Application of the balanced scorecard in higher education: opportunities and challenges: an evaluation of balance scorecard implementation at the College of St. Scholastica.
Brown, Cindy
Introduction
In the 1990s a new way of evaluating performance improvement in the
business industry was introduced. The balanced scorecard (BSC) emerged
as a conceptual framework for organizations to use in translating their
strategic objectives into a set of performance indicators. Rather than
focusing on operational performance and the use of quantitative
financial measures, the BSC approach links the organization's
strategy to measurable goals and objectives in four perspectives:
financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth (Niven
2003).
The purpose of this article is to evaluate the use of the BSC in
the nonprofit sector, specifically at an institution of higher
education. Case studies in higher education and personal perspectives
are presented, and the opportunities for and challenges of implementing
the BSC framework in higher education are discussed.
Balanced Scorecard Principles
Achievement of equilibrium is at the core of the BSC system.
Balance must be attained among factors in three areas of performance
measurement: financial and nonfinancial indicators, internal and
external constituents, and lag and lead indicators. Equilibrium must
also be attained between financial and nonfinancial measures;
nonfinancial measures drive the future performance of an organization
and are therefore integral to its success. Further, the use of
nonfinancial measures allows problems to be identified and resolved
early, while they are still manageable (Gumbus 2005). The sometimes
contradictory needs of internal constituents (employees and internal
processes) and external stakeholders (funders, legislators, and
customers) should be equally represented in the scorecard system (Niven
2003). A key function of the BSC is its use as a performance measurement
system. The scorecard enables organizations to measure performance
through a variety of lead and lag indicators relating to finances,
customers, internal processes, and growth and development (Niven 2003).
According to Niven (2003), lag indicators are past performance
indicators such as revenue or customer satisfaction, whereas lead
indicators are "the performance drivers that lead to the
achievement of the lag indicators" (p. 23).
The BSC's cascading process results in a consistent focus at
all levels of the organization.
The BSC framework provides tools to assist business organizations
in mapping their performance improvement strategies and establishing
connections throughout the various levels of the organization.
Additionally, the framework identifies cause-and-effect relationships.
The strategy map component of the BSC provides a graphical description
of the organization's strategy, including the interrelationships of
its elements. This map is considered the blueprint for the
organizational plan (Lichtenberg 2008). Further, the BSC's
cascading process gives the organization a tool for taking the scorecard
down to departmental, unit, divisional, or individual measures of
performance, resulting in a consistent focus at all levels of the
organization. Ideally, these measures of performance at the various
levels directly relate to the organizational strategy; if not, the
organization is just benchmarking its metrics. The cascading of the
scorecard also presents employees with a clear image of how their
individual actions make a difference in relation to the
organization's strategic objectives. The cascaded scorecard creates
alignment among the performance measurement outcomes throughout the
various levels of the organization (Lichtenberg 2009).
The BSC has evolved into a powerful communications tool and
strategic management system for profit-based organizations. Harvard
Business Review has recognized the framework as one of the top 75 most
influential ideas in the 21st century (Niven 2003). Its successful use
in the for-profit arena has been clearly demonstrated, but does it have
applicability in the nonprofit sector, specifically in institutions of
higher education (IHEs)?
Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education
Like other nonprofit organizations, IHEs are increasingly under
pressure to provide external stakeholders such as communities, alumni,
and prospective students with performance indicators that reflect the
overall value and excellence of the institution. Historically, however,
performance indicators in higher education have emphasized academic
measures (Ruben 1999). Driven by external accountability and
comparability issues, IHEs often focus on quantitative academic
variables such as faculty demographics, enrollment, grade point average,
retention rates, faculty-student ratios, standardized test scores,
graduation rates, faculty teaching loads, and faculty scholarly activity
(Ruben 1999). IHEs often assume that measuring external accountability
through one-dimensional parameters such as college rankings or
accrediting agency mandates will influence internally driven parameters
related to institutional effectiveness; yet, unless these indicators are
linked in a meaningful way to the drivers of institutional
effectiveness, desired improvements in service, productivity, and impact
are unlikely to occur (Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin 2000-2001).
Additionally, some of these academic variables do not reflect the value
that the IHE adds through the teaching and learning process but instead
reflect students' existing capabilities (Ruben 1999).
