A limited time offer!

urgent 3h delivery guaranteed

Application of Balanced Scorecard

Essay Topic: ,

A Case Study: Application of the Balanced Scorecard in Higher Education by Andrea Mae Rollins A dissertation submitted to the faculty of San Diego State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Educational Leadership June 28, 2011 iii Copyright © 2011 by Andrea Mae Rollins v DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my brother Jason, from as early as I can remember he has always been proud of his little sister and her accomplishments; his pride, his love, and his support will forever be cherished and means more than he will ever know, and To my grandmother Dollie, who sacrificed so much in order to provide for me the life I needed; she taught me to be kind and generous and to ask for help when needed, but most importantly she taught me anything is possible, and To my dear friends, who give me more credit than I deserve and love me unconditionally; I am extremely fortunate to have such a wonderful group of amazing women in my life, and To Fred, who never gave up on me; his confidence in my abilities gave me the strength to push through all obstacles and make it to the finish line. v ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine the application of the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool within the External and Business Affairs (EBA) unit at University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Specially, the study sought to examine how the Balanced Scorecard was communicated throughout the organization, how the data are used within the organization, and how the data are used for decision making, paying particular attention to the four perspectives of UCSD’s EBA’s personalized Balanced Scorecard.

These four perspectives are financial/stakeholder, internal processes, innovation and learning, and the customer. This descriptive case study, a review of program records, a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews with EBA employees utilizing the constant comparative method and descriptive statistics, identified four lessons learned: the truly informed employees are at the top of the organization and they find value in the Balanced Scorecard, most employees are unaware of availability and usefulness of the Balanced Scorecard data, even an unbalanced Scorecard improves business operations and the annual performance evaluation process is an opportunity to reinforce the Balanced Scorecard. The study includes three recommendations for EBA.

The recommendations are EBA leadership needs to communicate the Balanced Scorecard process, outcomes, and application with greater clarity to all employees in the organization; there needs to be an institutional plan for sustainability of the Balanced Scorecard to ensure it transcends the current people and environment; and the Balanced Scorecard process within EBA must be flexible for future organizational evolution.

We will write a custom essay sample on Application of Balanced Scorecard

or any similar topic only for you

Order Now

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background: The Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site of the Case Study: University of California, San Diego. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . External and Business Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significance of This Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of the Researcher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2—REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roles and Expectations of Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher Education in California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v x xi xii 1 1 4 6 9 10 11 12 12 14 14 15 15 15 17 17 19 vii Reengineering Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance Funding.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accreditation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Structure and Management Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Quality Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Malcolm Baldrige Award Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balanced Scorecard and Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Change and the Case Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Design.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection and Analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethical Principles Based on Human Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of the Researcher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22 24 28* 28 29 30 33 34 36 37 37 38 38 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 47 48 viii Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4—FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participant Profiles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Source of Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Program Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lessons Learned.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recent Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interview Themes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Tool With Many Names.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communication Is an Individual Choice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Unbalanced Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Impact Is Personal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visionaries Can Be Found at All Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5—DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lessons Learned.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 48 50 51 51 54 56 56 57 60 61 61 63 64 64 65 66 69 72 74 77 78 79 ix Informed Employee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Availability and Usefulness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unbalanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance Evaluation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communicate With Clarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sustainability Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flexibility.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process Mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balanced Scorecard Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balanced Scorecard Components.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traditional Academic Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quantitative Outcome Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A. Vice Chancellor—External and Business Affairs Organization Chart.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Balanced Scorecard Example.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 86 88 92 95 97 98 99 100 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 106 112 113 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. External and Business Affairs’ Personalized Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . Table 2. Unit Affiliation of Survey Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3. Years of Service of Survey Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4. Position of Survey Participants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5. Interview Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6. Survey Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 52 53 54 56 58 i LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. The Balanced Scorecard visual created by Kaplan and Norton.. . . . . . . . . 3 xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their support and patience in the completion of this study. Thank you to Dr. Fred McFarlane for always making time to hear me. There were many excuses used, but you never seemed frustrated or disappointed but rather your continued support kept me motivated and committed. Thank you to Dr. Shaila Mulholland for continuously pushing me a bit further and your continued support while doing so. Thank you to Dr. Mark Tucker for your careful review of this work and your sound advice and guidance.

I would also like to thank Dr. Angela Song and the UCSD community. Dr. Song, throughout this entire process, if felt as though I had a partner in you. Your generosity in terms of sharing your time and knowledge meant a lot and was a significant contributor to my success. To the UCSD community, thank you for your honesty and openness. Lastly, I want to thank my friends and family. Thank you for always believing in me. Your encouragement and support helped make this possible. A final thanks goes to Bailey and Hershey for their unconditional love, especially in those moments when I had little time and attention for them; they rode this wave with me. CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION Steven Covey is quoted as saying, “People and their managers are working so hard to be sure things are done right, that they hardly have time to decide if they are doing the right things” (Rohm, 2002, p. 1). Managing an organization is a balancing act. This balancing act requires the organization and all its members to ensure the development of good business strategies that allow for efficient operations and practices. The Balanced Scorecard is a performance management tool that assists the organization in finding its balance (Rohm, 2002). According to Kaplan and Norton (2007), “The balanced Scorecard supplemented traditional financial measures with criteria that measured performance from three additional perspectives—those of customers, internal business, and learning and growth” (p. 2).

