Managing Performance of Indian Banking Sector through ...

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 06, Number: 06, October 2016 Page 30

Managing Performance of Indian Banking Sector through Contemporary

Performance Measurement System – Balanced Scorecard

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Associate Professor & Head PG Department of Commerce, A .S college, Khanna

Dr. Yashmin Sofat

Assistant Proferssor, A.S.College, Khanna ABSTRACT

In recent years, there has been a considerable widening and deepening of the Indian financial system, of which banking is a significant component. The information age environment requires new capabilities for competitive success. The ability of the organisation to mobilise and exploit its intangibles has become more decisive than investing in and managing of physical resources. Measuring organisational performance has been an important area and it has undergone continuous development and modification. Measuring an organisation's performance is both necessary and vital. If we can measure results only then, we can segregate success from failure. To correct we must recognize failure and to learn we must recognize success. If we won’t be able to measure and gauge it we cannot do management and improvements in business processes. Performance measurement is process of regular measurement of outcomes and results, which generates reliable data on the effectiveness and efficiency of business programs. The importance of performance measurement has long been recognized by academics and practitioners from a variety of functional disciplines. In Performance measurement the data is collected, analyzed and/or reported regarding the performance of an individual, group, organization, system or component. The Balanced Scorecard attempts to measure and provide feedback to organizations in order to assist in implementing strategies and objectives. In this research paper, the tool of balanced scorecard has been used to measure the performance of Indian banking sector from both financial and non-financial perspectives, to develop metrics, collect data and analyze it relative to each of these perspectives. Keywords: BSC, PMS. INTRODUCTION

With greater liberalization, the financial system has come to play a much larger role in the allocation of resources than in the past and its role in future can be expected to much larger than at present. Given the significance of the Indian banking system in the allocation of resources, one cannot afford to underplay the importance of a strong and resilient banking system. The wind of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG) has opened new vistas in the banking industry in the generation of intensely competitive environment. The players are competing like never before. Yesterdays stars are no longer stars, new stars are emerging on the scene. The banks are performing better than others to keep ahead in race. The information age environment requires new capabilities for competitive success. The ability of the organisation to mobilize and exploit its intangibles has become more decisive than investing in and managing of physical resources.

It is rightly said that anything which can be measured can be controlled. Measuring organizational performance has been an important area and it has undergone continuous development and modification. Since the inception of the concept, management experts as well as academicians have been trying to develop advanced method of measuring it. Measuring an organization’s performance is both necessary and vital. An organization operating without a performance measurement system (PMS) is like an aeroplane flying without a compass, or a Formula one race car driver guiding his car blindfolded, or a chief executive officer (CEO) operating without a strategic plan. The purpose of measuring performance is not only to know how a business is performing but


also to enable it to perform better. The ultimate aim of implementing a performance measurement system (PMS) is to improve the performance of an organization so that it may better serve its customers, employees, owners and other stakeholders (Johnson, 2007). If we can measure results only then, we can segregate success from failure. To correct we must recognize failure and to learn we must recognize success. If we won’t be able to measure and gauge it we cannot do management and improvements in business processes. Performance measurement is process of regular measurement of outcomes and results, which generates reliable data on the effectiveness and efficiency of business programs. The importance of performance measurement has long been recognized by academics and practitioners from a variety of functional disciplines.

We began with the premise that an exclusive reliance on financial measures in a management system is insufficient. Performance measures quantitatively and qualitatively tell us something important, to help us understand, manage, and improve what our organizations do. Traditional financial ratios have worked as important tools of measuring organizational performance in the bygone years. It has, however been felt that the leading indicators of business performance cannot be found in financial data alone. The structural changes and emerging trends associated with the new open environment have rendered the traditional financial performance measures which concentrate only on financial performance (ignoring the non-financial aspect) ineffective. Managements have been trying to change their organization’s/institution’s performance measurement system to track non-financial measures in the process.