Another challenge in using traditional measures of excellence in
higher education is their failure to capture a comprehensive image of
the institution's current status (Ruben 1999; Stewart and
Carpenter-Hubin 2000-2001). Further, the tendency for IHE performance
indicators to focus on external accountability fails to account for the
importance of internal assessment. Inclusion of internal assessment
indicators broadens perspectives and, if done correctly, provides a
connection between the institution's values and goals (Stewart and
Carpenter-Hubin 2000-2001). Indicators used in traditional higher
education performance measurement frameworks cannot be adequately
translated into meaningful applications for the purpose of monitoring,
planning strategically, or conducting comparative evaluations against
standards of excellence among IHEs (Johnson and Seymour 1996, as cited
in Ruben 1999. These traditional performance indicators also lack the
predictive power necessary to adequately alert IHEs of needed changes in
a timely manner. In addition, traditional models for measuring higher
education performance are constrained by departmental boundaries and are
limited in their ability to link individual performance objectives and
performance evaluation processes with institutional performance (Hafner
1998).
Traditional models are limited in their ability to link individual
performance objectives with institutional performance.
Not as much emphasis is placed on other less tangible indicators in
higher education such as relevance, need, accessibility, value added,
appreciation of diversity, student satisfaction levels, and motivation
for lifelong learning; yet, a common mission of IHEs is to foster
lifelong learning. Many of these indicators, especially those related to
student and faculty expectations and satisfaction levels, deserve
greater attention; recruiting, retaining, and nurturing the best and
brightest individuals is the primary goal of IHEs (Ruben 1999). Despite
this, the five most common performance-based measures used in higher
education are retention and graduation rates, faculty teaching load,
licensure test scores, two- to four-year transfers, and use of
technology/distance learning (Burke 1997).
Absent from these common performance-based indicators are the
measurement categories and specific metrics suggested by a BSC approach.
IHEs need measurable indicators that reflect value and excellence
achieved through investments in technology, innovation, students,
faculty, and staff (Nefstead and Gillard 2006). Current ranking systems
in higher education consider the multiple facets of higher education but
do not offer guidance on the selection and organization of performance
measures in terms of performance drivers or diagnostic indicators.
Moreover, these ranking systems often do not relate performance
indicators to the institution's mission or provide guidance toward
continuous quality improvement (Beard 2009).
The Balanced Scorecard and Higher Education
While implementation of the BSC cannot guarantee a formula for
accurate decision making, it does provide higher education with "an
integrated perspective on goals, targets, and measures of progress"
(Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin 2000-2001, p. 40). Some IHEs have taken the
step of measuring performance indicators through the implementation of a
BSC approach. These IHEs have identified the important characteristics
of the scorecard: inclusion of a strategic plan; establishment of lag
and lead performance indicators; improvement of efficiency,
effectiveness, and overall quality; and inclusion of faculty and staff
in the process (Rice and Taylor 2003). Successful implementation of the
BSC framework in higher education relies on the progression through
various steps as part of the process. The first step is clear
delineation of the mission and vision, including translating this vision
into specific strategies with a set of performance measures. The next
step is establishing communication and linkage among schools,
departments, student support services, institutional advancement, and
other offices such as physical plant and maintenance services. This step
is important in establishing direct connections between the individual
unit goals and objectives and the macro-level institutional goals. To
increase the potential for success, it is imperative that administrators
develop specific strategies to achieve goals and allocate sufficient
resources for these strategies. Credible measures of progress toward
these goals must also be instituted. The final step involves creating a
feedback mechanism whereby the IHE can evaluate its overall performance
using updated indicators and revise its strategies when needed (Stewart
and Carpenter-Hubin 2000-2001).
Application of the Balanced Scorecard Framework in IHEs
There is a dearth of published literature regarding BSC
applications in IHEs. Beard (2009) believes that this may be attributed
to a lack of knowledge and awareness of the opportunities for BSC
application rather than to incongruence between the BSC approach and
higher education strategic planning. Scholey and Armitage (2006) suggest
that as IHEs are expected to develop more innovative programs and also
demonstrate greater fiscal and customer accountability, more will adopt
the BSC framework. Others contend that the lack of a detailed,
systematic process for executing the BSC model has hindered its
widespread use in IHEs; as a result, they have developed models for its
application in higher education (Asan and Tanyas 2007; Karpagam and
Suganthi 2010). Asan and Tanyas (2007) presented a methodology that
integrates the BSC (a performance-based approach) with Hoshin Kanri (a
process-based approach). Karpagam and Suganthi (2010) created a generic
BSC framework to assist IHEs in assessing overall institutional
performance through the use of identified higher education measurement
criteria that lead to the establishment of benchmarks and quality
improvement goals.
