A balanced scorecard approach to establish a performance evaluation and relationship model for hot spring hotels based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

International

Journal

of

Hospitality

Management

j ou rna l h o m e pa g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j h o s m a n

A

balanced

scorecard

approach

to

establish

a

performance

evaluation

and

relationship

model

for

hot

spring

hotels

based

on

a

hybrid

MCDM

model

combining

DEMATEL

and

ANP

Fu-Hsiang

Chen

a

_,

_Tsung-Shin

_Hsu

a

_,

_Gwo-Hshiung

_Tzeng

b,c,∗

a_Department_of_Industrial_Management,_National_Taiwan_University_of_Science_and_Technology,_No._43,_Sec._4,_Keelung_Road,_Taipei_106,_Taiwan

b_Department_of_Business_and_{Entrepreneurial}_Management,_and_Institute_of_Project_Management,_Kainan_University,_No._1,_Kainan_Road,_Luchu,_Taoyuan_338,_Taiwan c_Institute_of_Management_of_Technology,_National_Chiao_Tung_University,_1001,_Ta-Hsueh_Road,_Hsinchu_300,_Taiwan

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Keywords:

Balancedscorecard

Performanceevaluation

Hotspringhotel

DANP(DEMATEL-basedANP)

MultipleCriteriaDecisionMaking(MCDM)

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thebalancedscorecardapproachisaneffectivetechniqueforperformanceevaluation.Formore accu-ratelyreflectingthedependenceandfeedbackproblemsofeachfactorinrealworldsituations,hereanew modelisdevelopedusingabalancedscorecardapproachforevaluatingtheperformanceofhotspring hotel.ADANPhybridMCDMmodelisadoptedtosolvethedependenceandfeedbackproblems,while establishingaperformanceevaluationandrelationshipmodel.Anempiricalcasestudyispresentedto demonstratetheeffectivenessoftheproposedhybridMCDMmodel.Basedonthisstudy,the perspec-tivebetween‘learningandgrowth’,‘enterprise’sinternalprocesses’,and‘customer’,allaimforsolid financialperformanceastheultimategoal,andreportapositiveinfluence.Thiseffectiveperformance evaluationmodeldevelopedbyapplyingthehybridMCDMenablesbusinessmanagerstounderstand theappropriateactionsandachieveacompetitiveadvantage.

1. Introduction

In general,natural hot springsare comprised ofgeothermal water,containingminerals,gases,andcertainelementsthatrise fromundergroundviaavent.Hotspringpools,usedforbathing, containacombinationofcoldandhotwater,gasesand geother-malelements,andarethoughttobeneﬁthumanhealth.Taiwanis locatedinthejunctureoftheEurasianPlateandPhilippinePlate. Theareahasabundanthotspringresources,withvarying chem-icalcharacteristics,scatteredacrosstheisland. Everyhotspring sitehasuniquelocalfeaturesarisingfromitsrelationshipwiththe localgeology.Hot springhotelsare those hotelslocatedin hot springresource areas,wherevisitorscanenjoythehot springs, whilehavingaccesstolodging,foodservicesandsocialcontact. Theydifferfromordinaryhotelsandresortsprimarilyduetothe servicesassociatedwiththecoreproductof hotspringbathing

(Hsieh,2007).Europehasalongtraditionofvisitinghotelspasto

obtainmedicalbeneﬁts.Inrecentyears,regularhoteliershave

rec-∗ Correspondingauthorat:InstituteofManagementofTechnology,National

ChiaoTungUniversity,1001,Ta-HsuehRoad,Hsinchu300,Taiwan.Tel.:+8863

3412456;fax:+88633412430.

E-mail addresses: ghtzeng@mail.knu.edu.tw, clark15152006@yahoo.com.tw,

ghtzeng@mail.cc.nctu.edu.tw(G.-H.Tzeng).

ognizedthebeneﬁtsandincreasedrevenuethataspafacilitycan bring(Thorsteinsdottir,2005).

In 2009,theannual numberofinbound travellerstoTaiwan wasaround 4.4 million.Themajor recreationactivitiesof such visitorswereshopping(86.81%),visitingnightmarkets(72.75%) andhistoricalsites(57.19%),ecologicaltourism(29.77%),attending exhibitions(26.33%),visitinglakes(25.74%),andhotspringtourism (24.22%)(TaiwanTourismBureau,2010a).Furthermore,hotspring tourismcomprises4.4%oftheleisureactivityofdomestictourists

(TaiwanTourismBureau,2010b).However,hotspringtourismhas

recentlybecomefastestgrowingsectorforbothdomesticand over-seasvisitorsin Taiwan.Thishasnaturallyattractedtheinterest ofthehotspringshotelindustry.Notonlyhastherebeenheavy investmentintheconstructionofspahotels,butalsoasigniﬁcant increaseinthedevelopmentofhotelfacilitiescentredon allow-ingguesttoenjoythehotsprings.Taiwan’shotspringhotelshave enteredamaturestage.Howeverthereisstillmuchvarietyinthe operatingstyleandbusinessstrategyofhotelsindifferentareas, withspaproductsmainlyasasubsidiary.Asaconsequence, prod-ucthomogeneityistoohighandmarketcompetitionintense,which oftenmakesitdifﬁcultformanagementtodistinguishthemselves fromthepackandgainmarketshare.

Inrecentyears,drasticﬂuctuationsintheglobaleconomicand

ﬁnancial environment have resulted in changes in the

market-place.Asforallcompaniesinthehospitalityindustry,thesales ofhot springhotelsarehighlycontingentupon marketchange.

(2)

Togrowandbecomeproﬁtableamidstglobalcompetition,they havetoenhancetheirperformanceacrosstheboard,addressing keyquestionssuchas: Whatisthecurrenthealthof the indus-tryandtheinterrelationbetweenkeyindicatorsofperformance assessment?Iftheycanidentifythemajorfactorsthatwillenhance theperformanceof thehot springhotel and developstrategies accordingly,it willbepossibleto excelina highlycompetitive market.

Successful performance results from goal achievement and

projectimplementation(WuandHung,2008).Methodsfor

assess-ingperformanceevolve along withadvancesin technologyand

growingmarketdemands.Thetoolswhichcompaniesuseto eval-uatetheirownperformanceshouldoffersomepredictivequalities concerningfutureperformance. Suchtools shouldlead themto themostlikely future and helptranslatestrategies into action. Amongalltheperformance assessmentindicators,thebalanced

scorecard approach, proposedby Kaplan and Norton(2004) as

a performance management system for strategic mapping, can

besttranslatestrategiesintotangiblegoalsandmeasurements.In structureitconsistsofstrategicmanagementtoolsrelatedtoboth financialandnon-financialindicators.Onepartofthetool eval-uatestheresultsofpastefforts;whiletheotheraimedatfuture assessments.Therearemanyfactorsthatimpacttheperformance ofhotspringhotels.Thesefactorscanbesummarizedand classi-fiedintodifferentconstructsandthencondensed intoasmaller number. This new list of factors acts as an effective reference fordecision-making.Therefore,inthisstudy,thebalanced score-cardapproach,whichhasbeenwidelyadoptedasaperformance indicator, is appliedto measure theperformance of hot spring hotels.

Inthemanagementofhotspringhotels,onewantstonotonly knowwhichfactorsaffectperformance,butalsounderstandthe degreeofinﬂuence ofeach factor,and which sub-factorsaffect thesefactors.Thepurposeofthisstudyistocreateabetter frame-workfordecision-makingforthistypeofmanagementevaluation. Thebalancedscorecardapproach,developedbyKaplanandNorton

(2004),isadoptedforthispurposewithMultipleCriteriaDecision

Making(MCDM)employedfortheperformanceevaluation.There

isa causalrelationship betweenthefourperspectivesinvolved inthisapproach(Simand Koh,2002;Bankeretal.,2004;Davis

and Albright,2004; Wu and Hung,2008).The aimis to

deter-minewhichsub-factorsinﬂuencethefourperspectivesandtheir correspondingsub-factors,withthegoal ofestablishinga more comprehensiveperformanceevaluationframeworkforhotspring hotels.Therelationshipbetweeneachfactoranditssub-factorsis considered.Withthismethodologyweareabletoconsidermultiple criteriaatthesametime.Italsohelpsthedecisionmakerto esti-matethebestchoice,bysortingalimitednumberofcasesaccording totheircharacteristics.Thesub-factorsforthefourperspectivesare foundbycollectingandanalyzingdata.

TheDecisionMakingTrialandEvaluationLaboratory (DEMA-TEL)techniqueisthenusedtoconﬁrmtherelationshipbetween variousperspectives,toenhanceourunderstandingofthe com-plexissuesrelatedtoperformance.Anetwork-relationshipmap (NRM)of theperformance of thehot spring hotel is prepared,

which, combined with the DEMATEL-based Analytic Network

Process (DANP) helps to measure the mutual importance of

each factor. However, the ANP method deals with

normaliza-tioninthesupermatrixbyassumingthateachclusterhasequal

weight.Although this method for normalizing the supermatrix

is easy, it seems irrational to assume equal weights, because of the different degrees of inﬂuence of the criteria (Ou Yang et al., 2008). Our strategy is to utilize a hybrid MCDM model

thatcombinesDEMATELand ANPtosolvethedependence and

feedback problems, thus more accurately reﬂecting real world

situations.

