James, 2000). The complexity of large firms makes it necessary for
them to rely on structured communication and coordination systems such as the BSC.
With the full potential of its product not yet realized and reflected in financial measures,
a firm with one or more important products at an early PLC stage is likely to depend on
non-financial control measures in monitoring operations and gauging the progress of
the product. In contrast, financial measures can usually capture most, if not all, important
information on operating results for firms with mature products. Environmental uncertainty
clouds financial measures and firms facing high environmental uncertainty require
non-financial information and control systems to gain a clear picture of its operations.
Firms adopting a differentiation strategy rely more on sophisticated information and
control systems to coordinate the diversified tasks than do firms adopting a low-cost
strategy.
Research method
The manufacturing industry varies in scales of operation, product market, the stages of
the PLC and the dynamic operating environment, which provides a rich setting for
testing the effect of contingency factors on the BSC usage and the resultant firm
performance.
We identified firms from the member listings of the Singapore Confederation of
Industries and sent out questionnaires to 300 financial controllers. The questionnaire
was pre-tested with a preliminary sample to ensure clarity and understandability. In
addition, external validation checks were administered two weeks after receiving each
questionnaire to detect errors and to ensure consistency in the responses. We conducted
t-tests for the two independent samples to test response bias. Lack of significant
differences (at p 5 per cent) of the mean scores for all four contingency factors between
the early and late responses suggests negligible response bias.
We received 32 responses from the two mailings. Five respondents did not complete
the questionnaire because of contravening company policy or staffing constraints.
Another 10 responses were not usable because the firms were not BSC users. To increase
our sample size, we emailed our questionnaire to 50 financial controllers and received
five completed questionnaires. The adjusted usable response rate was about 9.09 per
cent.
Non-response bias
We conducted telephone callbacks to reduce non-response bias. The t-test for the two
independent samples of respondents and non-respondents showed no significant
differences in the mean scores of size, PLC stage, external environment and strategy
indices. We, therefore, concluded that the non-response bias is negligible.
Demographics of the respondents
Table I shows the average experience of the staff responding to the questionnaire was
7.6 years, ranging from 3 to 12 years. About 50 per cent of the firms were multinational

Number of
employees

Principal business activity

0-99

11

Chemical products manufacturing


Electrical machinery and apparatus manufacturing
Electronic products and components manufacturing
Furniture manufacturing
Paper-related products manufacturing
Basic metal products manufacturing
Machinery and equipment manufacturing
Paper-related products manufacturing
Electronic products and components manufacturing
Basic metal products manufacturing
Chemical products manufacturing

100-199

200-299
300

2
3

Firm
characteristics
and balanced
scorecard
215

Table I.
Profile of responding
companies (N 22)

companies, 27.3 per cent were private firms, 9.1 per cent were family-owned and 13.6 per
cent were listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange.
Data analysis
Size
Table II presents the descriptive statistics of all variables in the survey. We used three
alternative measures for size: annual revenue, total assets and total number of
employees. The Pearson correlations between pairs of these three measures show high
correlations (p 0.001). Furthermore, the results of statistical analyses are consistent
when each of these three measures serves as the proxy for size. Consequently, we report
below only the results using the total number of employees as size proxy. The square
root of this variable is used in subsequent regression analyses because of the
non-normality of the variable.
PLC stage
Following Hoque and James (2000), we asked respondents to assess the percentage of
each of their firms product offerings at each of the PLC stages. We used the difference
between the total percentage of products at the development and growth stages and
Variable
Organizational size (original)
(Transformed)
PLC stage
Environment
Strategy
Financial perspective
Internal business perspective
Innovation learning perspective
Customer perspective
Overall BSC use
Organizational performance

Mean

SD

Theoretical range

Actual range

127.05
10.31
10%
4.07
3.50
5.03
4.88
3.42
5.36
4.68
4.99

102.71
4.66
0.56
1.06
0.59
1.12
1.21
1.51
1.08
0.85
1.09

NA
NA
100%-100%
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7

8-341
2.83-18.47
10%-80%
2.00-6.40
2.42-4.76
3.60-7.00
3.00-6.71
1.25-6.50
2.57-7.00
3.24-6.74
2.60-7.00