This case study examines the application of The Balanced Scorecard in External and Business Affairs (EBA) at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Specifically, it looks at the personalized Balanced Scorecard that UCSD developed for their implementation. Background: The Balanced Scorecard The Balanced Scorecard, developed in 1992, provides organizations with an opportunity to measure more than financial performance indicators. Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed the Balanced Scorecard so that “managers should not have to choose between financial and operational measures” (p. 71). The development of the balanced scorecard was in response to a changing and more competitive environment where executives felt traditional measures of financial performance were not sufficient.

The Balanced Scorecard was designed as a model for measuring several dimensions of 2 performance. The model provided managers with a format that allowed them the opportunity to incorporate additional perspectives beyond financial performance measures. By using this model, organizations are able to complement their financial measures with additional nonfinancial performance measures for the purpose of planning future growth and creating an organization with more collaborative leadership (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). Kaplan and Norton (1992) completed a yearlong research project that was comprised of 12 companies that they described as being at the leading edge of performance management.

The result of this yearlong research project is the Balanced Scorecard, which is an assessment tool comprised of a set of measures that go beyond the traditional measures of financial criteria to include measures that are inclusive of both financial and operational indicators. The Balanced Scorecard “provides answers to four basic questions: 1) How do customers see us? 2) What must we excel at? 3) Can we continue to improve and create value? and 4) How do we look to shareholders? ” (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, p. 72). Kaplan and Norton argue that by giving managers the answers to these four basic questions, they will have multiple measures to judge the performance of their organization, but will not be overloaded by a large number of measures. Additionally, the variety of measures requires the financial and operational leaders to work together.

The Balanced Scorecard serves as an easy tool for determining whether the success in one area occurs to the detriment of another, as well as identifying if success in one area is associated with strong performance in another area (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). By considering the four perspectives altogether, the Balanced Scorecard indicates when a process that serves a benefit to your customers may in fact hinder the 3 organization from the innovation and learning perspectives. Figure 1 is a visual of the tool Kaplan and Norton created to describe the Balanced Scorecard. Figure 1. The Balanced Scorecard visual created by Kaplan and Norton. Adapted from “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance,” by R. S. Kaplan & D. P.

Norton, January-February 1992, Harvard Business Review, p. 72. The tool provides the four questions of the Balanced Scorecard in relationship to one another and links the questions to the perspective to which they are responding. Additionally, the Balanced Scorecard provides the format for tracking the data, which they break up into goals and measures. The four perspectives are: Financial, Internal Business, Innovation and Learning, and Customer (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). These four questions are the foundation of the Balanced Scorecard. Goal setting and tracking 4 measures help to make the Balanced Scorecard a successful performance measurement tool for organizations.

Site of the Case Study: University of California, San Diego In recognition of its “innovative approach to cutting costs, solving problems, and increasing efficiency” (UCSD, 2003, para. 1) the University of California, San Diego was inducted into the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame in 2003 (External and Business Affairs [EBA], 2011b). Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton founded the Palladium Group (2010), a global organization that provides, among other services, consulting in strategy and performance management. The Palladium Group developed the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame, which honors organizations that have achieved performance excellence through the use of the Balanced Scorecard.

There is a formal application process, and the selection criteria requires an organization to have implemented the Balanced Scorecard methodology, have completed a breakthrough in performance results for at least 24 months, and have provided a testimonial that the organization’s success is, at least in part, due to the Kaplan-Norton approach. In 2010, there were more than 130 current Hall of Fame Members. Members included domestic and international organizations. They were presented in the following industry groups: consumer, education and nonprofits, energy and utilities, financials, government, healthcare, materials and industrials, and telecommunications and information technologies (The Palladium Group, 2010). In 2003, UCSD was the first university to be added to the Hall of Fame.

The recognition came 10 years after adopting the performance management system in 1993. There are only two other universities that have been inducted into the 5 Hall of Fame. These two universities are the University of Leeds located in the United Kingdom and the International Islamic University of Malaysia. University of California, San Diego, one of the 10 campuses in California’s University of California system, was founded in 1960. University of California, San Diego is highly regarded nationwide as both an outstanding institution of higher learning and as a top tier research institution. In the 2011 “America’s Best Colleges Guidebook,” issued by U. S.