Withthisinmind,wedevelopaframeworktoconsiderthese

factorsbycombiningthegraph-theorybased DEMATELmethod

withanANPapproach(hereafterDANP).Anempiricalcasebased onrealhotspringhotelsisalsopresentedtodemonstratethe

effec-tivenessofthehybridDANPMCDMmodel.Thismethodoffersa

morecompletedecision-makingmodelespeciallydesignedtosolve performanceevaluationproblemsforhotspringhotels.

2. Literaturereview

Thissectiondiscussesthefactorsutilizedforperformance eval-uationinthepastaswellastheresultsofthisstudy.Thesub-factors thataffectthemainfactorsareidentiﬁed,andevaluationcriteria developedtherefrom.

2.1. Performanceevaluation

The performance evaluation is a systematic review process

carriedouttohelpanorganizationreachacertaingoal.Making per-formanceevaluationpartofthemanagementandcontrolsystem helpstheorganizationtoeffectivelymanageitsresourcesand mea-sureitsperformanceinrelationtoitsgoals(WuandHung,2008). Traditionalevaluationmetricsaremostoftenbasedonlyon ﬁnan-cialperformanceandarethuslimitedintheirassessmentofoverall performance(Booth,1996).Thetraditionalevaluationofﬁnancial performanceis notaneffectiveorcomprehensivemeasure, nor isitaholisticevaluationconcept.KaplanandNorton(1992) pro-posedthebalancedscorecardapproachinordertoovercomethese shortcomings.

2.2. KaplanandNorton’sbalancedscorecardapproach

Thebalancedscorecardapproachtakesintoconsiderationthe organization’svisionandstrategies,focusingonbothfinancialand non-financialperformance.Inshort,itmonitorsshort-term finan-cialperformancewhilealsohighlightingthevalueoflong-term financialmetricsandcompetitiveness(KaplanandNorton,1992,

1996,2001).AccordingtoPinero(2002)thebalancedscorecard

approachisaimedathelpingtheorganizationachieveitsgoals, whilemaintainingthetraditionalfinancialperspectivetomeasure itstangibleassets.Itincludesthreeperspectives(i.e.,customers, internalprocesses,andlearningandgrowth)toevaluateintangible assetsandintellectualcapital.Organizationalstrategiesare exam-inedfrombothfinancialandnon-financialperspectives,basedon actualdataforacomprehensiveevaluation.

2.3. Causalrelationshipsinperformanceevaluation

Kaplanand Norton (2004) proposed“thereis a causal

rela-tionshipbetweenthefourperspectivesofthebalancedscorecard approach”.If,financialresultsaretheultimategoalofany busi-nessenterprise,learningandgrowthserveasthefoundation.The resultsfromthefinancialmetricsarelaggingindicators,whereas theresultsfromlearningandgrowth,internalprocessesand cus-tomersaretheleadingindicators.Thus,financialperformancecan beimprovedbyfocusingonlearningandgrowth,internalprocesses

and customers (Kaplan and Norton, 2001). Kaplan and Norton

(2004)suggestshowingtheinterrelationbetweenthefour

per-spectivescanbeshownonastrategymap,since ﬁnancialgoals canbeattainedbymakingsurethatthetargetcustomersare sat-isﬁed,itisimperativetoidentifyareasofvaluecreationforthe customer,waystogeneratesalesandincreasecustomerloyalty. Internalprocessesareanimportantaspectofvaluecreation,and learningandgrowthisanimportantintangiblecomponentofthis. Learningandgrowthispositivelycorrelatedtointernalprocesses.

(3)

Financial perspective

Customer perspective

Internal processes

perspective

Learning and growth perspectiv

e

note

Fig.1.Strategymapsforthebalancedscorecardapproach(KaplanandNorton,

2004)(Note:PrietoandRevilla(2006)havesuggestedthatlearningcapabilityis directlyandpositivelycorrelatedtoﬁnance)

Furthermore,internalprocessesarepositivelycorrelatedwith cus-tomersandﬁnance,andcustomersarepositivelycorrelatedwith ﬁnance(KaplanandNorton,2004)(Fig.1).Althoughthebalanced

scorecard approach hasbecome one of themost populartools

usedin thehotel industry inthelast fewyears (McPhailetal.,

2008;Fisheretal.,2010),somecriticsquestionitsrolein

improv-ingperformance,becausethecorrelationbetweennon-ﬁnancial

measuresandfuturebeneﬁtshasnotbeendemonstrated.These

relationshipsare complex and are inﬂuenced by the

organiza-tion’sstrategiesandnumerousotherfactorsrelatedtoitsstructure

(AnthonyandGovindarajan,1998;IttnerandLarker,2001;Olve

etal.,1999;SimandKoh,2002).PrietoandRevilla(2006)for

exam-ple,arguethatanorganization’slearningcapabilitynotonlycan enhanceﬁnancialperformancebuthasadirectandpositive inﬂu-ence.Manyscholars(e.g.,BierleyandChakrabarti,1996;Ellinger

etal.,2002;Tippins andSohi,2003;Wu andHung,2007)have

suggestedthatlearningcapabilityandfinancialperformanceare directlyandpositivelycorrelatedwitheachother.Tosumup,the factoroflearningandgrowthhasapositiveinfluenceonfinance. Therefore,amodelforperformanceevaluationcanbeestablished byincorporatingtheinfluenceoflearningandgrowthonfinance, asshowninFig.1.

This study adopts the DEMATEL technique to explain the

relationshipsbetweenthevariousassessment criteria. Thisis a

comprehensive methodfor buildingand analyzing a structural

modelinvolvingcausalrelationshipsbetweencomplex perspec-tives (Wu and Lee, 2007), and constructing the correlations betweenperspectives/criteriatobuildanNRM(Tzengetal.,2007;

Huangetal.,2007;OuYangetal.,2008).Thistechniquehasbeen

successfullyappliedforavarietyofpurposessuchascreating mar-ketingstrategies and dealing withsafety problems(Chiu etal.,

2006;Liouetal.,2007).Inaddition,ithashelpedtodevelopthe

competencies of globalmanagers (Wu and Lee, 2007), enabled sociallyresponsibleinvestment(Tsaietal.,2009)andassistedwith costevaluationinthehotelindustry(Tsaietal.,2010).

2.4. Summaryoftheliteraturereviewtoﬁndhotspringhotel performanceevaluationfactors

Based onKaplanand Norton’sbalanced scorecard approach,

theliteraturereview,expertopinions,brainstormingand

inter-views with management of hot spring hotels, we proposed

speciﬁcperspectivesforevaluatingperformance,asillustratedin

Table1.

3. Methodology

AhybridMCDMmodelisproposedwhichcombinesDEMATEL

andANPtoconﬁrmtheeffectofeachperspectiveandcriterion,and tomeasuretheimportanceofeachfactor.

3.1. Datacollection

Alistoffactorsthatcanenhancetheperformanceofhotspring hotelswascollectedfromtheperformance dimensionslistedin

Table1.Thequestionnairewasdesignedtoincludethese.The

rel-ativeimportancecriteriawerefoundbyaskingexpertstoanswer thequestionnaireinStage1,selectingtheimportantcriteria(with ameanof7.5andabove). Questionresponsesrangedfrom0to 10withahighscoremeaninghighimportance(Fig.2).Inorder toensureeffectivepair-wisecomparisonsandgoodconsistency,

Saaty(1980)suggeststhatthereshouldbealimitednumberof

fac-torsinasingleconstruct.Inthisstudyweaskedthreescholarsin thetourismindustry,sixhotspringhotelproprietorsandone gov-ernmentofﬁcialinchargeoftourism,toﬁllinthequestionnaire. InStage2,importancescales,basedontriangularfuzzynumbers (withameanof7.5 andabove),werecompiled.Theresultsare showninTable2.

InStage2theresultsofStage1wereappliedandtheDEMATEL

andANPmethodscombinedandincorporatedintothe

question-nairedesign.Thequestionnaireaimedatcomparingpairedresults oftheimportanceofthecriteria.Thesurveyfocusedonthe

man-agement of hot spring hotels. The views and thoughts on the

assessmentcriteriawerereceivedfromtherespondentsthrough personalinterviewandcompletedsurveys.Atotalof30surveys wereobtainedfortheperiodfromOctober2009toDecember2009. Eachinterviewconductedwitharespondenttookabout50–60min. Thesurveyswerecollectedattheendoftheinterview.

3.2. DEMATELtechniqueforbuildinganetworkrelationshipmap Todevelopacompletedecisionmodelweseektounderstand whetherfactorsorsub-factorsinteractorareindependent.

DEMA-TELis commonlyusedtosolvesimilarproblemsinMCDM.We

usetheDEMATELtechniquetoanalyzethecomponentstructureof eachcriterion,aswellasthedirectionandintensityofthedirectand indirectrelationshipsthatflowbetweenapparentlywell-defined components.DEMATELusesmatrixcalculationstoobtainallthe direct and indirect causal relationships, as well as the impact strength.Itusesacomplicatedanddifficultsystemtodirectly com-paretheinteractionbetweenthecriteriacharacteristics.Avisual structuralmatrixandcausaldiagramisusedtoshowthecausal relationshipandlevelofimpactbetweencriteriainacomplex sys-tem.Thisinturnassistswiththedecisionmakingprocess.Theend productoftheDEMATELprocessisavisualrepresentation—an indi-vidualmapofthemind—bywhichtherespondentorganizeshisor herownactionsintheworld.TheresultsoftheDEMATELanalysis illustratetheinterrelationbetweencomponentsandcanbeused todiscoverwhicharecentraltotheproblem, aswellastofind whichfactorsorsub-factorsaffecteachotherorthemselves.This ishelpfultodevelopacompletedecisionmodel.DEMATELisbased ondirectedgraphs(alsocalleddigraphs),whichcanseparatethe involvedfactorsintocauseandeffectgroupstobetterunderstand causalrelationships.Digraphsaremoreusefulthandirectionless graphsbecausetheydisplaythedirectedrelationshipsofthe sub-systems.

