The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

Quality
Balanced scorecard in higher assurance
education institutions practices

Congruence and roles to quality

assurance practices 489
Nigusse W. Reda
Received 28 September 2015
Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia Revised 13 July 2016
23 November 2016
Accepted 10 July 2017

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to highlight the congruence and roles of the balanced
scorecard in the quality assurance practices in higher education institutions, and second, to propose a
balanced scorecard model for higher education institutions.
Design/methodology/approach – A descriptive literature review was used to understand the balanced
scorecard, quality assurance practice (System model) and characteristics of the higher education institutions.
Findings – Used appropriately, the philosophical tenets of the perspectives of the balanced scorecard seem
to be congruent with the input, process and output dimensions of quality assurance practices. Thus, if the core
functions of higher education are explicitly represented in each perspective, the balanced scorecard seems
important for materializing the input, process and output dimensions of quality assurance in higher education
institutions. It may help to track and measure the status of higher education institutions in each quality
assurance dimension and ultimately help to align each dimension with the university’s vision.
Research limitations/implications – The paper relied on the description of previous literature.
Therefore, as it did not depend on the empirical evidences, the conclusions derived in the paper are more
argumentative.
Practical implications – The paper will add an input to the ongoing discussions on the applications of
the balanced scorecard to higher education institutions. Moreover, the proposed model of the balanced
scorecard may help higher education managers to assess the performances of higher education institutions
and their academic disciplines according to their areas of excellence.
Originality/value – This paper attempts to undertake a literature review on the balanced scorecard and its
roles to the quality assurance practices in higher education. In addition, the congruence between the balanced
scorecard and the contemporary characteristics of the higher education institutions is also explored.
Keywords Quality assurance, Higher education, Balanced scorecard
Paper type General review

1. Introduction
Equating higher education institutions with corporate entities is becoming a common trend
in all higher education systems. This is evidenced, among other things, by the transfer of
management tools from corporate organizations to higher education institutions. The
introduction of total quality management towards the 1980s (Srikanthan and Dalrymple,
2002) and, lately, the balanced scorecard (Ruben, 1999) for higher education institutions
could exemplify these application transfers. Nonetheless, their compatibility with the
processes in higher education institutions has been debated.
These days, the use of the balanced scorecard, rather than total quality management, has Quality Assurance in Education
become popular in higher education institutions. It was introduced, among other things, to Vol. 25 No. 4, 2017
pp. 489-499
improve the management and quality assurance practices of the core functions of higher © Emerald Publishing Limited
0968-4883
education institutions: teaching and learning, research and community service. Thus, DOI 10.1108/QAE-09-2015-0038
QAE balanced scorecard models have been developed for performance measurement and
25,4 strategic implementations in higher education institutions (Tohidia et al., 2010; Madah et al.,
2013; Ruben, 1999; Pietrzak et al., 2015; Philbin, 2011). However, the models seem to have
limitations in integrating the core functions of higher education institutions and their
quality assurance practices. Our examinations of the balanced scorecard models applied to
higher education institutions revealed that the core functions of higher education
490 institutions and their quality assurance practices are only tenuously represented in the
balanced scorecard models.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is twofold. First, it highlighted the congruence and
roles of the balanced scorecard to the quality assurance practices in higher education
institutions. In so doing, it has examined the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard in
relation to the system model quality assurance practices and, thus, attempted to relate the
input, process and output dimensions of quality assurance practices with the four
perspectives of the balanced scorecard: learning and growth, internal business processes,
finance and the customer. Second, beyond highlighting the congruence and roles, it
proposed a balanced scorecard model that integrates the core functions of higher education
institutions (teaching and learning, research and community service) and their quality
assurance dimensions (input, process and output).

2. Balanced scorecard: an overview

The use of the balanced scorecard was initiated towards the second half of the twentieth
century. It originated as a performance measurement tool and later, through consecutive
improvements, realized for planning, communicating and implementing strategic plans
(Kaplan, 2010). It has four mutually inclusive perspectives: learning and growth, internal
business processes, finance and the customer. As summarized by Kaplan and Norton (2005),
each perspective addresses unique, but inherently connected issues:
 The customer perspective addresses issues about how organizations respond and
satisfy their customer’s needs.
 The internal business processes address the processes which the organization must
excel at.
 The learning and growth perspective addresses the issue about how organizations
improve and create value continuously.
 The finance perspective addresses the issue of how organizations look to their
shareholders.