News and World Report (as cited in UCSD, 2010a), UCSD was ranked as the 7th best public university in the nation. In 2010, there were five Nobel Prize winners among UCSD’s faculty body (UCSD, 2010a). University of California, San Diego has significant ties to the local community, specifically related to the amount of jobs it provides for members of the local community. University of California, San Diego is the third largest employer in San Diego County, employing nearly 26,000 employees. Its faculty and alumni have contributed to at least 193 start-up companies in the San Diego community. The impact of the research at UCSD extends throughout California, which notes that “UC San Diego contributes more than $7. billion in direct and indirect spending and personal income each year to the California economy and generates 39,400 jobs, based on an independent study conducted by CBRE Consulting released in” 2008” (UCSD, 2010a, para. 7). The work of the students, faculty, researchers and alumni has a local, state, and national influence and a global reach. The campus consists of six undergraduate colleges, five academic divisions and five graduate and professional schools. In the fall of 2010, the total campus enrollment was 29,899 students. The annual revenues for UCSD are approximately $2. 6 billion with 22% of the revenues 6 coming from federally funded research and 11. 5% coming from the State of California (UCSD, 2010a).

The Washington Monthly is a different ranking guide that ranks higher education organizations on an annual basis on their contribution to the public good. The categories for the college guide and rankings for the award are Social Mobility—recruiting and graduating low income students; Research—producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs; and Service—encouraging students to give something back to their country. In 2010, UCSD ranked number one on the Washington Monthly list. Washington Monthly explains their rankings are unlike U. S. News and World Reports and other guides because they do not look at what colleges can do for the individual but rather what the colleges do for the country (“College Guide,” 2010).

External and Business Affairs The mission of UCSD focuses primarily on education and research. The leadership structure of the university is divided into seven vice chancellor areas. Three of the vice chancellor areas hold academic appointments and directly serve the education and research mission of UCSD. The other four vice chancellor areas serve this mission, as well, but in more of a peripheral role. The External and Business Affairs (EBA) vice chancellor area serves the university by providing leadership and management for the business and administrative functions. Despite the fact that UCSD is recognized by the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame, only EBA has implemented the Balanced Scorecard.

The overall mission of EBA is “raising financial support for UCSD’s research, teaching and patient care, while delivering superior service to our stakeholders in a responsive and cost-effective manner” (EBA, 2011a, para. 1). The organizational units in the EBA 7 include Administrative Computing and Telecommunications, Human Resources, Business and Fiscal Services, Housing, Dining and Hospitality Services, Alumni Affairs, University and Health Sciences Development, and the UCSD Foundation and Advancement Services. A full description of the organizational unit is found in Appendix A. Currently, Steven W. Relyea serves as the Vice Chancellor for EBA.

Through his leadership, UCSD’s EBA adopted the Balanced Scorecard in 1993. When honored as a member of the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame in 2003, UCSD had saved more than $6 million since the Balanced Scorecard was adopted. Mr. Relyea is quoted as saying: The Balanced Scorecard process provides UCSD with a roadmap which indicates where it should focus its energies, priorities, and resources in providing administrative services for UCSD. During difficult budgetary times, this approach is indispensable. While some may have viewed an approach such as the Balanced Scorecard as optional in the past, many will find it a key to survival in this era of shrinking funds. (UCSD, 2003, para. ) Stemming from the basic four questions outlined by Kaplan and Norton (1992) in the Balanced Scorecard (i. e. , “1) How do customers see us? 2) What must we excel at? 3) Can we continue to improve and create value? and 4) How do we look to shareholders? ” [p. 72]), UCSD created four perspectives for the focus of their Balanced Scorecard tool. The four perspectives of UCSD’s Balanced Scorecard focus on: the financial/stakeholder, the internal processes, innovation and learning, and the customer. These four perspectives link to Kaplan and Norton’s questions as follows: the financial/stakeholder perspective responds to Kaplan and Norton’s question number four; the internal process perspective responds to question number two; the innovation and learning perspective responds to question number three; and the customer perspective responds to question number one. University of California, San Diego prides itself on being a strategic, forward-thinking organization. University of California, San Diego’s EBA kept this framework as their foundation when personalizing the four perspectives and outlining their foci for the implementation and application of the Balanced Scorecard. External and Business Affairs values these four perspectives (see Table 1) as tools and provides the organization with the following foci to further define the perspectives.

Table 1 External and Business Affairs’ Personalized Balanced Scorecard Perspective Financial/Stakeholder Internal Process Innovation and Learning Customer Focus Looking Backwards Process Performance Employee Satisfaction and Wellness Customer Satisfaction University of California, San Diego has described their benefits from the Balanced Scorecard as the ability to align customer priorities with business priorities, the ability to track progress over time, the method for the evaluation of process changes, the method for identification of opportunities for initiatives and partnerships, the source for accountability to constituents, and the source for the development of action plans and setting strategic direction. University of California, San Diego as an institution benefits by the application of the Balanced Scorecard within EBA. Despite EBA being the only vice chancellor area that has implemented and applied the Balanced Scorecard, the benefits extend through all areas of the institution given that the services EBA provides to faculty and staff extends throughout the entire institution. Problem Statement In tight fiscal times, challenges and expectations increase for higher education organizations. The concept of a higher education organization running more like a corporation serves as a basis for criticism of the organization. In tight fiscal times, critics are extremely outspoken about the business of higher education. They challenge everything from the manner in which higher education organizations are organized and their funding decisions, to their staffing choices.

