THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALANCED SCORECARD FOR

SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE: THE CASE OF GAUTENG

METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES

by

CHANTAL BANGA MBALA (49078372)

Submitted in accordance with the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY IN ACCOUNTING SCIENCES

In the subject

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING

At the
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

SUPERVISOR: STEPHEN NDLOVU

FEBRUARY 2016

Open Rubric
 DECLARATION

Student Number 49078372

I Chantal Banga Mbala declare that the research entitled:

“The Implementation of the Balanced Scorecard for Service Delivery

Performance: The Case of Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities” is my own work
and all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged
by means of complete references.

I further declare that I have not previously submitted this work, or part of it, for
examination at UNISA for another qualification or at any other higher education
institution.

29 February 2016
--------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
SIGNATURE: C. BANGA MBALA DATE

ii
 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Almighty God for sustaining me in
everything by His grace and in the name of his holy Son, Jesus Christ, in order for me to
complete this research.
I also owe a debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. Stephen Ndlovu, for his very
useful insights, time, patience and support, as well as his constructive comments on
each chapter, which not only enriched my understanding, but also helped me to
complete this study.

Special thanks go to Eunice Galetti, and Lyna and Lynette Smith from the Department
of Management Accounting at UNISA for their assistance and support when I was
facing some difficulties regarding my studies.

I am also extremely grateful to Mante Rantlha, the Management Accounting librarian at

UNISA, for her assistance in helping me to find relevant articles and books for the
literature review in this study.

I am also grateful to the following staff at the Unisa Llibrary: Joyce Mtshali, Margaret
Mohlala, Refilwe Matatiele, Leanne Tracy Brown and Sbongiseni Ngubane, for their
varied assistance and support regarding all library issues and material.

My appreciation is further extended to the Mokolo family, especially Jean Paul and Jose
Misenga Mokolo, for their assistance, support, advice and guidance when I arrived in
South Africa for study purposes. Thank you once again for advising me to do my studies
at Unisa.

To all my friends, especially Shabane Themba, Velly Ndlovu, Martina Chuku, Chido,
Dido Tumba, Michel Kana, Christophe Tshibangu Mbuyi, DoudouKabongo, Katumba
N’yunyi Wambuyi, Huguette, Marcel, Dako, Samuel Beya, Narcisse Zebaze, and

iii
Christine Kyala Foma, for your companionship, encouragement and inputs through
exchanges and discussions.

I am also deeply grateful to my fellow brothers Reverend Freddy Shembo, Reverend

Jean Kaseke, Clovis Bonyaka, Hans Djamba, and Reverend Freddy Kamayi, as well as
my fellow sisters Beatrice Shembo, Marie Claire Djamba Labi, Lydia Kabonza Kianga
and Nadege Bonyaka, for your assistance and encouragement.

I would like to thank all my family members, particularly my brother Rev. Bob Tshikens
Tshikuna Mbala; my sisters Rose Luemba Masengu Mbala and Honnorine Mbuaya
Musampa Mbala; my nieces Fanny Miandabu, Sylvie Musampa, Nadine Masengu,
Rebecca Luemba, Benedicte Luemba and KethiaLuemba; as well as my nephews
Fiston Ikia Musampa Mbuta, Yannick Mbiya Kamanda and Dieu Le Veut Luemba
Lumingu for their support and encouragement.

And last but not least, I thank the University of South Africa (UNISA) for offering me a
bursary, which allowed me to meet the costs of my studies over the last two years.

Without you all this dissertation would never have been completed.
Thank you.

iv
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to the following three people who are so precious to me:

• My lovely husband, Reverend Jean-Jose Joe Bukasa Kadima, for giving me the
aspiration to pursue new challenges, as well as the confidence to achieve the dream
that I had regarding my studies; thank you not only for supporting me morally, financially
and materially, but also for giving me the time I needed to write this dissertation.

• My delightful first daughter, Anne Josianne Grace Bukasa Banga, for helping me during
difficult times through her patience, love and affection. She sacrificed more than I could
imagine during this voyage.

• My beautiful second daughter, Berenice Veronica Victorious Helen Bukasa Kampoyi, for
not only supporting and encouraging me, but also offering me her attention, love and
warmth.

v
 ABSTRACT

This qualitative study set out to investigate the extent to which the Balanced Scorecard
(BSC) has been implemented for service delivery by South African Metropolitan
Municipalities. The Ekurhuleni Municipality, City of Johannesburg (CoJ) and City of
Tshwane (CoT), which together form the Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities (GMMs),
were used as multiple cases for this study.

A good performance management system should cover activities relevant to the

adoption of a performance measurement tool such as the BSC, which was developed
by Kaplan and Norton in 1992. These two authors published a framework integrating
different components of performance management and measurement system, namely
strategy, vision, mission, objectives, measures, targets and strategic initiatives. In short,
the BSC framework is the key for its successful implementation, which is evaluated
according to the achievement of targets. The problem addressed in the study was the
lack of a proper performance management system, as well as the poor design and
inappropriate manner of implementing the BSC by the GMMs.

The objectives of the study were to examine principal elements such as performance
management activities, performance measurement framework, design and
implementation of the BSC following the original framework developed by Kaplan and
Norton (1992), as well as its impact on the outcomes of service delivery performance.
Objectives, measures, targets and initiatives were the core elements for evaluating the
municipalities’ performance management, as well as their implementation of the BSC.
Moreover, the attainment of targets was the key for examining performance outcomes
or the impact of the BSC on service delivery performance. In order to reach the above-
mentioned objectives, a literature and document review, including municipalities’
policies and annual reports, were conducted for collecting relevant data. This review
involved content analysis, and data were presented in the form of tables and charts.
Finally, credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability were used to measure
the validity and reliability of the findings.

vi
The results showed that the performance management (PM) activities of the GMMs
were not adequate for implementing the BSC. Naturally, the selection of measures and
targets was catered for through the policy of the Ekurhuleni Municipality, as well as the
City of Johannesburg (CoJ). However, the setting of objectives, selection of measures,
and setting of targets were all part of the performance management framework of the
City of Tshwane (CoT). The BSC was intended to be used as a performance
measurement framework for the Metropolitan Municipalities of Johannesburg and
Tshwane. Nevertheless, the instrument was poorly implemented by these
municipalities. Although the BSC was not adopted by the Ekurhuleni Municipality, the
principal activities integrated into the BSC framework were implemented for its service
delivery. In addition, during the 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 financial years,
the achievement status of targets was not determined for the Ekurhuleni Municipality.
This was also the case for the CoT during 2011-2012. However, the full-achievement,
non- achievement, partial-achievement and over-achievement of targets were well
defined for the City of Johannesburg during all three financial years under study. In the
same way, such finding was indicated only for the two last financial years for the City of
Tshwane.

The findings of the study indicated that the implementation of the BSC within the
Metropolitan Municipalities of Johannesburg and Tshwane did not comply with its
original framework. This is due to the lack of an adequate performance management
system, which in turn affects performance measurement. Before adopting a
performance measurement framework, there should be an appropriate performance
measurement system in place to ensure its success. Consequently, future research
should focus more on the investigation of standard requirements for measuring
performance, especially in the public sector.

KEYWORDS: Balanced Scorecard, Balanced Scorecard framework, initiatives,

objectives, performance management, performance measurement framework,
performance measures, performance outcomes and targets.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION .......................................................................................................................................... ii
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................................. v
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... viii
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................xiv
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 4
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................................................... 8
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS.......................................................................... 9
1.4.1 Objective 1................................................................................................................................. 9
1.4.2 Objective 2............................................................................................................................... 10
1.4.3 Objective 3............................................................................................................................... 10
1.4.4 Objective 4............................................................................................................................... 10
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 11
1.6 DELINEATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................. 11
1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................................. 15
1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................... 16
1.9 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER TWO ....................................................................................................................................... 20
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................. 20
2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 20
2.2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 22
2.3 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ........................................................................................... 23
2.4 THE BALANCED SCORECARD FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 26

viii
 2.4.1 Organisational Strategy, Vision and Mission Setting .................................................. 30
2.4.2 Perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard............................................................................ 31
2.4.3 Objectives Setting .................................................................................................................. 31
2.4.4 Performance Measures (Indicators (Is)) ............................................................................. 34
2.4.5 Target Setting ......................................................................................................................... 37
2.4.6 Strategic Initiatives ................................................................................................................. 38
2.5 PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES ................................................................................................... 38
2.6 KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS ................................................................................................... 41
2.7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................................... 43
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 43
3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 43
3.2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICE IN THE PUBLIC
SECTOR ................................................................................................................................................ 45
3.2.1 Developing Strategy, Vision and Mission ........................................................................... 46
3.2.2 Setting of Objectives, Targets and Strategic Initiatives .................................................... 48
3.2.3 Measurement .......................................................................................................................... 49
3.2.4 Determining Performance Outcomes and Achievements ................................................ 51
3.3 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND SERVICE DELIVERY IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES (SALGA) ......................................................................... 52
3.4 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORKS............................................................. 56
3.5 DESIGN OF THE PUBLIC BALANCED SCORECARD .......................................................... 57
3.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALANCED SCORECARDIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR ....... 59
3.6.1 Setting Objectives .................................................................................................................. 60
3.6.2 Establishing Targets .............................................................................................................. 62
3.6.3 Identifying Strategic Initiatives .............................................................................................. 63
3.6.4 Selecting Measures ............................................................................................................... 65
3.6.5 Balance .................................................................................................................................... 73
3.7 PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES ................................................................................................... 75
3.8 CHALLENGES IN ADOPTING THE BALANCED SCORECARD IN THE PUBLIC
SECTOR ................................................................................................................................................ 77
3.8.1 Problems related to design ................................................................................................... 78

ix
 3.8.2 Problems related to implementation ................................................................................... 79
3.9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER FOUR ..................................................................................................................................... 82
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 82
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 82
4.2 RESEARCH PARADIGMS: REALISM ....................................................................................... 84
4.3 RESEARCH APPROACH: QUALITATIVE ........................................................................... 87
4.4 RESEARCH DESIGN: DESCRIPTIVE ................................................................................. 87
4.5 RESEARCH METHOD: MULTIPLE CASE STUDY ............................................................ 89
4.6 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................... 91
4.6.1 Preparing Data Collection Procedures.......................................................................... 92
4.6.2 Defining protocols for data collection ............................................................................ 93
4.6.3 Collecting evidence .......................................................................................................... 95
4.6 TARGET POPULATION.......................................................................................................... 96
4.7 UNITS OF ANALYSIS................................................................................................................... 96
4.8 DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 97
4.8.1 Principles of Content Analysis .............................................................................................. 97
4.8.2 Process for Content Analysis ....................................................................................... 100
4.9 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY .............................................................................................. 108
4.9.1 Credibility ......................................................................................................................... 109
4.9.2 Transferability ................................................................................................................. 110
4.9.3 Confirmability .................................................................................................................. 110
4.8.4 Dependability .................................................................................................................. 111
CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................................................... 113
REASEARCH FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS............................................................................ 113
5.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 113
5.2 COLLECTED DATA .................................................................................................................... 115
5.2.1 Presentation of the GMMs’ Performance Management and Measurement
Frameworks..................................................................................................................................... 115
5.2.2 Presentation of the GMMs’ Adopted Balanced Scorecard Framework ....................... 119
5.2.3 Presentation of the GMMs’ Service Delivery Performance Outcomes ........................ 145
5.3 CONTENT DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 152

x
 5.3.1 GMMs’ Performance Management .................................................................................. 152
5.3.2 GMMs’ Scorecards............................................................................................................... 154
5.3.3 GMMs’ Performance Outcomes ......................................................................................... 159
5.4 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 164
5.4.1 Research Objective 1 .......................................................................................................... 164
5.4.2 Research Objective 2 .......................................................................................................... 165
5.4.3 Research Objective 3 .......................................................................................................... 165
5.4.4 Research Objective 4 .......................................................................................................... 166
5.5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 167
CHAPTER SIX ........................................................................................................................................ 169
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 169
6.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 169
6.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS......................................................................................................... 175
6.3.1 Ekurhuleni Municipality ........................................................................................................ 175
6.3.2 City Of Johannesburg .......................................................................................................... 175
6.3.3 City Of Tshwane ................................................................................................................... 176
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 176
6.4.1 Ekurhuleni Municipality ........................................................................................................ 176
6.4.2 City Of Johannesburg .......................................................................................................... 177
6.4.3 City Of Tshwane ................................................................................................................... 178
6.5 AREAS FOR FUTURE REASEARCH...................................................................................... 178
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 179
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 217

xi
 ABBREVIATIONS

AC: Achieved
Achs: Achievements
BSC: Balanced Scorecard
CoJ: City of Johannesburg
CoT: City of Tshwane
Dev: Developing
EM: Ekurhuleni Municipality
EMM: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
GMMs: Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities
INI : Initiatives
Is: Indicators
KPI: Key Performance Indicator
KPIs: Key Performance Indicators
LGA: Local Government Authority
LGAs: Local Government Authorities
ME: Measures
Mis: Mission
NA: Non-Achieved
N/A: Not Available
N/D: Not Disclosed
OB: Objectives
Outc: Outcomes
Outp: Outputs
O/A: Over-Achieved
P/A: Partially Achieved
Pers: Perspectives
PM: Performance Management
PMS: Performance Management System
PMSs: Performance Management Systems
POs: Performance Outcomes

xii
SALGA: South African Local Government Authority
Str: Strategy
TA: Targets
Vis: Vision

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 = Structure of Chapter One

Figure 1.2 = Delineation of the Study

Figure 2.3 = Structure of Chapter Two

Figure 2.4 = Balanced Scorecard Framework

Figure 3.5 = Structure of Chapter Three

Figure 4.6 = Structure of Chapter Four

Figure 5.7 = Structure of Chapter Five

Figure 5.8 = Analysis of Ekurhuleni Municipality Scorecards

Figure 5.9 = Analysis of the City of Johannesburg Scorecards

Figure 5.10 = Analysis of the City of Tshwane Ekurhuleni Scorecards

Figure 5.11 = Analysis of Ekurhuleni Municipality Performance Outcomes

Figure 5.12 = Analysis of the City of Johannesburg Performance Outcomes

Figure 5.13 = Analysis of the City of Tshwane Performance Outcomes

Figure 5.14 = Structure of Chapter Six

xiv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4:1 = Categorisation of the Collected Data

Table 4:2 = Conditions Requirement for the Disclosure of Contents
Table 5.3 = Performance Management and Measurement in the Ekurhuleni Municipality
Table 5.4 = Performance Management and Measurement in the City of Johannesburg
Table 5.5 = Performance Management and Measurement in the City of Tshwane
Table 5.6 = Ekurhuleni Municipality Scorecards
Table 5.7 = City of Johannesburg Scorecards
Table 5.8 = City of Tshwane Scorecards
Table 5.9 = Ekurhuleni Municipality Performance Outcomes
Table 5.10 = City of Johannesburg Performance Outcomes
Table 5.11 = City of Tshwane Performance Outcomes
Table 5.12 = Performance Management and Performance Measurement Framework of
Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities

xv
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) has drawn attention all over the world, specifically with
the challenges faced by the public sector in relation to service delivery (Wisniewski &
Olafsson, 2004:602). In fact, since the late 1970s, much literature on performance
management (PM) has promoted the concept of performance measurement (Masango,
2000:66). Certainly, Kgechane (2013:12) recognised the existing relationship between
these two concepts. Even though they are still appropriate, performance management
systems (PMSs) remain nonexistent in many organisations (Dirks & Wijn, 2002:408).
This makes the adoption of a performance measurement tool even more challenging.
Therefore, there is an increasing need for PM to implement balanced approaches for
measuring performance (Franco & Bourne, 2003; Greatbanks &Tapp, 2007:847).

In spite of the above concern, several models and frameworks were developed in order
to measure performance in an unbiased manner (Franco & Bourne, 2003; Greatbanks
&Tapp, 2007:847). A balanced set of performance measures are offered by these
models and frameworks, of which the BSC is one.

The BSC is among the most advanced techniques applied in measuring organisational
performance (Namezi & Ramazani, 2003; Chen, Yi-Feng, Wu-Chen, Tung Cheng &
Hao-Chen, 2010; Luft, 2009:307). Moreover, it is adopted by many organisations
throughout the world as their PMS (Abdullah, Umair, Rashid and Naeem, 2013:134).
Above all, the tool may be advantageous to organisational performance.

Indeed, the positive impact of the BSC on performance measurement has been
advocated by Stan and Albright (2004). Similarly, Abdullah, Umair et al. (2013:134)
confirmed that 57% of organisational performance throughout the world has been

1
improved by using the BSC. In contrast, Zauskiene and Valanciene (2010) contended
that the BSC is ineffective when measuring performance.
While the above argument may be true, Kaplan (2001:357) stated that the development
of the BSC is still necessary. This is because; now more than ever, it helps to overcome
the deficiencies that have been observed in the traditional accounting system.
Furthermore, the BSC model improves the quality of performance information (Hoque &
Adams, 2011:312), which seems to be crucial for assessing performance outcomes.

With regard to the above literature, this study explores the implementation of the BSC
for service delivery performance in the Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities (GMMs).
The possibility of the adoption of the BSC is tied to the performance management
systems, as well as performance measurement frameworks, of these municipalities.
The study highlights the fundamental steps for implementing the BSC, which include the
following: setting objectives, selecting measures, setting targets, and adopting strategic
initiatives which are part of its original framework. Finally, this study examines the
impact of the BSC on the performance outcomes of the municipalities under
investigation.

2
The layout of this chapter is summarized in figure 1.1 below.

Figure 1.1: Structure of Chapter One

1.1 Introduction 1.4.4 Objective 4 Question 1

Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
1.4.3 Objective 3 Question 5
Question 6
1.2 Background

1.4.2 Objective
2 Question 1

1.3 Problem Statement Question 2

Question3
1.4.1 Objective
1
Question 1

1.4 Research Objectives and Questions Question1

Question 2
Question 3

1.5 Research
Methodology

1.6 Delineation and Limitations

1.7 Definition of Terms

1.8
Significance

1.9 Chapter
Overview

3
1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Success will only be achieved by organisations that acknowledge the role of

performance measurement (PM) in enhancing organisational performance. In this
regard, Ukko, Tenhunen and Rantanen (2007:39) indicated that the delivery of
consistent information is one of the most important objectives of performance
measurement. In addition, finance played a central role in the ancient performance
measurement system (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). Similarly, financial measures were the
initial focus of traditional management (Betianu & Briciu, 2011:20). Chenhall and
Langfield (2007:266) also highlighted the attention given to such measures by
management accounting. Nevertheless financial measures have been criticised by
numerous authors, such as Norreklit (2000:65), Bourne (2005:101), Nixon (2005), Niven
(2006:3), Budde (2007:515), and Hoque and Adams (2011:312).

Indeed, the abovementioned authors argued that financial measures suffer from a lack of
focus. In other words, these measures lack effectiveness with regard to future
organisational performance (Norreklit, 2000:65; Bourne, 2005:101; Nixon, 2005; Niven,
2006:3;Budde, 2007:515; Hoque & Adams, 2011:312). Similarly, Niven (2006:3) and
Sheldrake (2011:80) were convinced that monetary measures alone are no longer
adequate, not only for organisational processes, but also for modern business
management.

In today’s world, the complexity of business environments requires organisations to

develop tools that are highly effective in measuring performance. According to Ittner and
Larcker (1998:205), in order to fill the gap in traditional performance measures,
organisations have developed new performance measurement systems. This resulted
in the development of the BSC by Kaplan and Norton (1992), which includes both
financial and non-financial measures. Biswas (2013:89) stated that the BSC comprises
four segments, namely: financial, customer, internal business processes, and learning
and growth. These are significant for modern organisations, even though the initial focus
was more on for-profit organisations.

4
The BSC was originally designed for the private sector (Kaplan, 2001:357), and this
principle was supported by Grigoroudis, Orfanoudaki and Zopounidis (2010:105).
However, the implementation of the BSC is not restricted to this sector only, and now
includes the public sector. In this regard, Weikart, Chen and Sermier (2013:217)
acknowledged the use of the BSC in the public sector by various government agencies.
For example, the BSC has been implemented by local government authorities (Loppolo,
Saija & Salomone, 2012: 629).

The diverse purposes for which the BSC is used in the public sector have been
extensively studied by a number of authors, such as Niven (2003:27), McAdam and
Walker (2003:885), Wu, Tsai, Shih and Fu (2010:449) and Greiling (2010:534). Its
benefits for this sector have been highlighted by Kaplan (2001), while Reshitaj and
Tikhonova (2013:7) demonstrated its disadvantages. Nonetheless, the BSC has
achieved international recognition. Furthermore the improvement of the public service
delivery performance remains the major benefit of the tool.

With regard to the origin of the BSC, it has been globally acknowledged as an American
tool developed by Kaplan and Norton in 1992. This obviously means that several
organisations in America have used the BSC (Niven, 2011). However, the tool has also
reached all other continents of the world (Kaplan & Norton, 1992; Kaplan & Norton,
1996; Niven, 2003; Abdullah, Umair et al., 2013:134).

To illustrate this, more recent studies, such as those conducted by Greiling (2010) and
Ramirez (2011) have presented and discussed the use and implementation of the BSC
by European organisations, such as in Germany (Greilling, 2010). At the same time, the
instrument has been used in Asia by Japanese and Chinese organisations (Aoki &
Hasebe, 2012; Zhang & Li, 2009). Similarly, Hoque and Adams (2011) recognised the
adoption of the tool by numerous Australian organisations. Naturally, however, the
implementation of the BSC is not limited to these locations.

Another example is the acceptance and use of the BSC by African organisations. Etim

5
and Agara (2011:64) advocated the introduction and adoption of the model by Nigerian
organisations. In a similar vein, the BSC has been used to assess Ghanaian and Libyan
banks’ performance (Yahaya, 2009). Furthermore, Otieno (2010:22) supported its
impact on Kenyan commercial banks. It may therefore be concluded that the BSC is a
powerful tool for organisations situated on the African continent.

Particularly in the Republic of South Africa, the BSC has been implemented and used
by several industries (Tseng, 2010); corporations (Kraus & Lind, 2010; Creamer &
Freund, 2010); small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (Rompho, 2011); banks (Al-Najjar
& Kalaf, 2012); universities (Philbin, 2011) and even local government (Sharma &
Gadenne, 2011). With regard to the implementation of the BSC by local government in
South Africa, Jessa (2012:2) avowed that the delivery of results on the Integrated
Development Programme (IDP) is the means for measuring the municipal performance
of South African local government. This is specified in the Municipal Systems Act 32 of
2000 and the Service Delivery Budget Improvement Plan (SDBIP), as specified in the
White Paper on Local Government (1998).

Akinboade, Kinfack and Mokwena (2012:183) stated the following: “The municipalities
are the basic units of government in South Africa. They provide basic services to the
community”. Furthermore, Dzansi and Dzansi (2010:995) asserted that “Municipal
service delivery is a major concern in South Africa”. In truth, the South African
Constitution has mandated municipalities to deliver services such as water supply,
electricity supply, sewage collection and disposal, refuse removal, municipal health
services, municipal roads, storm-water drainage maintenance, street lighting, public
education, municipal parks maintenance, recreational areas, disaster recovery
management, housing, child care facilities, local tourism, municipal planning, and
municipal by-laws (Portfolio, 2008; Dlodlo, Olwal & Mvelasep, 2012:1; Municipal Service
Delivery, 2011).

Naturally, people’s lives are influenced directly or indirectly by the abovementioned

facilities (Dlodlo et al., 2012: 1). Therefore, the aim of service delivery performance is to

6
provide not only quality service, but also to satisfy the basics needs of South African
citizens (Dlodlo et al, 2012: 1).

Another aspect that may also be of concern to the Republic of South Africa is the
growing pressure that is apparent in the public sector, not only for modernising and
improving service delivery performance, but also for increasing the liability of
stakeholders (Hood, 1995; Guthrie & English, 1997). Local authorities are obviously
affected by such pressures. In response to the pressures faced by local authorities,
Ammons and Rivenbark (2008:304) suggested the use of performance measures,
which will certainly have an impact on programme decisions, as well as service delivery.

The selection of performance measures may only be done through a performance

measurement system, since it involves the selection and inclusion of fundamental
measures (Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008:304). Moreover, performance measurement
should provide valuable information about the most important dimensions of
performance (Rantanen, Kulmala, Lonnqvist & Kujansivu, 2007:417).In order for this to
be achieved, information about performance should be collected and analysed, which
will result in performance outcomes.

Indeed, performance outcomes may be viewed as a mirror reflecting the state of

organisational performance. Furthermore, these outcomes are sources of corrective
measures for further organisational performance (Hogget et al., 2012:560). For this
purpose, the measurement and reporting of performance has been observed amongst
several local government authorities (LGAs) (Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008:304).
Scholars have naturally assumed that the main objective of such information is not only
the control of decision making processes, but also the upgrading of service delivery
performance. With this in mind, improving service delivery is the continual hope not only
of local government in general (Wisniewski & Olafsson, 2004:602), but also of South
African government in particular (Dlodlo et al., 2012:1).

Equally important is the need for regulations for service delivery performance to be

7
provided by local authorities (Wisniewski & Olafsson, 2004:602-603). However, the
same authors acknowledged the lack not only of precise requirements for managing
and delivering services, but also ways for measuring its effectiveness and efficiency
(Wisniewski & Olafsson, 2004:602-603). Accordingly, the South African Local
Government Systems Act of 2000 obligates all municipalities to develop a performance
management system which has an impact on these services (Performance
Management: Mopani District Municipality). This will definitely improve the effectiveness
of municipalities’ service delivery.

However, the enhancement of municipal efficiency may require some practice. Thus,
according to Ramuvhundu (2012:2), the management structure within municipalities has
introduced some innovative techniques, such as the BSC, which has been adopted as a
supportive tool for the performance management systems of municipalities
(Ramuvhundu, 2012:2). Furthermore, the BSC model has been approved as a point of
departure for the municipalities’ planning process (TIDP, 2006-2011:138-139).
Therefore, although the BSC is used by the public sector for several purposes, its role in
assessing organisational performance outcomes is one of the most important one.
Nevertheless, the adoption and implementation of the BSC remains problematic.

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The expansion of the performance culture has required the introduction of a

performance management scheme (Pilbeam & Corbridge, 2010:290), and performance
measurement is a significant component thereof (Fryer, Antony & Ogden, 2009:480). In
this regard, an appropriate performance management system may lead to better
performance measurement systems. However, Dirks and Wijn (2002:408) alleged that
organisations suffer from the lack of a proper performance management system, and
the literature seems to suggest that the difficulty experienced in identifying and
developing such systems is ongoing. This is a subordinate problem of this study.

8
With this concern in mind, Maltz, Shenhar and Reilly (2003:188) recommended the
development of models for measuring performance. One such model, the BSC, is the
most effective performance measurement tool (Hogget et al., 2012:560). Furthermore,
Kaplan and Norton (1993) confirmed that management is provided with an inclusive
framework through the BSC. Despite this, however, organisations still experience
challenges with this tool.

The key problem of this study is that organisations fail not only to properly adopt the
BSC, but also to implement it effectively, based on the original framework developed by
its inventors, Kaplan and Norton, in 1992 (Barnabe, 2011:447; Coe &Letza, 2014:74). In
short, Barnabe (2011:447) considered the design and functioning of the BSC as two
major problems of the tool. Similarly, Coe and Letza (2014:74) revealed that poor
design and ignorance about the implementation process have led to the failure of the
BSC.

The research objectives and associated questions of this study are presented below.

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS

This study aimed to explore the implementation of the BSC by GMMs. The following
research objectives and their associated research questions will guide the examination:

1.4.1 Objective 1

The first objective of this study was to examine the extent to which the performance
management system of GMMs can facilitate the implementation of the BSC. The
following research questions will help to achieve this objective:

Question 1: How is performance management organised in GMMs?

Question 2: What are the activities of performance management in the GMMs?

9
Question 3: Which activities of the performance management of GMMs comply with
those applied for the BSC?

1.4.2 Objective 2

The second research objective was to identify the performance measurement

framework adopted by the GMMs. The following question is related to this objective:
Question 1: What performance measurement framework has been adopted by GMMs?

1.4.3 Objective 3

The third objective of this study was to determine the extent to which the
implementation of the BSC by GMMs complies with Kaplan and Norton’s (1992) original
framework. This took into account not only the fundamental stages integrated into the
BSC framework, but also an assessment of the balance between them. The following
research questions are associated with this objective:

Question 1: How is the BSC adapted by GMMs?

Question 2: What steps are observed by the GMMs when implementing the BSC?
Question 3: To what extent are the different stages of the BSC balanced?

1.4.4 Objective 4

The fourth and last research objective was to observe the impact of the implementation
of the BSC on the outcomes of service delivery performance. In this regard, targets
were the main elements for measuring performance outcomes. Thus, this objective was
associated with the following questions:

Question 1: How many targets were set by each GMM?

Question 2: How many targets were achieved by each GMM?
Question 3: How many targets were not achieved by each GMM?

10
Question 4: How many targets were partially achieved by each GMM?
Question 5: How many targets were over-achieved by each GMM?
Question 6: What is the impact of the BSC on the achievement of targets set by the
GMMs?

Providing answers to all these questions was important, since it helped to obtain a
better understanding of the implementation of the BSC in relation to other supportive
aspects, such as its framework, as well as performance management, which
significantly contribute to the successful achievement of municipal service delivery
performance. Furthermore, the articulation between the research objectives and
questions is demonstrated through methodology (Clough &Nutbrown, 2012:24).

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

According to Brynard and Hanekom (2006:35-36) and Creswell (2014:3), subsequent

processes indicating actions and sequence, such as identifying the target population,
collecting data, analysing and interpreting data, as well as determining the quantitative
or qualitative nature of data, are encompassed by research methodology. Based on the
research questions discussed in the previous section, this study was qualitative in
nature. In addition GMMs were the target population and were selected as units of
analysis in this study, in order to explore the performance management activities,
performance measurement framework, BSC framework and performance outcomes of
these organisations. To collect data in this study, the researcher conducted a literature
review, as well as consulting relevant documents, specifically the GMMs’ policies and
annual reports. Content analysis was done during the data analysis phase, and charts
were used to present and interpret the findings of the study.

1.6 DELINEATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

According to Collis and Hussey (2003:128), delineation refers to the particular area on
which a study is focused. To emphasise this, Lehner (1996:100) assumed that proper

11
delineation of research is the basis for the successful achievement of any study. This
study identified four main focus areas, namely performance management, performance
measurement framework, adoption of the Balanced Scorecard framework, and
performance outcomes.

Indeed, management and measurement cannot be separated (Sheldrake, 2011:77). In

other words, managers may not be able to manage their business without measuring it.
In this regard, a performance management system is the core of any performance
measurement system. Therefore, the discipline of performance management, especially
its activities and measurement, will be integral to this study.

The BSC was introduced by Kaplan and Norton in 1992 as a strategic performance
measurement system (Braam & Nijssen, 2011:1). In the same way, Sheldrake (2011:99)
indicated that the concept “Balanced Scorecard” has become synonymous with
performance measurement for organisations. Performance measurement may be
considered as the main role of the BSC. Thus, a BSC study cannot be conducted
without considering the aspect of performance measurement frameworks.

While the BSC is generally used as a performance management and measurement tool
in most private and non-profit organisations, this study focused only on the local
government of the Gauteng Province in South Africa. For local government functions,
the Gauteng province is divided into three metropolitan municipalities and two district
municipalities. These districts are in turn divided into seven local municipalities. The
GMMs were the focus of this study, which included the following: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan
Municipality (EM), City of Johannesburg (CoJ) Metropolitan Municipality, and City of
Tshwane (CoT) Metropolitan Municipality.

The study was conducted within these three metropolitan municipalities according to
four levels, the first two of which are the performance management systems and
performance measurement frameworks adopted by each metropolitan municipality.
In this regard, the study emphasised these two concepts within the GMMs, since

12
they are inseparable. Furthermore, although the BSC is implemented for several
purposes, this study was restricted to its implementation for service delivery
performance. Therefore, the third level focused on the implementation of the BSC for
service delivery performance by each Metropolitan Municipality, which covered three
financial years: 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

Although the original BSC framework integrates strategy, vision, mission, objectives,
measures, targets and strategic initiatives, this study focused more on the setting of
the four last elements of this framework. Therefore, objectives, measures, targets
and initiatives were the basis for exploring the implementation of the BSC. This
allowed the researcher to determine the extent to which the stages followed by the
GMMs when implementing the BSC comply with its original framework.

The fourth level focused on the impact of the BSC implementation on service
delivery performance outcomes. This included the results of targets which were
achieved, not achieved, partially achieved or over-achieved. In this regard, the figure
below presents these delineations.

13
 Figure 1.2: Delineation and Limitations of the Study

Implementation of the Balanced Scorecard by the Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities

City of Tshwane
City of Metropolitan Ekurhuleni
Johannesburg Municipality Metropolitan
Metropolitan Municipality
Municipality

 Performance Management System

 Performance Management Activities
 Activities of Performance Management
Relative to the BSC Framework
 Performance Measurement Framework
 Adoption of the BSC Framework
 Objectives Setting
 Performance Measures including
Indicators, Baselines Measures or Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs)
 Targets Setting
 Strategic Initiatives Setting
 Performance Outcomes
 Targets Achieved
 Targets Not Achieved
 Targets Partially Achieved
 Targets Over-Achieved

14
 This study experienced difficulties and challenges during the data collection stage.
This was due to the dissimilarity between the components of each GMM’s service
delivery. These service delivery components differed from one GMM to another, and
also for each year under examination. Therefore, this resulted in a large amount of
data in general for the Ekurhuleni and Tshwane municipalities, as well as the City of
Johannesburg. This presented a challenge for the researcher, who had to reduce
data in order to conduct an appropriate analysis. Moreover, conclusions drawn from
the collected and analysed data were applied specifically to the GMMs – however,
there is a need for further research to be conducted in other municipalities, which
may have different results.

1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS

 Balanced Scorecard: The broad definition of the BSC provided by Kaplan and Norton
(1992) is that it is a performance measurement framework which allows managers to
look at their business performance from various perspectives, such as financial,
customer, internal business, and innovation and learning. While this may be true, from
an economic perspective, the BSC is a tool of management, where the emphasis is on
enhanced performance (Hoque & Adams, 2011:311). Yuan and Chaochang (2009)
define the BSC as a management decision instrument which has been designed to be a
corporate performance measurement tool. It therefore plays an important role in
transforming an organisation’s mission and strategy into a balanced set of integrated
performance measures. Another definition given by Betianu and Briciu (2011:20) is that
the BSC is a strategic management system capable of handling the entity’s activities,
depending on its vision and strategies.

 Measurement: Sheldrake (2011:77) defines measurement as the action of measuring

something; ascertaining the size, amount, or degree of something by using an
instrument or device; or assessing the importance, effect, or value of something. It is a
dynamic management tool, as well as a feedback mechanism.

15
 Performance: This is an integrated framework for clarifying, communicating and
managing strategy implementation (Drury, 2004:999). According to van Dooren,
Bouckaert and Halligan (2015:20), outputs and outcomes of activities are defined as
performance.

 Measuring Performance: This refers to the methodical compilation of data by

examining and listing performance associated with its issues (van Dooren et al.,
2015:7).

 Performance Management: According to van Dooren et al., (2015:20), this is the type
of management that integrates and uses performance information for decision making.
Furthermore, from a political and managerial perspective, it is viewed as a social
phenomenon (van Dooren et al., 2015:13).

 Performance Measurement: This is a process which includes the collection,

procedures, consolidation and distribution of data and information, thereby enabling the
successful implementation of performance reviews, incentives and rewards, strategy
improvement, forecasting, as well as budgeting and the setting of targets (Waal, 2013:5-
6).

1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study may make a contribution to the literature in the following two fields of
research:

 Firstly, it will contribute to management accounting literature, by highlighting

the role and importance of the BSC’s implementation in effective performance
outcomes.

 Secondly, this study will contribute to the growth of not only economic, but also
municipal literature, by showing that the BSC is an effective performance management

16
 tool.

The following users may benefit from this research:

 Municipality professionals who are concerned with the development and

implementation of performance management systems and practices, including the
following: Manager Support Services, Director Municipal and Social Services, Chief
Financial Officer, Corporate Governance, Director Infrastructure and Utilities, Municipal
Manager, as well as the Manager Economic Growth (City of Matlosana, 2011:255).

 The users of accounting reports.

 Decision makers such as economists, managers of companies, stakeholders in

companies, and old and new investors, by gathering supplementary information that will
be more readily accessible for decision-making purposes.