Table II.
Descriptive statistics
(N 22)

IJAIM
22,3

216

those at the mature and declining stages as the measure for PLC stage for the firm. A
positive value indicates that the firms products are predominantly at early PLC stages,
while a negative value suggests the opposite.
Environmental uncertainty
To assess environmental variability, we followed Miller and Droge (1986) in including
two subscales: unpredictability and dynamism. Each was measured on a 7-point Likert
scale. The unpredictability subscale measures a firms ability to forecast consumer and
competitor behavior, while dynamism indicates the rate of change in marketing
practices and product technology. We followed Miller (1988) in focusing on a narrowly
defined spectrum of the environment, rather than the overall industry parameters.
Although there are alternative measures for perceived environmental uncertainty,
managers perceptions of the actual target markets (Dess and Beard, 1984) has been
demonstrated to possess objective validity (Miller, 1988) and is the measure used in this
study for perceived environmental uncertainty.
Strategy
Porter (1985) shows two common business strategies: differentiation strategy or cost
leadership strategy. A firm with differentiation strategy can price its products at
premium prices through differentiating its products via customization, product
innovation and product variety. A cost-leading firm earns its profits through
price-cutting and cost reduction. Rather than using a two-strategy categorical
classification, this study followed Abernethy and Lillis (1995) in using a 7-point
continual scale. The scale places cost leadership and differentiation at the two ends of
the continuum reflecting the degrees of differentiation and cost leadership in its
strategy.
Balanced scorecard
We modified the instrument developed by Hoque and James (2000) to measure the
use of the BSC. The adapted instrument comprised 20 items, chosen for the local
context and incorporated the four dimensions of Kaplan and Nortons BSC.
Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (To a great
extent) the extent to which each item was used in their organizations performance
evaluations. The Cronbach alpha coefficient is 0.85, indicating satisfactory internal
reliability for the scale.
A principal component analysis resulted in four factors all with eigenvalues of [mtqu]1.
Sixteen of the 20 items have factor loadings of 0.4 on one of three factors (Table III).
Identifying the four factors using the factor loadings of these 16 items, the factors follow
along the lines of the four BSC perspectives identified by Kaplan and Norton (1992).
The following data summarizes items with factor loadings of 0.4.
(1) internal business perspective;
material waste and scrap loss;
yield;
average cycle time;
plant utilization; and
manufacturing cycle efficiency

Item
Eigenvalues
Percent variance explained
Return on equity
Cash flow
Return on sales
Return on investment
Material waste and scrap loss
Yield
Average cycle time
Plant utilization
Manufacturing cycle
efficiency
Number of new patents
Percentage of sales generated
from new products
Time-to-market of new
products
Number of employee
suggestions
Market share
On-time delivery
Customer satisfaction surveys

Factor loadings after varimax orthogonal rotation


Factor 1
Factor 2
Internal
Innovation and
Factor 3
Factor 4
business
learning
Customer
Financial
perspective
perspective
perspective
perspective
5.373
33.581
0.111
0.250
0.142
0.226
0.895
0.752
0.732
0.769

3.110
19.440
0.201
0.126
0.162
0.134
0.247
0.039
0.228
0.134

0.790
0.082

0.003
0.836

0.494
0.082

0.247
0.203

0.262

0.767

0.180

0.479

0.028

0.921

0.018

0.027

0.382
0.279
0.019
0.081

0.661
0.097
0.184
0.469

Note: Numbers in bold represent factor loadings that were 0.4

(2) innovation and learning perspective;


number of new patents;
percentage of sales generated from new products;
time-to-market of new products; and
number of employee suggestions
(3) financial perspective; and
return on equity;
cash flow;
return on sales; and
return on investment
(4) customer perspective
market share;
on-time delivery; and
customer satisfaction surveys