Despite the reluctance of IHEs to adopt standard innovations
(Pineno 2008), there are some documented case studies in which the BSC
approach has been successfully implemented in IHEs both nationally and
internationally. From an international perspective, authors in both
Australia and Canada have published case-study data on the use of the
BSC approach (Cribb and Hogan 2003; Mikhail 2004).
Additionally, colleges and university systems in the United States
that have documented their use of the BSC include the University of
California System, Fairfield University, University of Wisconsin-Stout,
and the University of Minnesota College of Foods, Agricultural and
Natural Resource Sciences (Nefstead and Gillard 2006).
Bond University in Australia initiated a BSC approach for
performance improvement. The library unit at Bond University used the
university's vision, mission, strategies, and performance goals to
develop and implement its own BSC. As part of the process, the
library's senior and middle managers provided input on strategic
objectives and proposed metrics. This process also included the linkage
of measures through cause-and-effect relationships. An identified
challenge involved narrowing the list of possible measures to the select
few that would best capture the core of the desired strategy (Cribb and
Hogan 2003). The library's objective for each of its perspectives
closely aligned with the university's objectives. For example,
under the customer perspective, the university defined customer
satisfaction as an objective. The library then identified its own
objectives focused on the assurance of customer satisfaction through a
variety of strategies, including an emphasis on available resources and
services as well as effective collaboration and communication with
academic staff.
In developing financial measures, Bond University initially decided
to use library resources in relation to student numbers to measure the
library's role in achieving cost-effectiveness. However, since the
university had lower student enrollment and smaller economies of scale
in comparison to other universities in Australia, this financial measure
did not adequately reflect the relationships among library expenditures,
usage, student educational achievement, and customer satisfaction.
Therefore, additional measures were identified to more accurately
support both the library's and university's objectives. A key
factor that contributed to the successful implementation of the BSC at
Bond University was the involvement of staff in the process; staff
involvement created an alignment between both the library's and
university's strategic objectives (Cribb and Hogan 2003).
Ontario Community College in Canada also shared its application of
the BSC. The college substituted a strategic goals perspective for the
financial perspective typically used in the BSC framework. This
perspective was intended to identify "how we should appear to our
shareholders" in order to succeed (Mikhail 2004, p. 9). The college
identified the following strategic goals: (1) achieve academic/service
excellence, (2) manage enrollment growth, (3) develop strategic
partnerships, (4) achieve organizational success, and (5) manage
cost-effectiveness and achieve a balanced budget (Mikhail 2004).
In the mid-1990s, the University of California System initiated a
"Partnership for Performance" a collaborative effort involving
the development and implementation of a BSC framework throughout the
nine distinctly different campuses. The system executed specific
approaches that contributed to the overall success of this initiative.
Senior administrative managers from each campus participated in the
development of the overall vision and goals for business administration
and operations. This administrative group also served as a steering
committee over the life of the initiative by providing direction,
prioritizing, solving problems, and encouraging and motivating their
staff to participate. The five business areas on each campus--human
resources, facilities management, environmental health and safety,
information technology, and financial operations--piloted the
development of common BSC measures. Creating a performance measurement
culture was challenging, but part of the system's success in
achieving this culture resulted from the creation of "performance
champions groups" that met quarterly to exchange dialogue and
information related to organizational performance measurement and
management. As a result of the initiative, two of the campuses adopted
the BSC as a strategic planning tool for business administration at the
university level (Hafner 1998).
