Causal Relationships in the Balanced Scorecard: A Path Analysis Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use path analysis to identify causal relationships between different performance measures in each of the four perspectives defined in the balanced scorecard and examine the influence of time lag on relationships between perspectives. We analyze performance data from a real high-tech company. Our results point to a direct relationship between leading measures in the learning and growth perspective and lagging measures in the financial perspective. Our findings also support the existence of a path of “Learning → Production Efficiency → Quality”, reflecting the fact that the more the organization invests in learning and in developing its human capital, the better the production efficiency and product quality will be in the same year. We identify an additional direct path “Customer Service → Profit”, reflecting a significant positive relationship between the customer and profit in the same year. Finally a “Growth →Sales” path exists implies that improvement in the growth of the firm is followed by a positive effect on the firm’s sales one year later.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".