• Financial: typically relates to profitability – measured by ROI, ROCE and EVA, for instance;
• Customer: includes several core or generic measures of the successful outcomes of company strategies - for instance, customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market and account share in targeted segments;
• Internal processes: focuses on the internal processes that will have the greater impact on customer satisfaction and on achieving the organisation's financial objectives;
• Learning and growth: identifies the infrastructure the organisation has to build in order to create long-term growth and improvement through people, systems and organisational procedures.

• Cause-and-effect relationship: every measure selected should be part of a cause-and-effect relationship (causal relationship chain) that represents the strategy. In particular, look at the new book from Kaplan & Norton on the "Strategy Maps";
• Performance Drivers: the drivers of performance (lead indicators) tend to be unique since they reflect what is different about the strategy of a company. They should be properly mixed with lag indicators;
• Linked to financial indicators: while there is a proliferation of new strategic goals such as quality, customer satisfaction or innovation, these goals must also translate into measures that are ultimately linked to financial measures.

• General-purpose
  The first source for case studies (and therefore where finding also indicators adopted in such case) is the "Netconference" archive on the BSCOL website;
  This paper by Allistar Shaw proposes some thoughts about financial vs non-financial indicators and a possible list of metrics for the second group;
• ICT projects
  This paper proposes an analysis of how to use them in a BSC logic, associating those indicators to the usual five perspectives of an ICT BSC;
  This brief paper by Shree Phadnis focuses the attention on the way for selecting metrics for a Six Sigma project, plus an example of strategy map applied;
• Universities/Libraries: a huge usage of the BSC has been done during these years in the Academic environment, in particular for the management of university libraries.
  Here it is possible to look at the metrics for the library of the University of Virginia (starting from the academical year 2001-02);
  The University of Edinburgh devotes a page to the its BSC, gathering and presenting all the info and metrics from 1999, with related analysis;
  The Henry County School BSC;
  A proposal of indicators for higher education entities (see on p.5);
  The BSC for the Syracuse University;
  A report about the experience of the University and Regional Library of Munster (Germany), where the four perspectives are: Users, Finances, Internal Processes and Innovation (Potentials);
• Public Sector/Government entities: other sectors where an intensive usage of the BSC have been done are the Public and the Government ones. The pros&cons for Government BSCs is in this presentation by Paul Arveson.
  The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has recently produced a report on its 2003/Q3 BSC indicators;
  The UK CHI (Commission for Health Improvement) has set up a series of performance indicators (see the left frame with four sub-areas and related links);
  The DOE BSC page, with a huge amount of info, including indicators (see part 5);
  The Washington State Dept. of Printing FY2001-02 BSC;
  An assessment of performance of Impatient Mental Health Care;
  A BSC usage at UNICEF Supply Division;
• Sustainability BSCs: recently BSCs have been used also for environmental management and corporate social responsibility
  The INSEAD CMER (Centre for the Management of Environmental and Social Responsibility) is studying these aspects and proposes an example of Sustainability BSC as well as a list of possible KPIs for it;
  A 2001 paper by T.Bieker & C.U.Gminder about the Sustainability BSC;
• HR / Knowledge Management
  This paper from the METIS project (IST-2000-25175) discussed possible KPIs for Knowledge Management in a Community of Practice (CoP), looking at the four Intellectual Capital (IC) categories identified (Socialization; Externalization; Combination; Internalization);
  This thesis from the Bleking University is about a BSC for managing Human Capital;
• Industrial Environments
  This paper is about the usage of a BSC for the design of an Air Cargo Terminal System, including also a HoQ for filtering the project's requirements;
  This thesis from the Blekinge University is about the case of a Sweden manufacturing company;

• the Balanced IT Scorecard (BITS), proposed by the European Software Institute (ESI) which provides a new version of the four original perspectives (financial, customer, internal process, infrastructure and innovation) adding a fifth one, the People perspective, and
• the BSC of Advanced Information Services Inc.(AIS), which considers the "employee" element as a distinct perspective, thereby expanding the analysis to five elements (financial, customer, employee, internal business process, learning and growth).

Therefore, the five distinct perspectives, derived from the original scorecard, are:

• Financial Perspective: How do our software processes and SPI add value to the company?
• Customer Perspective: How do we know that our customers (internal or external) are delighted?
• Process Perspective: Are our software development processes performing at levels sufficient to meet customer expectations?
• People Perspective: Do our people have the necessary skills to perform their jobs and are they happy doing it?
• Infrastructure & Innovation Perspective: Are process improvement, technology and organisational infrastructure issues being addressed to implement a sustainable improvement program?

• 
  The increased value of joining the BITS with the EFQM Excellence Model: this was one of the ESI projects during the '90s, describing the way the Balanced IT Scorecard could support and join EFQM. There is a paper presented at FESMA 99, not available online, but cited in different papers (i.e. here). There are several documents on the Internet speaking about these two models. Among others:
  the 2000 revised paper by Lamotte & Carter;
  some thoughts (in Italian);
  a mapping between the two, trying to match the 9 EFQM factors within the 4 BSC perspectives;
  the integration proposed by Strategy&Focus (in Spanish);
  a comparison of the two by 2GC
• Why a fifth perspective in the ICT BSC is better than four: starting from the two references above cited (ESI, AIS), other organizations considered to build BSCs with more than four perspectives, typically those involved in the Educational sector but not only. Some examples are those from:
  the Deaking University (Information Resources, Clients, Financial resources, Internal Processes and Learning & Growth)
  Stan Brignall (social and environmental aspects),
  RMIT University (Investment in the Future),
  DON eBusiness Balanced Scorecard (Stakeholder perspective),
  the QPR Scorecard (Community perspective),
  Paul Arveson (Ethics perspective),
  Rosemann & Wiese (Project perspective)
  CSC Balanced Scorecard Process (Committments, Quality, Productivity, Future Value, Customer Satisfaction)
• Why a BSC is more than GQM: often the GQM (Goal-Question-Metric) paradigm is confused with the BSC, while there is simply an overlapping about the definition and selection of measures associated to a certain goal.
  This paper wrote with Prof.Abran discussed this question, trying to explain and justify the rationale behind such assumption.
  A recent SEI Technical Note proposed a way for using the GQ(I)M methodology in order to derive measures and indicators for a BSC
  During last years, Basili and other colleagues from the Fraunhofer Institute improved the original GQM paradigm into the GQM+ Strategies, in order to link measures to the organizational goals.
• How Functional Size Measures (FSM) can improve the ICT BSC: a relevant topic in ICT BSCs is to use a functional size unit (fsu) as a basis for several indicators through the different perspectives. A 1992 IFPUG report started to list possible usages of indicators based on Function Points. This paper proposes an analysis of how to use them in a BSC logic, associating those indicators to the usual five perspectives of an ICT BSC.
• Which is the proper number of measures to consider within an ICT BSC: another relevant topic is about the right number of measures/indicators to consider within an ICT Balanced Scorecard, taking care of possible effects and counter-effects among perspectives. In 2004 a supporting technique was proposed, called BMP (Balancing Multiple Perspectives). Click here for more info.