1.678
10.488
0.111
0.422
0.485
0.115
0.089
0.105
0.164
0.411

0.121
0.789
0.830
0.585

1.622
10.137
0.863
0.593
0.485
0.849
0.169
0.075
0.177
0.086

0.057
0.266
0.058
0.008

Firm
characteristics
and balanced
scorecard
217

Table III.
Principal components
analysis of the BSC

IJAIM
22,3

218

Performance
Following Abernethy and Lillis (1995), we asked respondents to appraise their
organizations performance regarding margin on sales, capacity utilization, customer
satisfaction and product quality. The performances were appraised on a scale from 1
(below average) to 7 (above average). A factor analysis indicates that all four measures
loaded on one factor, explaining about 69.6 per cent of the total variance. The Cronbach
alpha coefficient of 0.89 suggests satisfactory internal reliability.
Results
Table IV shows Pearson correlation results. As expected, BSC use is positively and
significantly correlated with PLC stage, external environment and performance.
Although size and strategy are positively correlated with BSC usage, they are not
statistically significant.
The following regression is used to test H1-H4:
BBC_USE 0 1 SIZE 2 PLC 3 ENV 4 STRA e

(1)

Where BSC_USE BSC usage; SIZE firm size; PLC product-life-cycle stage,
measured in five stages from product introduction to maturity; ENV external
environment, i.e. the managers perceptions of the actual target markets unpredictability
and dynamism; and STRA strategy, measured in a continuous scale from low cost to
differentiation.
Table V presents the regression results. Adjusted R2 of the model is 0.568. Pearson
correlation coefficients reported in Table III shows that PLC stage, strategy and external
environment are all significantly correlated at p 0.01. The tolerance test (tolerance
0.1) and variance inflation factor (VIF 10) suggest that multicollinearity is not likely
to have significantly affected the results.
The regression results show 1, 2 and 3 are positive and highly significant (p 0.05),
implying that higher BSC use is found in large firms with products at an early PLC stage
or operating in a highly uncertain environment. 4 is negative and significant,
suggesting that companies with a cost leadership strategy are significantly associated
with BSC use. These results support H1, H2 and H3, but not H4.

Variable

Table IV.
Correlation matrix
(pearson correlation)

Organizational size
PLC stage
External
environment
Organizational
strategy
Overall BSC usage
Organizational
performance

Organizational
size

PLC
stage

1.000

0.184
1.000

Overall
BSC
Organizational
Environment Strategy usage
performance
0.480
0.421*

0.142
0.229
0.559** 0.515**

0.491*
0.219

1.000

0.605** 0.543**

0.614**

1.000

0.307
0.741**

0.143
1.000

1.000

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Table VI reports the ANOVA tests of BSC on performance and the four contingent
factors. None of the interaction effects were significant at a level below p 0.05. The
effect of BSC use on performance was significant for large firms (p 0.01) and for firms
with products at early PLC stages (p 0.05), which supports H1 and H2. The
non-significant results for environmental uncertainty and strategy failed to support H3
and H4.
Discussion
Kidwell et al. (2002) have demonstrated a large number of successful implementations of
the BSC in the USA with only few exceptions. Such evidence has not yet been
documented in non-US firms. Our study fills this gap by examining BSC use in
Singapore, which possesses a unique operating environment and business practices
differing from those of the USA BSC is not merely an amalgamation of financial and
non-financial metrics; it encompasses an integrated system that motivates employees at
all levels to achieve goal congruence.
We adopted the framework by Hoque and James (2000) to test our hypotheses and
research questions. The inclusion of external environment and organizational strategy
in this study adds additional insights. Overall, our results are consistent with the
findings of Hoque and James (2000). In particular, our findings suggest that Singaporean
manufacturing firms are likely to increase usage of the BSC when they are larger in size,
have products at an early PLC stage or operate in a highly uncertain environment. The
findings show a positive relationship between BSC use and environmental uncertainty
but lack support on differentiation strategy. The two-way interaction effect between
BSC use and strategy and environmental uncertainty do not have a significant impact
on performance. The sample mean of 3.50 on a 7-point Likert scale indicates that
manufacturing firms in Singapore place equal emphasis on both the cost leadership and
differentiation strategies. Hoque and James (2000) found firms with an analyzer strategy
to use the four perspectives of the BSC to a greater extent than firms following the cost
leadership or differentiation strategy, while Gibbons (1996) showed that the analyzer
strategy is the most widely adopted strategic approach in Singapore. This may explain
the lack of significant results for increased BSC use by firms with differentiation
strategy and the impact of differentiation strategy and BSC use on performance.

