MODUL PERKULIAHAN
Distinctive Strategic
Management
Balance Score Card (BSC) concept
Steps of BSC
Perspective of BSC
Handicaps of BSC
Blue Ocean Strategy
Fakultas
Program Studi
Ekonomi & Bisnis
Magister
Manajemen
Tatap Muka
14
Kode MK
Disusun Oleh
35009
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata, SE., MM
Abstract
Kompetensi
This module illustrates Balance Score
Card (BSC) concept
Steps of BSC
Perspective of BSC
Handicaps of BSC
Blue Ocean
Understanding Balance Score Card
(BSC) concept Steps of BSC
Perspective of BSC Handicaps of BSC
Blue Ocean Strategy
Pembahasan
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a strategy performance management tool - a semi-standard
structured report, supported by design methods and automation tools, that can be used by
managers to keep track of the execution of activities by the staff within their control and to
monitor the consequences arising from these actions.
The critical characteristics that define a balanced scorecard are:

its focus on the strategic agenda of the organization concerned

the selection of a small number of data items to monitor

a mix of financial and non-financial data items.
The balance scorecard is used as a strategic planning and a management technique. This is
widely used in many organizations, regardless of their scale, to align the organization's
performance to its vision and objectives.
The scorecard is also used as a tool, which improves the communication and feedback
process between the employees and management and to monitor performance of the
organizational objectives.
As the name depicts, the balanced scorecard concept was developed not only to evaluate
the financial performance of a business organization, but also to address customer
concerns, business process optimization, and enhancement of learning tools and
mechanisms.
The Basics of Balanced Scorecard
Following is the simplest illustration of the concept of balanced scorecard. The four boxes
represent the main areas of consideration under balanced scorecard. All four main areas of
consideration are bound by the business organization's vision and strategy.
cial Perspective: This consists of costs or measurement involved, in terms of rate of return
on capital (ROI) employed and operating income of the organization.
2016
2
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
Customer Perspective: Measures the level of customer satisfaction, customer retention and
market share held by the organization.
Business Process Perspective: This consists of measures such as cost and quality related to
the business processes.
Learning and Growth Perspective: Consists of measures such as employee satisfaction,
employee retention and knowledge management.
The four perspectives are interrelated. Therefore, they do not function independently. In
real-world situations, organizations need one or more perspectives combined together to
achieve its business objectives.
For example, Customer Perspective is needed to determine the Financial Perspective, which
in turn can be used to improve the Learning and Growth Perspective.
Features of Balanced Scorecard
From the above diagram, you will see that there are four perspectives on a balanced
scorecard. Each of these four perspectives should be considered with respect to the
following factors.
When it comes to defining and assessing the four perspectives, following factors are used:

Objectives: This reflects the organization's objectives such as profitability or market
share.

Measures: Based on the objectives, measures will be put in place to gauge the
progress of achieving objectives.

Targets: This could be department based or overall as a company. There will be
specific targets that have been set to achieve the measures.

