"As a strategic management system geared towards the organizations executives – is not useful at the operations level"

Disagree – the BSC, as a strategic guidance methodology – serves as a lens through which executive leadership can determine priority of action at the operational level. It is a strategic filter, if you will, when applied appropriately.

"Employees at the operations level can not relate to the BSC thus causing a gap in communication between executives and employees."

Disagree – If the BSC is cascaded appropriately (including a robust communication plan), employees at the operational level can absolutely understand and relate to the BSC. This involves a phased approach with interviews, focus groups, and surveys.

"BSC does not relate to the organizations structures, thus it appears to be an imposed set of measurements."

Disagree – the BSC is built within the organizational structure, and by the leadership throughout.

"BSC does not provide guidance for input at the process level. It only takes measurements of output."

Disagree – the BSC itself was not intended to "provide guidance" for inputs or outputs at the process level, only to monitor key metrics. The initiatives, whether they be lean, six sigma, or TOC focused will target the operational measures.

"BSC does not address the intangibles of an organisation and thus remains incomplete. It does not addrss the issues of leadership, employee innovaiton, and improvement"

Disagree – the Learning and Growth perspective is intended to capture elements of Human Capital, Organizational Capital, and Intellectual Capital. It is a holistic approach across the entire enterprise.

I have worked with this methodology (as well as all CPI disciplines) around the world, and it has been a proven success in churches, opera companies, military, and commercial industry. Feel free to contact me if you need any help.