Controlling and Performance Management

Submitted to

Dr.Mario Situm

SMC University

NORMAN NAAMAN AMBUNYA

5/23/11

Measuring Performance
It is virtually impossible to improve the performance of any
entityobtaining feedback on performance levels. This feedback
should be in the form of work results being communicated to all the
parties involved (employees, work groups, the firm). In the case the
employees, performance measures play the role of aligning their
individual activities to those of the organization such that
organizational goals are achieved. In the case of the corporate
entity, its performance measurement serves a linkage role between
unit decisions and organizational objectives. It has been argued that
the ability to measure an activity entails the first step in its
improvement and that it is feasible to create performance
improvement just by measuring (Gunasekaran et al, 2005).

Performance Measures: Types

These comprise of largely two groups: those relating to results (for
instance outcomes of competition such as market shares or financial
outputs such as financial performance) and those that measure the
causal factors of the results (for instance quality, flexibility,
materials usage, and input costs). It thus follows that performance
measurement frameworks could be developed to centreon the
results and inputs concepts(Gunasekaran et al, 2005).

MeasurementSystem at Bank of Africa

The Bank of Africa’s measures of performance embrace the
following areas:

✔ Net profit

✔ Growth in Assets and Liabilities

✔ Customer Growth

✔ Staff productivity

These performance measures are monitored on a daily basis via an

automated report that at a glance shows the current state of each
of theabove measures. The report also captures shows the day’s
result. Below is an excerpt screen short of the monitoring report:

Page | 2
B A N K O F A F R I C A - K E N Y A L td .
D A I L Y P O S IT IO N R E P O R T
1 8 /0 3 /2 0 1 1 P e r io d c o v e r e d in d a y s f0r 1o /m0 1 / 0 9 #V A L UE!
BA L A NC E S HEET
K E N Y A F O R E IG N T O T A L P R EV IO U S K EN Y A F O R EIG N TOTAL
2 a) S H I L L I N G CS U R R E N C Y T O T A L DA Y M OVTM OV T S H I L L IN G SC U R R E N C Y T O T AP LR E V I O U S D A MY O V T M OV T
K E S '0 0 0 K ES '0 0 0 K E S '0 0 0 K E S '0 0 0 K E S '0 0 0 % K E S '0 0 0 K E S '0 0 0 K E S '0 0 0 K E S ' 0 0 0 K E S '0 0 0 %
A S S ET S L I A B I L IT I E S
C a s h in h a n d 3 8 0 ,0 2 8 9 9 ,5 7 0 4 7 9 ,5 9 8 4 8 8 , 8 2 5 ( 9 , 2- 12 .97 )% A m o u n t s d u e t o b a n k s 1 , 8 6 1 ,9 6 0 1 , 9 9 0 ,3 1 4 3 , 8 5 2 , 2 7 4 3 ,8 7 9 , 2 4 6 ( 2 6 , 9 7 2 ) 0 . 7 %
C e n t r a l b a n k b a la n c e s 9 3 3 ,9 7 4 4 9 5 ,8 4 1 1 ,4 2 9 ,8 1 6 1 , 2 8 5 ,2 9 3 1 4 4 ,15 12 .23 % A m o u n t s d u e t o c u s t o m e r s 1 9 , 2 6 3 ,1 5 9 3 , 4 0 3 ,5 1 2 2 , 6 6 6 , 6 7 12 2 , 8 0 4 , 5 5 1( 1 3 7 , 8 7 9 ) 0 . 6 %
G o v e r n m e n t s e c u r it ie s 8 ,2 9 7 ,9 9 7 - 8 ,2 9 7 ,9 9 7 8 , 2 9 7 ,9 0 2 0 9.05% O th e r b o r r o w e d f u n d s - 3 3 3 , 3 1 5 3 3 3 ,3 1 5 3 3 3 , 2 7 0 4 5 0 .0 %
A m o u n ts d u e fr o m b a n ks 2 ,4 7 0 ,1 2 5 2 ,9 9 1 ,6 7 4 5 ,4 6 1 ,7 9 9 5 , 6 6 8 ,6 0 5( 2 0 6 , 8- 30 .7
6 )% O th e r lia b ilitie s 2 5 1 ,5 5 3 2 7 , 9 8 4 2 7 9 ,5 3 7 2 7 9 , 1 4 0 3 9 6 - 0 .1 %
Loans & adv anc es 1 0 , 1 4 7 , 7 8 3 4 , 8 5 3 , 6 4 2 1 5 ,0 0 1 , 4 2 5 1 5 , 1 0 6 ,2 0 7( 1 0 4 , 70 8.03 %) T o t a l l i a b i l i t ie s 2 1 , 3 7 6 ,6 7 2 5 , 7 5 5 ,1 2 52 7 , 1 3 1 , 7 9 72 7 , 2 9 6 , 2 0 7( 1 6 4 , 4 1 0 )- 0 .6 %
D e r iv a t iv e s - - - - 1 -.0 % E Q U IT Y
In v e s tm e n t s e c u r it ie s 7 9 5 ,1 6 3 - 7 9 5 ,1 6 3 7 9 5 ,1 6 3 0 -.0 % S h a r e c a p ita l 2 , 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 - 2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 ,2 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 0 .0 %
In t a n g ib le a s s e t s 8 9 ,0 7 4 - 8 9 ,0 7 4 8 9 ,0 7 0 0 .04% R e t a in e d e a r n in g s 6 0 1 ,1 7 3 - 6 0 1 ,1 7 3 6 0 1 , 1 7 3 - 0 .0 %
P r o p e r t y & e q u ip m e n t 3 5 4 ,4 9 6 - 3 5 4 ,4 9 6 3 5 4 ,4 9 6 0 -.0 % C u r r e n t y e a r p r o f it s 1 4 8 ,8 5 1 - 1 4 8 ,8 5 1 1 4 3 , 2 5 4 5 , 5 9 7 - 3 .9 %
P r e p a id o p le a s e r e n t a ls 4 ,9 3 4 - 4 ,9 3 4 4 ,9 3 4 0 -.0 % O th e r r e s e r v e s 2 6 6 ,9 1 6 - 2 6 6 ,9 1 6 2 6 6 , 9 1 6 - 0 .0 %
C u r r e n t in c o m e t a x a s s e t s 9 0 ,5 6 8 - 9 0 ,5 6 8 9 0 ,5 6 8 0 -.0 % S u b o r d in a t e d d e b t 1 , 1 8 3 ,5 0 0 6 8 6 , 2 2 0 1 , 8 6 9 , 7 2 0 1 ,8 7 6 , 5 7 5 ( 6 , 8 5 5 ) 0 . 4 %
O t h e r a s s e ts 2 3 8 ,9 9 1 1 6 ,1 0 0 2 5 5 ,0 9 1 2 7 3 , 5 7 8 ( 1 8 , 4- 68 .8
7 )% T o t a l e q u it y 4 , 4 0 0 ,4 4 0 6 8 6 , 2 2 0 5 , 0 8 6 , 6 6 0 5 ,0 8 7 , 9 1 8 ( 1 , 2 5 8 ) 0 . 0 %
B a la n c e p o s it io n 1 , 9 7 3 , 2 0 0( 2 , 0 1 5 , 4 8 2 ) ( 4 2 , 2 8 3 ) ( 7 0 , 4 0 3 ) 2 8 ,- 13 29 1. 9 % T o t a l e q u i t y & l i a b i li t i e s 2 5 , 7 7 7 ,1 1 2 6 , 4 4 1 ,3 4 53 2 , 2 1 8 , 4 5 73 2 , 3 8 4 , 1 2 5( 1 6 5 , 6 6 9 )- 0 .5 %
T o ta l a s s e ts 2 5 , 7 7 6 , 3 3 4 6 , 4 4 1 , 3 4 5 3 2 ,2 1 7 , 6 7 9 3 2 , 3 8 4 ,2 3 9( 1 6 6 , 5- 06 .5
0 )% C heck (77 8) - (778) 114 (8 9 1 )