2016
Initiatives: These could be classified as actions that are taken to meet the objectives.
3
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
Balanced scorecard is an example of a closed-loop controller or cybernetic control applied
to the management of the implementation of a strategy. Closed-loop or cybernetic control
is where actual performance is measured, the measured value is compared to an expected
value and based on the difference between the two corrective interventions are made as
required. Such control requires three things to be effective - a choice of data to measure,
the setting of an expected value for the data, and the ability to make a corrective
intervention.
Within the strategy management context, all three of these characteristic closed-loop
control elements need to be derived from the organisation's strategy and also need to
reflect the ability of the observer to both monitor performance and subsequently intervene
- both of which may be constrained. Initially, Balanced Scorecard emerged as a performance
management system, over a period of time it has come to be known as a strategy
management system, with its ultimate aim being the achievement of long term financial
performance. Balanced scorecard is seen as a strategic management system enabling
business leaders to meet the challenge of strategy execution.
Two of the ideas that underpin modern balanced scorecard designs concern facilitating the
creation of such a control - through making it easier to select which data to observe, and
ensuring that the choice of data is consistent with the ability of the observer to intervene.
The characteristics of the balanced scorecard and its derivatives is the presentation of a
mixture of financial and non-financial measures each compared to a 'target' value within a
single concise report. The report is not meant to be a replacement for traditional financial or
operational reports but a succinct summary that captures the information most relevant to
those reading it. It is the method by which this 'most relevant' information is determined
(i.e., the design processes used to select the content) that most differentiates the various
versions of the tool in circulation. The balanced scorecard indirectly also provides a useful
insight into an organisation's strategy - by requiring general strategic statements (e.g.
mission, vision) to be precipitated into more specific / tangible forms.
2016
4
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
The first versions of balanced scorecard asserted that relevance should derive from the
corporate strategy, and proposed design methods that focused on choosing measures and
targets associated with the main activities required to implement the strategy. As the initial
audience for this were the readers of the Harvard Business Review, the proposal was
translated into a form that made sense to a typical reader of that journal - managers of US
commercial businesses. Accordingly, initial designs were encouraged to measure three
categories of non-financial measure in addition to financial outputs - those of "customer,"
"internal business processes" and "learning and growth." These categories were not so
relevant to non-profits or units within complex organizations (which might have high
degrees of internal specialization), and much of the early literature on balanced scorecard
focused on suggestions of alternative 'perspectives' that might have more relevance to
these groups.
Modern balanced scorecards have evolved since the initial ideas proposed in the late 1980s
and early 1990s, and the modern performance management tools including Balanced
Scorecard are significantly improved - being more flexible (to suit a wider range of
organisational types) and more effective (as design methods have evolved to make them
easier to design, and use).
Design of a balanced scorecard is about the identification of a small number of financial and
non-financial measures and attaching targets to them, so that when they are reviewed it is
possible to determine whether current performance 'meets expectations'. By alerting
managers to areas where performance deviates from expectations, they can be encouraged
to focus their attention on these areas, and hopefully as a result trigger improved
performance within the part of the organization they lead.
The original thinking behind a balanced scorecard was for it to be focused on information
relating to the implementation of a strategy, and over time there has been a blurring of the
boundaries between conventional strategic planning and control activities and those
required to design a balanced scorecard. This is illustrated well by the four steps required to
design a balanced scorecard included in Kaplan & Norton's writing on the subject in the late
1990s:
2016
5
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
1) Translating the vision into operational goals;
2) Communicating the vision and link it to individual performance;
3) Business planning; index setting
4) Feedback and learning, and adjusting the strategy accordingly.
These steps go far beyond the simple task of identifying a small number of financial and
non-financial measures, but illustrate the requirement for whatever design process is used
to fit within broader thinking about how the resulting balanced scorecard will integrate with
the wider business management process.
Although it helps focus managers' attention on strategic issues and the management of the
implementation of strategy, it is important to remember that the balanced scorecard itself
has no role in the formation of strategy. In fact, balanced scorecards can co-exist with
strategic planning systems and other tools.
First generation balanced scorecar
The first generation of balanced scorecard designs used a "4 perspective" approach to
identify what measures to use to track the implementation of strategy. `The original four
"perspectives" proposed were:

Financial: encourages the identification of a few relevant high-level financial
measures. In particular, designers were encouraged to choose measures that helped
inform the answer to the question "How do we look to shareholders?" Examples:
cash flow, sales growth, operating income, return on equity.[20]

Customer: encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "How
do customers see us?" Examples: percent of sales from new products, on time
delivery, share of important customers’ purchases, ranking by important customers.

Internal business processes: encourages the identification of measures that answer
the question "What must we excel at?" Examples: cycle time, unit cost, yield, new
product introductions.