 Investment analysts, by using the balanced scorecard to assess information

supplied to them.

 Auditors, by being able to rely more on the reasonable presentation of financial

and non-financial statements.

This study was of particular significance because the BSC is essential to organisational
performance, since it produces outcomes, which are valuable in determining the areas
that have performed well and those which have not. This is beneficial for municipal
decision makers when they are seeking to improve service delivery performance.

It was expected that the conclusion of this study will be of great interest and benefit to
economists and accountants who are concerned with the expansion of the performance
management tool in general, as well as to local government officials in particular. The
data collected in this study will assist them in reviewing tools for organisational

17
performance. The data will also help in enhancing the understanding of those
economists and financial institutions that are entrusted with promoting the BSC as a
performance management and measurement instrument. In addition, according to the
researcher, who scrutinised the implementation of the balanced scorecard for service
delivery performance, there have not been many empirical studies conducted in this area
thus far. However, this study intends to fill this gap.

1.9 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Chapter 1 focused on the introduction and background information, as well as providing

an overview of the study.

Chapter 2 is dedicated to the theoretical framework of the study. The chapter presents
key factors for implementing the BSC. This includes performance management,
performance measurement, the BSC framework, as well as its performance outcomes.
With regard to the BSC structure, the different stages of its implementation, such as
setting objectives, selecting measures, setting targets and adopting strategic initiatives,
are discussed in this chapter. In short, the contents of this chapter constitute the core
for the data collection in this study.

Chapter 3 presents the literature review based on the BSC. It begins with the different
activities of performance management in the public sector, followed by the performance
measurement framework, and then focuses on the implementation of the BSC in non-
profit organisations, as well as its outcomes in this area.

Chapter 4 discusses the methodology employed in this study, including the research
approach and design, research paradigms, as well as the research methods. The
procedures for data collection and data analysis are also presented in this chapter. In
addition, the target population and criteria for determining the reliability and validity of
research findings are discussed in this chapter.

18
Chapter 5 presents the collected data related to performance management, performance
measurement frameworks, the GMMs’ scorecards, as well as the performance outcomes
of service delivery. The data for each GMM is presented in detail, and then combined
and reduced for analysis purposes. Finally, these findings are discussed according to the
research objectives of the study.

Chapter 6 is the final chapter in the study, and provides conclusions and
recommendations based on the research findings. The chapter concludes by suggesting
areas for future research.

The next chapter will present the literature review on the balanced scorecard.

19
 CHAPTER TWO
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTRODUCTION

In order to address the objectives of this study, this chapter aims to present the
theoretical framework for the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) method.
The purpose of adopting these theories in this study is to describe how the Balanced
Scorecard is adapted and implemented within organisations. The theories are
presented according to different aspects associated with the BSC’s performance.

In fact, performance management (PM) is the sole technique for the adoption of a
performance measurement framework such as the BSC. For this reason, the chapter
employs a theoretical approach to performance management. In addition, theories
related to performance measurement are discussed in this chapter, as well as issues
related to the BSC framework, which include each step of its implementation. Lastly,
theories that are relevant to performance outcomes are presented in this chapter. The
next section presents theories related to performance management.

The overall view of the chapter is presented through the below structure:

20
Figure 2.4: Structure of Chapter Two

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Performance Management

2.3 Performance Measurement

2.4.2 Perspectives
2.4 Balanced Scorecard Framework

2.4.1 Strategy-Vision

2.4.3Objectives 2.4.4 2.4.5Targets 2.4.6 Strategic

Setting Performance Setting Initiatives
Measures

2.5 Performance Outcomes

2.6 Key Performance Areas

2.7 Conclusion

21
2.2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Brudan (2010:111) asserted that performance is dealt with by means of the overarching
process of performance management. In fact, performance management (PM) refers to
those various endeavours designed to ensure organisational effectiveness and
efficiency (Storey, 2002:321). According to this statement, Nielson (2013:3) believed
that the management of a performance system affects not only organisational
performance, but also the behaviour of organisations. Nevertheless, the limitations of
PM have been highlighted by Maltz, Shenhar and Reilly (2003:188). These authors
criticised the single construct of a performance management system (PMS). Similarly,
Nielson (2013:3) contended that there is a significant difference in terms of designing its
schemes. Accordingly, the design of PM, when linked to strategy, allows for a mutual
reinforcement between the two (Storey, 2002:322).

According to Gimbert, Bisbe and Mendoza (2010:477), organisations use PM for

effective strategy implementation. Indeed, through PM, organisational strategy is
broadly linked to organisational activities (Storey, 2002:322). Moreover, the creation of a
model assimilating rational activities such as the setting of targets, selection of
measures, as well as definition of rewards, is among the key roles played by PM
(Storey, 2002:322). In spite of this, McAdam, Hazlet and Casey (2005:268) gave more
prominence to target-setting than the other activities associated with PM.

The establishment of targets is one of the main activities which facilitate the functioning
of strategy (Niven, 2002). In this regard, the measurement of these targets is not only
an activity of PM (Williams, in Cameron & Sewell, 2003:244), but also one of the
fundamental elements of performance measurement (Poister, Pasha and Edwards,
2013:627). Certainly, the equal importance of assessing strategy and ensuring targets is
derived from PM (Chan, 2004:206). The author assumed that it is the unique method to
achieve this objective. In short, the clarification of organisational targets is supported by
the PMS (McAdam, Hazlet and Casey, 2005:268). However, Ferreira and Otley
(2009:267) assumed that the setting of objectives is the starting point of PM.

22
The setting of objectives has been long established as a fundamental requirement for
organisational performance control (Ferreira and Otley, 2009:267). In a similar vein,
Earlier Otley and Berry (1980) stated that objectives are used to evaluate performance.
In spite of this, Storey (2002:323) supported the notion that the weaknesses of PM are
highlighted by its exclusive focus on specific types of objectives and measures.
Nonetheless, PM is helpful in suggesting actions related to performance issues at each
organisational level (Yadav and Dabhade, 2013:49). For example, at the operational
level, the PMS is linked to operational management, in order to achieve departmental or
group objectives (Brudan, 2010:113). Another aspect emphasised by Gunasekarana,
Patelb and McGaughey (2004:333) is that the setting of objectives is influenced by
performance measurement and metrics.

2.3 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

Harbour (2009:1) made the following statement: “You cannot understand, manage or
improve what you do not measure”. Similarly, the performance management (PM)
principle is based on measuring what can be managed (Weber & Thomas, 2005:4). For
this reason, authors such as Muchiri, Pintelon, Gelders and Martin (2010:2), as well as
Weber and Thomas (2005:3), affirmed that “performance measurement is a
fundamental principle of management”.

According to Brudan (2010:110), two key processes are connected to performance. The
author labelled these procedures performance management (PM) and performance
measurement. In truth, these two concepts cannot be separated from each other.
Likewise, Neely and Adams (2000) acknowledged that the performance measurement
system is a part of the performance management system (PMS). Above all,
performance measurement is the unique component of PM (Biron et al., 2011:1295).
Consequently, both PM and performance measurement are the standards for modern
organisational performance (Brudan, 2010:115). The different roles played by
performance measurement are as important as those played by PM.

23
The major functions of performance measurement have been discussed by numerous
authors, such as Ittner and Larcker (1998:205), who suggested that it facilitates the
development of strategic plans. Similarly, the system has to include strategic planning
and management (Wilson, Hagarty and Gauthier, 2003:63). Likewise,Maltz et al.
(2003:199) supported the link between the performance measurement system and
organisational strategy, targets and objectives. Furthermore, the role played by
performance measurement and metrics in establishing objectives is acknowledged to be
significant (Gunasekarana, Patelb and McGaughey, 2004:333). However, according to
Ittner and Larcker (1998:205), the system ensures the evaluation of the achievement of
organisational targets.

While the above statements may be true, another view has been expressed by Gimbert
et al. (2010:480). They stressed that performance measurement gathers, proceeds and
analyses quantified performance information, which is in turn presented in a form that
enables its assessment. In support of this view, Wisniewski and Olafsson (2004:603)
emphasised that the requisite performance information binds a PMS together.
Moreover, in order to evaluate outcomes, Dirks and Wijn (2002:409) suggested the
measurement of the organisation’s actual achievements.

Brudan (2010:111) pointed out that evaluating outcomes is one of the activities of
performance measurement, whereas measuring performance results from effective PM
(Maltz et al., 2003:189). These authors affirmed that the measurement of outcomes is
an indicator for organisational success. Therefore, desired outcomes follow the
comparison between target achievements and predetermined standards (Ittner and
Larcker, 1998:205). The importance of the gaps between these two was highlighted by
Weber and Thomas (2005:3). They were ultimately persuaded that these breaches are
significant for performance measurement, since they are indicators that can be used
when filling gaps. Above all, performance assessments, as well as the resilience of
alternative proposed actions, are also functions of performance measurement
(Gunasekarana, Patelb and McGaughey, 2004:333).

24
In order to measure performance, organisations have used performance measurement
systems (Rodriguez, Saiz and Bas, 2009:104). Indeed, quantitative measurement was
initially the only tool used for measuring organisational performance (Neely & Adams,
2000; Radnor & Barnes, 2007:393). Gimbert et al. (2010:480) suggested the
combination of monetary and non-monetary measures as components of such methods.
In this regard, Radnor and Barnes (2007: 393) emphasised that performance
measurement systems generate the same contribution and productivity. Maltz et al.
(2003:199) consequently suggested a simple, dynamic and flexible technique for
measuring performance, believing that this would be helpful for future enhancements of
the method.

The performance pyramid is one of those flexible techniques used by Lynch and Cross
(1991). According to Wedman (2010:51), the examination of performance
complications, as well as the identification of performance improvement interventions, is
the main role played by this conceptual framework. Furthermore, Wedman assumed
that the performance pyramid remains the driver of needs valuation. However, in the
case of the Performance Prism (PP), measurement is driven by stakeholder desires
(Ndlovu, 2010:8-9). Fitzgerald, Johnston, Brignall, Silvestro and Voss (1993) and
Fitzgerald and Moon (1996), on the other hand, view performance dimensions,
standards and rewards models as techniques for performance measurement.
Nevertheless, Ndlovu (2010:10) stated the following: “The application of the frameworks
has not been standard across companies and industries in terms of both the choice of
framework and interpretation of key assumptions the frameworks make”. It appears that
most of frameworks have focused on financial measures. Thus, Ndlovu (2010:11)
recommended the examination of alternative options for a standard model of non-
financial performance measurement, especially within the South African context.

However, Maltz et al. (2003:188) raised other concerns in this regard. For instance, they
recognised the lack of frameworks to measure performance within organisations. In
response to this, Kaplan and Norton (1992) proposed the BSC. Similarly, Voelpel,
Leibold and Eckhoff (2006:51) suggested the use of the BSC as a management tool on

25
the one hand, and on the other hand as a measurement instrument. Conversely,
Success Dimensions seems to be the best solution to problems associated with
measurement (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). Nevertheless, both of them have some
shortcomings (Maltz et al., 2003:189). Despite this, Hogget, Medlin, Edwards, Tilling and
Hogg (2012:559) perceived the BSC as an effective performance measurement tool.
According to Kaplan and Norton (1992: 71), the implementation of the BSC makes
organisational performance development. The following section presents the BSC as a
performance measurement system, as well as providing the framework for its
implementation.

2.4 THE BALANCED SCORECARD FRAMEWORK

Maltz et al. (2003:189,190) and Kaplan and Norton (1993:134) stated that “The
Balanced Scorecard is a multi-dimensional framework”, which presents a probable
sequence of phases for its implementation (Storey, 2002:326). Indeed, the structure of
the BSC may also help to explain its successful functioning. The figure below presents
the BSC framework.

26
Figure 2.2: Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard framework

The above figure shows all the components of a BSC framework. It presents all the
perspectives of the tool, as well as questions related to each perspective. Firstly, the
financial perspective dwells in the framework (Johanson, Skoog, Backlund and
Almqvist, 2006:844). In addition, the organisation’s long-term objectives are sustained
by it (Angela, 2012:17). There is a direct link between this arena and the learning,
growth and quality perspective (Čaníková and Schneider,2011:38). However, according
to Betianu and Bricu (2011:22), this approach essentially challenges the relationship
between internal processes and customer relations.

According to Isoraite (2008:19), the customer perspective leads to the achievement of

the organisation’s vision. In addition, this perspective is supportive in terms of
developing a customer-oriented strategy (Valečková, 2009:1155-1156). Similarly,
Kaplan (2008:1261) suggested the incorporation of objectives for desired customer
outcomes into this approach. Through this layer, not only the outcomes related to value

27
propositions delivery are taken into account (Huang, (2009:211), but also the
identification of the weight and significance of customer satisfaction (Hogget et al.,
2012:560).

Internal business processes are often classified as mission-oriented (Isoraite, 2008:19).

In other words, they are focused on the organisation’s mission. Furthermore, the special
functions of state authorities, as well as various organisational issues, are represented
through this perspective (Stefanescu and Silivestru, 2012:10). According to Bible, Kerr
and Zanini (2006), the learning and growth perspective is the driver, not only of the
enhancements, but also the achievements of other perspectives. Similarly, Kaplan and
Norton (1992) emphasised its importance in ensuring strategic success, which it does to
a greater extent than the other layers.

According to this structure, the first step is to set objectives, followed by the selection of
measures. The third step involves the establishment of targets, followed by the
identification of initiatives that should be taken to achieve the objectives or targets. In
this regard, the selection of measures must be suited to the established objectives. In
the same way, the set targets have to be linked to the selected measures. Furthermore,
the chosen initiatives should depend on the set targets. In addition, objectives,
measures, targets and initiatives must be set at each level, as required by the BSC
structure. Therefore, there should be an equilibrium between objectives, measures,
targets and initiatives within each layer, which will in turn provide a balanced view for all
perspectives. All these elements are not only consecutive phases, but are also key for
successful implementation of the BSC.

According to Isoraite (2008:20), the implementation of the BSC involves the definition of
the organisational vision and strategy as the starting point. This is followed by the
translation of the organisation’s mission and strategy into tangible objectives and
measures. Indeed, strategies, goals, and measures are supposed to be cascaded down
throughout the organisation, as indicated by Kaplan and Norton (1996, 2001a, b).
Thereafter comes the measurement of each strategic initiative (Wenisch, 2004:6). In

28
order to provide a better understanding of the BSC model, Isoraite (2008:18)
summarised the framework as facilitating the translation of organisational strategy and
vision into performance objectives, measures, targets and initiatives, as shown in Figure
2.2 above. Therefore, the performance measurement of these elements should be
quantified (Betianu and Briciu, 2011:26).

In fact, the structure of a multiplicity of measures is offered by the BSC (Maltz et al.,
2003:189-190). These measures include not only financial, but also strategic and non-
financial performance measures (Grigoroudis, Orfanoudaki and Zopounidis, 2010:104).
Moreover, Budde (2007:515) acknowledged their linkage to the organisation’s strategy,
which is the one of the organisational success dimensions. Ultimately, these various
measures are intended to evaluate the achievement of organisations (Maltz et al.,
2003:188).When it comes to the design of the BSC, the abovementioned measures are
usually encompassed within the four different perspectives (Coe &Letza, 2014:65-66).
In light of this, the construction of a BSC does not ensure the development of
organisational performance (Isoraite, 2008:27).

According to Kaplan and Norton (1993), the BSC framework aims to present a variety of
performance measures. They also postulated that organisational strategy should be
converted into a logical set of the cited measures. In addition, the BSC assists
organisations by not only reminding them about critical strategic issues that they face,
but also offering necessary feedback on progress towards their achievement (Isoraite,
2008:27). The author gives an example in the following terms: “in order to continuously
improve strategic performance and results, the BSC offers feedback about not only the
internal businesses but also external outcome”. In other words, the BSC narrates not
only the story of organisational performance, but also the implementation of a strategy
(Wilson et al., 2003:63).

The following sub-sections discuss the components of the BSC framework.

29
2.4.1 Organisational Strategy, Vision and Mission Setting

The implementation of the BSC does not start with the selection of measures (Kaplan,
2008:1261), but rather with a definition of the organisational vision and strategy, as
recommended by Isoraite (2008:20). Theoretically, the organisation’s shared vision is
represented throughout the BSC (Johanson, Skoog, Backlund and Almqvist, 2006:843)
at the same time that the application of the organisational strategy is achieved through
the BSC (Othman, 2008:261). With reference to Othman, Voelpel et al. (2006:47)
indicated that from the established strategy, a scorecard is subsequently developed. In
short, organisational vision and strategy are inextricably linked to the BSC (Wenisch,
2004:22).

In fact, the vision for the future of an organisation should be defined by the strategy
(Mintzberg, 1994). In this regard, the BSC provides organisations with direction for their
missions (Othman, 2008:260). Dirks and Wijn (2002:417-418) presumed that strategy is
determined by not only the mission, but also the market. Thus, when establishing their
vision, organisations should develop their mission according to the prescriptions of the
market (Dirks and Wijn, 2002:417-418). Maltz et al. (2003:189) highlighted an important
issue, namely that the lack of organisational vision, values and technology is an
obstacle for organisational strategy in the short term. Thus, they suggested its
observation and evaluation in the long term. In addition, the link between strategy and
vision is supported by Isoraite (2008:27). However, strategy remains the basis of the
BSC (Dirks and Wijn, 2002:417-418).

Bible, Kerr and Zanini (2006) acknowledged the central position of strategy in
performance measurement processes. With regard to the significance of strategy,
Kaplan (2008:1259) revealed that the choice of customers is defined by it, even if it
does not guarantee the fulfilment of all customers’ expectations. Likewise, strategy
plays a significant role in determining relevant value propositions, in order to gain
customers’ loyalty (Kaplan, 2008:1259).

30
In spite of the above statement, organisational success is possibly improved by the
formulation of strategy, as well as its diligent implementation (Bible et al., 2006).
However, according to Sharma (2009:7), organisational performance and strategy
reflect its success. Kumar (2010:300) supported this view by stating the following: “If
there is a lack of focused strategy, nothing will help”. Likewise, Valečková (2009:1159)
declared that “Without tenderable strategy nowadays are many companies convicted for
doom”. Moreover, the success of strategy is not assured by the expansion of any model
(Othman, 2008:261).

Thus, strategy and vision are the core of the BSC framework. The instrument may not
be implemented without referring to these two elements, which means that the other
components of the BSC, such as its different perspectives, have to be connected to
strategy and vision.

2.4.2 Perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard

Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed a framework which includes four distinct
perspectives, namely financial, customers, business processes, and learning and
growth. The details regarding each of these perspectives will be provided in chapter
three of this study. Above all, the application of these perspectives directs
organisations towards measurement (Voelpel et al., 2006:47). Furthermore, four main
stages must be followed in each perspective, namely the definition of objectives,
selection of measures, identification of targets, and establishment of strategic initiatives.

2.4.3 Objectives Setting

Shahin and Mahbod (2007:2228) acknowledged that the setting of objectives is one of
the primary stages that organisations have to undergo. In addition, these objectives
have to be constantly derived from organisational goals (Drucker, 1954:126-129). In this
regard, Shahin and Mahbod (2007:229) highlighted the integration of a timeframe into
the organisational goals, not only for achieving objectives, but also for providing a

31
framework that is able to support the monitoring of further progress by analysts. This will
obviously lead to the satisfaction of organisational needs (Storey, 2002:321).

With regard to the timeframe, Roxanne (2005) emphasised that the development of a
realistic action plan, followed by the inclusion of intermediate objectives and strategies
to achieve them, are similar activities supported by the timeframe. Moreover, with
regard to the selection of strategic objectives in the BSC, Betianu and Bricu (2011:20)
classified these objectives as quantitative and qualitative. Therefore, these strategic
objectives are monitored by the BSC performance measurement method (Sharma,
2009:7).

In fact, the success and failure of the BSC implementation depends on the setting of
strategic objectives (Shahin and Mahbod, 2007:229), which are expected to be linked to
the performance standard (Shahin and Mahbod, 2007:228). Similarly, Brudan
(2010:118) claimed that such objectives possibly affect performance. In this regard,
Huang (2009:209-216) conceded that the BSC makes a holistic outlook of
organisational performance and its strategic objectives more probable.

Another aspect regarding the setting of objectives is that they must be well-defined,
detailed and concrete, in order to avoid vagueness (Shahin and Mahbod, 2007:228).
Indeed, authors have assumed that unambiguous objectives will be effortlessly
measurable. The description of objectives drives the organisation’s efforts in allocating
assets and focusing on their success (Shahin and Mahbod, 2007:2228). Furthermore,
Pilbeam and Corbridge (2010:298) demonstrated the extent to which the precision in
setting objectives affects the success or failure of the BSC.

In spite of this, Kaplan (2008:1261) asserted that customers and employees’ voices are
reflected through an organisation’s strategic objectives. While this may be true,
Roxanne (2005) considered the achievement of employees’ tasks to be the main benefit
of objective setting. Conversely Kaplan (2008:1261) believed that through the setting of
objectives, organisations offer value propositions to their customers. Moreover, Shahin

32
and Mahbod (2007:229) highlighted the issue of the attainability of objectives.

According to Shahin and Mahbod (2007:228), the balance between the degree of
attainability, challenge and aspiration is attributed to the setting of objectives. In fact,
authors have observed that the set objectives were achievable, but not realistic in
practice. This is due to the incompatibility of actions (Brudan, 2010:118). Therefore,
Shahin and Mahbod (2007:228) proposed the setting of not only attainable, but also
realistic objectives, thereby making their achievement much easier (Shahin and
Mahbod, 2007:229).

In respect to the above authors’ statement, Sanger (2013:185) acknowledged the

growing role played by performance measurement in ensuring the achievement of
organisational objectives. For this purpose, such accomplishment has to be evaluated
(Shahin and Mahbod, 2007:229), and may only be feasible through measurement. In
this regard, Maltz et al. (2003:189,190) and Kaplan and Norton (1993:134) declared the
following: “The BSC framework translates an organisation’s strategy into specific
measurable objectives”.

According to Kaplan (2008:1261), organisations should describe their objectives before

selecting performance measures. Of course, when taken together, objectives and
measures enjoy mutual support, which is relied upon throughout the organisation
(Williams, in Cameron and Sewell, 2003:244). Nonetheless, Storey (2002:323) was
concerned about the risk taken in focusing only on certain performance objectives and
measures. In response to this concern, Stefanescu and Silivestru (2012:6)
recommended the establishment of specific indicators for every objective. Indeed, the
interdependence amongst these objectives and their indicators has been accepted by
these authors. Moreover, this makes the achievement of organisational objectives much
easier (Huang, 2009:209-216). In the same way, the establishment of objectives and
measures assists organisations in achieving desirable levels of performance (Brudan,
2010:111).

33
Isoraite (2008:20) was concerned about the selection of appropriate objectives and
measures, which can be useful for developing the organisational vision and strategy. In
response to this concern, Hogget et al. (2012:560) suggested that the development of
appropriate measures should be related to the priorities of the organisational strategic
plan. In essence, Brudan (2010:111) supported the interrelationship between these
priorities, as well as their alignment. The author‘s view was that this assists
organisations in achieving a desirable level of performance. Huang (2009:209-216)
recognised the powerful role of the BSC in setting objectives, with their appropriate
measures. Therefore, set objectives and their dependable measures are keys to the
success or failure of the BSC (Pilbeam and Corbridge, 2010:298). The following sub-
section deals with performance measures.

2.4.4 Performance Measures (Indicators (Is))

The link between performance measures and organisational strategy is a main feature
of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) (Otley, 1999:374-375).Voelpel et al. (2006:46)
elucidated that measures are drawn from a predefined strategy, followed by the
selection of strategic short- and long-term performance indicators using a scorecard
(Othman, 2008:260). Various authors, such as Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996),
Norreklit (2000:68), Othman (2008:260), Fryer, Antony and Ogden (2009:484) and
Muchiri et al. (2010:3) acknowledged the existence of a strong correlation between
performance measures and performance indicators (PIs). For this reason, they are
simply called performance indicators.

According to Cox, Issa and Ahrens (2003:142), the definition of PIs can be presented
either by quantitative outcomes or qualitative measures. To this end, the developers of
the BSC included both quantitative and qualitative measures (Kaplan and Norton, 2001,
part 1:1). Naturally, the existing performance gaps between actual and needed
performance may be identified through the appropriate definition of both quantitative
and qualitative measures (Muchiri et al., 2010:2). The same authors assumed that these
indicators offer possible clues for progress towards closing the gaps.

34
In truth, quantitative and qualitative measures can be viewed as financial and non-
financial measures (Hogget et al., 2012:560). Correspondingly, Kaplan and Norton
(1992) and Muchiri et al. 2010:3) referred to financial measures as ‘lagging indicators’,
while non-financial measures are branded ‘leading indicators’. Norreklit (2000:68)
referred to lag indicators to outcome measures and lead indicators as performance
drivers. Another important point is that leading and lagging indicators manage the
performance of the maintenance functions (Muchiri et al., 2010:3). Several authors have
highlighted the significant influence that leading indicators have over lagging indicators.
Overall, the assortment of financial and non-financial measures remains the core of the
BSC (Norreklit, 2000:65). Thus, Kaplan (2008:1263) suggested that essential financial
and non-financial measures are able to lead organisations to success.

According to Norreklit (2000:65), the abovementioned measures differentiate the BSC

from other strategic performance measurement systems, since they are also included in
a logical measurement system (Voelpel et al. 2006:46). However, according to Dirks
and Wijn (2002:424), measures are valued by organisational practice. Conversely,
value is generally created by the interrelationships with other tangible and intangible
assets (Kaplan, 2008:1256). In light of this, Coe and Letza (2014:65-66) proposed the
integration of a maximum of four or five measures into each box of the BSC.

Shahin and Mahbod (2007:228) affirmed that PIs are only those which are able to
measure the improvement of certain goals to their achievement. With this purpose in
mind, Hogget et al. (2012:559) recommended the collection of information from these
indicators. In this regard, additional views have been expressed by Rodriguez et al.
(2009:104) and Kaplan (2008:1259). On the one hand, Rodriguez et al. believed that
performance indicators may provide very important information regarding the existing
relationships between them. This facilitates the revision of the planned objectives
associated with these indicators, as well as the enhancement of the decision-making
process. On the other hand, Kaplan (2008:1259) asserted that performance measures
are more concerned with the satisfaction and loyalty of customers.

35
In terms of the role of the BSC in measuring organisational performance, there are
crucial aspects that should be taken into account. The following are the different
elements of performance measures considered in this study:

2.4.4.1 Financial Measures

Kaplan and Norton (1992) affirmed that financial measures are derived from the
financial perspective. The net outcomes, management of assets, return on investment,
as well as its percentage, are key variables of financial measures (Kaplan and Norton,
1992). As a result, organisational financial performance is essentially linked to the
monetary perspective (Mendes, Santos, Perna and Teixeira, 2012:21).

2.4.4.2 Non- Financial Measures

According to Kaplan and Norton (1992 and 1996), the customer, business process and
learning and growth perspectives generate non-financial measures. Mendes, Santos,
Perna and Teixeira (2012:21) listed the following key measures for the customer
perspective: customer capture, satisfaction, retention and loyalty, as well as market
share and profitability. Moreover, these are also valuable indicators to measure the
internal business process (Mendes, Santos, Perna and Teixeira, 2012:21). On the other
hand, the learning and growth perspective measures organisational procedures, human
capital, and information and management systems (Kaplan and Norton, 1992).
Consequently, such measures enhance organisations’ value (Mendes et al., 2012:21).

2.4.4.3 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Northcott and Taulapapa (2012-167) suggested that the selection of Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) is one of the central elements of the BSC. In truth, they are selected in
each perspective of the tool (Arnaboldi, Lapsley and Steccolini, 2015:9; Mendes,
Santos, Perna and Teixeira, 2012:25, 27). Accordingly, these indicators also have a

36
cause and effect relationship with expected performance outcomes (Arnaboldi, Lapsley
and Steccolini, 2015:9).

2.4.4.4 Baseline Measures

The gathering of historical information regarding previous projects constitutes a baseline

(Cox et al., 2003:143). Likewise, Alfeld (1988) assumed that the average regarding past
performance is defined by a historical baseline. Thus, the data collected from current
measures forms part of the mentioned baseline (Cox et al., 2003:143). The combination
of current and baseline measures substantiates historical measures as a point of
reference for future performance dimensions (Alfeld, 1988). However, Cox et al.
(2003:143) believed that such amalgamation would stimulate change for future
improvements.

While the above discussion may be valid, Harbour (2009:2) highlighted another aspect.
He declared that the description of baselines is the foundation for measuring
performance. As a result, the evaluation of the success and failure of measurement
systems is adapted by potential baselines measures (Griffin & Page, 1993).
Nevertheless, targets strongly determine organisational achievement or lack thereof
(Yang, Macnab, Yang and Fan, 2015:166).

2.4.5 Target Setting

Ukko, Tenhunen and Rantanen (2007:47) perceived the setting of targets as an

ideology of performance measurement. However, Zhang (2012:2) contended that the
relationships between strategic targets and performance measures cannot actively be
encouraged by the BSC. Nevertheless, Pilbeam and Corbridge (2010:298) stated that
“measuring performance against the key targets informs judgements on which areas are
doing well and which are doing less well”. In this regard, Storey (2002:322) emphasised
that not only set objectives, but also targets, ensure the accomplishment of what
organisations aim to achieve.

37
According to Brudan (2010:111), the setting of objectives and targets is the foundation
of organisational performance evaluation. Furthermore, Ukko, Tenhunen and Rantanen
(2007:47) affirmed that strategic objectives are supported by operational targets. In
addition, targets are set during the planning phase (Dirks and Wijn, 2002:409). These
authors emphasised that during this stage, organisations can adjust their activities
according to the targets set. However, on the one hand, external changes are not taken
into account by the set targets (Othman, 2008:261), and on the other hand, Kaplan and
Norton (2010) recognised the current complexities involved in the setting of targets for
the chosen measures. Therefore, Storey (2002:322) suggested that efficiency and
effectiveness need to be considered when setting objectives and targets. Finally, the
identification of strategic initiatives for the attainment of these objectives and targets
may be equally important.

2.4.6 Strategic Initiatives

The central focus of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is its strategic aspects, which are
allied to balanced performance measurement systems (Wenisch, 2004:6). Some of the
strategic initiatives of the instrument, according to Kaplan and Norton (2001c:147),
include the following: progress of strategy, conversion of strategy into working
stipulations, grouping of the organisation with its strategy, translation of vision into
tangible goals, and organisational planning. Furthermore, these aspects include certain
principles and processes of the BSC, which may lead to effective performance
outcomes.

2.5 PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES

In order to obtain the desired results, Hogget et al. (2012:559) suggested that suitable
performance measurements need to be developed. In this regard, Fryer, Antony and
Ogden (2009:484) asserted that performance indicators do not only identify
performance measures, but also performance outcomes. Equally important is the fact
that the development of performance indicators has to produce outcomes (Hogget et al.,

38
2012:559). Above all, Maltz et al. (2003:189) recommended the combination of both
quantitative and qualitative outcomes.

In support of the above statement, Cox et al. (2003:142) declared that a performance
measurement system may offer quantitative or qualitative outcomes in terms of
performance. Therefore, a good Balanced Scorecard (BSC) ought to encompass a
combination of the aforementioned outcome measures (Norreklit, 2000:68). Howevver,
this would still not be sufficient to assess performance (Sharma, 2009:7). In light of this,
Hogget et al. (2012:559) recommended not only the examination of performance
outcomes, but also its use for predicting essential requirements.

In fact, outcomes constitute information about performance. Authors such as Taylor

(2011:7) emphasised that the performance dimension usually drives performance
information. Information gathered from performance measurement clearly demonstrates
the healthy (or unhealthy) performance of a strategy (Dolence and Norris, 1994:63).
Conversely, tangible information is necessary to support the understanding of the
organisation’s interests (Biron et al., 2011:1295). Likewise, Sharma (2009:7)
recognised that information prioritises the need to focus more on customers’
satisfaction. However, it focuses more on envisaged organisational expectations (Biron
et al., 2011:1295).

Performance information pays more attention not only to the existing problems faced by
organisations, but also to the nature of these concerns (Dolence and Norris, 1994:63).
In addition, these authors suggested that prospective solutions related to organisational
challenges are also subjects of performance information (Dolence and Norris, 1994:63).
Therefore, information provides a choice of actions that can be taken for different
outcomes (Dolence and Norris, 1994:63).

Information on performance may be used for various purposes, but primarily to support
decision making (Taylor, 2011:7). However, according to Poister, Pasha and Edwards
(2013:626), it is helpful in improving performance. Leroux and Wright (2010:576)

39
affirmed that such information largely support public management, while Moynihan
(2008) supported all these authors by stating that performance information assists
public managers and decision makers to improve performance. Moreover, performance
data needs to be correctly collected and then analysed (Hogget et al., 2012:559). Such
assessment facilitates the description of corrective actions for future performance
(Hogget et al., 2012:560). Thus, the BSC has the potential of providing relevant
information to the management of any given organisation (Rodriguez et al., 2009:104).

Brudan (2010:114) highlighted the difficulties associated with the reporting of

information. In this regard, Fryer et al. (2009:485) maintained that a comprehensive set
of performance measurement reports should be kept. This is helpful for users to gain a
better understanding in this regard (Fryer et al., 2009:485). Therefore, Fryer et al.
(2009:484) proposed the auditing of outcomes as the best practice for interpreting
results, since it substantiates the validity and reliability of performance information.

According to Wing, Guo, Li and Yang (2007:366), reporting only outcome measures
seems to be inappropriate for a comprehensive performance measurement system. In
other words, performance measurement should not be restricted to such activity, but
must also provide performance results. Hogget et al. (2012:560) commented that these
results can also be measured quantitatively, and acknowledged the reliability of these
dimensions. However, the use of a single performance measurement tool produces
vague results (Maltz et al., 2003:189). Correspondingly Biron, Farndale and Paauwe
(2011:1294) complained about the inconsistency of performance results. Furthermore,
authors such as Yang, Macnab, Yang and Fan (2015:166) supported the notion of
performance outcomes being evaluated in terms of target achievements.

With regard to target setting, Brudan (2010:111) highlighted two activities of

performance management (PM). The first is monitoring the achievement of targets, and
the second is taking action based on performance outcomes. In contrast, PM ensures
the achievement of organisational missions and goals (Bhattacharya, 2011:13).
Bhattacharya also stressed the significant role played by performance management in

40
improving the effectiveness of organisations. Indeed key performance areas (KPAs) are
the focal points for such enhancement.

2.6 KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS

Once performance results have been obtained, management should establish key
performance areas that need to be improved (Amaratung and Baldry, 2002:219).
Storey (2002:325) claimed that a benefit of the BSC is that it ‘guards against sub
optimisation’, because the organisation has to consider all key measures collectively,
thereby protecting itself against the common tendency to focus on improvements in one
area while neglecting, for a time at least, performance in other areas. KPAs differ from
one organisation to another, as indicated by Joseph, Hendricks and Frantz (2011:10).

2.7 CONCLUSION

In order for any performance measurement system to be implemented, there should be

a performance management system (PMS) in place. Performance management (PM)
and performance measurement are not only related, but also mutually dependent.
Moreover, they are sometimes viewed from the same perspective. In this regard, the
BSC is mainly considered to be a performance measurement instrument, which requires
the existence of an organisational PMS for its execution.

Every performance measurement system can have its own structure, offering different
ways for its successful implementation. Therefore, the BSC presents a framework which
integrates consecutive stages that need to be followed for its success. Although
strategy, vision and mission are the fundamental elements of the tool’s design, the
setting of objectives, measures, targets and initiatives are the processes needed for its
implementation. In this regard, the selection of measures is the most significant step in
the BSC framework, since measures are the core of performance outcomes. These
outcomes or results provide valuable information for organisational management.

41
The theories introduced in this chapter are reviewed and discussed in chapter three of
this study, which focused on the literature review.

42
 CHAPTER THREE
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 INTRODUCTION

The literature review in this chapter outlines the implementation of the Balanced
Scorecard (BSC) and addresses the role of various factors presented in chapter two as
components of the theoretical framework. The chapter also discusses the functioning of
the BSC in relation to the original framework developed by its inventors, Kaplan and
Norton (1996:76). For the purpose of this study, the literature review addresses
performance management practices, organisational performance measurement
frameworks, as well as the role played by each component of the BSC framework when
it is implemented. The outcomes generated by such implementation are also dealt with
in this chapter. In addition, the literature review with regard to the mentioned features of
the study focuses on the public sector in general.

