Expert Interview – Carmine Bianchi, Full Professor of Business & Public Management, University of Palermo, Italy
For the report Performance Management in 2013, The KPI Institute conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with practitioners, academics and consultants from 18 countries, who offered a detailed image on the state of Performance Management as a discipline.
Carmine Bianchi, Full Professor of Business & Public Management at the University of Palermo, Italy, was one of the academics that The KPI Institute interviewed.
1. What does the term Performance Management mean to you?
To me, Performance Management is, first of all, understanding the results of an organization, secondly understanding the factors impacting on results, thirdly understanding the levels on which it is possible to act in order to influence the factors that affect the results and also understanding how the results will affect future performance. Of course, this is not a mechanistic activity, so it’s not only about making calculations, there is an organization behind this concept, there is a responsibility about performance measures, so when you ask me about Performance Management, in my mind there is the Performance Management cycle, starting from the definition of objectives, not only at the operational level, but primarily starting from a strategic point of view, then there is the definition of actions and performance indicators, the implementation, the responsibilities assigned to the people in order to be able to understand how each area will contribute to the final results and then monitoring in progress and ex-post, after the implementation, the results. So that’s primarily Performance Management.
What I don’t include, something which is often considered as Performance Management, is external reporting. It is very important for an organization to communicate to external parties the performance results, like reporting about intellectual capital or social capital, but it is not primarily Performance Management, this is about the transparency of the organization. It facilitates the implementation of Performance Management, but it is not purely Performance Management.
2. What drives interest in Performance Management?
Let’s first of all make a distinction between the different patterns I envisage about the interest in performance management in private and public sector organizations. There is, of course, a historical interest in using performance management systems into private sector organizations, mainly in businesses. The Balanced Scorecard is a typical example of Performance Management application, tool and approach that was primarily used in private sector organizations. In my opinion, the reason why people are interested in Performance Management is to generate some kind of value added to the planning and control systems, i.e.: those traditional, conventional planning and control systems that businesses still have. These planning and control systems are focused on the measurement of only or primarily financial values, not the non-financial values. So the interest in the area of businesses is related to the lack of flexibility of conventional planning and control systems focused on financial values to measure what actually drives performance, which are usually non-financial indicators. This is what, to me, drives interest in Performance Management on the business point of view.
Today, in my perception, there is a rising interest in Performance Management also in the public sector. From this perspective, as I have seen in the last ten years, I can say I am surprised by the fact that Performance Management is becoming a buzzword, in the public sector and in the public opinion, rather than a means to help an organization understanding how it can generate the desired outcomes for the achievement of which it exists. There is a sort of abuse of Performance Management as a term: I think people often don’t understand properly what really Performance Management is. Doing more with less is a typical slogan that has been used in many governments in the last decade. There is an interest to pursue efficiency and effectiveness at the same time, and to use proper tools. Concerning this, what I am going to say maybe is quite strong, but this is what I perceive: regarding the reason for using for performance management in the public sector, the public interest tends to be shifted towards the means, rather than the ends. I mean the focus is primarily on the tools that might allow different stakeholders in a society to control from outside a public sector organization. The interest is very much focused on compliance, on reporting, on transparency. But in my opinion, in the public sector, there is not a corresponding strong interest about the possibility to have internal drivers of change inside public sector organization. I mean: to staff such organizations with good analysts, good people who can support the line functions in different steps of the Performance Management cycle.
So, the dynamics I can see in the public sector, particularly in Italy (as I live in Italy – though at the moment I’m in the USA – but I see that similar dynamics sometimes also in other countries), it’s quite different from the dynamics that it is possible to see in the private sector. In the public sector, the effect of this strange focus is the fact that organizations tend to accumulate huge amounts of data, and then they have difficulties in using it. So why do they have these difficulties? Because there is not a focus on design, and because, in my opinion, the driving forces are not genuinely working towards the possibility to help an organization to get better, to improve, so it’s like a control, not really a way to be interested in improving the organization. This is originated by the fact that it is probably implied that organizations hold the necessary skills to design and implement a good Performance Management system. But this is not granted at all – particularly in the public sector – due to the big cultural, knowledge and organizational gaps that such institutions have in this field.
3. What are your thoughts on the relationship between Performance Management at organizational, departmental and individual level?