1 c) O P E N C U R R EN C Y P O S IT IO N S U M M A R Y
E Q U I V A L E N T IN P R E V I O U ST R A N S L A T IO N
O F F B A L A N C E S H EE T IT E M S B A L A N C E K E S ' 0P0O0 S I T I O N C U R R E N T R DA AT YE R A T E G A I N / L O S S
KES FCY TOTAL P R E V IO U S M O V T % CAD 2 6 ,4 2 1 .8 1 2 , 2 7 3L o n g 8 6 .0 2 8 6 .6 1 ( 1 5 ,5 8 9 )
C o n t in g e n t a s s e t s USD ( 4 1 , 8 7 4 . 5 9 ) ( 3 , 5 4 S3 )h o r t 8 4 .6 0 8 5 .4 8 3 6 ,8 5 0
G u a r a n t e e s r e c e iv e d 2 0 ,1 9 2 , 3 7 51 3 , 7 8 4 , 2 5 5 3 3 , 9 7 6 , 6 3 0 3 4 ,0 8 7 , 6 3 5 ( 1 1 1 , 0 0 4 0) .3 % EUR 1 9 ,1 0 6 .7 4 2 , 2 8 5L o n g 1 1 9 .5 7 1 1 9 .6 0 (573)
C o n t in g e n t li a b i l it i e s GBP 1 9 ,6 9 0 .6 8 2 , 6 9 4L o n g 1 3 6 .8 3 1 3 7 .7 2 ( 1 7 ,5 2 5 )
G u a r a n t e e s is s u e d ( 1 ,9 8 4 , 8 7 2( )1 , 0 7 5 , 1 4 5 ) ( 3 ,0 6 0 , 0 1 6 ) ( 3 , 0 3 9 , 0 9 9 )( 2 0 , 9- 01 .7
7 )% UGX ( 9 1 2 ,0 5 5 .2 9 ) ( 3 2 S) h o r t 0 .0 4 0 .0 4 -
L e tt e r s o f c r e d it ( 2 7 9 , 6 5 6 )( 2 , 1 8 0 , 2 3 0 ) ( 2 ,4 5 9 , 8 8 6 ) ( 2 , 4 6 7 , 1 1 2 ) 7 , 02 2.36% TZS 4 ,4 8 2 ,5 4 9 .6 8 2 5 2L o n g 0 .0 6 0 .0 6 -
D o c u m e n t a r y r e m it t a n c e s - (1 ,0 9 0 ,6 5 7 ) ( 1 ,0 9 0 , 6 5 7 ) ( 1 , 3 1 0 , 6 7 3 )2 2 0 ,10 61 .85 % C H F 9 ,9 5 5 .3 3 9 3 2L o n g 9 3 .6 2 9 4 .8 4 ( 1 2 ,1 4 6 )
S p o t tr a n s a c t io n s ( 1 ,9 6 7 , 2 6 6 2) , 0 0 9 , 5 4 8 4 2 ,2 8 3 7 0 , 4 0 3 ( 2 8 , 13 29 1.9) % J P Y 8 0 8 ,3 7 3 .0 0 8 4 3L o n g 1 .0 4 1 .0 9 ( 4 0 ,4 1 9 )
C o m m it m e n ts to e x t e n d c r e d it - - - - - 1- .0 % A UD - - S hort 8 4 .0 0 8 4 .0 6 -
B a la n c e p o s it io n 1 ,9 6 7 , 2 6 6 ( 2 , 0 0 9 , 5 4 8 ) ( 4 2 ,2 8 3 ) ( 7 0 , 4 0 3 ) 2 8 ,31 92 .91 % Z A R ( 4 5 ,3 6 0 .9 3 ) ( 5 4 5S) h o r t 1 2 .0 2 1 2 .0 3 454
( 2 ,2 6 4 , 5 2 8( )4 , 3 4 6 , 0 3 2 )( 6 , 6 1 0 , 5 6 0 ) ( 6 ,8 1 6 , 8 8 4 ) 2 0 6 , 3 2 4 0 .1 % O th e r s S hort -
N e t c o n t in g e n ts 1 7 ,9 2 7 , 8 4 79 , 4 3 8 , 2 2 3 2 7 , 3 6 6 , 0 7 1 2 7 ,2 7 0 , 7 5 1 9 5 , 3 2 0 0 .1 % 5 , 1 5 8L o n g ( 4 8 ,9 4 8 )
C o n t r a e n t r ie s ( 1 7 ,9 2 7 , 8 4 7( 9) , 4 3 8 , 2 2 3( )2 7 , 3 6 6 , 0 7 1 ) ( 2 7 ,2 7 0 , 7 5 1 )( 9 5 , 3 2 0 )- 0 .4 % T r a n s a c t i o n g a i n / ( l o s s )6 8 9 , 1 8 8
Chec k - - - - - O P E N C U R R E N C Y P O S IT IO N S
K E S '0 0 0 IN U S PD O S IT I O N % O F C O R E C A P I T A L
O N B / S O P E N P O S IT IO N 2 ,0 1 5 ,4 8 2 2 3 , 8 2 L4 o n g 68%