Besides, these four perspectives balance the intangible and tangible assets, the financial and
non-financial measures and the short and long-term organizational objectives (Kaplan, 2010;
Ruben, 1999), and all perspectives, combined together, help organization managers and
executives to attain a balanced view of their organizational performances. Moreover, it also
helps to align processes with the organization’s vision (Figure 1).
In short, the balanced scorecard integrates the core processes of an organization in a
balanced and measurable ways (Nayeri et al., 2008). As noted by Kaplan and Norton (2005,
p. 114):
The balanced scorecard includes financial measures that tell the results of actions already taken.
And it complements the financial measures with operational measures on customer satisfaction,
internal processes, and the organization’s innovation and improvement activities – operational
measures that are the drivers of future financial performance.
 Quality
Customer
assurance
practices

Learning Vision and Internal Business

and Growth Strategy processes 491

Finance
Figure 1.
Perspectives of the
balanced scorecard
Source: Kaplan and Norton (2001)

The balanced scorecard couples the financial and non-financial measures. Financial
measures revealed past performance and, thus, it gave little account to non-financial
measures that contribute to organizational performance. They focus on past performance
related to profit, return on investment, sales growth and cash flow. Conversely, the non-
financial measures focus on intangible assets that contribute to the achievement of long-
term organizational objectives. Accordingly, financial and non-financial measures are
represented as “lagging” and “leading” factors, respectively (Kaplan, 2010; Schneiderman,
1999). Therefore, as the existence of organizations depends on both factors, the balanced
scorecard combines both measures in a balanced way.
With these philosophical tenets, the balanced scorecard has been widely used across
government and non-government organizations, profit and non-profit organizations. Higher
education institutions are no exceptions. Attributed to external and internal changes, higher
education institutions have also introduced the balanced scorecard to improve the
management of their core functions. However, anecdotal evidence revealed that the
application of balanced scorecard to higher education institutions has been accompanied by
resistance (Nigusse, 2012). Therefore, the following section tried to investigate the
philosophical tenets of the balanced scorecard vis-à-vis quality assurance dimensions in
higher education.

3. The framework: linking balanced scorecard perspectives with quality

assurance dimensions
Higher education institutions are concerned about the quality of their teaching and learning,
research and community service simultaneously. “Quality in higher education, how to
enhance it and how to evaluate it,- has been placed squarely on the contemporary agenda in
higher education” (Srikanthan and Dalrymple, 2002, p. 215). Despite this fact, however, there
is no common definition of quality education and quality assurance practices. Quality has
different meanings for different people, and the approaches to quality assurance practices
have considerable variations across different contexts. “Quality is a construct and its
meaning is contextual” (Adamu and Addamu, 2012, p. 838; Mulu, 2012, p. 31).
Harvey and Green (1993) proposed five quality assurance approaches: quality as
exceptional (Exceeding high standards); quality as perfection (Achieving goal with a zero
defect); quality as fitness for purpose (Meeting the stated purpose); quality as value for
money (Maintaining efficiency and effectiveness) and quality as transformation (Maintaining
QAE qualitative changes). However, irrespective of these approaches, various tools have been
25,4 introduced to improve education quality in higher education institutions. These tools range
from the establishment of the old-fashioned national and institutional quality assurance
agencies (Materu, 2007; Shabani et al., 2014; Mulu, 2012) to the introduction of new tools that
emanated from corporate companies, for example, the balanced scorecard (Nayeri et al.,
2008).
492 However, the compatibility of the balanced scorecard to quality assurance practices in
higher education has been debated. Parts of the debate tend to claim that the balanced
scorecard does not fit with the nature and characteristics of higher education institutions,
because, higher education institutions, unlike the corporate companies where the balanced
scorecard originated, deal with development of people through training and re-training
(teaching and learning), scholarships (research) and outreach services (community services).
However, as with corporate companies, the balanced scorecard can balance the short- and
long-terms plans, intangible and tangle assets and financial and non-financial measures of
higher education institutions. Along the way, it may contribute to quality assurance
practices in higher education institutions too. The challenge, however, exists in identifying
balanced scorecard models that fit to the core functions of higher education institutions and
their quality assurance models.
There are different quality assurance models in higher education. Nonetheless, much of
the literature (Ayalew et al., 2009; Biggs, 1993; Shabani et al., 2014) seems to support the
systems model with its input, processes and output dimensions. According to this model,
higher education institutions interact with the environment, receive input from that
environment, undertake some transformations on the inputs and ultimately deliver outputs
to the environment:
The input segment of the framework [model] includes at least the students, teachers, non-teaching
staff, managers, curriculum, facilities, finance, and instructional materials. Elements of the
process segment cover teaching and learning processes, research, use of time and space, student
services, community participation, and management. If these inputs and processes interact
effectively, the output should include skilled and employable graduates who will also be
responsible citizens, able to contribute to the economic and social development and the production
of new knowledge (Shabani et al., 2014, p. 144).
As in the balanced scorecard perspectives, each quality assurance dimension contains a
considerable number of elements. These elements, combined together, help to enhance
education quality. However, the three quality assurance dimensions, left alone, hardly bring
the desired quality unless each dimension is converted in to systematic measures and
indicators. Therefore, as accountability and the use of auditing are increasingly growing in
higher education institutions (Holmes and Brown, 2007), it is arguable that tools such as the
balanced scorecard are important to track and record the quality assurance practices. Thus,
to demonstrate the roles of the balanced scorecard in the quality assurance practices of
higher education institutions, it is important to depict the congruence between the balanced
scorecard perspectives and quality assurance dimensions in higher education institutions
(Figure 2).
The finance perspective is concerned with performance measurements and targets
related to resource utilizations, improvement of shareholder value and return on capital
(Chavan, 2009; Kaplan, 2010). It implies the enhanced use of assets, reduction of financial
risks and improved profits. In the same vein, the learning and growth perspective of the
balanced scorecard is concerned with human, information and organizational capital of
institutions (Kaplan, 2010). These two perspectives have therefore linkages to the input
 Quality
Perspecve of Dimensions of system model
Quality assurance
assurance
Balanced scorecard
practices