In the light of above developments and apparent challenges in the Indian banking industry, it is interesting to see how the banks have performed and what their parameters of the performance measurement are? True performance can be measured only by using financial and non-financial key performance indicators (KPIs) or key result indicators (KRIs). There is a need to examine whether the Indian banking sector is responding to these important developments in the area of performance measurement systems or not? REVIEW OF LITERATURE A number of studies have been conducted in India and abroad to study various contemporary performance measurement systems for measuring and managing performance of Indian banking sector with reference to balanced scorecard. Kaplan and Norton (1992), in their paper, “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance” revealed that what you measure is what you get. Ashton (1998) examined National Westminster Bank (Nat West Bank) and its use of BSC to, among other things, improve quality, service and speed. McCunn(1998) reported strong support among managers at a leading UK retail bank using the balanced scorecard to improve management of its branch network. Malina and Selto (2001), in their empirical study, made an attempt to find the effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as a management control and strategy communication device. Dennis Campbell et al. and (2002), in their paper titled, “Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Control System for Monitoring and Revising Corporate Strategy”. Gumbus et al. (2002) showcases Philips Electronics Ltd, as an organization utilizing the BSC to improve its overall performance and become a $ 1 billion US Company. Philips Electronics used the BSC as a tool to align its strategies and to gain the commitment and participation of management and employees in achieving organizations objectives. Anand (2004), in his paper titled, “Achieving Breakthrough Performance Using the Balanced Scorecard”, revealed that the balanced scorecard will benefit the organization in more than one way. Gupta et al. (2004), in their article titled, “Balanced Scorecard – An Emerging International Performance Measure”. Kochhar and Anand (2004), while participating in the seminar on “Balanced Scorecard in Indian banks”, organised by IBA – cedar consulting, Ms Chanda Kochhar, Executive Director, ICICI Bank highlighted the various challenges faced by banking industry and role of the scorecard. Tapanya (2004), in his research study titled, “Examining the factors which influence Performance Measurement and Management in the Thai Banking Industry: An Application of Balanced Scorecard framework”, examines various performance measurement systems based on financial and non-financial measures. Pandey (2005), in his article titled, “Balanced Scorecard: Myth and Reality”

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 06, Number: 06, October 2016 2

highlighted the reason for the use of the BSC by the organisation and requisites for successful implementation of BSC. Anand et al. (2005), in their research study, “Balanced Scorecard in Indian Companies” identified the extent of the usage of the BSC by corporate India. Bhat (2006) emphasized on the Balanced Scorecard as a tool of strategic management more on the financial aspect. The BSC was relevant to both manufacturing and service sector companies and similarly to both small and large organizations. Chakraborty (2007), in his article titled, “Balanced Scorecard – “A Comprehensive Guide to Performance Evaluation” described the Balanced Scorecard as a management system. It is a mirror, which shows how an organization’s mission and vision can be decomposed into strategic components that are actionable, specific and measurable. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE & METHODOLOGY

The study has been conceived to examine the awareness and usages of existing and new performance measurement systems in place in the Indian banking sector and also evaluate the present performance measurement systems in Balanced Scorecard framework.

For this purpose, mainly primary data has been used and data has been gathered through a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire has been administered in such a manner that covers the entire hierarchy of the banks. For this purpose, a sample of six banks consisting of top three public sector banks on the basis of size (assets) of each bank i.e. SBI and its associates SBOP, PNB and Canara bank and top three private sector banks on the basis of size (assets) of each bank i.e. ICICI bank, HDFC bank and AXIS bank has been taken. For the collection of data, it was planned to give representation to entire state of Punjab covering all the major districts and Chandigarh (UT) being capital and regional, zonal, training and circle offices of all the selected banks. For collection of data, a sample of 200 bankers selecting equal number (100 each) from both public sector and private sector banks has been drawn. The analysis of collected data has been done by using simple frequencies, percentages, averages, Weighted Average Scores (WAS), Mann-Whitney test (U-test), etc. HYPOTHESES Ho, 1: There is no significant difference in the perception of public and private sector bankers

regarding importance of various perspectives while introducing performance measurement system.

