5-IJAEBM-Volume-No-1-Issue-No-1-Results-based-Management-at-Project-Level-033-038 by ISERP ISERP

Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Vol No. 1, Issue No. 1, 033 - 038

Results-based Management at Project Level: A Comparison between the United Nations Development Programme and Thai Government Agency Watana Patanapongse Graduate School of Management and Innovation King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi Bangkok, Thailand E-mail: watana2006@gmail.com

data for the study of Thai Government agency-supported RBM technique were collected from a project which was undertaken in Kamphaengphet province in the northern region of Thailand. The reason for selecting these projects for this study is that usually (1) a UNDP-supported project is managed on the basis of UNDP project management guidelines which comprise the use of KPIs and RBM, and (2) a Thai Government agency-supported project is managed on the basis of the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) which is a Thai Government departmental level organization under the Office of the Prime Minister. The project comprises the use of KPIs and RBM. As a result, all projects around the country are operated on the same approach. The findings from the comparative study show that UNDPsupported projects can be regarded as good practice in that they represent truly effective public participation-focused project execution. Their successful implementation has led to activities which can in principle sustain the projects’ outputs and outcomes, and develop leadership ability among the local communities concerned. The study in general supported the assumption that “More effective participation in the project execution cycle will lead to people giving a high value to the outputs or outcomes derived from the project”. The objectives of this study are: (1) to investigate the similarities and differences between the UNDP and Thai Government agency project management processes, (2) to find the critical success factors which lead to high public value towards the outputs and outcomes of a project, and (3) to search for findings on good practice to be used as a model for further replication.

EB M

Abstract - This study presents a comparison between the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Thai Government agency use of results-based management (RBM) and public participation at the project management level. The comparison shows the similarities and differences in use of the RBM technique and of participation by the two organizations. The study shows that both organizations have implemented RBM techniques on the basis of key performance indicators (KPIs) and both have incorporated the KPI technique in their action plans as guidelines for project management. In addition, both organizations have aligned their projects with their strategic positions under their five year and four year development plans respectively. The comparison covers all three stages of the project management cycle: project planning, project implementation, and project evaluation. Attention is given to the critical success factors which lead to high public value towards the outputs and outcomes of the project. The findings show a significant difference between the two organizations in that the UNDP-supported project management team has used participation more effectively than Thailand’s Government agency-supported project management teams, which thereby leads to high public value.

Keywords: critical success factor; key performance indicator; public participation; public value; results-based management; Thai Government agency; United Nations Development Programme

INTRODUCTION

The reason for this study is to investigate the similarities and differences between the two organizations, that is between the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Thai Government agency use of results-based management (RBM) technique in their project planning, project implementation and project evaluation. In addition, this study pays attention to the critical success factors which lead to high public value towards the project outputs and outcomes. The benefits to be obtained from this study include a knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of each organization in its use of RBM techniques, and in addition, a knowledge of the critical success factors (CSFs) which lead to high public value towards the outputs and outcome of a project. It is hoped that the findings from this study will help improve project management in the near future. The data for the study of UNDP-supported RBM were collected from a project which was undertaken in Lanta Island, Krabi province in the southern region of Thailand. The

ISSN: 2230-7826

II.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introducing an RBM approach aims to improve management effectiveness and accountability by “defining realistic expected results, monitoring progress toward the achievement of expected results, integrating lessons learned into management decisions and reporting on performance” [1]. RBM is derived from the concept of Logical Framework Analysis [2]. Accordingly, the background to adoption of RBM into Thai Government agencies is the “Royal Decree On Criteria and