The Fairfield University School of Business designed a phased
approach for the implementation of the BSC framework at the academic
unit level. The phases of the strategy revitalization process included
building a foundation, developing the scorecard, compiling measures,
analyzing results, recommending changes, revising measures, and
implementing initiatives (McDevitt, Giapponi, and Solomon 2008). The
university also defined its own perspectives that it felt were more
appropriate to academics, including growth and development, scholarship
and research, teaching and learning, service and outreach, and financial
resources. In some instances, the university needed to adopt a
benchmarking program; in others, it changed its metrics because
information was not available or easily accessible. During the analysis
phase, metrics were reevaluated and faculty members were assessed on
their ability to meet goals. Faculty metrics included numbers and types
of "intellectual contributions," measured through refereed
publications and attendance at or sponsorship of pedagogical seminars
(McDevitt, Giapponi, and Solomon 2008, p. 45).
Fairfield University's School of Business had difficulty in
maintaining momentum throughout the implementation of the program. The
institution found it challenging to develop effective measures to meet
long-term qualitative goals and to create effective communication
strategies across work groups, which led to delays in establishing
consensus within and among the various groups. Key outcomes of this
revitalization program included creating a communications network
between faculty and staff, increasing faculty awareness of the
institution's goals and objectives, and identifying and documenting
needs for the purpose of determining budget and funding (McDevitt,
Giapponi, and Solomon 2008).
The University of Wisconsin-Stout, another BSC implementer, was one
of the first three organizations to receive the Baldrige education award
(Karathanos and Karathanos 2005). The Malcolm Baldrige Education
Criteria for Performance Excellence was designed to recognize integrated
performance measurement in IHEs that includes (1) the delivery of
ongoing value to stakeholders, (2) the improvement of the
institution's overall effectiveness and capability, and (3) the
promotion of organizational and individual learning. The Baldrige
National Quality Program criteria focus on results and creation of
value. Its requirement of an institutional report with comprehensive
measures comprised of both leading and lagging performance indicators is
consistent with the basic premise of the BSC framework (Beard 2009;
Karathanos and Karathanos 2005).
Balanced Scorecard Application at a Select IHE
A BSC, including a strategy map and departmental improvement plan,
was developed for a select IHE (figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively). This
IHE is a small liberal arts college located in northern Minnesota, rich
in its Benedictine heritage and Catholic tradition. Applying Stewart and
Carpenter-Hubin's (2000-2001) process, the IHE first identified
strategies/objectives and performance measures that fit with the
distinct mission and vision of the college. The strategy map (figure 2)
was an invaluable resource in expressing the cause-and-effect
relationships among the various perspectives. The strategy map provided
useful visual connections that illustrated the college's overall
calculated planning process, which helped generate faculty and staff
buy-in to the BSC approach. For example, faculty could see how their
work in strengthening and creating new academic programs and program
delivery systems affected other performance indicators such as improving
student satisfaction and increasing enrollment growth in extended
studies programs. Similarly, staff could gain an understanding of how
their commitment to strengthening student support services and enhancing
service-learning experiences affected the student experience and
community partnerships.
Once the overall strategies were identified in each of the four
perspectives--financial, internal processes, students and community, and
learning and growth--it was relatively easy to develop School of Nursing
(SoN) and undergraduate nursing department-based objectives that fit
with the institution's overall objectives/goals through the process
of cascading, as illustrated by the BSC performance improvement plan
(figure 3). As a nursing faculty member, it was beneficial to see how
the undergraduate nursing department's objectives were linked to
the overall college objectives. For example, strategies from the
internal process dimension at the college level included strengthening
the Benedictine Liberal Arts (BLA) program and enhancing student
service-learning experiences. Measures related to achieving these
strategies at the undergraduate nursing department level included
expectations that five percent of nursing faculty would teach in the BLA
program and that service-learning experiences would be offered each
semester at all three levels of the nursing program: sophomore, junior,
and senior. The cascading tool proved useful throughout the college,
especially when used as a basis for developing and justifying
departmental budgets. Budget allocation could be directly linked to the
college's BSC strategic plan and subsequent SoN and departmental
performance improvement plans.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
This writer agrees with several authors' assessments that
modification of the BSC is necessary for successful application in IHEs.