Firm
characteristics
and balanced
scorecard
219

Limitations and suggestions for future research


This study had a small sample size and used survey research method. The
measurements to capture all aspects of BSC usage are non-exhaustive. Caution

Variable
Intercept
ORG_SIZE
PLC
ENV
ORG_STRA

Standardized beta
coefficients

t-statistics

p-value

5.510
0.347
0.701
0.563
0.639

6.107
2.238
3.779
3.056
0.316

0.000
0.039
0.001
0.007
0.006

Notes: Adjusted R2 0.568; F-value 7.911; p 0.001; n 22

Tolerance
NA
0.853
0.598
0.606
0.502

VIF
Table V.
NA
Regression results
1.172
(H1-H4)
1.672
BSC_USAGE 0
1.651
1.991 1ORG_SIZE 2PLC
3ENV
4ORG_STRA e

IJAIM
22,3

Source of variation

Panel A: performance by BSC and size


(RQ1)
BSC usage (a)
Organizational size (b)
220
Two-way interaction (a b)
Explained
Residual
Panel B: performance by BSC and
product-life-cycle stage (RQ2)
BSC usage (a)
PLC stage (c)
Two-way interaction (a c)
Explained
Residual
Panel C: performance by BSC and
external environment (RQ3)
BSC usage (a)
External environment (d)
Two-way interaction (a d)
Explained
Residual
Panel D: Performance by BSC and
strategy (RQ4)
BSC usage (a)
Organizational strategy (e)
Two-way interaction (a e)
Table VI.
ANOVA: two-way
Explained
interaction effects (H5-H8) Residual

Sum of
squares

Degree of
freedom

Mean
square

Significance
of F

6.713
10.353
1.899
14.143
10.775

1
1
1
3
18

6.713
10.353
1.899
4.714
0.599

11.213
17.294
3.173
7.875

0.004
0.001
0.092
0.001

6.443
1.805
4.049
7.698
17.220

1
1
1
3
18

6.443
1.805
4.049
7.698
17.220

6.735
1.887
4.232
2.682

0.018
0.186
0.054
0.078

2.212
3.932
1.214
7.581
17.337

1
1
1
3
18

2.212
3.932
1.214
7.581
17.337

2.296
4.083
1.260
2.624

0.147
0.058
0.276
0.082

3.115
5.037
1.675
9.998
14.920

1
1
1
4
17

3.115
5.037
1.675
9.998
14.920

3.550
2.869
1.909
2.848

0.077
0.084
0.185
0.056

should be exercised in generalizing the findings of this study to other industries and
contexts. Future research can use different methodologies, such as field studies, case
studies and lab experiments, to examine industries other than manufacturing.
Notes
1. Check the survey results at www.bain.com/management_tools/tools_balanced.asp?groupCode2
2. The local environment that Singaporean firms face of course is globalised competition.
3. According to a study by KPMG, Singapore is the most cost-competitive business location
among nine industrialized countries. See www.sedb.com/edb/sg/en_uk/index/why_
singapore/singapore_rankings.html
4. The survey can be found at www.bain.com/management_tools/Management_Tools_and_
Trends_2007.pdf
References
Abernethy, M. and Lillis, A. (1995), The impact of manufacturing flexibility on management
control system design, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 241-258.