Ho, 2: There is no significant difference in the perception of public and private sector bankers regarding importance of various measures under financial perspective.

Ho, 3: There is no significant difference in the perception of public and private sector bankers regarding various measures of customer perspective.

Ho, 4: There is no significant difference in the perception of public and private sector bankers regarding various measures of internal business process perspective.

Ho, 5: There is no significant difference in the perception of public and private sector bankers regarding various measures of learning and innovation perspective.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

To examine the importance of various perspectives for introducing performance measurement systems (PMS), the bankers were asked to give their opinion regarding different perspectives, such as financial perspective, customers’ perspective, internal business process perspective, learning and innovation perspective, employees’ perspective and shareholders’ perspective. In this regard, the response of bankers and weighted average scores have been calculated for the selected banks.

Bank-wise analysis of both public and private sector banks with regard to importance of various perspectives while measuring the performance of the bank has been given in Table 1.


Table 1 Weighted Average Scores Corresponding to Importance (Rate) of Various Perspective while

Introducing Performance Measurement System (PMS) (Bank-wise Distribution)

Perspectives Public Sector Banks Private Sector Banks WAS p-values SBI PNB CB Total ICICI AXIS HDFC Total

Financial Perspective 4.86 4.49 4.80 4.71 4.86 4.73 4.43 4.67 4.69 0.931

Customers’ Perspective 4.40 4.80 4.80 4.66 4.66 4.37 4.43 4.49 4.58 0.035*

Internal Business Process Perspective 4.14 4.00 4.43 4.18 4.17 4.17 4.14 4.16 4.17 0.510

Learning and Innovation Perspective

4.20 4.29 4.53 4.33 4.20 4.00 4.06 4.09 4.21 0.037*

Employees’ Perspective 3.91 4.06 4.33 4.09 4.06 4.07 3.91 4.01 4.05 0.388

Shareholders’ Perspective 4.06 3.74 4.33 4.03 4.11 4.03 3.86 4.00 4.02 0.918

* Significant at 5 per cent level of significance. An overview of the weighted average scores as shown in the table reveals that the scores for

public sector banks were on the higher side with regard to all the perspectives. This shows that bankers from public sector banks gave more importance to listed perspectives as compared to the bankers from private sector banks.

The estimated p-values using Mann-Whitney U-test with regard to all the perspectives show that there is a significant difference among public and private sector banks regarding importance of customers’ perspective and learning and innovation perspective while introducing performance measurement system (p-values<.05). As far as financial perspective, internal business process perspective, employees’ perspective and shareholders’ perspective are concerned, there is no significant difference between public and private sector banks.

It is pertinent to note that public sector banks accorded more importance to customers’ perspective, and learning and innovation perspective as reflected by their weighted average scores corresponding to their counterparts. For other perspectives, such as financial perspective, internal business process perspective, employees’ perspective and shareholders’ perspective, the banks from both the sectors assigned equal importance to the perspectives mentioned above. Bankers' Opinion Regarding the Importance of Various Measures under Financial Perspective

Earlier the bankers were asked to rate various perspectives while measuring performance of the banks. But an attempt was made further to examine the importance of various measures under different perspectives while introducing the performance measurement system (PMS). The bankers were asked to indicate their opinion regarding importance of various measures under financial perspectives, The response of bankers and their weighted score in this regard has been shown in Table 2.


