factors. However, what about the ma

factors. However, what about the matching
items within internal factors and items
within external factors. The primary reason
is that matching these factors will create
strategies that will not make sense. For
example, with a combination of strength and
weakness (both are internal factors), lets say
one of your organization's strengths is
``plenty of cash'' and one of your weaknesses
is ``lack of training''. Therefore, mixing these
two factors together, your management team
might simply decide to plan more training for
the staff members. The obvious remark for
this purposeless strategy will be ``so what!''
Mainly because you should not train, just for
the sake of training. A successful training
program must have a specific target in
response to external changes. You have to
determine your organization's specific needs
for training in line with the external and
internal factors. In other words, the strategy
must have an external factor as a trigger in
order for it to be feasible.
3. The balanced scorecard
Professor Robert Kaplan and David Norton
developed the balanced scorecard (BSC) in the
early 1990s. According to Kaplan and Norton
(1996), ``the Balanced Scorecard translates an
organization's mission and strategy into a
comprehensive set of performance measures
and provides the framework for strategic
measurement and management''.
Traditionally, most organizations look at their
corporate performance by reviewing the
financial aspects. However, financial
measures alone is not a balanced view of the
critical success factors of any organizations,
mainly because financial measurements tend
to measure the past. Therefore, what if an
organization knows what has happened, if
there are no explanations of ``Why it has
happened'' (Sanger, 1998).
The balanced scorecard is based on four
key perspectives; they are the financial goals
± ``How will we look to our stake holders?''
customer perspective ± ``How must we look to
our customers?'' internal processes ± ``What
internal processes must we excel at?'' and
learning and growth ± ``How can the
organization learn and improve?'' (Sanger,
1998). The concept of the balanced scorecard
is very similar to the ``Theory Y'' approach
which was developed by McGregor in 1960.
McGregor's ``Theory X'' discussed that the
traditional management system assumes that
``the average human being has an inherent
dislike of work and will avoid it if he can''
(Dinesh and Palmer, 1998). McGregor's
``Theory Y'' assumes the opposite in human
nature and stated that ``the average person
finds work as natural as play or rest''. Based
on ``Theory Y'', McGregor concluded, ``An
employee, if directly involved in the goal
setting process, can be relied upon for selfcontrol.
Therefore, productivity can best be
improved by clarifying strategically aligned
goals.'' (Dinesh and Palmer, 1998). Almost 40
years later, Kaplan and Norton's balanced
scorecard is also based on goal conformity as
a means of improving performance (Dinesh
and Palmer, 1998). In linking Kaplan and
Norton's balanced scorecard with
McGregor's ``Theory Y'', one must note that
``Theory Y'' deals with individual
performance, and the ``balanced scorecard''
deals with corporate performance. However,
the linkage of the two performance
measurement tools makes sense, mainly
because corporate performance is merely an
accumulation of individual performance.
What makes the balanced scorecard stand
out is that it is a holistic performance
management system which is geared towards
defining performance measures and
communicating objectives and vision to the
organization (Roest, 1997).
3.1 Critique of the balanced scorecard
McAdam and O'Neill (1999) reviewed the
balanced scorecard based on their
framework of total quality management
(TQM) and the main critiques are as follow:
. ``TQM is strategically linked to business
goals''. Despite the fact that Kaplan and
Norton outlined four perspectives
(financial, customer, internal processes,
and learning and growth) as the key
elements of organizational strategies that
must be measured, the BSC remains a
means of effectively measuring strategy
rather than a means of deciding strategy
(McAdam and O'Neill, 1999). This is the
main reason that this researcher feels that
the SWOT analysis serves as a great
``stepping stone'' to build the key
performance indicators (KPI) of the BSC.
. ``Customer understanding and satisfaction
is vital''. The BSC does a great job in
strengthening the link between customer
improvement initiatives and the
organization's strategy. However, the BSC
does not indicate how new customers and
markets can be identified (McAdam and
O'Neill, 1999). This researcher feels that
the BSC's major weakness is the lack of
``hows'', by linking the BSC to the quality
function deployment (QFD), the entire
``hows'' can be identified.
4. The link between SWOT analysis
and the balanced scorecard
Kaplan and Norton indicated that the first
step of the actual implementation of the
balanced scorecard is to clarif

Results (Indonesian) 1:

factors. However, what about the matchingitems within internal factors and itemswithin external factors. The primary reasonis that matching these factors will createstrategies that will not make sense. Forexample, with a combination of strength andweakness (both are internal factors), lets sayone of your organization's strengths is``plenty of cash'' and one of your weaknessesis ``lack of training''. Therefore, mixing thesetwo factors together, your management teammight simply decide to plan more training forthe staff members. The obvious remark forthis purposeless strategy will be ``so what!''Mainly because you should not train, just forthe sake of training. A successful trainingprogram must have a specific target inresponse to external changes. You have todetermine your organization's specific needsfor training in line with the external andinternal factors. In other words, the strategymust have an external factor as a trigger inorder for it to be feasible.3. The balanced scorecardProfessor Robert Kaplan and David Nortondeveloped the balanced scorecard (BSC) in theearly 1990s. According to Kaplan and Norton(1996), ``the Balanced Scorecard translates anorganization's mission and strategy into acomprehensive set of performance measuresand provides the framework for strategicmeasurement and management''.Traditionally, most organizations look at theircorporate performance by reviewing thefinancial aspects. However, financialmeasures alone is not a balanced view of thecritical success factors of any organizations,mainly because financial measurements tendto measure the past. Therefore, what if anorganization knows what has happened, ifthere are no explanations of ``Why it hashappened'' (Sanger, 1998).The balanced scorecard is based on fourkey perspectives; they are the financial goals± ``How will we look to our stake holders?''customer perspective ± ``How must we look toour customers?'' internal processes ± ``Whatinternal processes must we excel at?'' andlearning and growth ± ``How can theorganization learn and improve?'' (Sanger,1998). The concept of the balanced scorecardis very similar to the ``Theory Y'' approachwhich was developed by McGregor in 1960.McGregor's ``Theory X'' discussed that thetraditional management system assumes that``the average human being has an inherentdislike of work and will avoid it if he can''(Dinesh and Palmer, 1998). McGregor's``Theory Y'' assumes the opposite in humannature and stated that ``the average personfinds work as natural as play or rest''. Basedon ``Theory Y'', McGregor concluded, ``Anemployee, if directly involved in the goalsetting process, can be relied upon for selfcontrol.Therefore, productivity can best beimproved by clarifying strategically alignedgoals.'' (Dinesh and Palmer, 1998). Almost 40years later, Kaplan and Norton's balancedscorecard is also based on goal conformity asa means of improving performance (Dineshand Palmer, 1998). In linking Kaplan andNorton's balanced scorecard withMcGregor's ``Theory Y'', one must note that``Theory Y'' deals with individualperformance, and the ``balanced scorecard''deals with corporate performance. However,the linkage of the two performancemeasurement tools makes sense, mainlybecause corporate performance is merely anaccumulation of individual performance.What makes the balanced scorecard standout is that it is a holistic performancemanagement system which is geared towardsdefining performance measures andcommunicating objectives and vision to theorganization (Roest, 1997).3.1 Critique of the balanced scorecardMcAdam and O'Neill (1999) reviewed thebalanced scorecard based on theirframework of total quality management(TQM) and the main critiques are as follow:. ``TQM is strategically linked to businessgoals''. Despite the fact that Kaplan andNorton outlined four perspectives(financial, customer, internal processes,and learning and growth) as the keyelements of organizational strategies thatmust be measured, the BSC remains ameans of effectively measuring strategyrather than a means of deciding strategy(McAdam and O'Neill, 1999). This is themain reason that this researcher feels thatthe SWOT analysis serves as a great``stepping stone'' to build the keyperformance indicators (KPI) of the BSC.. '' Pelanggan memahami dan kepuasanpenting ''. BSC melakukan pekerjaan yang besarmemperkuat hubungan antara pelangganinisiatif-inisiatif perbaikan danstrategi organisasi. Namun, BSCtidak menunjukkan cara baru pelanggan danpasar dapat diidentifikasi (McAdam danO'Neill, 1999). Peneliti ini merasa bahwaBSC's kelemahan utama adalah kurangnya'' hows'', dengan menghubungkan BSC ke kualitaspenggunaan fungsi (QFD), seluruh'' hows'' dapat diidentifikasi.4. hubungan antara Analisis SWOTdan balanced scorecardKaplan dan Norton mengindikasikan bahwa yang pertamatahap pelaksanaan sebenarnyabalanced scorecard ini ke clarif

Results (Indonesian) 2:

faktor. Namun, bagaimana dengan pencocokan
item dalam faktor internal dan item
dalam faktor eksternal. Alasan utama
adalah bahwa pencocokan faktor-faktor ini akan membuat
strategi yang tidak akan masuk akal. Untuk
contoh, dengan kombinasi kekuatan dan
kelemahan (keduanya faktor internal), katakanlah
salah satu kekuatan organisasi Anda adalah
`` banyak uang tunai '' dan salah satu kelemahan Anda
adalah `` kurangnya pelatihan ''. Oleh karena itu, pencampuran ini
dua faktor bersama-sama, tim manajemen Anda
mungkin hanya memutuskan untuk merencanakan lebih banyak pelatihan untuk
anggota staf. Komentar yang jelas untuk
strategi sia ini akan `` jadi apa! ''
Terutama karena Anda tidak melatih, hanya untuk
kepentingan pelatihan. Sebuah pelatihan sukses
program harus memiliki target tertentu dalam
menanggapi perubahan eksternal. Anda harus
menentukan kebutuhan spesifik organisasi Anda
untuk pelatihan sejalan dengan eksternal dan
faktor internal. Dengan kata lain, strategi
harus memiliki faktor eksternal sebagai pemicu dalam
rangka untuk layak.
3. Balanced scorecard
Profesor Robert Kaplan dan David Norton
mengembangkan balanced scorecard (BSC) pada
awal 1990-an. Menurut Kaplan dan Norton
(1996), `` Balanced Scorecard menerjemahkan sebuah
misi dan strategi organisasi ke dalam
seperangkat ukuran kinerja
dan memberikan kerangka bagi strategis
pengukuran dan manajemen ''.
Secara tradisional, sebagian besar organisasi melihat mereka
kinerja perusahaan dengan meninjau yang
aspek keuangan. Namun, keuangan
langkah-langkah saja tidak pandangan yang seimbang dari
faktor penentu keberhasilan setiap organisasi,
terutama karena pengukuran keuangan cenderung
untuk mengukur masa lalu. Oleh karena itu, bagaimana jika sebuah
organisasi tahu apa yang telah terjadi, jika
tidak ada penjelasan dari `` Mengapa itu
. Terjadi '' (Sanger, 1998)
The balanced scorecard berdasarkan empat
perspektif utama; mereka adalah tujuan keuangan
± `` Bagaimana kita akan melihat kepada pemegang saham kami? ''
perspektif pelanggan ± `` Bagaimana kita harus melihat ke
pelanggan kami? '' proses internal ± `` Apa
proses internal yang harus kita unggul di? '' dan
pembelajaran dan pertumbuhan ± `` Bagaimana bisa
organisasi belajar dan meningkatkan? '' (Sanger,
1998). Konsep balanced scorecard
sangat mirip dengan `` 'pendekatan Teori Y'
yang dikembangkan oleh McGregor pada tahun 1960.
McGregor `` Teori X '' dibahas bahwa
sistem manajemen tradisional mengasumsikan bahwa
`` manusia rata-rata memiliki melekat
tidak suka pekerjaan dan akan menghindarinya jika dia bisa ''
(Dinesh dan Palmer, 1998). McGregor
`` Teori Y '' mengasumsikan berlawanan manusia
alam dan menyatakan bahwa `` rata-rata orang
menemukan pekerjaan sebagai alam seperti bermain atau istirahat ''. Berdasarkan
pada `` Teori Y '', McGregor menyimpulkan, `` Seorang
karyawan, jika terlibat langsung dalam tujuan
proses pengaturan, dapat diandalkan untuk pengendalian diri.
Oleh karena itu, produktivitas terbaik dapat
ditingkatkan dengan memperjelas strategis selaras
gol. '' (Dinesh dan Palmer, 1998). Hampir 40
tahun kemudian, Kaplan dan Norton seimbang
scorecard juga didasarkan pada kesesuaian tujuan sebagai
sarana meningkatkan kinerja (Dinesh
dan Palmer, 1998). Dalam menghubungkan Kaplan dan
balanced scorecard Norton dengan
McGregor `` Teori Y '', salah satu harus dicatat bahwa
`` Teori Y '' berkaitan dengan individu
kinerja, dan `` balanced scorecard ''
penawaran dengan kinerja perusahaan. Namun,
keterkaitan dari dua kinerja
alat pengukuran masuk akal, terutama
karena kinerja perusahaan hanyalah sebuah
akumulasi kinerja individu.
Apa yang membuat balanced scorecard menonjol
adalah bahwa itu adalah kinerja holistik
sistem manajemen yang diarahkan
mendefinisikan ukuran kinerja dan
berkomunikasi tujuan dan visi ke
. organisasi (Roest, 1997)
3.1 kritik balanced scorecard
McAdam dan O'Neill (1999) meninjau
balanced scorecard berdasarkan mereka
rangka manajemen kualitas total
(TQM) dan kritik utama adalah sebagai berikut:
. `` TQM yang strategis terkait dengan bisnis
tujuan ''. Terlepas dari kenyataan bahwa Kaplan dan
Norton diuraikan empat perspektif
(keuangan, pelanggan, proses internal,
dan pembelajaran dan pertumbuhan) sebagai kunci
elemen dari strategi organisasi yang
harus diukur, BSC tetap menjadi
sarana efektif mengukur strategi
bukan suatu cara memutuskan strategi
(McAdam dan O'Neill, 1999). Ini adalah
alasan utama bahwa peneliti ini merasa bahwa
analisis SWOT berfungsi sebagai besar
`` batu loncatan '' untuk membangun kunci
indikator kinerja (KPI) dari BSC.
. `` Pemahaman dan kepuasan pelanggan
sangat penting ''. BSC melakukan pekerjaan yang besar dalam
memperkuat hubungan antara pelanggan
inisiatif perbaikan dan
strategi organisasi. Namun, BSC
tidak menunjukkan bagaimana pelanggan baru dan
pasar dapat diidentifikasi (McAdam dan
O'Neill, 1999). Peneliti ini merasa bahwa
kelemahan utama BSC adalah kurangnya
`` bagaimana kabar '', dengan menghubungkan BSC untuk kualitas
penyebaran fungsi (QFD), seluruh
`` bagaimana kabar '' dapat diidentifikasi.
4. Hubungan antara analisis SWOT
dan balanced scorecard
Kaplan dan Norton menunjukkan bahwa pertama
langkah implementasi aktual dari
balanced scorecard adalah untuk clarif