1) Research Title
The research is titled "The balanced scorecard for school management: case study of Thai public schools".
2) Researcher & Institutional Affiliation
The researcher is Nopadol Rompho, affiliated with the Department of Operations Management, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand, and the Center of Operations and Information Management, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
3) Research Objectives
The primary objective of this study was to develop and empirically test the balanced scorecard for public schools in Thailand. It aimed to propose a balanced scorecard model for general use in public schools, providing a starting point that school leaders could adapt to their specific strategies and operations.
4) Research Methodology
• Approach: The study adopted a quantitative approach to test the proposed balanced scorecard model for public schools. Qualitative methods were also used to confirm the model through expert interviews.
• Data Collection:
◦ Sample: Data were collected from 3,351 public schools in Thailand. These schools were participants in the "Pracharath" school project, a collaboration between the Thai Government and the private sector aimed at improving Thai education.
◦ Indicators: Schools provided information on various key performance indicators (KPIs) to the Pracharath project administrators, based on expert opinions reflecting school quality.
◦ Informants: Nine indicators were evaluated by three parties: 20 primary students, 20 secondary students, 10 class teachers, 4 English teachers, and 20 parents per school, using questionnaires with a five-point rating scale. The scores were averaged per school and verified by school partners (experts assigned to the project).
◦ Principal Data: Additional KPIs, such as school infrastructure, the number of students exhibiting undesired behaviors, community participation activities, and national exam scores (ONET), were obtained from school principals.
◦ Data Type: The collected data were cross-sectional, meaning no time-delay effect was included in the analysis.
• Data Analysis:
◦ The collected data for each KPI were categorized into four main perspectives: students, internal processes, learning and growth, and resources.
◦ The proposed balanced scorecard model was tested using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). This method formed observed performance measures into latent variables (objectives in a strategy map) and tested the relationships among them.
◦ Model fit measurements were used to confirm validity (e.g., χ²/degree of freedom = 2.965, goodness of fit index = 0.988, root mean square error of approximation = 0.024).
• Model Validation: The results were analyzed and discussed by a group of nine educational experts (two school headmasters, three university professors, two teachers, one educational consultant, and one STEM education expert) to confirm the model and its linkages.
5) Findings & Recommendations
• Key Findings:
◦ Academic Performance: Students in sampled schools performed quite poorly academically, with an average national exam score of 37.84% and low capability to integrate knowledge, ICT skills, and English proficiency. Knowledge-seeking skills were moderately better.
◦ Student Behavior: Students showed moderately good behavior, with an average score of 3.73 for values, characteristics, and behaviors, and less than one student per school exhibiting undesired behaviors.
◦ Internal Processes (Academic): STEM teaching capability was weak, while child-centric teaching was not problematic. Communities contributed to academic activities, providing knowledge in an average of 5.97 activities per year.
◦ Internal Processes (Behavioral): Ethics teaching was moderately strong (average 3.53). Communities participated in an average of 8.78 activities per year to support good behavior. Public participation in budget preparation was 36.67%.
◦ Teacher Quality (Learning & Growth): Teachers' development showed improvement (average 3.56), and respondents perceived teachers to have good ICT skills and English proficiency.
◦ Resources: Almost all sampled schools had sufficient basic infrastructure, including electricity, internet, computers, and water supply.
◦ Cause-and-Effect Relationships: The study found cause-and-effect relationships between students, internal processes, and learning and growth perspectives in the balanced scorecard. Internal processes positively influence students' academic and behavioral success. Higher teacher quality (learning and growth) leads to better internal processes.
◦ No Relationship with Resources: A significant finding was that a relationship with the resources perspective was not found. The availability of basic infrastructure did not significantly affect the success of internal processes or the learning and growth perspectives. This was attributed to the fact that nearly all sampled schools already possessed this basic infrastructure, making its presence necessary but not sufficient for higher process quality. Experts confirmed that teachers often used external training, not in-school resources, and basic infrastructure didn't significantly impact teaching or learning quality.