Table 2 Weighted Average Scores Corresponding to Importance of Various Measures under Financial

Perspective (Bank-wise Distribution)

Measures Public Sector Banks Private Sector Banks WAS p- values SBI PNB CB Total ICICI AXIS HDFC Total

Return on Investment 4.69 4.26 4.53 4.49 4.49 4.30 4.46 4.42 4.46 0.331

CAMEL Framework 4.11 4.20 4.27 4.19 3.80 3.37 3.60 3.60 3.90 0.00*

Productivity Measures 4.34 4.60 4.57 4.50 4.66 4.17 4.17 4.34 4.42 0.160

* Significant at 5 per cent level of significance. The table presents a comparative view of bankers from both the public and private sector

banks. It is clear from the table that public sector banks accorded more importance to various measures under financial perspective as compared to the private sector banks as shown by their respective weighted average scores for each measure. The estimated p-values with regard to each measure under financial perspective show that there is a significant difference among public and private sector banks as far as CAMEL framework is concerned. Public sector banks gave more importance to CAMEL framework as compared to private sector banks. As regards return on investment and productivity measures, the banks from both the sectors gave equal importance to these measures of financial perspective. Opinions of Bankers Regarding Various Measures of Customer Perspective

To examine the importance of various measures of customer perspective, the bankers were asked to indicate their opinion. The response of bankers with regard to various measures which are considered important by the bankers regarding customer perspective as a measure of performance measurement system has been presented. Bank-wise analysis of weighted average scores as depicted in Table 3 shows that most of the measures of customer perspective have been rated as more important by the bankers from public sector banks, such as customer satisfaction level (4.79), customer retention (4.75), customer complaints and grievances (4.69), know your customer (4.68), staff skills and competence to handle customers (4.64), staff speed and responsiveness towards customers (4.62), market share (4.61), market penetration (4.45), number of new customers (4.44), staff availability for customers (4.41), staff appearance and friendliness towards customers (4.37), multiple delivery channels, and customer erosion rate (4.31 each), customer profitability (4.29), cost of customer acquisition (4.22) and number of customer suggestions (4.20) in comparison to private sector banks. Similarly, measures like customer profitability (4.30), No. of customer suggestions (4.29), and cost of customer acquisition (4.24) considered more important by the bankers from private sector banks.

Table 3

Weighted Average Scores Corresponding to Various Measures of Customer Perspective (Bank-wise Distribution)

Measures Public Sector Banks Private Sector Banks WAS p-values SBI PNB CB Total ICICI AXIS HDFC Total

Customer Satisfaction Level 4.66 4.74 5.00 4.79 4.83 4.73 4.71 4.76 4.78 0.640

Customer Retention 4.63 4.71 4.93 4.75 4.54 4.63 4.60 4.59 4.67 0.025* Cost of Customer Acquisition 4.20 4.20 4.27 4.22 4.31 4.13 4.26 4.24 4.23 0.745


Measures Public Sector Banks Private Sector Banks WAS p-values SBI PNB CB Total ICICI AXIS HDFC Total

Customer Profitability 4.17 4.17 4.57 4.29 4.26 4.17 4.46 4.30 4.30 0.836

Market Share 4.69 4.49 4.67 4.61 4.46 4.37 4.31 4.38 4.50 0.006* Market Penetration (Growth Rate) 4.43 4.43 4.50 4.45 4.26 4.33 4.34 4.31 4.38 0.185

Staff Availability for Customers 4.29 4.37 4.60 4.41 4.34 4.23 4.23 4.27 4.34 0.147

Staff Speed and Responsiveness towards Customers

4.57 4.54 4.77 4.62 4.31 4.20 4.40 4.31 4.47 0.001*

Staff Skills and Competence to Handle Customers

4.66 4.69 4.57 4.64 4.43 4.43 4.23 4.36 4.50 0.005*

Staff Appearance and Friendliness towards Customers

4.46 4.34 4.30 4.37 4.29 4.33 4.29 4.30 4.34 0.367

No. of New Customers 4.37 4.46 4.50 4.44 4.43 4.23 4.40 4.36 4.40 0.275

No. of Customer Suggestions (Feed-back)