Theories related to all aspects of this study, including performance management, were
discussed in Chapter two. The following section examines performance management
practices and activities that need to be considered when implementing the BSC in the
public sector.

The chapter is structured as follow:

43
Figure 3.5: Structure of Chapter Three

3.1 Introduction 3.2.1Dev Str, Vis & Mis

3.2.2 Setting O,TA & Init

3.2 Performance Management

Activities in the Public Sector 3.2.3 Measurement

3.3 Performance Management and

3.2.4
Service Delivery in SALGA
Determining
POs & Achs

3.4 Performance Measurement

Frameworks

3.5 Design of the Public Sector BSC

3.6 Implementation of the BSC in the 3.8 Challenges in Adopting

Public Sector the BSC
3.8.1 Design
3.8.2 Implementation

3.6.1 Setting 3.6.2

3.6.4Selecting Measures
Objectives Establishing 3.6.3
3.6.4.1 Pers and ME
Targets Identifying
3.6.4.2 Str V M & ME
initiatives
3.6.4.3 TA & ME
3.7 Performance Outcomes 3.6.4.4 Outp & Outc ME

3.9 Conclusion 3.6.5 Balance

44
3.2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICE IN THE PUBLIC
SECTOR

Brudan (2010:111) acknowledged the frequent correlation between performance

features and performance management (PM). Naturally, comprehensive performance
management deals with organisational performance in a detailed manner (Mafini, Pooe
and Nqcobo, 2014:1539). For this reason, it is viewed as a strategic instrument or set of
techniques for improving organisational performance (Curtis, 1999:264; Mafini et.al,
2014:1539). In order for this to be achieved, however, PM may require a set of activities
which can support its practices.

PM includes four major aspects, namely the expected level of performance,

measurement of performance, communication or reporting of performance information,
as well as the use of such information (Carroll and Dewar, 2002:413). In contrast,
Bouckaert and Halligan (2008:15) and Sarrico, Rosa and Manatos (2012:274) have
reduced these four aspects to three, namely measurement, incorporation and use,
thereby making PM more refined (Sarrico et.al, 2012:274). However, management,
measurement and performance value are subjects of PM (Sarrico et.al, 2012:273).
Brudan (2010:111) classified the sub-processes of PM as follows: definition of strategy,
setting of targets, execution of strategy, and measurement of performance.

In spite of the above classification, Otley (1999: 365-366; 378) recommended a

performance management (PM) framework emphasising five different aspects, including
objectives, strategies and plan, targets, feedback and rewards. However, Kaplan and
Bower (1999:1) contended that strategy and mission are assumed to be elements of a
PMS. In this regard, scholars have even emphasised that strategy remains the starting
point of the PM process (Kaplan and Bower, 1999:1). In contrast, Radnor and McGuire
(2003:246) suggested that vision is one of the key elements of the process.
Furthermore, the questions that are integrated into the framework proposed by Otley
constitute the process for the implementation of PMS (Otley, 1999: 365-366; 378),

45
although numerous contributions have recently been made to this original design, in
order to enhance the PM framework.

To conclude the above discussion, Ohemeng (2009: 112) suggested that a few or all of
these mentioned aspects should be compulsory parts of the PMS. Each aspect of PM
may be taken into account, depending on the purpose of its use. Furthermore, PM
practices are extremely advantageous for the public sector in terms of enhancing
organisational performance (Poister, Pasha and Edwards, 2013:625). The next section
will look at the activities and practices associated with performance management.

3.2.1 Developing Strategy, Vision and Mission

According to Ferreira and Otley (2009:264), the starting point of the process of PM
involves the formulation and implementation of strategies and plans. In this regard,
Niven (2006:9) suggested that strategy should be clearly expressed, in order to enable
a better understanding of the actions that organisations must take on a daily basis. In
other words, it must be aligned with the organisation (Milkovich, Newman and Gerhart,
2014:43). Niven (2006:9) affirmed that this leads to successful organisations.
Consequently, Heimdahl (2010:4) considered strategy to be fundamental to
organisations’ success.

Gimbert, Bisbe and Mendoza (2010:477) confirmed that the success of strategy
implementation is based on using performance management systems. However, Biron,
Farndale and Paauwe (2011:1294) highlighted the contradictory outcomes of its
efficacy, as revealed by other studies. Nevertheless, organisational strategy has to
become the meeting point of PM (Kaplan and Bower, 1999:1).

Above all, the process of PM is helpful in assisting with the successful implementation
of organisational strategies and plans (Ferreira and Otley, 2009:277). In addition, Kumar
(2010:300) assumed that the disregarding of strategy does not make any positive
contribution to organisations. Another important fact is that strategy itself demonstrates

46
an organisation’s direction (Ferreira and Otley, 2009:270). In other words, such direction
determines what an organisation is striving towards. Therefore, other factors may be
involved that will facilitate this achievement. Mendes, Nunes and Teixeira (2014:929)
thus suggested that mission, vision, and values are key elements for strategy
implementation.

Sheldrake (2011:87) emphasised that the integration of the mission and vision is vital
when formulating and analysing an inclusive strategy, although these two factors are
approached from different perspectives. As an illustration, Kaplan and Bower (1999:1)
advocated, on the one hand, that strategy defines the actions to be taken in order to
avoid the failure of the organisational mission and purpose. On the other hand,
however, Ferreira and Otley (2009:267) considered vision to be a supportive element of
strategy success. Nevertheless, Rajesh, Pugazhendhi, Ganesh, Ducq and Koh
(2012:271) found that elements such as vision and mission are critical to the PM
process.

According to Ittner and Larcker (2001) and Verbeeten (2008:430), measurement, setting
of targets, as well as the setting of strategies for the achievement of these targets, must
be included in the organisational PMS. In addition, identifying, measuring, developing
and aligning performance with strategic targets are different activities involved in the
continual process of PM (Aguinis, 2007). In contrast, Ferreira and Otley (2009:267)
acknowledged that purposes and objectives are essential to the implementation of PM.
As a result, these processes are advantageous, since they help organisations to
improve their performance. However, the confirmation of this statement remains
inadequate (Poiste et al., 2013:625). Nevertheless, these processes may be seen as
the most important components when adopting a PMS. In addition, although Bouckaert
and Halligan (2008:15) referred to them as practices and activities of such system, they
may also to keys to its success. Their statements also highlight the importance of
organisational objectives (Ferreira and Otley, 2009:270).

47
3.2.2 Setting of Objectives, Targets and Strategic Initiatives

According to Otley and Berry (1980), the setting of objectives is the principal condition
for performance assessment. In contrast, however, Poister et.al (2013:627) affirmed
that target setting is a part of measuring performance. Similarly, Santiago (2014:1572)
suggested that targets are the main feature of evaluating performance. Likewise,
numerous writers, such as Ferreira and Otley (2009:271); Varma et al. (2008a: 3);
Ohemeng (2009: 112); Ittner and Larcker (2001); Otley (1999) and Stringer (2007)
declared the following:” Target setting is a critical aspect of performance management”.
In spite of this, initiatives have made a significant contribution to the development of
performance management in the Reykjavik municipality, as stated by Wisniewski and
Ólafsson (2004:607). This may indicate that strategic initiatives are also part of PM.
Accordingly Brudan (2010:111) asserted that objectives and targets are fundamental to
achieving the mentioned purpose.

Identifying objectives is one of the main elements of PM (Ferreira and Otley. 2009:267).
In addition, the setting of targets is a flexible part of the PM process (Pilbeam and
Corbridge, 2010:290).Pilbeam and Corbridge (2010:290) considered PM to be a flexible
process, since it is capable of delineating organisational targets, in order to support the
setting of objectives and their relative measures. Nevertheless, PM loses sight of its
policy objectives when it focuses only on the targets set (Arnaboldi, Lapsley and
Steccolini, 2015:15). Even though McAdam, Hazlet and Casey (2005:268) are
convinced that PM is a useful system for describing organisational targets, according to
Northcott and Taulapapa (2012-168), financial objectives are the main intention of the
PM process.

Another important aspect is that the clarification of organisational targets is supported

by the PMS (McAdam et.al, 2005:268). In this regard, the measurement of these targets
set is not only an activity of PM (Williams, in Cameron & Sewell, 2003:244), but also
one of the fundamental elements of performance measurement (Poister et.al,
2013:627). However, Radnor and McGuire (2003:258) and Ferreira and Otley

48
(2009:271) asserted that the setting of targets is one of the key elements of PM. Once
again, the balance between assessing strategy and achieving targets is derived from
PM (Chan, 2004:206).

Besides the above emphasis, targets also need to be aligned (Aguinis, 2007). This
involves not only the selection of targets, but also their related standards, transmission
and assessment (Varma et al., 2008a: 3; Ohemeng, 2009: 112). However, evidence has
shown that the analysis of the relationship between target setting and other aspects of
the PMS has failed (Ferreira and Otley, 2009:271). On the contrary, targets and the
necessary outputs for their attainment are defined by PM (Curtis, 1999:263). This is
one of the important roles that PM plays within organisations.

In contrast to Curtis (1999:263), Poister et.al (2013:625) stated that in the public PM,
achievement objectives and targets are the focus of performance evaluation. Another
contribution of PM is the guarantee of the effectiveness and efficiency of target
achievement (Mafini et.al, 2014:1539). McAdam et.al (2005:268) emphasise that
measuring performance against identified objectives is promoted by performance
management.

3.2.3 Measurement

According to Radnor and McGuire (2003:246), measurement involves the assessment

of performance. For this reason, researchers and practitioners are concerned about the
measurement and indicators of organisational performance (Gunasekarana, Patelb and
McGaughey, 2004:333). On the one hand, measuring performance is a key element of
organisational PM (Brudan, 2010:110), and on the other hand, it is a part of PM
processes (Brudan, 2010:111). However, there is interchangeability between
performance measurement and management (Radnor and McGuire, 2003:246).
Nevertheless, Chan (2004:206) recognised the differences between them, even though
both performance management and measurement are correlated with performance
(Brudan, 2010:110).

49
The overall organisational performance represented by combined measures remains a
necessity for the organisation’s efficiency (Cruz and Marques, 2014:91; Hood, 1991).
Indeed, the notion of efficiency as a ratio is related to outputs and inputs (Cruz and
Marques, 2014:91; Hood, 1991). In truth, quantitative and qualitative measures are
used to pursue both inputs and outputs (Curtis, 1999:263-264). Although this is risky for
public services (Arnaboldi et al., 2015:2; Cuganesan et al., 2014), the combination of
measures still persists.

Curtis (1999:263-264) stated that through measurement, PM establishes a portfolio of

quantitative and qualitative measures. The PM of local government not only sets but
also depicts and inspects the data collected through quantitative performance measures
(Walker and Andrews, 2015:102). Likewise, Simons (1995: 71) and Norman (2002: 619)
declared the following: “What gets measured gets managed” and “You get what you
inspect, not what you expect”. In short, Mwita (2000:21) presumed that PM measures
are supple elements. This may require apposite activities for effective performance.

According to Walker and Andrews (2015:119) andJohnsen (2005), PM practices entail

the application of measurements regarding performance. These practices are means for
developing public agencies (Walker and Andrews, 2015:119; Johnsen, 2005). In the
same way, Arnaboldi et al., (2015:2) admitted that through its activities, PM provides an
assortment of services enabling the expansion of performance measurement. With this
purpose in mind, PM activities should follow the steps related to measurement.

Kureshi (2014:31) suggested that performance measurement processes appropriate for

the public sector include: the gathering of data for the description of principles, metrics,
and baselines, as well as the performance information model. However, these activities
seem to be demanding. Authors have also suggested that such an inclusive process is
rightly linked to competitiveness. In light of this, such a measurement process has to be
firmly connected to strategic visions and objectives (Modell, 2012:476).

50
3.2.4 Determining Performance Outcomes and Achievements

Curtis (1999:263-264) and (Walters, 1995b, back cover) indicate that PM is helpful in
describing outcomes. Brudan (2010:111) emphasised that PM focuses on identified,
tracked, and stated performance results by means of performance indicators. Likewise
Poister et al., (2013:626) state that outcomes of clarified targets need to be monitored
and managed, which leads to a well-built performance rest. This assists in administering
the performance of organisations (Radnor and McGuire, 2003:246). However, it is the
path towards organisational performance enhancement (Poister et al., 2013:626).
Therefore, PM may take actions in response to outcome measures (Radnor and
McGuire, 2003:246).

According to Poister et al., (2013:625), organisations aim to view the input of PM to their
performance at an advanced echelon. This may only be feasible, however, through the
evaluation of performance outcomes in terms of achievements. In light of this, Arnaboldi
et al., (2015:15) supposed that the overall governance and management panache are
subjects for the focus of targets, as well as the requests for their accomplishment. In
contrast, the PM process also deals with the attainment or non-realisation of objectives
(Pilbeam and Corbridge, 2010:290). In a similar fashion, the concern related to the
achievement of primary and secondary objectives is a culture developed by PM (Mwita,
2000:19). Analogous to this is an organisational culture for the contributions of expected
outcomes (Cameron and Sewell, 2003:244). Therefore, this ensures the attainment of
not only objectives, but also organisational goals (Pilbeam and Corbridge, 2010:290).

Therefore, not only comprehending but also evaluating performance within a LG context
remains a crucial issue (Walker and Andrews, 2015:104; Walker et al., 2010). In the
same way, the degree to which local governments have set apart their performance has
not been measured by all-embracing studies concerning public PM (Walker and
Andrews, 2015:102).

51
Nevertheless, the measurement of organisations intended for the achievement of public
needs was also among the main reasons for the application of PM within non-profit
organisations (Ohemeng, 2009:109). PM was used for the modernisation of government
services (Radnor and McGuire, 2004: 245-246), and its exploitation was related to the
improvement of service delivery (The Audit Commission, 1999). However, according to
Zakaria and Zakaria (2014: abstract), the enhancement of public perceptions of
government performance was the reason for its use. The reinforcement of accountability
for the use of public assets, as well as the achievement of desired outcomes and
enhancement of service delivery effectiveness and success (The Audit Commission,
1999) were the basis for PM.

3.3 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND SERVICE DELIVERY IN THE SOUTH

AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES (SALGA)

According to Walker and Andrews (2015:101), from the global perspective, managing
and delivery key public services are the responsibilities of local governments (LGs).
Authors have listed some examples of these responsibilities as follows: caring of the
helpless and aged; providing schooling; picking up debris; and maintaining roads.
Since society is dependent on service delivery, they are considered as ways and means
not only for their development, but also for addressing pressing social issues (Walker
and Andrews, 2015:101). Therefore, authors have suggested that service delivery must
be the front position of LGs.

In the Republic of South Africa, compliance with the terms and conditions for the
effectiveness and efficiency of municipal service delivery was required under the Local
Government: Municipal Systems Act of 2000 (Act 32 of 2000) (Phago, 2009:483).
Regardless of this, colossal insufficiencies resulted in municipalities failing to
accomplish their constitutional and parliamentary duties (Koma, 2010:112). Thus, in
order to monitor public service delivery in the country, the application of PM as a
national framework was proposed by the South African White Paper (Curtis, 1999:261).

52
In addition, the author assumed that this plan prioritises metropolitan needs, which
should be the focus of the provincial local government. (Phago, 2009:483).

The PM framework can be considered as a substantial supportive tool for the

functioning of municipalities (Curtis, 1999:261). Indeed, such structure is among various
governmental procedures followed for municipal improvement (Kroukamp, 2012:103).
The aim of PM is to guarantee the responsibility of municipalities regarding the
procedures adopted, not only for the delivery of improved service, but also for monetary
worth (EThekwini Municipality, 2008:15).For this purpose, it must be the municipalities’
first and foremost concern (Kgechane, 2013:118).

In the same way, when taken as the main concern, it makes a significant contribution to
the development of service delivery (Kgechane, 2013:120). Likewise, Pilla and Subban
(2007:60) believe that it will richly assist municipalities in their role of managing
communities effectively. Nevertheless, Cameron and Sewell (2003:250) have observed
deficiencies in performance management projects. For instance, difficulties in terms of
their implementation were experienced in the Matlosana Municipality, and these
difficulties were related to time-frames (Kgechane, 2013:119). Another observation was
the dysfunctional state of municipality PMS (Kgechane, 2013:122). However, it was also
found that the PM concept is innovative for the country in general, and particularly for
non-profit organisations (Cameron and Sewell, 2003:250). Despite this, PM is a legal
requirement for municipalities (Kgechane, 2013:118), and this view is supported
byPhago (2009:483). Moreover, in order to ensure efficacy in developing municipalities,
Curtis (1999:260) suggested the adaption of PM to the South African context.

The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) is central to the management of municipal

activities in the Republic of South Africa, since it prioritises metropolitan needs, which
should be the focus of the provincial local government (Phago, 2009:483). Thus,
clarifying implementation processes, ensuring the observance of legislation, promoting
responsibility and intelligibility, and connecting the IDP, SDBIP, and budget with
performance management are the purposes of the PM framework (eThekwini

53
Municipality, 2008:3). Furthermore, Kgechane (2013:121) suggested that municipal
management, as well as their activities, should be planned, scheduled and resourced in
an appropriate manner. This may involve some, if not all, general activities being
applied for PM.

According to Van Dijk (2007:50), the planning of political administrative vision, as well
as organisational values, is set within PM. The vision statement, as already mentioned,
deals more with the long-term improvement of the municipality (Van Dijk, 2007:50).
However, according to Kroukamp (2012:103), the endorsement of strategies to ensure
the move of municipalities to service delivery quality is correspondingly significant.
Cameron and Sewell (2003:246) proposed the integration of objectives, measures and
targets, not only into the municipal performance management system, but also into the
IDP. However, this seems to be insufficient. Nevertheless Van Dijk (2007: 50)
suggested the compilation of priorities, strategic objectives, targets and measures,
which must be clearly linked to organisational PMS and budget system.

Pilla and Subban (2007:52) and Van Dijk (2007: 52) declared that: “Performance is
monitored in terms of objectives”. The aim of establishing strategic objectives in the
PMS was the improvement of municipalities’ performance (Pilla and Subban,2007:58;
Department of Provincial and Local Government (2008:8).It was also suggested that
objectives should not only be specified along with their priorities, but also their strategic
initiatives, as well as a pecuniary plan(EThekwini Municipality, 2008:12).

In spite of the above statement, the setting of targets will only be feasible after the
development of key performance indicators (KPIs) (eThekwini Municipality, 2008:31).
To this end, the PM framework must translate organisational targets into departmental
and divisional targets, which will facilitate performance measurement and evaluation
against approved targets (Pilla and Subban, 2007:59). The measurement of targets
should be done numerically, statistically and periodically (eThekwini Municipality,
2008:31). This allows for the continuous observation of targets and indicators in term of
performance impact, efficiency and effectiveness (EThekwini Municipality, 2008:15).

54
There must, at any rate, be a link between targets and key performance areas (KPAs)
(Van Dijk, 2007:50). Conversely, the central aspect of PM is the integration of
measurable objectives with their appropriate KPIs (Pilla and Subban, 2007:60).
Moreover, KPIs involve baselines, inputs, and outputs, as well as outcome indicators
(Van Dijk, 2007:50). Accordingly, Cameron and Sewell (2003:244) presumed that set
objectives and measures are the major practices in relation to PM.

Curtis (1999:261) highlighted another feature of the PM framework. The author

suggested that it is has proven its capability by providing valuable information relative
to local government authorities’ (LGAs) needs (Curtis, 1999:261). In other words, the
framework may provide information relevant to organisational performance, which has
rightly to be distributed and approved at national, provincial and local levels (Kgechane,
2013:121). Therefore, in order to generate valuable information, the PM may
incorporate basic elements, specifically objectives, indicators, targets and strategic
initiatives, into the PMS and IDP. This may be crucial for determining the outcomes of
performance achievement.

According to Van Dijk (2007:50), the effectiveness and efficiency of management

facilitates the achievement of strategic performance objectives. Similarly, according to
Pilla and Subban (2007:56, 60), the selection of measures connected to targets ensures
the accomplishment of the organisational plan in general, as well as expected outcomes
in particular.

In order to develop the necessary capability for measuring and managing performance,
Kgechane (2013:120) suggested that municipalities describe it in an appropriate way.
This is a regular situation observed in most of the LGs (Heinrich, 2015:4). According to
Kgechane (2013:118), PM is profitable to municipalities in terms of the renovation and
development of their service delivery. Heinrich (2015:4) avowed that designing PMSs is
a difficult task for the sector. Therefore, such a situation may affect not only
municipalities’ performance, but also their measurement. Municipal PM may thus

55
require more efforts to rectify such problems, and there is consequently a need to adopt
a framework that is capable of measuring performance.

3.4 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORKS

Akbar, Pilcher and Perrin (2012:264) and Gianakis (2002) stated the following:
“Managing and measuring performance has been one of the key drivers in the reform of
the public sector”. This led to the adoption of up-to-date management instruments for
the enhancement of organisational accountability (Chan, 2004:204). Moreover, the
development of a variety of new frameworks attempted to support business
organisations with regard to the collection and implementation of measures (Medori and
Steeple, 2000:520) which are equally applicable to non-profit organisations (Kennerley
and Neely, 2002).

According to Kennerley and Neely (2002:147), the expansion of innovative

measurement frameworks and methodologies has been rapidly evolving in the field of
performance measurement. These include the following: Capital Asset Pricing Model
(CAPM) (Connor and Korajczyk, 1986:385); Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton,
1992); SWOT (Phillips, 1999:180); Supply Chain Management (SCM) (Gunasekarana,
Patelb and McGaughey, 2004:333); Suggested environmental indicators, according to
the PSR framework (Lundberg, Balfors and Folkeson, 2009:1020-1021); SCOR-BSC
framework (Kanda and Deshmukh,2009:719-720); customer relationship management
(CRM) scorecard (Kim and Kim, 2009); ‘‘Check’’ step in the PDCA cycle (Fukushima
and Peirce, 2011:33); ADJUST (Sezenias, Faemakis, Karagiannis, Diagkou and
Glykas, 2013); Decision-oriented performance measurement (DPM) framework (Le and
Ahn, 2014); VM System Performance Measurement (Lacerda, Ensslin and Ensslin,
2014:143-144); QM practices (Zhang and Linderman, 2014: 103); and the Balanced
Success Model (BSM) (Harold and Thenmozhi, 2014:48).

It has been observed that some performance measurement frameworks are more
popular than others. For instance, in order to analyse operation management control

56
systems, Otley (1999:363) suggested the use of the Economic Value Added, as well as
the Balanced Scorecard, while the ISO 9000: quality management systems and total
quality management; benchmarking; balanced scorecard; Charter Mark; and business
excellence models were the five frameworks adopted by McAdam and Saulters (2000:
S653). On the other hand, Kennerley and Neely (2002:147) have selected the balanced
scorecard, performance prism, economic value-added, economic profit, activity-based
costing, and self-assessment techniques. In contrast, the tableaux-de-board, balanced
scorecard and performance prism were the performance measurement frameworks
which were preferred by Gimbert et al., (2010:477).

Although the above literature presents different performance measurement frameworks,

it can be observed that the BSC has been frequently adopted. For this reason, it has
been acknowledged as the most popular and innovative tool for measuring performance
(Kennerley and Neely, 2002:147). In agreement with this, on the one hand, Ridwan,
Harun, An and Fahmid (2013:103) advocated that the tool has been espoused by more
than 50% of the Fortune 500 organisations, and on the other hand, thousands of
organisations from Wealth 1000 were connected to it (Harold and Thenmozhi, 2014:32).
In addition, the BSC was initially conceived as a performance measurement tool and
used by the private sector (Rasoolimanesh, Jaafar, Badarulzaman and Ramayah,
2015:157). However, its popularity soon attracted the attention of the public sector, and
was implemented by this sector in the last decade of the 20th century and first decade
of the 21st century (Arnaboldi et al., 2015:9). According to Stefanescu and Silivestru
(2012:2), the nature of the BSC framework is anticipatory.

3.5 DESIGN OF THE PUBLIC BALANCED SCORECARD

Grigoroudis, Orfanoudaki and Zopounidis (2010:104) acknowledged the adoption of the

BSC by public administrations and organisations worldwide. Similarly, Rahman and
Chin (2013:1672) advocated its extensive approval by this sector. In truth, the BSC was
adapted by the public sector due to the difficulties related to its implementation within
this area (Kaplan, 2001:360). Thus, organisations were motivated to geographically

57
rearrange their BSC frameworks (Kaplan, 2001:361) (the adapted framework for the
public sector is presented in Figure 3). In contrast, Dreveton (2013:132) found that
further refinement of the BSC framework was not necessary. Funck and Larsson
(2014:3) acknowledged the suppleness of the tool, since it has been demonstrated to
be effective for adaptation not only to a variety of circumstances, but also to different
kinds of organisations, such as private and municipal organisations, as well as
government agencies and state councils.

In a similar vein, Madsen and Stenheim (2014: 122) were convinced that the BSC is an
example of a management concept which can be interpreted, enacted and implemented
in several ways. Likewise, public sector BSCs have not been adopted from other
sectors as they are, but are rather designed particularly to fit organisations in this sector
(McAdam, Hazlet and Casey, 2005:261). To emphasise this, Funck and Larsson
(2014:3) and Kaplan and Norton (1996b) claimed that the BSC fits very well in public
organisations.

The BSC framework was presented in chapter two of this study, which demonstrated
that the tool encompasses six elements, namely strategy and vision, as well as the
financial, customer; internal business, and learning/growth perspectives (Kaplan and
Norton, 1992). Analogous to this, Betianu and Bricu (2011:20) emphasised that the
units’ activities of management depend on organisational vision and strategies.
However, organisational mission and values are associated with strategy (Heimdahl,
2010:4).

Kaplan and Norton (2001) and Rasoolimanesh et al., (2015:157) introduced a modified
BSC for the public sector, in which the mission and vision are situated at the top of its
framework. In contrast, Chan (2004:207) and Nieplowicz (2014:94) indicated that the
BSC reforms focus more on its perspectives. To emphasise this, Greatbanks and Tapp
(2007:870) demonstrated that the scorecard’s perspectives were not closely related to
the four dimensions of the original BSC. In a similar manner, recent studies, such as
those conducted by Ellangovani and Kamalanabhan (2014:10), Macnab, Yang and Fan

58
(2015:171) and Macnab et al. (2010), have also explored the conversion of BSC layers.
While the above concerns may be valid, Madsen and Stenheim (2014: 122)
nevertheless avowed that the original framework remains the basis for successful
implementation of the BSC.

Above all, vision has been replaced by mission in the readjusted public sector BSC
(Kaplan, 2001:361), while on the other hand, the public sector BSC has to select
perspectives that are suited to their priorities, since for-profit and non-profit
organisations do not have the same needs (Ngomuo and Wang, 2015:186). Authors
believe that areas must be selected in order to achieve competitive advantages for
organisations. However, such selection should meet the needs of key stakeholders
(Pucek and Špacek, 2014:152).

In this regard, authors such as Atkinson (2006:1448-1449); Ganesh, Ducq and Koh
(2012:272), Funck and Larsson (2014:9), Fakharian, Danaei and Hematian (2014:42),
and Rajesh et al., (2012:271) affirmed that some non-profit organisations’ BSCs have
adopted the number and labels of the generic layers. In contrast, Chan (2004:207)
suggested the modification and integration of new layers. Such alteration involved not
only the label of the areana, but also the number of perspectives which would be best
suited to public sector organisations (Ellangovani and Kamalanabhan, 2014:10).
However, Yang, Macnab, and Fan (2015:171) highlighted the importance of
implementing the BSC, rather than maintaining the common layers tags. Henceforth,
vision, mission and perspectives may be considered to be fundamental to designing the
BSC, but may not be part of its implementation. Nevertheless, the design and
implementation of this instrument remains the basis for its approval.

3.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALANCED SCORECARDIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Chan (2004:207) accepted the significance of the BSC’s implementation in this area in
general and governments in particular. Nonetheless, Greatbanks and Tapp (2007:850)
supported the notion that the public sector does not have experiential facts related to

59
the implementation of the BSC. Likewise, Rahman and Chin (2013:1673) declared the
following: “There has been a lack of comprehensive BSC studies in the public sector”.
However, numerous authors, such as Kaplan (2001:360); Niven (2003); Niven (2006);
Micheli and Kennerley (2005:131); Papenhausen and Einstein, 2006); Isoraite
(2008:20); Pereira and Melao (2012:922); Ridwan, Harun, An and Fahmid (2013:103);
Funck and Larsson (2014:3); Ellangovani and Kamalanabhan (2014:12); and Arnaboldi
et al., (2015:9-11-12), have gradually presented its implementation within the sector in
different areas, including education, health, transport, tourism and so on.

The implementation of the BSC evoked the identification of objectives and strategic
perspectives, as well as the selection of measures after setting appropriate targets
(Khalifeh and Sivabalan, 2014:39). Previously, however, objectives, measures and
targets, as well as strategic initiatives, were suggested to be included in each
perspective (Kaplan and Norton, 1996:76). In support of this, Ngomuo and Wang
(2015:185) added that: “The strategic objectives, the performance measures to track
these objectives, the targets for achievement against each objective and initiatives that
are closely related and in coherence with the vision and strategies of the organization”.
Thus, objectives, measures, targets and strategic initiatives within the BSC framework
refer to the different steps for its implementation. In particular Greatbanks and Tapp
(2007:850) specifically recommended such modification in terms of its implementation
process and subsequent plan. Therefore, the following sub-sections discuss the
implementation of the BSC according to its original framework.

3.6.1 Setting Objectives

In order to implement the setting of objectives, Kaplan and Bower (1999:3) and Chan
(2004:207) supported their position at the top of the scorecard. For this reason, Huang
(2009:216) claimed that the setting of objectives is the most influential aspect of the
tool. Moreover, Betianu and Bricui (2011:20) acknowledged the establishment of
strategic long-term and short-term objectives as its main benefit.

60
Another way in which to undertake the setting of objectives involves the definition of
concrete objectives, which must be associated not only with the mission of the
organisation, but also with its customers and communities (Kaplan and Bower, 1999:1).
In contrast, Rajesh et al., (2012:271) believed that objectives have to be allied with the
organisational vision and targets. On the other hand, Kureshi (2014:34) indicated that
they should be aligned with organisational strategy. These are the most significant
inputs to the BSC (Funck and Larsson, 2014:9). Accordingly, it is inevitable that
strategic objectives will contribute towards the performance standard (Shahin and
Mahbod, 2007:228).

Another aspect raised by Kaplan (2008:1261) is that organisational strategic objectives

are expressed through the four perspectives of the BSC. This has been supported by
Rajesh, Pugazhendhi et al., (2012:272). In this regard, Wilson, Hagarty and Gauthier
(2003:56) stated that strategic themes such as innovation, customer management,
operations excellence and corporate citizenship are the focus of internal process
objectives. However, Santiago (2014:1571) highlighted the inclusion of a maximum of
five achievable objectives in each perspective. Furthermore, Mendes et al., (2014:929)
asserted that the causal connection of these perspectives is based on set objectives.
Above all, the establishment of organisational objectives within the customer
perspective delivers a value proposition to customers (Kaplan, 2008:1261). He affirmed
that the way in which different value propositions are created and delivered is reflected
by the objectives set in the process perspective.

These abovementioned objectives must not only be multiple and competitive, but also
achievable (Chenhall, 2003). For this purpose, Ferreira and Otley (2009:264) suggested
the setting of key organisational objectives and the definition of procedures, as well as
ways, for the achievement of each objective. In this regard, organisations are
considered to have satisfactory objectives (Otley, 2008). Another aspect is that on the
one hand, the establishment of targets follows from objectives, and on the other hand,
objectives are the continual focus of set targets (Radnor and McGuire, 2003:256).

61
Therefore, they suggested the representation of key organisational objectives, as well
as priorities, through the setting of targets (Mendes et al., 2014:928).

3.6.2 Establishing Targets

Papalexandris, Ioannou, Prastacos, and Soderquist (2005:220) emphasised that the

establishment of targets is accepted as being one of the basic activities of the BSC.
Similarly, targets are clarified by the BSC (Atkinson, 2006:1454). In addition, the
selection of appropriate targets contributed towards the intensity of the expected
performance (Khalifeh and Sivabalan, 2014:39); Kaplan and Norton, 2007). In spite of
this, strategic targets have been elucidated and assimilated across departments
(Northcott and Taulapapa, 2012:169). However, according to Mendes et al., (2014:928),
in Administration Service (PAS), targets were the tools used by management in order to
improve service delivery. On the other hand, Radnor and McGuire (2003:256) found
that the call for a significant enhancement of service delivery was not supported by
targets. However, the setting of performance targets in governments has become not
only a rigid obligation, but also a priority for the delivery of various services (Yang et al.,
2015:166-167). In addition, the process of setting targets is followed by the
establishment of strategic initiatives (Papalexandris et al., 2005:221).

According to Reed and Buckley (1988), a target is useful for breaking down the
intended strategy into particular management activities. In the same way, empowering
the functioning strategy is among the most important roles played by target setting
(Papalexandris et al., 2005:220; Niven, 2002). With the BSC, even unclear targets
established in organisational mission statements are translated into a strategic roadmap
(Davis and Albright, 2004: 138). In this regard, the BSC should clearly set targets
(Atkinson, 2006:1454). Furthermore, it is necessary to determine targets even if they
are concrete and incremental (Mendes et al., 2014:929; Crown, 2003; Dubois, 2012),
and they have to be cheekily rearranged (Mendes et al., 2012:25, 27). It is equally
important for key organisational objectives and their priorities to be represented by
targets (Mendes et al., 2014:928).

62
Mendes et al., (2014:930) suggest that a sensitive examination is required when
evaluating the impact related to target values in the BSC. This will drive the
determination of envisaged target standards. Radnor and McGuire (2003:256) indicate
that this will make them more appropriate. A lower perception of performance affects
the setting of targets, as well as their achievement, in an undesirable manner (Poister et
al., 2013:627). For this reason, there should be a link between the establishment of
performance targets and the assessment of performance (Merchant, Stringer and
Shantapriyan, 2015:34). Consequently, the number of facts revealed by the above
statements, as well as the way in which organisations neglect the inclusion of targets in
their BSC led Mendes et al., (2014:928) to conclude that the architects of the original
BSC have failed to offer clear guidelines for not only setting targets, but also assigning
weights to each of them.

Northcott and Taulapapa (2012-167) stated that non-profit organisations should provide
information about strategic target performance. Regrettably, however, targets were not
chequered up (McAdam et al., 2005:268), due to the fact that the numerous targets
established generate target ambiguity, which has a negative relationship with
performance (Poister et al., 2013:627; Boyne and Gould-Williams, 2003). This may
involve their achievements and non-achievements. Letza (1996:68) rightly argued that
targets stimulate the eventual accomplishment of organisational processes. In contrast,
research usually concentrates more on outcomes related to targets than on processes
concerning their establishment (Merchant et al., 2015:34). These authors suggested
that there is a gap between an organisation’s needs and the reality through the target-
setting process (Merchant et al., 2015:22).

3.6.3 Identifying Strategic Initiatives

According to Brudan (2010:110), a journey needs to be undertaken from the perception

of action to the achievement of desired outcomes. Of course, performance reflects the
progress of this journey, as well as its outcomes (Brudan, 2010:110). Wisniewski and

63
Ólafsson (2004:606) emphasised that organisations should develop strategies and
actions for the provision of communal objectives.

The introduction of the BSC was supported by various established initiatives

(Greatbanks and Tapp, 2007:863). However, the scrutiny of the performance echelons
was the consequence of these initiatives (Mendes et al., 2014:929). Naturally, a set of
action plans can be designed to guide the organisation in a coordinated and integrated
fashion (Santiago, 2014:1575). Likewise, Mendes et al., (2014:929) alleged that the
continued focus on increasing organisational quality was the basis for establishing
initiatives.

Indeed, strategic initiatives refer to activities undertaken by organisations, which in turn

lead to the achievement of fixed targets (Papalexandris et al., 2005:221). In contrast,
the understanding of major strategic directions is not guaranteed by the established list
of prioritised actions (Dreveton, 2013:133). However, Papalexandris et al., (2005:218)
emphasised that the development of promising strategies is vital, since different
initiatives are taken to overcome impediments faced at the BSC implementation stage.
However, the organisation performance achievement should not be done only through
scorecards (Greatbanks and Tapp, 2007:863). On the other hand, Rasoolimanesh et
al., (2015:158) brought a new insight in this regard, by stating that desired outcomes
generate strategic plans.