Customer perspecve
Outputs

493
Finance perspecve

Processes
Figure 2.
Internal Business Processes
Perspectives of the
balanced scorecard
inputs
learning and growth and quality assurance
dimensions

dimensions of quality assurance which emphasize the human and physical inputs to quality
assurance (Ayalew et al., 2009).
In addition, the customer perspective could be linked with the output dimension of
quality assurance. The customer perspective outlines strategic objectives and performance
targets related to customers and their satisfactions. It draws organizations to focus on
customer satisfaction in terms of time, quality, performance, service and cost (Kaplan and
Norton, 2005). Similarly as with the customer perspective, the output dimension of quality
assurance tends to include quality of organizational products, such as graduates,
knowledge, etc., that meet the demands and expectations of the society as-customers
(Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002).
The internal business processes perspective focuses on “[. . .] competencies, processes,
decisions, and actions that have the greatest impact on customer satisfaction” (Kaplan and
Norton, 2005, p. 112). It addresses how internal processes of organizations should be
executed to improve quality, timelines, economics and functionality within organizations.
Teaching and learning, research and community service are the core function of higher
education institutions and thus have considerable processes related to these functions.
Therefore, as with the other perspectives, the internal business processes perspective of the
balanced scorecard and the process dimension of quality assurance have convergences.
Therefore, it is possible to argue that the input, process and output dimensions of the
quality assurance practices could be related to the perspectives of the balanced scorecard.
Accordingly, one can hypothesize that the balanced scorecard binds the input, process and
output dimensions of quality assurance dimensions into measurable performance indicators
and, at the same time, aligns each dimension with the strategic objectives of higher
education institutions. The question, however, relied on the balanced scorecard model used
to integrate the input, process and output dimensions of the university’s core functions.