4.06 4.31 4.23 4.20 4.40 4.17 4.29 4.29 4.25 0.426

Know Your Customer (KYC) 4.54 4.66 4.87 4.68 4.60 4.63 4.66 4.63 4.66 0.522

Customer Complaints and Grievances

4.51 4.66 4.93 4.69 4.63 4.37 4.51 4.51 4.60 0.044*

Multiple Delivery channels 4.51 4.11 4.30 4.31 4.26 3.80 4.14 4.08 4.20 0.050

Customer Erosion Rate 4.37 3.94 4.67 4.31 4.14 4.33 4.09 4.18 4.25 0.153

* Significant at 5 per cent level of significance

The estimated p-values obtained after using Mann-Whitney U-test with regard to various measures of customer perspective reveal that there is a significant difference between public and private sector banks regarding various measures. These were customer retention (0.025), market share (0.006), staff speed and responsiveness towards customers (0.001), staff skills and competence to handle customers (0.005) and customer complaints and grievances (0.044). For rest of the measures, there is no significant difference between public and private sector banks as far as importance of various measures of customer perspective is concerned. The banks from both the sectors accord equal importance to all the measures of customer perspective except those mentioned above. Bankers' Opinion Regarding Various Measures of Internal Business Process Perspective

Internal business process perspective is considered as an important perspective under non-financial measures for measuring and managing the performance of the banks. The soundness of a bank is judged to a large extent by its process and procedures which the bank follows in its operations. In order to evaluate the importance of the various measures of internal business process perspective, the bankers were asked to give their opinion about different measures, The response of the bankers’ and their weighted average scores have also been calculated bank-wise for all the measures under internal business process perspective and presented in Table 4. The table reveals that most of the


measures of internal business process perspective have been rated highly important by the bankers of public sector banks, such as core banking solutions (4.71), E-Banking: ATM, RTGS, ECS, EFT, etc.(4.70), service time (4.67), confidentiality of customer data (4.65), response time (4.50), aggressive marketing (cross-sell products) (4.47), and corporate social responsibility (4.20). Whereas the bankers from private sector banks accorded more importance to measures like mobile banking/tele-banking (4.49), new and differentiated products introductions interval (4.47) in comparison to their counterpart.

Table 4

Weighted Average Scores Corresponding to Various Measures of Internal Business Process Perspective

(Bank-wise Distribution) Measures Public Sector Banks Private Sector Banks

WAS p-values SBI PNB CB Total ICICI AXIS HDFC Total Service Time 4.63 4.66 4.73 4.67 4.69 4.63 4.63 4.65 4.66 0.693 Confidentiality of Customer Data 4.49 4.69 4.80 4.65 4.69 4.53 4.69 4.64 4.65 0.525

Response Time 4.34 4.49 4.70 4.50 4.46 4.40 4.60 4.49 4.50 0.696 New and Differentiated Product Introduction Interval

4.40 4.06 4.47 4.30 4.57 4.47 4.37 4.47 4.39 0.070

Core Banking Solutions (CBS) 4.80 4.60 4.73 4.71 4.86 4.43 4.43 4.58 4.65 0.228

E-Banking: ATM, RTGS, ECS, EFT, Internet Banking, etc.

4.83 4.54 4.73 4.70 4.80 4.60 4.51 4.64 4.67 0.612

Mobile Banking/Tele- banking

4.43 4.29 4.33 4.35 4.60 4.53 4.34 4.49 4.42 0.214

Corporate Social Responsibility 4.17 4.03 4.43 4.20 4.17 4.27 4.00 4.14 4.17 0.595

Aggressive Marketing (Cross-sell Products)

4.49 4.40 4.53 4.47 4.49 4.50 4.17 4.38 4.43 0.547

Bank Earning vis-à-vis Industry Earning 4.26 4.31 4.67 4.40 4.49 4.37 4.31 4.39 4.40 0.828

Note: None of the p-values in the above table are significant at 5 per cent level of significance.

