Use a Balanced Scorecard to Evaluate Business Processes of Sichuan Electric Power Company

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 242)


Since the electric power industries throughout the world are undergoing enormous restructuring processes resulting in fiercer competitions than ever, it is necessary for electric power companies, especially Sichuan Electric Power Com- pany (SEPC) as an important part of South China Power Grid Company, to make suitable and feasible strategy for their development. The objective of this study is to construct an approach based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and bal- anced scorecard (BSC) for evaluating SEPC performance, aiming at acting as a ref- erence to electric power industry. The BSC concept is applied to define the hierarchy with four major perspectives (i.e. financial, customer, internal business process, and learning and growth), and performance indicators are selected for each perspective. And then the AHP is used to determine the indicator weights. The results provide guidance to electric power company in the electric power industry in China regarding strategies for improving business process performance. Finally, some suggestions are given for improving the SEPC business processes.


Balanced scorecard Analytic hierarchy process Performance evaluation Sichuan electric power company Electric power industry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research was supported by the Key Program of NSFC (Grant No.70831005) and “985” Program of Sichuan University “Innovative Research Base for Economic Development and Management”.


  1. 1.
    Fox-Penner PS (1997) Electric utility restructuring: A guide to the competitive era. Public Utilities ReportsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu C, Zhang S, Wang X et al (2010) Modeling and analysis of strategic forward contracting in transmission constrained power markets. Electric Power Systems Research 80(3):354–361Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wen F, David A (2001) Strategic bidding for electricity supply in a day-ahead energy market. Electric Power Systems Research 59(3):197–206Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kang DJ, Kim BH, Hur D (2007) Supplier bidding strategy based on non-cooperative game theory concepts in single auction power pools. Electric Power Systems Research 77(5):630–636Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abran A, Buglione L (2003) A multidimensional performance model for consolidating bal- anced scorecards. Advances in Engineering Software 34(6):339–349Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaplan R, Norton D (1992) The balanced scorecardłmeasures that drive performance. Har- vard Business Review 70(1):71–79Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martinsons M, Davison R, Tse D (1999) The balanced scorecard: A foundation for the strate- gic management of information systems. Decision Support Systems 25(1):71–88Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Subramanian N, Ramanathan R (2012) A review of applications of analytic hierarchy process in operations management. International Journal of Production Economics 138(2):215–241Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL (2008) The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 189(1):194–207Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Uncertainty Decision-Making LaboratorySichuan UniversityChengduP. R. China

Personalised recommendations