4. Towards the balanced scorecard model

Various models of balanced scorecard have been developed and applied to higher education
institutions. Some of these models are similar to the balanced scorecard models that are
applied to corporate entities (Libing et al., 2014; Atafar et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2012), while
others have considerable modifications (Beard and Humphrey, 2014; Pietrzak et al., 2015;
Philbin, 2011). The former group proposed to apply the business model balanced scorecard
to higher education institutions without changing the perspectives. On the other hand, the
QAE latter group attempted to replace some of the perspectives of the balanced scorecard as it fits
25,4 to the contexts of higher education institutions. For example, among the modified versions,
Philbin (2011) developed a balanced scorecard model that comprised “research output”,
“institute capability”, “people development” and “finance” perspectives. In this model, the
perspectives of the balanced scorecard are adapted to the higher education context.
Similarly, Pietrzak et al. (2015) proposed a balanced scorecard model labeled as the “if”
494 model. The model includes “finance” [. . .] if we have adequate resources); “potential” [. . .] we
will develop staff, system and facilities); “processes” [. . .] it will allow to improve the process
of teaching) and “customers” [. . .] the organization meets the requirements of customers).
According to the model proposed by Pietrzak et al., finance plays a paramount role in the
presumed successes of the remaining perspectives.
Subsequently, both models (modified and un-modified) seem to have two major
limitations. First, despite the need for quality and quality assurance practices in higher
education institutions, the models devoted little emphasis to linking the balanced scorecard
with quality assurance practices in higher education institutions. Second, the core functions
of higher education institutions (teaching and learning, research and community service) are
not explicitly represented in the models. This may lead to confusions in the application of
the balanced scorecard to the case of higher education institutions.
Accordingly, considering the linkages sketched among the input, processes and output
dimensions of quality assurance, and the perspectives of the balanced scorecard, it is
possible to propose a balanced scorecard model that integrates the core functions of higher
education institutions and appropriate quality assurance dimensions (Table I).
Teaching and learning, research and community service are the core functions of higher
education institutions. Accordingly, they should be represented in the balanced scorecard
model explicitly. Customer satisfaction with teaching and learning may not guarantee
customer satisfaction in research or community service, or vice versa. Higher education
institutions with optimum customer satisfaction in teaching may experience low customer
satisfaction in research, community service or vice versa. This is true for not only to

Perspective Areas of emphasis Objectives Measures Targets Initiatives

Customer Customer satisfaction in teaching and

learning
Customer satisfaction in research
Customer satisfaction in community
services
Finance Resource used in teaching and learning
Resource used in research
Resources used in community services
Revenue generated for teaching and
learning, research and community services
Internal business Processes in teaching and learning
processes Processes in research
Table I. Processes in community services
Learning and Input and developments in teaching and
Balanced scorecard
growth learning
model with emphasis Input and developments in research
to the core functions Input and developments in community
of higher education services
institutions Input and development in finance
institutions but also to the varied academic disciplines within higher education institutions. Quality
Some academic disciplines are teaching-focused (e.g. philosophy), while others are research- assurance
focused (e.g. physics) (Becher, 1994). Therefore, customer satisfaction in these different
academic disciplines cannot assure equal satisfaction in the core functions. Hence,
practices
presenting the core functions explicitly may lead higher education institutions and their
academic disciplines to concentrate on their areas of excellence with appropriate emphasis.
The explicit representation of the core functions should not only be limited to the
customer perspective. As with the customer perspective, the core functions of higher 495
education institutions should be represented in the other perspectives too. For example,
under the learning and growth perspective, the inputs and developments for teaching,
research, community service and finance should be stipulated clearly to claim developments
in the internal business processes, finance and customer perspectives. However, as the type
and contexts of higher education institutions are different, teaching and learning, research
and community services may not be definitive functions for all higher education institutions.
Some higher education institutions may focus on teaching and learning (e.g., teaching
universities), while others focus on research and outreach services (e.g. research
universities). Accordingly, depending on the type and contexts, it may be possible to add or
reduce parts of the functions stipulated in the proposed model of balanced scorecard.

