The Balanced Scorecard: A Tenth Anniversary Review Maris G. Martinsons Ten years ago, Professor Robert Kaplan of Harvard University and David Norton, an American management consultant, proposed the concept of a balanced scorecard to measure and manage corporate performance 1 . They argued that traditional financial accounting measures, such as the return on investment and payback period, offered an incomplete and outdated picture of business performance that hindered the creation of long-term business value. As a result, Kaplan and Norton suggested that financial measures be supplemented with data that would reflect customer satisfaction, internal business processes, and the ability to learn and grow. Their scorecard evaluates corporate performance from four perspectives (as shown in Figure 1). Figure 1. The Balanced Scorecard (adapted from Kaplan and Norton, 1992) The balanced scorecard has been a very attractive concept. Over the past decade, thousands of managers all over the world have implemented this concept in one form or another. As the lead author of a research paper 2 that extended the concept from the corporate level to specific organizational units and even individual projects, I must take some responsibility for the widespread application of the balanced scorecard. After reviewing the application of this concept and its consequences, I have concluded that the balanced scorecard has been a mixed blessing. Those of us responsible for the popularity of the concept may deserve blame as well as credit. Let me explain. Financial Perspective Are we meeting the expectations of our shareholders? Customer Perspective Are we delighting (or at least satisfying) our customers? Internal Process Perspective Are we doing the right things and doing things right? Learning and Growth Perspective Are we prepared for the future?