Page 33

Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Vol No. 1, Issue No. 1, 033 - 038

this case, monitoring cannot be done well. Without effective planning, founded on a clear framework of intended results, the basis of evaluation is weak. Likewise, without careful monitoring, the necessary data are not collected. In neither case can evaluation be done well. In the view of UNDP users of RBM, monitoring is necessary but not sufficient for evaluation. It assists evaluation, but evaluation requires additional data to be collected and different frameworks for analysis. In many cases, monitoring and evaluation of a programme will itself lead to changes in programme plans, which may in turn require changes in data collection for monitoring purposes [5]. The UNDP life style, according to UNDP’s approach, comprises the three main stages of project execution: planning, monitoring and evaluation. The cycle starts from (1) setting up a vision, and goes on to (2) drafting the results map and RBM framework, (3) planning for monitoring and evaluation, (4) implementing and using monitoring, and (5) managing and using evaluation. Stakeholders are fully engaged in participation at every stage [6]. Internationally, governments, including public sector agencies, have engaged in numerous reforms and initiatives designed to improve cost effectiveness and efficiency, to increase quality of public service, to become results-oriented and citizen focused, and to emphasize strategic and business planning [7]. In the case of Thai Government agencies, these have had to incorporate a balanced scorecard approach designed by the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) which was derived from Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard (BSC) [8]. The BSC for Thai Government agencies comprises 4 dimensions: effectiveness, quality, efficiency, and organizational development. Each dimension comprises a list of expected project outputs and outcomes to be further monitored and evaluated. Each given output and outcome comprises a key performance indicator (KPI) and its target to be compared with previous year outputs and outcomes. Over the last 20 years, public sector management has been urged to incorporate results-based management, being called on to accept greater managerial accountability for programme outcomes. However, progress has been limited. It has been difficult to decide what are the desirable outcomes when there are multiple stakeholders, with conflicting demands, and where managerial freedom to act is limited by administrative controls. Try and Radnor [9] and Try [10] applied public value theory to understanding constraints on the implementation of RBM, using case studies of executives in Canadian public sector agencies, since involvement of top executives is regarded as essential to implementing organizational change. Executives cited difficulties in measuring outcomes as an impediment to implementing RBM. Moreover, executives were willing to accept accountability provided they have sufficient flexibility to actually influence outcomes, including the ability to react to changing circumstances and opportunities.

EB M

Procedures for Good Governance, B.E. 2546 (2003)” of 2003. The royal decree comprises 9 parts: part 1, good governance; part 2, responsive public administration; part 3, results-based management; part 4, effectiveness and value for money; part 5, lessening unnecessary steps of work; part 6, mission review; part 7, convenient and favorable public services; part 8, performance evaluation; and part 9, miscellaneous. Regarding part 3, results-based management, this addresses the main concepts as follows: “In performing its duties, a government agency, for results-based management, shall: (1) make its performance plan prior to the carrying out of any mission; (2) specify in the performance plan under (1) details of steps; (3) follow-up and review the performance plan under the Criteria and Procedures as specified by such government agency, which shall be compiled with standard criteria and procedures on such matters as specified by OPDC; (4) in the case where the carrying out of the mission or performance plan affects people, redress such effect or change the performance plan…” In practice, Thai Government agencies not only adopt the RBM technique but also embrace other modern techniques such as the balanced scorecard (BSC) and so on. This study will limit the scope of study only to RBM, public participation and other techniques relevant to the effectiveness of project management in order to attain high public value. OPDC responded to the case for a more RBM-oriented management style by introducing, in 2004, a performance management system comprising goal setting, performance appraisal, and financial incentives for performance, with the objective of improving the standards of public services and service providers. Koonmee [3] evaluated the effect of the performance management system over its first years of operation, 2004-2007. Data obtained from both top management and concerned staff indicated that goal setting and performance appraisal significantly enhanced efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness of public services, management quality and staff competencies. Views on the effects of incentive allocation were inconsistent. Achievement and contributions of personnel seem to depend more on the character of individuals than on cash rewards and bonuses. Goal setting should be clearly related to strategic objectives, there should be feedback of assessment results to the persons assessed, and allocation of incentives must be seen to be just. The fact that performance appraisal forms an integral part of such a performance management system is but one instance of the increasing recognition of performance measurement as essential to quality management in a learning organization [4]. Performance measurement is a prerequisite to good governance, transparency and accountability. On the UNDP side, the history of results-based management in UNDP can be traced to the mid 1990s. In UNDP’s implementation of RBM, all stages of the RBM cycle, planning, implementation and evaluation, must be considered together. In consequence, it is essential to understand the interlinkages and dependencies among these three stages. That is because, without proper planning and clear articulation of intended results, it is not clear what operations should be undertaken and monitored, nor how. In

