Perceptions and configurations of balanced scorecard use: evidence from Portuguese SMEs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify managerial perceptions, as well as individual and organizational contingencies, that influence the use of balanced scorecard (BSC) among SMEs. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a mixed methods approach to study the use of the BSC from a survey database of 414 SMEs across several industries in Portugal. Findings This paper shows the perceived benefits, reasoning and obstacles that managers face when using the BSC in SMEs. The BSC is not the first choice for strategic management control of most firms in the sample. Most SMEs in this study have an explicitly formulated business strategy. The results show that it is possible to implement the BSC in SMEs without a formalized strategy. Such findings seem to suggest that the use of the BSC may stimulate the formulation of strategies for those firms. Research limitations/implications The use of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis limits the generalization of the findings; nonetheless, the transparency of the report enables replication without restrictions. Practical implications This paper proposes that the size of the firm and the characteristics of the manager may compensate for the absence of a strategy to guide BSC use. Social implications This paper advises a match between the stage of development of the SMEs strategy and the gender of the manager, which may have implications for recruitment purposes. Originality/value This study reports alternative configurations of individual and organizational conditions that lead to the use of the BSC in SMEs as well as configurations that prevent its use.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".