2 b) YEA R T O YEA R TO M OVT M OVT O F F B / S O P E N P O S IT IO N ( 2 , 0 0 9 , 5 4 8 ) ( 2 3 , 7 5S4h) o r t 68%

IN C O M E S T A T E M E N T T O D A T EP R E V D A Y T O T A L O P E N P O S I T IO N 5 ,9 3 4 70 Long 0%
LCY
C A S HT R A N S IT A / C A TM CA SH T O T A L I N T E R N A L E X C E S S C R E D I T B A L ICN LSE OA MR IN
E G
K E S ' 0 0 0 K E S '0 0 0 K E S ' 0 0 0 % S H O R T A G E SI S S U E S 2 c) ( L i m i t < 1 0 L0 mC Y) B A L A FNCCYE B A L A N BC AE L A N C E L I M I T OS V E R L I M I T C A S H AA/CC sC O U N T S
In t e r e s t a n d s im ila r in c o m e 4 7 4 ,0 1 0 4 5 9 ,9 9 1 1 4 , 0 13 9.0 % K E S '0 0 0 KE S '0 0 0 K E S ' 0 0 0 K E S ' 0 0 0 K E S ' 0 0 0 K E S ' 0 0 0 S H S ' 0 0 0S H S '0 0 0 K E S ' 0 0K0 E S ' 0 0 0
In t e r e s t e x p e n s e ( 2 1 8 ,4 4 2 ) (2 0 8 ,7 8 2 ) ( 9 , 6 54 9.6) % N A IR O B I - 1 3 3 ,3 3 2 2 9 , 7 3 8 1 6 3 , 0 7 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 1 3 ,0 7 0 - -
N e t in t e r e s t in c o m e 2 5 5 ,5 6 9 2 5 1 ,2 0 9 4 ,3 61 0.7 % W ES TL A N D S - 2 8 ,9 0 8 6 ,6 4 4 3 5 ,5 5 2 4 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
U H U R U H IG H W A Y - 1 4 ,0 5 0 4 ,5 4 5 1 8 ,5 9 5 4 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
F e e a n d c o m m is s io n in c o m e 6 0 ,4 7 2 5 9 ,0 3 8 1 ,4 32 4.4 % R IV E R R O A D - 2 3 ,1 2 2 2 ,6 9 1 2 5 ,8 1 4 3 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
F e e & c o m m is s io n e x p e n s e ( 3 0 ,8 4 2 ) ( 3 0 , 6 0 9 ) ( 2 30 3.8) % R UA RA KA - 2 0 ,4 6 8 2 ,4 9 0 2 2 ,9 5 8 2 5 ,0 0 0 - - -
N e t f e e & c o m m i s s io n 2 9 ,6 3 0 2 8 ,4 2 9 1 ,2 04 1.2 % M O N R O V IA - 1 3 ,2 2 6 2 ,9 3 8 1 6 ,1 6 4 2 5 ,0 0 0 - - -
MOMBA SA - 4 3 ,3 5 8 4 ,9 7 2 4 8 ,3 3 0 6 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
N e t t r a d in g in c o m e 5 4 ,1 3 3 5 3 ,4 9 3 6 41 0.2 % T H IK A T O W N - 4 ,7 4 0 1 ,5 8 0 6 ,3 2 0 2 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
O t h e r o p e r a t in g in c o m e 1 9 ,4 6 7 1 9 ,4 6 7 0- .0 % K IS U M U - 1 1 ,4 2 2 1 ,4 4 3 1 2 ,8 6 5 3 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
O p e r a t in g in c o m e 3 5 8 ,7 9 9 3 5 2 ,5 9 8 6 ,2 01 1.8 % N A K UR U 1 1 ,9 6 3 2 ,8 1 3 1 4 ,7 7 6 2 0 ,0 0 0 -
O .R O N G A I - 4 ,0 4 2 331 4 ,3 7 3 1 5 ,0 0 0 - - -
Im p a ir m e n t lo s s e s ( 5 ,6 4 6 ) ( 5 , 6 4 6 ) 0- .0 % ELD O R ET - 9 ,8 9 6 1 8 ,7 2 6 2 8 ,6 2 2 4 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
O p e r a t in g e x p e n s e s ( 2 0 4 ,3 0 2 ) (2 0 3 ,6 9 8 ) ( 6 00 4.3) % NGO NG ROA D - 1 0 ,1 7 6 5 ,1 3 4 1 5 ,3 1 0 2 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
T o ta l e x p e n s e s ( 2 0 9 ,9 4 8 ) (2 0 9 ,3 4 4 ) ( 6 00 4.3) % EMB A K A S I - 5 ,2 5 7 4 ,8 9 7 1 0 ,1 5 4 2 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
C HA NG A MW E - 1 2 ,5 5 7 6 ,0 7 3 1 8 ,6 3 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
P r o f it b e f o r e in c o m e t a x 1 4 8 ,8 5 1 1 4 3 ,2 5 4 5 ,5 93 7.9 % K E R IC H O - 1 0 ,4 5 8 3 ,5 3 4 1 3 ,9 9 2 1 0 ,0 0 0 3 ,9 9 2 - -
In c o m e t a x e x p e n s e - - -- B UN G O M A - 1 4 ,7 0 8 1 ,0 2 0 1 5 ,7 2 8 1 5 ,0 0 0 728 - -
A FH Fe es - BOMA S - - - - - - - -
N e t p r o f it f o r t h e y e a r 1 4 8 ,8 5 1 1 4 3 ,2 5 4 5 ,5 93 7.9 % H E A D O F F IC E - 8 ,3 4 5 - 8 ,3 4 5 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 - - -
TOTAL - 3 8 0 ,0 2 8 9 9 ,5 7 0 4 7 9 ,5 9 8 5 9 0 ,0 0 0 1 1 7 ,7 8 9 - -

