THE IMPACT OF A DISAGGREGATION STRATEGY WITH SUPPLEMENTARY DISPLAYS TOWARDS BALANCED SCORECARD PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.30298

Frisky Jeremy Kasingku(1*), Goedono .(2)

(1) Faculty of Economics, Universitas Klabat, Indonesia
(2) Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Balanced Scorecard has become a popular management tool around the world. Despite its benefits, the balanced scorecard creates a bias called the common- measures bias. The bias associated with a balanced scorecard should be eliminated so that the optimal benefits of the balanced scorecard can be obtained. To eliminate the bias, a disaggregation strategy is suggested. This disaggregation strategy is found to be a mitigation strategy to solve the common-measures bias. However, there is a small amount of empirical evidence about the quality of the decisions produced by using a disaggregation strategy. Furthermore, to increase the decisions’ quality, an information display was found to be helpful. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of a disaggregation strategy, in the context of a balanced scorecard, toward the decisions’ quality regarding the balanced scorecard’s performance evaluation with a different information display. This study used an experimental method with the design of 3x2x2 between the subject’s factorial designs. The results indicated that decision makers with supplementary tabular and graphic displays would exhibit a greater judgment consensus than decision makers who were given traditional separate displays. Moreover, those who received the supplementary table displays exhibit a greater judgment consensus and consistency than those who were given a graphical display. In conclusion, a disaggregation strategy with table and graphic displays could improve a judgment’s consensus, a traditional display can improve a judgment’s consistency, and a table display could exhibit greater judgmental consensus and consistency than a graphic display. This study contributed theoretically and practically.


Keywords


balanced scorecard; decision quality; disaggregation strategy; information display

Full Text:

PDF


References

Ashton, A., 1985. “Does Consensus Imply Accuracy in Accounting Studies of Decision Making?” The Accounting Review, 173-185.

Baldacchino, K., C. Armistead, and D. Parker, 2002. “Information Overload: It’s Time to Face the Problem.” Management Services, 18-19.

Banker, R., G. Potter, and D. Srinivasan, 2000. “An Empirical Investigation of an Incentive Plan That Includes Nonfinancial Perfor­mance Measures.” The Accounting Review, 65-92.

Bazerman, M., and D. Moore, 2009. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. New Caledonia: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bolboaca, S., L. Jantschi, A. Setras, R. Setras, and D. Pamfil, 2011. Pearson-Fisher Chi-Square Statistic Revisited. Information, 528-545.

Dilla, W., and P. Steinbart, 2005a. “Relative Weighting of Common and Unique Balanced Scorecard Measures by Knowledgeable Decision Makers.” Behavioral Research in Accounting, 43-55.

Dilla, W., and P. Steinbart, 2005b. “The Effects of Alternative Supplementary Display Formats on Balanced Scorecard Judgments.” International Journal of Accounting Information System, 159-176.

Ding, S., and P. Beaulieu, 2011. “The Role of Financial Incentives in Balanced Scorecard-Based Performance Evaluations: Correcting Mood Congruency Bias.” Journal of Accounting Research, 1223-1247.

Eppler, M., and J. Mengis, 2004. “The Concept of Information Overload: A review of Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and Related Disciplines.” The Information Society, 325-344.

Fennema, M., 1993. Anticipations of Effort and Accuracy in Multiattribute Choice. Disertasi. Universitas Illinois.

Gudono, 2014. Analisis Data Multivariat. Yogyakarta: BPFE.

Hoque, Z., 2014. “20 Years of Studies on the Balanced Scorecard: Trends, Accomplish­ments, Gaps and Opportunities for Future Research.” The British Accounting Review, 33-59.

Hwang, M., and J. Lin, 1998. “Information Dimension, Information Overload and Decision Quality.” Journal of Information Science, 213-218.

Itner, C., D. Larcker, and M. Meyer, 2003. “Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard.” The Accounting Review, 725-758.

Jarvenpa, S., 1990. “Graphic Displays in Decision Making – the Visual Salience Effect.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 247-262.