◦ Teacher Quality as Key Driver: Teacher quality was identified as a key success factor driving the internal processes for both academic excellence and students’ good behavior.
• Recommendations:
◦ The empirically tested balanced scorecard model can be used by public schools as a starting point, which they can then modify to suit their specific organizations.
◦ Schools should prioritize monitoring and improving teacher quality, establishing it as a key management focus.
◦ Schools can utilize the performance measures and strategy map presented in the study to set targets and propose strategic initiatives to achieve their objectives.
◦ Future research should consider using indicators like "user satisfaction with infrastructure" to better test the relationship between resources and other perspectives, moving beyond mere availability.
6) Key Insights and Implications
• Empirical Validation for Schools: This study contributes significantly by being one of the first to empirically test the relationships between perspectives in the balanced scorecard model for public schools on a large scale, addressing a previous lack of data for such validation.
• Practical Tool for School Management: The balanced scorecard is shown to be a valuable management tool for schools, particularly in helping non-managers (like school principals, who are often teachers) translate strategy into action and improve organizational management.
• Support for Educational Reform: The proposed model offers a template for autonomous public schools in Thailand, assisting them in managing resources and focusing on important issues during the ongoing educational reform process, where school leaders may lack professional management training.
• Importance of Intangible Assets (Teacher Quality): The research highlights that teacher quality is a critical success factor that drives internal processes, confirming its role as a key intangible resource. This finding suggests that schools should prioritize investments in teacher development.
• Threshold Effect of Tangible Resources: The lack of a significant relationship between basic infrastructure (resources) and other perspectives implies a threshold effect. Once basic resources are sufficiently provided, their mere availability no longer drives further improvements in internal processes or learning and growth. Future efforts should focus on enhancing the quality or utilization of these resources, or investing in more advanced infrastructures.
• Generic Model as a Foundation: The study's empirically tested generic model serves as a valuable starting point, preventing schools from undergoing costly and time-consuming trial-and-error in developing their own balanced scorecards. Schools can then tailor this validated framework to their unique strategies.
• Addressing BSC Criticisms: By quantitatively testing the cause-and-effect relationships and validating the model with experts, the study implicitly addresses criticisms regarding the ambiguity of BSC linkages and strategy maps.
7) Actionable Recommendations
• Implement the Proposed BSC Model: Public schools, especially in Thailand, should consider adopting the empirically tested balanced scorecard model as a foundational management tool to clarify and execute their strategies.
• Invest in Teacher Quality Improvement: Schools must prioritize initiatives that enhance teacher quality, including professional development, ICT skills, and English proficiency, as this is a confirmed key driver for improving internal processes and, consequently, student outcomes.
• Customize the Strategy Map: While the generic model provides a strong base, school leaders should engage in a process to modify and tailor the strategy map and performance indicators to reflect their school's unique context, goals, and challenges.
• Set Specific and Measurable Targets: For each strategic objective and performance measure within their adapted balanced scorecard, schools should establish clear, measurable target values that are realistic and aligned with their capabilities.
• Develop Strategic Initiatives: Translate strategic objectives into concrete actions and programs (strategic initiatives) that school personnel will undertake to achieve the desired outcomes across all perspectives.
• Evaluate Beyond Basic Resource Availability: When assessing resources, schools should move beyond simply checking for availability of basic infrastructure. Future evaluations should focus on user satisfaction, quality, and the effective integration of advanced infrastructure to ensure it actively contributes to teaching, learning, and teacher development.