Equally important in relation to the above statement, Mendes et al., (2012:25, 27)
suggested that the necessity for aligning strategy is revealed by strategic initiatives.
Likewise, Reed and Buckley (1988) indicated that specific managerial actions can be
interpreted from the determined strategy (Atkinson, 2006:1454). However, existing
strategic initiatives have to be closely scrutinised, analysed and revised before they can
contribute towards target achievement (Papalexandris et al., 2005:221). These authors
rightly suggested the modification of targets with their respective initiatives, not only
when it is necessary to do so, but also when funding and capital are accessible.

64
In this regard, authors have recommended that initiatives should be arranged in an
ascending manner, for example from short-term initiatives to long-term ones. This
means that targets, frequency, initiatives, and budgets are encompassed by a single
stage, which is advantageous for establishing new strategic initiatives (Papalexandris et
al., 2005:221). Nevertheless, Nieplowicz (2014:99) placed more emphasis on the
selection of measures in relation to strategic initiatives and actions.

Evidence of the existing relationship between indicators and initiative has been revealed
by Nieplowicz (2014:99). The author indicated that one measure and four actions were
apportioned in order to enhance the efficiency of the school sports infrastructure. On the
one hand, the first and second actions were performed by the Department of Sport and
Tourism and Department of Education, and on the other hand, the Departments of
Education and Municipal Sports and Recreation realised the two last actions. Finally,
the scheduling of strategic initiatives is powerfully associated with the choice of
appropriate measures.

3.6.4 Selecting Measures

According to Wisniewski and Ólafsson (2004:604-605), central government has

instructed public sector organisations to define and report performance indicators
(PIs).Likewise, Santiago (2014:1574) suggested that measures have to be reported.
This led municipal governments to develop several performance measures (Chan,
2004: 216,219).Othman (2008:261) stated that these measures seem to be obtainable,
and Santiago (2014:1574) emphasised that the range of such indicators must be
modest, accessible and achievable. In this regard, the finding presented by Northcott
and Taulapapa (2012:169) acknowledged that the measures were reduced, expressive
and manageable. Nevertheless, the appropriate selection of measures is not only a
significant task, but also a daunting one (Santiago, 2014:1572).

In order to evaluate their organisational performance in terms of finances, customer

satisfaction, operating efficiency, innovation and change, and employees, most public

65
governments have selected measures (Chan, 2004:204). In contrast, Akbar et al.,
(2012:281) assumed that the motivation is based more on conformance than
performance. However, according to Taylor (2011:4), measures were rather used for
the decision making process in Australian government bodies. On the contrary,
compliance with fundamental government regulations was the main reason for the use
of measures. According to Santiago (2014:1571), performance measures were used as
a guide for the implementation of organisational strategic planning, as well as for
providing a report about critical outcomes. Consequently, organisations have to
consider those measures that are most appropriate to the BSC structure (Grigoroudis et
al., 2010:105).

3.6.4.1 Financial and Non-Financial Measures

The BSC involves the integration and selection of inclusive measures (Santiago,
2014:1574). In other words, it is important to choose additional operational measures
that are able to stimulate organisations’ growth and future performance, in order to fill
the gap of traditional measures based on past performance(Kaplan and Norton,
1996a:8; Chan, 2004:213). To emphasise this, Northcott and Taulapapa (2012:169)
claimed that financial measures are completed by operational ones.

Hogget et al. (2012:560) admitted that the BSC goes beyond financial measures, in
order to deliver a wider variety of performance indicators. In this regard, performance
measures are considered to be strategically set (Northcott and Taulapapa, 2012:169).
While financial measures are driven by past performance, future performance is driven
by non-financial measures (Northcott and Taulapapa, 2012:169). Indeed, according to
Dodor, Gupta and Daniels (2009:1), the combination of both lag and lead performance
measures has increased the popularity of the BSC. Furthermore, Gatti (2015:123)
suggested that the appropriate functioning of the BSC requires the calculation of its
different measures. This may be feasible through the layers of the tool.

66
3.6.4.2 Perspectives and Measures

According to Kaplan and Norton (1996), through the BSC, measures are selected within
inclusive areas. This view was shared by Wilson et al., (2003:54) and Davis and Albright
(2004: 138). In particular, specific measures were selected from the four perspectives in
order to satisfy stakeholders (Wisniewski and Ólafsson, 2004:607). However, according
to Nieplowicz (2014:94), not only measures but also objectives were identified from the
City of Lublin’s BSC perspectives. Conversely, Chan (2004:219) supported Kaplan and
Norton (1996) by demonstrating that performance measures were developed according
to all five perspectives within the 14 municipal governments for the purpose of
innovation and change. In addition, strategy is translated simultaneously into a set of
monetary and non-monetary measures (Chan, 2004:205).

3.6.4.3 Strategy, Vision, Mission and Measures

According to Chan (2004:205), financial and non-financial measures are the connection
point for the formulation and implementation of organisational strategy. In other words,
the translation of strategy is associated with different measures provided by the BSC.
Similarly, McAdam et al., (2005:270) and Budde (2007:515) agreed with Chan.
Evaluating performance and redefining strategy and measures is a dynamic role of the
BSC (Letza, 1996:74-75). The selection of measures should be done after the
determination of strategy (Kaplan, 2008:1259). In spite of this, successful strategy does
not depend on selected measures (Kaplan and Norton, 2000). Furthermore, strategy
should not be linked to measures only, but must also integrate mission (Chan,
2004:213). This is one way to validate the correlation between indicators and
organisational mission (Chan, 2004:205).

Through the BSC, organisational mission and strategy are translated into a balanced
set of integrated performance measures (Chan, 2004:206). For this reason, Chan
(2004:205) acknowledged the link that exists between strategy, mission and measures.
Northcott and Taulapapa (2012:169); Kloot and Martin (2000); Chan (2004); and Niven

67
 (2006) stated that measures are connected to organisational mission and strategy. As
previously mentioned, Chan (2004:205) acknowledged the relationship between
strategy, mission and measures, but also encouraged the inclusion of organisational
objectives in this regard. Thus, the assessment and future improvement of government
strategy depend on these features (Weikart, Chen and Sermier, 2013:221). However,
taken as a whole, mission and objectives are not associated with measures (Kaplan,
2001:353). In contrast, filling the gap between mission and strategy, together with their
daily related operational measures, is a useful function of the BSC (Chan, 2004:207-
208; Kaplan, 2001).

 Objectives, Measures and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Kaplan and Norton (1996) stated that organisational objectives, encompassing financial
and nonfinancial metrics, should be reflected by measures. For this reason, Shahin and
Mahbod (2007:228) suggested that every objective that is established must be
measurable. There are two categories of objectives, namely primary and secondary
(Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015:157; Atkinson, 2006; Kloot and Martin, 2000). The main
primary objectives that are reflected are precedent performance indicators, while
prospect performance indicators are reflected through secondary objectives
(Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015:157). This may enable the selection of past as well as
future performance measures.

In fact, objectives set through the BSC are linked to their appropriate measures (Huang,
2009:209-216), and this is done in an articulate manner (Kaplan and Norton, 1993:134).
According to Sharma (2009:7), strategic objectives, along with their indicators within the
BSC, allow the monitoring of organisational performance. However, it is risky to focus
only on certain performance objectives and measures (Storey, 2002:323).

According to Mendes et al., (2012:25) the identification and analysis of measures is

important for monitoring strategic objectives. The BSC is integrally controlled and
assessed in this fashion (Mendes et al., 2012:25). Furthermore measurement and

68
 metrics play a significant role in defining objectives, assessing performance and
determining potential actions (Gunasekarana et al., 2004:333). This may help strategic
initiatives to reach these objectives.

Kaplan and Norton (1996); Wilson et al., (2003:54) and Davis and Albright (2004: 138)
assumed that key measures are chosen through the four different perspectives of the
BSC. This may be regarded as the supportive nature of the tool. To emphasise this,
Huang (2009:209) stated the following: “the BSC integrates financial measures with
other key performance indicators to create perspective that incorporates both financial
and non-financial aspects”. However, Franco-Santosa, Lucianettib and Bourne
(2012:81) suggested that other systems, such as budgeting and activity-based costing
systems, do not satisfy the precondition of having such measures.

At any rate, developing not only KPIs, but also assessing resources, is facilitated by the
setting of realistic objectives (Shahin and Mahbod, 2007:229). In the same way, the
adopted generic BSC of the Australian Navy has set strategic objectives, as well as key
performance indicators (KPIs) (Kureshi, 2014:35). For instance, the National Health
Service (NHS) used waiting lists for patients who required health care treatment as its
KPIs (Arnaboldi et al., 2015:12). Moreover, Grigoroudis et al. (2011:117) suggested the
understanding of both established strategic objectives and chosen KPIs.

 Strategic Initiatives and Measures

Local initiatives have been monitored and controlled by innumerable measures selected
by organisations at the micro and programmatic level (Kaplan, 2001:353). Similarly,
Wisniewski and Ólafsson (2004:607) correlated the projected lists of service initiatives
to performance indicators. They discovered the intermittent lucidity between them,
which in turn affected the visibility of relative priorities. In contrast, Greatbanks and
Tapp’s (2007:864) study found more transparency in the relationship between the
different scorecard measures. This has been proven by Nieplowicz (2014:99-100).

69
 Nieplowicz ‘s study showed that two measures and one action was defined for the
description and execution of a system for selecting sports talents, while three measures
and one action were selected for the enhancement of the system of sports competitions
in schools.

With regard to the weakness of the transparency linkage observed by Wisniewski and
Ólafsson (2004:607), Kaplan and Bower (1999:33) have already suggested regular
progress evaluation, as well as planning for future initiatives in order to reinforce areas
of improvement. According to Wisniewski and Ólafsson (2004:607), initiatives have
contributed significantly to the development of performance management in the
Reykjavik municipality. In this regard, the mentioned linkage between initiatives and
measures was based on the BSC framework (Greatbanks and Tapp, 2007:864). This
relationship should not be limited to initiatives only, but be extended to objectives and
priorities as well, in order to present a balanced view. Therefore, it is necessary to plan
for and evaluate those initiatives that can strengthen perspectives (Kaplan and Bower,
1999:33).

Besides strategic initiatives and their relative indicators, there is another element known
as a baseline, which also seems to be essential when measuring performance.

 Baseline Measures

A baseline can be viewed as a perfect and quantifiable measure. The starting of a trend
is noticed by a baseline -on the one hand, this means that organisational performance is
tracked from the baseline measure, which is acquired from the preceding year to the
target in the current year. On the other hand, the non-existence of a baseline in the
former period should be specified. Moreover, it becomes accessible at the end of every
period (eThekwini Municipality, 2008:29). According to Radnor and McGuire (2003:256),
the baseline target is inadequately stated. They recognised the lack of understanding
related to the selection of baselines associated with the development and establishment

70
of targets (Radnor and McGuire, 2003:254). Consequently, there is a need to set
strategic targets, which must be done after selecting measures (Chan, 2004:206).

3.6.4.4 Targets and Measures

Letza (1996:74) stated that measures should be associated with overall organisational
strategic targets. The selection of measures associated with their relative targets
contributes towards the understanding and definition of organisational processes
(Radnor and McGuire, 2003:258). This seems to assume the existing correlation
between measures and targets, which are elements of the BSC (Kaplan and Norton,
1996:72). Nevertheless, this tool lacks the ability to vigorously reproduce the
relationship between them (Zhang, 2012:2).

According to Santiago (2014:1572), the selection and design of indicators are

influenced by targets. As discussed earlier, this seems to be in contrast to Chan’s
(2004:206) view that the expansion of measures should precede target setting. Thus, it
may not be feasible for targets to have an influence on measures if the latter are
selected before the former. In this case, measures will probably have power over
targets. Analogous to Chan, the value obtained for each performance measure defines
targets (Mendes et al., 2014:929).

A target should also be identified by a measure (Santiago, 2014:1572).In the same vein,
Mendes et al., (2014:929) asserted that the value of each performance measure defines
targets. In addition, extendable targets assist the leading performance measures, while
the inflexible ones support the lagging indicators (Papalexandris et al., 2005:220-221).
Moreover, Yang et al., (2015:166) acknowledged the complexity involved in measuring
targets. In this regard, Davis and Albright (2004:150) witnessed the implementation of
the BSC in a group of bank branches, and revealed that financial performance was
enhanced positively by a targeted financial measure.

71
The setting of targets and measures are fundamentals of the BSC (Mendes et al.,
2014:928). On the one hand, this remains a non-understandable process (Radnor and
McGuire, 2003:254), and on the other hand, it is difficult to reach consensus for this
reason (Herath et al., 2010). This is due to the lack of comprehensive guidelines, not
only for setting targets, but also for measuring them (Mendes et al., 2014:928). In order
to solve this problem, Papalexandris et al., (2005:221) made the following suggestion:
“Due to lack of experience with this type of target setting process, it is advisable to
proceed by trial and- error where practice combined with experience ultimately will lead
to a final selection of targets”. At the same time, general documents related to public
target setting have been published recently by governmental agencies (Mendes et al.,
2014:928). This seems to make it easier and more practical.

Mendes et al., (2014:928); Irwin (2002) and Souza and Cordeiro (2010) explained that
from each perspective of the BSC, appropriate performance indicators are selected,
which are evaluated with their pre-set targets. During this time, disproportionate
information should be abolished (Mendes et al., 2014:928). In addition, through the
examination of targets and indicators, Arnaboldi et al., (2015:12) revealed that targets
were used more effortlessly than measures. This may indicate that selecting measures
is a more difficult task than setting targets. According to Santiago (2014:1572), purpose,
target, measurement, category, and intended user are the five suggested characteristics
of a high-quality indicator. These are elements driving a particular outcome.

3.6.4.5 Output Measures and Outcome Measures

Radnor and McGuire (2003:258) indicated that the designation of measures has to be
appropriate not only to the process, but also to vital outcomes. Similarly, Yang, Macnab
et al., (2015:167) and Roper et al. (2004) emphasised that in public R&D, financial
support measures were pre-evaluated and focused on valuable outcomes offering
social knowledge. To emphasise this, Chan (2004:209) and Levetan (2000) valued
outcomes measures over output measures. The reason for several municipal
organisations selecting output measures rather than outcome measures was due to

72
their focus on monetary and efficiency performance. Yang, Macnab et al., (2015:166)
and Poister (2003) highlighted the importance of understanding the role of each type of
measure. They asserted that planned actions or deliverables are outputs, while their
results, effects or benefits produced are outcomes.

Jaffe (2011) acknowledged the complexity in assessing and measuring the outputs and
outcomes of non-profit organisations. Similarly, Yang et al., (2015:166) and Jaffe (2011)
stressed that non-profit organisations, such as research institutions, face challenge in
measuring and evaluating outputs and outcomes. Likewise, Wilson et al., (2003:55-56)
stated the following: “several outputs contribute to a single outcome”. In agreement with
this, Yang et al., (2015:166) stated that outcomes measures are relative to the expected
organisational targets to be measured.

In spite of the above, the public sector has paid more attention to output measures than
to outcome measures (Yang et al., 2015:166; Marr and Creelman, 2011). This is
perilous, even though it has been found that output measures are easier to use than
outcome measures (Yang et al., 2015:166). In truth, measures should be harmoniously
related to the expected performance outcomes. In this regard, various authors have
alleged that expected outcome measures are supported by output measures.

3.6.5 Balance

The identification of balance within a BSC involves numerous factors in different

situations (Barnabe, 2011:448). For example, the equilibrium between assorted
perspectives is a requirement (Abdullah, Umair et al., and 2013: 137). In addition,
Johanson, Skoog et al. (2006:843-844) stated that this is not only a fundamental aspect,
but is also a subtle question when implementing the BSC. The BSC perspectives
themselves involve other aspects that should be considered when setting scales.

Internal and external perspectives need to be balanced in order to evaluate the existing
challenges of an organisation against its own past performance (Letza, 1996:74-75).

73
From this statement, Heimdahl (2010:4) affirmed that the equilibrium between these two
perspectives is referred to by the BSC. While this may be true, Johanson, Skoog et al.
(2006:843-844) expressed another opinion, requiring such symmetry at financial and
non-financial level. Likewise, Ellangovani and Kamalanabhan (2014:10) emphasised
that the equilibrium of non-monetary layers is as important as monetary ones. At the
same time, there is a need to balance short- and long-term layers (Abdullah, Umair et
al., and 2013:137). The BSC includes a number of these mentioned perspectives.

Recently, authors such as Barnabe (2011:448) and Ngomuo and Wang (2015:185)
acknowledged the significance of balancing the four perspectives of the BSC. In an
earlier study, Kaplan and Norton (1992) assumed the accomplishment of such
symmetry through various measurements of financial performance, operational
performance, performance for the customer, and learning and innovation. Similarly,
Ellangovani and Kamalanabhan (2014:10) supported the same application on the
adopted perspectives, such as patients, employees and processes, as well as finances.
However, Johanson, Skoog et al. (2006:843-844) declared the following: “see the
evidence that the word “balanced” does not mean that the four perspectives are equally
important”. This may indicate that not all of the perspectives are needed. As discussed
in sub-section 3.7.4 of this chapter, organisations are free to select the number of their
layers, as many as they need to fulfil their organisational objectives.

In contrast, Fryer, Antony and Ogden (2009:491) suggested that a balance should be
established between long and short-term objectives. Conversely, Betianu and Briciu
(2011:26) supported the reflection of such symmetry through medium and long-term
objectives, while Tjader, May et al. (2014:615) are convinced that not only short-term,
but also long-term objectives are factors related to the equality of the BSC. Moreover,
Ngomuo and Wang (2015:185) supported this view by evoking a different aspect. They
suggested the balancing of short-term and long-term targets.

According to Zhang (2012:2), longer-term performance is not taken into account by

organisations, since they focus more on the short-term performance. Nevertheless,

74
reflections as well as actions are subjects of such equivalence (Abdullah, Umair et al.,
and 2013:137). Therefore, objectives, targets and strategic initiatives are important
aspects that should be taken into account when evaluating the balance between
components of the BSC framework. Again, all these mentioned elements are involved in
organisational activities, thereby leading to a particular focus on outcomes, which in turn
will increase the potential for efficiency, as well as performance enhancement (Yang,
Macnab et al., 2015:166).

3.7 PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES

Moynihan and Pandey (2010:849) acknowledged the omnipresence of the

‘‘performance’’ and ‘‘outcomes’’ concepts within modern governance. According to
Shipley (2009:73), focusing outcomes and achieving outcomes are important roles
played by government. However, Santiago (2014:1573) maintained that outcomes do
not necessarily reflect performance, but simply results, and performance drivers cannot
be measured without measuring their outcomes. This may constitute an obstacle for
evaluating organisational achievement. Roxanne (2005) highlighted the effectiveness of
outcomes when measuring achievement.

In fact, the satisfaction of electorates’ desires is a way of measuring efficiency and

effectiveness (Kaplan and Bower, 1999:1). Similarly, McAdam and Saulters
(2000:S652) and Neely (1998) stated the following: “In this context, effectiveness can
be considered to refer to the extent to which customer requirements are met, and
efficiency is the measure of how economically the organization’s resources are utilized
when providing a given level of customer satisfaction”. This shows that the satisfaction
of citizen expectations, as well as the attainment of healthier outcomes, is a necessity
for governments (Shipley, 2009:73). Furthermore, the attained outcomes should be
clearly proven by government executives (Akbar et al., 2012:264; Osborne and Gaebler,
1992). Moreover, outcomes in LGOs seem to be warranted through the execution of the
BSC (Northcott and Taulapapa, 2012:169).

75
Measuring achievement through the BSC requires representing the established and
estimated outcomes by each perspective (Wilson et al., 2003:54). Specifically, the
desired organisational outcomes are described through the financial and customer
perspectives (Papenhausen and Einstein, 2006:16). Similarly, Rahman and Chin
(2013:1674) considered both financial and user/citizen layers as the outcome
perspectives. However, according to Letza (1996:74-75), outcomes are based on
defined strategy and measures.

Above this, the expected strategy achievement has to be described before creating
measures (Kaplan, 2008:1261). In this regard, McAdam and Saulters (2000: S655)
suggested that reviewing actual measures assists in the development of balanced
measures. In contrast, Rahman and Chin (2013:1674); Chai (2009) and Kaplan (2001)
assumed that mission and vision are driven by citizen satisfaction in the public sector.
At the same time, the focus in non-profit organisations is more on instantaneous
outcomes than long-term vision (Jarrar and Schiuma, 2007:5). This seems to be an
irregularity.

According to Chan (2004:206), organisational achievement and performance in terms of

its missions and objectives is complemented by the establishment of well-composed
measures. This will ensure not only the achievement, but also the enhancement of
organisational outcomes. However, the achievement of visions and targets is the
conception of the BSC for future investment (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015:157).
Nevertheless, organisational activities should be aligned with the achievement of its
targets (Yang, Macnab et al., 2015:166).

Another aspect of achievement has been raised by Wisniewski and Ólafsson

(2004:605), who stated that financial achievement remains the eventual target for the
private sector, but is not necessarily the main objective of the public sector (Kaplan,
2001:360). Conversely, for non-profit organisations, the definition of annual objectives
and targets, together with their relative performance measures, enables the examination
of their potential achievement (Mendes et al., 2014:929). Therefore, the necessity for

76
measuring the achievement of objectives and targets is also applicable to government
(Moynihan and Pandey, 2010:849; Brudney, Hebert and Wright, 1999; Moynihan,
2008).

In addition, the achievement of these strategic objectives depends on strategic

initiatives, which are critical success factors (Modell, 2012:476). Equally, there is a need
to develop actions plans or strategic initiatives for constant target enhancement in terms
of quality (Mendes et al., 2012: 25, 27). Nevertheless, Pucek and Špacek (2014:166)
suggested that there should be a connection between target achievement and
incentives. Accordingly, regardless of its potential achievements and outcomes, the
BSC is subject to a variety of ongoing problems (Kureshi, 2014:35-36), which are
relevant to both privateand public organisations (Micheli and Kennerley, 2005:131).

3.8 CHALLENGES IN ADOPTING THE BALANCED SCORECARD IN THE PUBLIC

SECTOR

Driving organisations to perform is the key of the BSC (Mooraj et al., 1999:481).
Greatbanks and Tapp (2007:870) acknowledged various interests of this instrument.
This has been demonstrated in secondary hospitals, where performance management
was introduced through this instrument (Ellangovani and Kamalanabhan, 2014:12),
thereby affirming its efficacy. However, its efficacy is somewhat limited (Walsh and Lok,
2008). In contrast, Radnor and McGuire (2003:252) and Mooraj et al. (1999:481)
assumed that there is insufficient evidence of the benefits of the BSC, since
complications may not often arise (Modell, 2012:478). Nonetheless, the BSC is not
exempt from dilemmas and constraints (Othman, 2008:259; Barnabe, 2011:447). As a
result, 70 percent of the BSC performance in non-profit organisations does not succeed
(Neely and Bourne, 2000:3).

In fact, the BSC problems are mainly caused by its inappropriate design and execution
(Neely and Bourne, 2000:3; Isoraite, 2008:20; Barnabe, 2011:447; Kureshi, 2014:32).
Radebe (2013:56); Kureshi (2014:35); Ahn (2001) and Gatti (2015:127) agreed with this

77
view. Similarly, LGAs have experienced such complication more than for-profit
organisations (Wisniewski & Olafsson, 2004). Consequently, difficulties that have
remained undetected at the design stage are the cause of failure at the implementation
stage (Gatti, 2015:127). Thus, Kureshi (2014:35-36) suggested the need for careful
attention when developing and implementing the BSC.

3.8.1 Problems related to design

Despite the fact that the introduction, construction and adjustment of the BSC in non-
profit organisations since 1992 have been generally successful (Funck and Larsson,
2014:5), numerous problems associated with the development of the BSC have been
observed (Dreveton, 2013:133). For example, the tool was difficult to use in government
hospitals (Ellangovani and Kamalanabhan, 2014:10), and was espoused in a poor
manner (Modell, 2012:482). Contrary to the view of Funck and Larsson (2014:10), the
use of the BSC did not help organisations to clarify strategy. The same authors asserted
that this was the reason for the rejection of the BSC. Therefore, Othman (2008:259)
suggested that the BSC should be supported by a planning scenario, which will greatly
assist the implementation of strategy. In addition, the stating of the vision and mission
were problematic.

The findings of Ferreira and Otley (2009:267) revealed that organisations lack a clear
definition of vision and mission. Although mission and vision are usually perfectly stated
(Ferreira and Otley, 2009:267), mission statements remain unclear (Ferreira and Otley,
2009:267). Moreover, the vision relative to basic questions regarding the organisational
mission and performance is sometimes lost (Arnaboldi et al., 2015:17). This is due to
the focus on managerial targets. Therefore, unclear vision and mission may determine
the way in which PMSs function within these organisations (Greatbanks and Tapp,
2007:849-50; Ferreira and Otley, 2009:267). Furthermore, Kureshi (2014:36); Brown
(2007) and Bititci et al. (2005) have recognised the most excellent implementations of
the BSC. Nevertheless, numerous authors, such as Radnor and McGuire (2003:252);
Moullin (2004); Mwijuma, Omido, Garashi, Odera and Akerele (2013:147); Northcott

78
and Taulapapa (2012:169) and Dreveton (2013:131) have strongly supported the
existence of several aspects hindering particularly the application of the BSC in non-
profit organisations. As an example, incomplete execution was among these issues
(Kureshi, 2014:34). With this in mind, the next sub-section outlines some of the
difficulties faced when implementing the tool.

3.8.2 Problems related to implementation

Kureshi (2014:32) and Johnson et al. (2002) acknowledged the power in driving
performance by adopting a system for its execution. According to Barnabe (2011:451-
452), several processes of the BSC can go wrong during implementation. Analogous to
this, the execution process has reportedly been mishandled by government (Pucek and
Špacek, 2014:159). Nevertheless, Arnaboldi et al., (2015:10) considered the BSC to be
out of fashion. Thus, in order to overcome such failure, they proposed the substitution or
coupling of the BSC with other models (Barnabe, 2011:451-452).

According to Pucek and Špacek (2014:158), the understanding of the correlation

between particular objectives is a great challenge. However, according to Funck and
Larsson (2014:10), the relationship between objectives and strategy is problematic for
municipalities and hospitals. Moreover, they alleged that connecting objectives to
strategy, as well as evaluating their outcomes, is also demanding. In addition, Rajesh,
Pugazhendhi et al., (2012:272) revealed that the most problematic task is the
development of strategic objectives, as well as their inclusion in the appropriate BSC
perspective. On the contrary, the identification of strategic targets is one of the
fundamental problems of the BSC’s application (Letza, 1996:74-75).

Likewise, determining the inclusive strategic targets of an organisation is not frequently

successful (Letza, 1996:74). In this regard, Kureshi (2014:36) observed that the majority
of targets are set in an illogical manner. Moreover, on the one hand, organisations
suffer from the verification of targets set (McAdam et al., 2005:268), and on the other
hand, the obsession by management to achieve targets leads to the unsucessful

79
implementation of the tool (Arnaboldi et al., 2015:17). Papalexandris, Ioannou et al.,
(2005:220) agreed that connecting targets to their prior selected measures remains a
significant dilemma.

The implementation of a performance measurement system has become difficult due to

the wrong decisions being made about performance measures (Neely and Bourne,
2000:2). This has been emphasised by Letza (1996:74-75) with regard to designing and
implementing the BSC. The author asserted the following:”wrong things were measured
as right”. This is one of the mistakes that were observed by Letza (1996:74-75).
Furthermore, Kureshi (2014:35) asserted that the creation of right indicators still points
to the best-performing organisations.

In the study conducted by Ittner and Larcker (2003), five mistakes were identified when
designing non-financial measures, especially the lack of a link between measures and
strategy, lack of a cause-and-effect relationship between measures and the measured
activity, setting of wrong performance standards and targets, doing wrong
measurements, as well as the application of several measures. However, Kureshi
(2014:34; 36) noticed complications related to setting objectives, measures and targets
at the design stage of the BSC. In truth, even the measurement of some indicators
selected from the original BSC model is affected by these problems (Gatti, 2015:127).

Anthony and Govindarajan (1998) found that non-financial measures and financial
results were weakly correlated. This was the most significant difficulty faced when
implementing the BSC. However, according to Wisniewski and Ólafsson (2004:606), the
measurement of intangibles is practically complex. Often, organisations do not
implement the BSC due to the challenge faced in selecting appropriate KPIs (Northcott
and Taulapapa, 2012:168). In this regard, the authors acknowledged the absence of a
causal relationship between KPIs. Similarly, Kureshi (2014:35-36) demonstrated that
service benefits are not correlated with performance indicators. For this reason,
Nørreklit (2000, 2003) and Nørreklit and Mitchell (2007) rejected the validity of the
cause and effect linkage of the BSC components.

80
In addition, measuring and monitoring performance were the difficulties faced by the
preponderance of municipalities (Funck and Larsson, 2014:10-11). This led these
organisations to discard the tool (Funck and Larsson, 2014:11). This led to the adoption
of more effective instruments for supporting organisations, hence the BSC remains as
unsteady a tool as the others (Funck and Larsson, 2014:11). Thus, organisational
management should fully support the implementation of the BSC (Pucek and Špacek,
2014:166), since it is the key for enhancing its processes.

In conclusion, measuring the components of the BSC is not an easy task, but rather a
challenging one. The abovementioned concerns are among the top ten difficulties
related to the implementation of the BSC (Kureshi, 2014:34; 36). Atkinson et al. (1997)
criticised the BSC for being imperfect, since it does not provide ways and means for
measuring performance. Similarly, guidelines enabling the eventual measurement of
performance in both for-profit and non-profit organisations have not been provided by
existing studies (Micheli and Kennerley, 2005:125; (Boland and Fowler, 2000).To this
end, the public sector needs to be aware of ways in which to develop these measures
(Grigoroudis et al., 2011:117).

3.9 CONCLUSION

This chapter presented the literature review related to performance management (PM)
activities, as well as BSC design and implementation. The literature showed that PM
undertakings have dealt with strategy aligned with vison and mission statements, which
are fundamental elements of the BSC framework. In addition, the setting of objectives
and targets, as well as their measurement, are components of PM tasks, which are
similar to the stages followed when implementing the BSC according to the original
model. However, the establishment of strategic initiatives, which is one of the phases of
BSC implementation, is not taken into account by organisational PM. Moreover, PM
ensures the definition of performance outcomes and achievements, which is the main
point of using the BSC. In the end, achievement is evaluated mainly in terms of
objectives and targets.

81
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter four deals with the research design and strategies employed in collecting,
analysing and interpreting the data in this study, in order to address the research
problem and achieve the research objectives of this study. The secondary problem of
this study was the lack of proper performance management (PM) (Dirks and Wijn,
2002:408) and a performance measurement framework within organisations
(Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz, 2011:584), while the main problem was the failure of the
BSC’s adoption and implementation (Kureshi, 2014:32), due to poor design (Dreveton,
2013:133) and processes for its implementation in the government (Pucek and Špacek,
2014:159).

In light of the above statement, the main objective of the study was to explore the
implementation of the BSC by Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities (GMMS). The
secondary objectives were as follows:

1. To examine the extent to which the performance management system of GMMs may
facilitate the implementation of the BSC.
2. To determine the performance measurement frameworks of GMMs.
3. To determine the extent to which the implementation of the BSC by GMMs complies
with the original BSC framework developed by Kaplan and Norton in 1992.
4. To observe the impact of the implementation of the BSC on service delivery
performance outcomes.

This chapter starts with a discussion of the research approach and design, followed by
a look at the philosophy of a worldview. The remainder of the chapter contains the sub-
sections of research methodology, which include data collection, analysis, discussion
and interpretation, as well as validation of the data.

82
Figure 4.6: Structure of Chapter Four

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Research Paradigms

4.3 Research Approach

4.4Research Design

4.5 Research Method: case

Study

4.6 Data Collection

4.5.1 Pples of Cont Anal
4.5.2 Def Prot for Dat Coll

4.7 Target Population 4.5.3 Collecting Evidences

4.8 Units of Analysis

4.9 Data Analysis 4.8.1 Pples of Cont Anal

4.8.2 Process for Cont Anal

4.10 Reliability and validity 4.9.1 Credibility

4.9.2 Transferability
4.9.3 Confirmability
4.11 Conclusion
4.9.4 Dependability

83
4.2 RESEARCH PARADIGMS: REALISM

“A paradigm is a model or framework for observation and understanding which shapes

both what we see and how we understand it” (Babbie, 2007:32). “Scientific research
paradigms are overall conceptual frameworks within which some researchers work, that
is, a paradigm is a world-view or ``a set of linked assumptions about the world which is
shared by a community of scientists investigating the world'' (Deshpande, 1983:101).
Guba and Lincoln (1994) defined a paradigm as follows: “A paradigm may be seen as a
set of beliefs that deals with ultimate or first principles”. Indeed, these authors are
convinced that these beliefs are accepted as the truth, which cannot be proven
conventionally, and there are no basic criteria that allow for the elevation of one
paradigm over another. Moreover, recent studies by Hennink, Hutter and Bailey
(2011:16), Creswell (2014:5), and Matthews and Ross (2010:27) have argued in favour
of diverse research paradigms.

Hennink, Hutter and Bailey (2011:16) believed that positivism and interpretivism are the
two main paradigms in research. This view differs from Healy and Perry (2000:118),
who identified four paradigms, namely positivism, critical theory, constructivism, and
realism. Likewise, Creswell (2014:5) presents four advanced paradigms as follows:
post- positivist, constructivist, transformative, and pragmatic. Thus, the four paradigms
mentioned by Healy and Perry, as well as Creswell, are similar but have different
names. The first paradigm uses quantitative methods (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey,
2011:16), while the last three paradigms use qualitative methods, as affirmed by Healy
and Perry (2000:119), which are appropriate to qualitative research.

Matthews and Ross (2010:27) claimed that “positivism is an epistemological position

which asserts that knowledge of a social phenomenon is based on what can be
observed and recorded rather than subjective understandings”. Scientific research using
quantitative methods through a survey is dealt with by the positivist paradigm (Bailey,
2007:51). This was supported by Creswell (2014:7), who confirmed the causal

84
relationship of outcomes through such paradigms. However, the different paradigms
used in qualitative research are discussed below.

“The term critical theory is a blanket term denoting a set of several alternative
paradigms including but not limited to neo-Marxism, feminism, materialism and
participatory inquiry” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Here the emphasis is placed on the
incorporation of historically situated structures by social realities (Healy & Perry,
2000:119). Conversely, authors such as Healy and Perry (2000:120), as well as Bashir,
Afzal and Azeem (2008:42), have discussed the constructivism paradigm.

Bashir, Afzal and Azeem (2008:42) explained the term ‘constructivism’ as follows:
Constructivism in social perspective is defined as the view that all knowledge and
therefore all meaningful reality, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed
in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and
transmitted within an essentially social context”. Equally important, Creswell (2014:8)
presumed that the constructivism paradigm emphasises the understanding of the
surrounding world of individuals. Healy and Perry (2000:120) thus concluded that such
a paradigm is appropriate for social science research.

In spite of the above, the main feature of the realism paradigm, according to Healy and
Perry (2000:120), is the discovery of a real world or phenomenon, regardless of its
imperfections. In the same way, Creswell (2014:10) believed that real actions, situations
and consequences are the focus of the realism paradigm. However, the discovery of the
reality about a phenomenon remains the core of the realism paradigm. Thus, this study
does not intend to confirm the cause- and-effect relationship of the research results,
neither is it concerned with the historical situation, and it is not intended to understand
the world where people live or work. Rather, it seeks to discover the existing reality in
implementing the BSC within GMMs. Therefore, it is considered as part of the realism
paradigm. In addition, every paradigm encompasses various components.

85
Ontology, epistemology, and methodology are included in each paradigm (Healy and
Perry, 2000:118). The philosophy of ontology refers to the nature of social reality
explored by researchers, as stated by Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011:6). Epistemology
defines the person who is qualified to be an investigator (Hesse-Biber and Leavy,
(2011:6). Healy and Perry (2000:118) also explained that methodology refers to the use
of different techniques by investigators in order to discover a truth.

Since this study falls within the realism paradigm, discussions about the ontology,
epistemology, and methodology of the paradigm are brought to mind. In this case,
ontology is based on the reality of a fact, including its imperfections, and for its
epistemology, the research results are most likely to be the truth (Healy & Perry,
2000:119). The same authors proposed case studies and convergent interviewing as
different methodologies of this paradigm. In this study, a case study was chosen, and
the reasons why it was chosen will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.

Moreover, scientific paradigms list two theoretical developments, namely deductive and
inductive approaches (Perry, 1998:785). The author presumed that the deductive
approach tests theories, while the inductive approach builds theories. The positivist
paradigm is considered to be deductive, while the inductive approach represents
phenomenological paradigms (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991:24) which, according to
Guba and Lincoln (1994), encompass critical theory, constructivism and realism.
Therefore, an inductive approach was followed in this study, since it fell within the
phenomenological paradigm, namely realism.