Performance Management is not something that can be seen as a monolith, as one single block, because at the very end Performance Management is the management of an organization’s performance; and, to achieve organizational performance, the departments – and inside departments, the groups and individuals – should understand their own role.
Concerning this, we have to take two aspects into consideration. My thought is that the three levels are deeply interrelated to each other, and there should be a consequential relationship between them. I would even add another level before the organizational, which is the inter-organizational one, meaning that both the public and private sector organizations today must also see their own performance related to the territory. So, the question is: “to what extent is my organization contributing to the results, to the performance of the territory where I operate?” and “to what extent and how can the territory’s performance feedback on my organization’s performance?”. So this relation, seeing also the inter-organizational and the territorial performance, is very, very strong, particularly for public sector organizations. A municipality cannot, in my opinion, evaluate and manage its own performance by only considering the institutional results, i.e. the results of the municipality, since the institution converges into a territory. So it is very simplistic to say that in order to establish a financial equilibrium, which is of course very important for a municipality, a wise policy is to simply and irrationally cut a number of expenditures, without considering the negative effects that this might generate into the territory. Furthermore, it is simplistic to only focus the financial results of a Municipality, since often these measures are not able to gauge the outcomes of the municipal services on the territory. Generating poor outcomes on the territory due to irrational spending reviews, may lead in the long term to more financial problems for a Municipality. I believe this is an important cause underlying the vicious circle where a number of local governments I know are struggling today. Detecting such vicious circles and finding the proper levers to counteract them is an important part of the learning process underling performance management.
So, the first thought is that the institutional, i.e. organizational, performance is very important as a synthetic measure of performance. This level should be considered as related to an inter-organizational or territorial performance.
I give you an example of the relevance of this issue also concerning enterprises: as an entrepreneur, I can do very well on the financial and competitive points of view for my business, but at the same time I may pollute the environment, the territory, I pollute the rivers, I am always exploiting the local labor force. Is my performance going well? Probably, in a proper evaluation of my performance I should consider that in the long run this way of managing the company will generate problems, will contribute to reduce the social capital in the territory and this, sooner or later, will feedback negatively into my performance. It’s just a matter of time. So this kind of analysis cannot be a static one, it should be articulated in both space (so an organizational vs. inter-organizational or territorial dimension) and time, as when we adopt broader system boundaries in our analysis, we can get a better perspective of the time variable, which is really essential in managing and in assessing performance.
My specific thoughts about the relationships between organizational, departmental and individual levels are the following: there are two dichotomous perspectives in order to design a Performance Management system. In my opinion, one is top-down, the other one is bottom-up. If I want to understand how each part of the institution will contribute to the organizational results, there are two possibilities: starting from the bottom in analyzing what each individual does, then grouping these activities into departmental or intradepartmental activities and then understanding how the department contributes to the organization’s performance. I have respect towards such an approach, which I call as bottom-up, but I don’t believe that this approach is very productive, particularly when an organization doesn’t have experience and an established Performance Management system, or when the organization is very large – I’m thinking about a number of public sector organizations particularly. I would describe this relation not as if you put commas or dashes between the three elements, organizational, departmental, individual, but if you would put arrows. I would put arrows from left to right, organizational vs. departmental vs. maybe intra-departmental, groups in a department, and then individuals. This goes to the need to understand how strategic goals at organizational level can be articulated into lower level goals, so how each department with specific objectives will contribute to them, how to measure them, which actions will be taken, what each department will have to produce. In order to develop a viable action plan at an aggregated level into a department, it is needed to envisage how each lower level in the organization will contribute. Analyzing performance and articulating it from organizational to departmental and to the bottom, i.e. at an individual level, is not that easy when the object of an organization is not producing shoes, but it’s delivering services. This is particularly true for public services, where the problem of linking different components of the organization (back and front offices) is a key for producing a viable action plan. Very often, in the public sector, back office units operate in a far remote environment from the delivery of service to the users. So the way through which Performance Management system designers should have to implement such a sequential analysis, organizational à departmental à individual, should be once more from top to bottom, from the synthesis to detail, otherwise it might be an asymmetrical analysis.