Higher education organizations are viewed as a key component in overcoming tight fiscal times, therefore providing hope for the nation. However, their resources do not increase while their expectations by the students and other customers do increase over time. Higher education organizations face external pressures to adapt and manage change by utilizing market and business strategies. The financing of higher education organizations is cyclical. Therefore, tight fiscal times are either on the horizon or currently present for most publically supported higher education organizations. Alexander (2000) described this issue when discussing the concept of higher education accountability.

He stated that “a new economic motivation is driving states to redefine relationships by pressuring organizations to become more accountable, more efficient, and more productive in the use of publicly generated resources” (p. 411). A related perspective is provided by Kotler and Murphy (1981), who wrote about tight fiscal times in higher education in the 1980s. Almost 30 years later their arguments are still very relevant given the cyclical nature of the 10 financing of higher education. They viewed the economic condition as a motivator, rather than seeing only setbacks and challenges. They looked at the economic condition as an opportunity to strategically move the organization forward. When fiscal times are tight, they see opportunities for higher education organizations.

From their perspective, tight fiscal times are opportunities for planning and strategizing about the organization’s future. If the higher education organization can look introspectively and begin to analyze their current situation rather than focusing simply on daily operations, they can look to the future and find new opportunities (Kotler & Murphy, 1981). Presently higher education organizations face dilemmas of accountability. They are challenged to operate more strategically and are tasked with finding greater process efficiencies. Green (2003) argued that traditional approaches for managing higher education organizations are no longer relevant. Organizations need to reengineer themselves to be relevant in today’s society.

Higher education organizations must identify, explore, and implement strategies that can assist them in responding to these new expectations. In 1993, when EBA implemented the Balanced Scorecard, it was partially in response to tight fiscal times and increased federal regulations. Consistent with Green’s argument, EBA was looking for a way to reengineer their organization in order to respond to the challenges of disappearing resources and increased regulation while finding a way to be strategic and accountable. Definition of Terms The following terms were used in this study. 1. Balanced Scorecard refers to the performance management tool developed by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton in 1992. 11 2.

Balanced Scorecard foci refer to the foci established at UCSD in conjunction with their personalized Balanced Scorecard perspectives. 3. Balanced Scorecard perspectives refer to the personalized Balanced Scorecard at UCSD. 4. External Business and Affairs (EBA) refers to the vice chancellor unit at UCSD that has implemented the Balanced Scorecard. 5. Higher Education organizations refer to public and private nonprofit 2-year colleges and public and private nonprofit 4-year universities. 6. University of California, San Diego (UCSD) refers to the study site for this case study. 7. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) is the accrediting commission for Senior Colleges and Universities in the Western Region of the United States.

Significance of This Study In light of the current and future expectations, higher education organizations require examples of successful implementation and adaptation of management strategies that address the need to become more productive, accountable and efficient. The Balanced Scorecard, which utilizes measures beyond financial performance, is a tool that can assist higher education organizations to become more efficient and accountable. This case study took an in-depth look at the application of the Balanced Scorecard in units within the EBA vice chancellor area at UCSD. The results of the case study will provide other higher education organizations with a detailed view of how the Balanced Scorecard is communicated throughout the units, examples of what type of data elements are 12 tracked, and how these data elements are used for decision making.

This detailed view of the Balanced Scorecard application will be useful for higher education administrators who are both internal and external to UCSD. For current UCSD administrators, this study provided them with a new view of the Balanced Scorecard. For external higher education administrators, this study will provide them with another model for doing business. This detailed view will provide them with examples of how one higher education organization has applied their Balanced Scorecard and impacted its performance. Purpose Statement This case study examined the application of the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool, and explored how the Balanced Scorecard and UCSD’s EBA personalized perspectives/foci were communicated throughout the organization.

The results identified the data elements that the Balanced Scorecard tracks and described how the data were used for decision making. This case study paid particular attention to the four perspectives of UCSD’s EBA which were personalized for their application. These four perspectives are financial/stakeholder, internal processes, innovation and learning, and the customer. Theoretical Framework This study was informed by Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Bolman and Deal, in 2008, the fifth release of work that was first published in 1984, provide a four-frame model that views “organizations as factories, families, jungles, and temples” (p. vii).