The conflict paradigm has been discussed in detail by Babbie (2007:33), who suggested
two echelons of paradigms, namely micro and macro. The focus of the macro-level is on
organisations in general, while the micro-level is related to social issues of individuals or
small groups. Consequently, the paradigm for this study was pursued at macro-level,
since its focus is not on individuals or small groups, but rather on GMMs in general. The
next section focuses on the research method used in this study.

86
4.3 RESEARCH APPROACH: QUALITATIVE

Research is viewed as an activity for academics (Kothari, 2006:1). To clarify this

statement, Matthews and Ross (2010:8) state the following: “Research is identified as a
process or practice by which we can extend our knowledge or find the answers to our
question”. Thus, the articulation between research objectives and questions asked in
the research field is demonstrated through methodology (Clough & Nutbrown, 2012:24).
Indeed, the hidden reality is discovered through the mentioned practice (Kothari,
2006:2). Accordingly, the coherent association between the research question(s) and
issues such as data collection, analysis and interpretation is part of a research design
(Hartey, 2004:326: Yin, 2003a:19-21).

With regard to the above, Creswell (2014:3) stated that “research approaches are plans
and the procedures for research that span the steps from broad assumptions to detailed
methods of data collection, analysis and interpretation”. To be specific, quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods are the three alternative research approaches
(Creswell, 2014:3). On the one hand, quantitative approaches are more focused on
random sampling and the use of numbers (Devlin, 2006:53; Creswell, 2014:4), while
qualitative approaches, on the other hand, are concerned with the description and
understanding of the phenomenon or event being studied, as it relates to human
experience (Bashir, Afzal & Azeem, 2008:35; Cooper & White, 2012:7). Creswell
(2014:4) explained that mixed methods deal with the combination of quantitative and
qualitative approaches. This study does not use numbers or random sampling - in
contrast, it is concerned with the description and understanding of the BSC application
in GMMs, and thus is considered to be a qualitative approach. In addition the choice of
research design is discussed in the following section.

4.4 RESEARCH DESIGN: DESCRIPTIVE

Another insight has been given by Cooper and White (2012:2), who acknowledged the
complexity of research in different disciplines. For example, the importance of research

87
in social science has been demonstrated by Pole and Lampard (2002:21). For a better
understanding of the term ‘social science’, Babbie (2007:87) has defined the concept
‘science’ as follows: “Science is an enterprise dedicated to finding out”. At the same
time, Matthews and Ross (2010:13) associated social science with organisational
events such as local and central government, and clubs such as charities, schools,
football teams, etcetera. Accordingly, this study is a part of social research, since it
concerns the Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities, which are part of local government.

In addition to the above discussion, Babbie (2007:87) distinguished three purposes of

social research, namely exploration, description, and explanation. The author explained
that explorative research entails the exploration or examination of a new interest or
subject of study. Descriptive research refers to the observation and description of
situations and events (Babbie, 2007:88; Renusonand and Host, 2009:139), while
explanatory research deals with the explanation of a situation or problem under
investigation (Babbie, 2007:89; Renuson and Host, 2009:139). Moreover, Rensuson
and Host (2009:139) assumed that an explanatory study may or may not implicate the
causal relationship.

In this regard, the accuracy and precision of descriptive research in terms of causal
relationships has been emphasised by Babbie (2007:89). The three abovementioned
purposes do not seem to be satisfactory for Robson (2002), who decided to add a fourth
purpose; namely “improving”. Renuson and Host (2009:139) emphasised that the
improvement of a certain aspect of the phenomenon under examination is the concern
of this purpose. Therefore, the purpose of this study is descriptive because it observes,
portrays and describes the implementation of the BSC by GMMs. Furthermore, time is
also a significant factor in research.

In fact, designing a study involves time. Babbies (2007:102) distinguishes between

cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in research design. The implementation of the
first option involves the observation or cross-sectional examination of a sample,
population or phenomenon at one point in time, while with the second option, the same

88
phenomenon can be observed over an extended period. This study is therefore not only
descriptive, but also longitudinal, because the implementation of the BSC was
scrutinised for the periods of 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Once again, it can
be noted that appropriate material such as annual reports or trade magazines contain
comparable information related to organisations. For this reason, policies and annual
reports of GMMs were chosen as the material for this study. The next section explores
the different paradigms in research.

4.5 RESEARCH METHOD: MULTIPLE CASE STUDY

The identification of a methodology leads to the selection of diverse methods of data

collection and analysis. The use of different techniques to gather and analyse data are
called research methods (Petty, Thomson & Stew, 2012: 380). The components of
these methods were listed by Creswell (2014:5) as follows: questions, data collection,
data analysis and interpretation, as well as validation. However, Catanzaro (1988),
Robson (1993), and Marshall and Rossman (1995) emphasise that choosing such
methods depends on the objectives of the study.

There are several methods for qualitative research (Marshall, 2011:3). Recent studies
by Creswell, Hanson, Clark and Morales (2007:237); Petty, Thomson and Stew
(2012:378); and Creswell (2014:12) acknowledge the existence of five alternative fields
for qualitative research, namely narrative research, phenomenology, grounded theory,
ethnography, and case study. Their processes have also been discussed by Creswell et
al. (2007:237). Additional contributions were made by Liamputtong (2013), who states
that oral stories, life stories and bibliographical research, as well as memory work, are
components of the narrative research method.

Marshall (2011:17) distinguishes grounded theory, ethnography, and case study from
other qualitative methods. The author believes that they are major strategies. Creswell
(2014:14) gives a brief insight into each of these methods, stating that grounded theory
is a field of sociology; ethnology is derived not only from anthropology but also from

89
sociology; and case studies are not limited to specific fields, but can be used by various
fields. Furthermore, according to Creswell (2014:4), interviews and qualitative case
studies are principal methods for qualitative approaches. The author asserts that open-
ended questions are the fundamental elements of interviews. He assumes that case
studies can be conducted where there is a need for an in depth analysis of a case under
study (Creswell, 2014:14). Indeed, this study is not a part of sociology or anthropology,
but studies a particular phenomenon within an organisation. In other words, it is an
organisational study. For this reason, the case study method has been chosen for this
study, as previously mentioned

Creswell (2012:97) stated that the case study is a qualitative research method. In
contrast, Stake (2008:119) disagrees by claiming that it is not a methodology, but rather
a type of study. Likewise, Hartley (2004:323) is persuaded that it is not part of research
methodology, but is rather a research strategy. The important fact, according to
Kohlbacher (2006:3), is that it is widely applied, not only in research on organisations,
but also by the social sciences.

According to Hartley (2004:326), there are two categories of case study, namely a
single case study and a multiple case study. In the view of Stake (2008:128), intrinsic,
instrumental and collective methods are three methods of case study research. Intrinsic
case studies focus on the development of one’s own issues, contexts, and
interpretations, and it is a thick description of a case. Creswell (2012:99) argues that a
single or instrumental case study deals with one bounded case, while e multiple case
studies investigate more than one case. This study will examine the implementation of
the BSC in GMMs. GMMs comprise three metropolitans, namely Ekurhuleni
Municipality, City of Johannesburg, and City of Tshwane. Therefore, multiple or
collective case studies was the proper choice of method for this study since similarities
and differences between these cases may be revealed in the research findings.

Studies by Babbies (2007:298), Yin (2009) and Hartley (2004:326) assumed that a
qualitative case study should be explanatory, descriptive or exploratory. The meaning of

90
these concepts was explained earlier in section two of this chapter. For the purposes of
this study, the descriptive case study method was followed. In this regard, Eisenhardt
(1989:534-535) and Yin (1981:58) contended that case studies can be done using a
quantitative approach, qualitative approach, or both. Patton and Appelbaum (2003:60)
advocated that the qualitative approach is often the most predominant. Since this study
uses the qualitative approach, qualitative case studies were applied.

The flexibility of case studies has been advocated by Renuson and Host (2009:138). In
this regard, numerous researchers, such as Yin (1994), Creswell, Hanson, Clark and
Morales (2007:247), Gibbert, Ruigrok and Wicki (2008:1469-1472) and Renuson and
Host (2009:137-138), have presented various procedures for the application of case
studies. Designing, conducting and analysing the evidence of case studies, as well as
the development of conclusions, recommendations and implications, are the processes
suggested by Yin (1994). The simplest one was proposed by Gibbert, Ruigrok and
Wicki (2008:1469,-1472) which includes sampling, coding, and assessing the validity of
results. According to Renuson and Host (2009:137-138), six stages are involved,
namely designing the case study, preparing data collection procedures, defining
protocols for data collection, collecting evidence, analysing, and reporting. Since using
case studies is acknowledged as a flexible method, this study has adopted the
procedures recommended by Renuson and Host (2009:137-138), and implemented
them according to the needs of the study. The collection of data is the focus of the next
section.

4.6 DATA COLLECTION

As mentioned earlier, this study adopted Renuson and Host’s (2009:137-138) model for
implementing the case studies. The process of this model is presented below.

91
 4.6.1 Preparing Data Collection Procedures

 Literature Review

Bowen (2009:28) declared that “Researchers typically review prior literature as part of
their studies and incorporate that information in their reports”. Initially, this study
reviewed literature on the implementation of the BSC. For the purposes of this study,
implementing the BSC is associated with performance management, performance
measurement frameworks, the BSC framework, and o performance outcomes of the
GMMs‘service delivery. Another feature is that theories are important elements that
drive research (Renuson and Host, 2009:140).

Renuson and Host (2009:139) referred to theory as the frame of reference. Thus,
theories need to be prepared and reviewed. From the literature, a theoretical framework
was initially developed in chapter two and used as a frame of reference to direct the
research. It contained crucial elements for the study, and was a strategy used to avoid
any deviation. The theoretical framework comprised the components of features that are
related to the implementation of the BSC, such as performance management and
performance measurement. The BSC framework itself was a part of this theoretical
framework, since it contains significant constituents for its implementation, as well as
outcomes that result from the implementation of a BSC. In addition, documents were
reviewed in order to identify elements that should be analysed.

 Document Review

According to Bowen (2009:30), situations require observations that may be contained in

documents. This may generate questions that should be answered as a part of the
research. Thus, policies and annual reports of GMMs were chosen as the main

92
documents for this study. Indeed, these two research materials were selected in order
to collect adequate data to answer the research questions.

Annual reports were chosen for the following reasons: they are potential resources for
studies based on observation, as advocated by Bowen (2009:27), and are also valid
documents (Bowman, 1984:63). The policies and annual reports of each studied
metropolitan were collected from the metropolitan’s website, since such information is
available in the public domain.

4.6.2 Defining protocols for data collection

Collective case studies require similarities between the studied cases (Stake, 2013).
This author recommended the planning, organisation, and individual study for each
case. Policies and annual reports of each studied metropolitan were examined
individually. Thus, this study selected four similar cases for each GMM, namely the
performance management system, performance measurement framework, BSC
framework, and performance outcomes. These are the fundamental elements of this
study. Furthermore, the paragraphs below describe the different parameters that were
focused on in order to ensure homogeneity between each GMM under investigation.

With regard to the policies of the three GMMs, the focus was more on their performance
management systems. The examination was based on the disclosure of activities
relative to those performed when implementing the BSC. The aim here was to
determine whether or not these systems can facilitate the implementation of the BSC,
as well as to determine whether or not the BSC was adopted as a performance
measurement framework. When collecting data from the annual report, the focus was
mainly on service delivery performance, because the implementation of the BSC was
reported through this section. This permitted the researcher to collect data relative to
the basic elements pertaining to the BSC framework, as well as the performance
outcomes of service delivery.

93
According to Stake (2013), the study of a case requires an in-depth observation of its
functioning and activities. This study has cautiously observed the functioning and
activities of the performance management systems of each metropolitan included in this
study. This is because a performance management system may lead to the
development of a good performance measurement framework. Certainly, performance
management may facilitate not only the perfect adoption of the BSC, but also the
success of its implementation. Furthermore, the BSC framework was referred to
because it contains significant elements or procedures for its implementation. This is the
core of the tool. Lastly, performance outcomes are also mentioned because the impact
of the BSC on service delivery performance is visible through its outcomes.

As mentioned in the sub-section above, the policies and annual reports of the GMMs
were the only sources for collecting data in this study. The purpose of collecting data
from the GMMs’ policies was to examine their performance management systems, as
well as performance measurement frameworks. Specifically, annual reports were
collected for two purposes, namely describing the implementation of the BSC, and its
impact on service delivery performance outcomes.

The elements to be examined, analysed and interpreted later on are contained in the
four basic aspects the study, which are: performance management involves activities of
performance management systems, and activities relative to those of implementing the
BSC, notably: setting objectives, measures, targets, and strategic initiatives. The
performance measurement framework was also focused on in combination with
performance management because the literature review in chapter two of this study
advocated that it cannot be separated from performance management (Brudan,
2010:110), is a part of performance management (Neely & Adams, 2000), and is a
unique constituent of performance management (Biron, Farndale & Paauwe,
2011:1295).

Therefore, there are five elements of performance management: setting objectives,

setting measures, setting targets, setting strategic initiatives, and the performance

94
measurement framework. The BSC focuses on the four elements contained in its
framework, namely objectives, measures, targets, and strategic initiatives. These four
are the variables of the BSC that will be investigated. The following are the five
variables of performance outcomes: number of targets, number of targets achieved,
number of targets not achieved, number of targets partially achieved, and number of
targets overachieved.

4.6.3 Collecting evidence

According to Yin (2003), identical procedures for each case are required. This includes
data collection, presentation of data, data analysis, as well as their interpretation. To
emphasise this, Stake (2013) suggested the integral presentation of data of multiple
case studies. In order to comply with Stake‘s requirement, the data collected in this
study were presented in an intact manner and attached as appendices. In addition,
Stake (2013) stated that “data from a multiple case study usually will come mostly from
these cases studied”. As a result, data were collected from the cases under
investigation themselves.

Ryan and Bernard (2000:785) proposed the creation of a matrix that will help to fill a set
of qualitative data. Therefore, three tables were created to present data in this study.
Only data related to the research variables were collected and presented in the
fashioned matrices. Thus, with regard to all the cases studied within the GMMs,
identical tables were created to present the collected data of each metropolitan. This
was not exclusive to any of the metropolitans. In other words, matrices were the same
regardless of what the existing variables of one or two cases were missing, in
comparison with the one or two other cases. The first table was created to present data
about the GMMs’ performance management, the second presented data which
corresponded to the BSC framework, and the third was created to present the
performance outcomes of service delivery.

95
4.6 TARGET POPULATION

Blumberg, Cooper and Schindler (2005) define a population as the total collection of
elements about which a researcher wishes to make some inferences. However,
according to Burns and Bush (2006), it is a group that the study is interested in knowing
something about. Thus, Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities were used as the target
population of this study, namely Ekurhuleni Municipality, the City of Johannesburg, and
the City of Tshwane. Moreover the sample consisted of the entire population.

4.7 UNITS OF ANALYSIS

The units of analysis in research refer to the elements that have to be examined
(Babbies, 2007:95). Graneheim and Lundman (2004:106) understood units of analysis
to be the various objects of investigation, which may be individuals, organisations,
programmes, a person, etc. Likewise, Babbies (2007:96) listed them as follows:
individuals, groups, organisations, social interactions, social artefacts, or any product of
social beings or their behaviour. This study has chosen performance management,
performance measurement framework, BSC framework, and performance outcomes of
GMMs as units of analysis. Thus, in order to ensure homogeneity between these units
of analysis, performance management activities, the BSC performance measurement
tool, the main stages of the BSC implementation integrated into its framework, as well
as the target achievement status of each GMM, were used as the parameters of this
study.

South Africa has a large number of municipalities. On a provincial level, the Gauteng
province has three metropolitan municipalities, namely: Ekurhuleni Municipality, the City
of Johannesburg, and the City of Tshwane. However, this study assumes that, viewed
together, these metropolitans give a fairly accurate picture of Gauteng Metropolitan
Municipalities. As the population of the study is so small (less than 100), they were all
examined, and there was therefore no need for sampling them.

96
 4.8 DATA ANALYSIS

To analyse a document, it must be examined, assessed and interpreted (Bowen,

2009:32). Bowen (2009:32) further claimed that it involves the fundamentals of content
and thematic analyses. According to Grbich (2007:16), thematic analysis processes
consist of collecting raw data, and then segmenting, categorising and bonding them,
before interpreting them. The content analysis process is based on the categorisation
of data according to the questions of the study (Bowen, 2009:32). According to Berg
(1998), words, phrases, theories, topics, concepts or other characteristics may be the
content components. The use of content analysis is greatly acknowledged in research
methods, as indicated by Guthrie, Petty, Yongvanich and Ricceri (2004:290), and also
in document analysis (Elo & Kynga, 2008:108). Therefore, the choice for the data
analysis in this study is content analysis, because it analyses policies and annual
reports of GMMs. In addition, this study intended to categorise data according to the
research questions.

4.8.1 Principles of Content Analysis

 Quantitative, Qualitative or Mixed Methods Content Analysis

Studies by Hepherd and Achterberg (1992) and Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:5)
acknowledge the existence of quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods content
analyses. As specified earlier in the chapter, this study is a qualitative approach, and
qualitative content analysis was therefore conducted. Qualitative content analysis has
been defined by Hsieh and Shannon (2005:1278) as “a research method for the
subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification
process of coding and identifying themes or patterns”. The role of qualitative content
analysis was described as follows: It may create theories; its selected sample depends
largely on the research questions; it is more descriptive; and it regularly reveals
patterns, themes, and categories to social reality (Zhang & Wildemuth, 1996:1-2).

97
 Another reason for the application of qualitative content analysis is that this study has a
descriptive purpose.

 Inductive and Deductive Content Analysis

According to Elo and Kynga (2008:109), there are two processes of content analysis,
namely inductive and deductive content analysis. Deductive content analysis is used in
quantitative approaches, while qualitative approaches apply inductive content analysis
(Elo & Kynga, 2008:109). Similarly, Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:1) affirmed that the
main characteristic of qualitative content analysis is the fact that it is inductive. Thus,
since this study has adopted a qualitative approach, an inductive content analysis
process will be used.

In the case of inductive content analysis, raw data generates coding categories, as
mentioned by Moretti et al. (2011:421) and Krippendorff (2004:173).In addition, the
description of a specific phenomenon, as well as theory testing, is not dealt with
inductively, according to Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:3). These authors also state that
inductive content analysis is helpful in developing theories.

 Conventional Qualitative Content Analysis, Directed Content Analysis, and

Summative Content Analysis

Conventional qualitative content analysis, directed content analysis, and summative

content analysis are the three different approaches of qualitative content analysis
(Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). These authors explain that conventional qualitative content
analysis forms coding categories directly from the raw data. The grounded theory
method is mostly used in this approach. However, in the case of direct content analysis,
coding (categories) is derived from theory, which leads to the collection of data. In other
words, data are collected according to the created categories or coding. The validation
of the theoretical framework is the purpose of this approach. Finally, words or
manifested content is counted in summative content analysis, and then extended to

98
 include latent meanings and themes. Although the quantitative principle is used in this
approach, Hsieh and Shannon (2005) conclude that it remains a qualitative content
analysis, because categories are used inductively.

In this study, both conventional qualitative content and summative content analyses
were used, since categories and sub-categories were formed from raw data and then
integrated into the BSC framework. Furthermore, these subcategories were counted in
order to determine the equilibrium between these sub-categories or elements of the
BSC.

 Manifest or Latent Content

Manifest or latent content is a critical element in qualitative content analysis (Graneheim

& Lundman, 2004:106; Zhang & Wildemuth, 1996:1). The difference between these two
concepts is that manifests content analyses perceptible aspects of a phenomenon,
while latent content analyses the relationship aspect of a phenomenon (Graneheim &
Lundman, 2004:106). According to these authors, the depth of the interpretation of
manifest and latent content depends on the extent of the abstraction.

 Manual or Automatic Content Analysis

Sjøvaag and Stavelin (2012:219) state that there are two ways of implementing
qualitative content analysis: manually, for instance in the form of tables, or
automatically, such as charts. However, it is also feasible to combine these two
techniques. as revealed by Lewis, Zamith, and Hermida (2013:34). Thus, both manual
and automatic content analyses were chosen for this study. Tables were used as a
manual tool in order to present the collected data, while charts were used in order to
automatically analyse the data presented through tables. Above all, manual content
analysis was used because it is still considered to be superior by Sjøvaag and Stavelin
(2012:219), while charts make the interpretation of findings easier.

99
 4.8.2 Process for Content Analysis

Studies by authors such as Hoskins and Mariano (2004); Elo and Kynga (2008:113);
Weber (1990:13); Burnard (1996); and Guthrie and Mathews (1985:251) reveal that
there is no linear guideline for conducting content analysis. This is why it is considered
to be a flexible method. Nevertheless, some technical recommendations have been
provided by Harris (2001:194); Weber (1990:13); Downe‐Wamboldt (1992:314-315);
Lewis, Zamith, and Hermida (2013:36); McMillan (2000) and Riffe et al. (2005).

Since there is no single way to conduct content analysis, the processes followed in this
study encompass the following: selecting the units of analysis; selecting material for
content analysis; categorisation; requirements for the disclosure of content; reducing the
size of the data; conducting descriptive analysis; interpreting results; reporting results;
assessing reliability and validity; and providing recommendations.

 Selecting the Units of Analysis

The choice of units of analysis is critical in content analysis, as highlighted by

Graneheim and Lundman (2004:106). The units of analysis in this study are
performance management, performance measurement framework, BSC framework,
and performance outcomes of GMMs, as discussed in the section above.

 Selecting Material For Content Analysis

Annual reports and other corporate documents are mostly used in content analysis,
according to Duriau, Reger, Michael and Pfarrer (2007:14), as well as Bowman (1982,
1984). As mentioned in section 4.5 of this chapter, policies and annual reports
constituted the material that was used for this study. These documents are published on
each metropolitan municipality’s website, since they are in the public domain.

100
 Categorisation

The fundamental characteristic of qualitative content analysis is the development of

categories (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004:107). In this study, categories were created.
Krippendorff (1980) defines a category as “A group of content that shares a
commonality”. Downe‐Wamboldt (1992:317) presumes that the development of
categories relies on the researcher’s objectives. Thus, categories were created
according to the objectives of this study.

Data, previous related studies and theories are adequate sources to develop
categories, according to Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:3). However, these authors
suggest that categories can also be created from raw data when theories are missing.
As discussed in the previous sub-section, this study conducted a conventional
qualitative content analysis, which means that categories were created from the raw
data found in the annual reports and policies of the GMMs.

A question involving “what” is mostly answered by a category (Krippendorff, 1980). For

categories to be created in this study, the questions included the following: “What
activities similar to the implementation of the BSC were disclosed in the GMMs’
policies?”; “What is the performance measurement framework of each GMM?”; “What
are the components of the BSC framework contained in the GMMs’ scorecards?”; and
“What is the impact of the implementation of the BSC on the targets set by GMMs?” In
this study, categories were created to respond to the concerns regarding the
implementation of the BSC.

Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:4) asserted that multiple categories can also be created,
Krippendorff (1980) rephrases this statement as follows: “A category often includes a
number of sub-categories or sub-subcategories at varying levels of abstraction. The
sub-categories can be sorted and abstracted into a category or a category can be
divided into sub-categories”. This study identified three categories, namely:
performance management, BSC framework, and performance outcomes. Each of these

101
categories comprised sub-categories. Performance management has four sub-
categories: setting objectives, setting measures, setting targets, and performance
measurement frameworks. Objectives, measures and targets are the three sub-
categories of the BSC framework of GMMs. In terms of performance outcomes, the five
sub-categories include the number of targets, targets achieved, target not achieved,
targets partially achieved, and targets overachieved.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Patton (1987) portray categories as being either internally
homogeneous or externally heterogeneous. According to Patton (1987), homogeneous
categories consist of the same things, while heterogeneous categories refer to many
different kinds of things. The categories in this study were homogeneous, because they
consisted of the same kind of things, namely performance management, BSC
framework, and performance outcomes for all GMMs.

Krippendorff (1980) also distinguishes exhaustive categories from mutually exclusive

ones. The author explains them in this way: “No data related to the purpose should be
excluded due to lack of a suitable category and no data should fall between two
categories or fit into more than one category. In the raw data collected for this study, not
all the case studies contained all the sub-categories. Some were disclosed, while others
were missing. In other words, what was disclosed in one metropolitan was missing in
another metropolitan. In order to meet the requirement of categorisation, no category or
sub-category was excluded due to the lack of disclosure in the report. Thus, all
categories and their sub-categories were taken into account, and their evidence was
presented according to their disclosure or lack of disclosure. The requirement of
disclosure is discussed in the next sub-section.

102
 Table 4.1: Categories and sub-categories developed for content analysis

Sub- Categories
categories Performance Balanced Scorecard Performance
Management Outcomes
01 Setting objectives Objectives Number of targets

02 Setting measures Measures Number of targets

achieved
03 Setting targets Targets Number of targets not
achieved
04 Setting initiatives Initiatives Number of targets
partially achieved
05 Performance Number of targets
measurement overachieved
framework

 Requirements for the Disclosure of Content

Duriau, Reger, Michael and Pfarrer (2007:14) assume that content analysis also
consists of the observation of the content of organisational disclosures. Similarly,
Yongvanich and Ricceri (2004:285-286) acknowledge the disclosure of a variety of
information in the annual reports of organisations. In this study, categories and sub-
categories found in the policies and annual reports of GMMs were reported in full, while
those that did not appear were reported as ‘not disclosed’ (N/D). The table below
shows the requirements for the disclosure of content from the GMMs’ policies and
annual reports.

103
Table 4.2: Conditions Requirement for the Disclosure of Contents

Sub-Categories Category A: Performance Management

Requirement for Requirement for non-
disclosure disclosure
Setting Objectives If setting objectives is If setting objectives is not
disclosed in the policies, it disclosed in the policies, then it
will be reported fully in will be reported as not
collected data. disclosed (N/D) in collected
data.
Setting Measures If setting measures is If setting measures is not
disclosed in the policies, it disclosed in the policies, then it
will be reported fully in will be reported as not
collected data. disclosed (N/D) in collected
data.
Setting Targets If setting targets is disclosed If setting targets is not
in the policies, it will be disclosed in the policies, then it
reported fully in collected will be reported as not
data. disclosed (N/D) in collected
data.
Performance If the performance If the performance
Measurement measurement framework is measurement framework is not
Framework disclosed in the policies, it disclosed in the policies, then it
will be reported fully in will be reported as not
collected data. disclosed (N/D) in collected
data.
Category B: BSC Framework

Objectives If the objectives of each If the objectives of each service

service delivery are delivery are not disclosed in the

104
 disclosed in the annual annual report, then they will be
report, then the number of reported as not disclosed (N/D)
objectives disclosed will be in collected data.
reported in collected data.
Measures If the measures of each If the measures of each service
service delivery are delivery are not disclosed in the
disclosed in the annual annual report, then they will be
report, then the number of reported as not disclosed (N/D)
measures disclosed will be in collected data.
reported in collected data.
Targets If the targets of each If the targets of each service
service delivery are delivery are not disclosed in the
disclosed in the annual annual report, then they will be
report, then the number of reported as not disclosed (N/D)
targets disclosed will be in collected data.
reported in collected data.
Category C: Performance Outcomes
Number of Targets If the number of targets of If the number of targets of each
each service delivery is service delivery are not
disclosed in the annual disclosed in the annual report,
report, then the number of then they will be reported as
targets will be reported in not disclosed (N/D) in collected
collected data. data.
Number of Targets If the number of targets If the number of targets
Achieved achieved in each service achieved in each service
delivery is disclosed in the delivery are not disclosed in the
annual report, then it will be annual report, then it will be
reported in collected data. reported as not disclosed (N/D)
in collected data.
Number of Targets If the number of targets not If the number of targets not

105
 Not Achieved achieved in each service achieved in each service
delivery is disclosed in the delivery are not disclosed in the
annual report, then it will be annual report, then it will be
reported in collected data. reported as not disclosed (N/D)
in collected data.
Number of Targets If the number of targets If the number of targets partially
Partially Achieved partially achieved in each achieved in each service
service delivery is disclosed delivery are not disclosed in the
in the annual report, then it annual report, then they will be
will be reported in collected reported as not disclosed (N/D)
data. in collected data.
Number of Targets If the number of targets If the number of targets
Overachieved overachieved in each overachieved in each service
service delivery are delivery are not disclosed in the
disclosed in the annual annual report, then it will be
report, then it will be reported as not disclosed (N/D)
reported in collected data. in collected data.

The above table gives details regarding the requirements for content disclosure.
Moreover, it is important to emphasise that any service not delivered by a metropolitan
municipality will be reported as not available (N/A) in terms of the sub-categories of the
BSC, as well as performance outcomes. Since the sub-categories of each metropolitan
municipality contain a large amount of data, it was necessary to undertake the reduction
of the data size.

 Reducing the Size of Data

Lewis, Zamith, and Hermida (2013:37-38) suggested that too large data should be
reduced. Thus, in this study, data collected on the service delivery performance of each
metropolitan municipality were firstly presented in full. This allowed the researcher to
obtain a broad view of the gathered data, as well as a better understanding. The

106
 grouping of the summary presented in each table was done in order to reduce the size
of the data. This was helpful, since it made the analysis and interpretation phases much
easier.

 Conducting a Descriptive Analysis

According to Lewis, Zamith, and Hermida (2013:44), descriptive analyses help to

identify all of the unique sources and the proportion of the overall sources that they
represent. This study described in detail the way in which the BSC has been
implemented by GMMs, by examining different annual reports published for the three
financial years under investigation.

 Interpreting Results

The personal and theoretical understanding of a studied phenomenon is embodied by

interpretation (Zhang & Wildemuth, 1996:5). Thus, the development of aspects of
interpretation is fundamental in qualitative approaches (Kohlbacher, 2006). For this
reason, the case study (Simons, 2009) and qualitative content analysis (Zhang &
Wildemuth, 1996:6), as qualitative methods, are viewed from an interpretive
perspective. In addition, new theories and new models may be derived from the findings
of such approaches (Zhang & Wildemuth, 1996:11). They assume that previous studies
have also had an impact on gathering and discussing research results in collective case
studies.

According to Kohlbacher (2006), categories are appropriate sources for the

interpretation of qualitative content analysis. Therefore, in this study, interpretation is
based on categories and sub-categories developed in the analysis stage.

107
 Reporting Results

Reporting qualitative content analysis results is not an easy process (Zhang &
Wildemuth 1996:5). Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest the inclusion of matrices,
graphs, charts, and conceptual networks to display results. According to Patton (2002),
research objectives contribute towards the form and extent of the reporting of findings.
Denzin (1989) emphasises the existence of an equilibrium between the description and
interpretation of findings. It is therefore necessary for findings to be presented through
matrices in a descriptive way, in order to facilitate the interpretation.

4.9 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Bashir, Afzal and Azeem (2008:38) made the following statement: “Because a paradigm
is a world view, spanning ontology, epistemology and methodology, the quality of
scientific research done within a paradigm has to be judged by its own paradigm's
terms”. They claim that there is a need for credibility and truth in any research
approach. In this regard, Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Babbie (2007:143) identify
reliability and validity as measurement tools in research. Furthermore, Lincoln and Guba
(1985) emphasise that these two concepts reinforce the trustworthiness of research
findings. According to Bashir, Afzal and Azeem (2008:35), trustworthiness, rigour and
quality in qualitative paradigms are assessed through reliability and validity. However,
with a quantitative approach, the quality of research is evaluated through validity,
reliability, and objectivity (Zhang & Wildemuth, 1996:6). Since this study adopted a
qualitative approach, reliability and validity were taken into account.

According to Bashir, Afzal and Azeem (2008:39), reliability is applicable to any research
approach. According to Babbie (2007:143), it refers to the same findings being
produced by the same data collected more than once for the same phenomenon under
investigation. Reliability consists of the demonstration of data and findings, and also
examines their trustworthiness (Polit & Beck, 2004).

108
Babbie (2007:146) and McMillan and Schumacher (2006) refer to validity as the extent
of the similarities between the explanations of a phenomenon and its reality. Description
and explanation are the core elements of validity in qualitative research (Bashir, Afzal &
Azeem, 2008: 40). In this regard, validity aims to ensure that explanations of a
phenomenon match with its description. In fact, description refers to the real world. In
addition, research findings can validate existing theories (Zhang & Wildemuth, 1996:11).

Triangulation is another way of establishing reliability and validity (Bashir, Afzal &
Azeem, 2008:43; Creswell, 2003; McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). Patton (2001) affirms
that triangulation combines methods. In the same way, Bashir, Afzal and Azeem
(2008:42) evoke the mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods, such as
observation, interviews and recordings, as methods for triangulation. According to
Barbour (1998), this is very difficult- it is easy to mix paradigms, but not methods.

Validity and reliability are also related to the fundamental steps of a methodology,
including data collection, coding or categorisation, analysis of content, and interpretation
of results (Duriau, Reger, Michael & Pfarrer, 2007:8). Bashir, Afzal and Azeem
(2008:35) state that “Validity in qualitative research means the extent to which the data
is plausible, credible and trustworthy; and thus can be defendedwhen challenged”.
According to Petty, Thomson and Stew (2012:381-384); Lincoln and Guba (1985); and
Graneheim and Lundman (2004:107-108), the quality of qualitative research is
classified as truth or credibility, neutrality or conformability, consistency or dependability,
and applicability or transferability.

4.9.1 Credibility

Tracy (2010:842) refers to the credibility of a qualitative study in terms of the

trustworthiness, verisimilitude, and plausibility of the research findings. These rely on
the capability and endeavour of the investigator (Bashir, Afzal & Azeem, 2008:38;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

109
Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:8) and Bradley (1993:436) explain that the evaluation of
the validity of the real world under investigation is the main role of credibility. In order to
achieve this, integrity of data representation is required (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011:152).
Morrow (2005) stated that the adequacy of findings is related to the integrity of the data.
From this, interpretations will be verified against raw data, as indicated by Thomas and
Magilvy (2011:152).

Elo and Kynga (2008:112) suggest the use of appendices and tables to demonstrate the
relationship between data and findings. According to Bowman (1984:63), annual reports
by themselves are already sufficient to prove the validity of data, because much time
has been spent on preparing, writing and presenting such documents. For this study,
tables were used to present the relationships between data and findings. In addition, the
policies and annual reports of GMMs were attached in full as appendices.

4.9.2 Transferability

In qualitative research, the term ‘transferability’ means that the research findings of a
specific study can be applied to another context (Lincoln & Guba, 1985:290; Zhang &
Wildemuth, 1996:6). To establish transferability, Thomas and Magilvy (2011:153) state
that researchers should describe the population, demographics and geographic
boundaries of the phenomenon under investigation. For this study, all these elements
were described in detail. The description of the population was briefly provided in
chapter one, and then in more detail in section 4.6 of this chapter, while demographics
and geographic boundaries were mentioned in chapter one of this study.

4.9.3 Confirmability

The ease of access and transparency of data for the readers is the focal point of
confirmability (Richards, 2009:160). Thomas and Magilvy (2011:154) and Holliday
(2013:5) suggested that for this reason, data should be presented in full. Therefore, the
gathered data will be presented in a comprehensive manner in chapter five.

110
According to Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:6-7) and Bradley (1993:437), from the
presentation of the data, research findings can be confirmed or reviewed by other
readers. This is a way of checking confirmability (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011:154;
Holliday, 2013:5). In this regard, however, the findings of this study have not been
reviewed by other readers due to time constraints. Therefore, the data are presented in
full and the raw data are presented as appendices, in order to be re-examined by
potential researchers who are willing to embrace a similar topic.

According to Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:6-7), audits are a better way of checking
confirmability. They emphasise that audits are based on research data, findings,
interpretations and recommendations. They also suggest raw data, field notes,
theoretical notes and memos, coding manuals, categorisation manuals, process notes,
etc. as materials for auditing. Although the annual reports of GMMs have been reviewed
by the auditor-general, their examination has not been taken into account by this study,
since it did not comply with the research objectives. Above all, the time factor was also
a limitation in this regard. Nevertheless, the collected data and appendices will always
be available for a further audit.

4.8.4 Dependability

According to Richards (2009:160) and Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:6), dependability

refers to the processes followed to conduct the study. Thomas and Magilvy (2011:153-
154) list them as follows: the description of research objectives and research methods;
discussion of the selection of participants; description of data collection; description of
the analysis process; explanation for the reduction and transformation of data into
analytical form; and the discussion and reporting of findings. All these processes were
followed when conducting this study. In this regard, the research objectives were
discussed in chapter one of this study, while all processes related to the research
methods were mostly discussed in this chapter.

