A Change Management Approach with the Support of the Balanced Scorecard and the Utilization of Artificial Neural Networks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. AI in Decision-Making
2.2. The Association of the Balanced Scorecard with Performance and Change Management
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Area of Study
3.2. Experimental Setup Dataset Structure
3.3. Model
3.3.1. Model Selection
3.3.2. Experimental Parameters
3.4. Evaluation
3.4.1. 10-Fold Validation Evaluation Method
3.4.2. Prediction Accuracy Evaluation Metric
4. Research Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AI | Artificial Intelligence |
ANN | Artificial Neural Network |
BSC | Balanced Scorecard |
EU | European Union |
NPM | New Public Management |
SMEs | Small and Medium-sized Enterprises |
Appendix A
Company ID | Y1P1 | Y1P2 | Y1P3 | Y2P1 | Y2P2 | Y2P3 | Y3P1 | Y3P2 | Y3P3 | Y4P1 | Y4P2 | Y4P3 | Y5P1 | Y5P2 | Y5P3 | Y5C1 | Y5C2 | Y5C3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
11 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
References
- Al Nuaimi, Eiman, Hind Al Neyadi, Nader Mohamed, and Jameela Al-Jaroodi. 2015. Applications of big data to smart cities. Journal of Internet Services and Applications 6: 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al-Mushayt, Omar Saeed. 2019. Automating E-Government Services with Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Access 7: 146821–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alolabi, Yousef Ahmad, Kartinah Ayupp, and Muneer Al Dwaikat. 2021. Issues and Implications of Readiness to Change. Administrative Sciences 11: 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros, Arkady Zaslavsky, Kostas Kolomvatsos, Alexey Medvedev, Pouria Amirian, Jeremy Morley, and Stathes Hadjieftymiades. 2017. Challenges and Opportunities of Waste Management in IoT-Enabled Smart Cities: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing 2: 275–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros, Panos Kostakos, Arkady Zaslavsky, Ioanna Kantzavelou, Nikos Tsotsolas, Ioannis Salmon, Jeremy Morley, and Robert Harle. 2021. Challenges and Solutions of Surveillance Systems in IoT-Enabled Smart Campus: A Survey. IEEE Access 9: 131926–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bader, Jon, John Edwards, Chris Harris-Jones, and David Hannaford. 1988. Practical engineering of knowledge-based systems. Information and Software Technology 30: 266–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baghdasaryan, Vardan, Hrant Davtyan, Arsine Sarikyan, and Zaruhi Navasardyan. 2022. Improving Tax Audit Efficiency Using Machine Learning: The Role of Taxpayer’s Network Data in Fraud Detection. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castaño, Javier, Maria Blanco, and Pilar Martinez. 2019. Reviewing Counterfactual Analyses to Assess Impacts of EU Rural Development Programmes: What Lessons Can Be Learned from the 2007–2013 Ex-Post Evaluations? Sustainability 11: 1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Copeland, Jack B. 2021. Artificial Intelligence. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/technology/artificial-intelligence (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- D’Acunto, Francesco, Nagpurnanand Prabhala, and Alberto G. Rossi. 2019. The Promises and Pitfalls of Robo-Advising. The Review of Financial Studies 32: 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Di Vaio, Assunta, Rohail Hassan, and Claude Alavoine. 2022. Data intelligence and analytics: A bibliometric analysis of hu-man–Artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making effectiveness. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 174: 121201. [Google Scholar]
- Duan, Yanqing, John S. Edwards, and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. 2019. Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data—Evolution, challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management 48: 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elbanna, Said, Riyad Eid, and Hany Kamel. 2015. Measuring hotel performance using the balanced scorecard: A theoretical construct development and its empirical validation. International Journal of Hospitality Management 51: 105–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, Eibe, Mark A. Hall, and Ian H. Witten. 2016. The Weka Workbench. Online Appendix for Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 4th ed. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann. [Google Scholar]