The four frames are the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. A frame, 13 as defined by Bolman and Deal, is a mental model. It is “a set of ideas and assumptions that you carry in your head to help you understand and negotiate a particular territory” (p. 11). Frames are necessary so individuals within organizations can quickly create a mental model of their current situation so they know how to appropriately navigate the situation. Bolman and Deal explain that although it is key to have mental models (i. e. , frames in order to negotiate day to day situations), it is also important for individuals to have the ability to break frames; they call this “reframing. They argue that learning to apply all four frames creates a deeper appreciation and understanding of the organization. Bolman and Deal (2008) outline the frames with the following descriptions. The structural frame or the “factory” emphasizes organizational architecture and the formal roles and relationships in an organization. The “structure” of an organization is found in an organization’s organizational charts, the linear or vertical relationships that have been defined and provided to employees. The human resources frame or the “family” emphasizes relationships, particularly interpersonal relationships. The human resource frame is concerned with the individual in the organization, their feelings and their needs.

The political frame or the “jungle” refers to the political nature of an organization including the struggles of power, competition, and coalition building, as well as including the much needed negotiation and consensus building. The symbolic frame or “temples” refers to the “informal culture” of the organization. The symbolic frame emphasizes symbols and rituals within an organization. In the context of the case study, it was important for the researcher to have an understanding of organizational theory. These four frames were selected by the researcher to guide her research design and methodology and to provide her lens for gathering and analyzing data due to the fact that the four frame 14 model provided by Bolman and Deal are inclusive of the entire organization.

The theory they have been working on since 1984 provided an appropriate context to study the Balanced Scorecard at UCSD; it describes the organization in four competing and complementary frames, similar to the concept of the Balanced Scorecard. Research Questions In order to understand the application and management of the Balanced Scorecard in UCSD’s EBA, the following questions were answered through this case study: 1. How are the four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard communicated in the EBA? 2. How are the data from the Balanced Scorecard used within the organization of the EBA? 3. What impact does the Balanced Scorecard have on decision making in the EBA?

Limitations of the Study A limitation of this study is that all higher education organizations operate in a very distinct and unique manner. It may be difficult for some higher education organizations to find connections to this case study given the differences in mission, size, operations, and organizational structures of their institution when compared to UCSD. A second limitation is that since EBA is primarily a financial and administration unit within a high education organization, their processes and applications may not work for nonfinancial units. 15 Delimitations of the Study A delimitation of this study was the study site. The researcher selected UCSD based on proximity and familiarity.

Within UCSD, the EBA is the only vice chancellor area that has adopted Balanced Scorecard. The other six vice chancellor areas have not adopted the Balanced Scorecard. Another delimitation of the study was that the researcher focused only on the Balanced Scorecard performance management tool rather than other performance management tools which are utilized at UCSD in the other vice chancellor areas. Role of the Researcher The researcher is currently a Director at UCSD in the Health Sciences Vice Chancellor area. The Health Sciences’ organizational unit has not adopted the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool; however, the researcher works with offices on a regular basis that have adopted the Balanced Scorecard.

The researcher was invested in this case study because she wanted to gain a greater understanding of how the Balanced Scorecard has been implemented and how this can be modeled throughout UCSD and other higher education organizations nationwide. Even though she is an employee at UCSD, she attempted to be unbiased and fair. Organization of the Study This research study is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 includes an introduction to the study, the purpose statement, the significance of this study, research questions, definition of terms, the limitations and delimitations of the study, and the role of the researcher. Chapter 2 includes a review of the literature and research on the Balanced Scorecard and its role in higher education. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of 16 the methodology that was used in the study.

Chapter 4 includes the results and analysis that emerged from the study. Finally, Chapter 5 includes a summary of the study and lessons learned and recommendations based on the findings. 17 CHAPTER 2—REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The roles and expectations of higher education organizations have significantly changed in the last decade. Higher education organizations are expected to provide a multitude of services in addition to providing the highest quality education for their students. Higher education organizations are expected to serve as a significant contributor to the nation’s economic state. They are expected to contribute to their communities via the students they educate.

The students should transition quickly into productive workers in society as both skilled and knowledge workers. They are expected to contribute via technology advances and business start ups that emerge from academic research. Stemming from the academic research, they are expected to contribute via innovations that lead to new products, services, and new collaboration with industry (Berdahl, 2009; Douglass, 2010a; Gumport & Sporn, 1999; Serrano-Valarde, 2010). Role and Expectations of Higher Education The new roles of the higher education organizations and the expectations placed on them have stemmed from societal expectations, public polices, and technological innovations.

Higher education organizations are seen as a spark that once ignited can create vast benefits for society. This new role and the expectations of higher education organizations have created a need for university leaders to become increasingly accountable and to develop organizational structures that can support and fulfill current and future expectations. Higher education organizations are now being assessed on their ability to problem solve, their ability to provide a high quality product in a low cost environment, their ability to continue to maintain a level of access despite budget cuts, and to produce graduates as knowledgeable and skilled workers in a reasonable 18 timeframe.