Learning and growth: encourages the identification of measures that answer the
question "How can we continue to improve, create value and innovate?". Examples:
time to develop new generation of products, life cycle to product maturity, time to
market versus competition.
2016
6
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
The idea was that managers used these perspective headings to prompt the selection of a
small number of measures that informed on that aspect of the organisation's strategic
performance. The perspective headings show that Kaplan and Norton were thinking about
the needs of non-divisional commercial organisations in their initial design. These headings
are not very helpful to other kinds of organisations (e.g. multi-divisional or multi-national
commercial organisations, governmental organisations, non-profits, non-governmental
organisations, government agencies etc.), and much of what has been written on balanced
scorecard since has, in one way or another, focused on the identification of alternative
headings more suited to a broader range of organisations, and also suggested using either
additional or fewer perspectives (e.g. Butler et al. (1997), Ahn (2001), Elefalke (2001),
Brignall (2002), Irwin (2002), Radnor et al. (2003).
These suggestions were notably triggered by a recognition that different but equivalent
headings would yield alternative sets of measures, and this represents the major design
challenge faced with this type of balanced scorecard design: justifying the choice of
measures made. "Of all the measures you could have chosen, why did you choose these?"
These issues contribute to dis-satisfaction with early Balanced Scorecard designs, since if
users are not confident that the measures within the Balanced Scorecard are well chosen,
they will have less confidence in the information it provides.
Although less common, these early-style balanced scorecards are still designed and used
today.
In short, first generation balanced scorecards are hard to design in a way that builds
confidence that they are well designed. Because of this, many are abandoned soon after
completion.
Second generation balanced scorecard
In the mid-1990s, an improved design method emerged. In the new method, measures are
selected based on a set of "strategic objectives" plotted on a "strategic linkage model" or
"strategy map". With this modified approach, the strategic objectives are distributed across
2016
7
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
the four measurement perspectives, so as to "connect the dots" to form a visual
presentation of strategy and measures.
In this modified version of balanced scorecard design, managers select a few strategic
objectives within each of the perspectives, and then define the cause-effect chain among
these objectives by drawing links between them to create a "strategic linkage model". A
balanced scorecard of strategic performance measures is then derived directly by selecting
one or two measures for each strategic objective. This type of approach provides greater
contextual justification for the measures chosen, and is generally easier for managers to
work through. This style of balanced scorecard has been commonly used since 1996 or so: it
is significantly different in approach to the methods originally proposed, and so can be
thought of as representing the "2nd generation" of design approach adopted for balanced
scorecard since its introduction.
Third generation balanced scorecard
Main article: Third-generation balanced scorecard
In the late 1990s, the design approach had evolved yet again. One problem with the "second
generation" design approach described above was that the plotting of causal links amongst
twenty or so medium-term strategic goals was still a relatively abstract activity. In practice it
ignored the fact that opportunities to intervene, to influence strategic goals are, and need
to be, anchored in current and real management activity. Secondly, the need to "roll
forward" and test the impact of these goals necessitated the creation of an additional
design instrument: the Vision or Destination Statement. This device was a statement of
what "strategic success", or the "strategic end-state", looked like. It was quickly realized that
if a Destination Statement was created at the beginning of the design process, then it was
easier to select strategic activity and outcome objectives to respond to it. Measures and
targets could then be selected to track the achievement of these objectives. Design
methods that incorporate a Destination Statement or equivalent (e.g. the results-based
management method proposed by the UN in 2002) represent a tangibly different design
approach to those that went before, and have been proposed as representing a "third
generation" design method for balanced scorecards.
2016
8
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
Design methods for balanced scorecards continue to evolve and adapt to reflect the
deficiencies in the currently used methods, and the particular needs of communities of
interest (e.g. NGO's and government departments have found the third generation methods
embedded in results-based management more useful than first or second generation design
methods).
This generation refined the second generation of balanced scorecards to give more
relevance and functionality to strategic objectives. The major difference is the incorporation
of Destination Statements. Other key components are strategic objectives, strategic linkage
model and perspectives, measures and initiatives.
Blue Ocean Strategy
Difference between blue & red ocean strategies
competitive world, where supply is greater than demand, competition is becoming fiercer
everyday. Customers want a lot more and at a better price. As a result, companies find
themselves struggling and competing to hold on to their existing market shares and are
therefore stuck in the realm of a Red Ocean (competition).
The metaphor of red and blue oceans describes the market universe.
Red oceans represent all the industries in existence today – the known market space. In the
red oceans, industry boundaries are defined and accepted, and the competitive rules of the
game are known. Here companies try to outperform their rivals to grab a greater share of
product or service demand. As the market space gets crowded, prospects for profits and
growth are reduced. Products become commodities or niche, and cutthroat competition
turns the ocean bloody; hence, the term "red oceans".
Blue oceans, in contrast, denote all the industries not in existence today – the unknown
market space, untainted by competition. In blue oceans, demand is created rather than
fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. In blue
oceans, competition is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set. Blue
2016
9
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
ocean is an analogy to describe the wider, deeper potential of market space that is not yet
explored.
The cornerstone of blue ocean strategy is "value innovation", a concept originally outlined in
Kim & Mauborgne's 1997 article "Value Innovation - The Strategic Logic of High Growth".[8]
Value innovation is the simultaneous pursuit of differentiation and low cost, creating value
for both the buyer, the company, and its employees, thereby opening up new and
uncontested market space. The aim of value innovation, as articulated in the article, is not
to compete, but to make the competition irrelevant by changing the playing field of
strategy. The strategic move must raise and create value for the market, while
simultaneously reducing or eliminating features or services that are less valued by the
current or future market. The Four Actions Framework is used to help create value
innovation and break the value-cost trade-off. Value innovation challenges Michael Porter's
idea that successful businesses are either low-cost providers or niche-players. Instead, blue
ocean strategy proposes finding value that crosses conventional market segmentation and