- Gambelli, Danilo, Francesco Solfanelli, Stefano Orsini, and Raffaele Zanoli. 2021. Measuring the Economic Performance of Small Ruminant Farms Using Balanced Scorecard and Importance-Performance Analysis: A European Case Study. Sustainability 13: 3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greatbanks, Richard, and David Tapp. 2007. The impact of balanced scorecards in a public sector environment: Empirical evidence from Dunedin City Council, New Zealand. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27: 846–73. [Google Scholar]
- Grigoroudis, Evangelos, Eva Orfanoudaki, and Constantin D. Zopounidis. 2012. Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare organisation: A multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard. Omega 40: 104–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hood, Christopher. 1991. A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69: 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunter, David E. K., and Steffen Bohni Nielsen. 2013. Performance Management and Evaluation: Exploring Complementarities. New Directions for Evaluation 2013: 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarrahi, Mohammad Hossein. 2018. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work: Human-AI Symbiosis in Organizational Decision Making. Business Horizons 61: 577–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kankanhalli, Atreyi, Yannis Charalabidis, and Sehl Mellouli. 2019. IoT and AI for Smart Government: A Research Agenda. Government Information Quarterly 36: 304–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review 70: 71–79. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. 1996. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review 74: 75–85. [Google Scholar]
- Kop, Mauritz. 2021. EU Artificial Intelligence Act: The European Approach to AI. Transatlantic Antitrust and IPR Developments 2. Available online: https://law.stanford.edu/publications/eu-artificial-intelligence-act-the-european-approach-to-ai/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
- Kosa, Golic. 2013. Application of a Neural Network Model for Solving Prediction Problems in Business Management. Journal of Economics, Business and Management 1: 146–49. [Google Scholar]
- Kotková Stríteská, Michaela, and Yee Yee Sein. 2021. Performance Driven Culture in the Public Sector: The Case of Nordic Coun-tries. Administrative Sciences 11: 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuziemski, Maciej, and Gianluca Misuraca. 2020. AI governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings. Telecommunications Policy 44: 101976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Manzoor, Amir. 2016. Emerging Role of Big Data in Public Sector. Big Data: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey: IGI Global. [Google Scholar]
- McDavid, James C., Irene Huse, and Laura R. L. Hawthorn. 2019. Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- McMaster, Irene, Nathalie Wergles, and Heidi Vironen. 2019. Case-Based Impact Evaluation of the Interact Programme 2014–2020. Glasgow: European Policies Research Centre School of Government & Public Policy University of Strathclyde. [Google Scholar]
- Méndez-Suárez, Mariano, Francisco García-Fernández, and Fernando Gallardo. 2019. Artificial Intelligence Modelling Framework for Financial Automated Advising in the Copper Market. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 5: 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Michalek, Jerzy. 2012. Counterfactual Impact Evaluation of EU Rural Development Programmes—Propensity Score Matching Methodology Applied to Selected EU Member States, Volume 2: A Regional Approach. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar]
- Moustris, Konstantinos, Kosmas Kavadias, Dimitris Zafirakis, and John K. Kaldellis. 2020. Medium, short and very short-term prognosis of load demand for the Greek Island of Tilos using artificial neural networks and human thermal com-fort-discomfort biometeorological data. Renewable Energy 147: 100–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Northcott, Deryl, and Tuivaiti Maamora Taulapapa. 2012. Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector organizations: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management 25: 166–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papalexandris, Alexandros, George Ioannou, Gregory Prastacos, and Klas Eric Soderquist. 2005. An Integrated Methodology for Putting the Balanced Scorecard into Action. European Management Journal 23: 214–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Psarras, Alkinoos, Theodoros Anagnostopoulos, Nikos Tsotsolas, Ioannis Salmon, and Lazaros Vryzidis. 2020. Applying the Balanced Scorecard and Predictive Analytics in the Administration of a European Funding Program. Administrative Sciences 10: 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rompho, Nopadol. 2020. The balanced scorecard for school management: Case study of Thai public schools. Measuring Business Excellence 24: 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmon, Ioannis, Ilias Pappas, Athanasios Spyridakos, and Issak Vryzidis. 2019. Applying Multicriteria Decision Aid in a Weighted Balanced Scorecard Method for Supporting Decision Making in Change Management. Journal of Applied Research Review 16: 62–79. [Google Scholar]