As a nursing faculty member, it was difficult to identify objectives and
develop specific performance measures from a financial perspective. As
Mikhail (2004) suggests, it would have been useful to replace the
financial perspective with a strategic goals perspective. These
strategic goals could be established to support the college's
financial priorities: to contain costs and to increase enrollment and
revenue in extended campuses and online programs. Further, future IHE
BSC implementations should consider including the service and outreach
perspectives (McDevitt, Giapponi, and Solomon 2008), especially since
these are congruent with this college's mission and vision. This
perspective could also be reasonably addressed through the splitting of
the customer perspective into two parts, with students as one customer
and the community as another, as demonstrated in the strategy map
(figure 2).
Recommendations
It would be advantageous for this select liberal arts college in
northern Minnesota to adopt the BSC framework as a communication tool
and strategic management system. Prior to implementation, it is
imperative to name organizational champions to lead the process, garner
support, and gain the momentum necessary to execute the BSC framework.
These champions should include not only administrators, but also faculty
and staff representatives from the various schools and administrative
departments that support the college's academic programs. A
valuable resource already exists in the college's strategic plan
for 2011-2016, which directly links to the mission and vision of this
IHE. The champions could take the strategic goals found in the plan and
articulate appropriate measures for their attainment through the
development of a BSC that considers all four perspectives: financial,
internal processes, students and community, and learning and growth.
The SoN could serve as the pilot for implementing the BSC approach;
the SoN is in a position to greatly benefit from such an approach.
Having grown in recent years to become one of the largest nursing
programs in Minnesota, the school faces challenges in organizing its
complex structure, which is composed of undergraduate programs taught in
traditional, accelerated, and online formats and graduate programs that
include baccalaureate and master's degree tracks to doctoral
degrees and master's degree tracks to five different advanced
nursing practice options. Historically, the SoN's goals were
established without measurable outcomes and without direct linkages to
departmental budgets. When these goals were revisited at the end of the
academic year, faculty questioned how their achievement was being
measured. While the SoN's goals do connect to the college's
mission and vision, nursing faculty have requested that a long-term
strategic plan be developed to manage the school's growth and
assist in identifying priorities. Adopting the BSC would enable the
nursing faculty to participate in the identification of SoN priorities
and then, through the BSC improvement plan, develop school- and
department-specific objectives with performance measure outcomes. The
BSC improvement plan would also establish connections and improve
communication among the four nursing departments and the school. Clear
alignment of performance measurement indicators with the
institution's mission, values, and strategies is an imperative in
the BSC approach. Further, nursing education accreditation standards,
which have the purpose of ensuring the quality of baccalaureate and
graduate nursing programs (Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education
2009), mandate that the SoN's mission, goals, and outcomes fit with
the college's mission and vision. The BSC improvement plan can
serve as the working document that illustrates the achievement of this
important quality standard.
After successful implementation of the BSC framework in the SoN,
momentum could be maintained by disseminating the approach to the other
schools until the entire college has adopted the system. Using the
college's strategy map (figure 2), improvement plans could be
developed by the various schools and departments, starting with school
plans and cascading down to designated department-level plans. This
systematic approach would help to minimize any difficulty in obtaining
consensus in setting performance measures and would enhance
communication within each school. Moreover, this process would delineate
how each school supports the college's mission and values. IHE
accrediting organizations require an institution to demonstrate the
fulfillment of its mission through organizational structure and system
processes. This quality indicator can be validated through the use of
the BSC approach, which links the college's mission and values with
specific performance measures in each of the four perspectives that then
cascade down to school and departmental improvement plans.
A common issue in IHEs is a disconnect between faculty and
administrators. Communication in IHEs often flows in a top-down,
vertical-type way. Feeling some of these same sentiments, the faculty at
this liberal arts college have asked for a shared-governance structure.
In whole system shared governance (WSSG), the organizational structure
is decentralized and accountability-based. WSSG "operates from its
core where its mission, vision, and values should be most visible"
(Crow and DeBourgh 2010, p. 216). Implementation of the BSC framework at
this college would help build relationships among faculty, staff, and
administrators, a start in the process of shared governance.
The BSC framework serves to build alignment around key performance
indicators.