ISSN: 2230-7826

Page 34

Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Vol No. 1, Issue No. 1, 033 - 038

III.

conclusions and results of workshops by all relevant participants and stakeholders in Kamphaengphet province, mainly from planning, implementation, and evaluation agencies. The workshop process was: (1) A SWOT analysis was made covering strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the province. The conclusions of the SWOT analysis were used to formulate an appropriate vision, mission, goals or overall strategy outcomes, strategies, and action plans for the provincial development plan [12] [13]. (2) A vision statement was formulated as a long term direction for the plan [14]. (3) A mission statement was formulated as a guideline for reaching the vision [15]. (4) Strategic goals or overall strategy outcomes were formulated for the 4-year plan (2010-2013). (5) Strategies were formulated in order to reach the strategic goals or overall strategy outcomes [16]. (6) Action plans or project plans were formulated in order to implement all projects under these strategies. An action plan plays an important role in implementing the provincial development plan. Success or failure depends on the effectiveness of action plan implementation. Therefore, participation by relevant people in the implementation process is very important. As a result, workshop participants from planning, implementation, and evaluation agencies in the province were informed on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. Under the provincial development plan, there are two strategies: (1) Improve and develop tourist locations which comprises 5 projects as follows: 1) Improve geographical view of tourist locations, 2) Develop the public utility system and facilities in tourist locations, 3) Promotion of tourism by the community, 4) Develop OTOP villages for tourism, 5) Develop tourist locations as historic parks of “Night World Heritage” type. (2) Systematically develop tourism management which comprises 11 projects as follows: 1) Develop potential of personnel for tourism, 2) Develop an information technology database system, 3) Aggressively promote marketing and public relations, 4) Develop nutritional institutes, 5) Develop public toilets, 6) Promote creation of tourism networks and alliances, 7) Develop 24-hour tourist service centers, 8) Conduct research studies on conservation of world heritage sites, 9) Promote professionals concerned with tourism, 10) Promote management of restaurants to support large tourist groups, and 11) Promote the security of tourists. To formulate strategy-based service management, Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) was used and a simplified action plan was formulated in order to facilitate communication among relevant people. In terms of the results-based management (RBM) technique and participation technique which are usually adopted and adapted by a project management team, the study aims at investigating how many stages of the project management cycle: planning, implementation, and evaluation were incorporated with participation techniques, that is which were participated in by beneficiaries of the outputs and outcome of the project. Regarding UNDP’s project management process on “Indigenous Livelihood Restoration and Sustainable Ecology for Lanta Island”, the project evolved from a field trip to Lanta Island in September, 2010. The methods employed for data collection were: (1) Documentation or Desk Review. The objective of data collection by desk review was to study