5. Discussions
Quality assurance is the common concern of all higher education institutions. Every higher
education institution aspires to ensure the quality of its core processes. Conversely, despite
these aspirations, performance measures related to quality assurance practices are among the
long-standing problems in higher education institutions. There are considerable explanations
for the challenges in the performance measures related to quality assurance. These
explanations range from the shortages of finance and lack of understanding about performance
measures to the loose and departmentalized nature of higher education institutions.
By virtue of tradition, higher education institutions are loosely organized institutions.
They are described as bottom-heavy institutions (Clark, 1983) and a home to different
academic disciplines (Clark, 1997). However, amidst these disciplinary differences, higher
education leaders aspired to ensure education quality across all disciplines uniformly and
through common strategic initiatives. In addition, strategies are prepared by top-level
managers and passed down to the academic disciplines. This, in turn, challenges quality
assurance practices in higher education institutions. Because, under this approach, the
different academic disciplines are uniformly subjected to similar strategic initiatives, where
some of them are difficult to harmonize with the knowledge domain of the academic
discipline. This perhaps obscured the endeavors to maintain quality assurance in the higher
education institutions. Quality is a result of collaborative processes where the provider (for
example, the top-level manager) and the user (for example, academic disciplines or other
external customers) are aware of their responsibilities (Mishra, 2007; Wilger, 1997).
Therefore, equally important to other bottlenecks, the diffused decision making and bottom-
heavy nature of higher education institutions are potential challenges to the quality
assurance practices in higher education institutions. Despite there being a wealth of
literature on the quality assurance mechanisms, the role of the balanced scorecard to
mitigate parts of the challenge emanated from the nature of higher education institutions is
overlooked. Thus, the main assertion of the present article is that the balanced scorecard, if
designed in harmony with the core functions of the higher education institutions, could play
a considerable role in mitigating parts of the challenge in quality assurance practices that
have resulted from the nature of higher education institutions.
QAE These roles could be the following. First, the balanced scorecard could enhance
25,4 communication and strategic execution in higher education institutions: almost every higher
education institution aspires to ensure quality education. However, these aspirations
remained with top managers, or are only written to satisfy the requirements of university
websites and Facebook and Twitter accounts. In parallel, the faculty in the varied
disciplines have limited possibilities to know the strategic objectives of their higher
496 education institutions. As noted in the literature (Becher, 1994; Henkel, 2005), the academe
places greater focus to their disciplinary areas than to the university. This, thus, necessitates
tools that strengthen the communication between the top-level managers and the
practitioners in higher education institutions. Therefore, as it engages with cascading, the
balanced scorecard may improve communication among top-, middle- and low-level
managers and practitioners. In the balanced scorecard, top-level managers communicate the
organization’s strategic goals and visions to the lower-level managers and practitioners
through cascading strategic plans and monitoring and evaluations. Accordingly, when the
faculty is given a chance to plan in accordance of the higher-order strategic plans,
harmonized practices could be ensured and, as a result of which, quality and quality
assurance could be enhanced. Appropriately implemented, the balanced scorecard helps
everyone to come onto the same page, know how and what to do to support the corporate
level strategies (Rompho, 2011).
Second, the balanced scorecard could integrate and articulate the input, process and output
dimensions of the quality assurance dimensions into measurable targets and performance
measures: even if it is not a necessary truth, the input, processes and output dimensions of
quality assurance practices have linear connections. The strength and weakness in the input
dimension are likely to explain the weakness and strengths in the process dimension.
Moreover, the same is true for the weakness and strengths in the output dimension. That is, the
strengths and weakness in the input and processes dimensions, combined together, explain
results in the output dimension. However, unless it is represented through systematic tools, the
linear causation among the input, process and output dimensions remains rhetoric. Therefore,
as it integrates the causation among its perspectives, the balanced scorecard could integrate the
causation between and among the dimensions of quality assurance. The balanced scorecard
can integrate the quality assurance dimensions into actionable activities and articulate the
strategic objectives into performance measures and targets.
Third, the balanced scorecard could bring the core functions and strategic objectives of the
university in to the “cockpit” of top-level managers: higher education institutions are complex
institutions in terms of their purposes and functions (Kerr, 1995). Consequently, top-level
managers may fail to have a complete picture at the major functions of the university. This, in
turn, may lead higher education managers to fail to trace quality problems, to give timely
feedback and undertake periodic follow-up on issues that compromise education quality. These
problems, therefore, demand tools such as the balanced scorecard to see the university’s core
functions concisely. The balanced scorecard with its strategic map helps managers to have an
oversight of the organizations’ strategy in a relatively coherent way (Kaplan and Norton, 2005).
Fourth, the balanced scorecard could foster balanced endeavors in higher education
institutions: higher education institutions are full of intangibles (Philbin, 2011). These include
knowledge, teaching and research that are complex to understand and measure. “Knowledge is
the material research and teachings are the main technologies [. . .] [and] this invisible material
[knowledge] is impossible to define closely (Clark, 1983, p. 12)”. This implies that knowledge,
research, teaching and community service are not only intangible assets. They are also traits
that are difficult to define and measure. Conversely, higher education institutions are striving to
ensure the quality of these traits. According to Tohidia et al. (2010), higher education
institutions traditionally focus on the easily quantifiable traits and accordingly undermine the Quality
activities that add value to change inputs in to desirable outputs. The balanced scorecard as a assurance
technique, therefore, may help higher education institutions to plan, measure and evaluate the
processes of the intangible assets in their quality assurance endeavors.
practices
However, it is worth noting that the balanced scorecard, if not used appropriately, might fail
to help quality assurance practices. Kaplan and Norton (2001) classified the failures of the
balanced scorecard into “design failure” and “processes failure”. The design failure refers to the
inappropriate arrangement of the perspectives and alignment of the organization’s core tasks in 497
each perspective. In addition, the process failures refer to the failures to set appropriate
performance measures and targets. Similarly, Schneiderman (1999) identified the following
under which the balanced scorecard could fail. These are when:
 The independent (the non-financial measures) variables on the scorecard is
incorrectly identified as primary drivers of future stakeholders’ satisfaction.
 The metrics are poorly defined.
 The goals are negotiated rather than based on stakeholder requirement,
fundamental process limits and improvement process capabilities.
 There is no deployment system that breaks high-level goals down to sub-process
level where actual improvement activities reside.
 State-of-the-art improvement systems are not used.