The demands upon higher education organizations require them to become more strategic in nature, and to explore discussions of restructuring, resource management, and quality assurance. Despite the new expectations, higher education organizations are not expected to receive additional funding or secure new funding streams. Rather, the reality is their operating budgets will continue to decrease (Gumport & Sporn, 1999). As an example, it was reported in January 2011 that higher education organizations in California should expect budget cuts of approximately $1. 4 billion for fiscal year 2011-2012 (Keller, 2011). Higher education organizations are increasingly challenged to meet these new expectations, given the current budget situation and the forecast of a bleak financial future.

It is the opinion of many that 2011 and future years may be equally as troubling financially as the recent reductions higher education organizations have faced (Atkinson, 2009; Douglass, 2010a, 2010b). According to Douglass (2010b), the demand for higher education and societal gains from higher education organizations go up during economic downturns. There is an important relationship between the need to educate students and provide support for academic research and the funding available during times of economic downturn. Douglas (2010b) argues, “Education funding and enrollment capacity may be as important as any other policy level to cope with the economic downturn” (p. 2).

Additional or continual budget cuts simply provide further limitations on the higher education organization’s ability to meet these new expectations. The current budget cuts will have a significant impact on graduation rates and future worker shortages. Douglass (2010b) continues his argument, speaking specifically about the state of affairs of higher education in California by stating, “[It is] undergoing a possibly 19 significant redefinition, driven solely by severe budget cuts and without a long-term strategic plan” (p. 9). Higher Education in California Focusing on the state of affairs of higher education in California, Douglass (2010a) describes the near collapse of the system.

The near collapse has been brought on by the state’s fiscal weakness and therefore a lack of funding to its three-tiered structure, the University of California System, the California State University System, and the California Community College System. Public support for student funding has plummeted in California and, despite the continued growth of applicants, the three-tiered system is unable to accommodate qualified students. In addition to their capacity issues, California is challenged by its inability to graduate students, which continues to add to the worker shortage in the state. Many students in California are displaced and looking to nonprofit (i. e. , National University) and for-profit universities (i. e. , the University of Phoenix and Argosy University) to fill the void left by the state-supported three-tiered system.

The number of displaced students is predicted to continue to grow given that the population in California will increase exponentially in the next 40 years. The U. S. Census Bureau (2010) cites the current population in California at 36,961,664. It is projected to reach 60 million by 2050 (California Department of Finance, 2007; Douglass, 2010a; U. S. Census Bureau, 2010). Douglass (2010c) describes the for-profit universities as providing a lesser quality product. It may be more accessible, but it often comes with a larger cost and a decreased level of quality. The movement to for-profit universities as a result of lack of access is not unique to California or the United States.

Douglass (2010c) describes this phenomenon as the “Brazilian Effect. ” The Brazilian 20 Effect is “when public education cannot keep pace with the growing public demand for access and programs. For-profits rush to fill that gap, and become a much larger provider” (Douglass, 2010c, p. 5). The Brazilian Effect is usually more prevalent in developing nations—nations that consist of large areas of high poverty rates, low high school graduation rates, and limited access to higher education. The research indicates this is more prevalent in countries such as Brazil, Korea, and Poland. California presently is experiencing these same qualities seen in developing nations.

Douglass (2010c) argues the Brazilian Effect is presently being seen in California. In a response to California’s near collapse, Douglass (2010b) argues for a smart growth plan. This smart growth plan “seek[s] clear goals such as degree attainment rates, with an appropriate restructuring of higher education, containment of costs for taxpayers and students, and a seriously revised funding model” (Douglass, 2010b, p. 18). Of concern for California’s three-tiered system is its lack of management, vision, and planning for the future. It is this lack of a strategic plan that Douglass referred to that opens the door for extensive criticism surrounding the management of higher education organizations.

The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) serves as the accreditation body for higher education organizations in the state of California and other western states and territories. The chief goals of the senior commission of WASC, which serves as the accrediting body for 161 institutions in California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Basin, are the promotion of institutional engagement in issues of educational effectiveness and student learning, the development of a culture of evidence that informs decision making, and the fostering of an active interchange among public and independent institutions (WASC, n. d. a). Under these goals, WASC can support higher 21 education organizations in their development of “smart growth plans” if they choose such a plan during the assessment of the organization.

The WASC describes their purpose as assessing academic quality, educational effectiveness and institutional structures, processes, and resources (WASC, n. d. b). However, it does not appear this has translated to successful management and leadership in higher education organizations in California. Reengineering Education As a result of the new expectations for higher education organizations, attempts have begun to occur to reengineer higher education organizations to achieve closer alignment with market principles and management strategies, which have proven successful in the private sector. Green (2003) suggested that supporters of this “reengineering” movement include leaders from educational administration, state governments, and the business world.