EB M

Frazier and Swiss [11] surveyed opinions on the extent of deployment and impact of the introduction of RBM tools among senior executives, managers, supervisors and front line workers in US state revenue departments. Lower level employees were consistently less optimistic than higher level, with a dramatic difference between top level and bottom level respondents. Reasons cited for the discrepancy include inadequate communication between the different levels and differences of perception at the various levels. The results suggested that successful introduction of RBM requires effective means of communication, both top-down and bottom-up, and enhanced worker participation – and that these efforts must be sustained. UNDP’s RBM has incorporated two parts for development: (1) thematic areas; and (2) strategic positioning. In the case of the UNDP Country Office, Thailand, during 2007-2011, the thematic areas are as follows: (1) Responsive Governance; (2) International Partnership for Development, (3) Millennium Development Goals, (4) HIV/AIDS; and (5) Environmentally Sustainable Development. In terms of strategic positioning, there are 3 areas for measurement: (1) Strategic Relevance and Responsiveness; (2) UNDP’s use of Networks and Comparative Strengths (3) Promoting UN values from a Human Development Perspective. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study was written on the basis of two projects: the first project on the basis “To Develop the Personnel Potential for Tourism”, one of the projects under the Four Year Provincial Development Plan (2010-2013) which was supported by Kamphaengphet province in the northern region of Thailand. It was selected as a case of Thailand’s public sector using results-based management and participation technique for project execution. The second project is based on “Indigenous Livelihood Restoration and Sustainable Ecology for Lanta Island” one of the selected projects for UNDP’s Assessment of Development Results in Thailand which were under the UNDP’s Five Year Plans (between 2002-2006 and between 2007-2011) and which were supported by UNDP. It was selected as a case of UNDP using results-based management and the participation technique in project execution. Regarding Thailand’s public sector project management process in “To Develop the Personnel Potential for Tourism”, the project evolved from a study conducted from June to September 2009. The activity during the project planning step was based on participation techniques. Relevant people, usually people from government agencies, took part in the workshop for project planning. Representatives from relevant beneficiaries were invited to participate in the planning process. In formulating the workshop, the author was supported by the Governor of Kamphaengphet province to work as a workshop consultant on a “provincial development plan or provincial strategic plan” and on “how to translate strategies into action”. Primary data were collected from documents relevant to strategies of economic and social development both at national and provincial level especially in Kamphaengphet. Secondary data were collected from

ISSN: 2230-7826

Page 35

Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Vol No. 1, Issue No. 1, 033 - 038

RESEARCH FINDINGS

IV.

necessary components for RBM implementation, that is, KPIs for Project Resources or Inputs, KPIs for Project Process or Project Activities, KPIs for Project Outputs, and KPIs for Project Outcomes. At the project implementation stage, the project implementing team members understood and could implement the project so as to be effectively suited to the RBM components. At the project evaluation stage, in the case of formulating a Self Assessment Report (SAR) which was an internal assessment by the public agency itself, the evaluation team members understood how to assess or evaluate the RBMoriented project satisfactorily. On the contrary, if the evaluation team were hired from outside the agency, it would depend on the competency of the evaluation team to understand the background of the RBM-oriented and public participation-oriented project. In terms of public participation orientation, for the RBMoriented project management used by Thailand’s public sector, the public or relevant beneficiaries of the project took part only in the stages of project planning. Moreover, there were only those who were selected to take part as representatives of the relevant beneficiaries. They had no opportunity to participate in other stages: the stage of implementation, and evaluation. This can be said to be the weakness in project management by Thailand’s public sector. As a result, the beneficiaries do not give high value or high satisfaction towards the outputs and outcomes of a project under Thailand’s public sector project management style when compared with the project under the UNDP project management style. The results of analysis of UNDP project management was based on secondary data from documentation or desk review and primary data from focus group discussions, surveys, individual interviews, and observation as detailed in the previous headings. The findings which are based on the project “Indigenous Livelihood Restoration and Sustainable Ecology for Lanta Island” under the UNDP project management process on the basis of results-based management technique and participation technique can be summarized as follows: In terms of the project management cycle, at the project planning stage, it is the UNDP staff who formulated the project plan by following the policies obtained from a given thematic area and strategic positioning. However, at the time of project implementation, UNDP gave an opportunity to the relevant beneficiaries to set policy and reformulate the project plan. The informants, the villagers in Lanta Island, said they had the opportunity to set up policy and formulate the project plan by themselves. Of course, at the planning stage, there were representatives from NGOs working in many roles: coworkers, assistants, and advisors. The villagers were happy with their role as the project owner. Due to the full participation process, the villagers understood the concept of RBM automatically. However, they said they understood only the parts they were related to, not the whole picture of the RBM technique. Those who were responsible for Project Resources or Inputs understood what were the KPIs for Project Inputs. “We know how many members who looked