This writer believes that this college has historically functioned
in a reactive manner. With its emphasis on continuous improvement
processes, the BSC would better position the college to operate in a
proactive mode, since the scorecard's lead indicators link college
strategies and mission with measurable outcomes that then drive future
endeavors and initiatives. An efficient and effective way to gauge
and/or predict upcoming trends and issues is through active engagement
and alignment with a variety of stakeholders; this alignment and
engagement is encouraged with the BSC approach. The college is also
challenged by growth related to distant campuses and online formats,
which may contribute to isolation and inconsistency in measuring and
achieving quality performance standards; the BSC framework serves to
foster connections and build alignment around key performance
indicators.
Conclusion
The BSC framework is an excellent strategy-based management system
that can be used in IHEs to assist them in clarifying their mission and
vision and translating their vision into strategies. These strategies,
in turn, can serve as the basis for developing operational objectives or
actions with measurable indicators for the purpose of evaluating
performance improvement and achieving success. In these tumultuous
economic times, the use of the scorecard, with its inclusion of
nonfinancial measures, paradoxically provides IHEs with a way to develop
strategic priorities for resource allocation. Monitoring nonfinancial
measures also affords IHEs the opportunity to consider student and
stakeholder feedback, faculty and staff satisfaction, and the internal
efficiency of the institution's processes.
The scorecard can serve as an effective communication tool for
IHEs. The BSC approach enhances communication with internal and external
stakeholders; it also provides a venue for identifying what really
matters to these stakeholders. Improved communication flow builds trust
within and outside the IHE. Since successful execution of the BSC
requires engagement and cooperation among all levels in the institution,
it promotes collaboration and alignment, which are key motivators in
pursuing continuous quality improvement strategies (Rice and Taylor
2003). Further, the cascading of the BSC also creates the alignment of
performance measures. With the proliferation of IHE learning formats to
include virtual sites and extended campuses, decentralization,
isolation, and quality control can be problematic. The collaboration and
alignment that drives the development of BSC performance measures
fosters consistency and motivates action and change at the institutional
level.
References
Asan, S. S., and M. Tanyas. 2007. Integrating Hoshin Kanri and the
Balanced Scorecard for Strategic Management: The Case of Higher
Education. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 18 (9):
999-1014.
Beard, D. F. 2009. Successful Applications of the Balanced
Scorecard in Higher Education. Journal of Education for Business 84 (5):
275-82.
Burke, J. C. 1997. Performance-Funding Indicators: Concerns,
Values, and Models for Two- and Four-Year Colleges and Universities.
Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute for Government.
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. 2009. Standards for
Accreditation of Baccalaureate and Graduate Degree Nursing Programs.
Washington, DC: Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. Retrieved
May 2, 2012, from the World Wide Web:
www.aacn.nche.edu/ccne-accreditation/standards09.pdf.
Cribb, G., and C. Hogan. 2003. Balanced Scorecard: Linking
Strategic Planning to Measurement and Communication. Paper delivered at
the 24th Annual IATUL Conference, Ankara, Turkey, June 2-5. Retrieved
May 2, 2012, from the World Wide Web:
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/library_pubs/8.
Crow, G., and G. A. DeBourgh. 2010. Combining Diffusion of
Innovation, Complex, Adaptive Healthcare Organizations, and Whole
Systems Shared Governance: 21st Century Alchemy. In Innovation
Leadership: Creating the Landscape of Health Care Learning, ed. T
Porter-O'Grady and K. Malloch, 195-246. Boston: Jones &
Bartlett Learning.
Gumbus, A. 2005. Introducing the Balanced Scorecard: Creating
Metrics to Measure Performance. Journal of Management Education 29 (4):
617-30.
Hafner, K. A. 1998. Partnership for Performance: The Balanced
Scorecard Put to the Test at the University of California. Retrieved May
2, 2012, from the World Wide Web:
http://rec.hku.hk/steve/Msc/reco%206027/handouts
/10-98-bal-scor-chapter2.pdf.
Karathanos, D., and P Karathanos. 2005. Applying the Balanced
Scorecard to Education. Journal of Education for Business 80 (4):
222-30. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from the World Wide Web:
http://jsofian.files.wordpress.com/2006/12
/applying-bsc-in-education.pdf.
Karpagam, U., and L. Suganthi. 2010. A Strategic Framework for
Managing Higher Educational Institutions. Advances in Management 3 (10):
15-21.
Lichtenberg, T. 2008. Strategic Alignment: Using the Balanced
Scorecard to Drive Performance. Presentation retrieved from course
lecture notes.
