Why Balanced Score Cards? For four reasons:
1. Kaplan & Norton have escaped the collusion of measurement and quantity. Measurement is not necessarily quantitative. That is a common source of confusion and of inefficiencies in numerous parts of human activity (to name a few: reporting (exhaustiveness), research (methodology), education (elite creation via selection on maths)). Measurement can be qualitative (see Georgescu Roegen work if you’re curious). It is no surprise if numerous initiatives in intellectual capital used Balanced Score Cards
2. Balanced Score Cards are notably visual, which is not so with quantitative ratios. That visual characteristic invites greater meaning and relevance.
3. Balanced Score Cards are heterogeneous and are therefore a more natural receptacle for a) qualitative and quantitative analytics and b) can encompass a variety of topics. In this regard, one can build official reporting encompassing both physical and knowledge activities.
4. Balanced Score Cards are aggregative so that one can build reports from various levels in the organisations. Coupled with its heterogeneous nature (previous point), one can build reports for HR, Marketing, Finance, … under the same format and surface analytics at one or many levels. The result is that some knowledge related metrics can climb the hierarchy up to the summit.