He argued that “traditional approaches to higher education organizations and management are increasingly out of step with demographic trends, technological innovations, and the accelerating pace of change found in other sectors of society” (p. 196). Green labeled most higher education organizations as “bureaucratic” based on their organizational structure of being rigid, hierarchal, and inflexible. Kotler and Murphy (1981), who wrote on the topic 30 years ago, also depicted higher education organizations in a similar fashion. They described higher education organizations as being “characterized by a high concentration of professionals and usually a significant amount of organizational inflexibility” (p. 472). Kotler and Murphy also acknowledged that management strategies in higher education organizations do not parallel the processes in a business setting.

Keeling, Underhile, and Wall (2007) discussed the silo nature of higher education organizations. They suggested the silos are 22 due to a primarily vertical organizational structure, where members of the organization are often competing amongst themselves for scarce resources. Green (2003) provided an alternate option to a “bureaucracy,” that being “adhocracy. ” An “adhocracy,” a term popularized by Alvin Toffler in 1970 (as cited in Travica, 1999), is a flexible organization, which operates collaboratively with cross-functional teams and matrix management. An adhocracy represents an organizational structure of the future; not many examples of true adhocracies exist.

Performance Funding Another option being explored by some is the concept of performance funding. Performance funding is the mechanism of being paid based on the higher education organization’s accomplishments. Alexander (2000) explained that “this transformation has resulted from the realization that to strengthen their competitive positioning, states and nations must increase their involvement in the development of human capital and research through higher education” (p. 412). Consistent with the increased expectations of higher education organizations, there has also been a change in the interaction between higher education organizations and the government.

Governments are seeking a greater level of production from higher education organizations, as well as an increased level of accountability and efficiency in the organization’s use of public funds. Similar to societal expectations, the government’s expectation of higher education organizations has increased in terms of the organization’s return on its investment. The government expects expanded access and enrollment growth and is continuing to seek out new ways to measure productivity and efficiency in higher education organizations. Performance based funding has seen its largest increase in the last decade. In 2000, three-quarters of 23 the states linked a portion of the state funding for higher education to performance measures.

Higher education organizations continue to find themselves responsible to new state-mandated measures which require tracking and reporting of those measures (Petrides, McClelland, & Nodine, 2004). Liefner (2003) wrote about performance funding. He suggested that performance funding should be defined at the organization level. Governments should allow higher education organizations the ability to manage their organization on an individual basis and define goals based on the historical and culturally accepted framework of the organization versus being forced by an external body. Petrides and colleagues (2004) concurred with Liefner. Their research suggested responses to external mandates are not necessarily drivers of performance.

External mandates are becoming more and more prominent in higher education funding provided by the federal government. Field (2010) explained, in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, that President Obama, more than his predecessors, is demanding results in exchange for funding. She explains that some administrators have seen this as meddling in their academic affairs. She states, “Not surprisingly, the plans met with skepticism from colleges. Some community-college leaders worried that benchmarking could shift the balance of power from state and local governing boards to Washington, setting the stage for federal meddling in curricula” (para. 18).

Advocates, however, are praising him for increased accountability and assessment. The article concludes by explaining that higher education organizations will need to make the case for the funding they receive. This could be viewed as another form of performance funding; but regardless how you label it, this requires higher education organizations to have an infrastructure that supports data gathering and metrics in order to be able to respond to the 24 requirements from the federal government to obtain funding that is required to run their organization. Accreditation A historically accepted manner to evaluate the quality of higher education organizations is accreditation.

Accreditation is defined by the federal government as: Recognition that an institution maintains standards requisite for its graduates to gain admission to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve credentials for professional practice. The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, n. d. , para. 1) The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA, 2003) described accreditation as “a process of external quality review used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities and educational programs for quality assurance and quality improvement” (p. 4).

In the United States, there are multiple bodies of accreditation for higher education organizations. Accreditation is regional, national, and specialized to individual disciplines. The definitions provided by the federal government and the CHEA speak specifically of quality. Quality within higher education organizations, however, has as many definitions as the number of people you ask. From the accreditator’s perspective, quality focuses more on the educational product delivered to the student rather than providing a direct linkage to the new expectations higher education organizations are facing. Specifically, the WASC, Senior Commission identifies four standards for accreditation.

These are Standard I: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring 25 Educational Objectives; Standard II: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions; Standard III: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability; and Standard IV: Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement (WASC, n. d. c). Within each standard, there are references to leadership, vision, and strategic planning. However, none of the standards clearly articulates these new expectations, let alone the evaluation requirements to determine whether or not higher education organizations are meeting these expectations.

The lack of focus provided by accreditation bodies on these new expectations, higher education organizations’ role in contributing to the nation’s economic state perpetuates the systematic issues higher education organizations face with little accountability, inefficient practices, and insufficient leadership. Higher education organizations, in order to maintain appropriate accreditation, are required to meet the WASC defined standards. If accountability, efficiency, and strategic leadership was clearly defined and articulated in terms of the new expectations of higher education organizations by WASC, then we would see an increased number of higher education organizations with these strengths.