offering value and lower cost. Educator Charles W. L. Hill proposed a similar idea in 1988
and claimed that Porter's model was flawed because differentiation can be a means for
firms to achieve low cost. He proposed that a combination of differentiation and low cost
might be necessary for firms to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.
Many others have proposed similar strategies. For example, Swedish educators Jonas
Ridderstråle and Kjell Nordström in their 1999 book Funky Business follow a similar line of
reasoning. For example, "competing factors" in blue ocean strategy are similar to the
definition of "finite and infinite dimensions" in Funky Business. Just as blue ocean strategy
claims that a red ocean strategy does not guarantee success, Funky Business explained that
"Competitive Strategy is the route to nowhere". Funky Business argues that firms need to
create "sensational strategies". Just like blue ocean strategy, a sensational strategy is about
"playing a different game" according to Ridderstråle and Nordström. Ridderstråle and
Nordström also claim that the aim of companies is to create temporary monopolies. Kim
and Mauborgne explain that the aim of companies is to create blue oceans, that will
eventually turn red. This is the same idea expressed in the form of an analogy. Ridderstråle
and Nordström also claimed in 1999 that "in the slow-growth 1990s overcapacity is the
2016
10
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
norm in most businesses". Kim and Mauborgne claim that blue ocean strategy makes sense
in a world where supply exceeds demand
Blue ocean strategy as a concept was not given a formalized structure until 2005. Most BOS
success stories in the past have been through trial and error. BOS is not a new concept but
one which has always been in existence and worked on over the years. BOS as a process is
not intuitive which is why a formal framework was required for repeated use of the
strategy. Prof Kim and Mauborgne, for the first time, formally introduced “value innovation”
as a concept in 1997. They did not invent the concept, they discovered it. Just like Newton
discovered the Law of gravity. Law of gravity was always in existence and it was only with
the observation of a falling apple did Newton discover it for us. Similarly, a systematic way
of thinking blue was discovered by giving a fresh approach to strategy. People have always
learned, applied, talked, discussed about competitive strategy (Red Ocean). Red Ocean is a
part of our business and thought processes and is therefore the only concept we look at
while formulating strategies. Blue Ocean does not require a complete change in one’s
perspective towards business. Just a one degree shift in our perspectives will present a
whole new gamut of opportunities. In other words, it is a way of adapting our existing
thought processes and that is precisely why BOS is called “systematic creativity”. The
concept of Blue Ocean is not new, but the theoretical framework is!
Blue Ocean Strategy coexists alongside Red Ocean Strategy (Competitive Strategy). Every
blue ocean move will ultimately turn into a red ocean. But we believe that a Blue Ocean
move will give the company a head start it requires to understand and conquer the existing
competition. Competition will ultimately catch up but it typically takes about 2-3 years for a
blue ocean move to be emulated.
Blue Ocean is extremely helpful when a company finds itself constrained in a particular
situation. That is when the company has maximum potential to think differently. Blue ocean
facilitates the process of thinking different.
2016
11
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
Principles of Blue Ocean Strategy
The six main principles guide companies through the formulation and execution of blue
ocean strategy in a systematic, risk-minimizing manner.
The first four principles address blue ocean strategy formulation:
1. Reconstruct market boundaries. This principle identifies the paths by which managers can
systematically create uncontested market space across diverse industry domains, hence
attenuating search risk. Using a Six Paths framework, it teaches companies how to make the
competition irrelevant by looking across the six conventional boundaries of competition to
open up commercially important blue oceans.
2. Focus on the big picture, not the numbers. This principle, which addresses planning risk,
presents an alternative to the existing strategic planning process, which is often criticized as
a number-crunching exercise that keeps companies locked into making incremental
improvements. Using a visualizing approach that drives managers to focus on the big
picture, this principle proposes a four-step planning process for strategies that create and
capture blue ocean opportunities.
3. Reach beyond existing demand. To create the greatest market of new demand, managers
must challenge the conventional practice of aiming for finer segmentation to better meet
existing customer preferences, which often results increasingly small target markets.
Instead, this principle, which addresses scale risk, states the importance of aggregating
demand, not by focusing on the differences that separate customers but rather by building
on the powerful commonalities across noncustomers.
2016
12
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
4. Get the strategic sequence right. The fourth principle describes a sequence that
companies should follow to ensure that the business model they build will be able to
produce and maintain profitable growth. When companies follow the sequence of (1) utility,
(2) price, (3) cost, and (4) adoption requirements, they address the business model risk.
The remaining two principles address the execution risks of blue ocean strategy.
5. Overcome key organizational hurdles. Tipping point leadership shows managers how to
mobilize an organization to overcome the key organizational hurdles that block the
implementation of a blue ocean strategy. This principle mitigates organizational risk,
outlining how leaders and managers can surmount the cognitive, resource, motivational,
and political hurdles in spite of limited time and resources.
6. Build execution into strategy. This principle introduces fair process to address the
management risk associated with people’s attitudes and behaviors. Because a blue ocean
strategy represents a departure from the status quo, fair process is required to facilitate
both strategy making and execution by mobilizing people for the voluntary cooperation
needed for execution. By integrating execution into strategy formulation, people are
motivated to act.
Strategy Canvas
The strategy canvas is the central diagnostic and action framework for building a compelling
blue ocean strategy. The horizontal axis captures the range of factors that the industry
competes on and invests in, while the vertical axis captures the offering level that buyers
receive across all of these key competing factors.
The strategy canvas serves two purposes:
• To capture the current state of play in the known market space, which allows users to
clearly see the factors that the industry competes on and where the competition currently
invests and
• To propel users to action by reorienting focus from competitors to alternatives and from
customers to noncustomers of the industry
2016
13
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
The value curve is the basic component of the strategy canvas. It is a graphic depiction of a
company’s relative performance across its industry’s factors of competition. A strong value
curve has focus, divergence as well as a compelling tagline.
A value curve, also called a strategic profile, is the graphic depiction of a company’s strategy.
It captures a company’s relative performance across the key competitive factors of an
industry including price. The framework used to capture the strategic profile or value curve
of a company’s business or product/service is the strategy canvas.
Examples documented in the book
Some examples of companies that may have created new market spaces in the opinion of
Kim and Mauborgne include ;

