Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Management Performance (management + performance)
Selected AbstractsRedesigning Corporate Governance Structures and Systems for the Twenty First CenturyCORPORATE GOVERNANCE, Issue 3 2001Robert A.G. Monks How a corporation is governed has become in recent years an increasingly important element in how it is valued by the market place. McKinsey & Company in June 2000 published the results of an Investor Opinion Survey of attitudes about the corporate governance of portfolio companies. The survey gathered responses about investment intentions from over 200 institutions who together manage approximately $3.25 trillion in assets. Ranging from 17 per cent in the US and Britain to over 27 per cent in Venezuela, investors placed a specific premium on what was called "Board Governance". To put this into perspective, consider how greatly sales would have to increase, expenses be cut and margins improved to achieve a comparable impact on value. "For purposes of the survey, a well governed company is defined as having a majority of outside directors on the board with no management ties; holding formal evaluations of directors; and being responsive to investor requests for information on governance issues. In addition, directors hold significant stockholdings in the company, and a large proportion of directors' pay is in the form of stock options." This correlation of governance with market value by one of the most respected consulting companies in the world creates the foundations of a new language for management accountability. McKinsey has great credibility as a value-adding advisor to corporate managements. Governance is not a cause or a theology for McKinsey; it is an important element in the value of an enterprise. By getting the opinion of what we call Global Investors with portfolios of holdings on every continent, McKinsey has importantly impacted the cost of capital for all corporations henceforth. Admittedly, McKinsey's criteria of "board governance" are blunt. "Every organization attempting to accomplish something has to ask and answer the following question," writes Harvard Business School professor Michael C. Jensen in the introduction to his recent working paper: "What are we trying to accomplish? Or, put even more simply: When all is said and done, how do we measure better versus worse? Even more simply: How do we keep score... . I say long-term market value to recognize that it is possible for markets not to know the full implications of a firm's policies until they begin to show up.... Value creation does not mean succumbing to the vagaries of the movements in a firm's values from day to day. The market is inevitably ignorant of many of our actions and opportunities, at least in the short run...". Surprisingly little attention is paid to what we all intuitively know, that talented people are not entirely motivated by financial compensation. Directors therefore must pay special attention to creating an appropriate environment for stimulating optimum management performance. [source] Key issues relating to decentralization at the provincial level of health management in CambodiaINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, Issue 1 2005Bunnan Men Abstract The following study was conducted as part of a review of management systems at a Provincial Health Department (Kampong Cham Province) and a National Health Programme (National Immunization Program) in 2002,2003 in Cambodia. The aim of this paper is to identify, analyse and recommend those management system factors that are critical to the success of health management performance, with a particular focus on provincial management. The review has identified critical success factors associated with health management performance at the sub-national level that include a stronger role for effective human resource management in health sector reform, elevation of the status of planning in senior level management, and the development of a more comprehensive and transparent finance system. These success factors will position the provincial level of health management to respond more effectively to the reform challenges of administrative de-concentration and political decentralization that are currently underway across a range of government sectors in Cambodia. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Using measured performance as a process safety leading indicatorPROCESS SAFETY PROGRESS, Issue 2 2009Kenneth H. Harrington Abstract Periodic demands on layers of protection (i.e., prealarms, safety instrumented functions, relief devices, emergency response systems, etc.) are precursors to more serious incidents. The failure of one or more layers of protection is always part of an accident sequence. When they occur documenting these demands and the associated consequences in a way to facilitate analysis, provides a means to measure process safety management performance. Although process safety metrics are still in their adolescence, this article reviews experiences of development and implementation of a "Challenges to Safety Systems" process safety performance indicator. This article includes a discussion of automating significant portions of the data collection process based on the technical work documented by the CCPS PERD (Process Equipment Reliability Database) initiative. The article also recommends various metrics that can be calculated and describes how the initial foundation developed to support improved process safety can be leveraged to achieve other benefits, such as design improvements and improvements in the reliability, operation, and maintenance of the facility. © 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2009 [source] Project portfolio control and portfolio management performance in different contextsPROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, Issue 3 2008Ralf Müller Abstract This article investigates the nature and relationship of project portfolio control techniques and portfolio management performance, and how this relationship is moderated by situational idiosyncrasies of internal and external dynamics, industries, governance types, and geographic location. A worldwide questionnaire with 242 responses was used, of which 136 high-performing responses were filtered out for quantitative analysis of best practices. Three portfolio control factors were identified: portfolio selection, portfolio reporting, and decision-making style. Two measures for portfolio management performance were identified: achievement of desired portfolio results and achievement of project and program purpose. The results indicate that different portfolio control mechanisms are associated with different performance measures. A contingency model was developed, including moderating effects by contextual variables. [source] Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development performanceTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 5 2001Kenneth B. Kahn Various research studies have shown that a market orientation and interdepartmental integration can positively influence product development performance. Addressed in this article is whether market orientation and interdepartmental integration both equally influence product development performance, whether one of these constructs is more influential than the other, and whether such influence is dependent on the type of department being examined? Analyzing survey data from 156 marketing, manufacturing, and R&D managers, the tentative results suggest that a market orientation and interdepartmental integration correlate to improved product development and product management performance in varying degrees across these three manager sets. It appears that a positive relationship between market orientation and product development petformance is likely to be reflected by the marketing department, while marketing and manufacturing departments are likely to reflect a positive relationship between the general construct of market orientation and product management performance. Manufacturing managers also reflect a positive relationship between interdepartmental integration and product development and product management performance. Further analyses involving the elements of a market orientation and interdepartmental integration find that a customer orientation appears important to performance in the case of marketing managers, and that collaboration is important to performance in the case of manufacturing managers. R&D managers did not reflect any statistically significant relationships between market orientation, interdepartmental integration, their constructs, and performance. These results should not be taken as refuting the claim of an important relationship between market orientation and product development performance, however. The present results refine our understanding of market orientation to consider department-specific effects, as well as temper the claims that implementing a market orientation will readily lead to improved product development performance across all departments in an organization. This may or may not be the case, depending on the focal department. [source] ,Managing for Outcomes': Accountability and ThrustAUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Issue 4 2003Karen Baehler Central agencies in New Zealand are now defining public management performance to include both the quality of a manager's ,account' of output-outcome links and the manager's record of delivering efficient outputs. This article: (1) argues that the hard edge of accountability for deliverables must be dulled somewhat in order to pursue outcomes more vigorously; (2) shows how managers can use evaluation tools known as theories-in-action or logic models to give accounts of policy and management thrust; (3) proposes preliminary performance criteria for outcomes-focused management; and (4) attempts to sketch a new ,managing for outcomes' accountability bargain. The conclusions apply broadly to any jurisdiction interested in holding managers accountable for outcomes-focused management. [source] | ||||||||||