Aligning the

VOL.5 NO.4

Summer
2004 Balanced Scorecard
and a Firm’s
Strategy Using the
Analytic Hierarchy
Process
B Y D E WAY N E L . S E A R C Y, C M A , C PA , C I A

THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) IS USED TO PROVIDE INSIGHTS TO SIX

COMPANIES TO DETERMINE IF EACH COMPANY’S PERFORMANCE SYSTEM IS ALIGNED WITH

ITS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF IMPLEMENTING LEAN ENTERPRISE POLICIES.

A STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS FOR USING EXCEL IN AHP APPLICATIONS IS DESCRIBED.

n the Spring 2002 issue of Management Accounting metric for a firm’s management.

I Quarterly, B. Douglas Clinton, Sally A. Webber, and

John M. Hassell illustrated the use of the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) in implementing a bal-
anced scorecard. Their article demonstrated the
power of the AHP in resolving multicriteria decisions
such as developing a balanced scorecard. They men-
tioned that the first level of a balanced scorecard hierar-
chy contains the four balanced scorecard (performance)
categories, while the second level of the hierarchy con-
tains the metrics used within each category. The
authors demonstrated how the AHP can be used to
help select the metrics of a balanced scorecard as well
as to help understand the relative importance of each
The purpose of this article is to investigate the use of
the AHP at the first level of the balanced scorecard
hierarchy with data from six firms. Using the AHP to
determine the relative weight of the performance cate-
gories may give some insight into the alignment
between the balanced scorecard and a company’s strate-
gic initiatives. In addition, the article will demonstrate
the use of Excel in AHP applications.
T H E C O M PA N I E S
The six companies involved were part of an overall
assessment project aimed at measuring the extent that
lean enterprise tools are implemented successfully.1

M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY 1 SUMMER 2004, VOL.5, NO.4

The common thread among all six companies was their
involvement with implementing lean enterprise princi-
ples. In other words, lean was the strategic initiative
undertaken across all six companies. Robert Kaplan and
David Norton state, “The scorecard should be the
translation of the business unit’s strategy into a linked
set of measures that define both the long-term strategic
objectives and the mechanisms for achieving those
objectives.”2 For the companies under study, any score-
card developed should align with the strategic initiative
of implementing lean.
LEAN ENTERPRISES
In their book Lean Thinking, James P. Womack and
Daniel T. Jones state that lean thinking can be summa-
rized in five principles: “precisely specify value by spe-
cific product, identify the value stream for each product,
make value flow without interruptions, let the customer
pull value from the producer, and pursue perfection”
(italics theirs).3 They also state that by clearly under-
standing these five principles and integrating them
together, managers can make full use of lean tools and
techniques to compete in the marketplace. Lean can be
defined as the effective utilization of various tools and
techniques in a systematic, customer-focused manner
that increases the flexibility of the manufacturing/
logistical processes with the goal of producing the
highest-quality product and/or service within an envi-
ronment of continuous improvement through the
absolute elimination of all forms of waste. The overar-
ching values of lean are customer prosperity and the
view that the workforce is the most important resource
of an organization.
As implied by the definition, lean is multi-
dimensional. Two important characteristics of a lean
enterprise are customer focus and employee empower-
ment. The customer is the driving force behind lean,
which suggests that customer-focused measures should
be an integral part of any performance system. In a sim-
ilar vein, lean enterprises empower their employees to
make operational decisions. The employees are trained
to uncover and correct errors as well as find continuous

Figure 1: The Balanced Scorecard for Lean Enterprises

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE:
How should we appear to
our shareholders?

OPERATING
CUSTOMER FOCUS: How
PERFORMANCE: What
should we appear to our
business processes must
customers?
we excel at?
STRATEGY: Increase
manufacturing efficiency
and effectiveness
PRODUCT QUALITY: Are
SAFETY: Are we operating
we providing high-quality
within a safe environment?
products?

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION:
Are our employees given
opportunities to learn and
grow?

