The Socio-technical Balanced Scorecard for Assessing a Public University

The socio-technical theory is concerned with humanistic welfare paradigm. The socio-technical prin- ciples aim to improve redundant jobs and thereby benefit human work lives. Hence, jobs are enriched using flexible work methods, empowerment strategies and new technologies. Balanced scorecard is a framework that measures whether the firm is meeting its objectives in terms of vision and strategy. It assesses four perspectives: financial, customer, internal business processes and innovation & learning. Even though the balanced scorecard has proven to be beneficial in the for-profit organizations of the past, most non-profit organizations were unable to utilize the balanced scorecard. The original configuration of balanced scorecard placed financial goals on the top of the hierarchy and since maximizing shareholder wealth is not the main objective for most non-profit organizations, it was not widely applied by these organizations. Since non-profit organizations usually operate to maximize the well-being of the society, socio-technical work design principles may receive a greater acceptance in these organizations than in for-profit organizations. Thus, a socio-technical balanced scorecard for the non-profit organizations will be formulated with an emphasis on employee perspective and a public university wide assessment will be proposed.

[1]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action , 1996 .

[2]  Patrick Waterson,et al.  Participation in job redesign: An evaluation of the use of a sociotechnical tool and its impact , 2001 .

[3]  R. Badham,et al.  The Politics of Socio-technical Intervention: An Interactionist View , 2000 .

[4]  Ionica Oncioiu.  Business Innovation, Development, and Advancement in the Digital Economy , 2013 .

[5]  In Lee.  Selected Readings on Information Technology and Business Systems Management , 2008 .

[6]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Information technology and organizational transformation : history, rhetoric, and practice , 2001 .

[7]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. , 2015, Harvard business review.

[8]  Sue Holwell,et al.  Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field , 1998 .

[9]  John Wang.  Optimizing, Innovating, and Capitalizing on Information Systems for Operations , 2013 .

[10]  William A. Pasmore,et al.  Social Science Transformed: The Socio-Technical Perspective , 1995 .

[11]  Taya M. Malone,et al.  The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style and Your Life , 2004 .

[12]  Rob Kling,et al.  What Is Social Informatics and Why Does It Matter? , 2007, D Lib Mag..

[13]  Paul A. Strassmann,et al.  The Business Value of Computers: An Executive's Guide , 1990 .

[14]  Bhuvan Unhelkar,et al.  Integrating Mobile Technologies in Enterprise Architecture with a Focus on Global Supply Chain Management Systems , 2008 .

[15]  Frank Iacobucci,et al.  What Is a ‘Public’ University? , 2005 .

[16]  Jayantha P. Liyanage,et al.  Use of Advanced Technologies and Information Solutions for North Sea Offshore Assets: Ambitious Changes and Socio-Technical Dimensions , 2006 .

[17]  Judith Borreson Caruso,et al.  Good Enough! IT Investment and Business Process Performance in Higher Education , 2005 .

[18]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Computer systems in work design--the ETHICS method : effective technical and human implementation of computer systems , 1979 .

[19]  Michael R. Middleton,et al.  Integrative Document and Content Management: Strategies for Exploiting Enterprise Knowledge , 2003 .

[20]  Enid Mumford,et al.  The story of socio‐technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential , 2006, Inf. Syst. J..

[21]  W. D. Schulte.  The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. , 2005 .

[22]  Wolfgang G. Weber,et al.  The "Three Waves" of Industrial Group Work: Historical Reflections on Current Research on Group Work , 1998 .

[23]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Redesigning Human Systems , 2003 .

[24]  K. Clark,et al.  Creating project plans to focus product development. , 1992, Harvard business review.

[25]  J. L. Price,et al.  The determinants of job satisfaction among hospital nurses: a model estimation in Korea. , 2004, International journal of nursing studies.

[26]  M. Porter.  Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance , 1985 .

[27]  Nils Urbach,et al.  Measuring Organizational Information Systems Success: New Technologies and Practices , 2012 .

[28]  Robert M. Davison,et al.  The balanced scorecard: a foundation for the strategic management of information systems , 1999, Decis. Support Syst..

[29]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Mis problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective , 1977 .

[30]  Dietmar Jannach,et al.  Research Issues in Knowledge-Based Configuration , 2007 .

[31]  Steen Leleur,et al.  Comparing a soft and a hard multi-methodology approach: Location of an IT company in the Øresund Region , 2007 .

[32]  Gerhard Friedrich,et al.  Mass Customization Information Systems in Business , 2007 .

[33]  Mohan Nair,et al.  Essentials of Balanced Scorecard , 2004 .

[34]  Trevor Wood-Harper,et al.  Exploring sociotechnical interaction with Rob Kling: five "big" ideas , 2005, Inf. Technol. People.

[35]  Frank F. Land,et al.  Evaluation in a Socio-technical Context , 2000, Organizational and Social Perspectives on IT.

[36]  Kuldeep Kumar,et al.  Methodologies for Socio-Technical-Systems (STS) Development: a Comparison , 1987, ICIS.

[37]  Mohan Nair.  Essentials of Balanced Scorecard: Nair/Essentials , 2004 .

[38]  Duane Elgin,et al.  Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life That is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich , 1981 .

[39]  M. Parker,et al.  Information Economics: Linking Business Performance to Information Technology , 1988 .