I have a last thought concerning this point: when you mention the individual level, you give for granted that each individual in an organization at all levels must be accountable for his or her contribution to the overall performance, and that’s fine for me. But when formal Performance Management systems are established, particularly when you pretend to measure the performance of the individuals who are operating at the very bottom levels of an organization, it becomes quite hard or illusory to use the same performance management metrics for them. I want to be very straight with a very simple example about this: using performance indicators to measure the performance of a car driver it’s illusory. Here what is needed is more a qualitative analysis, i.e. a description of how the car driver has to behave and actually behaves. Therefore, I think that the performance management/measurement metrics can be properly used if applied to individual performance at management or middle management level. In the public sector, for instance, I would apply it to the first three organizational levels in a department, and therefore to all the managers and direct collaborators operating in the three departmental levels. When it comes that the performance of a gate keeper or a car driver in a department is evaluated, is it realistic to adopt the same kind of system or metrics that we have for the upper levels of the organization? We should use different metrics. Probably this is a different field from Performance Management. It’s understanding what kind of behavior the person should have to adopt and how to motivate individuals and communicate with them. Of course, this is also common to the other levels of an organization. But here it’s hard to find a direct link from individual to organizational performance. Maybe also in the lowest levels of an organization we might also have the possibility to identify some kind of measures. But it would be very hard to include such measures into a broader organizational performance management system. The more one goes in detail through the organizational chart, the harder it becomes applying the same logics of Performance Management to individuals who just have a very operational task. When you have a very low employee level, the metrics and the logics of Performance Management can be borrowed, but not applied in the same way they are applied for managers and middle managers. I see very often in public sector organizations very risky, very dangerous approaches which try to measure everything and they actually measuring nothing, as they gather a very chaotic mass of data, and the final result is bureaucratization of the Performance Management system, so it’s mismanagement.
4. What are the 2013 key trends in Performance Management?
Well, in my perception, an important trend is linking the different elements of the Performance Management cycle. In my opinion today there is an overemphasis on only the transparency of organizational results towards stakeholders, i.e. on only the last segment of the performance management cycle. When an organization does not have a viable Performance Management system, it’s hard to make results transparent. Results transparency is not only the availability of information on the services provided, but also is related to the possibility that an organization is able to identify how to modify actions to improve results, as claimed by stakeholders.
But if we want to consider the genuine term of Performance Management, I see a key trend on understanding how an organization is able to contribute, not only to generate financial results, but also to generate value for the territory, as I said before. This is another key trend, which can be found actually in the system, in nowadays life, so there is a trend regarding the measurement and the management of results, of performance regarding intellectual capital for instance. This is not a new phenomenon actually, but in general social reporting it is a very important trend.
Another trend I envisage is related to the possibility to connect to Performance Management intended as information system (oriented on only accounting measures), to the other components of Performance Management, i.e. the organizational and the strategic one. So we have different aspects of performance that should be taken into account.
This issue also leads to the discussion of the functional role of the performance management unit. Very often, in organizations it’s hard to understand that such unit should have to take a staff position. So, understanding the role of the staff of analysts, of those people who design Performance Management system is another key trend which should be taken into account. If you consider, for instance, the relatively recent reform we had in Performance Management in the public sector in Italy, there is no emphasis about this, there is a big implicit consideration that by default someone in the organization has designed the Performance Management system and someone will implement it. Therefore, the role of the designers is a very important trend that should be taken into consideration.
Last, but not the least, there is another important trend, which is related to innovative tools that can be used in Performance Management. They are very important but they can become useless or even dangerous in their use if you don’t have a proper design of Performance Management systems. Of course, intrinsic to the Performance Management design there is the design of tools, then the use of tools that can be more responsive towards strategic decision making and the possibility to link strategic decision making with implementation. Simulation is part of this trend, for instance I use system dynamics, which is a methodology that is adopted to model the feedback loops which drive the dynamics of performance measures. I call this as “Dynamic Performance Management” (DPM). DPM can facilitate the understanding of the linkages between variables and between different parts of the organization, in order to generate the results. So, one important aspect of DPM refers to the modeling of performance indicators (i.e. drivers and end results, and related strategic resources) through a system dynamics model, and how to link this model with the existing Performance Management system. So the possibility to use, to combine and to link system dynamics models and traditional performance management systems is another interesting and important trend.