EB M

relevant documents before going to the field work. The desk review included general development documentation related to national strategies as well as a comprehensive overview of UNDP’s programme over the period being examined. The desk review was supported by data obtained from other Three groups of methods. (2) Focus Group Discussion. stakeholders: the policy makers, implementers, and beneficiaries were selected and invited to join focus group discussions. Each focus group comprised about 6-12 persons. (3) Survey by using Questionnaire-cum-interview Schedules. The objectives were: 1) To obtain opinions on outputs, outcomes, and long-term outcomes (impacts) of programmes/ projects/ activities under (a) thematic areas and (b) strategic positioning, 2) To obtain recommendations for the coming 2012-2016 programming cycle. (4) Individual Interview. The objectives were: 1) to obtain opinions on outputs, outcomes, and long-term outcomes (impacts) of programmes/ projects/ activities under (a) thematic areas and (b) strategic positioning, 2) to obtain recommendations for the coming 2012-2016 programming cycle, 3) to validate the findings obtained by other data collection methods or other data analysis methods, and 4) to obtain a bird’s eye view of data and information in order to explore the details of the subjects under study. (5) Observation. The project on “Indigenous Livelihood and Ecology Restoration for Lanta Island” was used as a case study. The project was monitored and evaluated by third party monitoring and evaluation teams during April 2005 to June 2006 and July to December 2007 respectively. The reason for selecting this project is because it was monitored and evaluated in a participatory manner. As a result, there are opportunities to assess the degree to which the beneficiaries have significantly participated in the project execution process cycle: planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation and policy formulation. In addition, the findings will be triangulated with other sources of data.

The results of analysis of Thailand’s public sector project management was based on secondary data from the provincial office and the participants at the project planning workshop, and primary data obtained from the outputs and outcomes by the brainstorming process at the workshop as detailed in the above heading. In addition, individual interviews of relevant persons at the provincial office were used. The findings which are based on the project “To Develop the Personnel Potential for Tourism” under Thailand’s public sector project management process on the basis of results-based management technique and participation technique can be summarized as follows: In terms of the project management cycle, at the project planning stage, all relevant people participated in the project planning process, therefore most relevant people, project planning team members, project implementing team members and project monitoring and evaluation team members, understood the project plan. As a result, the people who participated in the project planning process understood the

ISSN: 2230-7826

Page 36

Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Vol No. 1, Issue No. 1, 033 - 038

against every one of the four criteria. Each UNDP country office has its own policy and strategy for setting up suitable thematic areas. In the case of UNDP-Thailand there are 5 such thematic areas: 1) Responsive Governance, 2) International Partnership for Development, 3) Millennium Development Goals, 4) HIV/AIDS, and 5) Environmentally Sustainable Development. In addition, UNDP-Thailand has specified the elements of its strategic positioning, that is: 1) Strategic Relevance and Responsiveness, 2) UNDP’s use of Networks and Comparative Strengths, and 3) Promoting UN values from a Human Development Perspective. On the question of public participation, it can be strongly contended that, in UNDP-supported projects, especially the project used for the case study, there is participation by all relevant beneficiaries at all stages of project execution. In consequence, beneficiaries who were interviewed, whether at focus group discussions, by survey questionnaire, or by individual interview, all attributed high value to the outputs and outcomes of the projects. This is sufficient reason for recommending that any organization that wants to create high public value in the form of its project outputs and outcomes, should employ the UNDP style of RBM and UNDP’s experience of public participation.