M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY 2 SUMMER 2004, VOL. 5, NO. 4

improvement opportunities.4 Measuring employee per- improve strategy is the focus of this article. The real
formance should also be a prominent aspect of any per- question to ask is: Does the company’s performance
formance system in a lean enterprise. system support or hinder its strategic objectives? For
Firms attempting to implement lean need a perfor- example, if a company’s strategic objective is to be the
mance system that collects, stores, aggregates, and highest-rated customer service company in the industry,
reports on the many dimensions of lean. The structure then it would be expected that customer-focused met-
of a balanced scorecard, with its four performance cate- rics would rank very high in the performance system for
gories, is a good start for developing a performance sys- that company relative to other performance categories.
tem that meets the requirements of a lean enterprise. If, however, customer-focused metrics are rated last or
near the bottom in importance, a misalignment has
THE BALANCED SCORECARD occurred between the stated strategic objective and the
The four performance perspectives of Kaplan and Nor- performance system. Not only can the AHP assist com-
ton’s balanced scorecard are well documented.5 While panies with developing a balanced scorecard, but the
those perspectives provide a comprehensive picture of relative weighting of the performance categories can be
most companies, two additional perspectives were used to provide insights into a company’s strategy.
added based on the lean initiatives under way at the
companies being studied: quality and safety. T H E A N A LY T I C H I E R A R C H Y P R O C E S S ( A H P )
Interviews with managers at some of the participat- The AHP uses paired comparisons of objects with
ing companies indicated that quality and safety were respect to a common goal or criteria. The end result of
critical aspects worthy of separate categoriza-
tion. Increase in quality is a direct benefit of
successfully implementing lean and, therefore, Table 1: The Ratio Scale
should be measured separately. In addition,
safety was a major concern to the parties For the 15 pairs of evaluation criteria to be compared, first indicate
involved. which category in the pair is more important for measuring and
Figure 1 displays the scorecard categories monitoring the performance of your site, then record your judgment
used. Basically, the four perspectives of as to the magnitude of its importance over the other item in the pair.
Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard are There are no right or wrong answers. The response scale for magni-
retained, but the internal business processes tude of importance is as follows:
perspective is subdivided into three sub-
INTENSITY OF
categories: operating performance, safety, and
IMPORTANCE DEFINITION EXPLANATION
product quality. The financial performance,
customer focus, and employee satisfaction per- 1 Equal importance Two criteria contribute equally to
the evaluation of performance
spectives align with Kaplan and Norton’s
financial, customer, and learning and growth 2 Weak importance Experience and judgment slightly
of one item over favor one criterion over another
perspectives.
the other item
Kaplan and Norton comment that a proper-
3 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly
ly constructed balanced scorecard should tell
favor one criterion over another
the story of a company’s strategy.6 In their arti-
4 Very strong A criterion is strongly favored, and
cle, Clinton, Webber, and Hassell state, “Dif-
importance its dominance is demonstrated
ferent methods of employing a balanced in practice
scorecard are used to clarify and update strate-
5 Absolute The evidence favoring one criterion
gy, to communicate intentions, to align organi- importance over another is of the highest
zation and individual goals, and to learn about possible order of affirmation
and improve strategy.” To learn about and

M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY 3 SUMMER 2004, VOL. 5, NO. 4