8) Summary
This study developed and empirically tested a balanced scorecard model for public schools in Thailand, using data from 3,351 schools and structural equation modeling. The research aimed to provide a much-needed, validated management tool for schools, especially in the context of Thailand's educational reform towards school autonomy. The findings confirmed significant cause-and-effect relationships between the learning and growth perspective (primarily teacher quality), internal processes perspective, and student perspective (academic excellence and good behavior). Crucially, it was found that the resources perspective, specifically the availability of basic infrastructure like electricity and internet, did not significantly impact other perspectives, largely because these resources were already universally available among the sampled schools. The study highlights teacher quality as a critical success factor for improving internal school processes and achieving student success. The proposed model, validated by educational experts, offers a valuable starting point for public schools to manage their strategies effectively, which can then be tailored to individual school needs, thereby enhancing their overall organizational management and student outcomes.
9) References for this Research
• Al Thunaian, S.A. (2013), “Exploring the use of the balanced scorecard (BSC) in the healthcare sector of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia: rhetoric and reality”, doctoral thesis, University of Bradford, Bradford.
• Alolah, T.S., Stewart, R.A., Panuwatwanich, K. and Mohamed, S. (2014), “Determining the causal relationships among balanced scorecard perspectives on school safety performance: case of Saudi Arabia”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 68, pp. 57-74.
• Armstrong, R. (2019), “Revisiting strategy mapping for performance management: a realist synthesis”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 721-752.
• Asan, S. and Tanyas, M. (2007), “Integrating hoshin kanri and the balanced scorecard for strategic management: the case of higher education”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 999-1014.
• Beard, D.F. (2009), “Successful applications of the balanced scorecard in higher education”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 275-282.
• Castañeda-Méndez, K., Mangan, K. and Lavery, A.M. (1998), “The role and application of the balanced scorecard in healthcare quality management”, Journal for Healthcare Quality, Vol. 20, pp. 10-13.
• Chang, O.H. and Chow, C.W. (1999), “The balanced scorecard: a potential tool for supporting change and continuous improvement in accounting education”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 395-412.
• Chen, S.H., Yang, C.C. and Shiau, J.Y. (2006), “The application of balanced scorecard in the performance evaluation of higher education”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 190-205.
• Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling”, in Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
• Chow, C.W., Ganulin, D., Haddad, K. and Williamson, J. (1998), “The balanced scorecard: a potent tool for energizing and focusing healthcare organization management”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 263-280.
• Chow, C.W., Haddad, K.M. and Williamson, J.E. (1997), “Applying the balanced scorecard to small companies”, Management Accounting, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 21-27.
• Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
• Davig, W., Elbert, N. and Brown, S. (2004), “Implementing a strategic planning model for small manufacturing firms: an adaptation of the balanced scorecard”, S.A M. Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 18-24.
• Fernandes, K.J., Raja, V. and Whalley, A. (2006), “Lessons from implementing the balanced scorecard in a small and medium-size manufacturing organization”, Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 623-634.
• Fry, G.W. and Bi, H. (2013), “The evolution of educational reform in Thailand: the Thai educational paradox”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 290-319.
• Garengo, P. and Biazzo, S. (2012), “Unveiling strategy in SMEs through balanced scorecard implementation: a circular methodology”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 79-102.
• Greatbanks, R. and Tapp, D. (2007), “The impact of balanced scorecards in a public sector environment: empirical evidence from Dunedin city council”, New Zealand International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 846-873.
• Greiling, D. (2010), “Balanced scorecard implementation in German non-profit organisations”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 534-554.
• Hoque, Z. (2014), “20 Years of studies on the balanced scorecard: trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 33-59.
• Inamdar, N., Kaplan, R.S. and Reynolds, K. (2002), “Applying the balanced scorecard in healthcare provider organizations/practitioner’s response”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 179-195.
• Kaplan, R.S. (2012), “The balanced scorecard: comments on balanced scorecard commentaries”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 539-545.
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-79.
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 Nos 7/8, pp. 150-161.
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001a), The Strategy-Focused Organization, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001b), “Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: part I”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 87-104.
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2004), Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
• Karathanos, D. and Karathanos, P. (2005), “Applying the balanced scorecard to education”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 222-230.
• Kloot, L. and Martin, J. (2000), “Strategic performance management: a balanced approach to performance management issues in local government”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 231-251.
