Diğer
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Kaynak Göster

PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜMÜNDE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK BALANS SKOR KART YÖNTEMİNİN KULLANIMI: DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİNDE BİR UYGULAMA

Yıl 2022, Cilt 15, Sayı 1, 183 - 211, 01.03.2022
https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.943606

Öz

Sosyal sorumluluk ve çevreyi esas alan sürdürülebilirlik kavramı son yıllarda önemli hale gelmiştir. Bu anlamda kurumların sürdürülebilirliğinin ölçümü önem kazanmış, sürdürülebilirliği ölçmeye yönelik performans tabanlı teknikler ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu performans ölçümlerinden biri de Sürdürülebilirlik Balans Skor Kart (SBSK) yaklaşımıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Sürdürülebilirlik Balans Skor Kart (SBm SK)’ın beş boyutlu formunu bir sağlık kurumu olan Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi’nde uygulamaktır. Bu amaca yönelik olarak, kuruma ait beş boyutlu SBSK strateji haritası oluşturulmuştur. Boyutlar; “sürdürülebilirlik”, “finansal”, “müşteri (hasta)”, “iç süreçler”, “öğrenme ve gelişme” boyutlarıdır. Ardından her bir boyutun performansını ölçmede kullanılacak stratejik amaç ve değerlendirme ölçütleri belirlenmiştir. Daha sonra, boyutların performansı belirlenen stratejik amaç ve değerlendirme ölçütleri kapsamında incelenmiş ve açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Boyutların incelenmesi sırasında gerekli verilerin elde edilmesinde hem nitel hem de nicel veri toplama tekniklerinden faydalanılmıştır. Nitel verilerin elde edilmesinde mülakat çalışması yapılmıştır. Nicel verilerin elde edilmesinde ise, anket çalışması yapılmış ayrıca kurumun 2017-2018 yıllarına ait bilanço, gelir tablosu ve faaliyet raporlarından yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda kurumun, sürdürülebilirlik boyutunda kısmen başarılı olduğu, finansal boyutta pozitif değerlere sahip olduğu ve gelişim gösterdiği, müşteri boyutunda ve iç süreçler boyutlarında genel olarak başarılı olduğu, öğrenme ve gelişme boyutunda ise çalışanlar kapsamında başarısız olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Toplamda ise, belirlenen 17 stratejik amaçtan 6’sında başarısız olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • Aksu, M. (2008). Performans ölçümünde dengeli ölçüm kartı tekniğinin kullanımı ve bir diş hekimliği fakültesi’nde uygulama. Basılmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Araujo, L., Oliveira, H. & Gomes, L. (2020). Sustainability balanced scorecard for a Brazilian agricultural and livestock company. E3S Web of Conferences 159,04005. https://doi.org. 1-11.
  • Elijido, T. & Tijan, Y. (2014). Sustainability balanced scorecard disclosures and corporate commitment to sustainability: An Australian study. Issues Social and Environment Account. 8, 185-208.
  • Falle, S., Rauter, R., Engert, S. & Baumgartnert, R. (2016). Sustainability management with the sustainability balanced scorecard in SMEs: Findings from an Austrian case study. Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability. www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability. 1-16.
  • Figge, F., Hanth, T., Schaltegger, S. & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard: linking sustainabiliyt management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment. 11(5), 269-284.
  • Gadenne, D., Sand, J., & Rae, K. (2016). An empirical investigation on the links within a sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) framework and their impact on financial performance. Accounting Research Journal. 29(2), 154-178.
  • Giannoukou, I. & Beneki, C. (2018). Towards sustainability performance management system of tourisim enterprises: A tourism sustainability balanced scorecard framework. Global Environmet Journal. 17, 175-196.
  • Hansen, E.G. & Schaltegger, S. (2017). Sustainability balanced scorecard and their architectures: Irrelevant or misunderstood?. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/. 937-952.
  • Hristov, I., Chirio, A. & Appoloni, A. (2019). Sustainability value creation, survival, andgrowth of the company: A critical perspective in the sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC). MDPI, Open Accsess Journal, 11(7), www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability. 1-19.
  • Jiangtao, L. & Pin, Z. (2010). Analysis of sustainability balanced scorecard influences on decision processe and investment decisions. 2nd IEEE International Conference on Information Management and Engineering. 111-116.
  • Journeault, M. (2016). The integrated scorecard in support of corporate sustainability strategies. Journal of Environmental Management. 214-229.
  • Journeault, M. (2016). The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 77-79.
  • Junior, A.N., Oliveira, M.C. & Helleno, A.L. (2018). Sustainability evaluation model for manufacturing systems based on the correlation between triple bottom line dimensions and balanced scorecard perspectives. ScienceDirect, Journal of Cleaner Production. 4, 84-93.
  • Kalender , Z.T. ve Vayvay, Ö. (2016). The fifth pillar of the Balanced Scorecard: Sustainability. ScienceDirect, 12th International Strategic Management Conference, ISMC. 76-83.
  • Kang, J., Chiang, C., Huangthanapan, K., & Downing, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability balanced scorecard: Tha case of study of family-owned hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 124-134.
  • Kaplan, R.S.& Norton, D.P. (1996). Balanced scorecard şirket stratejisinin eyleme dönüştürmek. Serra Egeli (çev.), İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
  • Kim, Y.H., Barber, N. & Kim, D. (2019). Sustainability research in the hotel industry: Past, present and future. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. 28(5), 576-620.
  • Maas, K., Schaltegger, S. & Crutzen, N. (2016). Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production. 136, 237-248.
  • Özçelik, F. (2013). Sürdürülebilirlik performans karnesi. Journal of Yasar University. 30(8), 4985-5008.
  • Rabbani, A., Zamani, M., Yazdani, A. & Zavadskas, E. (2014). Proposing a new integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approches by using linguistic variables of rhe performance evaluation of oil producing companies. ScienceDirect, Expert Systems with Applications.7316-7327.
  • Rae, K., Sand, J., & Gadenne, D. (2015). The association between organisational commitment and corporate social responsibility-environmental performance within an integrated sustainability balanced scorecard framework. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting. 9(1), 32-50.
  • Rodriguez, R., Svensson, G. & Wood, G. (2020). Sustainability trends in public hospitals: Efforts and priorities. Evaluation and Program Planning. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan. 78, 1-11.
  • Silvius, G. (2017). Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management. Journal of Cleaner Production. 166, 1479-1493.
  • T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Memnuniyet Anketleri Uygulama Rehberi, 2015. https://hastane.ksu.edu.tr/depo/belgeler/Anket%20Uygulama%20Rehberi_1710261642248279.pdf
  • T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlıkta Kalite Standartları ADSH, 2017, https://shgmkalitedb.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/10932/0/sks-adsh-2017pdf.pdf.
  • Tsang Lu, M., Hsu, C., Liou, J., & Lo, H. (2018). A hybrid MCDM and sustainability balanced scorecard model to establish sustainability perfrormance evaluation for international aiports. Journal of Air Transport Management. 9-19.