Kaplan, R., and D. Norton, 1992. “The Balanced Scorecard-Measures that Drives Perfor­mance.” Harvard Business Review, 107-121.

Kaplan, R., and D. Norton, 1993. “Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work.” Harvard Business Review, 134-147.

Kaplan, R., and D. Norton, 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R., and D. Norton, 2001. The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Klentmuntz, D., and D. Schkade, 1993. “Infor­mation Display and Decision Processes.” Psychological Science, 221-227.

Libby, R., and B. Lewis, 1982. “Human Information Processing Research in Accounting: The State of the Art in 1982.” Accounting, Organizations and Society,  231-285.

Libby, T., S. Salterio, S., and A. Webb, 2004. “The Balanced Scorecard: The Effects of Assurance and Process Accountability on Managerial Judgment.” The Accounting Review, 1075-1094.

Lipe, M. G., and S. Salterio, 2000. “The Balanced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Common and Unique Performance Measures.” The Accounting Review, 283–98.

Martinson, M., R. Davison, R., and D. Tse, 1999. “The Balanced Scorecard: A Foundation for the Strategic Management of Information Systems.” Decision Support Systems, 71-88.

McClave, J., P. Benson, P., and T. Sinich, 2000. A First Course in Business Statistics 8th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Nahartyo, E., and I. Utami, 2016. Panduan Praktis Riset Eksperimen. Jakarta: Indeks.

Neumann, B., M. Roberts, and E. Cauvin, 2010. “Information Search Using the Balanced Scorecard: What Matters?” The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance: 61-66.

Niven, P., 2002. Balanced Scorecard Step by Step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

O’Reilly, C., 1980. “Individuals and Information Overload in Organizations: Is More Necessarily Better?” Academy of Management Journal, 684-696.

Rigby, D., and D. Bilodeau, “Management Tools and Trends 2013.”  Bain & Company survey, 2013. Website, Accessed December, 18, 2015 from http://www.bain.com/ Images/BAIN_BRIEF_Management_Tools_2015.pdf

Roberts, M., T. Albright, and A. Hibbets, 2004. “Debiasing Balanced Scorecard Evaluations.” Behavioral Research in Accounting, 75-88.

Schaubroeck, J., and K. Muralidhar, 1991. “A Meta-Analysis of the Relative Effects of Tabular and Graphic Display Formats on Decision Making Performance.” Human Performance, 127-145.

Swain, M., and S. Haka, 2000. “Effects of Information Load on Capital Budgeting Decisions.” Behavioral Research in Accounting, 171-198.

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman, 1974. “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science, 1124-1131.

Umanath, N., and I. Vessey, 1994. “Multiattribute Date Presentation and Human Judgment: A Cognitive Fit Perspective.” Decision Science, 795-824.

Utami, A., 2011. Pengaruh Keterlibatan Emosi Positif Berupa Affective Trust Dalam mengurangi Bias pengukuran umumPada Evaluasi Kinerja Balanced Scorecards. Tesis Fakultas Ekonomika dan Bisnis Universitas Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta. 1-131.

Vessey, I., 1991. “Cognitive Fit: A Theory-Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature.” Decision Sciences, 219-240.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.30298

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 746 | views : 633

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2017 Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

___________________________________________________________________________

The Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business (JIEB) is published by

Faculty of Economics and Business | Universitas Gadjah Mada
Jalan Sosio Humaniora No. 1, Yogyakarta, DIY 55281, Indonesia
E-mail:     jieb@ugm.ac.id
Tel:            +62 (274) 548-510, Ext. 127
Mobile:   +62 (811) 282-2260 (Text only)
Website: http://journal.ugm.ac.id/jieb

ISSN 2338-5847 (online)
ISSN 2085-8272 (print)
ISSN 0215-2487 (previous)
________________________________________________________________________________________

The Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business is indexed by

DOAJ  Proquest         Google Scholar  Worldcat    Indonesian Publication
Index (IPI)  crossref           onesearch Indonesian Scientific Journal Database (ISJD)  
 
 
 Creative Commons License

The copyright is reserved to the Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business that is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

web
stats View My Stats