As indicated by the literature, the current state of higher education in America, as we looked specifically at California, is volatile. The current budget state, the societal expectations, the lack of resources and bureaucratic organizational structures show higher education to be at a state of necessary change. Higher education organizations continue to cling to organizational systems and structure that have served them in the past, but these systems and structures are unstable and lack the forward-thinking, strategic 26 leadership that is necessary for higher education organizations to survive, let alone thrive and evolve into organizations that can be successful today and into the future.

Organizational Structure and Management Tools Despite the trend for accreditation to focus on program outcomes, quality is not explored in terms of higher education’s role in the nation’s economic state either via the student’s productivity in the workforce or via academic research. Given this notion that accreditation is not providing higher education organizations with a checklist for evaluation, organizations are forced to find ways to manage this internally. In order to meet the new expectations, higher education organizations must examine their organizational structure and management strategies to restructure, change, and implement management tools that will allow them to evaluate how well they are responding to the new expectations.

Keeling and colleagues (2007) discuss higher education organizations in the following manner: The organization of institutions of higher education has been seen as operating with ambiguous purposes in vertically oriented structures that are only loosely connected. The rationale for this ambiguity is twofold: (1) to allow for creative thinking, and (2) to respect and even encourage the autonomy of different disciplines. But ambiguity of purpose and vertical organization are at odds with thinking and expectations in an era of accountability and assessment, in which cross-institutional, or horizontal, reporting and measurement of institutional performance are highly regarded and increasingly demanded. (p. 22) 27 Keeling and colleagues’ argument was consistent with the new expectations of higher education organizations.

The current structure of higher education organizations no longer fit in this era of accountability, efficiency, and productivity. Serrano-Valarde (2010) provided a similar argument, when she discussed the role of management consultants in higher education organizations. She described the new expectation of higher education as a shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. The shift, she explained, was a “shift in the perception of responsibility to society . . . to [provide] a locus for individual development, transmission of civic values and basic research . . . to became directly accountable for the nation’s economic well-being” (p. 126). Serrano-Valarde discussed the role of management consultants in the academic culture within higher education organizations.

Prior to the shift of perception that Serrano-Valarde wrote of in 2010, Kotler and Murphy (1981) discussed the need for higher education leaders who had the strategic vision to serve as change agents. More than 30 years prior to Serrano-Valarde describing the need for management consultants, Kotler and Murphy argued “few leaders are able and willing to focus systematically on change; they are largely taken up in today’s operations and results” (pp. 470-471). This inability to lead change in higher education organizations still exists 30 years later, and Serrano-Valarde explained that this has created a need for management consultants who, once inserted in the organization, can serve as the change agents that most higher education organizations are lacking. Management consultants, regardless of the cause or their presence, open the door for higher education organizations to explore and implement strategies similar to business. The exploration of these strategies is necessary as a response to the new expectations of higher education organizations: the need for greater accountability, 28 efficiency, and productivity. Gumport and Sporn (1999) described opportunities within higher education organizations, which allow for the injection of management strategies, the opportunities for “quality expectations [which] focus on public accountability, student learning, faculty productivity and performance, program effectiveness, and institutional evaluation” (p. 11).

They acknowledged, however, that management strategies primarily benefit the administrative structures and processes within higher education organizations. They argued that over time the strategies may reach and therefore benefit the academic side of the organization, as well. Common management strategies explored in higher education organizations include Total Quality Management (TQM), the Baldrige Program Award, and the Balanced Scorecard. Total Quality Management Total Quality Management provides higher education organizations an opportunity to improve quality, increase performance, and decrease cost by utilizing the mechanisms of continuous improvement and cultural change throughout the organization (Chaffee & Sherr, 1992).

According to Lozier and Teeter (1996), the early adopters of TQM, in the mid 1980s, were largely community and technical colleges; the training component of their missions fit nicely with the principles of TQM. Lozier and Teeter explain, in order for higher education organizations to appropriately implement TQM, they need to first define quality as it relates to their organization. Secondly, the need to define their mission and vision and lastly implement processes which allow for continuous improvement. Total Quality Management relies on a total transformation of the organization, which is often difficult for higher education organizations which do not 9 operate in the pure top-down model like much of the corporate world where TQM has shown to be most successful. The Malcolm Baldrige Award Framework The award, which is a government program initially developed for industry, was converted into an award for education organizations in 1999. The Malcolm Baldrige Award evaluates organizations on seven categories including Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer Focus, Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management, Workforce Focus, Operations Focus and Results (Karathanos & Karathanos, 2005). Since 2001, the recipients of the Baldrige award have been mixed between K-12 schools and higher education organizations.

The award recipients have been recognized for their improvement of academi