--. 2009. Aligning Performance Through Cascading. Podcast recorded
as part of the Oregon Office of Rural Health's Flex Webinar
Learning Series, March 4. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from the World Wide
Web: http://vimeo.com/7298078.
McDevitt, R., C. Giapponi, and N. Solomon. 2008. Strategy
Revitalization in Academe: A Balanced Scorecard Approach. International
Journal of Educational Management 22 (1): 32-47.
Mikhail, S. 2004. The Application of the Balanced Scorecard
Framework to Institutions of Higher Education: Case Study of an Ontario
Community College. Presentation given as part of a workshop. Retrieved
May 2, 2012, from the World Wide Web:
www.ciep.fr/en/confint/conf_2005/doc/intervention/Mikhail.pdf.
Nefstead, W. E., and S. A. Gillard. 2006. Creating an Excel-Based
Balanced Scorecard to Measure the Performance of Colleges of
Agriculture. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, July 23-26. Retrieved May 2,
2012, from the World Wide Web:
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/21421/1/sp06ne04.pdf.
Niven, P R. 2003. Balanced Scorecard: Step-by-Step for Government
and Nonprofit Agencies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Pineno, C. J. 2008. Should Activity-Based Costing or the Balanced
Scorecard Drive the University Strategy for Continuous Improvement?
Proceedings of ASBBS 15 367-85. Retrieved February 24, 2010, from the
World Wide Web: http://asbbs.org/files/2008/PDF/P/Pineno.pdf.
Rice, G. K., and D. C. Taylor. 2003. Continuous-Improvement
Strategies in Higher Education: A Progress Report. Educause Center for
Applied Research Research Bulletin, vol. 2003, no. 20. Retrieved May 2,
2012, from the World Wide Web:
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0320.pdf.
Ruben, B. D. 1999. Toward a Balanced Scorecard for Higher
Education: Rethinking the College and University Excellence Indicators
Framework. Higher Education Forum 99 (2): 1-10.
Scholey, C., and H. Armitage. 2006. Hands-on Scorecarding in the
Higher Education Sector. Planning for Higher Education 35 (1): 31-41.
Stewart, A. C., and J. Carpenter-Hubin. 2000-2001. The Balanced
Scorecard: Beyond Reports and Rankings. Planning for Higher Education 29
(2): 37-42.
Cindy Brown, DNP MPH, RD, RN is an
assistant professor in the School of Nursing at the College of St.
Scholastica in Duluth, Minnesota. Her professional expertise is in
public health, nutrition, and chemical dependency. She also provides
nursing services at a housing facility for residents with chronic
alcoholism. She has an interest in performance improvement evaluation in
higher education; this article is a culmination of her review and
application conducted as part of her graduate course work for her
doctorate of nursing practice degree.
Figure 1 Balanced Scorecard
STRATEGY MEASURE TARGET
A. Manage Increase student 1) Ten percent increase in
enrollment enrollment in Adult student enrollment at each
growth Day and Evening ADEP extended site:
Programs (ADEP), Brainerd, St. Cloud,
extended sites, and St. Paul, and Rochester.
with the three
online initiatives. 2) Twenty percent increase
in the three online
initiatives: RN to BS, HIIM
Master's, and DPT programs.
B. Secure Seek private donor Obtain 10 percent of
capital funds funding through estimated $15 million for
capital campaign. Science building expansion
from private donations.
C. Increase Increase students' 1) One hundred percent of
student overall satisfaction students will report being
satisfaction with their college satisfied or "very
experience. satisfied" with their
overall experience at the
college.
2) One hundred percent of
students will report being
satisfied or
very satisfied with their
preparation for future
work.
D. Strengthen Develop a 1) Implementation of new
the Benedictine Benedictine Liberal Benedictine Liberal Arts
Liberal Arts Arts program that program beginning Fall
program aligns itself with of 2011.
the mission and
values of the 2) By Fall of 2011,
college. 25 percent of the
Benedictine Liberal Arts
program will be available
in an online format.
E. Enhance Increase service- 1) Each school-Education,
service- learning Management, Business &
learning opportunities and Technology, Health Science,
experiences student Sciences, Nursing, and
participation. Arts & Letters-will add at
least two new service-
learning experience options
each semester.