111
According to Thomas and Magilvy (2011:153-154), the determination of appropriate
techniques for ensuring the reliability and validity of data are also processes to be
followed to verify dependability. Accordingly, this study considered the four different
criteria used to ensure the quality of qualitative research.

In addition, researchers can use audit techniques to determine dependability, as stated

by Zhang and Wildemuth (1996:6-7). The consistency of research processes and
findings are verified by using materials such as raw data, field notes, theoretical notes
and memos, coding manuals, process notes, and so on.

4.10 CONCLUSION

In this chapter, a description of the research methodology applied in gathering data to

solve the research problem was provided. Multiple case studies were identified as the
research method and discussed, in order to explain why this method was chosen. The
sources of data collection were also mentioned, such as the literature and document
review. In this regard, the researcher emphasised that the annual reports of different
cases under investigation were used as material to collect primary data. Gauteng
Metropolitan Municipalities (GMMs) were identified as the target population. In addition,
qualitative content analysis was identified as the appropriate technique to analyse data,
and was then described in detail. Finally, techniques to evaluate reliability and validity
were discussed, as well as credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. In
the next chapter, collected data is presented, analysed, discussed and interpreted
according to the theoretical framework discussed in chapter two, and the findings are
reported.

112
 CHAPTER FIVE

REASEARCH FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the collected data related to the implementation of the Balanced
Scorecard for service delivery performance of the Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities.
Policies such as the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) Review of the GMMs, as well
as their annual reports covering the financial years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-
2014, were the sources for data collection. The examination, analysis, discussion and
interpretation of collected data were on the one hand based on performance
management activities, and on the other hand, on the original BSC framework proposed
by Kaplan and Norton (1996), as well as performance outcomes. Tables are used to
present the collected data, while the analysis was conducted using charts. Thus, the
tables and charts were adequate for the better understanding of not only the collected
data, but also its summary. In the same way, the findings will be the basis for the
conclusions and recommendations that will be presented in the next chapter.

113
 Figure 5.7: Structure of Chapter Five

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Collected Data

5.2.1 Presentation of the GMM’s Performance Management and

Measurements Frameworks

5.2.2 Presentation of the GMM’s Adopted Balanced Scorecard

Framework

5.2.2.1 Ekurhuleni Municipality Scorecards

5.2.2.2 City of Johannesburg Scorecards
5.2.2.3 City of Tshwane Scorecards

5.2.3 Presentation of the GMM’s Service Delivery Performance

Outcomes

5.2.3.1 Ekurhuleni Performance Outcomes

5.2.3.2 City of Johannesburg Performance Outcomes
5.2.3.3 City of Tshwane Performance Outcomes

5.3 Content Data Analysis

5.3.1 GMM’s Performance Management

5.3.2 GMM’s Scorecards
5.3.3 GMM’s Performance Outcomes

5.4 Discussion

5.4.1 Research Objective 1

5.4.2 Research Objective 2
5.4.3 Research Objective 3
5.5 Conclusion 5.4.4 Research Objective
1144
5.2 COLLECTED DATA

Before collecting data, an in-depth examination of the content of the GMMs’ policies and
annual reports was done. The study followed two phases for collecting data: the first
phase was based on the collection of data from the GMMs’ policies which was related to
different performance management activities. These activities should be similar to those
applied for the implementation of the BSC. The second phase focused more on the four
most important elements of the BSC, namely objectives, measures, targets and
initiatives. Accordingly, these four elements were the basis for data collection related to
both the performance management and scorecards of the GMMs. Furthermore, the
achievement status of targets, such as targets set, targets achieved, targets not
achieved, targets partially achieved, and targets overachieved were keys for collecting
data on the GMMs’ performance outcomes. All collected data are presented in the next
sub-sections without comments. Appropriate comments will be associated with further
analysis and discussion in sections 5.3 and 5.4 of this chapter.

5.2.1 Presentation of the GMMs’ Performance Management and Measurement

Frameworks

Data was collected from the Integrated Development Plan Review for each metropolitan
municipality under study in general, and in relation to performance management in
particular. Each table was divided into three main columns: activities of performance
management (first column), activities related to those which apply when implementing
the BSC (second column), and the GMM’s performance measurement framework (third
column). In addition, the second column was divided into four other columns in relation
to the four main implementation steps of the BSC framework. In short, each table shows
the different activities applied, as well as those that are not applied by the Ekurhuleni
Municipality (EM), but which also determine the performance measurement framework
of the municipality.

115
Table 5.3: Performance Management and Measurement in the Ekurhuleni Municipality

Performance Management Activities Activities related to those of the BSC Performance

implementation Measurement
Framework
Setting Setting Setting Setting
Objectives Measures Targets Strategic
Initiatives

Implementation of the IDP Not Setting Setting Not Not disclosed

disclosed measures targets is disclosed
The annual SDBIP, populated with Key is a part of a part of
Performance Indicators (KPIs), setting the PMS the PMS
measures and targets, is an integral part
of the PMS and must be annually
approved and adopted by council

The contents of the above table were derived from Appendix A of this study.

116
Table 5.4: Performance Management and Measurement in the City of Johannesburg

Activities of Performance Management Activities related to those of the BSC Performance

implementation Measurement
Framework
Setting Setting Setting Setting
Objectives Measures Targets Strategic
Initiatives

It is a conscious commitment to translate Not Setting Setting Not Balanced Scorecard

strategy into action and drive disclosed measures targets is disclosed
performance improvement. is a part of a part of
the PMS the PMS
The City’s performance management is
not only about the setting and
measurement of desired outcomes and
activities of an organisation, but also the
continuous review of its performance
against set indicators and targets, to
allow for continuous improvement of the
system.

The contents of the above table are derived from Appendix B.

117
Table 5.5: Performance Management and Measurement in the City of Tshwane

Activities of Performance Activities related to those of the BSC implementation Performance

Management Measurement
Setting Setting Setting Setting Framework
Objectives Measures Targets Strategic
Initiatives

Planning for performance Setting Setting Key Setting Not Balanced Scorecard
management: priority setting, setting objectives is Performance targets is a disclosed
objectives, setting Key Performance a part of the Indicators is part of the
Indicators, setting targets, reviewing performance a part of the performance
Key Performance Indicators, management performance management
developing and monitoring framework management framework
framework. framework

Appendix C was the source of the contents of the above table.

118
5.2.2 Presentation of the GMMs’ Adopted Balanced Scorecard Framework

As mentioned in the above three tables, the BSC was adopted as a performance
measurement framework by the Cities of Johannesburg and Tshwane, but not by the
Ekurhuleni Municipality. Nevertheless, a similar table to the original BSC framework was
created for the purpose of data collection, in order to comply with the main phases for
its implementation. The created table incorporated objectives, measures, targets and
initiatives. Therefore, it consisted of five columns containing the following elements:
First, the number of items, second, service delivery, incorporating each of its
components and sub-components, together with their included services. The third
column was reserved for the financial year 2011-2012, while 2012-2013 was
represented by the fourth column, and the fifth one dealt with data for 2013-2014. In
turn, each of these financial years was divided into four columns as follows: objectives;
measures; targets; and initiatives.

The labels for these elements were presented as: OB = objectives, ME = measures, TA
= targets and INI = initiatives, ND= Not Disclosed and NA= Not Available. The label N/A
was applied for not only when any GMM did not deliver any service, but also for when
the total figure of collected data was not available. ND= Not Disclosed was used when a
municipality delivered a service, but any researched step of the BSC implementation
was not reflected in the annual report. This concerned every service delivery
performance of each GMM, as well as each financial year. In addition, Key Performance
Indicators, baselines and indicators were the various measures taken into account by
different BSCs.

After a detailed inspection of the contents of service delivery performance disclosed in

the GMMs’ annual reports, the following data were produced:

119
5.2.2.1 Ekurhuleni Municipality Scorecards

Table 5.6: Possibility for Adoption of the BSC Framework by Ekurhuleni Municipality

Nr SERVICE DELIVERY 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

OB ME TA INI OB ME TA INI OB ME TA INI

COMPONENT A: BASIC SERVICE

01 Water Service/ Water Provision 11 7 10 N/D 7 7 6 N/D 4 4 4 N/D

02 Sanitation Provision Service/ Waste Water N/D N/D 1 N/D 2 2 2 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D

03 Energy/Electricity 19 20 18 N/D 4 4 5 N/D 5 5 5 N/D

04 Waste Management 13 6 13 N/D 3 3 3 N/D 3 3 3 N/D

05 Human Settlement/Housing 6 4 4 N/D 4 4 4 N/D 4 4 3 N/D

06 Free Basic Services and Indigent Support N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D

TOTAL 49 37 46 N/A 20 20 20 N/A 16 16 15 N/A

COMPONENT B: ROAD TRANSPORT

07 Roads Service 21 19 18 N/D 5 5 5 N/D 4 4 3 N/D

08 Transport Service 9 6 8 N/D 1 1 3 N/D 3 3 2 N/D

120
09 Storm Drainage/ Storm Water N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 2 3 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D

TOTAL 30 25 26 N/A 8 8 9 N/A 7 7 5 N/A

COMPONENT C: PLANNING AND

DEVELOPMENT

10 City Planning/ Planning Policy Objectives 11 4 10 N/D 4 4 4 N/D 4 4 4 N/D

11 Local Economic Development 9 6 9 N/D 5 5 10 N/D 5 5 10 N/D

12 Institutional Strategy M & E and Research 14 9 13 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL 34 19 32 N/A 9 9 14 N/A 9 9 14 N/A

COMPONENT D: COMMUNITY AND

SOCIAL SERVICES

13 Arts/Culture/Libraries/Museums/Galleries/Zoos 21 15 19 N/D 4 4 4 N/D 2 2 2 N/D

and Theatres
14 Environmental Research Management 19 16 17 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D

15 Cemeteries and Crematoriums N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 3 3 N/D 3 3 3 N/D

16 Child care/Aged Care/ Social Programs N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 4 3 N/D 4 4 4 N/D

TOTAL 40 31 36 N/A 11 11 11 N/A 9 9 9 N/A

COMPONENT E: ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION

17 Pollution Control N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 N/D 2 2 2 N/D

121
18 Biodiversity/Landscape and Coastal Protection N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 4 3 N/D 2 2 1 N/D

TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5 N/A 4 4 3 N/A

COMPONENT F: HEALTH

19 Clinics N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 4 N/D 4 4 4 N/D

20 Health and Social Development 10 9 10 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D

21 Ambulance Service N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 N/D

22 Health Inspection N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 N/D 2 2 2 N/D

TOTAL 10 9 10 N/A 7 7 6 N/A 7 7 8 N/A

COMPONENT G: SAFETY AND SECURITY

23 Police Metropolitan 14 12 13 N/D 3 3 3 N/D 2 2 2 N/D

24 Fire Service N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5 N/D 3 3 3 N/D

25 Service Statistics for Disaster Management N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 N/D 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

26 Disaster and Emergency Management Policy/ 16 14 13 N/D 1 1 1 N/D 1 1 1 N/D

Other Disasters Management and Control of
Public Nuisances
TOTAL 30 26 26 N/A 15 9 13 N/A 6 6 6 N/A

COMPONENT H: SPORT AND

RECREATION

122
27 Sport and Recreation N/D N/D N/D N/D 5 5 5 N/D 2 2 1 N/D

TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5 N/A 2 2 1 N/A

COMPONENT I: CORPORATE POLICY

OFFICES AND OTHER SERVICES

28 Executive Council N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D

29 Financial Service 37 21 35 N/D 8 8 8 N/D 5 5 5 N/D

30 Human Resources Management and Service 9 5 6 N/D 8 8 8 N/D 5 5 5 N/D

31 Marketing and Information Communication 24 14 24 N/D 6 6 6 N/D 5 5 4 N/D

and Technology (ICT)/Communication
32 Customer Relations Management 9 1 8 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

33 The Legislature N/D N/D N/D N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

34 Facilities/ Property/ Legal/Fleet/Risk 29 14 27 N/D 8 8 8 N/D 5 5 5 N/D

Management and Procurement Services
35 Internal Audit 12 3 12 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D

TOTAL 120 58 112 N/A 30 30 30 N/A 20 20 19 N/A

The table presented above was derived from Appendices D, E and F. Objectives and indicators were identical and taken
from the same perspective.

123
5.2.2.2 City of Johannesburg Scorecards

Table 5.7: Johannesburg Scorecards

SERVICE DELIVERY 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

OBJ MEA TAR INIT OBJ MEA TAR INIT OBJ MEA TAR INIT

COMPONENT A: ECONOMIC
GROWTH

A1 Provide a Resilient Livable

Environment

01 SMME and Entrepreneurship N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 4 4 N/D
Support

02 Attraction Retention and N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D
Expansion of Investment in the
City

Land Management and N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Acquisition

Transit Development N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 7 7 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

124
 Priority Area Planning and N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 3 5 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Implementation

Integrated Planning Policy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 4 6 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Development and Standard
Setting

03 Sector Diversification, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 6 7 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Productivity, Competiveness
Support

04 Leveraging on City-Owned N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Assets

05 Multi Levels Skills/ Develop a N/D 3 4 N/D N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
City Skills Strategy Focused on
the Skills Supply/ Demand
Chain,

06 Develop a Dynamic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Entrepreneurial Spirit,
Competitiveness, Innovation
and Increased Investment
through SMM Support

07 Resuscitation of Declining and N/D 1 1 N/D N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Decaying Economic Nodes (
Including Inner-City
Regeneration/ Transform the
Inner-City Through
Implementation of the Inner City

125
 Urban Development Zone (UDZ)
Taxes Incentives

08 Area Based Economic Initiatives N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

09 Support the Information and N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Communications Technology
Sector

10 Support the Emergence and N/D 1 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Growth of the BPO Industry

11 Develop and Operationalise a N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Regional Equity Fund

12 Catalyse Opportunities for BEE N/D 3 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Through Creative Public Private
Partnership/ Maximise the
Economic Opportunity for BEE
Firms

13 Work with Stakeholder to Roll N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
out a Dirang Ba Bohle (DBB)
Finance Institution that Enables
SMMEs Including Cooperative

14 Number of EPVVP Jobs N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Created Through
Implementation of Pex and
Capex Projects

126
 TOTAL N/A 13 17 N/A N/A 35 40 N/A N/A 5 5 N/A

COMPONENT B: HUMAN AND

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

B1 Agriculture and Food

15 Access to Food /A City Where N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 7 7 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D
None Go Hungry

16 Urban Farmer Support N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 3 3 N/D

Healthy Lifestyle/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D

Long and Healthy Life for all N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 5 5 N/D

17 Single Window for Poor and N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 9 9 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vulnerable

TOTAL B1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 16 N/A N/A 8 8 N/A

B2 Health

18 Non-Communicable Diseases: N/D 6 6 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Management of Chronic
Diseases of Lifestyle

20 Environmental Health Promotion N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Programme

21 Strengthen District Health N/D 16 16 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
System Through Primary Health

127
 Care Expansion

22 HIV AIDS Prevention N/D 4 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

23 Treatment Care and Support N/D 5 5 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

24 Tuberculosis Control N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Programme

25 Non-Communicable Diseases N/D 8 8 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Child and Youth Health
Programmes

26 Non-Communicable Diseases N/D 6 6 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Women and Maternal Health
Programme

27 Communicate Diseases N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

28 Environmental Pollution N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Prevention and Reduction

29 Monitoring of Waste N/D 5 5 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Management Compliance at
Business Premises

TOTAL B2 N/A 58 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B3 Social Development

30 City Social Package Programme N/D 4 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

128
31 Vulnerable Groups Support N/D 9 9 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Programme

33 Displaced Persons Support N/D 13 13 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

34 Early Childhood Development N/D 10 10 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

35 Anti- Xenophobia and Common N/D 10 10 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Citizenship Programme

36 Youth and Women Skills N/D 13 13 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Development and Enrichment
Programme

37 NGO Support N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL B3 N/A 60 60 N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B4 Community Development

38 Public Library Education N/D 6 6 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Support Programme

40 Public Arts, Heritage, Culture N/D 5 5 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
and Theatrical Development
Programme

41 Sports and Recreation N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Development Programme

42 Public Spaces Rehabilitation N/D 4 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

129
 TOTAL B4 N/A 18 18 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B5 Emergency Management
Services

43 Early Emergency N/D 4 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

44 Emergency Prevention N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Programme

45 Primary Community Based N/D 4 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Emergency Response

46 Emergency Compliance N/D 4 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

47 Emergency Reporting N/D 6 6 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Improvement Programme

48 Emergency Dispatch N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

49 Rapid Response N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

50 Incident Management N/D 3 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL B5 N/A 26 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B6 Johannesburg
Metropolitan Police
Department

51 Crime Prevention N/D 5 5 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

52 Johannesburg City Safety N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

130
 Programme

53 Licensing and Traffic N/D 4 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Management

54 By-Law Enforcement N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

55 Reduction of Fraud and N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Corruption

TOTAL B6 N/A 18 18 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B7 Safer City

56 Winning Back the Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 2 N/D

57 Improve the Quality of Policing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 2 2 N/D

58 Creating a Law Abiding and N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D
Regulated City

59 Creating a Safe and Secure City N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 28 29 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D
A safe, Secure, Resilient City
that Protects Serves Builds and
Empower Communities

TOTAL B7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 29 N/A N/A 5 6 N/A

TOTAL B N/A 180 178 N/A N/A 45 46 N/A N/A N/A

COMPONENT C: GOOD

131
 GOVERNANCE

C1 Financial Sustainability/
Revenue and Customer
Management

61 Internal Audit Strategy and Plan N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
to Perform Risk Based
Assurance and Consulting
Services Directs at Improving
the Effectiveness

62 Revenue Completeness N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D

63 Expenditure Management N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D

64 Capital Project Management N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 9 9 N/D

65 Financial Sustainability/ N/D 4 4 N/D N/D 9 9 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

68 Assurance, Consulting and N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Advisory Services and Strategy
Directed/

69 On-going Clean Audits/ Internal N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 0 N/D
Audit Strategy Plan to Perform
Risk Based Assurance and
Consulting Services

70 Improved Customer Experience N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
When Interfacing with the City/

132
71 Citizen Care N/D 1 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

72 To Increase Revenue Collection N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

73 Promote the City Wide N/D N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Corporate Governance
Practices /

74 To Provide Risk management N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Consultancy Services Through
the Implementation of the
Approval Enterprise

TOTAL C1 N/A 18 19 N/A N/A 9 9 N/A N/A 12 11 N/A

C2 Engaged Active Citizenry

75 Human Capital Development N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 7 9 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
and Management

76 Citizen Participation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 4 5 N/D N/D 1 2 N/D
Empowerment

77 Community Based Planning and N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D
Budgeting

TOTAL C2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 14 N/A N/A 2 3 N/A

C3 Enabling Smart City

Initiatives/Governance Cluster

78 Strategic Communications and N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

133
 Marketing

79 Gauteng City Region N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Institutionalisation

80 Integrated Planning M &E N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

Targeting Deprived Spaces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

81 Access and Connectivity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D N/D 1 N/D

82 Integrated Intelligent Smart N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 2 2 N/D
Technology

83 Strategic Relations N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

84 Innovation and Knowledge N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sharing

85 Governance Risk and N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 7 7 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Compliance

Project Finance Help Desk N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Financial Discipline N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Financial Strategy N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Enterprise-Wide Governance N/D 1 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Regularity Process

86 Compilation of Valuation Roll N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2013

134
 TOTAL C3 N/A 5 8 N/A N/A 14 14 N/A N/A 2 3 N/A

C4 Strategy Policy
Coordination and Relations

87 Integrated Development Plan N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
IDP and Budget

88 Business Planning N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

89 SDBIP N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

90 Intergovernmental Planning N/D 1 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

91 Community Based Planning and N/D 1 5 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Outreach

92 Performance Monitoring and N/D 5 5 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Evaluation System: Group
Monitoring and Evaluation
Project

93 Performance Monitoring and N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Evaluation System: Induction
Project

94 Performance Reporting Annual N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Report Project

95 Performance Reporting Midyear N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Report Project

135
96 Performance Reporting N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Quarterly Report Project

97 Performance Reporting SDBIP N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Reporting Project

98 Strengthen Performance N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Management System:
Functioning of the
Johannesburg Performance
Audit Committee (JPAC)

99 Control Systems to Ensure N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Effective Auditing of
Performance Information

100 Johannesburg 2040 GDS N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mainstreaming

101 Corporate Information N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

102 Provide International and Local N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Strategic

103 Strategic Research N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL C4 N/A 29 35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

C5 Corporate and Shared

Services

104 Human Capital Management N/D 4 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

136
105 Occupational Health, Safety and N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Employee Wellness

106 Labour Stability N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

107 Protocol N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

108 IGR N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

109 Fleet Contract Management N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

110 Facility Management and N/D 2 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Maintenance

111 Administrative Efficiency N/D 1 4 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

112 Strategic Relations N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

113 International Relations N/D 3 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

114 Special Projects N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL C5 N/A 25 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

C6 Group Communication and

Tourism Performance

115 To ensure Effective Legal N/D 5 5 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Support to Departments

116 Ensure Legal Compliance N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

117 Ensure Effective and Efficient N/D 4 5 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Committee Support to the

137
 Mayoral

118 Stage High Profile Events that N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Show Case the City as a World
Class

119 Proactively Executive Public N/D 6 6 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Relations Programmes that
Inform the Public about the
Development

120 Execute Above the Line (ATL) N/D 3 3 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Advertissments that Show Case
City of Johannesburg Delivery
Successes

121 Execute Interactive Experiental N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Marketing Activities as Platforms

TOTAL C6 N/A 23 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL C N/A 100 110 N/A N/A 34 37 N/A N/A 16 17 N/A

COMPONENT D:
SUSTAINABLE SERVICES

D1 Resource Sustainability

124 Urban Water management N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 10 10 N/D N/D 3 3 N/D

138
125 Biodiversity Conservation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D

126 Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D

127 Climate Change and Energy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D N/D 1 N/D
Diversification

128 Integrated Waste management N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 4 5 N/D N/D 2 2 N/D

129 Greenways and Mobility N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 9 10 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

130 Shift to Low Carbon Economy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 8 8 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL D1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31 33 N/A N/A 7 8 N/A

D2 Sustainable Human
Settlements

133 Alleviation of Living Environment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D
Deprivation

134 Sustainable Human Settlements N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 9 9 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

135 Sustainable Human Settlements N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 3 3 N/D
Urbanisation Plan (SHSUP)

136 Priority Areas N/D N/D N/D N/D N/A N/A N/A N/D N/D 1 1 N/D
(CORRIDORS/Nodes)

137 Transit Oriented Development N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 2 2 N/D

138 Rea Vaya BRT Roll Out Phase N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D
1B

139
139 Rea Vaya BRT Roll Out Phase N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D
1C

140 Housing Opportunities in N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 3 3 N/D
Integrated Sustainable Human
Settlments

141 Gravel Roads N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D

142 Implementation of the Inner City N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 3 5 N/D
Road Map

TOTAL D2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 9 N/A N/A 16 18 N/A

TOTAL D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 40 42 N/A N/A 23 26 N/A

Appendices G, H and I were the basis for the contents of the above table. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were
appropriate measures for the City of Johannesburg.

140
5.2.2.3 City of Tshwane Scorecards

Table 5.9: City of Tshwane Scorecards

SERVICE DELIVERY 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

OBJ MEA TAR INIT OBJ MEA TAR INIT OBJ MEA TAR INIT

COMPONENT A: BASIC
SERVICE

01 Water Provision/ Potable Water N/D N/D 1 N/D N/D 1 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

02 Sanitation Provision Service/ N/D N/D 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Solid Waste Removal /
Waterborne Sanitation
03 Energy/Electricity N/D N/D 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

04 Basic Service Provision N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 4 4 N/D

05 Sustainable Services Provisions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 2 2 N/D

06 Mobility Optimisation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 3 3 N/D

07 Waste Management/ Solid N/D N/D 2 N/D N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
Removal
08 Human Settlement/Housing/ N/D N/D 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/D 3 3 N/D
Formalisation of Informal
Settlements/ Upgrading and
Development of Informal
Settlements
N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A 6 7 N/A N/A 12 12 N/A

141
 TOTAL

COMPONENT B: ROAD
TRANSPORT/ ECONOMIC
GROWTH
09 Roads Service N/D N/D 2 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

10 Transport Service N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

11 Storm Drainage N/D N/D 2 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

COMPONENT C: PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT/
DEVELOPMENT AND JOB
CREATION

12 City Planning N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D N/D N/D N/D

13 Local Economic Development N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D N/D N/D N/D

14 Institutional Strategy M & E and N/D N/D N/D N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D N/D N/D N/D
Research

Job Creation / Job Intensive N/D N/D 2 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/D 2 2 N/D
15 Economic Growth

TOTAL N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A 2 2 N/A

COMPONENT D: COMMUNITY

142
 AND SOCIAL SERVICES

16 SMME Support and N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D
Enterpreneurship Development

17 Social Cohesion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 2 2 N/D

18 Poverty and Inequality N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D

19 Education N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D

20 Indigent Support N/D N/D 2 N/D N/D 2 2 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 2 N/A N/A 5 5 N/A

COMPONENT E: HEALTH

21 Health N/D N/D 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D

TOTAL N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A 1 1

N/A
COMPONENT F: SAFETY AND
SECURITY

22 Safety/ Public Safety N/D N/D 3 N/D N/D 2 2 N/D N/D 2 2 N/D

TOTAL N/A N/A 3 N/A N/A 2 2 N/A N/A 2 2 N/A

COMPONENT G: SPORT AND

RECREATION

143
23 Sport and Recreation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D N/D 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

COMPONENT H: CORPORATE
POLICY OFFICES AND OTHER
SERVICES/ PARTICIPATORY
DEMOCRACY AND BATHO
PELE

24 Customer Care N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A

25 Financial Service/ Financial N/D N/D 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D
Management
26 Human Resources Management N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 1 N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A
and Service
27 Ward Committees N/D N/D 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D

28 Developing Smart City N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/D 1 1 N/D
Infrastructure
29 Institutional Governance N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 1 N/D N/D 1 1 N/D

TOTAL N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 3 5 N/A N/A 4 4 N/A

The above table was derived from Appendices J, K and L. The City of Tshwane’s measures were based on baselines.

144
5.2.3 Presentation of the GMMs’ Service Delivery Performance Outcomes

In this study, performance outcomes are represented by various achievement statuses

of targets, such as: full achievement, partial achievement, non-achievement, and over-
achievement. Thus, this section covers the presentation of the target achievement
status of each service delivery performance displayed in the annual report. In this
section, service deliveries were abridged, focusing only on their components. In other
words, all detailed service deliveries presented in the previous tables of this chapter
were integrated into their relevant components, in order to make further analysis easier.
Therefore, the performance outcomes of each GMM were presented in a table divided
into four main columns representing the following: service delivery components; the
financial year 2011-2012; the 2012-2013 financial years; and the 2013-2014 financial
years. Each financial year column was sub-divided into five lines labeled as follows:
Targets Set=T; Targets achieved=AC; Targets not achieved=NA; Targets partially
achieved=P/A, and Targets over-achieved=O/A. In addition, N/D and N/A remain
applicable, as mentioned in section 5.2 of this chapter.

145
 5.2.3.1 Ekurhuleni Performance Outcomes

Table 5.10: Ekurhuleni performance Outcomes

SERVICE 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

DELIVERY
COMPONENTS TA AC NA P/A O/A TA AC NA P/A O/A TA AC N/A P/A O/A

Component A: 46 N/D N/D N/D N/D 20 N/D N/D N/D N/D 15 N/D N/D N/D N/D
Basic Service
Component B: 26 N/D N/D N/D N/D 9 N/D N/D N/D N/D 5 N/D N/D N/D N/D
Road Transport
Component 32 N/D N/D N/D N/D 14 N/D N/D N/D N/D 14 N/D N/D N/D N/D
C:Planning and
Development
Component D: 36 N/D N/D N/D N/D 11 N/D N/D N/D N/D 9 N/D N/D N/D N/D
Community and
Social Services
Component E: 0 N/D N/D N/D N/D 5 N/D N/D N/D N/D 3 N/D N/D N/D N/D
Environmental
Protection
Component 10 N/D N/D N/D N/D 6 N/D N/D N/D N/D 8 N/D N/D N/D N/D
F:Health

Component 26 N/D N/D N/D N/D 13 N/D N/D N/D N/D 6 N/D N/D N/D N/D
G:Safety and
Security
Component ND N/D N/D N/D N/D 5 N/D N/D N/D N/D 1 N/D N/D N/D N/D
H:Sport and
Recreation

146
Component I: 112 N/D N/D N/D N/D 30 N/D N/D N/D N/D 19 N/D N/D N/D N/D
Corporate
Policy offices
and Other
Services

The table presented above was derived from Appendices D, E and F

5.2.3.2 City of Johannesburg Performance Outcomes

Table 5.11: City of Johannesburg Performance Outcomes

SERVICE DELIVERY 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

COMPONENTS

TA AC NA P/A O/A TA AC NA P/A O/A TA AC NA P/A O/A

A. ECONOMIC GROWTH

Provide a Resilient Livable 17 1 4 2 2 40 27 10 1 N/A 5 4 1 N/A N/A

Environment

TOTAL 17 1 4 4 4 40 27 10 1 N/A 5 4 1 N/A N/A

B. HUMAN AND SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENT

B1Agriculture and Food N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 6 3 2 5 8 7 1 N/A N/A

147
B2 Health 58 44 6 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 N/D N/D N/D N/D

B3 Social Development 60 27 8 9 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B4 Community 18 7 0 0 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Development

B5 Emergency 24 10 9 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Management Services

B6 Johannesburg 18 4 1 7 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Metropolitan Police
Department

B7 Safer City N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29 17 4 1 7 6 3 2 1 N/D

TOTAL 178 92 24 25 35 45 23 7 3 12 20 10 3 1 N/A

C. GOOD GOVERNANCE

C1 Financial 19 4 2 2 8 9 1 1 3 2 11 5 6 N/A N/A

Sustainability/Revenue and
Customer Management

C2 Engaged Active Citizen N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 3 7 3 1 3 2 1 N/A N/A

C3 Enabling Smart City 8 3 N/D N/D N/D 14 2 8 2 N/A 3 1 2 N/A N/A

Initiatives/Governance
Cluster

C4 Group Strategy Policy 35 19 1 N/D N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Coordination and Relations

148
C5 Group Corporate and 24 6 16 N/D N/D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Shared Services-

C6 Group Communication 24 6 11 0 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
and Tourism Performance

TOTAL 110 38 30 2 14 37 6 16 8 3 17 8 9 N/A N/A

D. SUSTAINABLE
SERVICES

D1 Resource Sustainability N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33 8 7 9 5 8 3 6 N/A N/A

D2 Sustainable Human N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 4 4 1 N/A 18 6 9 N/A N/A
Settlements

TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 42 12 11 10 5 26 9 15 N/A N/A

Appendices G, H and I were the basis for the contents of the above table.

149
 5.2.3.3 City of Tshwane Performance Outcomes

Table 5.12: City of Tshwane Performance Outcomes

SERVICE 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

DELIVERY
TA AC N/A P/A O/A TA AC N/A P/A O/A TA AC N/A P/A O/A

Component 6 N/D N/D N/D N/D 7 0 0 3 4 12 9 2 0 0

A: Basic
Service
Component 4 N/D N/D N/D N/D 2 0 0 0 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
B: Road
Transport
Component 2 N/D N/D N/D N/D 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0
C:Planning
and
Development/
Economic
Growth and
Job Creation
Component 2 N/D N/D N/D N/D 2 1 0 0 1 5 2 3 0 0
D:
Community
and Social
Services/
Sustainable
Communities
Component 1 N/D N/D N/D N/D 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
E:Health

150
Component 3 N/D N/D N/D N/D 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0
F:Safety and
Security
Component N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 0 0 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
G:Sport and
Recreation
Component 1 N/D N/D N/D N/D 5 3 1 0 1 4 2 2 0 0
H: Corporate
Policy offices
and Other
Services/
Governance

The above table was derived from Appendices J, K and L.

151
5.3 CONTENT DATA ANALYSIS

In chapter four of this study, the concept of content analysis was discussed in detail.
This section presents the content analysis of collected data. As mentioned in the
previous chapter, summative content analysis was conducted. For this reason, the
presentation of the data included a summation of all service deliveries integrated into
each component. This was a way of reducing the volume of the data, in order to
proceed to its analysis. However, this did not concern the data collected for metropolitan
municipalities. Above all, only the total sum of each of these service delivery
components was the subject of data analysis. Furthermore, the analysis of performance
management, balanced scorecards and the performance outcomes of GMMs was
covered in this section.

5.3.1 GMMs’ Performance Management

The following table is derived from Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. It presents the GMMs’
performance management. Since the presentation of such data was not only the subject
of summation, but was also sufficiently clear, the researcher proceeded in a straight line
to its interpretation in section 5.4.

Table 5.13: Performance Management and Performance Measurement Framework of

Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities

Ekurhuleni Johannesburg Tshwane

Setting Objectives: Not Setting Objectives: Not Setting Objectives: is a part

disclosed disclosed of the performance
management framework
Setting Measures: is a part Setting Measures: is a part
of the PMS of the City PMS Setting Measures: is a part
of the performance
Setting Targets: is a part of Setting Targets: is a part of management framework
the PMS the City PMS
Setting Targets: is a part of

152
 Setting Strategic Initiatives: Setting Strategic Initiatives: the performance
Not disclosed Not disclosed management framework

Performance Measurement Performance Measurement Setting Strategic Initiatives:

Framework: Not disclosed Framework: BSC Not disclosed

Performance Measurement
Framework: BSC

Regarding the implementation of the BSC for service delivery by GMMs, the study
found the following:

 Ekurhuleni Municipality

The performance management system of the Ekurhuleni Municipality provided for

activities such as selecting measures and setting targets, while the setting of objectives
and strategic initiatives were not part of this system. Out of four main activities for
implementing the BSC, only the provision for two was mentioned in the Municipality’s
policy. The findings also indicated that the BSC was not adopted as a performance
measurement framework by this Metropolitan Municipality.

 City of Johannesburg

Although the City of Johannesburg has made provision for the adoption of the BSC,
activities related to its implementation, such as the setting of objectives and strategic
initiatives, were not provided for in the policy of the City. Out of the four main
components of the BSC framework, only two were stated in the City’s policy, namely the
selection of measures and setting of targets.

 City of Tshwane

According to the above table, out of the four main steps for implementing the BSC, only
three were cited in the policy of the City of Tshwane. These three included the setting of

153
objectives, measures, and targets. The setting of strategic initiatives was not displayed
in its policy. The BSC was provided to be used as a performance measurement
framework for this Municipality.

5.3.2 GMMs’ Scorecards

As referred to earlier in this section, the study conducted a summative content analysis.
For this to be achieved, the number of objectives, measures, targets and initiatives were
counted. Only the total of their summation was used for final examination. Likewise, the
total of each component of service delivery was the core for data analysis. Those that
were not disclosed or not available were considered as a zero during the calculation.
The study proceeded to summative content analysis through charts, in order to explore
the existing balance or imbalance between the components of the BSC. Although these
charts included percentages, they were not taken into account, since the study was
based on qualitative research. However, this may be used by other readers who are
willing to verify the reliability and validity of the data.

154
Figure 5.8: Analysis of Ekurhuleni Municipality Scorecards

155
Figure 5.8 shows that during the financial year 2011-2012, selected measures of
Component A were higher than objectives and targets set. Similarly, this was the case
for Components B, D, F and G. In contrast, regarding Components C and I, objectives
and targets were higher than measures. Nevertheless, objectives and targets set for
Components A, B, C, D, F, G and I were fairly balanced. In short, there was a balance
between objectives, measures and targets for Components B, C, D, and E. In spite of
this, measures and targets of Component G were balanced and more poorly set than
objectives. However, these elements were imbalanced for Components A and I.
Furthermore, not only was no result shown for Components E and H, but there was
also no information on the setting of strategic initiatives.

In comparison with the previous financial year, there was an equilibrium between
objectives, measures and targets for Components A, D, E, H and I in 2012-2013. On
the one hand, objectives and measures were fairly set for Components B and C, but at
the same time lower set than targets, while on the other hand, objectives and measures
were equal and higher than the targets of Component F. However, they were
imbalanced for Component G. In addition, the results for initiatives were missing for all
components.