1 b) B A L A N C IN
E T ERNA L T O SEL L B r a n c h e s t o e x p la in . In c o r r e c t b o o k in g s
FC Y V A UL T C A S H L IM IT T o le r a n c e L i m i t
US D 6 9 3 ,8 6 1 6 9 3 , 8 6I n1 t e r e s t A v . R aEtxe p c t d @ Ad cat yu a l @ d a y V a r i aS nD c ien r a t e + / - 1 %
GBP 1 2 ,5 2 5 1 2 , 5 2 In5 t In c o m e 1 0 .7 % 4 ,4 0 2 1 4 ,0 1 9 9 ,6 1 7 561
EU R 1 8 1 ,5 0 0 1 8 1 , 5 0In0t e x p e n s e 4 .5 % ( 3 ,2 1 7 ) ( 9 ,6 5 9 ) ( 6 ,4 4 2 ) ( 7 1 3 )
KES 3 0 9 ,6 1 8 ,1 5 0 3 0 9 ,6 1 8 ,1 5 0
ZA R - -

Any variations from expected performance are queried and

explained withy corrective actions being taken immediately. There
are monthly performance measures of these variables, mainly
comparisons against budget.

Possible Improvements

Page | 3
Although the above dashboard plays a vital role of daily feedback on
results, it lacks responsibility assignment element and could easily
avoid identification of the performance drivers. In the division of
operations, improvements can come from installation of standard
individual performance measures of productivity, quality, inventory
control, lead-time, performance to schedule, and cost control. None
financial measures could also be adopted to avoid reliance on a
single set of measures in order to provide a clear performance
target. Instead of relying on cost and efficiency measures,
indicators as time, quality, and service would prove to be
morerelevant measures. Performancetargets need to evolve
continually in order to appropriately analyze performance and direct
resources towards continuous improvement.

To incorporate other performance measures typesthe bank needs

tobuild performance measurement frameworks varying from the
balance score card prescribed by Kaplan and Norton to Fitzgerald's
framework of results and determinants (Eckerson, 2010).