Cirque du Soleil: Blending of opera and ballet with circus format while eliminating
star performer and animals;

Netjets: fractional jet ownership;

Southwest Airlines: offering flexibility of bus travel at the speed of air travel using
secondary airports;

Curves: redefining market boundaries between health clubs and home exercise
programs for women;

Home Depot: offering the prices and range of lumberyard, while offering consumers
classes to help them with DIY projects;

Dyson: Cyclonic Vacuum Cleaners.
Recent application examples
Reports of businesses using blue ocean strategy concepts include:
2016
14
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

China Mobile: China Mobile CEO Wang Jianzhou talked about China's hinterland as a
classic "blue-ocean market," where the company is casting its net widely without
worrying about getting tangled up with the nets of rivals.

Pitney Bowes: Michael Critelli, the departing CEO of Pitney Bowes, explained how
Pitney Bowes created the Advanced Concept & Technology Group (ACTG), a unit
responsible for identifying and developing new products outside. Critelli cited ACTG's
development of a machine, which enables people to design and print their own
postage from their desktops, as an example of a blue ocean strategic move.

Starwood: One group which has been exploring blue ocean thinking for the past
three years is Starwood Hotels and Resorts. In an interview to INSEAD Knowledge,
Robyn Pratt, Vice President, Six Sigma and Operational Innovation talks about how
they are taking a step-by-step approach to implementing the concept.

Wii: Rather than releasing a more technologically advanced video game console with
more features as in previous generations, Nintendo released a console with
innovative controls made to attract populations that are typically excluded from the
target demographic for video games, such as the elderly.