the AHP is a set of weights derived from the pair-wise
comparisons.7 See the Appendix for the AHP instru-
ment completed by the management-level employees
of the participating companies. Each manager made
two decisions when completing the AHP instrument:
1. Selecting the more important performance category
for measuring and monitoring the company’s
performance.
2. Recording the magnitude of importance the category
selected has over the category not selected.
Thomas Saaty, the developer of the AHP, recom-
mends a one-to-nine ratio scale when deciding between
the two alternatives. A one-to-five ratio scale (Table 1)
was used in this study. Using a different scale does not
violate the theoretical foundation of the AHP as long as
the scale used is a bounded ratio scale and the alterna-
tives are homogeneous with respect to the scale.8 Both
requirements are met in this study.
U S I N G E XC E L IN AN AHP A P P L I C AT I O N 9
Once the managers have completed the AHP instru-
ment, five steps are necessary to develop the first hier-
archical level of a balanced scorecard for each company:
1. Enter pair-wise responses in Excel.
2. Calculate a company-level matrix.
3. Normalize the comparisons.
4. Calculate the score.
5. Determine consistency.
Step 1: Enter pair-wise responses in Excel
Entering the pair-wise responses of each manager in
Excel in a matrix format is the first step. The Perfor-
mance Pair-Wise Comparisons section of Table 2 dis-
plays the matrix format for the performance AHP. The
key to remember when entering the pair-wise compar-
isons is the assumption of reciprocity. For example, if
the quality performance category is evaluated as three
times more important than the operating performance
category, the reciprocity axiom states that the operating
performance category is 1/3 times more important than
the quality performance category. The AHP matrix
shown in Table 2 is designed to account for reciprocity
by entering the reciprocal formula in the lower half of
the matrix.
When entering data in the upper half of the matrix,
M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY
one must enter the preference denoted by the respon-
dent (i.e., Pij, where i = column and j = row) or its recip-
rocal (i.e., Pji = 1/Pij). For example, a respondent
indicates that safety is two times more important than
quality. Notice that cell D11 represents the magnitude
of quality over safety. Because the respondent indicates
safety is more important than quality, the reciprocal
(i.e., 1⁄2 = 0.50) is entered in cell D11, and Excel auto-
matically places a “2” in cell C12, indicating safety is
two times more important than quality. Likewise, cell
E11 indicates the respondent thinks quality is two
times more important than financial measures in mea-
suring and monitoring the respondent’s company per-
formance. The reciprocal is calculated automatically
and entered in cell C13. Once an AHP matrix is com-
pleted for each respondent, the company-level matrix is
created.
Step 2: Calculate a company-level matrix
The objective of step two is to develop a single matrix
for each company from the individual respondents.
This step is accomplished by taking the geometric
mean across the respondents for each company.10 The
geometric mean is calculated for each cell across all of
the individual matrices. The result is a single, compos-
ite matrix. Table 3 displays the composite matrix for
Company A.
Step 3: Normalize the comparisons
Normalizing the pair-wise comparisons is accomplished
with two procedures. Calculating the sum of each col-
umn is the first procedure (i.e., the formula for cell C17
in Table 2: =SUM(C11:C16)). The formula for cell C17
is copied to cells D17 through H17. The next proce-
dure involves dividing each entry in the matrix by its
column sum (i.e., the formula for cell C21: =C11/C$17).
The formula for cell C21 is copied to cells C21 through
H26. Completing those two procedures creates the
performance normalized comparison matrix found in
Table 2.
Step 4: Calculate the score
The average of each row in the normalized matrix is
used as the score for each alternative (i.e., the formula
for cell C30 in Table 2: =AVERAGE(C21:H21)). That
4 SUMMER 2004, VOL. 5, NO. 4
 Table 2: AHP Calculations
A B C D E F G H
1 Performance Pair-Wise Comparisons
2 Quality Safety Financial Customer Operating Employee
3 Quality 1.00
4 Safety =1/D4 1.00
5 Financial =1/E4 =1/E5 1.00
6 Customer =1/F4 =1/F5 =1/F6 1.00
7 Operating =1/G4 =1/G5 =1/G6 =1/G7 1.00
8 Employee =1/H4 =1/H5 =1/H6 =1/H7 =1/H8 1.00
9
10 Quality Safety Financial Customer Operating Employee
11 Quality 1.00 0.50 2.00 3.00 3.00 5.00
12 Safety 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 5.00
13 Financial 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 3.00 5.00
14 Customer 0.33 0.50 2.00 1.00 0.50 4.00
15 Operating 0.33 0.50 0.33 2.00 1.00 4.00
16 Employee 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 1.00
17 Sum 4.37 3.20 7.53 8.75 9.75 24.00
18
19 Performance Normalized Comparisons
20 Quality Safety Financial Customer Operating Employee
21 Quality 0.229 0.156 0.265 0.343 0.308 0.208
22 Safety 0.458 0.313 0.265 0.229 0.205 0.208
23 Financial 0.115 0.156 0.133 0.057 0.308 0.208
24 Customer 0.076 0.156 0.265 0.114 0.051 0.167
25 Operating 0.076 0.156 0.044 0.229 0.103 0.167
26 Employee 0.046 0.063 0.027 0.029 0.026 0.042
27
28 Performance Consistency
29 Scores Measure
30 Quality 0.252 6.80
31 Safety 0.280 6.56
32 Financial 0.163 6.62
33 Customer 0.138 6.55
34 Operating 0.129 6.49
35 Employee 0.038 6.35 Consistency Ratio 0.091