The estimated p-values obtained with regard to all the measures of internal business process perspective show that there is no significant difference among both the public and private sector banks as far as rating of importance of all the measures of internal business process perspective is concerned. The banks from both the sectors assign equal importance to all the listed measures under internal business process perspective. Opinion of Bankers Regarding Various Measures of Learning and Innovation Perspective

In the present environment, in order to compete and excel, banks should lay emphasis on learning and innovation in the entire sphere of banking. Technology, manpower skill and business strategy are important pillars of growth. To examine the importance of various measures of learning and innovation perspective, the bankers were asked to give their opinion about various measures.


The bankers’ response and weighted average scores have been calculated for both public and private sector banks with regard to all the measures of learning and innovation perspective and presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Weighted Average Scores Corresponding to Various Measures of Learning and Innovation

Perspective (Bank-wise Distribution)

Measures Public Sector Banks Private Sector Banks

WAS p-values SBI PNB CB Total ICICI AXIS HDFC Total

IT Usage 4.74 4.37 4.80 4.63 4.57 4.53 4.43 4.51 4.57 0.180 No. and Percentage of Internet Products (Internet Banking)

4.14 4.06 4.37 4.18 4.20 4.30 4.23 4.24 4.21 0.468

No. of Internet Customers 4.11 3.80 4.20 4.03 4.40 3.77 3.91 4.04 4.04 0.998

No. of Branches Offering Single Window Service

4.51 4.31 4.57 4.46 4.43 4.13 4.09 4.22 4.34 0.037

Training and Development programme

4.51 4.43 4.73 4.55 4.46 4.17 4.20 4.28 4.42 0.001*

New Products and Services 4.40 4.23 4.40 4.34 4.51 4.17 4.31 4.34 4.34 0.811

Bank Brand Ambassador 4.06 3.71 4.27 4.00 4.26 3.83 3.86 3.99 4.00 0.812

Development of Critical Skills 4.29 4.17 4.37 4.27 4.46 3.83 4.14 4.16 4.22 0.459

Intellectual Capital Formation 4.03 4.03 4.47 4.16 4.26 3.83 4.11 4.08 4.12 0.866

Strategic Alliance and Partnership 3.89 3.83 4.23 3.97 4.06 4.17 4.23 4.15 4.06 0.110

* Significant at 5 per cent level of significance.. Table 5 reveals that there was a mixed response from the bankers belonging to public and

private sector banks with regard to importance of various measures of learning and innovation perspective. Bankers from both the public and private sector banks considered all the measures of learning and innovation perspective. However, an in-depth study of the table reveals that bankers from public sector banks had given more importance to IT usage (4.63), training and development programme (4.55), number of branches offering single window service (4.46), development of critical skills (4.27), intellectual capital formation (4.16) and bank brand ambassador (4.00). On the other hand, bankers from private sector banks accorded more importance to other measures, such as number and percentage of internet products (4.24), strategic alliance and partnership (4.15) and number of internet customers (4.04). Further, it is noted that new products and services (4.34 for each bank) measure have been rated equally by the bankers from both public and private sector banks

The estimated p-values using Mann-Whitney U-test with regard to all the measures of learning and innovation perspective show that there is a significant difference between public and private sector banks regarding training and development programme (p-values<0.05). As regards other measures, there is no significant difference between public and private sector banks as shown by their p-


values>0.05. This shows that the banks from both the sectors gave equal importance to all the measures of learning and innovation perspective except training and development programme. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The study elaborated number of issues concerning various performance measurement systems applied by the banks for measuring and managing their performance. The study brings out that though the bankers were aware about contemporary Performance Measurement System like balanced scorecard based on financial and non-financial measures. Keeping in view the various benefits of the balanced scorecard, it is suggested that it is more of a necessity than a luxury for banks operating in the present contemporary business environment. So, it is suggested that the banks should not only make their managers aware about the balanced scorecard, but the bankers must be trained to understand the BSC in a wider perspective so as to reap its benefits as a performance measurement and management tool in the Indian banking sector.

