Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system

for competition that is based on information, their ability to exploit intangible assets has become far more decisive than their ability to invest in and manage physical assets. Several years ago, in recognition of this change, we introduced a concept we called the balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard supplemented traditional fi nancial measures with criteria that measured performance from three additional perspectives – those of customers, internal business processes, and learning and growth. (See the exhibit “Translating Vision and Strategy: Four Perspectives.”) It therefore enabled companies to track fi nancial results while simultaneously monitoring progress in building the capabilities and acquiring the intangible assets they would need for future growth. The scorecard wasn’t Editor’s Note: In 1992, Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton’s concept of the balanced scorecard revolutionized conventional thinking about performance metrics. By going beyond traditional measures of fi nancial performance, the concept has given a generation of managers a better understanding of how their companies are really doing. These nonfi nancial metrics are so valuable mainly because they predict future fi nancial performance rather than simply report what’s already happened. This article, fi rst published in 1996, describes how the balanced scorecard can help senior managers systematically link current actions with tomorrow’s goals, focusing on that place where, in the words of the authors, “the rubber meets the sky.” Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System