The balanced scorecard approach postulates that performance

measurement requires other measures apart from the financial
data. The balanced score card school of thought suggests that any
performance measurement framework needs to force management
to ask these questions (Kaplan and Norton (1992) :

✔ How do our ownersevaluate us? (the financial perspective)

✔ What do we excel at and how well? (internal business

processes perspective)

✔ How well do we serve our customers? (customer perspective)

✔ How agile are we in responding to change? (innovation and learning

perspective)

The bank can develop performance measures centered on the

balanced score card model summarized in the chart below:

Page | 4
 BSC Report as of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Nav igat ion: Click on ov als t o view obje ctiv e me asures
M issio n :
F0: T op Fin an ci al O bje cti ve (T ab F0_1,

F1: Fin ancial O bje ctive 1

F2: Fin an cial O bje ctive 2 F3: Fi n ancial O bje ctive 3
Finacl

V isio n S tate m en t
S t r a t e g ic T h e m e 1 S t r a t e g i c T h e m e 3S t r a t e g i c T h e m e 4
S tr a te g ic T h e m e 2
C 2: C ustom e r O bje ctive 2 C 4: C u stom e r O bje ctive 4.
C 1: C u stom er O bje ctive 1 C 3: C ustom e r O bje ctive 3
ustom
er C

P7: Proce ss O bje ctive

P8: P roce ss O bje cti ve
P4: Proce ss O bje ctive

P3: Proce ss O bje ctive 3

P6: Proce ss O bje ctive
P9: Proce ss O bje cti ve

P11: Process O bje cti ve

P5: Proce ss O bje ctive

P 2: Process O bje ctive

InteralP

P10: Proce ss
ocs

O bje cti ve

P1: Process O bje ctive

P eo p le statem en t

L3: Le arni ng / Pe opl e L4: Le arni ng / Pe ople L5: Le arn in g / Pe ople

L1: Le arn in g/Pe ople
L2: Learn in g / O bje cti ve O bje cti ve O bje ctive
O bje ctive
P

Pe opl e O bje ctive

eopl

One of the shortcomings of the balanced scorecard is that it does

not measure competitor activityand thus Keegan (1989) proposes a
the "performance matrix" that is more flexible because of its ability
integrating varied performance angles, and applies generic terms
like internal, external, cost, and non-cost.

The Performance Measurement System Design

The design of adashboard is most challenging in that unlike in other
software development areas where the developer can set
his/herown requirements, business intelligence and performance
dashboards require going through the regular cycle of metrics and
definitions of their calculation and source data. After their
development, testing and roll out, it is given to business users.
However, things change rapidly as within a few months, the
individuals who asked for the metrics move out and the business
scope changes.
The top-down method of dashboard planning poses the challenge of
inoperability in the sense that, the data to support top down

Page | 5
developed metrics may not be available and this would be
discovered later after the goals and objectives have already been
defined, and the metrics to monitor daily movements have been
defined.
The bottom up approach will involve first the listing of all the data
available in the data warehouse from the operating system and then
imagining of what could be measured. This could lead to a big
confusion. The prescribed method would be a blend of the two.

Bibliography
Eckerson, W (2011): “PerformanceDashboardsMeasuring,
Monitoring, AndManaging Your Business”John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, New Jersey.
Gunasekaran, A., H. James Williams, and Ronald E. McGaughey
(2005)."Performance Measurement and Costing System in New
Enterprise."Technovation 25, no. 5: 523.
Kaplan, R.S., and D.P. Norton (1992). "The Balanced Scorecard-
Measures That Drive Performance." Harvard Business Review, 71–
79.
Keegan, D.P., R.G. Eiler, and C.R. Jones (1989). "Are Your
Performance Measures Obsolete?" Management Accounting, pp, 38–
43.
Nugent, J.H. “Plan To Win:Analytical And Operational Tools -Gaining
Competitive Advantage.” A Strategy Primer.Mcgraw-Hill
Bose, S and Keith Thomas (2007) “Applying the balanced scorecardfor better
performance ofintellectual capital.”Journal of Intellectual CapitalVol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 653-665
Fritzen, S.A (2007): “Crafting performance measurementsystems to
reduce corruption risks incomplex organizations: the case of
theWorld Bank.” Vol. 11 No. 4 2007, pp. 23-32, Q Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, ISSN 1368-3047
Merrill Lynch (2008) “How to Read a Financial Report. “

Page | 6