ArticleHeliyon2021
Exploration on the gap of single- and double-loop learning of balanced scorecard and organizational performance in a health organization.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper addresses and interprets learning styles, namely, single- and double-loop learning, of BSC implementation in the background of healthcare organizaiton/industry, through which barriers and facilitators are inducted for the BSC for the healthcare industry. Samples of this study are from a community hospital with 290 beds was probed with samples of 34 BSC members interviewed. Based on the qualitative research's grounded theory, the transcript data of this study were analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding through NVIVO 10.0. By using single- and double-loop learning, this study distinguishes between adding and changing a health organization's specific capabilities, routines or abilities. Findings of this study indicated that BSC learning is more likely to improve the efficiency of the strategic management and strengthen the company's existing capabilities and routines; but it is not possible for single-loop learning to develop new capabilities. This study contributes to indicate that single-loop learning can be useful facilitators for organizational learning via affecting the positive performance of the organization, because employees are in favor of following existing routines and rules and allowing the employees to see the meaning of this balanced scorecard. However, employees still do not have the power to make changes they expect, because they do not have the power and right to change. The purpose of this research is to evaluate organizational learning performance via the implementation of the balanced scorecard in order to understand the mechanism's impact on organizational development. In short, this paper contributes practically to depict the process of executing BSC in learning organization in detail, and theoretically to understand the mechanism in optimizing organizational learning effect via BSC implementation through discussion of (1) downward penetration of single-loop learning from organization vision and goals, and upward following and promotion of double-loop learning of sub-units in the form of routines, norms, action plans and others; (2) ways of eliminating the gap by linking organizational member's values with the organization's vision in the form of giving individuals opportunities to make their own interpretation of learning results in the workplace.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.