Theoretical Roots of Flexible Strategy Game-card: An Evolving Strategic Performance Management Framework

  • Neetu Yadav
  • Sushil
Part of the Flexible Systems Management book series (FLEXSYS)


In the last two decades, many developments have been made in the field of strategic performance management in terms of performance management frameworks/models. The major developments are performance prism, Kanji’s business scorecard, holistic scorecard, system dynamics-based balanced scorecard, etc. One of the attempts made to propose an integrated performance management framework is named as flexible strategy game-card, which intends to support full cycle of strategy formulation, execution, performance measurement, and management. This chapter is an attempt to discuss about this evolving performance management framework in terms of its evolution, the theoretical roots, and application of framework by presenting an illustration. The outcome of the chapter is to share theoretical roots with the researchers and practitioners related to this recent development.


Performance Management Stakeholder Theory Performance Measurement System Balance Scorecard Flexible Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akkermans HA, van Oorschot KE (2005) Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics. J Oper Res Soc 56(8):931–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson AA, Waterhouse JH, Wells RB (1997) A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Manage Rev 38(3):25–37Google Scholar
  3. Barnabe F (2011) A system dynamics-based balanced scorecard to support strategic decision making. Int J Prod Perform Manag 60(5):446–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhat JSA, Sushil, Jain PK (2011) Innovation by harmonizing continuity and change. J Bus Strateg 32(2):38–49Google Scholar
  5. Bianchi C, Montemaggiore GB (2008) Enhancing strategy design and planning in public utilities through ‘dynamic’ balanced scorecards: insights from a project in a city water company. Syst Dyn Rev 24(2):175–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bible L, Kerr S, Zanini M (2006) The balanced scorecard: here and back. Manag Account Q 7(4):18–23Google Scholar
  7. Chenhall RH (2005) Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study. Account Org Soc 30(5):395–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Waal AA (2002) The role of behavioural factors in the successful implementation and use of performance management systems. VrijeUniversiteit, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghalayini AM, Noble JS (1996) The changing basis of performance measurement. Int J Oper Prod Manag 16(8):63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graetz F, Smith ACT (2009) Duality theory and organizing forms in change management. J Change Manag 9(1):9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamel G (1998) Strategy innovation and quest for value. Sloan Manage Rev 39(2):7–14Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992, Jan/Feb) The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harv Bus Rev 70:71–79Google Scholar
  14. Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harv Bus Rev 74(1):75–85Google Scholar
  15. Kelly K (1999) New rules for the new economy: 10 radical strategies for a connected world. Viking/Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Nasim S, Sushil (2011) Revisiting organizational change: exploring the paradox of managing continuity and change. J Change Manag 11(2):185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neely A, Bourne M (2000) Why measurement initiatives fail. Meas Bus Excellence 4(4):3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norreklit H (2000) The balance on the balanced scorecard – a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Manag Account Res 11:65–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sushil (1997) Flexible systems management: an evolving paradigm. Syst Res Behav Sci 14(4):259–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sushil (2000) SAP-LAP models of inquiry. Manag Decis 38(5):347–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sushil (2001) SAP-LAP framework. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 2(1):51–55Google Scholar
  22. Sushil (2009) Is balanced scorecard a balanced strategic system. Drishti- Insight, Publication of ARTDO International, Philippines, 34–40Google Scholar
  23. Sushil (2010) Flexible strategy game-card. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 11(1&2):iii–ivGoogle Scholar
  24. Sushil (2011) Implementing flexible strategy game-card. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 12(3&4):iiiGoogle Scholar
  25. Sushil (2012) Flowing stream strategy: leveraging strategic change with continuity. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Taticchi P, Tonelli F, Cagnazzo L (2010) Performance measurement and management: a literature review and a research agenda. Meas Bus Excellence 14(1):4–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yadav N, Sushil, Sagar M (2011) The evolution of flexible strategy game-card: a framework rooted in dual perspective of performance. In Proceedings of 11th global conference on flexible systems management, IIM, Kozhikode, pp. 2947Google Scholar
  28. Yadav N, Sushil, Sagar M (2012) Dynamics of strategic initiatives and expected performance: an application of flexible strategy game-card. In Proceedings of 30th international conference of system dynamics society, University of St. Gallen. Available at:, also available at:

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management StudiesIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations