Strategisk karta som styrhjälpmedel : Möjligheter och begränsningar

by Unborg, Marianne

Abstract (Summary)
SummaryThis work is directed to people who has an interest in the Relevance Lost debate and has knowledge of the intense debate that has been around management control. The Balanced Scorecard that was one of the results of the Relevance Lost debate has also been discussed but mostly in an uncritical way. The scorecard has had great penetrative power and seems to have come to stay, at least in the foreseeable future. The debate about management control and the Balanced Scorecard has definitely become less intense. Now there is a continuation of the Balanced Scorecard, the Strategic Map. There is not very much written about it. That is why my work is a contribution to the discussion.My purpose is to give understanding for the possibilities and the limitations of the Strategic Map.The valuation has its roots in my hermeneutic epistemological approach. Therefore I have given a thorough description of foremost epistemological approach and hermeneutics in the part concerning method. My work has been a study in literature and therefore there is thorough part around this as well. To achieve my main purpose the work has been done in three steps.To create an understanding for the construction of the Strategic Map and how it’s supposed to work I have in the first step presented a rather rich description of the concept.The purpose by the second step has been to produce the development of control between the Balanced Scorecard and the Strategic Map by looking into similarities and differences. The comparison has been built more on showing similarities and differences by the epistemological approach that characterize the two concepts than to show actual similarities and differences. I have used the description made by Jan Lindvall of the foundation of ideas separated from technique and the classification in different schools by Anthony G Puxty. I have with help by thoughts borrowed from them presented eight similarities and nine differences.Since I have pointed out similarities and differences between the two concepts in step two, I could make a valuation of the Strategic Map in step three, even though there isn’t much written about it. I have made the valuation out of my own thoughts, but I still needed tools for creating reliability for them. I have used authors who has been both positive and negative and presented their views as a complement to mine. I have presented seven areas of discussion. I point out both advantages and disadvantages but I don’t say what is best. In most cases I cannot see advantages for themselves or disadvantages for themselves. Therefore it feels better for me to put them against each other.My interpretive epistemological approach leads to my not presenting an answer whether the Strategic Map is good or bad, but I have realized that it actually has happened much more than I thought when I started my work. Kaplan and Norton who basically has a systems perspective, which in most parts is similar to the technique perspective, have developed to a more interpretive epistemological approach. That is shown in some parts of the Strategic Map. As a whole the Strategic Map feels like a tool for a more modern management control, but it is still just a control tool.
Bibliographical Information:


School:Högskolan i Gävle

School Location:Sweden

Source Type:Master's Thesis

Keywords:strategy map balanced scorecard valuation control philosophy


Date of Publication:08/06/2007

© 2009 All Rights Reserved.