formula is copied to cells C31 through C35. The result
is the score (relative importance weight) for each perfor-
mance category for measuring and monitoring the com-
pany’s performance. The performance scores in Table 2
indicate that the respondent ranks safety (0.28) as the
most important performance category, followed by qual-
ity (0.252), financial (0.163), customer (0.138), operating
(0.129), and employee (0.038).
Step 5: Determine consistency
The final step in applying the AHP is determining the
consistency of the results. The respondents should be

M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY 5 SUMMER 2004, VOL. 5, NO. 4

 Table 3: Composite AHP Matrix for Company A
Quality Safety Financial Customer Operating Employee
Quality 1.000 1.048 1.188 1.372 1.294 2.434
Safety 0.954 1.000 1.130 1.434 1.112 2.488
Financial 0.841 0.885 1.000 1.505 0.820 1.574
Customer 0.729 0.698 0.664 1.000 0.738 1.372
Operating 0.773 0.899 1.220 1.356 1.000 1.441
Employee 0.411 0.402 0.635 0.729 0.694 1.000
Sum 4.708 4.932 5.838 7.395 5.658 10.308

consistent in their pair-wise comparisons. In other
words, if the respondent considers quality two times
more important than safety, and customer two times
more important than quality, then the respondent
should consider customer four times more important
than safety. If the results are not consistent, the scores
should not be used.
Multiplying each alternative in the original matrix by
the normalized scores and dividing the result by the
respective normalized score calculates the consistency
measure found in Table 2. In other words, you multiply
each row in the performance pair-wise comparison
matrix by the performance scores, then divide the result
by the respective performance score (i.e., the formula
for cell D30 in Table 2: =MMULT(C11:H11,$C$30:
$C$35)/C30). The formula is copied to cells C31
through C35. If the respondent is perfectly consistent,
the consistency measure will equal the number of alter-
natives (i.e., six).
Table 2 indicates the respondent was not perfectly
consistent. As long as the inconsistency is not excessive,
however, the performance scores can be treated as rea-
sonably accurate. A consistency ratio is calculated to
determine reasonable consistency. The consistency
ratio is calculated as follows:11
Consistency ratio = CI / RI, where
CI = Consistency Index = (
- n) / (n – 1)

= the average consistency measure for all
alternatives
n = the number of alternatives
RI = the appropriate random index (1.24, when n = 6)
The formula for cell F35 is: =(AVERAGE(D30:D35)
-6)/(5*1.24). The consistency ratio calculated in Table 2
is 0.091. A consistency ratio of 0.10 or less is considered
acceptable, so the performance scores calculated in
Table 2 appear reasonably consistent.
B A L A N C E D S CO R E CA R D /S T R AT E G Y A L I G N M E N T
Table 4 displays the performance scores for each com-
pany participating in the study. Are the scorecards bal-
anced? With six performance categories, a perfectly
balanced scorecard would weight each category equally
at approximately 16.6%. None of the company’s score-
cards is perfectly balanced; however, Company E is the
most balanced, with scores ranging from 0.192 to 0.132.
Company C has the largest dispersion between the top-
ranked performance category and the lowest-ranked
performance category (0.197). While we would not
expect any scorecard to be perfectly balanced, the
analysis does give insight into the emphasis placed by
management on particular performance categories.
An examination of the ranking of the performance
categories reveals a couple of interesting points. First,
the employee performance category is ranked last
across all companies. When compared to the other per-
formance categories, employee performance is just not
as important. In particular, Company C’s scorecard
ranks safety three and a half times more important than
employee performance in measuring and monitoring
the company’s performance. The result is somewhat
surprising because employee empowerment is a key
principle in implementing lean. A higher focus on
employees is expected as companies become more
mature in implementing lean throughout their facilities.