TATA Motors: In their recent product, the "'Nano Car", they have adopted
combination of differentiation and low cost as stated in blue ocean strategy. It is the
outcome of combining value innovation and playing a different game.
2016
15
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
Daftar Pustaka
"2GC Balanced Scorecard Usage Survey". 2GC Active Management. Retrieved 28 May 2014.
FAQ Answer: What is the Balanced Scorecard? (PDF), 2GC Active Management, archived
from the original (PDF) on 20 June 2014
Muralidharan, Raman (2004). "A framework for designing strategy content controls".
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 53 (7): 590–601.
doi:10.1108/17410400410561213.
Ouchi, W. G. (1977). "The relationship between organisational structure and organisational
control". Administrative Science Quarterly 2 (1): 95–113.
Lawrie, Gavin J G; Cobbold, I (2004). "3rd Generation Balanced Scorecard: Evolution of an
effective strategic control tool" (PDF). International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 53 (7): 611–623. doi:10.1108/17410400410561231.
Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 May 2014. Retrieved 28 May 2014.
Epstein, Marc; Manzoni, J (1997). "The balanced scorecard and tableau de bord: Translating
strategy into action". Management Accounting 79 (2): 28–36.
Schneiderman, Arthur M. (2006). "Analog Devices: 1986-1992, The First Balanced
Scorecard". Arthur M. Schneiderman. Archived from the original on 25 December
2013. Retrieved 28 May 2014.
2016
16
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
Kaplan, Robert S; Norton, D. P. (1992). "The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive
Performance". Harvard Business Review (January–February): 71–79.
Maisel, L. S. (1992). "Performance measurement: the Balanced Scorecard approach".
Journal of Cost Management 6 (2): 47–52.
Kaplan, Robert S; Norton, D. P. (1993). "Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work". Harvard
Business Review.
Kaplan, Robert S; Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into
Action. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-0875846514.
Chandler, Alfred D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American
Enterprise. Boston, MA.: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-1614275084.
Penrose, Edith (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley and
Sons. ISBN 978-0-19-828977-7.
Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1 October 2000). The Strategy-Focused Organization: How
Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-1578512508.
Olve, Nils-Göran; Roy, J.; Wetter, M. (25 Feb 1999). Performance Drivers: A practical guide
to using the Balanced Scorecard. New York: John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 9780471986232.
Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, D. P. (1 July 2008). The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to
Operations. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-1422121160.
Abernethy, Margret A; Horne, M.; Lillis, A.M.; Malina, M.A.; Selto, F.H. (2005). "A multimethod approach to building causal performance maps from expert knowledge".
Management accounting research 16 (2): 135–155. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2005.03.003.
Shulver, Michael J; Antarkar, N (2001). "The Balanced Scorecard as a Communication
Protocol for Managing Across Intra-Organizational Borders". Proceedings from the
12th Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society,
Orlando, Florida, USA.
Malina, M. A.; Selto, F. H. (2001). "Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical
Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard". Journal of Management
Accounting Research 13: 47. doi:10.2308/jmar.2001.13.1.47.
Simons, Robert L. (1 December 1994). Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative
Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal: How Managers Use Control Systems to
2016
17
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
Drive Strategic Renewal. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 9780875845593.
Butler, A.; Letza S. R.; Neale B. (1997). "Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy". Long
Range Planning 30 (2): 242–253. doi:10.1016/s0024-6301(96)00116-1.
Ahn, H (2001). "Applying the Balanced Scorecard Concept: An Experience Report". Long
Range Planning 34 (4): 441–461. doi:10.1016/s0024-6301(01)00057-7.
Elefalke, K (2001). "The Balanced Scorecard of the Swedish Police Service: 7000 officers in
total quality management project". Total Quality Management 12 (7): 958–966.
doi:10.1080/09544120120096106.
Brignal, S. (2002). "The UnBalanced Scorecard: a Social and Environmental Critique".
Proceedings, Third International Conference on Performance Measurement and
Management (PMA2002).
Irwin, D (2002). "Strategy Mapping in the Public Sector". International Journal of Strategic
Management 35 (6): 563–672.