• Lawrence, S. and Sharma, U. (2002), “Commodification of education and academic labour: using the balanced scorecard in a university setting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 13 Nos 5/6, pp. 661-677.
• Lee, S.F., Lo, K.K., Leung, R.F. and Ko, A.S. (2000), “Strategy formulation framework for vocational education: integrating SWOT analysis, balanced scorecard, QFD methodology and MBNQA education criteria”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 407-423.
• Lueg, R. (2015), “Strategy maps: the essential link between the balanced scorecard and action”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 34-40.
• McAdam, R. and O’Neill, E. (1999), “Taking a critical perspective to the European business excellence model using a balanced scorecard approach: a case study in the service sector”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 191-197.
• Malina, M., Nørreklit, H. and Selto, F. (2007), “Relations among measures, climate of control, and performance measurement models”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 935-982.
• Manville, G. (2007), “Implementing a balanced scorecard framework in a not for profit SME”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 162-169.
• Niven, P.R. (2011), Balanced Scorecard: Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies, John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
• Norreklit, H., Norreklit, L., Michell, F. and Bjornenak, T. (2012), “The rise of the balanced scorecard! relevant regained?”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 490-510.
• Northcott, D. and Taulapapa, T.M. (2012), “Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector organizations: issues and challenges”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 166-191.
• Ollinger, M., Hammon, S., von Grundherr, M. and Funke, J. (2015), “Does visualization enhance complex problem-solving? The effect of causal mapping on performance in the computer-based microworld tailorsop”, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 621-637.
• Papenhausen, C. and Einstein, W. (2006), “Implementing the balanced scorecard at a college of business”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 15-22.
• Phillips, P. and Louvieris, P. (2005), “Performance measurement systems in tourism, hospitality, and leisure small medium-sized enterprises: a balanced scorecard perspective”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 201-211.
• Rigby, B.D. and Bilodeau, B. (2018), Management Tools & Trends, Bain & Company, Boston, MA.
• Rompho, N. (2011), “Why the balanced scorecard fails in SMEs: a case study”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 39-46.
• Ronchetti, J.L. (2006), “An integrated balanced scorecard strategic planning model for nonprofit organizations”, Journal of Practical Consulting, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 25-35.
• Storey, A. (2002), “Performance management in schools: could the balanced scorecard help?”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 321-338.
• Tennant, C. and Tanoren, M. (2005), “Performance management in SMEs: a balanced scorecard perspective”, International Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 123-143.
• Umashankar, V. and Dutta, K. (2007), “Balanced scorecards in managing higher education institutions: an Indian perspective”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
• Voelker, K.E., Rakich, J.S. and French, G.R. (2001), “The balanced scorecard in healthcare organizations: a performance measurement and strategic planning methodology”, Hospital Topics, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 13-24.
• Wilson, C., Hagarty, D. and Gauthier, J. (2004), “Results using the balanced scorecard in the public sector”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 53-64.
• Wu, H.Y. (2012), “Constructing a strategy map for banking institutions with key performance indicators of the balanced scorecard”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 303-320.
• Wu, H.Y., Lin, Y.K. and Chang, C.H. (2011), “Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
• Yang, C.C., Cheng, L.Y. and Yang, C.W. (2005), “A study of implementing balanced scorecard (BSC) in non-profit organizations: a case study of private hospital”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 285-300.
• Yuksel, H. and Coskun, A. (2013), “Strategy focused schools: an implementation of the balanced scorecard in provision of educational services”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 106, pp. 2450-2459.
• Yüksel, I. and Dagdeviren, M. (2010), “Using the fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) for balanced scorecard (BSC): a case study for a manufacturing firm”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 1270-1278.
• Zelman, W.N., Pink, G.H. and Matthias, C.B. (2003), “Use of the balanced scorecard in health care”, Journal of Health Care Finance, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1-16.
No comments:
Post a Comment