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

Abstract - This study presents a comparison between the United data for the study of Thai Government agency-supported
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Thai Government RBM technique were collected from a project which was
agency use of results-based management (RBM) and public undertaken in Kamphaengphet province in the northern region

M
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,
EB
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
A
I. 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
IJ
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 UNDP-
supported 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.

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
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

ISSN: 2230-7826 @ 2011 http://www.ijaebm.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 33

 Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
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
M
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
EB
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
A
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
IJ
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 @ 2011 http://www.ijaebm.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
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.
Page 34
 Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
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)
M
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.
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
EB
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
A
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
IJ
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 @ 2011 http://www.ijaebm.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 1, Issue No. 1, 033 - 038
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
Page 35
 Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
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
methods. (2) Focus Group Discussion. Three groups of
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/
M
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
EB
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.
IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS
A
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
IJ
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 @ 2011 http://www.ijaebm.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 1, Issue No. 1, 033 - 038
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 RBM-
oriented 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 RBM-
oriented 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: co-
workers, 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
Page 36
 Watana Patanapongse et al. / (IJAEBM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
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 RBM-
oriented 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.
M
V. 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.
EB
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.
A
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
IJ
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 @ 2011 http://www.ijaebm.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
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.
REFERENCES
[1] Canadian International Development Agency, Results-based
Management, Canada: CIDA, 1999.
[2] Clancy, K.R., Human resource development evaluation: A case study
of the Canadian International Development Agency,
M.D.E., Dalhousie University (Canada) Dissertation, 1993.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] United Nations Development Programme, Evaluation of Results-based
Management at UNDP, New York: United Nations Development
Programmes, 2007.
[6] United Nations Development Programme, Handbook on Planning,
Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, New York: UNDP,
2009.
[7] OECD, Governance in Transition: Public Management Reform in
OECD Countries, OECD, Paris, 1995.
[8] Kaplan, R.S. and D. P. Norton, Balanced Scorecard: Translating
Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
[9] Try, D. and Z. Radnor, “Developing an understanding of results-
based management through public value theory,” International
Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 20, pp. 655-675, 2007
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 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

[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.
[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.

M
EB
A
IJ

ISSN: 2230-7826 @ 2011 http://www.ijaebm.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 38