The study shows that both the public and private sector banks accorded more importance to various perspectives such as Financial Perspective, Customers’ Perspective, Internal Business Process Perspective, Learning and Innovation perspective, Employees’ Perspective and Shareholders’ Perspective while introducing performance measurement system. The result indicates that weighted average scores of public sector bankers were on the higher side with regard to all the perspectives. It means the public sector banks gave more significance to these listed perspectives as compared to private sector bankers. In this regard, public sector banks were giving tough competition to the private sector banks. Therefore, it is suggested that private sector banks should give more significance to all the perspectives (financial and non-financial) while introducing performance measurement system for measuring and managing their performance. Moreover, with the entry of foreign banks, competition among various bankers will become quite tough. To reap the benefits of intangible assets, bankers has to focus on non-financial measures while measuring, managing and evaluating its performance. To achieve this, banks should implement balanced scorecard which mainly tracks both financial and non-financial measures. As both the public and private sector banks lay emphasis on financial and non-financial measures while measuring and managing their performance, they should realise the importance of striking a balance (assigning weightage) between financial and non-financial measures. References Anand, S. (2004), “Achieving Breakthrough Performance Using the Balanced Scorecard”, IBA

Bulletin, Vol.26, No.12, pp.28-31. Anand, M.; Sahey, S.; and Saha, S. (2005) “Balanced Scorecard in Indian Companies”, Vikalpa,

Vol.30, No.2, pp.11-25. Ashton, C. (1998), “Balanced Scorecard Benefits: Nat West Bank”, International Batra, R. (2006),

“The Balanced Scorecard: An Indian Perspective”, The ICFAI Journal of Management Research, Vol.5, No.8, pp.7-27.

Beechey, J.; and Garlic, D. (1999), “Using the Balanced Scorecard in Banking”, The Australian Banker, No.133, pp. 28- 30.

Bhat, K. P. (2006), “Balanced Scorecard: A Tool and Strategic Management”, 9th Strategic Management Forum Conference from 20th May – 23rd May.

Chakraborty, P.K. (2007), “Balanced Scorecard – A Comprehensive Guide to Performance Evaluation”, The Chartered Accountant, April, pp.1625-1630.

Gutpa, A.; Sarkar, P.; and Samanta, P. (2004), “Balanced Scorecard: An Emerging International Performance Measure”, Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.18, No.1, pp. 43-52.

Johnson, C. Christian (2007), “Introduction to Balanced Scorecard and Performance Measurement Systems”, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Balanced Scorecard/chap1.pdf, pp.1-13.

Kaplan, R. S.; and Norton, D. P. (1992), “The Balanced Scorecard: Measure That Drive Performance”, Harvard Business Review, January - February, pp.71-79.


Kaplan, R. S.; and Norton, D. P (1996), “Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System”, Harvard Business Review, January - February, pp.75-85.

Kaplan, R.S.; and Norton, D. P. (1999), “Chemical Bank: Implementing the Balance Scorecard”, Harvard Business Review, June.

Kaplan, R. S.; and Norton, D. P. (2001a), “Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management”, Accounting Horizons, Part I, pp.87-104.

Kaplan, R. S.; and Norton, D. P. (2001b), “Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management”, Accounting Horizons, Part II, pp.147-160.

Karunakar, B. (2006), Balanced Scorecard-Concepts and Experiences, ICFAI University Press, Hyderabad.

Kochhar, C.; and Anand, S. (2004), “IBA-Cedar Consulting Joint Seminar on Balanced Scorecard”, Dec.17, Mumbai.

McCunn, P. (1998), “The Balanced Scorecard”, Management Accounting, December, pp.34-36. Pandey, I. M. (2005), “Balanced Scorecard: Myth and Reality”, Vikalpa, Vol.30, No.1, pp. 51-66. Tapanya, S. (2004), Examining the Factors Which Influence Performance Measurement and

Management in the Thai Banking Industry: An Application of the Balanced Scorecard Framework, A Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Murdoch University.

Managing Performance of Indian Banking Sector through ...

Documents

Transcript of Managing Performance of Indian Banking Sector through ...