EB M

after tools, how many members who are responsible for the project budget..” Those who were responsible for Project Processes or Activities said “We are project implementing team members, what we have to do is to work in a team…”. At the evaluation stage, those who were responsible for monitoring and following-up said “We are the monitoring and following-up team. We have to monitor the success or failure of work done. If there are some failed works, it is our duty to report immediately to the project team leaders who are relevant to the problem. Sometimes, we reported to more than one person at the same time”. (They used a matrix reporting method.) In terms of public participation orientation, for the RBMoriented project management used by UNDP, the public or relevant beneficiaries of the project took part in the full range of participation at all stages of the project management cycle. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Results-based management is important for attaining outcomes or results at project level. There are similarities in the way in which Thai Government and UNDP agencies have adopted and adapted RBM-based project execution. Both types of organization use key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring the level of success according to specified criteria. Thai Government agencies employ a balanced scorecard (BSC)-based approach to RBM. This means that each project must be aligned with each of the four BSC perspectives of overall organizational strategy: effectiveness, quality, efficiency and organizational development. Within each of these perspectives there are associated KPIs with their targets of achievement. Achievement is rated on a 5-point scale of measurement: 1, most unsatisfactory; 2, moderately unsatisfactory; 3, neutral; 4, moderately satisfactory; 5, most satisfactory. Each year every Thai Government agency is required to improve its standard of performance by raising its target for achievement above that of the preceding year. UNDP agencies apply RBM using KPIs based on Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) to measure results. These comprise KPIs for measurement of project resources or inputs, project process or activities, project outputs, and project outcomes. Higher than the project level is the thematic level. Outcomes at this level depend on achievement of all project outcomes under a given thematic area. In consequence, a clear understanding of the major components of RBM, the KPIs at each level, is significant for an understanding of the overall RBM approach. It can be contended that the strength of UNDP’s approach to RBM lies in its clear and well prepared planning stage, and that this approach should be adopted and adapted by any organization that wants to embrace RBM as its organizational management mode. The strengths of UNDP’s RBM planning stage are: (1) There are clear criteria under each thematic area. For instance, the criteria for thematic area assessment are 1) relevance, 2) effectiveness, 3) efficiency, and 4) sustainability. The projects under each thematic area must be measureable

ISSN: 2230-7826

REFERENCES

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] [8] [9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

Canadian International Development Agency, Results-based Management, Canada: CIDA, 1999. Clancy, K.R., Human resource development evaluation: A case study of the Canadian International Development Agency, M.D.E., Dalhousie University (Canada) Dissertation, 1993. Koonmee, K., “Effects of performance measurement and incentive allocation on developing of Thai public service and officers,” The Business Review, Cambridge, vol. 12, pp. 165-169, 2008. Phusavat, K., P. Anussornnitisarn, P. Hels, and K. Dwight, “Performance measurement: roles and challenges,” Industrial Management and Data Systems, vol. 100, pp. 646-664, 2009. United Nations Development Programme, Evaluation of Results-based Management at UNDP, New York: United Nations Development Programmes, 2007. United Nations Development Programme, Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, New York: UNDP, 2009. OECD, Governance in Transition: Public Management Reform in OECD Countries, OECD, Paris, 1995. Kaplan, R.S. and D. P. Norton, Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press, 1996. Try, D. and Z. Radnor, “Developing an understanding of resultsbased management through public value theory,” International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 20, pp. 655-675, 2007 Try, D, “’Mind the gap, please’: using public value theory to examine executive take-up of results-based management,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 57, pp. 22-36, 2008. Frazier, N.A. and J. E. Swiss, “Contrasting views of results-based management tools from different organizational levels,” International Public Management Journal, vol. 11, pp. 214-234, 2008. Ip, Y.K. and L. C. Koo. “BSQ strategic formulation framework: a hybrid of balanced scorecard, SWOT analysis and quality function deployment,” Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 533, 2004. Weihrich, H., “The TOWS matrix - a tool for situational analysis,” Journal of Long Range Planning, vol. 15, no. 2, 1982.

Page 37

Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Vol No. 1, Issue No. 1, 033 - 038 [16] Acur, N. and L. Englyst. “Assessment of strategy formulation: how to ensure quality in process and outcome,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol. 26, no. 1/2, pp. 69-92, 2006.

EB M

[14] Long, C. and M. Vickers-Koch, “Creating a vision statement that is shared and works,” The Journal for Quality and Participation, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 74, 1994, [15] Verma, H.V. “Mission statements: a study of intent and influence,” Journal of Services Research, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 153, 2009.

ISSN: 2230-7826

Page 38