M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY 6 SUMMER 2004, VOL. 5, NO. 4

 Table 4: Performance Scores
Company A Company D
PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE CONSISTENCY PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE CONSISTENCY
RANK CATEGORY SCORE MEASURE RANK CATEGORY SCORE MEASURE

1 Quality 0.213 6.036 1 Quality 0.213 6.036

2 Safety 0.205 6.038 2 Safety 0.205 6.038
3 Operating 0.176 6.029 3 Operating 0.176 6.029
4 Financial 0.172 6.032 4 Financial 0.172 6.032
5 Customer 0.135 6.034 5 Customer 0.135 6.034
6 Employee 0.099 6.029 6 Employee 0.099 6.029
1.000 0.005 CR 1.000 0.005 CR

Company B Company E
PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE CONSISTENCY PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE CONSISTENCY
RANK CATEGORY SCORE MEASURE RANK CATEGORY SCORE MEASURE

1 Safety 0.281 6.167 1 Quality 0.192 6.178

2 Financial 0.173 6.161 2 Operating 0.185 6.167
3 Quality 0.164 6.162 3 Financial 0.174 6.165
4 Customer 0.156 6.150 4 Customer 0.173 6.219
5 Operating 0.127 6.144 5 Safety 0.144 6.190
6 Employee 0.098 6.126 6 Employee 0.131 6.154
1.000 0.024 CR 1.000 0.029 CR

Company C Company F
PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE CONSISTENCY PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE CONSISTENCY
RANK CATEGORY SCORE MEASURE RANK CATEGORY SCORE MEASURE

1 Safety 0.275 6.101 1 Operating 0.223 6.187

2 Quality 0.186 6.107 2 Financial 0.190 6.179
3 Customer 0.175 6.091 3 Quality 0.181 6.168
4 Financial 0.159 6.097 4 Customer 0.159 6.168
5 Operating 0.127 6.079 5 Safety 0.127 6.173
6 Employee 0.077 6.085 6 Employee 0.120 6.173
1.000 0.015 CR 1.000 0.028 CR

The second interesting point is the relative ranking
of the customer performance category. A strong cus-
tomer focus is at the heart of lean enterprises. Compa-
nies successful in implementing lean principles are
“in-tune” with their customers. Two companies, how-
ever, have the customer performance category ranked
next to last, while three companies ranked the customer
performance category as second-to-last. For firms
implementing lean, it would be expected that customer
performance would be the highest-ranked performance
category.
Another point worth mentioning is the relative rank-
ing of the financial performance category. None of the
companies ranked financial performance as the top per-
formance category, a refreshing development. With the
dominance of financial measures in most companies, it
was surprising to find the managers of the participating
companies did not view financial performance as the
most important performance category. While Kaplan
and Norton do not rank financial performance as the
most important performance category, they believe that
the metrics used in the other performance categories

M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY 7 SUMMER 2004, VOL. 5, NO. 4