USE OF SUSTAINABILITY BALANCED SCORECARD METHOD IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: AN APPLICATION IN THE FACULTY OF DENTISTRY

Yıl 2022, Cilt 15, Sayı 1, 183 - 211, 01.03.2022
https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.943606

Öz

Sustainability which consists social responsibility and environment has become important in recent years. In this sense, measuring the sustainability of institutions has become importance and performance-based techniques have started to be used to measure sustainability. One of these performance measurements is the Sustainability Balance Scorecard method. The purpose of this study is to apply the five-dimensional form of the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard in a health institution, Faculty of Dentistry. For this purpose, a five-dimensional SBSK strategy map of the institution was created. Dimensions on the map are “sustainability”, “financial”, “customer (patient)”, “internal processes”, “learning and development”. Afterwards, the strategic purpose and evaluation criteria to be used in measuring the performance of each dimension were determined. Then, the performance of the dimensions was examined and explained within the scope of the determined strategic purpose and evaluation criteria. Finally, results of SBSK were reported as a chart. Both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques were used in obtaining the required data during the examination of the dimensions. An interview study was conducted to obtain qualitative data. As to obtaining quantitative data, a survey was conducted and additively, the government agency’s balance sheets, income statement and activity reports for 2017-2018 were used. As a result, it has been determined that the institution is partially successful in the sustainability dimension, has made progress and has positive values in the financial dimension and has improved, been successful in the customer and the internal processes dimensions, and failed in the learning and development dimension within the scope of the employees. In total, it was concluded that 6 out of the 17 determined strategic aims failed.