- Schultz, Martin G., Clara Betancourt, Bing Gong, Felix Kleinert, Michael Langguth, Lukas Hubert Leufen, Amirpasha Mozaffari, and Scarlet Stadtler. 2020. Can deep learning beat numerical weather prediction? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 379: 20200097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shirado, Hirokazu, and Nicholas A. Christakis. 2017. Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments. Nature 545: 370–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sobrino-García, Itziar. 2021. Artificial Intelligence Risks and Challenges in the Spanish Public Administration: An Exploratory Analysis through Expert Judgements. Administrative Sciences 11: 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tambe, Prasanna, Peter Cappelli, and Valery Yakubovich. 2019. Artificial Intelligence in Human Resources Management: Challenges and a Path Forward. California Management Review 61: 15–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valle-Cruz, David, Vanessa Fernandez-Cortez, and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia. 2021. From E-budgeting to smart budgeting: Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence in government decision-making for resource allocation. Government Information Quarterly 39: 101644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Looy, Amy, and Aygun Shafagatova. 2016. Business process performance measurement: A structured literature review of indicators, measures and metrics. SpringerPlus 5: 1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vincent, Vinod U. 2021. Integrating intuition and artificial intelligence in organizational decision-making. Business Horizons 64: 425–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Dayong, Aditya Khosla, Rishab Gargeya, Humayun Irshad, and Andrew H. Beck. 2016. Deep Learning for Identifying Metastatic Breast Cancer. arXiv arXiv:1606.05718. [Google Scholar]
- Wirtz, Bernd W., Jan C. Weyerer, and Carolin Geyer. 2019. Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector—Applications and Challenges. International Journal of Public Administration 42: 596–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attribute | Type | Value |
---|---|---|
Y1P1 | Predictive | |
Y1P2 | Predictive | |
Y1P3 | Predictive | |
Y2P1 | Predictive | |
Y2P2 | Predictive | |
Y2P3 | Predictive | |
Y3P1 | Predictive | |
Y3P2 | Predictive | |
Y3P3 | Predictive | |
Y4P1 | Predictive | |
Y4P2 | Predictive | |
Y4P3 | Predictive | |
Y5P1 | Predictive | |
Y5P2 | Predictive | |
Y5P3 | Predictive | |
C1 | Class | |
C2 | Class | |
C3 | Class |
Parameter | Value |
---|---|
Input layer nodes | 15 |
Number of hidden layers | 3 |
First hidden layer nodes | 15 |
Second hidden layer nodes | 30 |
Third hidden layer nodes | 15 |
Output layer nodes | 2 |
Type of nodes | Sigmoid |
Number of Epochs | 500 |
Learning rate for weight updates | 0.3 |
Momentum applied to weight updates | 0.2 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Psarras, A.; Anagnostopoulos, T.; Salmon, I.; Psaromiligkos, Y.; Vryzidis, L. A Change Management Approach with the Support of the Balanced Scorecard and the Utilization of Artificial Neural Networks. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020063
Psarras A, Anagnostopoulos T, Salmon I, Psaromiligkos Y, Vryzidis L. A Change Management Approach with the Support of the Balanced Scorecard and the Utilization of Artificial Neural Networks. Administrative Sciences. 2022; 12(2):63. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020063
Chicago/Turabian StylePsarras, Alkinoos, Theodoros Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis Salmon, Yannis Psaromiligkos, and Lazaros Vryzidis. 2022. "A Change Management Approach with the Support of the Balanced Scorecard and the Utilization of Artificial Neural Networks" Administrative Sciences 12, no. 2: 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020063
APA StylePsarras, A., Anagnostopoulos, T., Salmon, I., Psaromiligkos, Y., & Vryzidis, L. (2022). A Change Management Approach with the Support of the Balanced Scorecard and the Utilization of Artificial Neural Networks. Administrative Sciences, 12(2), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020063