Regarding the financial year 2013-2014, objectives, measures and targets were
balanced for Components D and G. In the case of Components C and F, although
objectives and measures were equally set, they were all lower than their respective
targets. At the same time, they were roughly higher than these targets for Components
A, B, E, H and I. Another fact was that strategic initiatives were not set at all for this
financial year.

156
Figure 5.9: Analysis of the City of Johannesburg Scorecards

The above figure shows that during the three financial years under study, the City of Johannesburg did not set objectives
and initiatives. Equally important, in 2011-2012, there was a considerable imbalance between the selected measures and
targets for Components A, B and C. Notwithstanding, there was no result shown for Component D.

157
The situation for the financial year 2012-2013 was similar to the previous year. Indeed, the existing balance between
measures and their relative targets was maintained for the four components. Likewise, this was the case for Components
B, C and D in 2013-2014. At the same time, measures and targets were balanced for Component A during the same
financial year.

Figure 5.10: Analysis of the City of Tshwane Scorecards

158
According to figure 5.10 during 2011-2012, objectives, measures and initiatives were
not established for all components. Targets were set only for Components A, B, C, D,
E, F and H, but not for Component G. This was in contrast to the financial year 2012-
2013, where measures and targets were equally set for Components B, C, D, E and F,
while they were approximately imbalanced for Components A and H. However, the
relative measure for the target of Component G was missing. Moreover, there was a
balance between measures and targets set for Components A, C, D, E, F and H during
the financial year 2013-2014, although information regarding these elements was not
available for Components B and G.

5.3.3 GMMs’ Performance Outcomes

In this regard, the procedure for analysis was similar to that for the BSC implementation,
as presented in the section above. However, for this section, summative content
analysis was used by counting the number of targets set, fully achieved, not achieved,
partially achieved, and over-achieved. The number zero was used for the data which
was not disclosed. Regarding the impact of the BSC on performance outcomes, the
study found the following:

159
Figure 5.11: Analysis of Ekurhuleni Municipality (EM) Performance Outcomes

The above table shows that during the 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 financial years, the achievement status of
targets was not determined for the Ekurhuleni Municipality. However, in the annual report, achievement was evaluated in
terms of percentages, as shown in Appendix D. This was not taken into account, since such a result was not relevant to
this study.

160
Figure 5.12: Analysis of the City of Johannesburg Performance Outcomes

According to the above table, the full achievement of targets was realised for Component A during 2011-2012. At the
same time, the partial achievement for Component B was higher than targets not achieved and over-achieved.
Nevertheless, the non-achievement for Component C was considerable in 2011-2012. Accordingly, targets not attained
were low, whereas the achieved, partially achieved and over-achieved targets were higher. No outcomes were shown for
Component D.

161
In the CoJ during 2012-2013 for Component A, targets achieved were higher than
targets not achieved. However, the partial achievement was lower. The result did not
show any over-achievement of targets for this component. In contrast, the over-
achievement of targets was remarkable for Component B. In fact, the non-achievement
and partial achievement were lower than the achieved targets. With regard to
Component C, the non-achievement and partial achievement of targets was higher
than the over-achieved ones. At the same time, targets were fully achieved, but in a
poor manner. In spite of Component C, targets set for Component D were mainly
partially achieved. However, the non-achievement and over-achievement of targets
were similar. Furthermore, the full accomplishment of targets was not significant.

The results for the financial year 2013-2014 showed that the achievement of targets
was higher than the non-achievement for Component A. However, no targets were
reported as being over-achieved and partially achieved. With regard to Component B,
the over-achievement of targets was not defined, and there was a higher partial
achievement of targets than full and non-achievement. In spite of this, the non-
achievement of targets was higher than the achieved ones, while no targets were
reported as partially and over-achieved for Component C. This was also the situation
for Component D.

162
Figure 5.13: Analysis of the City of Tshwane Performance Outcomes

163
During the financial year 2011-2012, the findings for the City of Tshwane revealed that
the status of target achievement was not reported for all components. However, in
2012-2013, partial target achievement was higher than over-achievement for
Component A. At the same time, no targets were reported as fully achieved or non-
achieved. For Component B, targets were only over-achieved. This was similar for
Components C, E and G. With regard to Component D, the achievement of targets
was greater than their over-achievement. Partial and non-achievement of targets was
not revealed. Targets set for Component F on the one hand were significantly fully
achieved, while on the other hand, the partial achievement of targets was higher than
their over-achievement. Nonetheless, the targets for Component H were fully achieved.
In addition, the over-achievement of targets was lower than their partial achievement.
The financial year 2013-2014 reported that there was no partial and over-achievement
of targets in general. The full achievement of targets for Component A was higher than
the non-achievement. In contrast, the non-achievement of targets was higher than the
full achievement for Components C, D and H. In addition, targets set for Component E
were not achieved. Conversely, the results showed that there was a full achievement of
targets set for Component F.

5.4 DISCUSSION

This section discusses the research findings. The aim of this discussion is simply to
verify the achievement of research objectives. For easy reading, the research objectives
are discussed in through the following sub-sections:

5.4.1 Research Objective 1

The first research objective of this study was to examine the extent to which
performance management systems of GMMs may facilitate the adoption of the BSC. To
meet the first objective, the study examined the GMMs’ performance management
activities and found that these systems were not suitable for the adoption and
implementation of the BSC, since some activities related to the implementation of such a

164
tool were not provided for by their policies. For example, setting objectives, selecting
measures and establishing targets was part of Tshwane’s performance management
systems, while for Ekurhuleni and Johannesburg, only the selection of measures and
setting of targets were provided for by the system. Since the setting of objectives is not
integrated into these two municipalities, they have failed to meet the principal condition
for performance assessment, as indicated by Otley and Berry (1980). However, they do
fulfil the critical aspect of performance management, by establishing targets (Ferreira
and Otley, 2009:271).

5.4.2 Research Objective 2

The determination of the performance measurement framework of GMMs was the

second objective of this study. The study revealed that the BSC is adopted as a
performance measurement framework by the Cities of Johannesburg and Tshwane.
However, this is was not the case for Ekurhuleni Municipality, which besides the BSC,
did not adopt any other measurement tool. The situation of Ekurhuleni confirms that
organisations lack frameworks to measure performance, as suggested by Maltz,
Shenhar and Reilly (2003:188).

5.4.3 Research Objective 3

The third objective of this study was to scrutinise the extent to which the implementation
of the BSC by GMMs complies with the original BSC framework designed by Kaplan
and Norton. As mentioned in Chapter 2, as well as sub-section 5.7.1 of this chapter,
setting objectives, measures, targets and strategic initiatives are the basic elements for
implementing the BSC. These phases are integrated into the BSC framework (Kaplan &
Norton, 1996:76).

In order to meet the above objective, the study, through service delivery performance,
examined the existence of these elements and found that not all of them were taken into
account by GMMs. For example, establishing initiatives was not applied by all the

165
GMMs. However, only Ekurhuleni set objectives, although the BSC was not
implemented for its service delivery performance. Nevertheless, the Cities of
Johannesburg and Tshwane’s scorecards focused only on measures and targets.
Furthermore, there was an imbalance between these elements, and some of the
components were missing.

According to Huang (2009:209-216), objectives set through the BSC are linked to their
appropriate measures. In the same way, Santiago (2014:1572) assumed that a target
should also be identified by a measure. From these statements, the irregularities of the
GMMs were revealed. Another aspect is that initiatives were not set at all, although
Nieplowicz (2014:99) suggested the collection of measures in relation to strategic
initiatives and actions.

With regard to the above discussion, the study found that the BSC was not implemented
in accordance with the original framework designed by Kaplan and Norton. Even though
the same authors (Kaplan & Norton, 1993:135) offered organisations the opportunity to
modify their scorecards according to their mission, strategy, technology and culture,
Storey (2002:326) claims that the BSC framework remains the basic framework for its
implementation. The tool cannot be implemented without the four stages being
incorporated into its framework. Therefore, the success of the BSC implementation may
depend on its framework.

5.4.4 Research Objective 4

The fourth research objective was to investigate the extent to which the implementation
of the BSC impacts on the performance outcomes of service delivery. In order to meet
the fourth research objective, the study, through an in-depth examination of the content
of service delivery performance, revealed the number of targets set, number of targets
achieved, number of targets not achieved, number of targets partially achieved and
number of targets over-achieved.

166
This study observed not only the failure to reach most of the targets, but also to define
the achievement status of targets. According to Moynihan and Pandey (2010:849);
Brudney, Hebert, and Wright (1999) and Moynihan (2008), the necessity for measuring
objectives and target achievements is common to governments that want to make
improvements. In view of this, the failure to define the achievement status of targets by
GMMs is a disadvantage, since it makes it difficult to determine performance success or
insufficiency, which in turn will probably affect the establishment of measures for further
improvements.

5.5 CONCLUSION

In this chapter, data collected from the policies and annual reports of GMMs for the
financial years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 was presented. Policies were
used to collect data related to the performance management systems and performance
measurement framework for each GMM. In the annual reports, the focus was on the
section regarding service delivery performance, because it covered the scorecards of
the Municipalities under investigation.

After the presentation of collected data in section 2 of this chapter, section 3 dealt with
the analysis of the data, and the findings were discussed in section 4. The analysis
showed that GMMs’ performance management policies did not provide for activities
such as the setting of strategic initiatives at all, but provision was made for selecting
measures and setting targets. The policies of Ekurhuleni Municipality and the City of
Johannesburg have not made provision for the setting of objectives, while this was
mentioned by the City of Tshwane. It was also revealed that the performance
management systems of the Cities of Johannesburg and Tshwane were provided for in
the adoption of the BSC as a performance measurement framework for these two cities,
while nothing was mentioned for the Ekurhuleni Municipality in this regard.

With regard to the implementation of the BSC, the study found that in GMMs, the BSC
was not implemented properly. There were some irregularities, such as an imbalance

167
between selected measures and targets. Indeed, some measures were either higher
than targets, or the other way around. Another fact was that initiatives facilitating the
accomplishment of targets were not set during the three financial years. Consequently,
this has a negative impact on the performance outcomes of their service delivery.

The next chapter will offer conclusions, recommendations, as well as areas for future
research.

168
 CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the conclusion of the study and its findings are presented, and
recommendations are made about the best way for organisations, such as local
government authorities, to improve their service delivery performance by implementing
the Balanced Scorecard. The main objective of this study was to investigate the
implementation of the BSC for service delivery performance. The title of the study was
intended to highlight the fact that the implementation of the BSC by Gauteng
Metropolitan Municipalities (GMMs) can indeed be a valuable tool for effective
performance outcomes in terms of service delivery.

The study was premised on the problem that firstly, GMMs do not have a proper
management system to facilitate the adoption of the BSC. Secondly, they do not adopt
the BSC design properly or implement the tool according to its original framework,
which contains essential elements for its success. The researcher therefore set out to
investigate how GMMs implement the BSC for effective outcomes with regard to service
delivery performance.
The objectives of the study were to:

1. Examine the extent to which the performance management systems of the GMMs
facilitate the adoption of the BSC.
2. Define the performance measurement framework of GMMs.
3. Determine the extent to which the implementation of the BSC by the GMMs complies
with the original BSC framework developed by Kaplan and Norton in 1992.
4. Observe the impact of the implementation of the BSC on service delivery performance
outcomes.

169
Data were collected by means of primary data of published documents, such as
performance management policies and annual reports for the financial years 2011-
2012, 2012/2013 and 2013-2014 of each GMM (Ekurhuleni, Johannesburg and
Tshwane). Data on performance management systems were presented in the form of a
table which outlined the basic elements for the implementation of the BSC, as included
in its framework, such as objectives, measures, targets and strategic initiatives.
Collected data on service delivery performance were presented through the table in
relation to the BSC framework. Another table was also created to present the
performance outcomes data, which included the following: number of targets, number of
targets achieved, number of targets not achieved, number of targets partially achieved,
and number of targets overachieved.

The structure of this chapter is presented underneath:

170
 Figure 6.8: Structure of Chapter Six

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Summary of the study

6.3 Summary of Findings

6.3.1 Ekurhuleni Municipality

6.3.2 City of Johannesburg
6.3.6 City of Tshwane

6.4 Recommendations

6.4.1 Ekurhuleni Municipality

6.4.2 City of Johannesburg
6.4.3 City of Tshwane

6.5 Areas for Future Research

171
6.2 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY

The first chapter provided an orientation to the study, which encompassed the problem
statement, research objectives, and research questions. In addition, a brief overview of
the methodology was provided, and the delineation, limitations and significance of the
study were discussed. Key terms used in the study were also defined in this chapter.

In order to address the research objectives, the study first established a theoretical
framework from the literature review, which covered the main features that facilitate the
implementation of the BSC. The contents of this framework constituted the content
analysis in this study.

Chapter two focused on the theoretical framework, which included four key elements
which were discussed as follows: In section 2.2, it was emphasised that performance
management (PM) is fundamental to organisational performance, and all issues related
to performance are dealt with through PM. The term ‘performance management’ was
carefully considered in this study, since service delivery performance is the main
concern of GMMs as local government authorities. This section also mentioned that the
setting of objectives, measures and targets, and the achievement of target results are
the various roles of PM.

Section 2.3 focused on PM and performance measurement as the two main processes
connected to any performance. It emphasised that performance measurement is a part
of PM and cannot be separated from it. Therefore, there should be a performance
measurement framework under PM.

Section 2.4 presented an overview of the BSC framework, which includes the following
elements: strategy and vision, as well as financial, customer, business process, and
learning and growth perspectives. Objectives, measures, targets and strategic initiatives
are also part of this framework. This section focused more on these four components of
the BSC framework, which are subsequent steps for its implementation.

172
In a discussion on objective setting in sub-section 2.4.1, it was suggested that the
setting of objectives should be the first activity to be completed by organisations before
the selection of measures, which was discussed in sub-section 2.4.2. The discussion
emphasised that the combination of set objectives and selected measures facilitate
enhanced organisational performance. Selecting measures is the centre of the BSC, as
highlighted in this sub-section.

Sub-section 2.4.3 showed that the setting of targets supports objectives. In this regard,
targets and objectives are not only the basic elements for assessing organisational
performance, but also drive organisational performance. It was also noted that
measures set against targets determine performance outcomes. Moreover, the setting
of strategic initiatives is the central interest of the BSC, as mentioned in sub-section 2.4.
In section 2.5, it was mentioned that a combination of performance outcomes is
generated by a good BSC. In addition, these outcomes can be measured quantitatively.

Chapter three provided an overview of PM activities and practices through the literature
review in section 3.2. On the one hand, strategy and mission are suggested to be parts
of a PMS, and on the other hand, particular activities, such as objectives, strategies and
plans, as well as targets, must be taken into account by non-profit organisations.
Furthermore, PM practices are extremely beneficial for this area in terms of the
enhancement of organisational performance.

Section 3.3 focused on PM activities and service delivery in the South African Local
Government Association (SALGA), and section 3.4 dealt with performance
measurement frameworks. This was followed by section 3.5, which looked at the design
of the public BSC. In this regard, it was emphasised that the BSC was implemented in
the public sector to measure performance. In view of this, pressure for its
implementation by local government authorities has also been increased. Thus, section
3.6 concerned the implementation of the BSC in the public sector in general, as well as
in local government in particular.

173
Performance outcomes were the focus of section 3.7, while challenges in implementing
the BSC in the public sector were discussed in section 3.8, and section 3.9 concluded
the chapter.

The research methodology of the study was discussed in detail in chapter four. Section
4.2 indicated that the study had adopted a qualitative and descriptive research
approach and design. For this reason, the realism paradigm was selected from the
different research paradigms in section 4.3. This led to the choice of a case study as the
research method, as mentioned in section 4.4. Finally, the procedures and protocols for
data collection were discussed in section 4.5. This included the literature review,
document review, as well as the collection of evidence.

Section 4.6 focused on the target population and units for analysis, followed by section
4.7, which dealt with data analysis. This section discussed the use of conventional
qualitative content analysis, since categories and sub-categories were created from the
raw data comprised in the policies and annual reports of GMMS. The section
emphasised that only manifest contents were collected from the raw data and then
analysed manually. The discussion in section 4.8 focused on the reliability and validity
of the findings. Since this study adopted a qualitative approach, the criteria for the
quality of qualitative research, such as credibility, transferability, dependability and
conformability, were explored in order to evaluate the reliability and validity of the
research findings. The final section concluded the chapter.

In chapter five, performance management and the performance measurement

framework were examined through the policies of GMMs. In addition, service delivery
performance and performance outcomes were discussed with reference to the annual
reports of GMMs. From these policies and reports, data were collected and presented in
detail in section 5.2, and after the reduction of the data size, this collected information
was analysed and discussed in sections 5.3 and 5.4 respectively, according to the pre-
established research objectives. This was followed by a brief conclusion in section 5.5.

174
6.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
6.3.1 Ekurhuleni Municipality

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality possessed a PM policy providing only for the
selection of measures and setting of targets. Other activities, such as the definition of
objectives and strategic initiatives to reach those objectives and their targets, were not
part of the municipal policy. As such, the performance management (PM) guiding
principle was not appropriate for adopting and implementing the BSC. Moreover,
through its policy, it was also found that no provision was made for the adoption of a
performance measurement framework. However, the set objectives, selected measures
and established targets for service delivery were disclosed in the report.

In this regard, no distinction was made between objectives and indicators Therefore, the
objectives and indicators were similar for the financial years of 2012-2013 and 2013-
2014. Although there was a balance between the number of objectives, measures and
targets for 2011-2012, some inequalities between them were also revealed.
Furthermore, theperformance outcomes for service delivery in this Municipality were not
reported for the financial years under study.

6.3.2 City Of Johannesburg

The policy of the City’s PM made provision for the selection of measures and targets.
However, the setting of objectives and strategic initiatives was not integrated into this
policy. Moreover, the BSC model of Kaplan and Norton was chosen to be adopted as
the City’s performance measurement framework.

At any rate, the implementation of the BSC during the three financial years under study
did not comply with the adopted framework. Indeed, the objectives and initiatives were
not taken into account in the developed scorecard. At the same time, although
measures and targets were set for different components of service delivery, there was a
noticeable imbalance between them. In addition, the City had established a large

175
number of targets, which affected the determination of the status of target
achievements.

6.3.3 City Of Tshwane

The contents of the City of Tshwane’s policy showed that activities such as setting
objectives, selecting measures and setting targets were incorporated into the PM
framework. Nevertheless, the establishment of strategic initiatives was not provided for
in this system. Furthermore, the adoption of the BSC as its performance measurement
framework was mentioned in its policy. However, the tool was not implemented
properly.

Indeed, none of the objectives and strategic initiatives was indicated in the annual
reports for all three financial years. However, during 2013-2014, measures and targets
were rightly set. As a result, there was a regular symmetry between them. In spite of
this, however, some irregularities were visible during 2012-2013 with regard to the
equilibrium between measures and targets, as well as the absence of measures during
the financial year 2011-2012.

6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.4.1 Ekurhuleni Municipality

Within the policy of performance management systems, an appropriate performance

measurement system or framework has to be well-defined, as well as providing a tool
for its use. The City has to develop a performance measurement framework which will
also make the use and implementation of the BSC easier.

Although it is theoretically included in its policy, the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

does not espouse the BSC as its performance measurement framework. However,
practically ¾ of the essential activities for its implementation, such as objectives,

176
measures and targets, are already applied, even though the objectives and measures
are identical. Thus, this study suggests that the Municipality should adopt the original
BSC framework, and that strategic initiatives should be included in this framework.

Obviously, there should be a difference between objectives and indicators. Therefore,

these two concepts have to be separated from one another when reporting on them.
Moreover, it is also suggested that the Ekurhuleni Municipality should indicate the
outcomes of each annual target set. It should also provide the performance outcomes of
each of its service delivery components, by determining whether or not each target was
achieved, not achieved, partially achieved or overachieved.

6.4.2 City Of Johannesburg

The inclusion of objective setting in the City scorecard should be requisite, since it has
already been listed amongst its performance management (PM) activities. The policy
should also include activities such as the setting of strategic initiatives. Furthermore, as
the City of Johannesburg has adopted the BSC as its performance measurement
framework, it should be compulsory for the tool to be designed in accordance with its
original framework, in order to facilitate its implementation.

The City should add objectives and strategic initiatives for each service delivery
component to its scorecard, since selecting measures and setting targets are already
included. Simultaneously, a balance between objectives, measures, targets and
strategic initiatives should be achieved. The City should avoid reporting incomplete
outcomes of targets set for its service delivery performance.

177
6.4.3 City Of Tshwane

Since the setting of objectives has been mentioned in the City policy, its implementation
should be required. Moreover, strategic initiatives should be included not only in the
City’s policy, but also in its scorecard.

The BSC has been adopted by the City of Tshwane and the number of measures
selected is in line with the targets set. It should thus be required to not only incorporate
objectives and strategic initiatives in its scorecard, but also to balance them with the
basic elements of the BSC.

6.5 AREAS FOR FUTURE REASEARCH

This study investigated the implementation of the BSC by GMMs, as well as its impact
on service delivery performance outcomes. The findings of the study included numerous
recommendations, not only for researchers, but also for managers. With regard to
performance management, the study highlighted the need to investigate the concept
more closely, not just in terms of policy and regulation, but also in terms of its
applicability.

Secondly, as discussed earlier in the study, the aim of the BSC is to measure
performance. The research findings indicated that the implementation of the BSC failed
to comply with its original framework. This is due to the lack of a good performance
management system, which in turn affects performance measurement.

Before adopting a performance measurement framework, there should be an

appropriate performance measurement system in place, in order to ensure its success.
Consequently, future research in the mentioned areas should focus more on the
investigation of standard requirements for measuring performance especially in the
public sector.

178
REFERENCES

AbdullahI.,UmairT., Rashid Yand Naeem B.2013.Developments on Balanced Scorecard:

A Historical Review. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(1):134-141.

Aguinis, H. 2007. Performance Management (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.

Akinboade, O.A, Kinfack E.C and Mokwena M. P. 2012. An analysis of Citizen

Satisfaction with Public Service Delivery in the Sedibeng District Municipality of South
Africa. International Journal of Social Economics, 39 (3):182-199.

Alfeld, L. E. 1988. Construction Productivity, on-Site Measurement and Management.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

All-Najjar, S.M and Kalaf K.H. 2012. International Journal of Business Administration
3(4). Available at: ISSN1923-4015. Accessed on 4 September 2013.

Amaratunga, D and Baldry, D. 2002. Moving Performance Measurement to

Performance Management. Facilities, 20 (5/6):217-223.

Ammons, D N and Rivenbark W.C. 2008. Factors Influencing the Use of Performance
Data to Improve Municipal Services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking
Project. Public Administration Review • March | April 2008.

Anthony, R.N and Govindarajan V. 1998. Management Control Systems. Dosen

Pengampu: Dhyah Setyorini, M.SI., Ak.

Aoki, M and Hasebe, M. 2012. Significance of Learning Process in Balanced Scorecard

Introducing Process in Japanese SME. Discussion Paper Number, 102. Available at

179
http:// www.arcept.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/201201-APMAAPaper. Accessed on
10 April 2014.

Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I and Steccolini I. 2015. Performance Management in the Public
Sector: The Ultimate Challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1): 0267-
4424.

Atkinson, A .A, Waterhouse, J.H and Wells, R.B. 1997. A Stakeholder Approach to
Strategic Performance Measurement. Sloan Management Review, 25–37.

Ax C and Bjørnenak T. 2005. Bundling and Diffusion of Management Accounting

Innovations -The Case of the Balanced Scorecard in Sweden. Management Accounting
Research, 16 (1):1-20.

Babbie, E. 2007. The Practice of Social Research. Eleventh Edition, Thomson

Wadsworth.

Babour, R. S. 1998. Mixing Qualitative Methods: Quality Assurance or Qualitative

quagmire? Qualitative Health Research, 8(3):352-361.

Barnabe, F. 2011. A system Dynamics-Based Balanced Scorecard to Support Strategic

Decision Making.Insights from a Case Study. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 60(5):446-473.

Bailey, C. A. 2007. A Guide to Qualitative Field Research. Pine Forge Press.

Bashir, M, Afzal M.A and Azeem M. 2008. Reliability and Validity of Qualitative and
Operational Research Paradigm. Pak.j.stat.oper.res. IV (1):35-45.

Betianu, L. and Briciu, S. 2011. Balanced Scorecard-Sustainable Development Tool.

Available

180
at:http://anale.feaa.uaic.ro/anale/resurse/2011SEctb2betianu.pdf.Accesson7October201
3. Accessed on 12 July 2013.

Berg, B. Content analysis. In: Berg B.1998. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social
Sciences. Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon; 1998:233-252.

Bhattacharya, D. K. 2011. Performance Management System and Strategies. Pearson

Education Distributor.

Bible, L, Kerr, S and Zanini, M.2006. The Balanced Scorecard: Here and back: From its
Beginnings a Performance Measurement Tool. Management Accounting Quarterly.
Available at:
https://faculty.biu.ac.i//~shnaidh/200/00/nihul/The%20balanced%20scorecard.pdf.
Accessed on 20 October 2014.

Biron, M., Farndale, E and Paauwe, J. 2011.Performance Management Effectiveness:

Lessons from World-Leading Firms. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22(6):1294–1311.

Bititci, U.S., Mendibil K, Martinez V and Albores P. 2005. Measuring and Managing
Performance in Extended Enterprises. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 25(4):333 – 353.

Biswas, B. 2013. Compensation and Benefit Design: Applying Finance and Accounting
Principles to global HRMs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times/Prentice hall;
London: Perason Education Distributor.

Black, S., Briggs, S and Keogh W. 2001. Service Quality Performance Measurement in
Public/Private Sectors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(7):400-5.

181
Blumberg, B, Cooper D.R and Schindler P. S. 2005. Business Research Methods.
McGraw-Hill Education.

Bouckaert, G and Halligan J. 2008. Comparing Performance across Public Sectors.

Routledge, London, in press.

Bowen, A.G.2009. Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative

Research Journal 9(2):27-40.

Bourne, M. 2005. Researching Performance Measurement System Implementation: The

Dynamics of Success and Failure. Production Planning and Control, 16(2):101-113.

Braam, G. and Nijssen E. 2011. Exploring Antecedents of Experimentation and

Implementation of the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Management and Organisation,
17(6):1-15.

Bradley, J. 1993. Methodological Issues and Practices in Qualitative Research. Library

Quarterly 63(4):431-449.

Brudan, A. 2010. Rediscovering Performance Management: Systems, Learning and

Integration. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Measuring Business Excellence,
14(1):109-123.

Brynard, P.A. & Hanekom, S.X. 2006. Introduction to Research Management-Related

fields. 2nd ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Budde, J. 2007. Performance Measure Congruity and the Balanced Scorecard. Journal
of Accounting Research, 45(3):515-539.

Burnard, P. 1996. Counselling Skills Training: A Source Book of Activities for Trainers.
Kogan Page.

182
Burns, A.C and Bush, R.F. 2006. Marketing Research. Fifth Edition. Prentrice Hall.

Cameron, R and Sewell, B. 2003. The Implementation of Performance Management in

the Cape Town Municipality. South African Journal of economic and Management
Sciences, 6(2):243-261.

Carroll, B.W. and Dewar, D.I. 2002. Performance Management: Panacea or Fool’s
Gold’, in C. Dunn (ed.). The Handbook of Canadian Public Administration, 400–29.
Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Castka, P., Bamber, C and Sharp, J. 2003. Measuring Teamwork Culture: The Use of a
Modified EFQM Model. Journal of Management Development, 22:149–170.

Chan, Y. L. 2004. Performance Measurement and Adoption of Balanced Scorecards: A

Survey of Municipal Governments in the USA and Canada. The International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 17(2–3):204–221.

Chang, L. 2007. The NHS Performance Assessment Framework as a Balanced

Scorecard Approach: Limitations and Implications. The International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 20(2):101– 117.

Chenhall, R.H. 2003. Management Control Systems Design within its Organizational
Context: Findings from Contingency-Based Research and Directions for the Future.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2/3):127-168.

Chenhall, R.H., Langfield S. K. 2007. Multiple Perspectives of Performance

Measures. European Management Journal, 25:266-282.

Chen Yuan Chen, Yi-Feng Yang-Cheng-Wu Chen,Lien-Tung Chen and Tsung-Hao

Chen. 2010. Linking the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) to Business Management

183
Performance: A Preliminary Concept of Fit Theory for Navigation Science and
Management. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 5(8):1296-1305.

Chong, V.K., Eggleton, Ian R.C. 2003. The Decision Facilitating Role of Management
Accounting Systems on Managerial Performance: The influence of Locus of Control and
Task Uncertainty. Advances in Accounting, 20:165-197.

Christauskas, C., Miseviciene, R. 2012. Cloud-Computing Based Accounting for

Small to Medium Sized Business. Engineering Economics, 23(1):14-21.

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality Integrated Development Plan 2005/2006

(page: 313-319). Available at: www.joburg-archive.co.za/2006//pdfs/idp-
2006/ch4_communitypdf. Accessed on 8 August 2013.

City of Johannesburg Integrated Annual Report (2012/2013 page: 120-165.) available

at: www.joburg.org.za/images/october/annexure%20b.pdf . Accessed on 2 May 2014.

City of Johannesburg Integrated Annual Report 2011-2012. Available at:

http://www.joburg.org.za/images/stories/2013/May/Annual/Report/annexure%20b-
%annual%20performance%20report190. Accessed on 24 April 2013.

City of Johannesburg Integrated Annual Report 2012-2013. Abridged Version. Available

at http://joburgopen.com/images/images/stories/2014/feb/annexe%20% a pdf.
Accessed on 23 February 2014.

Clough, P and Nutbrown, C. 2012. A Student’s Guide to Methodology. 3rd Edition, Sage
Publications Ltd.

Coe, N and Letza S. 2014.Two Decades of the Balanced Scorecard: A Review of

Developments. Poznan University of Economics Review, 14(1):63-76.

184
Collins J.C and Porras J.I. 1996. Building Your Company’s Vision. Harvard Business
Review. Available at…

Collis, J and Hussey. J. 2003. Business Research: A Practical Guide to

Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, 2nd Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Connor, G and Korajczyk, R.A. 1986. Performance Measurement with the Arbitrage
Pricing Theory: A New Framework for Analysis. Journal of Financial Economics,
15(1986):373-394. North-Holland.

Constitution of South Africa 1996.

Cooper, K and White R. E. 2012. Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era.

Springer.

Corbin J and Strauss A. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cox, R.F, Issa, R.R.A and Ahrens D. 2003.Management’s Perception of Key

Performance Indicators for Construction. Journal of Engineering and Management,
129(2):142-151.

Creamer, G and Freund, Y. 2010. Learning a Board Balanced Scorecard to Improve

Corporate Performance. Decision Support Systems, 49(4):365-385.

Creswell, J. W .2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Fourth Edition. Sage. Publication Inc.

Creswell, J .2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Second Edition. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks. London. New Delhi.

185
Creswell, J .2012. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five
Approaches, 3rd Edition. Sage, London.

Creswell, J.W, Hanson, W.E, Clark, V.L. P and Morales, A. 2007. Qualitative Research
Designs: Selection and Implementation. The counselling Psychologist, 35(2):236-264.

da Cruz, N. F & Marques, R.C. 2014.Scorecards for Sustainable Local Governments.

Cities, 39:165-170.

Davis, S. and T Albright, T. 2004. An Investigation of the Effect of Balanced Scorecard

Implementation of Financial Performance. Management Accounting Research,
15(2):135–153.

Debreceny, R., Rahman A. 2005. Firm-Specific determinants of Continuous Corporate

Disclosures. The International Journal of Accounting, 40(3):249-278.

De Creuser, F., Mooraj S., and Oyon D. 2009. Does the Balanced Scorecard Add
Value? Empirical Evidence on its effect on performance. European Accounting
Review, 18(1):93-122.

Deshpande, R. 1983. Paradigms Lost on Theory and Method in Research in Marketing.

Journal of Marketing, 47(Fall1983):101-110.

Denzin, N. K. 1989. Interpretive Biography. Sage.

De Waal, A. 2013. Strategic Performaqnce Management: A managerial and Behavioral

Approach. Second Edition. Palgrave Mc Millan.

Devlin, A. S. 2006. Research Methods: Planning, Conducting and Presenting Research.

Thomson Wadsworth.

186
Dilla, W., Janvrin, D. J., Rascheke, R. 2010. Interactive Data Visualisation: New
Directions for Accounting Information Systems Research. Journal of Information
Systems, 24(2):1-37.

Dirks, P. V. V and Wijn M. 2002. Strategic Control: Meshing Critical Success Factors
with the Balanced Scorecard. Long Range Planning, 35:407–427.

Dlodlo, N, Olwal, T and Mvelasep, P. 2012. The Internet of Things in Bridging the Gap
in Municipal Service Delivery in South Africa. Available at:
http://reserachspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/10204/5856/1/dlodlo_2012.pdf.
Accessed on 10 June 2015.

Dodor, J.B.K., Gupta, R.D., Daniels, B., 2009. A Framework for Governmental
Organization’s Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Financial Accountancy, 1–12.

Dolence, M.G and Norris, D.M. 1994.Using Key Performance Indicators to Drive
Strategic Decision-Making. New Directions for Institutional Research, m82:63-80.

Downe‐Wamboldt, B.R.N.1992. Content Analysis: Method, Applications, and Issues.

Health Care for Women International, 13(3):313-321.

Draft Reviewed 2009-2013 Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality Integrated

Development Plan (page: 58-59). Available at:
http://www.mfm.treasury.gov.za/.../GT000%20Ekurhuleni%20Metro/GT000%20Ekurhul
eni. Accessed on 14 July 2015.

Draft Annual Report of the City of Tshwane Volume 1. Available at:

www.sthwane.gov.za/notice/Pages/Annual-Report-2012-13-tabled-atcouncil-30. (Page
57-89). Accessed on 18 May 2014.

187
Dreveton, B. 2013. The advantages of the Balanced Scorecard in the Public Sector:
Beyond Performance Measurement. Public Money & Management, 33(2):131-136.

Drucker, P. (1954). The Practice of Management. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Drury, C. 2004. Management and Cost Accounting. Thomson. 6th Edition.

Duriau, V.J, Reger, R.K and Pfarrer, M.D. 2007. A Content Analysis of the Content
Analysis Literature in Organization Studies Research Themes, Data Sources, and
Methodological Refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1):5-34.

Dzansi, D. Y and Dzansi, L.W. . 2010. Understanding the Impact of Human Resource
Management Practices on Municipal Service Delivery in South Africa: An Organizational
Justice Approach. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6):995-1005.

Ekurhuleni Annual Report 2012/2013 (page 54) available at

www.Ekurhuleni.gov.za/519-annual-report-20122013-lower-resolution/file Accessed on
14 July 2015.

Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, M R and Lowe, A. 1991. Management Research: An

Introduction. Sage: London.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4):532-550.

Ellangovani, K & Kamalanabhan, T.J. 2014 Introducing Performance Management in

Secondary Government Hospitals in Kerala and Tamil Nadu Using the Balanced
Scorecard Framework. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Healthcare, 1(1):1–18.

Elo, S and Kynga, H. 2008. The Qualitative Content Analysis Process. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 62(1):107–115.

188
eThekwini Municipality. 2008. Performance Management System Framework
Organisational Performance June 2008 (adopted by council on the 27th June 2008) Pp
1-48.

Etim, R.S and Agara, I.G. 2011.The Balanced Scorecard: The New Performance
Management Paradigm for Nigerian Firms. International journal of Economic
Development Research and Investment, 2(3):64-73.

Fakharian, A., Danaei, A & Hematian, H. 2014. Evaluation of Hadid Firm’s Performance
Using the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) Model. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of
Business and Management Review, 3(6)42-63.

Fakhri, G., Menacere, K., Pegum, R. 2009. The Impact of Contingent Factors on the
use of Performance Measurement System in the Banking Industry: The case of Libya: A
Paper Accepted for Presentation at Salford Postgraduate Annual Research Conference,
Salford, May 7th – 8th 2009. Available at:
http://150.204.254.81/BLW/BLW_Facultytopleveldocs/Fakri_Grumma_impact_of_contin
gent_factors_on_the_use_of_performance_measurement_system_in_the_banking_ind
ustry.pdf. Accessed on the 10 April 2014.

Fanerti, F. and Guthrie, J. 2008. Italian and Australian Local Governments: Balanced
Scorecard Practices. A Research Note. Journal of Human Resource Costing and
Accounting, 12(1):4-13.

Faul, M.A., Pistorius, C.W.I., Van Vuuren, L.M., Vorster, Q., Swanevelder, J.J. 1998.
Accounting–An Introduction. 5th ed. Durban. Butterworths.

