International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering
Published by Chaoyang University of Technology

Chi-Bin Cheng*

Department of Information Management, Tamkang University 151 Ying-chuan Road, Tamsui, Taipei County, Taiwan.


Download Citation: |
Download PDF


This paper presents a performance evaluation process for Balanced Scorecard (BSC) systems by employing Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and multiple attribute decision making (MADM) approaches. The AHP under a group decision-making setting is used to determine the weights of performance measures in the evaluation, and then an MADM problem is solved to rank the evaluated subjects. The performance evaluation in the BSC system includes both quantitative and qualitative measures. The assessments of quantitative measures are the achievement degree of their targets, while the assessments of qualitative measures are to assign fuzzy numbers on a rating scale with descriptive labels. A performance balance factor is also suggested to adjust the scores obtained from the MADM approach to avoid paying bonus to unbalanced performance. The proposed approach is applied to evaluating the performance of sixteen business units within a company.

Keywords: Balanced Scorecard; Performance evaluation; Analytic hierarchy process (AHP); Multiple attribute decision making (MADM); Fuzzy numbers; Group decision making.

Share this article with your colleagues



  1. [1] Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton. 1992. The balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, January-February: 61-66.

  2. [2] Kaplan, R. S., Kaplan, R. D. P., and Norton, D. 1993. Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Harvard Business Review, Sep-Oct, 134-147.

  3. [3] Ittner, C. D., and Larcker, D. F. 1998. Innovations in performance measurement: Trends and research implications. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10: 205-238.

  4. [4] Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F. Meyer, M. W. 2003. Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence form a Balanced Scorecard, The Accounting Review, 78, 3: 725-758.

  5. [5] McKenzie, F. C., and Shiling, M. D. 1998. Avoiding performance measurement trap: Ensuring effective incentive design and implementation. Compensation and Benefits Review, 30: 57-65.

  6. [6] S. Baiman., and Rajan, M. V. 1995, The informational advantages of discretionary bonus schemes, The Accounting Review, 70, 4: 557-579.

  7. [7] Prendergast, C., and Topel, R. 1993. Discretion and bias in performance evaluation, European Economic Review, 37, 2-3: 355-365.

  8. [8] Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 1996. “The Balanced Scordcard”, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

  9. [9] Baddeley, A. 1994. The magical number seven: still magic after all these years? Psychological Review, April, 353-356.

  10. [10] Saaty, T. L. 1980. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, McGraw-Hill, New York.

  11. [11] Lipe, M. G., and Salterio, S. E. 2000. The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures, The accounting Review, 75, 3: 283-298.

  12. [12] Zadeh, L. A. 1975. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning, Information Science, 8: 199-249.

  13. [13] Syau, Y. R., Hsieh, H. T., and Lee, E. S. 2001. Fuzzy numbers in the credit Rating of Enterprise Financial Condition, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 17: 351-360.

  14. [14] Dubois, D., and Prade, H. 1980. “Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications”, Academic Press, New York, U.S.A.

  15. [15] Chang, P. T. 1994. “Fuzzy Regression analysis”, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Kansas State University.

  16. [16] Jang, J. S., Sun, C. T., and Mizutani, E. 1997. “Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft Computing: A Computational Approach to Learning and Machine Intelligence”, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N. J. U.S.A.

  17. [17] Zanakis, S., Mandakovic, T., Gupta, S., Sahay, S., and Hong, S. 1995. A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 29:59-79.


Accepted: 2008-07-02
Available Online: 2008-04-01

Cite this article:

Cheng, C.-B. 2008. Performance evaluation for a balanced scorecard system by group decision making with fuzzy assessments. International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 6, 53–69.