Bain (2013), available at: www.bain.com/publications/articles/management-tools-balancedscorecard.aspx


Banker, R., Chang, H. and Pizzini, M. (2004), The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of
performance measures linked to strategy, The Accounting Review, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Brady, A. (1995), Small is as small does, The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 44-50.
Chang, R., Chang, Y. and Paper, D. (2003), The effect of task uncertainty, decentralization and AIS
characteristics on the performance of AIS: an empirical case in Taiwan, Information and
Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 691-703.
Chenhall, R. and Langfield-Smith, K. (1998), Adoption and benefits of management accounting
practices: an Australian study, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Chia, A. and Hum, S. (2000), Adopting and creating balanced scorecards in Singapore-based
companies, Singapore Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Chow, C., Haddad, K. and Williamson, J. (1997), Applying the balanced scorecard to small
companies, Management Accounting, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 21-27.
Dess, G. and Beard, D. (1984), Dimensions of organizational task environments, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 52-73.
Donaldson, L. (1995), Contingency theory, History of Management Thought Series, Vol. 9,
Dartmouth Publishing, Aldershot, Hants.
Donaldson, L. (2001), Contingency Theory of Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Fleischman, G., Walker, K. and Johnson, E. (2010), A field study of user versus provider
perceptions of management accounting system services, International Journal of
Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 252-285.
Ghosh, B.C., Liang, T., Meng, T. and Chan, B. (2001), The key success factors, distinctive
capabilities, and strategic thrusts of top SMEs in Singapore, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 209-221.
Gibbons, P.T. (1996), Generic business strategies in a sample of 65 large Singapore companies,
Singapore Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 27-38.
Harrison, G., McKinnon, J., Panchapakesan, S. and Leung, M. (1994), The influence of culture on
organizational design and planning and control in Australia and the United States
compared with Singapore and Hong Kong, Journal of International Financial
Management and Accounting, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 242-261.
Hayes, D. (1977), The contingency theory of managerial accounting, The Accounting Review,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Hoque, Z. and James, W. (2000), Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors:
impact on organizational performance, Journal of Management Accounting Research,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1992), The balanced scorecard measures that drive performance,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-79.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2000), The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced
Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School
Press.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2004), Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets,
Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 1-12.

Firm
characteristics
and balanced
scorecard
221

IJAIM
22,3

222

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2006), Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create
Corporate Synergies, Harvard Business School Press.
Kidwell, L., Ho, S., Blake, J., Wraith, P., Roubi, R. and Richardson, W. (2002), New management
techniques: an international comparison, The CPA Journal, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 63-66.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2001), Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Malina, M. and Selto, F. (2001), Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of
the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard, Journal of Management Accounting Research,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 47-90.
Miller, D. (1988), Relating porters business strategies to environment and structure: analysis and
performance implications, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 280-308.
Miller, D. and Droge, C. (1986), Psychological and traditional determinants of structure,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 539-560.
Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Quazi, H., Jemangin, J., Low, W. and Chin, L. (1998), Critical factors in quality management and
guidelines for self-assessment: The case of Singapore, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 35-55.
Ranganathan, C. and Dhaliwal, J. (2001), A survey of business process reengineering practices in
Singapore, Information and Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 125-134.
Ruhl, J.M. (1997), The balanced scorecard and benchmarking videos-reviews, Journal of Cost
Management, Winter, pp. 52-56.
Sandhu, R., Baxter, J. and Emsley, D. (2008), The balanced Scorecard and its possibilities: the
initial experiences of a Singapore firm, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 16-24.
Schneiderman, A. (2001), The first balanced scorecard: analog devices 1986-1988, Journal of
Cost Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 16-26.
Simons, R. (2000), Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy:
Text and Cases, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Sisaye, S. and Birnberg, J. (2010), Extent and scope of diffusion and adoption of process
innovations in management accounting systems, International Journal of Accounting and
Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 118-139.
Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J. and Pfeiffer, T. (2003), A descriptive analysis on the implementation
of balanced scorecards in german-speaking countries, Management Accounting Research,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 361-387.
Williams, J. and Seaman, A. (2001), Predicting changes in management accounting systems:
national culture and industry effects, Accounting, Organization and Society, Vol. 26 Nos
4/5, pp. 443-460.
Corresponding author
Ling Liu can be contacted at: liul@uwec.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Você também pode gostar