Ferreira, A and Otley, D. 2009. The Design and Use of Performance Management
Systems: An Extended Framework for Analysis. Management Accounting Research,
20: 263–282.

189
Fitzgerald, L, Johnston R., Brignall, S., Silvestro, R and Voss, C. 1993. Performance
Measurement in Service Businesses. The Chartered Institute of Management
Accountants: London.

Fitzgerald, L. and Moon, P. 1996. Performance Measurement in Service Industries:

Making It Work. London: CIMA.

Flick, U. 2014. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Edition 5, Sage Publications Ltd.

Franco, M and Bourne, M .2003. Factors that Play a Role in Managing through
Measures. Management Decision, 41(8):698-710.

Franco-Santos, M.F., Lucianettib, L and Bourne, M. 2012. Contemporary Performance

Measurement Systems: A Review of their Consequences and a Framework for
Research. Management Accounting Research, 23:79-119.

Fryer, K., Antony, J. and Ogden, S. 2009.Performance Management in the Public

Sector. Emerald International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(6):478-498.

Fukushima, A.J and Peirce, J. 2011.A Hybrid Performance Measurement Framework

for Optimal Decisions. Measuring Business Excellence, 15(2):32-43.

Ganesh, K, Ducq, Y and Koh, S.C.L. 2012.Generic Balanced Scorecard Framework for
Third Party Logistics Service Provider. International Journal and Production Economic,
140(1):269-282.

Gibbert, M, Ruigrok, W and Wicki, B. 2008. Research Notes and Commentaries What
Passes as a Rigorous Case Study? Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1465–1474.

190
Gimbert, X., Bisbe, J and Mendoza, X. 2010. The Role of Performance Measurement
Systems in Strategy Formulation Processes. Long Range Planning, 43:477-497.

Gimzauskiene, E., Valanciene L., 2010. Efficiency of Performance Measurement

System: the Perspective of Decision Making. Economics & Management. 7p. 3 Charts:
917-923.

Graneheim, U. H and Lundman B. 2004. Qualitative Content Analysis in Nursing

Research: Concepts, Procedures and Measures to Achieve Trustworthiness. Nurse
Education Today, 24: 105–112.

Grbich, C. 2007. An Introduction to Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications. Ltd.

Greatbanks R., & Tapp D. 2007.The Impact of Balanced Scorecards in a Public Sector
Environment; Empirical Evidence from Dunedin City Council, New Zealand.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(8):846-873.

Greiling, D. 2010. Balanced Scorecard Implementation in German non-profit

Organisations. International Journal of productivity and Performance Management,
59(6):534-554.

Griffin, A and Page, A.L. 1993. An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development
Success and Failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10:291-308.

Grigoroudis, E., Orfanoudaki E., and Zopounidis C. 2010. Strategic Performance

Measurement in a Healthcare Organisation: A Multiple Criteria Approach Based on
Balanced Scorecard. Omega, 40(2012):104-119.

Guba, E and Lincoln, Y.S.1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.

Available at: www.gdufs.biz/10-guba_lincoln_94pdf. Accessed on 23 February 2015.

191
Gunasekarana, A., Patelb, C and McGaughey, R.E. 2004. A Framework for Supply
Chain Performance Measurement. International Journal of Production Economics,
87:333–347.

Guthrie, J.R., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K and Ricceri, F. 2004. Using Content Analysis as
a Research Method to Inquire into Intellectual Capital Reporting. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 5(2):282-293.

Guthrie, J and Mathews, M.R. 1985. Corporate Social Accounting in Australasia.

Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 7:251-77.

Gurthrie, J and English, L. 1997. Performance Information and Programme Evaluation

in the Australian Public Sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management,
10(3):154 – 164.

Harbour, J.L. 2009. The Basics of Performance Measurement. Second Edition. CRC
Press Taylor &Francis Group.

Harris, H. 2001. Content Analysis of Secondary Data: A Study of Courage in Managerial

Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 34: 191–208.

Harris, Gleason, Sheean, Boushey, Beto, Fada, Bruemmer. 2009. An Introduction to

Qualitative Research for Food and Nutrition Professionals. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 109 (1): 80-90.

Harold, L and Thenmozhi, M. 2014. An Integrated Performance Success Measurement

Framework for Evaluating Banking System Success: An Empirical Study. Journal of
Performance Management, 25(3):28-55.

Hartley, J. 2005. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research.

Sage Publications Ltd.

192
Hastings, N.A.J. 2010. Key Performance Indicators. Physical Asset Management.
Springer. Available at
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/657/chap%253A101007%252F978-1-84882-
751-6_23pdf?. Accessed on 16 July 2014.

Healy, M and Perry, C. 2000. Comprehensive Criteria to Judge Validity and Reliability of
Qualitative Research within the Realism Paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, 3(3):118-126.

Heimdahl, L. 2010. Implementing a Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Map to

Enhance Employee Engagement and Improve Performance. Dissertation Submitted in
Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in
management, The College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, MN.

Hennink, M., Hutter, I and Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. Sages
Publications.

Hepworth, P.1998. Weighing it Up: A Literature Review for the Balanced Scorecard.
Journal of Management Development, 17(8):559-563.

Holloway, J., Francis, G., and Hinton, M.1999. A Vehicle for Change? A Case Study of
Performance Improvement in the “New” Public Sector. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 12:351–365.

Hesse-Biber, S.N and Leavy, P. 2011. The Practice of Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition.
Sage Publications. Inc.

Hogget, J., Medlin, J., Edwards, L., Tilling, M., and Hogg, E.2012. Accounting. 8th
Edition. John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd.

193
Holliday, A. 2013. Validity in Qualitative Research. DOI:
10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1243.

Hood, C. 1991. A Public Management for all Seasons. Public Administration, 69(1):3-
19.

Hood, C. 1995. The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variation on a Theme.
Accounting, Organisations and Society, 20(2):93-109.

Hoque, Z and Adams, C. 2011. The Rise and Use of the Balanced Scorecard
Measures in Australian Government Departments. Financial Accountability and
Management, 27(30):308-334 or 0267-4424.

Hoskins, C. N and Mariano, C. 2004. Research in Nursing and Health. Understandings

and Using Quantitative and Qualitative Methods. 2nd Edition. Springer Publishing
Company, Inc.

Hsieh, H.F and Shannon, S.E. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9):1277-1288.

Huang, H. C. 2009. Designing a Knowledge-Based System for Strategic Planning: A

Balanced Scorecard Perspective. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2009):209-218.

Isoraite, M. 2008. The Balanced Scorecard Method: From Theory to Practice.

Intellectual Economics, 1(3):18-28.

Ittner, D. C and Lacker, D.F. 1998. Innovations in Performance Measurement: Trends

and Research Implications. Journal of Management Accounting Research, ProQuest:
205-238.

194
Ittner, D. C and Lacker, D.F. 2001. Assessing Empirical Research in Managerial
Accounting: A Value-Based Management Perspective. Journal of Accounting and
Economics, 32(1–3):349–410.

Integrated Annual Report of the City of Tshwane (2012/2013 page: 266-273.)

Ioppolo, G., Saija G and Salomone R. 2012. Developing a Territory Balanced scorecard
Approach to Manage Projects for Local Development: Two Case Studies. Land Use
Policy, 29(3):629-640.

Jaffe, A.B. 2011. Analysis of Public Research, Industrial R&D, and Commercial
Innovation: Measurement Issues Underlying the Science of Science Policy”, in Fealing,
K.H., Lane, J.I.

Jeon, H., Min, Y.G and Seo, K.K. 2014. A Framework of Performance Measurement of
Cloud Service Infrastructure System for Service Delivery. Advanced Science and
Technology Letters, (Cloud and Super Computing) 46:142-145.

Jeon, H., Min, Y.G and Seo, K.K.2015. A Performance Measurement Framework of
Cloud Storage Services. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(S8):105–111.

Jessa, F. 2012. An Assessment of Organisational Performance Management at the

Drakenstein and Stellenbosch Municipalities. Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of
the Requirements for the Degree of master of Public Administration in the Faculty of
Business and Management Sciences at Stellenbosch University.

Johanson, U., Skoog, M., Backlund, A and Almqvist, R. 2006. Balancing Dilemmas of
the Balanced Scorecard. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19 (6):842-857.

195
Joseph, C., Hendricks, C and Frantz J. 2011. Exploring the Key Performance Areas and
Assessment Criteria for the Evaluation of Students’ Clinical Performance: A Delphi
Study. SA Journal of Physiotherapy, 67(2):9-15.

Kanda, A and Deshmukh, S.G. 2009. A Framework for Evaluation of Coordination by

Contracts: A Case of Two-Level Supply Chains. Computers and Industrial
Enginineering, 56(4):1177-1191.

Kaplan, R.S. 2001. Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Non-profit

Organisations. Non-profit Management and Leadership, 11(3):353-370.

Kaplan, R.S. 2008. Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard. Handbook of

Management Accounting Research, 3:1253-1269.

Kaplan, R.S and Norton, D.P. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard- Measures that Drive to
Performance. Harvard Business Review, 69-79. Available at:
http://e3idocs.fmhs.fastmail.net/the balancedscorecard.pdf. Accessed on 14 November
2013.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. 1993. Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Harvard
Business Review, (September/ October):134–142.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P.1996. The Balanced Scorecard. Harvard Business
School. Boston. MA.

Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. 1996. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic
Management System. Harvard Business Review, 74(1):75– 85.

Kaplan, R.S and Norton, D.P. 2001. Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from
Performance Measurement to Strategic Management. Part I. Accounting Horizon,
15(1):87-104.

196
Kaplan, R.S and Norton, D.P. 2004a. How Strategy Maps Frame an Organisation’s
Objectives. Financial Executive, 20(2):40–45.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. 2006. Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to
Create Corporate Synergies. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Kennerley, M and Neely, A. 2002. A Framework of the Factors Affecting the Evolution
of Performance Measurement Systems. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 22(11):1222-1245.

Kgechane, M.R. 2013. Performance Management Systems Implementation in South

African Municipalities: The case of Motlosana City Council. A mini-dissertation
submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Master Degree in Development
and Management (Public Management and Governance) at the Potchefstroom-Campus
of the North-West University.

Kim, H.S and Kim, Y.G. 2009. ACRM Performance Measurement Framework: Its
Development Process and Application. Industrial Marketing Management, 38:477–489.

Kohlbacher, F. 2006. The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research
Forum. Quality Social Research, 7(1) Art 21:1-24.
.
Koma, S.B. 2010. The State of Local Government in South Africa: Issues, Trends and
Options. Journal of Public Administration, 45 (1.1) • June 2010

Kothari, C. R 2006. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. Delhi. India: New
Age International Publishers.

197
Kraus, K and Lind, J. 2010. The Impact of the Corporate Balanced Scorecard on
Corporate Control: A Research Note. Management Accounting Research, 21(4):265-
277.

Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 2nd Edition.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd Ed).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kumar, D. 2010. Enterprise Growth Strategy: Vision, Planning and Execution. Farnham,
Surrey: Gower.

Kureshi, N. 2014. To Balanced Scorecard or Not to Balanced Scorecard, That is The

Question. Journal of Strategy & Performance Management, 2(1):31-38.

Lampard, R. 2002. Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

in Social Research. Prentice Hall.

Lacerda, R.T.O., Ensslin, L and Ensslin, S.R. 2011. A Performance Measurement View
of IT Project Management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 60(2):132-151.

Lacerda, R.T.O., Ensslin, L and Ensslin, S.R. 2014. A Framework of Performance

Measurement of Cloud Service Infrastructure System for Service Delivery. Advanced
Science and Technology Letters, 46 (Cloud and Super Computing 2014):142-145.

Le, M.H and Ahn, H. 2014. Decision-Oriented Performance Measurement Framework:

An Emphasis on Rationality. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2592424 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2592424 . Accessed on 20 July 2015.

198
Lehner, P.N. 1996. Handbook of Ethological Methods. 2nded. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

LeRoux, K. and Wright, N.S. 2010. Does Performance Measurement Improve Strategic
Decision Making? Findings from a National Survey of Non-Profit Social Service
Agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4):571-587.

Lewis, S. C., Zamith, R and Hermida, A. 2013. Content Analysis in an Era of Big Data:
A Hybrid Approach to Computational and Manual Methods. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 57(1):34–52.

Liamputtong, P. 2013. Qualitative Research Methods. Oxford University Press.

Lincoln, Y and Guba, E. G.1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Luft, J. 2009. Nonfinancial Information and Accounting: A Reconsideration of Benefits

and Challenges. Accounting Horizons, 23(3):307-325.

Lundberg, K., Balfors, B and Folkeson, L. 2009. Framework for Environmental

Performance Measurement in a Swedish Public Sector Organization. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17:1017–1024.

Lynch, R. and Cross, K. 1991. Measure Up! Yardsticks for Continuous Improvement.
Cambridge: Blackwell

Macnab, A.J., Carr, C. and Mitchell, F. 2010. Garden Designs to Improve the Line of
Sight: Implementation of the Balanced Scorecard and an Alternative Costing System at
the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Chartered Institute of Management Accountants,
London, p. 6.

Mafini, C; R.I. Pooe, R.I and Nqcobo, Hebert D H. 2014. Factors Contributing To the

199
Unsuccessful Implementation of The BSC In A South African Provincial Treasury
Department. The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online), 13.6
(2014): 1539.

Marshall, C. 2011. Designing Qualitative Research. 5th Edition. Sage Publications. Inc.
Municipal System Act 2000.

Marshall, C and Rossman, G.B. 1995. Designing Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Masango, R. 2000. Towards Efficiency and Effectiveness in the Public Service. Journal
of Public Administration, 35(3): 50-68.

Masango, R. 2000. Towards Efficiency and Effectiveness in the Public Service. Journal
of Public Administration, 35(3): 50-68.

Maltz, A. C., Shenhar, A. J and Reilly, R.R. 2003. Beyond the Balanced Scorecard:
Refining the Search for Organizational Success Measures. Long Range Planning,
36:187–204.

Marburger, J.H., III and Shipp, S.S. (Eds). The Science of Science Policy: A Handbook.
Stanford University Press, California, CA.

Marr, B. and Creelman, J. 2011. More with Less: Maximizing Value in the Public Sector.
Palgrave Macmilllan, Basingstoke.

Matthews, B and Ross, L. 2010. Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social
Sciences. Pearson Education Limited.

McAdam, R. and Walker, T. 2003. An Inquiry into Balanced Scorecards within Best
Value Implementation in UK Local Government. Public Administration, 81(4):873-892.

200
McAdam, R and Saulters, R. 2000. Quality Measurement Frameworks in the Public
Sector. Total Quality Management, 11(4-6): 652-656.

McAdam, R., S.A. Hazlett and C. Casey. 2005. Performance Management in the UK
Public Sector: Addressing Multiple Stakeholder Complexity. The International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 18(3):256–273.

McMillan, S. J. 2000. The Microscope and the Moving Target: The Challenge of
Applying Content Analysis to the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 77(1):80–98. Doi: 10.1177/107769900007700107.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. 2006. Research in Education: Evidence-Based

Inquiry. New York. Pearson Education, Inc.

Mendes, P., Santos, A.C., Perna, F and Teixeira, M.R. 2012. The Balanced Scorecard
as an Integrated Model Applied to the Portuguese Public Service: A Case Study in the
Waste Sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24:20-29.

Merchant, K. A, Stringer, C and Shantapriyan, P. 2015. The Anatomy of a Complex

Performance-Dependent Incentive System. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2545149 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2545149 .

Merriam, S. B. 1998. Theory to Practice What Can You Tell from an N of 1 ? Issues of
validity and reliability in Qualitative Research. PAACE. Journal of Lifelong Learning,
4:51-60.

Micheli, P and Kennerley, M. 2005. Performance Measurement Frameworks in Public

and non-Profit Sectors. Production Planning and Control, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 125-34.

201
Miles, M B and Huberman, A M.1994. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data
Analysis. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CC: Sage.

Mintzberg, H. 1994. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York. The Free Press.

Mofolo M 2012. Strengthening Performance Management System Implementation in

South African Municipalities. Africa’s Public service Delivery and Performance Review,
1(1):1-19.

Mooraj, S., Oyon, D. and Hostettler, D. 1999. The Balanced Scorecard: a Necessary
Good or an Unnecessary Evil? European Management Journal, 17(5):481-491.

Moretti F, Vliet L. V, Bensing J, Deledda G, Mazzi M, Rimondini M, Zimmermann C and

Fletcher I.A. 2011. Standardized Approach to Qualitative Content Analysis of Focus
Discussions from Different Countries. Patient Education and Counseling, 82(3):420-428.

Morrow, S. L. 2005. Quality and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research in Counselling

Psychology. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52:250-260.

Moulllin, M. 2004. Evaluating a Health Service Taskforce. International Journal of

Health Care Quality Assurance, 17 (5):248-257.

Muchiri, P., Pintelon, L., Gelders, L and Martin, H. 2011. Development of Maintenance
Function Performance Measurement Framework and Indicators. International Journal of
Production Economics, 131:295–302.

Municipal Systems Acts 2000. Available at:

http://www.energy.gov.za/files/policiesd/act_municipalsystem_32of2000pdf Accessed
on 10 June 2015.

202
Namazi, M and Ramazani, A . R. 2003. Balanced Scorecard in Management
Accounting. Spring, 19 (2(38)):2-20.

Ndlovu, S. 2010. Non-Financial Performance Measures within Public Companies: A

Literature Review. Advances in Accounting, Finance and Economics, 3(1):1-12.

Neely, A. 1998. Measuring Business Performance-Why, What and How. The

Economist. London: Profile Books.

Neely, A and Adams, C. 2002. Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and
Managing Stakeholder Relationships. London, UK: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Nielsen, P. A. 2013. Performance Management, Managerial Authority, and Public

Service Performance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Available
at: http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/06/01/jopart.mut025.full.pdf+html.
Accessed on 13 May 2014.

Nieplowicz, M. 2014. The Balanced Scorecard for the City of Hrubieszów. Research
Papers of the Wroclaw University of Economics, 335(13):170-182.

Norreklit, H. 2000. The Balance on the Balanced Scorecard- a Critical Analysis o Some
of its Assumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11:65-88.

Norreklit, H. 2003. ‘The Balanced Scorecard: What is the Score? A Rhetorical Analysis
of the Balanced Scorecard.’ Accounting, Organizations and Society 28(6):591–619.

Nørreklit, H. and Mitchell, F. 2007. The Balanced Scorecard”, in Hooper, T., Northcott,
D. and Scapens, R. (Eds), Issues in Management Accounting, Prentice Hall, Harlow.

203
Northcott, D and Taulapapa, T.M. 2012. Using the Balanced Scorecard to Manage
Performance in Public Sector Organizations Issues and Challenges. International
Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(3):166-191.

Niven, P.R. 2003. Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and non-profit
Agencies. Hoboken. N.J. Wiley.

Niven, P. R. 2006. Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step: Maximizing Performance and

Maintaining Results, Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.

Niven, P.R. 2011. Balanced Scorecard- Step by Step for Government and Non-Profit
Agencies. 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Inc.

Nixon, B. 2005. Strategic Choice and Management Control Systems: a Review of

Theories and Challenges for Development. Methodological Issues in Accounting
Research: Theories, Methods and Issues (Google eBook). Zahirul Hoque. Spiramus
Press Ltd.

Ohemen, F.L.K. 2009. Constraints in the Implementation of Performance Management

Systems in Developing Countries: The Ghanaian Case. International Journal of Cross
Culture Management, 9(1):109-132.

Osborne, D & Gaebler, T., 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial
Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Perseus, New York, 77pp.

Othman, R. 2008. Reflective Practice Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Balanced

Scorecard with Scenario Planning. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 57(3):259-266.

Otieno, G.N. 2010.The Role of Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management Tool in

Kenya Commercial Bank. A Management Research Project Submitted in Partial

204
Fulfilment of Master of Business Administration. School of Business, University of
Nairobi. Available at: http://erepositoryuonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/6005pdf
Accessed on: 10 April 2014.

Otley, D. 1999. Performance Management: a Framework for Management Control

Systems Research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4):363-382.

Otley, D. 2012. Performance Management under Conditions of Uncertainty: Some

Valedictory Reflections. Pacific Accounting Review, 24(3):247-261.

Paasivaara, M, Durasiewicz, S and Lassenius, C. 2009. Using Scrum in Distributed

Agile Development: A Multiple Case Study. Fourth IEEE International Conference on
Global Software Engineering. Available at:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5196933. Accessed on 5
February 2014.

Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G. and Prastacos, G.P. 2004. Implementing the Balanced
Scorecard in Greece: A Software Firm’s Experience. Long Range Planning, 37(4): 351-
366.

Papenhausen, C. and Einstein, W. 2006. Insights from the Balanced Scorecard:

Implementing the Balanced Scorecard at a college of Business. Measuring Business
Excellence, 10(3):15-22.

Patton, M.Q. 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage Publications.

Patton, M.Q. 2001.Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications.

Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

205
Patton, E and Appelbaum, S.H. 2003. The Case for Case Studies in Management
Research. Management Research News, 26(5):60-71.Ltd.

Perry, C. 1998. Processes of a Case Study Methodology for Postgraduate Research in

Marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10):785-802.

Petty, N.J, Oliver, P. Thomson, O.P and Stew, G. 2012. Ready for a Paradigm Shift?
Part 2: Introducing Qualitative Research Methodologies and Methods N.J. Petty et al. /
Manual Therapy, 17:378-384.

Phillips P.A. 1999. Performance Measurement Systems and Hotels: a New Conceptual
Framework. Hospitality Management, 18:171-182

Philbin, S.P. 2011. Design and Implementation of the Balanced Scorecard at a

University Institute. Measuring Business Excellence, 15(3):34-45.

Pilbeam, S and Corbridge, M. 2010. People Resourcing and Talent Planning: HRM in
Practice. 4th (3rd) edition. Harlow, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Poister, T.H. 2003. Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations.

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Poister, T.H., Pasha, O.Q and Edwards, L.H. 2013. Does Performance Management
Lead to Better Outcomes? Evidence from the U.S. Public Transit Industry. Public
Administration Review, 73(4):625-636.

Portfolio Business Publications .2008. Municipalities South Africa 2008. Johannesburg:

Portfolio Business Publications

206
Pucek, M & Špacek, D. 2014. Strategic Public Management-Selected Experiences with
BSC Implementation. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 41
(E/2014):146-169.

Radnor, Z and Barnes, D. 2007. Historical Analysis of Performance Measurement and

Management in Operations Management. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 56 (5/6): 384-96.

Randor, Z and Mary, Mc Guire. 2004. Performance Management in the Public Sector:
Fact or Fiction. International Journal of Productivity & Performance Management,
53(3):245-260.

Rahman, M D H and Chin, H.C. 2013. A Balanced Scorecard for Performance

Evaluation of Sustainable Urban Transport. International Journal of Development and
Sustainability, 2(3):1671-1702

Rajesh, R., Pugazhendhi, S., Ganesh, K., Ducq, Yves, Lenny Koh, S.C. (2012), Generic
Balanced Scorecard Framework for Third Party Logistics Service Provider. International
Journal of Production Economics, 140(1):269-282.

Ramirez, Y. 2011. New Management in Spanish Universities: Introducing Balanced

Scorecard. Knowledge Studies, Learning and Human Resources development and
Policy and Organisational management, 8(4):359-377.

Ramuvhundu, M.N. 2012. Evaluating the Impact of Local Government Performance

Management Systems on Service Delivery. A Research Report Presented to the
Graduate School of Business in Partial Fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Business Administration (MBA). University of South Africa, Midrand.

207
Rantanen, H, Kulmala, H.I, Lonnqvist, A, and Kujansivu, P. 2007. Performance
Measurement Systems in the Finnish Public Sector. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 20(5):415-433.

Rapley, T. 2007. Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis. London.

Sage.

Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Jaafar, M and Badarulzaman, M.N. 2015. Investigating a

Framework to Facilitate the Implementation of City Development Strategy Using
Balanced Scorecard. Habitat International, 46:156–165.

Reshitaj A and Tikhonova M. 2013. The Managerial Views on the Use of Balanced
Scorecard in Kristianstad Municipality. Master Thesis. Public Administration Master
Programme. Kristianstad University.

Richards, K. 2009. Trends in Qualitative Research in Language Teaching since 2000.

Language Teaching, 42(02):147–80.

Ridwan, R, Harun H., An Y. & Fahmid I.M. 2013. The Impact of the Balanced Scorecard
on Corporate Performance: The Case of an Australian Public Sector Enterprise.
International Business Research, 6(10):103-110.

Riffe, D., Lacy, S. R., and Fico, F. G. 2005. Analyzing Media Messages: Using
Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Robson, C. 1993. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner Researchers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Robson, C. 2002. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner Researchers. Wiley.

208
Rodriguez, R.R., Saiz, J.J.A and Bas, A.O. 2009. Quantitative Relationships between
Key Performance Indicators for Supporting Decisions-Making Processes. Computers in
Industry, 60(2):104-113.

Rompho, N. 2011. Why the Balanced Scorecard Fails in SMES: A Case Study.
International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11):39-46.

Roper, S., Hewitt-Dundas, N. and Love, J.H. 2004. An ex Ante Evaluation Framework
for the Regional Benefits of Publicly Supported R&D Projects. Research Policy,
33(3):487-509.

Roxanne, J 2005. Planning Program Goals. Available at:

www.apo.org/publications/dicuments/goal_setting.pdf. Accessed on 24 April 2014.

Russell, C.M. 2001. The Effective Use of Secondary Data. Learning and Motivation, 33:
32-45.

Ryan, G. W and Russell, B.H. 2000. Data Management and Analysis Methods. In
Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research
(pp.769-802). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Santiago, J.M. 2014. Use of the Balanced Scorecard to Improve the Quality of
Behavioral Health Care. Psychiatric Services, 50(12):1571-1576.

Sarrico, C.S, Rosa, M.J and Manatos M.J. 2012. School Performance Management
Practices and School Achievement. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 61(3): 272 – 289.

Sezenias, E., Farmakis, A., Karagiannis, G., Diagkou, E and Glykas, M. 2013. A Holistic
Business Performance Measurement Framework. Business Process Management

209
Studies in Computational Intelligence, 444:75-98.

Shahin, A and Mahboal, M.A. 2007. Prioritization of Key Performance Indicators. An

Integration of Analytical Hierarchy Process and Goal Setting. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 56(3):226-240.

Sharma, A. 2009. Implementing the Balanced Scorecard for Performance

Measurement. The Icfai University Journal of Business Strategy, VI (1):7-16.

Shenhar, A.J and Dvir, D.O.V. 2007.Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond
Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. A Harvard Business School Press Book
Summary. Available at:
http://reinventingprojectmanagement.com/material/other/030_HBS.pdf. Accessed on 20
October 2014.

Sheldrake, P. 2011. The Business of Influence: Reframing Marketing and PR for the
Digital Age. New York: Wiley.

Shuki D. 2008. The Balanced Scorecard versus Quality Award Models as Strategic
Frameworks. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 19(6):583-593.

Simons, R. 1995. Levers of Control: How Managers use Innovative Control Systems to
Drive Strategic Renewal. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Stan D., Albright T. 2004. An Investigation on the Effect of balanced Scorecard

Implementation on Financial Performance. Management accounting Research,
15(2):135-153.

Stefanescu, D. and Silivestru, M. 2012. Balanced Scorecard-Instrument of Strategic

Planning. Romanian Statistical Review, 2. Available at:
hptt://www.revistadestatistica.ro/Articole2012/art3. Accessed on 7 October 2013.

210
Storey, J.D. 2002. A Direct Approach to False Discovery Rates. Journal of Royal
Statistical Society, 64(3):479-498.

Stan, D and Albright, T. 2004. An Investigation on the Effect of Balanced Scorecard

Implementation on Financial Performance. Management accounting Research,
15(2):135-153.

Shepherd, S. K and Achterberg, C L. 1992. Qualitative Research Methodology: Data

Collection, Analysis, Interpretation, and Verification. In: Monsen ER, ed. Research:
Successful Approaches. Chicago, Ill: American Dietetic Association; 1992:82-88.

Simons H. 2009. Case Study Research in Practice. Los Angeles: Sage;

Sjøvaag, H and Stavelin, E. 2012. Web Media and the Quantitative Content Analysis:
Methodological Challenges in Measuring online News Content. Convergence: The
International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(2):215–229. Doi:
10.1177/135485 6511429641.

Stake, R.E. 2008. Qualitative Case Studies. In Denzin N K and Lincoln Y S (Eds) 2008.
Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 119-150.

Stake, R.E. 2013. Multiple Case Study Analysis. The Guilford Press. Available at:
www.guilford.com. ISBN: 9781609183820.http://books.google.coza. Accessed on 3
October 2014.

Sharma, A. 2009. Implementing the Balanced Scorecard for Performance

Measurement. The Icfai University Journal of Business Strategy, VI (1):7-16.

211
Sharma, B and Gadenne, D. 2011. Balanced Scorecard Implementation in a Local
Government Authority: Issues and Challenges. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 70(2):167-184.

Sheldrake, P. 2011.The Business of Influence: Reframing Marketing and PR for the

Digital Age. New York: Wiley.

Shipley, M. 2009. Making the Move from Performance Measurement to Performance

Management. Government Finance Review. Available at:
http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/GRF_FEB_09_72pdf. Accessed on 22 may 2014.

Storey, J.D. 2002.A Direct Approach to False Discovery Rates. Journal of Royal
Statistical Society, 64(3):479-498.

Tayler, W.B. 2010. The Balanced Scorecard as a Strategy-Evaluation Tool: The Effects
of Implementation Involvement and Causal Chain Focus. Accounting Review,
85(3):1095-1117.

Taylor, J. 2011. Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Information for Decision
making in Australian State Agencies. Public Administration 89(4):1316-1334.

Ten E., Evangeline. 2011. The impact of Sustainability and BSC Disclosures on Market
Performance: Evidence from Australia’s top 100. Journal of Applied Management
Accounting Research, 9(1):59-73.

Thakkar, J., Kanda, A and Deshmukh, S.G. 2009. Supply Chain Performance
Measurement Framework for Small and Medium Scale Enterprises. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 16(5):702 – 723.

212
Tshwane Integrated Development Plan 2006-2011. First Revision (page 463-469).
Available at: www.tshwane.gov.za/.../approved
%20tshwane%20idp%20for%2006%20%.pdf. Accessed on 10 June 2015.

Tshwane Integrated Development Plan 2006-2011. Second Revision

Thomas, E and Magilvy J.K. 2011. Qualitative Rigor or Research Validity in Qualitative
Research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16:151–155.Wiley Periodicals,
Inc.

Tseng, M L. 2010. Implementation and Performance Evaluation Using the Fuzzy

Network Balanced Scorecard. Computers and Education, 55(1):188-201.

Ukko, J, Tenhunen, J and Rantanen, H. 2007. Performance Measures Impacts on

Management and Leadership: Perspectives of Management and Employees.
International Journal of Production Economics, 110:39-51.

Valanciene, L and Gimzauskiene, E. 2007. Changing Role Management Accounting:

Lithuanian Experience Case Studies. Engineering Economics, 5(55):1392-2785.

Valeckova, L. 2009. Application of the Balanced Scorecard into the Formulation of the
Firm Strategy. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 3(10):1131-
1136.

Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G and Halligan, J. 2015. Performance Management in the
Public Sector. 2nd Edition. Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group London and New York.

Van Horenbeek, A and Pintelon, L. 2014. Development of a Maintenance Performance

Measurement Framework Using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) for Maintenance
Performance Indicator Selection. Omega, 42 (2014) 33–46.

213
Verbeeten, F.H.M. 2008. Performance Management Practices in Public Sector
Organizations: Impact on performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
21(3):427-454.

Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M and Eckhoff, R.A. 2006. TheTyranny of the Balanced
Scorecard in the Innovation Economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1):43-60.

Weber, R.P. 1990. Basic Content Analysis: Series Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences: A Sage University Paper Second Edition Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Weber, A.I and Thomas, R. 2005. Key Performance Indicators, Measuring and
Managing the Maintenance Function. Ivara Corporation. Available at:
http://www.computerised-maintenance-management-systems.com/articles/KPIs.pdf.
Accessed on 20 October 2014.

Wedman J. 2010. The Performance Pyramid Handbook of Improving Performance in

the Workplace, 2:51-79. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/di/10.1002/9780470592663.ch22/pdf. Accessed on 05 May
2016.

Weikart, L.A., Chen, G.G., and Sermier, E. 2013. Bugdeting and Financial
Management for Non-Profit Organisations: Using Money to drive Mission Success.
Thousand Oaks, CA: CQPress/Sage.

Wenisch, S. 2004. The Diffusion of a Balanced Scorecard in a Divisionalised Firm -

Adoption and Implementation in a Practical Context. Department of Business
Administration Umea School of Business and Economics Umea University SE-90187
Umea.

214
Weygandt, J.J., Kimmel P.D., Kieso D.E. 2009. Accounting tools for Business

Decision Making. 5th Edition,R.R. Donnelly-JC

Williams, S. 1991. Strategy and Objectives’ in Neale.F. (ed.).The Handbook of

Performance Management, London: Institute of Personnel Management.

Wilson, C., Hagarty, D and Gauthier, J. 2003. Results Using the Balanced Scorecard in
the Public Sector. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6(1):53-63.

Wing, B.W.O., Guo L., Li, W and Yang, D. 2007. Reducing Conflict in Balanced
Scorecard Evaluations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(4-5):363-377.

Wisniewski, M and Olafsson, S. 2004. Developing Balanced Scorecards in Local

Authorities: a Comparison of Experience. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 53(7):602-610.

Wu, J.C.T., Tsai, H.T., Shih, M.H. and Fu, H.H. 2010. Government Performance
Evaluation Using a Balanced Scorecard with a Fuzzy Linguistic Scale. Service Industrial
Journal, 30(3):449-462.

Yadav, R.K and Dabhade, N. 2013. Performance Management System in Maharatna

Companies (a Leading Public Sector Undertaking of India-a Case Study of B.H.E.L.,
Bhopal (M.P.). International Letters of social and Humanistic Sciences, 4:49-69.

Yahaya, A. 2009. Using Balanced Scorecard to Assess Performance Management of

Banks in Ghana. Master Business Administration Thesis. School of Management.
Blekinge Institute of Technology.

Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.

215
Yin, R. K. 2003a. Case Study Research, Design and Methods (3rd ed., vol. 5)
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yin, R.K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd edition. Thousand
Oaks. CA. Sage

Yang G., Macnab, A.,Yang, L and Fan C. 2015. Developing Performance Measures and
Setting their Targets for National Research Institutes Based on Strategy Maps. Journal
of Science & Technology Policy Management, 6(2):165-186.

Zhang D and Linderman K. 2014.Customizing Quality Management Practices: A

Conceptual and Measurement Framework. Decision Sciences, 45 (1):81-114.

Zhang, T. 2012. An Overview of Dynamic Balanced Scorecard. Electrical Engineering,

173:75-82.

Zhang, Y and Li, L. 2009. Study on the Balanced Scorecard of Commercial Bank in
Performance Management System. PR China, 206-209.

Zhang, Y and Wildemuth, B. M. 1996. Qualitative Analysis of vAnalysis of Content.

Available at https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~yanz/content_analysis.pdf. Accessed
on 23 May 2014.

216
APPENDICES

The following appendices are attached on disc:

1. Gauteng Metropolitan Municipalities

Appendix A: Ekurhuleni Municipality‘s Performance Management and Measurement

Systems.

Appendix B: City of Johannesburg’s Performance Management and Measurement

Systems.

Appendix C: City of Tshwane‘s Performance Management and Measurement Systems.

2. Ekurhuleni Municipality Service Delivery Performance

Appendix D: Ekurhuleni Municipality‘s Scorecards and Performance Outcomes 2011-

2012
Appendix E: Ekurhuleni Municipality‘s Scorecards and Performance Outcomes 2012-
2013

Appendix F: Ekurhuleni Municipality‘s Scorecards and Performance Outcomes 2013-

2014

3. City of Johannesburg Service Delivery Performance

Appendix G: City of Johannesburg‘s Scorecards and Performance Outcomes 2011-

2012

Appendix H: City of Johannesburg‘s Scorecards and Performance Outcomes 2012-

2013

217
Appendix I: City of Johannesburg‘s Scorecards and Performance Outcomes 2013-
2014

4. City of Tshwane Service Delivery Performance

Appendix J: City of Tshwane s Scorecards and Performance Outcomes 2011-2012

Appendix K: City of Tshwane‘s Scorecards and Performance Outcomes 2012-2013

Appendix L: City of Tshwane‘s Scorecards and Performance Outcomes 2013-2014

218