(4)

Table1

Hotspringhotelperformanceevaluationfactors.

Perspective

Learningandgrowth Enterprise’sinternalprocesses Customer Finance

Criteria

Employeeeducation Abilitytokeepexistingcustomers Customersatisfaction Returnonassets

Employeesatisfaction Speedofnewproductlaunch Servicequality Personnelcostratio

Employeeprofessionalability Timereductionforinhandlingcustomer

complaint

Hotelimage Revenuegrowthrate

Employeeproductivity Hotelmanagementefﬁciencyenhancement Customerloyalty Returnoninvestment

Averageemployeeresignationrate Abilitytorespondtoemergencies Newcustomerincreaserate Revenuefromnewcustomer

ratio

Employeeknowledgesharing Traininginenvironmentalhygieneand

cleaningoperation

Trafﬁcconvenience Grouprevenuegrowthrate

EmployeeabilitytouseITproducts Hotelproduct’sinnovativequalityand

uniqueness

Marketshare Servicecostreduction

Employeeabilitytomanageemergencies Timereductionofoperationcycle Customerrelationship

management

Netproﬁtratio

Employeeeffectiveuseofmarketinginformation Salespromotionabilityenhancement Peripheralmerchandise

revenueratio

Customerbackgroundinformationcompilation

Effectiveproblem-solvingpercentage

Source:1.BierleyandChakrabarti(1996);2.DentonandWhite(2000);3.Suzanneetal.(2001);4.Ellingeretal.(2002);5.TippinsandSohi(2003);6.DavisandAlbright

(2004);7.Bankeretal.(2004);8.Papalexandrisetal.(2005);9.GetzandBrown(2006);10.PrietoandRevilla(2006);11.WuandHung(2008);12.McPhailetal.(2008).

Very Unimportant Unimportant Fair Important Very Important

1

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.5 8 9 10

Fig.2. Rankofimportancelevel

3.3. CombiningDEMATELwithANPtoﬁndtheimportantweights

Whenevaluating performance,businessesmust usually

con-sidermultiplecriteriaanddeterminetherelativeweightsofthese criteria.Theseperformancecriteriaareusuallyinterdependent,and theirindividualweightsarehardtoobtain.TheDEMATELtechnique isnotusedtoconﬁrmtheinteractionsaffectingtherelationship

between the factors, but is aimed at obtaining more accurate

weights.ANPisamoreappropriatetoolforﬁndingtheinteractions. TheANPisanonlinearstructurethathandlesdependencewithin acluster(innerdependence)andamongdifferentclusters(outer dependence),incontrasttotheAHP(AnalyticalHierarchyProcess) whichishierarchicalandlinearwiththegoalatthetop,and alter-nativesatlowerlevels(Saaty,1999).Inotherwords,theANPdoes notrequireastrictlyhierarchicalstructuresosingleornumerous

networksmaybeincludedin anANP model.TheANPhasbeen

appliedsuccessfullyinmanypracticaldecision-makingproblems, suchasgreensupply-chainmanagement,enterpriserisk

manage-ment(Sarkis,2003;Yilmaz,2007),evaluationofhotspringhotel

servicequality(Hsiehetal.,2008),andinnovativeculinary devel-opment(Hu,2009).TheANPprovidesawaytoinputjudgments andmeasurementstoderiveratioscaleprioritiesforthe distribu-tionofinﬂuenceamongthecriterionandgroupsofcriteriainthe

decisionmakingprocess.Becausetheprocessisbasedon deriv-ingratioscalemeasurements,itcanbeusedtoallocateresources accordingtotheratio-scalepriorities.

Sinceperformancecriteriausuallyinﬂuenceoneanother,both direct and indirect effects are crucial factors when evaluating performance.ThisstudyadoptsDANPforaccurateevaluationof

performance. Saaty proposed a method for analysis of ANP by

adoptingthelimiting-processmethodofthepowersofthe super-matrix(SekitaniandTakahashi,2001).Although,theoretically,ANP canbeusedfortreatmentofinterdependencies,itiswisetoﬁrst

adopt theDEMATEL technique togenerate a cause–effect

rela-tionship.Thetreatmentofinterdependenciesintheunweighted supermatrixrequirestheuseoftheDEMATEL.Itcanproduce

valu-ableinformation formaking decisions. Ahybrid MCDMmodel,

combiningtheDEMATELtechniquewiththeANP(DANP)method,

canbeusedtosolvethedependenceandfeedbackproblems.This combinedmethodhasbeensuccessfullyusedinvariousﬁeldssuch asfore-learningevaluation(Tzengetal.,2007),airline-safety mea-surement(Liouetal.,2007),andpreparationofinnovationpolicy portfoliosforTaiwan’ssilicon/semiconductorintellectualproperty mall(SIPMall)(Huangetal.,2007).Togainvaluabledecision mak-inginformation,theDEMATELisﬁrstusedtodrawarelationship diagramforhotspringhotelperformanceevaluation.TheANPis

Table2

Criteriawithameanof7.5andabove.

Perspective

Learningandgrowth Enterprise’sinternalprocesses Customer Finance

Criteria

Employeeeducation Abilitytokeepexistingcustomers Customersatisfaction Returnonassets

Employeeprofessionalability Hotelmanagementefﬁciencyenhancement Servicequality Revenuegrowthrate

Employeeproductivity Customerbackgroundinformationcompilation Hotelimage Netproﬁtratio

(5)

Fig.3.Taiwan’sprimaryhotspringmap

thenutilizedtodeterminetheweightsoftheevaluationcriteria andprioritizethemaccordingly.

4. Resultsanddiscussion

Thissectionincludesananalysisofhotspringhotelperformance andthemeasurementoftherelationshipsamongtheperformance evaluationcriteria.Weusethisframeworktoﬁndthekey crite-riaillustratingthemodesofperformanceevaluationbasedonan interview/questionnaireﬁlledoutbytheproprietorsofhotspring hotels.

4.1. Backgroundandproblemdescription

Taiwan’shotspringresourcesarefairlydiverseandincludecold springs(below30◦C),muddysprings,sulfursprings,and carbon-atesprings.Atpresent,121hotspringspotshavebeenidentiﬁed, distributedinalmosteveryregioninTaiwan.IlanCountyhas19 (15.7%),thehighestproportion(WaterResourcesAgency,2010). TheJiaoxihotsprings,locatedinIlanCounty,hasverygoodhot springsresources.Thedevelopmentofhotspringrecreationhas alonghistoryandispartofarichculturallandscape.TheJiaoxi siteisaveryimportantandpopularsiteforhotspringbathingin Taiwan,and theareahasattractedalargenumber ofspaswith heavyinvestmentintheconstructionofhotspringshotels.Amap ofTaiwan’sprimaryhotspringsisshowninFig.3.TheJiaoxiarea, inIlanCounty,isoneofthemostpopularforhotspringstourism amongoverseasvisitorsandisthelocationofmajorityoflarge, modernhotspringsleisurefacilitiesinTaiwan.Furthermore,Jiaoxi neartheTaipeiCity,soisa majorhot springstourismareafor domestictouristsaswell.With30hotspringhotels,thisareais adecision-makingleader,andthusselectedforusewiththe

opti-mumperformanceevaluationmodelforthemanagementofhot

springhotels. 4.2. Analysisofresults

Traditionalstrategysettingconceptsdonotconsider interac-tionsandmultipleperspectivesnordotheyconsidertheinteractive relationshipsamongthesecriteria.Intherealworld,independence oftheperspectivesandcriteriadoesnotexist.Itisimportanttoﬁnd

Financial perspective

Customer perspective Internal processesperspective

Learning and growth perspective

Fig.4. Structureofperspectivesfortheempiricalcase

notonlythekeyfactorsforevaluatingperformancebutalsothe relationshipsamongthesecriteria.IntheDEMATELformulation, respondentsindicatethedegreeofdirectinfluenceonascaleof0, 1,2,3and4,“Noinfluence”,“Lowinfluence”,“Mediuminfluence”, “Highinfluence”and“Veryhighinfluence”,respectively.Thetotal influencematrixTandtheNRMoftherelationshipbetweenthe perspectivesfoundareshowninTable3andFig.4.Thetotal influ-encematrixTforthecriteriaisshowninTable4.Itcanbeseenthat allaspectsareinterdependent.

Tables4–6presentthecausaldiagramofthetotalrelationship

presentedinFig.5.Somecriteriahavepositivevaluesofdi− riand

thusgreatlyinﬂuencetheothercriteria.Thesecriteriaarecalled dispatchers; others have negativevalues of di−ri and thusare

greatlyinﬂuencedbytheothercriteria.Thesearecalledreceivers. Thevalueofdi+riindicatesthedegreeofrelationshipofeach

cri-terionwiththeothercriteria.Criteriahavinghighervaluesofdi+ri

have strongerrelationshipswiththe othercriteria,while those havinglowervaluesofdi+rihaveaweakerrelationshipwiththe

others.Asigniﬁcantlypositivevalueofdi−rirepresentsthefact

thatthecriterionaffectsothercriteriamuchmorethanthoseother criteriaaffectit,implyingitshouldbeapriorityforimprovement. Intermsofmanagerialimplications,thefindingsoftheDEMATEL canprovidesomeinsightsthatallowenterprisestoimprovetheir performancebasedonthecriterionthatmostsignificantly influ-encestheperformanceofothercriteria(Tsaietal.,2009).Itcanbe seeninthemiddlepanel(perspective)ofFig.5,thatC(Customer) isthefirstintheindexofstrengthofinfluencegivenandreceived (4.255intotalsum(dC+rC));A(Learningandgrowth)isnext;and

B(Enterprise’sinternalprocesses)isthethird.Inotherwords,the Customer(C)isthemostimportantinﬂuencingfactor.Ontheother hand,theFinancecomponent(D)affectstheotherfactorstheleast (3.617intotalsum(dD+rD)).

Hotspring hotelsarea partoftheservice industry.Assuch

they need to focus on encouraging customer satisfaction and

repeatbusiness.Therefore theCustomer(C)perspectivehasthe strongest relationshipswiththeotherperspectives.Kaplanand

Norton(2004)alsoarguethat“bymakingsuretargetcustomers

aresatisﬁedcantheﬁnancialgoalsbeattained.”Inaddition,the valuesofdi−rifortheBandAperspectivesarepositive,meaning

thattheyaffectotherfactorsintheperspective.

Ifthevaluesofdi−riforCandDarenegative,itmeansthatthese

criteriaareinﬂuencedbyothercriteria.Similarly,intheFinance (D)panelofFig.5,itcanbeseenthatd2(revenuegrowthrate)is

thefirstintermsoftheindexofstrengthofinfluencegivenand received,d3(netprofitratio)isnext,andd1(returnonassets)is

thethird.Inaddition,ifthevaluesofdi−riofd3(netproﬁtratio)

andd1(returnonassets)arepositive,theyaffectotherfactorsin

FinanceD,whereasifthevaluesofdi−riofd2(revenuegrowthrate)

arenegative,itshowsthatthesecriteriaareinﬂuencedbyother criteria.IntheCustomer(C)panelofFig.5,itcanbeseenthatc2

(6)

Table3

Total-inﬂuencematrixT:fourperspectives.

Perspectives A B C D Rowsum(di) Columnsum(ri) di+ri di−ri

A 0.505 0.492 0.555 0.474 2.026 1.988 4.014 0.038

B 0.496 0.459 0.534 0.460 1.949 1.897 3.847 0.052

C 0.540 0.518 0.564 0.499 2.120 2.135 4.255 −0.015

D 0.446 0.429 0.483 0.413 1.771 1.846 3.617 −0.075

Table4

Total-inﬂuencematrixT:ﬁfteencriteria.

Criteria a1 a2 a3 a4 b1 b2 b3 b4 c1 c2 c3 c4 d1 d2 d3 a1 0.471 0.562 0.490 0.532 0.505 0.542 0.439 0.509 0.579 0.593 0.561 0.530 0.470 0.503 0.470 a2 0.561 0.507 0.512 0.547 0.523 0.566 0.456 0.529 0.593 0.609 0.581 0.550 0.487 0.516 0.487 a3 0.495 0.525 0.401 0.489 0.467 0.512 0.409 0.470 0.528 0.546 0.512 0.495 0.449 0.475 0.445 a4 0.526 0.541 0.477 0.449 0.493 0.520 0.423 0.502 0.559 0.576 0.544 0.517 0.454 0.484 0.453 b1 0.511 0.536 0.464 0.501 0.435 0.523 0.443 0.479 0.552 0.568 0.540 0.524 0.463 0.493 0.458 b2 0.533 0.549 0.489 0.517 0.508 0.476 0.445 0.499 0.570 0.580 0.550 0.528 0.479 0.504 0.475 b3 0.446 0.465 0.406 0.437 0.440 0.453 0.332 0.417 0.487 0.500 0.473 0.455 0.400 0.427 0.402 b4 0.531 0.548 0.476 0.525 0.495 0.532 0.434 0.437 0.568 0.580 0.545 0.527 0.465 0.492 0.464 c1 0.554 0.578 0.503 0.551 0.536 0.563 0.469 0.517 0.524 0.613 0.582 0.556 0.491 0.520 0.486 c2 0.567 0.590 0.512 0.555 0.539 0.571 0.470 0.527 0.602 0.545 0.590 0.555 0.491 0.530 0.494 c3 0.552 0.580 0.506 0.550 0.539 0.570 0.468 0.528 0.598 0.619 0.514 0.556 0.495 0.529 0.498 c4 0.514 0.537 0.477 0.516 0.510 0.534 0.445 0.498 0.565 0.584 0.551 0.465 0.475 0.500 0.474 d1 0.448 0.462 0.418 0.441 0.434 0.470 0.379 0.422 0.486 0.499 0.471 0.456 0.360 0.451 0.421 d2 0.462 0.476 0.428 0.445 0.443 0.474 0.381 0.438 0.497 0.508 0.483 0.469 0.430 0.390 0.429 d3 0.448 0.468 0.421 0.439 0.434 0.471 0.374 0.425 0.486 0.503 0.476 0.460 0.424 0.451 0.360 Table5

Rowsumandcolumnsumofcriteria.

Perspective Learningandgrowth(A) Enterprise’sinternalprocesses(B) Customer(C) Finance(D) Rowsum

Criteria a1 a2 a3 a4 b1 b2 b3 b4 c1 c2 c3 c4 d1 d2 d3 a1 0.471 0.562 0.490 0.532 2.055 a2 0.561 0.507 0.512 0.547 2.127 a3 0.495 0.525 0.401 0.489 1.909 a4 0.526 0.541 0.477 0.449 1.993 b1 0.435 0.523 0.443 0.479 1.880 b2 0.508 0.476 0.445 0.499 1.928 b3 0.440 0.453 0.332 0.417 1.641 b4 0.495 0.532 0.434 0.437 1.899 c1 0.524 0.613 0.582 0.556 2.276 c2 0.602 0.545 0.590 0.555 2.292 c3 0.598 0.619 0.514 0.556 2.287 c4 0.565 0.584 0.551 0.465 2.164 d1 0.360 0.451 0.421 1.232 d2 0.430 0.390 0.429 1.249 d3 0.424 0.451 0.360 1.235 Columnsum 2.052 2.135 1.880 2.017 1.878 1.985 1.653 1.832 2.289 2.362 2.236 2.131 1.214 1.292 1.211 – Table6

Sumofinﬂuencesgivenandreceivedoncriteria.

Perspectives(i)/criteria(i) Rowsum(di) Columnsum(ri) di+ri di−ri

A.Learningandgrowth 2.026 1.988 4.014 0.038

a1Employeeeducation 2.055 2.052 4.107 0.003

a2Employeeprofessionalability 2.127 2.135 4.262 −0.009

a3Employeeproductivity 1.909 1.880 3.789 0.029

a4Employeeabilitytomanageemergencies 1.993 2.017 4.011 −0.024

B.Enterprise’sinternalprocesses 1.949 1.897 3.847 0.052

b1Abilitytokeepexistingcustomers 1.880 1.878 3.758 0.003

b2Hotelmanagementefﬁciencyenhancement 1.928 1.985 3.913 −0.057

b3Customerbackgroundinformationcompilation 1.641 1.653 3.294 −0.012

b4Effectiveproblem-solvingpercentage 1.899 1.832 3.730 0.067

C.Customer 2.120 2.135 4.255 −0.015 c1Customersatisfaction 2.276 2.289 4.565 −0.013 c2Servicequality 2.292 2.362 4.654 −0.070 c3Hotelimage 2.287 2.236 4.523 0.050 c4Customerloyalty 2.164 2.131 4.295 0.033 D.Finance 1.771 1.846 3.617 −0.075 d1Returnonassets 1.232 1.214 2.446 0.018

d2Revenuegrowthrate 1.249 1.292 2.541 −0.043

(7)

Fig.5.Causaldiagramoftotalrelationships

givenandreceived,c1(customersatisfaction)isnext,andc3(hotel image)isthethird.Inthe‘Learningandgrowth’(A)panelofFig.5, a2(employeeprofessionalability)istheﬁrstintermsoftheindexof

strengthofinﬂuencegivenandreceived,a1(employeeeducation)is

next,anda4(employeeabilitytomanageemergencies)isthethird.

FinallyintheEnterprise’sinternalprocesses(B)panelofFig.5,b2

(hotelmanagementefficiencyenhancement)isthefirstintermsof theindexofstrengthofinfluencegivenandreceived,b1(abilityto

keepexistingcustomers)isnext,andb4(effectiveproblem-solving

percentage)isthethird.

Table6showstheextentoftheimpactofeachcriterion,and

whetheritdirectlyorindirectlyaffectsothercriteria.Service qual-ity(c2)isthemostimportantconsideration(dc2+rc2=4.654)in

totalsum;ontheotherhand,returnonassets(d1)isthecriteria

withtheleastimpactontheothercriteria(dd1+rd1=2.446)in totalsum.TheﬁndingsareconsistentwithHsiehetal.(2008),who statedthat“tostandoutinthehotspringindustry,goodservice qualityhasbecomethemostimportantissueforcompetitiveness”. Thedb4−rb4 forthemaximumeffectiveproblem-solving per-centage(b4),showsthatthiscriterionhasthegreatestdirectimpact

onothers(db4−rb4 =0.067)intotaldifference;whereasservice quality(c2)isthecriterion mosteasilyinﬂuencedbyother

cri-teria(dc2−rc2=−0.070)in totaldifference.Furthermore,itcan be seen in the middle panel (perspective) of Fig. 5 that there existsa signiﬁcantcausalrelationshipbetweenthefour perfor-manceperspectivesandthattheyinﬂuenceeachother.Perspective

(8)

A(Learningandgrowth)exhibitsapositiveinfluenceonthe per-spective,D(Finance).Perspective(B)hasapositiveinfluenceon perspectives(A)and (C). Theperspectivesof‘enterprise’s inter-nalprocesses’ (B) and ‘customer’(C), have a positive influence

on the perspective of ‘ﬁnance’ (D). This means that the ﬁnal

aimofallperspectivesisfinancialperformanceandtheyhavea positiveinfluence onfinancialresults. Thesurvey ofhot spring hotelproprietorsindicatesthatpastfinancialperformancehasbeen poor(asshownbythelaggingindicatorofKaplanandNorton).Their toppriorityisnotonfinancialmetrics.Rather,thefocusisondriving financialperformancethroughlearningandgrowth,internal pro-cessesandcustomers(leadingindicatorsaccordingtoKaplanand Norton).Inaddition,accordingtodi+rianddi−ri,thefinance

cri-terionhasthelowestdegreeofinﬂuenceofallothers.Theﬁndings ofthisstudyarelargelyconsistentwiththestructureproposedby

KaplanandNorton(2004)regardingtheperformancemanagement

systemandstrategymapsobtainedusingthebalancedscorecard approach.Forexample,theperspectiveof‘enterprise’sinternal pro-cesses’(B)hasapositiveinfluenceontheperspectivesof‘customer’ (C)and‘finance’(D).Theperspectiveof‘customer’(C)hasapositive influenceontheperspectiveof‘finance’(D).Otherfindingsindicate thattheperspectiveof‘learningandgrowth’(A)hasapositive influ-enceontheperspectiveof‘finance’(D).ThisisinlinewithPrieto

andRevilla’s(2006)ﬁndings.

Inthisstudyimportantindicatorsareobtainedusingthe com-binedDEMATELwithANP,andintegratethedatafromoursurvey ofthemanagement ofhot springhotels.Thedynamic relation-shipbetweentheindicatorscanbeunderstoodbymappingtheir degreeofimportanceinanunweightedsupermatrix.By consider-ingtheextentoftheimpactofvariousdimensionswepreparea weightedsuper-matrix.Thelimitsofthesuper-matrixareusedto obtaintheweightsofvariousfactors(globalweights),asshownin

Table7.TheANPapproachallowsustoderivethelocalweights

oftheassessmentfactors,theirrespectivehierarchicallevels,and alsotheglobalweights.Allofthishelpstounderstandtheoverall absoluteweightsofindividualcriteria.Propertiesarethenarranged accordingto theirglobalweights. The purposeis todetermine theprimarycriteriathathotspringhoteloperatorsmustconsider

whenseekingimprovingperformance. Theresultsareshownin

Table7.

Table7showsthatamongthe15criteria,hotspringhotel

pro-prietorsbelievethatservicequalityshouldbetheﬁrstpriority,with aweightof0.075,followedbycustomersatisfaction(0.073).The 3rdto10thfactorsinorderofimportancefromgreatesttoleast, areemployee’sprofessionalability(0.072),hotel image(0.071),

enhancementofhotel managementefﬁciency(0.070),customer

loyalty(0.0684),employeeeducation(0.0682),employee’sability tomanageemergencies(0.067),abilitytokeepexistingcustomers (0.0653),andrevenuegrowthrate(0.0649).Amongthetop10 cri-teria,thereare3includedundertheperspectiveof‘learningand growth’,2undertheperspectiveof‘enterprise’sinternalprocesses’, 4undertheperspectiveof‘customer’,and1undertheperspective of‘finance’.AsindicatedinTable7the‘finance’criterion isless important.TheANPresultsshowthatfinanceisalagging indica-tor,whichisconsistentwithDEMATELanalysis.Inaddition,the managementofhotspringhotelswasratedfrom0to10to indi-catefutureimprovabilityofcriteria,with0beingthelowestscore, meaningfutureimprovability isexpectedtobeverysmall, and 10thehighestscore,indicating futureimprovabilityis likelyto beverylarge.Theresultsareshown inTable7.Themajorityof hotspringhotelmanagersthinkthat‘learningandgrowth’hasa greaterimpactonimprovement(totalscoreof6.608),and‘finance’ lower(totalscore5.593).Thisfindingsuggeststhatmostmanagers believethatitiseasiertoimproveemployee’slearningandgrowth thanotherfactors.TheresultsarelargelyconsistentwiththeANP results.

4.3. Discussion

Thisstudyfinds a causalrelationship betweenthefour per-spectives,thattheyinfluenceeachotherandarealsoultimately linkedtotheperspective of‘finance’. Thisis whytheyallhave

a positive inﬂuence on ﬁnancial performance. In other words,

improvementofanyoftheperspectivescanenhancethe achieve-mentoffinancialgoals.Improvementofoverallperformancewill eventuallyenhancefinancialresults.TheANPmethodfindsthat amongthetop10 criteria,thereare 3undertheperspectiveof ‘learningandgrowth’,2undertheperspectiveof‘enterprise’s inter-nalprocesses’,4undertheperspectiveof‘customers’andonly1 undertheperspectiveof‘finance’.ThisisconsistentwithKaplan

andNorton’sﬁndings(1996),thatﬁnancialperformance(asa

lag-gingindicator)canbeimprovedbyfocusingonleadingindicators suchas learning and growth,internal processes and customer. Therefore,hotspringhotel proprietorsshouldnotonlyfocuson ﬁnancialmanagement,butalsoemphasizetheothermetrics.The bettertheperformanceofotherconstructs,thebettertheﬁnancial results.

Asfarastheperformancecriteriaareconcerned,Daniel(1961)

notesinManagementInformationCrisisthethreetosixkey fac-torsleadingtosuccessinmostindustries.Thispaperutilizesthe top sixcriteria (basedon theANP rankings) asthekey factors thatcanenhancetheperformanceofhotspringhotels.Itishoped thatthis listcanserve as areference forhotels intheir strate-gicplanningsothat theycanbesuccessfulinthefaceoftough

competitionand achanging marketplace.Thefollowing

recom-mendationsareproposedforhotspringhotelstoenhancetheir performance:

1.Servicequality:operatorsshouldconsiderthephysicalfacilities, interiorstyling,convenienceofparking,privacyof accommo-dation and bathing areas, hygiene and safety of the overall

environment, promptness of service and thetimely problem

solvingabilitiesoftheirservicepersonal.Theyshouldalsopay attention to whether service personnel are able to provide ﬁrst-aid,theconvenienceofthereservationprocedureand con-venience of the trafﬁc route/shuttle, in order to offer better qualityservices.

2.Customersatisfaction:visitorstohotspringhotelstendto com-plainifthereisagapbetweentheirexpectationsandtheactual experience.Suchagapmightaltertheirchoiceofleisure prefer-ences.Hotelscanconductsurveystogaugecustomersatisfaction andgainanunderstandingofwhatthecustomerthinks.These surveyscanbecomecoreresources,servingbothasareference forimagecreationandasanaidfordevelopingabusinessmodel thatmeetstheneedsofcustomers.

3.Employee professional ability: the professional ability of employeestendstobeinﬂuencedbyworkmotives,skills, com-petenciesandroleawareness.Ifemployeesarehappywiththeir job,theyaremorewillingandmorehighlymotivatedtowork andasaresult,theirefﬁciencyandperformancewillimprove. Trainingandeducationcanenhancetheprofessionalabilityof employeesandcreateagoodworkatmosphere,improvejob sat-isfactionandassistintheeffectiveutilizationofhumanresources tobetterworktheperformanceofemployees.

4.Hotelimage:proprietorsshouldadheretothemanagement pol-icy of“wetreat ourcustomers withrespect”, strengthenthe hotel’sresourcesandimprovethequalityofservice.Thiswill helptocreateapositiveimage,promotegoodwillandenhance thepopularityofthehotel,attractingmorecustomers.

5.Hotelmanagementefﬁciencyenhancement:itisnecessaryto deploythemostcomprehensiveinternalprocessestoshorten theinternaloperatingtime,reducethenumberofcomplaints fromcustomersandcreateasafeleisureenvironment.Operators

(9)

Table7

Weightsandrankingfortheempiricalcase.

Perspective/criteria Localweights Globalweights(ranks) Improvability

Learningandgrowth(A) 0.269 6.608

Employeeeducation(a1) 0.253 0.068(7) 6.600

Employeeprofessionalability(a2) 0.266 0.072(3) 6.667

Employeeproductivity(a3) 0.232 0.062(12) 6.167

Employeeabilitytomanageemergencies(a4) 0.249 0.067(8) 6.976

Enterprise’sinternalprocess(B) 0.256 6.001

Abilitytokeepexistingcustomers(b1) 0.256 0.065(9) 5.767

Hotelmanagementefﬁciencyenhancement(b2) 0.272 0.070(5) 5.733

Customerbackgroundinformationcompilation(b3) 0.220 0.056(15) 6.033

Effectiveproblem-solvingpercentage(b4) 0.252 0.064(11) 6.500

Customer(C) 0.288 6.084 Customersatisfaction(c1) 0.254 0.073(2) 6.200 Servicequality(c2) 0.261 0.075(1) 6.400 Hotelimage(c3) 0.247 0.071(4) 5.967 Customerloyalty(c4) 0.237 0.068(6) 5.733 Finance(D) 0.187 5.593 Returnonassets(d1) 0.327 0.061(13) 5.667

Revenuegrowthrate(d2) 0.347 0.065(10) 5.800

Netproﬁtratio(d3) 0.326 0.061(14) 5.300

Average – 1.000 6.112

shouldlaunchinnovativeproductsandservicestocatertothe variousneedsoftheircustomers.

6.Customerloyalty:hotspringhotelshavetoimprovethe capa-bilityofemployeestopreparefor,entertainandkeepcustomers informed,tomeettheneedsofcustomers,whetherthoseneeds areforaninformativeandmentallystimulatingexperienceorfor otherspeciﬁcservicesorproductsthatwillattractthecustomer torevisitthehotel.Connectingproductsalesandcustomer ser-vicethroughinformationtechnologywillenhancethequalityof customerservice.Itisessentialtoconstantlyexpandanddevelop theefﬁcientprovisionofcustomerservicesothatitwilladdto thecorecompetitivenessofthehotel.

Keyperformanceevaluationcriteriaarethemainreasonsfor thesuccessofanenterprise.Hotspringhotelscanrefertothekey factorswhentheydevelopcorporatestrategiestocreatea compet-itiveadvantage.Thisstudyestablishesastrategymapforhotspring hotelsbasedonthekeyperformanceevaluationcriteriarankedby theANPweightsandthecausallinksandstrategymapsas pro-posedbyKaplanandNorton(2004).AsshowninFig.6,toachieve sustainableoperations,themissionofthehot-springhotelsis“to beavenuewherepeoplecanunwindandrelax”.Thevisionis“to becomeasynonymforleisureandtheﬁrstchoiceforarelaxing trip.”Toachievethismissionandvision,itispossibletofollowthe strategymapinFig.6toenhanceperformance.

Internal processes To create a good financial performance

Hotel management efficiency enhancement Service quality Customer satisfaction Employee professional ability Hotel image Customer loyalty Customer Finance Learning and growth

Fig.6. Strategymapforenhancementoftheperformanceofhotspringhotels(based onANPrankingofthetopsixcriteria)

InthecausalrelationshipsandstrategymapproposedbyKaplan

andNorton(2004),itisthevisionandmissionofthecompanythat

linkindividualfactorsandtheyhaveaninfluenceoneachother. Noneofthetopsixkeyperformanceevaluationcriteriadiscussed inthispaperareassociatedwiththeperspectiveof‘finance’.Here, thegoalofthisperspectiveinthestrategymapforperformance improvementisthecreationofgoodfinancialperformance.Among thetopsixcriteria,fourfallundertheperspectiveof‘customer’.In otherwords,hotspringhotelsshouldconsiderthe‘customer’as thetoppriority.Continuouseducationandtrainingofemployees toimprovetheirlevelofprofessionalismandemergencyresponse abilitiescancontributetothecorecompetitivenessandeffectively enhancetheinternalprocessesofanenterprise.Inthisway,service quality,hotelimage,customerloyaltyandcustomersatisfaction canbeimproved.Thewillingnessofcustomerstorevisit,andthe arrivalofnewcustomerswillresultinimprovedfinancial perfor-mance.

5. Conclusionsandremarks

As noted above,in this stageof maturity, hot spring hotels atmanyhotspringsitesarefacedwithincreasingmarket com-petition.Duetorestrictionondevelopmentinhotspringareas, mostlysuchhotelsaresmallormediumsized.Theyareoftenata disadvantageincomparisontolargehotelchainsintermsof prod-ucts,pricingandpromotions.Largefluctuationsintheeconomic andfinancialenvironmentcanmake itdifficulttomakeaprofit orachievegrowth.Thebalancedscorecardapproachdiscussedin Section 2.2 proposesfour performance evaluation perspectives, butitdoesnotexplaintherelativeweightofthesub-factors,the degreeofinfluenceofeachfactorandwhichsub-factorswillaffect thesefactors.Itisadvantageousforthemanagementofhotspring hotelstorealisetherelativeweightsofthefactorsandsub-factors forperformanceevaluation.Therefore,inthisstudy,wedevelop aperformanceevaluationandinterrelationmodelforhotspring hotels.Analysisofsurveyresultsisutilizedtoprovideand prior-itizethefactorsnecessarytoimproveandtodevelopastrategy mapthatcanbeusedasareferencefortheindustry.According totheresultsofDANP,thetopsixcriteriaorkeyfactorsthatcan enhancetheperformanceofhotspringhotelsaredefined.Based onthestrategymapdevelopedbyKaplanandNorton(2004),we formulateastrategymapdesignedtoenhanceperformance.Itis hopedthatthiscanassisthotspringhotelstomaintain competi-tiveness.

(10)

AppendixA. AhybridMCDMmodelcombinedwith DEMATELandANP

A.1. DEMATEL

TheDEMATELmethodisusedtoconstructtheinterrelations betweencriteriatobuildanNRM.Themethodcanbesummarized asfollows:

Step1:Calculatethedirectrelationaveragematrix.Respondents areaskedtoproposethedegreeofdirectinﬂuencethateach per-spective/criterioniexertsoneachperspective/criterionj,whichis denotedbydij,usingtheassumedscales.AnaveragematrixDis

thenderivedthroughthemeanofthesameperspective/criteriain thevariousdirectmatricesoftherespondents.Theaveragematrix

Disshownbythefollowingequation:

D=

⎡

⎢

⎣

d11 ··· d1j ··· d1n . . . ... ... di1 ··· dij ··· din . . . ... ... dn1 ··· dnj ··· dnn

⎤

⎥

⎦

(1)

Step2:Calculatethe initialdirect inﬂuencematrix.Theinitial directinﬂuencematrixX(i.e.,X=[xij]n×n)canbeobtainedby

nor-malizingtheaveragematrix_D.Inaddition,thematrix_Xcanbe obtainedthroughEqs.(2)and(3),inwhichallprincipaldiagonal criteriaareequaltozero.

X=s·D (2) s=min

⎡

⎣

1 max i

n j=1|dij| , 1 max j

n i=1|dij|

⎤

⎦

(3)

Step3:Derivethetotalinﬂuencematrix.Acontinuousdecreaseof theindirecteffectsofproblemsalongthepowersofXe.g.,X2_,_X3_,_._._.,

Xk_and _lim k→∞X k₌_[0] n×n,whereX=[xij]n×n,0≤xij<1,0<

ixij≤1,

0<

jxij≤1andatleastonecolumnsum

jxijoronerowsum

ixijequals1.Thetotalinﬂuencematrixislistedasfollows.

T=X+X2₊_·_·_·₊_Xk₌_X(I₋_X)−1 ₍₄₎

whereT=[tij]_n×n,fori,j=1,2,...,nand(I−X)(I−X)−1=I.In

addi-tion,themethodpresentseachrowsumandcolumnsumofmatrix

T. d=(ri)n×1=

⎡

⎣

n j=1 tij

⎤

⎦

n×1 (5) r=(cj)_n×1=(cj)_1×n=

_n

i=1 tij

(6)

wheredidenotestherowsumoftheithrowofmatrixTandshows

thesumofdirectandindirecteffectsofperspective/criterionion theotherperspective/criterion.Similarly,rj denotesthecolumn

sumofthejthcolumnofmatrixTandshowsthesumofdirectand indirecteffectsthatperspective/criterionjhasreceivedfromthe otherperspective/criterion.

Step4:Based ontheinﬂuence matrix_T,each criteriontij of

inﬂuencematrixTcanshownetworkinformationhowdegreeof

criterioniaffectscriterionjandtheNRMcanbeobtained.The

inﬂu-Fig.A1.TheintegratedapproachofDANP.

encematrixTcanbedividedintoTDbasedondimensionsandTC

basedoncriteria.

(7)

A.2. BasedonDEMATELtechniquetoﬁndANPweights

ANPandAHParetraditionalmethodsusedtosolvecertain prob-lems.Thecomplexityofquestionnairessurveyscanmeanthatthey aredifficulttounderstandandthereforenoteasytofillout.When makingpair-wisecomparisonsofANPandAHP,ANPisusedforthe establishmentofanunweightedsupermatrixforassigning impor-tanceweightingsusingtheconditionsofAHP.Ifweuseatraditional ANPsurveyquestionnaire,itwillbetoocomplexanddifficultto understand.InordertoovercomethedifficultiesofconductingANP

andAHPsurveys,ourstudyproposesanovel/newDANPmethod,

employingamodiﬁedDEMATELsurveyquestionnaire,usingthe

conceptofSaaty’s(1980)ANPvaluesfortranspositioninorderto obtaintheinﬂuenceweights.Thisnovel/newmethodfocuseson howtoimprovethegapforachievingtheaspiredlevelin each criterionandwesuggestelementswhichweshouldbegiven pri-orityforimprovement.SotheproceduresofDANPcanbeshown asFig.A1.

InproceduresofDANP,thestepistocomparethecriteriain

thewholesystemtoformanunweightedsupermatrix by

pair-wisecomparisons.Thentheweightedsupermatrixisderivedby transformingthesumofeachcolumnexactlytounity(1.00).Each elementinacolumnisdividedbythenumberofclusterssothe sumofeachcolumnwillbeexactlyunity.ForanormalizedTCwith

importancecriteriawithtotaldegreeofeffecttoobtainT˛ C.Take

forexample,

(8) sub-matrixT12

C (Eq.(9))frommatrixTCtonormalizeintoT˛12C as

(11)

(9) wheret12 i =

m2 j=1t 12 cij, i=1,2,...,m1 (10)

Step5:Theunweightedsupermatrixisformedbycomparingthe criteriaforthe wholesystem.Theﬁrst stepoftheANP is touse pair-wisecomparisonswiththecriteria.Thegeneralformofthe supermatrixcanbedescribedbyW21₌₍_T˛12

c ),wheredenotes

thetransposition,i.e.,W21_is_transposed_by_the_normalized_matrix

T˛12 c .

(11)

(12) whereCndenotesthenthcluster,cnmdenotesthemthcriterionin

thenthcluster,andWij _is_the_principal_eigenvector_of_the

inﬂu-enceofthecriteriainthejthclustercomparedtotheithcluster.In addition,ifthejthclusterhasnoinﬂuenceontheithcluster,then

Wij₌_[0].

Step6:Obtaintheweightedsupermatrixbymultiplyingthe nor-malizedmatrix,whichisderivedaccordingtotheDEMATELtechnique.

OuYangetal.(2008)proposedahybridmethodwhichadoptedthe

DEMATELtechniquetosolvethisproblem.First,theDEMATEL tech-niqueisusedtoderivethetotalinﬂuencematrixTC(Step3)forn

dimensions. TD=

⎡

⎢

⎣

t11 D ··· t 1j D ··· t1nD . . . ... ... ti1 D ··· t ij D ··· tDin . . . ... ... tn1 D ··· t nj D ··· tnnD

⎤

⎥

⎦

(13)

Therefore,thenormalizedtotalinﬂuencematrixisrepresented asTD,and n

j=1 tij₌_ti_, _i₌_1,_2,_._._._,_n. (14) Next,_TD(hereafterreferredtoas‘thenormalizedmatrix’)andthe

unweightedsupermatrixWareprocessedusingEq.(11)toobtain theweightedsupermatrixW˛_for_{normalization.}

W˛₌_T˛ DW=

⎡

⎢

⎣

t˛11 D ×W 11 _·_·_· _t˛i1 D ×W i1 _·_·_· _t˛n1 D ×W n1 . . . ... ... t_D˛1j×W1j _·_·_· _t˛ij D ×W ij _·_·_· _t˛nj D ×W nj . . . ... ... t˛1n_D ×W1n _·_·_· _t˛in D ×W in _·_·_· _t˛nn D ×W nn

⎤

⎥

⎦

(15)

Step7:Calculatetheoverallprioritieswiththelimitingprocess method,asinEq.(14).Theweightedsupermatrixcanberaisedto limitingpowers untilithasconvergedandbecomealong-term stablesupermatrixtoobtaintheglobalpriorityvectorsorcalled theANPweights.

lim

h→∞(W ˛₎h

(16) The overall weights are calculated using theabove steps to deriveastablelimitingsupermatrix.Therefore,amodel combin-ingtheDEMATELwithANPmethodscandealwiththeproblemof interdependenceandfeedback.

(12)

TableA1

Groupconsensusesof29respondentsondegreeofinﬂuenceamongcriteria,unit:%.

{

d29 ij −d28ij

/d29ij}×100% a1 a2 a3 a4 b1 b2 b3 b4 c1 c2 c3 c4 d1 d2 d3 a1 0.33 0.52 1.30 2.13 1.01 1.85 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.88 0.28 0.65 0.28 a2 0.37 0.00 1.27 0.77 0.16 1.98 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.30 0.26 1.21 1.00 1.07 a3 0.73 0.19 2.23 1.90 0.08 1.75 0.73 2.21 1.11 2.11 2.17 0.68 0.57 0.93 a4 0.16 2.39 0.88 2.17 0.65 1.65 0.23 0.12 0.30 0.00 0.95 1.79 1.98 1.82 b1 0.63 0.17 1.93 0.87 0.95 0.22 2.00 0.17 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.74 0.41 0.53 b2 0.00 1.08 1.01 2.23 2.26 0.69 0.52 0.08 1.11 0.31 0.46 0.36 0.92 0.81 b3 1.28 0.53 1.72 1.90 0.92 1.93 1.69 0.36 0.98 0.52 0.63 0.06 0.33 0.18 b4 0.16 2.42 2.07 2.47 0.48 0.98 1.93 1.34 1.30 0.31 1.11 2.03 0.48 0.48 c1 0.00 0.23 2.19 0.23 0.16 1.19 0.98 2.15 1.46 1.39 1.24 0.65 0.69 0.43 c2 0.40 0.50 0.98 0.16 1.19 1.24 0.81 2.28 0.27 0.40 0.95 0.28 0.95 0.57 c3 0.31 0.16 2.17 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.81 1.11 0.19 0.50 1.08 0.69 1.05 0.88 c4 2.03 2.13 2.07 2.26 1.19 1.01 0.85 2.28 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.46 0.85 2.26 d1 1.90 1.82 0.38 1.87 0.33 0.36 0.06 0.13 0.65 2.17 2.05 2.11 1.27 1.01 d2 0.61 2.00 1.00 1.69 0.43 0.74 1.46 2.03 0.81 0.74 0.80 0.46 0.22 0.26 d3 1.85 1.98 1.07 1.72 1.93 0.41 0.84 0.00 0.87 0.52 0.74 0.63 0.17 1.22 Averagegaps 0.243%<1%

Note:Average gaps=1/n(n−1)

_i

_j(

¯d29

ij − ¯d28ij

/ ¯d29ij)×100=0.243%,dij28andd29ij denotetheaveragescoresofsample28and29respondents.

TableA2

Groupconsensusesof30respondentsondegreeofinﬂuenceamongcriteria,unit:%.

{

d30 ij −d 29 ij

/d 30 ij}×100% a1 a2 a3 a4 b1 b2 b3 b4 c1 c2 c3 c4 d1 d2 d3 a1 0.31 0.48 1.22 2.03 0.96 1.75 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.83 0.27 0.75 1.25 a2 0.34 0.00 1.20 0.73 0.15 1.88 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.28 0.25 1.12 0.92 0.99 a3 0.64 0.18 2.12 1.81 0.08 1.66 0.64 2.10 2.23 0.61 0.73 0.64 0.53 0.86 a4 0.15 1.15 0.83 2.07 0.61 1.57 0.22 0.11 0.28 0.00 0.89 1.64 1.88 1.72 b1 0.58 0.16 1.83 0.80 0.89 0.20 1.90 0.16 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.69 0.38 0.49 b2 0.00 0.16 0.96 2.12 0.89 2.03 0.00 0.07 0.12 0.29 0.43 0.89 0.86 0.76 b3 0.31 0.49 1.63 1.81 0.86 1.83 1.60 0.34 0.29 0.80 0.58 0.06 0.31 0.16 b4 1.22 2.31 1.97 2.36 0.99 0.93 1.83 0.22 0.15 0.93 1.04 0.45 0.45 0.45 c1 1.12 0.22 2.09 0.22 1.22 1.12 0.93 0.69 0.38 1.32 1.17 0.61 0.65 1.90 c2 1.38 0.46 2.17 0.15 0.00 1.17 0.76 2.17 0.25 1.38 0.89 0.27 0.89 0.53 c3 0.93 0.15 2.07 0.00 1.22 1.22 0.76 1.04 0.18 0.46 1.01 0.65 2.20 0.83 c4 1.93 0.65 1.97 0.34 1.12 0.96 0.80 2.17 0.00 0.28 0.04 0.43 0.80 2.16 d1 1.81 1.72 0.36 1.78 0.31 0.34 0.06 0.12 0.75 2.07 1.95 2.01 1.20 0.25 d2 1.99 0.41 0.92 1.60 0.41 0.69 0.61 0.45 0.76 0.69 0.75 0.83 0.99 0.25 d3 1.75 1.88 0.99 1.63 0.27 0.38 2.76 0.00 0.57 0.80 0.65 0.73 1.01 1.15 Averagegaps 0.212%<1%

Note:Average gaps=1/n(n−1)

i

j(|¯d

30

ij − ¯d29ij|/¯d30ij)×100=0.212%,dij29andd30ij denotestheaveragescoresofsamples29and30respondents.

AppendixB.

In the questionnaires, a scale of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 repre-sentstherangefrom“noinfluence”to“veryhighinfluence”for respondentstoindicatethedegreeofdirectinfluencethateach

perspective/criterion exerts on another perspective/criterion (30 questionnaires were returned; group consensuses are listed in Tables A1 and A2, with consensus values of less than1%).

(13)

The firs

t st

ep questi

onn

aire

A Balanced

Sc

ore card

App

roach

to

Establi

sh A Pe

rfo

rmance

Evalu

ation

and Rela

tionshi

p M

ode

l for

Hot Sprin

g Hotel

s

Good day! This is an academic research about “A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Establish a Performance Evaluation and Relationship Model of Hot Spring Hotels”. The purpose is to explore hot spring hotel’s dimension of performance evaluation, evaluation index, and key factors related to performance evaluation.

As we are greatly impressed by your company’s outstanding achievement in this field, if we could have the honor of obtaining your precious opinions, the result and credibility of this research will be tremendously benefited. All the information provided will be used for academic statistical analysis only, and will not be separately announced to the outside or transferred to other applications. Therefore, please feel at ease in filling out the answers.

Your support will be very crucial to the successful completion of this research. We sincerely hope that you would spend some time to express your opinions to be taken as reference for this research. Please accept our most sincere appreciation. Thank you and wish you all the best.

1. Instructions for filling out the questionnaire

This questionnaire is divided into four parts:1) instructions for filling out; 2) standard description; 3) method for filling out; 4) comparison of the impact of the four dimensions; 5) comparison of the impact of the 37 standards; 6) personal data.

2. Descriptions of dimension and standard

Perspective Criteria Description

Learning and

growth

perspective _Employee_edu_cation _{Carry out empl}_{oyee training and}_educa_{tion to} enhance their quality

Employee satisfaction Employee’s satisfaction level to the hot spring hotel and current position

Employee professional ability

Employee’s professional knowledge and ability in running the business of a hot spring hotel

Employee productivityService or product produced by each employee Average employee

resignation rate

Number of resigned employee within a time period/the total number of employee

(14)

Employee knowledge sharing

Knowledge and resource sharing among employees to achieve new product development and customer service

Employee ability to use IT products

Employee’s ability to accurately apply real time information to understand the relationship between individual customer and the hot spring hotel Employee ability to

manage emergencies

Employee’s ability in responding to and managing emergencies when they occur

Employee effective use of marketing information

Employee’s use of real time marketing information to attract customer’s visit

Enterpr ise’ s internal process es persp ective Ability to keep existing customers

Products provided in the hot spring hotel are able to attract customer to revisit the hotel

Speed of new product launch

The speed to launch new products or services provided by the hot spring hotel accords with customer’s current and future needs Time reduction in

handling customer complaint

Consistent reduction of time required to respond and handle customer’s complaint to the hot spring hotel

Hotel management efficiency enhancement

Provide hotel products and services to customers in a timely and highly efficient manner

Ability to respond to emergencies

Hotel’s ability in responding to and managing any emergency or incident as it occurs

Training in

environmental hygiene and cleaning operation

The level of cleanliness in terms of the hot spring hotel’s environmental hygiene

Hotel product’s innovative quality and uniqueness

Hot spring hotel’s innovative and unique design in environmental landscape and products to attract customers

Time reduction of operation cycle

Reduce the amount of time required for each process to provide products and services in the fastest manner Sales promotion

ability enhancement

Hotel’s ability to launch products and services that attract customers and fulfill their needs

Customer background information

compilation

Understand customer’s background information to provide tailor-made products and services Effective

problem-solving percentage

Percentage of successful resolution of all kinds of problems in the hot spring hotel

Customer

perspe

ctiv

e _Custo_{mer s}_atisfaction _Custo_{mer’s sati}_{sfaction l}_{evel to pr}_odu_{cts and s}_ervices provided by the hot spring hotel

Service quality Customer’s evaluation of the services provided by the hot spring hotel

(15)

Hotel image Hotel image construction and customer’s trust to such brand

Customer loyalty Customer will revisit the hotel in the future for certain specific services or products

New customer increase rate

New customer increate rate of the hotel Traffic convenience Hotel location’s traffic convenience

Market share Hotel’s revenue compared to the overall revenue of the industry

Customer relationship management

Connect product sales and customer service together through IT to enhance the quality of customer service

Financ

e persp

ective

Return on assets Current period net income or loss/Total assets Personnel cost ratio Personnel costs/Total operating costs

Revenue growth rate (Current period revenue-revenue of the same period last year)/Revenue of the same period last year Return on investment Current period net income or loss/Investment amount Revenue from new

customer ratio

Revenue from new customers/Revenue income Group revenue growth

rate

(Current period group revenue-group revenue of the same period last year)/Group revenue of the same period last year

Service cost reduction Reduce all kinds of service cost of the hotel Net profit ratio Current period net profit/Revenue income Peripheral

merchandise revenue ratio

Peripheral merchandise (local specially developed agricultural products such as hot spring mochi, coffee, etc)revenue income/Revenue income

3. Method for filling out

Examplesfor filling out thelevel of importance andimprovability: Method for filling out thesurvey is described below with illustration. Evaluate thelevel of importance andimprovabilityof each standard at the left, andenter the scale specified for importance and improvability respectively.

Example: The level of importance and improvability of the performance evaluation standard

(16)

Survey of the level of importance and improvability of the performance evaluation standard

Perspective Criteria _{Level o}_{f Impor}_tance _{Level of}_Impro_vabi_lity

1 A

Considering the importance of A, fill in 0 -10 11 scales Considering the improvability of A, fill in 0 -10 11 scales

Example:

Survey of the level of importance and improvability of the performance evaluation standard

Persp

ective

Criteria

Level of Importance

Considering the importance of the standard, fill in0-10 11 scales

Level of Improvability

Considering the improvability of the standard, fill in 0-10 11 scales

Finan

ce

Net profit

ratio

10 5

Indicate the impact of “Net profit ratio” on overall performance evaluation is “extremely important”; while the level of improvability (room to improve) in the future is “fair”.

Please fill out the level of importance and future improvability of the standard at the left in the following table.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very small Small Fair Large Verylarge

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very unimportant Unimportant Fair Important Very important

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(17)

Perspective Criteria

Level of Importance

Considering the importance of the standard, fill in 0-10 11 scales

Learning and g

rowth perspec

tive

Employee education

Employee satisfaction

Employeeprofessional

ability

Employee productivity

Average employee

resignation rate

Employee knowledge

sharing

Employee ability to

use IT products

Employee ability to

manage emergencies

Employee effective

use of marketing

information Enterpr ise’ s internal processes p ersp ective Ability to keep existing customers

Speed of new product

launch Time reduction in handling customer complaint Hotel management efficiency enhancement Ability to respond to emergencies Training in environmental hygiene

and cleaning operation

Hotel product’s

innovative quality and

uniqueness

Time reduction of

operation cycle

Sales promotion ability

enhancement Customer background information compilation Effective problem-solving percentage 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(18)

Customer pe rspe ctive Customer satisfaction Service quality Hotel image Customer loyalty New customer increase rate Traffic convenience Market share Customer relationship management Financ e persp ective Return on assets Personnel cost ratio Revenue growth rate Return on investment Revenue from new customer ratio Group revenue growth rate

Service cost reduction Net profit ratio Peripheral merchandise revenue ratio

4. Basic personal data

1. Gender: □Male □Female 2. Education Level: □College □University □Master □PhD

3. Service Unit: 4. Service Dept.: 5. Job Title: 6. Age: □Under 30 years old (including) □30~35 years old (including) □35~40 years old (including) □40~50 years old (including) □Over 50 years old

(19)

The second

step

quest

ionn

aire

A Balanced

Sc

ore card

App

roach

to

Establi

sh A Pe

rfo

rmance

Evalu

ation

and Rela

tionshi

p M

ode

l of

Hot Spr

ing Hotel

s

Good day! This is an academic research about “A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Establish a Performance Evaluation and Relationship Model of Hot Spring Hotels”. The purpose is to explore hot spring hotel’s dimension of performance evaluation, evaluation index, and key factors related to performance evaluation.

As we are greatly impressed by your company’s outstanding achievement in this field, if we could have the honor of obtaining your precious opinions, the result and credibility of this research will be tremendously benefited. All the information provided will be used for academic statistical analysis only, and will not be separately announced to the outside or transferred to other applications. Therefore, please feel at ease in filling out the answers.

Your support will be very crucial to the successful completion of this research. We sincerely hope that you would spend some time to express your opinions to be taken as reference for this research. Please accept our most sincere appreciation. Thank you and wish you all the best.

1. Instructions for filling out the questionnaire

This questionnaire is divided into four parts:1) instructions for filling out; 2) standard description; 3) method for filling out; 4) comparison of the impact of the four dimensions; 5) comparison of the impact of the 15 standards; 6) personal data.

(20)

2. Descriptions of dimension and standard

PerspectiveCriteria Description

Learning and growth

perspe

ctive

Employee education Carry out employee training and education to enhance their quality

Employee professional ability

Employee’s professional knowledge and ability in running the business of a hot spring hotel Employee productivity Service or product produced by each employee Employee ability to

manage emergencies

Employee’s ability in responding to and managing emergencies when they occur

Enterpr ise’ s internal proce sses p erspective

Ability to keep existing customers

Products provided in the hot spring hotel are able to attract customer to revisit the hotel

Hotel management efficiency enhancement

Provide hotel products and services to customers in a timely and highly efficient manner

Customer background information compilation

Understand customer’s background information to provide tailor-made products and services Effective

problem-solving percentage

Percentage of successful resolution of all kinds of problems in the hot spring hotel

Customer pe

rspe

ctive

Customer satisfaction Customer’s satisfaction level to products and services provided by the hot spring hotel

Service quality Customer’s evaluation of the services provided by the hot spring hotel

Hotel image Hotel image construction and customer’s trust to such brand

Customer loyalty Customer will revisit the hotel in the future for certain specific services or products

Financ

e

perspe

ctive

Return on assets Current period net income or loss/Total assets Revenue growth rate (Current period revenue-revenue of the same period

last year)/Revenue of the same period last year Net profit ratio Current periodnet profit/Revenue income

3. Method for filling out

Examplesfor filling out the level of importance andimprovability: Method for filling out thesurvey is described below with illustration. Evaluate thelevel of importance andimprovabilityof each standard at the left, andenter the scale specified for importance and improvability respectively.

(21)

Example: The level of importance and improvability of the performance evaluation standard

Survey of the level of importance and improvability of the performance evaluation standard

Perspective Criteria Level of Importance Level of Improvability

1 A

Considering the importance of A, fill in 0 -10 11 scales Considering the improvability of A, fill in 0 -10 11 scales

Example:

Survey of the level of importance and improvability of the performance evaluation standard

Perspective Criteria

Level of Importance

Considering the importance of the standard, fill in 0-10 11 scales

Finan

ce

Net profit

ratio

10 5

Indicate the impact of “Net profit ratio” on overall performance evaluation is “extremely important”; while the level of improvability (room to improve) in the future is “fair”.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very uni mportant Unimportant Fair Important Very important

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10