Kaynakça

  • Aksu, M. (2008). Performans ölçümünde dengeli ölçüm kartı tekniğinin kullanımı ve bir diş hekimliği fakültesi’nde uygulama. Basılmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Araujo, L., Oliveira, H. & Gomes, L. (2020). Sustainability balanced scorecard for a Brazilian agricultural and livestock company. E3S Web of Conferences 159,04005. https://doi.org. 1-11.
  • Elijido, T. & Tijan, Y. (2014). Sustainability balanced scorecard disclosures and corporate commitment to sustainability: An Australian study. Issues Social and Environment Account. 8, 185-208.
  • Falle, S., Rauter, R., Engert, S. & Baumgartnert, R. (2016). Sustainability management with the sustainability balanced scorecard in SMEs: Findings from an Austrian case study. Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability. www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability. 1-16.
  • Figge, F., Hanth, T., Schaltegger, S. & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard: linking sustainabiliyt management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment. 11(5), 269-284.
  • Gadenne, D., Sand, J., & Rae, K. (2016). An empirical investigation on the links within a sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) framework and their impact on financial performance. Accounting Research Journal. 29(2), 154-178.
  • Giannoukou, I. & Beneki, C. (2018). Towards sustainability performance management system of tourisim enterprises: A tourism sustainability balanced scorecard framework. Global Environmet Journal. 17, 175-196.
  • Hansen, E.G. & Schaltegger, S. (2017). Sustainability balanced scorecard and their architectures: Irrelevant or misunderstood?. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/. 937-952.
  • Hristov, I., Chirio, A. & Appoloni, A. (2019). Sustainability value creation, survival, andgrowth of the company: A critical perspective in the sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC). MDPI, Open Accsess Journal, 11(7), www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability. 1-19.
  • Jiangtao, L. & Pin, Z. (2010). Analysis of sustainability balanced scorecard influences on decision processe and investment decisions. 2nd IEEE International Conference on Information Management and Engineering. 111-116.
  • Journeault, M. (2016). The integrated scorecard in support of corporate sustainability strategies. Journal of Environmental Management. 214-229.
  • Journeault, M. (2016). The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 77-79.
  • Junior, A.N., Oliveira, M.C. & Helleno, A.L. (2018). Sustainability evaluation model for manufacturing systems based on the correlation between triple bottom line dimensions and balanced scorecard perspectives. ScienceDirect, Journal of Cleaner Production. 4, 84-93.
  • Kalender , Z.T. ve Vayvay, Ö. (2016). The fifth pillar of the Balanced Scorecard: Sustainability. ScienceDirect, 12th International Strategic Management Conference, ISMC. 76-83.
  • Kang, J., Chiang, C., Huangthanapan, K., & Downing, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability balanced scorecard: Tha case of study of family-owned hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 124-134.
  • Kaplan, R.S.& Norton, D.P. (1996). Balanced scorecard şirket stratejisinin eyleme dönüştürmek. Serra Egeli (çev.), İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
  • Kim, Y.H., Barber, N. & Kim, D. (2019). Sustainability research in the hotel industry: Past, present and future. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. 28(5), 576-620.
  • Maas, K., Schaltegger, S. & Crutzen, N. (2016). Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production. 136, 237-248.
  • Özçelik, F. (2013). Sürdürülebilirlik performans karnesi. Journal of Yasar University. 30(8), 4985-5008.
  • Rabbani, A., Zamani, M., Yazdani, A. & Zavadskas, E. (2014). Proposing a new integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approches by using linguistic variables of rhe performance evaluation of oil producing companies. ScienceDirect, Expert Systems with Applications.7316-7327.
  • Rae, K., Sand, J., & Gadenne, D. (2015). The association between organisational commitment and corporate social responsibility-environmental performance within an integrated sustainability balanced scorecard framework. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting. 9(1), 32-50.
  • Rodriguez, R., Svensson, G. & Wood, G. (2020). Sustainability trends in public hospitals: Efforts and priorities. Evaluation and Program Planning. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan. 78, 1-11.
  • Silvius, G. (2017). Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management. Journal of Cleaner Production. 166, 1479-1493.
  • T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Memnuniyet Anketleri Uygulama Rehberi, 2015. https://hastane.ksu.edu.tr/depo/belgeler/Anket%20Uygulama%20Rehberi_1710261642248279.pdf
  • T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlıkta Kalite Standartları ADSH, 2017, https://shgmkalitedb.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/10932/0/sks-adsh-2017pdf.pdf.
  • Tsang Lu, M., Hsu, C., Liou, J., & Lo, H. (2018). A hybrid MCDM and sustainability balanced scorecard model to establish sustainability perfrormance evaluation for international aiports. Journal of Air Transport Management. 9-19.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular İşletme
Bölüm Sayı
Yazarlar

Ayşe AYDIN
0000-0001-7538-8407
Türkiye


İdris VARICI (Sorumlu Yazar)
ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0003-1825-0289
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Mart 2022
Başvuru Tarihi 31 Mayıs 2021
Kabul Tarihi 14 Haziran 2021
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022, Cilt 15, Sayı 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Aydın, A. & Varıcı, İ. (2022). PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜMÜNDE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK BALANS SKOR KART YÖNTEMİNİN KULLANIMI: DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİNDE BİR UYGULAMA . Journal of Accounting and Taxation Studies , 15 (1) , 183-211 . DOI: 10.29067/muvu.943606

Creative Commons Lisansı

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

Bu lisans, üçüncü kişilerin ticari olmayan amaçla eserinizden yararlanmasına, farklı bir sürüm oluşturmasına, geliştirmesine ya da eserinizin üzerine inşa ederek kendi eserlerini oluşturmasına izin verir. Ancak üçüncü kişilerin bu eserleri gayri-ticari olmak zorundadır ve üçüncü kişiler Dergimizde yayımlanan makalelerin yazarlarına atıfta bulunmak zorundadır.  

                                                                                                                                                           
Makale göndermek için https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/591/submission/step/manuscript/new