The conditions under which the balanced scorecard failed, as suggested by Schneiderman and
Kaplan and Norton, give unequivocal messages to the transfer processes of the balanced
scorecard into the higher education institutions. The design and process of the balanced
scorecard in higher education need to consider the core functions of the university and their
quality assurance schemes, i.e. the core functions of the higher education institutions (teaching
and learning, research and community service) should be explicitly presented and articulated in
the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard. They should be presented in each perspective,
as each function requires a relatively different inputs, processes and customers’ satisfactions.
Explicit treatment of the core functions across the perspectives of the balanced scorecard could
encourage higher education institutions and their academic disciplines to concentrate on their
areas of excellence and, consequently, reduce the “one-size-fits-all” models of the balanced
scorecard transferred into higher education institutions and their academic disciplines.

6. Conclusions
The balanced scorecard, despite its origins, is now transferred into higher education
institutions. It was introduced mainly to improve the management of a university’s core
functions and their quality assurance practices. Therefore, at least theoretically, it is
arguable to conclude that designed appropriately, the balanced scorecard could mitigate
parts of the quality assurance challenges that emanated from the nature of the higher
education institutions. As with the corporate entities, the balanced scorecard could foster
communication among several units of higher education institutions, improve strategic
development and execution of strategic plans. It may help to translate the strategic
objectives in teaching and learning, research and community service in to measurable,
actionable and vision oriented targets and thus support the quality assurance practices.
Therefore, the proposed congruence between perspectives of balanced scorecard and quality
assurance dimensions may help to reduce parts of the resistance to the balanced scorecard in
higher education institutions. Further, the proposed model of the balanced scorecard may help
higher education managers (both at macro, meso and micro levels) to consider the core functions
QAE of the higher education institutions in strategic planning, execution and evaluation processes. It
25,4 will particularly give an alert to higher education managers to integrate the core functions of
higher education institutions into the perspectives of the balanced scorecard.
Finally, even if the paper falls short of supporting its claims with empirical evidence, it
signposts the congruence between the balanced scorecard and quality assurance practices in
higher education institutions, including the limitations of the previously developed balanced
498 scorecard model when applied to higher education institutions. Therefore, the congruence
between the balanced scorecard and quality assurance dimensions and the proposed model
of the balanced scorecard could be taken as input for future research and practice into
application of the balanced scorecard in higher education institutions.

References
Adamu, Y.A. and Addamu, A.M. (2012), “Quality assurance in Ethiopian higher education: procedures
and practices”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 69, pp. 838-846.
Atafar, A., Shahrabi, M. and Esfahani, N. (2013), “Evaluation of university performance using BSC and
ANP”, Decision Science Letters, Vol. 2, pp. 305-311.
Ayalew, S., Dawit, M., Tesfaye, S. and Yalew, E. (2009), “Assessment of science education quality
indicators in Addis Ababa”, Bahri Dar and Hawassa Universities Quality of Higher Education in
Ethiopian Public Institutions, FSS, Addis Ababa, pp. 161-266.
Beard, D.F. and Humphrey, R.L. (2014), “Alignment of university information technology resources
with the Malcolm Baldrige results criteria for performance excellence in education: a balanced
scorecard approach”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 89, pp. 382-388.
Becher, T. (1994), “The significance of disciplinary differences”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 151-161.
Biggs, J.B. (1993), “From theory to practice: a cognitive systems approach”, Higher Education, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Chavan, M. (2009), “The balanced scorecard: a new challenge”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 93-406, avaialble at: doi: http://dx. doi.org/10.1108/02621710910955930
Chen, F.Y., Lee, C.S. and Mo, E.H. (2012), “Innovative operation in a private university of technology-an
application of strategy map on balanced scorecard”, International Journal of Asian Social
Science, Vol. 2, pp. 1877-1891.
Clark, B.R. (1983), The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective,
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Clark, B.R. (1997), “Small worlds, different worlds: the uniquenesses and troubles of American
academic professions”, The American Academic Profession, Vol. 126 No. 4, pp. 21-42.
Harvey, L. and Green, D. (1993), “Defining quality”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 9-34.
Henkel, M. (2005), “Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment”, Higher
Education, Vol. 49 Nos 1/2, pp. 155-176.
Holmes, A. and Brown, S. (2007), “Quality audit issues”, in Holmes, A. and Brown, S. (Eds), Internal
Audit in Higher Education, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 3-7.
Ivancevich, J.M. and Matteson, M.T. (2002), Organizational Behaviour and Management, 6 ed., McGraw
Hill, New York, NY.
Kaplan, R.S. (2010), “Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard”, Working Paper 10-074,
Harvard Business School, Harvard University.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001), The Strategy-Focused Organization, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2005), “The balanced scorecard measures that drive performance”, in Quality
Stewart, T.A. (Eds), Classics Compendium: 15 Must Read Articles for Managerial Success,
Harvard Business Review. assurance
Kerr, C. (1995), “The idea of a multiversity”, in Kerr, C. (Ed.), The Uses of the University, Harvard practices
University Press, pp. 1-34.
Libing, Z., Xu, Z. and Ruiquan, Z. (2014), “Application of the balanced scorecard in the university
budget management”, paper presented at the 2014 Conference on Informatisation in Education,
Management and Business (IEMB-14). 499
Madah, N.A., Ahmad, I.S. and Sultan, K. (2013), “Building and implementing a balanced scorecard
model at Cihan University requirements and steps”, Academy of Contemporary Research,
Vol. VII, pp. 106-117.
Mishra, S. (2007), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: An Introduction, National Assessment and
Accreditation Council, Bangalore, available at: www.naacindia.org
Mulu, N. (2012), “Quality and quality assurance in Ethiopian higher education: critical issues and
practical implications”, PhD thesis (unpublished), University of Twente, Enschede.
Nayeri, M.D., Mashhadi, M.M. and Mohajeri, K. (2008), “Universities strategic evaluation using balanced
scorecard”, International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 22-27.
Nigusse, W. (2012), “Resistance towards the transplantations of management routines at the Mekelle
University”, available at: http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/2012/12/03/
Philbin, S.P. (2011), “Design and implementation of the balanced scorecard at a university institute”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 34-45, doi: 10.1108/13683041111161148.
Pietrzak, M., Paliszkiewicz, J. and Klepacki, B. (2015), “The application of the balanced scorecard (BSC)
in the higher education setting of a polish university”, Online Journal of Applied Knowledge
Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 151-164.
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, doi: 10.5539/ijbm.
Ruben, B.D. (1999), Towards a Balanced Scorecard in Higher Education: Re-thinking the College and
University Excellence Indicators Framework from QCI, Center for Organizational Development
Leadership Rutgers University, available at: www.qci.rutgers.edu
Schneiderman, A.M. (1999), “Why the balanced scorecard fail”, Journal of Strategic Performance
Measurement, Vol. 2 No. 11.
Shabani, J., Okebukola, P. and Oyewole, O. (2014), “Quality assurance in Africa: towards a continental
higher education and research space”, International Journal of African Higher Education, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 140-171, doi: 10.6017/ijahe.v1i1.5646.
Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple, J.F. (2002), “Developing a holistic model for quality in higher education”,
Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 215-224.
Tohidia, H., Jafarib, A. and Afsharb, A.A. (2010), “Using balanced scorecard in educational
organizations”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 5544-5548.
Wilger, A. (1997), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A Literature Review, National Center for
Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford University.

Corresponding author
Nigusse W. Reda can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
Reproduced with permission of copyright
owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.