should be linked to financial performance. It is impor-
tant that improvements in nonfinancial performance
eventually translate into financial performance.
Does the balanced scorecard perceived by the com-
panies’ management support or hinder the strategic
objective of implementing lean? Table 4 appears to sug-
gest some misalignment between the performance sys-
tem and strategy. The relative weighting of the
performance categories does not reflect the importance
of customers and employees to lean strategies. The
operational performance categories dominate the high-
er-ranked categories. Presenting the results of the AHP
to the management team to discuss the relative weights
placed on the different performance categories may be
useful. An open dialogue discussing the lean initiative
and how the balanced scorecard affects the initiative
also would be beneficial. Developing an understanding
with a company’s management on the importance of a
properly structured balanced scorecard and its link with
a company’s strategic objectives is key.
COMPLETING THE BALANCED SCORECARD
The analysis conducted has only examined the perfor-
mance category level of a balanced scorecard. The next
step involves determining the specific metrics in each
performance category to collect and measure. It is likely
that the number of metrics within each performance
category will vary. The steps outlined above can be
used at the metric level. Once the metrics are defined
and scored, a scoring system is developed. From that
scoring system, an overall performance score can be cal-
culated.12 A single composite score allows for compari-
son across companies as well as comparisons across
facilities within companies.
The use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in investi-
gating the degree of alignment between management’s
ranking of balanced scorecard performance categories
and the company’s strategic initiatives was illustrated
here using six lean enterprise companies. The use of
Excel to perform AHP calculations also was demon-
strated. Results of the process indicate two performance
categories (customer and employee) were not highly
ranked when compared to the other categories. Those
two categories are the foundations of lean programs and
were expected to be highly ranked. Armed with the
M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY
results of the AHP, management can begin to realign
the performance system to measure lean better. ■
DeWayne L Searcy, PhD., CMA, CPA, CIA, is an assistant
professor in the department of accounting at the University
of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. His research interests are
supply chain management, lean enterprises, and continuous
auditing. He can be reached at (305) 284-4821 or
dsearcy@miami.edu.
1 The project refers to the companies’ participation in a Lean
Enterprise Site Assessment conducted by Bradley Greene and
DeWayne L. Searcy. The specifics detailed in this article are a
small component of the overall assessment conducted with
each company.
2 Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, “Why Does Business
Need a Balanced Scorecard?” Journal of Cost Management,
May/June 1997, pp. 5-10.
3 James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, Lean Thinking: Banish
Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation, Simon & Schuster,
New York, N.Y., 1996.
4 Steven Spear and H. Kent Bowen, “Decoding the DNA of the
Toyota Production System,” Harvard Business Review,
September/October 1999.
5 Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard:
Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, Mass., 1996.
6 Kaplan and Norton, 1997, pp. 5-10.
7 Thomas L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, N.Y., 1980.
8 Patrick T. Harker and Luis G. Vargas, “The Theory of Ratio
Scale Estimation: Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Manage-
ment Science, November 1987 (vol. 33, no. 11), pp. 1383-1403.
See also, “Reply to ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy
Process’ by J. S. Dyer,” Management Science, March 1990 (vol.
36, no. 3), pp. 269-271, by the same authors.
9 See Cliff T. Ragsdale, Spreadsheet Modeling and Decision Analy-
sis, 3rd ed., South-Western, Cincinnati, 2001, pp. 766-773.
10 J. Aczel and Thomas L. Saaty, “Procedures for Synthesizing
Ratio Judgments,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1983,
vol. 27, pp. 93-102.
11 The random index was generated through simulations con-
ducted by Thomas L. Saaty.
12 See B. Douglas Clinton, Sally A. Webber, and John M. Hassell,
“Implementing the Balanced Scorecard Using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process,” Management Accounting Quarterly,
Spring 2002.
8 SUMMER 2004, VOL. 5, NO. 4
 Appendix—Performance Categories AHP Instrument
For the 15 pairs of evaluation criteria to be compared, first indicate which category in the pair is more important for
measuring and monitoring the performance of your site, then record your judgment as to the magnitude of its impor-
tance over the other item in the pair. There are no right or wrong answers. The response scale for magnitude of
importance is as follows:
INTENSITY OF
IMPORTANCE DEFINITION EXPLANATION

1 Equal importance Two criteria contribute equally to the evaluation of performance

2 Weak importance of one item over another Experience and judgment slightly favor one criterion over another
3 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favor one criterion over another
4 Very strong importance A criterion is strongly favored, and its dominance is
demonstrated in practice
5 Absolute importance The evidence favoring one criterion over another is of the highest
possible order of affirmation

Example: Quality of a leader

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA
A VS B More Important Magnitude
Communication Skills Technical Skills A B 1 2 3 4 5
Communication skills are 4 times more important than technical skills of a leader.

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Product/Service Quality Safety A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Financial Performance Customer Focus A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Operating Performance Employee Satisfaction A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Safety Financial Performance A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Product/Service Quality Financial Performance A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Safety Employee Satisfaction A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Customer Focus Operating Performance A B 1 2 3 4 5

M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY 9 SUMMER 2004, VOL. 5, NO. 4

 Appendix—Performance Categories AHP Instrument (cont.)

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Employee Satisfaction Product/Service Quality A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Operating Performance Financial Performance A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Customer Focus Employee Satisfaction A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Product/Service Quality Operating Performance A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Customer Focus Safety A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Employee Satisfaction Financial Performance A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Customer Focus Product/Service Quality A B 1 2 3 4 5

COMPARISON PAIR EVALUATION CRITERIA

A VS B More Important Magnitude
Operating Performance Safety A B 1 2 3 4 5

M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY 10 SUMMER 2004, VOL. 5, NO. 4