2) Prior to graduation,
100 percent of students
will participate in a
service-learning
experience.
F. Support Expand faculty 1) Five percent of entire
faculty development funding faculty each year will
professional to support faculty become eligible for
practice and advance practice associate professor status
research and research. through achievement of a
terminal degree and advance
research.
2) These faculty receive
50 percent funding, up to
$10,000/year, for advanced
education/research.
G. Strengthen Provide a 1) Each school within the
information competitive college has its own
technology technology designated academic IT
infrastructure infrastructure that development/support staff
supports the needs in proportion to its number
of students, of programs and
faculty, and staff. departments.
2) IT Help "desk" support
is available 7 days per
week.
3) One hundred percent of
college classrooms and labs
are evaluated for
supportive technology
needs.
STRATEGY FREQUENCY FINDINGS TRENDING
A. Manage Monthly
enrollment
growth
B. Secure Quarterly
capital funds
C. Increase Annual Graduation
student Satisfaction Survey
satisfaction
D. Strengthen Annual
the Benedictine
Liberal Arts
program
E. Enhance Semi-annually
service-
learning
experiences
F. Support Semi-annually
faculty
professional
practice and
research
G. Strengthen Quarterly
information
technology
infrastructure
Figure 3 Balanced Scorecard Performance Improvement Plan:
Undergraduate Department of Nursing
SCORECARD DEPARTMENT LEVEL
FINANCE Undergraduate Nursing
A. Manage Increase enrollment Increase enrollment in the
enrollment in ADEP extended online RN to BS program by
growth sites and the three 10 percent.
college online
initiatives.
School of Nursing
B. Secure Private donor Identify community benefactors
capital funding for capital in the health care field.
funds campaign for Science
building.
STUDENTS Undergraduate Nursing
AND
COMMUNITY
C. Improve Increase students' One hundred percent of nursing
student overall satisfaction students report being
satisfaction with their college satisfied with availability
experience. and variety of course
offerings in the program.
INTERNAL Undergraduate Nursing
PROCESSES
D. Strengthen Alignment of BLA Five percent of nursing
the program with faculty teach BLA courses.
Benedictine mission, vision,
Liberal Arts and values of the
(BLA) program college.
E. Enhance Increase service- One hundred percent of nursing
student learning students participate in
service- opportunities and service-learning opportunities
learning student
experiences participation.
LEARNING AND Undergraduate Nursing
GROWTH
F. Support Expand faculty Nursing faculty funding
faculty development to sources are available for
professional support advanced advancing education and
practice and practice and research experience.
research research.
G. Strengthen Provide a Integrate nursing informatics
information competitive into the curriculum.
technology technology
infrastructure infrastructure.
ACTION PLAN
FINANCE Department Initiatives
A. Manage 1) Develop and revise RN to BS program for
enrollment rolling admission, online format.
growth
2) Nursing faculty training necessary for
successful online courses implementation.
School of Nursing Initiative
B. Secure School of Nursing solicits identified benefactors
capital for capital funds.
funds
STUDENTS Department Initiatives
AND
COMMUNITY
C. Improve 1) Evaluate nursing elective courses for the
student purpose of aligning offerings with students' needs.
satisfaction
2) Identify additional ways of meeting program
requirements through a variety of course or
service-learning opportunities.
INTERNAL Department Initiatives
PROCESSES
D. Strengthen 1) Adjustment of nursing faculty workload to
the accommodate teaching of BLA courses.
Benedictine
Liberal Arts 2) Nursing faculty representation and participation
(BLA) program in BLA program planning initiative.
E. Enhance 1) Embed service-learning opportunities in
student undergraduate nursing program curriculum.
service-
learning 2) Make service-learning opportunities available
experiences each semester at each program level: sophomore,
junior, and senior.
LEARNING AND Department Initiatives
GROWTH
F. Support 1) Obtain grant funding to support nursing faculty
faculty education and research.
professional
practice and 2) Offer nursing faculty and student collaboration
research experiences to advance evidenced-based
nursing practice.
G. Strengthen 1) Advance the use of simulation and the academic
information electronic health record in the curriculum.
technology
infrastructure 2) Increase student didactic and clinical
experiences with nursing informatics.