Radnor, Z; Lovell, W. (2003). "Defining, justifying and implementing the Balanced Scorecard
in the National Health Service". International Journal of Medical Marketing 3 (3):
174–188. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jmm.5040117.
Kellermans, Walter J.; Floyd F. W.; Veiga S. W.; Matherne C. (2013). "Strategic Alignment: A
missing link in the relationship between strategic consensus and organisational
performance".
Strategic
Organization
11
(3):
304–328.
doi:10.1177/1476127013481155.
Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton D. P. (1996). "Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy".
California Management Review 39 (1): 53–79. doi:10.2307/41165876.
c Lawrie, Gavin J. G.; Kalff D.; Andersen H. (2005). "Balanced Scorecard and Results- Based
Management - Convergent Performance Management Systems" (PDF). Proceedings
of 3rd Annual Conference on Performance Measurement and Management Control,
The European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM), Nice, France.
Retrieved 28 May 2014.
Kurtzman, Joel (17 February 1997). "Is your company off course? Now you can find out
why.". Fortune. pp. 128–130.
2016
18
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
Rigby, D.; Bilodeau B. (2013). "Bain and Company's Management Tools and Trends Survey
2013". Bain & Company. Archived from the original on 7 April 2014. Retrieved 28
May 2014.
Schneiderman, Arthur M. (1999). "Why Balanced Scorecards fail". Journal of Strategic
Performance Measurement (January).
Schneiderman A.M. (1999). "Why Balanced Scorecards fail", Journal of Strategic
Performance Measurement, January, Special Edition 6
Bourne, Mike; Bourne P. (29 November 2002). Balanced Scorecard in a Week. London:
Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0340849453.
Niven, Paul R. (18 April 2002). Balanced Scorecard Step-by-step: Maximizing Performance
and Maintaining Results. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0471078722.
Neely, Andy; Adams C.; Kennerley M. (27 May 2002). The Performance Prism: The Scorecard
for Measuring and Managing Business Success: The Scorecard for Measuring and
Managing Stakeholder Relationships. London: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0273653349.
Ioppolo, Giuseppe; Saija, Giuseppe; Salomone, Roberta (July 2012). "Developing a Territory
Balanced Scorecard approach to manage projects for local development: Two case
studies". Land Use Policy 29 (3): 629–640. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.10.005.
Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Northcott, Deryl; Taulapapa, Tuivaiti Ma'amora (2012). "sing the balanced scorecard to
manage performance in public sector organizations". The International Journal of
Public Sector Management 25 (3): 166–191. doi:10.1108/09513551211224234.
Moullin, Max; Soady, John; Skinner, John; Price, Charles; Cullen, John; Gilligan, Christine
(2007). "Using the Public Sector Scorecard in Public Health". Journal of Health Care
Quality Assurance 20 (4): 281–289. doi:10.1108/09526860710754352.
Gardiner, P. D.; Simmons, J. E. L. (2003). "Performance measurement tools: The balanced
scorecard and the EFQM excellence model". Measuring Business Excellence 7 (1):
14–29. doi:10.1108/13683040310466690.
Andersen, Henrik V.; Lawrie, Gavin; Savič, Nenad (2004). "Effective quality management
through third-generation balanced scorecard". International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management 53 (7): 634–645. doi:10.1108/17410400410561259.
2016
19
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
"How do I link corporate and individual performance management systems?" (PDF). 2GC
Active Management. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 May 2014. Retrieved 28
May 2014.
Lingle, J. H.; Schiemann W. A. (1996). "From balanced scorecard to strategic gauges: Is
measurement worth it?". Management Review 85 (3): 56.
Norreklit, Hanne (2000). "The balance on the balanced scorecard - a critical analysis of some
of
its
assumptions".
Management
Accounting
Research
11
(1):
65–88.
doi:10.1006/mare.1999.0121.
Jensen, M. C. (2001). "Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective
function". European Financial Management 7 (3): 297–318. doi:10.1111/1468036x.00158.
Adams, C.; Neely A.; Kennerley M. (2007). Performance measurement frameworks: a
review. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
Andersen, H. V.; Lawrie, G. J. G. (2002). "Examining Opportunities for Improving Public
Sector Governance Through Better Strategic Management" (PDF). Proceedings of
Performance Measurement Association Conference, Boston.
Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market
Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
ISBN 978-1591396192.
"Blue Ocean Strategy, Expanded Edition: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and
Make the Competition Irrelevant". Harvard Business Review.
"Blue Ocean Strategy Overview". Flevy. Retrieved 20 November 2012.
Kumar, Ajay S. "Blue Ocean Strategy". TechnoparkToday.com. Retrieved 20 November 2012.
Allen, Nathen. "‘Blue Ocean Strategy’ Surges in Schools". Poets & Quants for Executives.
"A conversation with W.Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne" (PDF). INSEAD. 2005. Retrieved
2008-12-31.
Starmer, Jesse. "Blue Ocean Strategy". SlideShare. p. 4. Retrieved 20 November 2012.
Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R. (January–February 1997). "Value Innovation – The Strategic Logic
of High Growth". Harvard Business Review 75: 103–112.
FORTUNE.
China's
Mobile
Maestro
by
Clay
Chandler,31
July
2007
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/08/06/100156748
/index2.htm
2016
20
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
World
Business
Interview:
Michael
Critelli,
9
May
2007
http://www.worldbusinesslive.com/search/article/655150/wb-interview-michaelcritelli/
INSEAD
Knowledge:
The
Starwood
experience
http://knowledge.insead.edu/contents/starwood.cfm
Williams, Mike (October 10, 2013). "Nintendo's Iwata Doesn't Fear Failure". Gamesindustry.
Kim, W.C.; Mauborgne, R.; Bong, R.; Ji, M. "Tata Nano: The People’s Car That Promises to
Reconstruct the Automobile Industry". Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved
2013.
"Best Selling Books". The Wall Street Journal. March 4, 2005.
"The BusinessWeek Best Seller List" (PDF). BusinessWeek. November 5, 2007. Retrieved
March 17, 2014.
"Best Books of 2005". Amazon.com. Retrieved March 17, 2014.
"Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition
Irrelevant". Amazon.com. Retrieved March 17, 2014.
Lidsky, David (January 5, 2006). "Fast Company's Best Books of 2005". Fast Company.
Retrieved March 17, 2014.
Murray, Patricia (December 17, 2006). "Business - Widen Your Horizons - How to... Out-think
Your Competition Rather Than Trying to Outdo Other's Offers or Products, Re-define
the Market, Writes Patricia Murray". Sunday Tribune.
"800-CEO-READ's Decade-in-Review". 800ceoread. Retrieved March 17, 2014.
Lucier, Chuck. "Best Business Books 2005: Strategy". strategy+business. Retrieved March 17,
2014.
"独家发布：新中国 60 年中国最具影响力的 600 本书". ifeng.com. September 30, 2009.
Retrieved March 17, 2014.
""新中国 60 年中国最具影响力的 600 本书"名单". www.news.cn. September 29, 2009.
Retrieved March 17, 2014.
"TOP20 Książek, Które Ukształtowały Polskich Liderów". Puls Biznesu. Retrieved March 17,
2014.
"W. Chan Kim & Renee Mauborgne". Thinkers50. Retrieved March 17, 2014.
2016
21
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
Ohannessian, Kevin (December 26, 2011). "The Leadership Hall of Fame". Fast Company.
Retrieved March 17, 2014.
Ohannessian, Kevin (July 28, 2011). "Leadership Hall of Fame: W. Chan Kim and Renee
Mauborgne, Authors of "Blue Ocean Strategy"". Fast Company. Retrieved March 17,
2014.
'Nắng tháng 8', 'Biển và chim bói cá' đoạt giải Sách hay 2013". VietBao. September 22, 2013.
Retrieved March 18, 2014.
Fukolova, Julia (December 3, 2012). "Bestseller of all times". kommersant.ru. Retrieved
March 21, 2014.
"Harvard Business Review Readers Choose the Best Management Books 2013". Diamond
Harvard Business Review. October 8, 2013. Retrieved March 18, 2014.
"In the Lead Forum". The Wall Street Journal. April 16, 2007. p. R2.
Simon, Andrea (November 2, 2013). "Ten Business Trends From The Trenches For 2013".
Forbes. Retrieved March 18, 2014.
Simon, Andrea (June 18, 2013). "Major Mid-Year Correction Necessary". Forbes. Retrieved
March 19, 2014.
BusinessWeek. April 4, 2005. Missing or empty |title= (help);
Dearlove, Des (Spring 2005). "Forever Blue" (PDF). Business Strategy Review: 56–59.
Huifen, Chen (October 13, 2004). "Firms Should Adopt Blue Ocean Strategy to Stay Ahead".
The Business Times.
Lilly, Bryan (September 5, 2005). "Explore New Markets With Seaworthy Strategy".
Marketplace Magazine.
Pawlak, Jim (January 31, 2005). "The Edge. New Book". Chicago Tribune.
Pawlak, Jim (January 31, 2005). "Companies Hope to Sail in Profitable Blue Ocean". Daily
Herald.
Barlett, Michael (November 14, 2005). "Attention Next Generation! Do You Have the
Passion?". Credit Union Journal.
Gismondi, Anthony (January 1, 2005). "Yellowtail, Spain, Scretowps -- 2004's Top Wine
Stories". Vancouver Sun.
McGee, Regina (October 2006). "What's Up with Blue Ocean Buzz?". Association Meetings.
Abraham, Stan (October 1, 2008). "Blue Oceans, Temporary Monopolies, and Lessons from
Practice". Strategy & Leadership.
2016
22
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
"The Top 10 Business Books for April". Business First. May 18, 2007.
Pollard, Wayne E. (2005-12-01). "Blue Ocean Strategy's Fatal Flaw". CMO Magazine.
"Multiple Critiques of Blue Ocean Strategy". 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
"Critique of Blue Ocean Strategy". 2007. Retrieved 2011-06-30.
Holt, Douglas; Cameron, Douglas (2010). Cultural Strategy. Oxford University Press. ISBN
978-0-19-958740-7.
2016
23
Distinctive Strategic Management
Dr. Baruna Hadibrata,SE.,MM
Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id