Let me clarify one thing: when I mention the term “trend”, I don’t necessarily have in mind positive trends. There are also erratic and dangerous trends on this concern. Sometimes I envisage a stop-and-go behavior, concerning Performance Management in public sector organizations. As it emerges from a research I have recently conducted with a colleague in North Carolina, particularly in the public sector, governments are only focused on Performance Management when there is some kind of financial relaxation. When it comes to – like it happens today – big budget cuts, and problems in the allocation of resources arise, then Performance Management paradoxically is taken out from the governments’ agenda. Rather, the governments’ focus tends to become only the very “last mile”, i.e. the very last segment of Performance Management, i.e. transparency, communication to the parties. Only this last aspect becomes crucial and part of this transparency, also with the purpose to prevent and detect corruption in the public sector. Though such activity is very important, I would not define it as “Performance Management”.
5. What aspects of Performance Management should be explored more through research?
Well, my previous answers in a sense may give insights for this question, so I mentioned before the relationship between organizational and inter-organizational performance, this is what I am exploring more through my applied research.
Another one that I mentioned is the role of the staff function and the staff units, i.e. the analysts, or Performance Management system designers and how this role should be better focused. It’s a very old topic; research has been done on this topic since the early 70s, but paradoxically if you look at the actual behavior of many organizations, the design of Performance Management system is not taken in very high consideration, it’s more a matter of using tools, so this is a very important element as well.
I also mentioned the use of simulation to facilitate the understanding, the measurement and the framing of strategy, very often strategic plans are just, as we say in Italian, fried air, very intangible, not easy to understand, just pure declarations of intents, even in very good organizations, and there is a difficulty to understand actually what are the purposes, what are the goals and how to implement them so this is a very important and difficult activity that can be facilitated through the use of proper methods and tools, and Dynamic Performance Management can substantially help, concerning this.
The last element I mentioned before is the method through which you can design and then implement a Performance Management and measurement system starting from the organization towards the departmental and the individual, so the synthesis vs. details vs. analysis. This is another important element and the measurement of results in those organizations can be hard when back offices may have difficulties understanding what their own role is. This implies the possibility to go towards the measurement of performance and not only in terms of input, process and output, but even in terms of outcome.
The very last that comes to my mind, which I am also researching, is related to the unintended consequences of Performance Management on behavior of people in an organization. When you have a formal Performance Management system and the matter of measurement and individual performance evaluation is related to social issues, like policing, for instance, or education, you have to be very careful, as you can run the risk that employees, individuals or even managers will try to achieve “the numbers”, regardless of the implications, the actions they will implement to get the result, so making the number of the performance measure. This is specifically related to the linkages between the Performance Management system and the rewards systems. There is a risk of cannibalization: the reward system can cannibalize the Performance Management system in some areas, particularly in some situations.
6. Which companies would you recommend to be looked at due to their particular approach to Performance Management and their consequent results?
I could give as examples those companies who have implemented the Balanced Scorecard, or those companies who have tried to move from a static Balanced Scorecard towards a dynamic Balanced Scorecard, there is a literature about this. I envisage that I didn’t mention the Balanced Scorecard until now, I just implicitly mentioned it but now I’m explicitly mentioning it. I have been consulting for a company in the telecommunications industry, they had a static Balanced Scorecard and they asked me to help them in creating a dynamic Balanced Scorecard. In the causal analysis of the linkages between different performance measures, this kind of conversion through the Balanced Scorecard method is a little bit difficult and dangerous as sometimes performance drivers, i.e. measures which drive other measures, are confused with indexes, just the ratios, such as for instance the return on investment. The ROI is not generally a driver; it is just an index measuring profitability.
7. What are the main challenges of Performance Management in practice today?
In practice, first of all, it’s about having good Performance Management system designers, if you don’t have Performance Management system designers you have just an automatic, a mechanistic activity and this is why performance is becoming, or has become in many areas, buzzword and has lost a lot of possibilities to generate good results. For a more detailed answer regarding challenges, you have to go back to my answers about the key trends and about the aspects that should be explored more through research.
8. What do you think that should be improved in the use of Performance Management tools and processes?
Again, this is related to what I said before, so I anticipated a number of issues which are here in the practice section. In terms of tools I mentioned before simulation tools. I didn’t mention precisely, as I am doing now, performance measures. This is not a matter of reinventing the wheel, but very often performance measures are inappropriately calibrated, before I said that there is a confusion sometimes between what I called performance indexes and performance drivers, and this generates confusion. Sometimes there is a confusion between performance measures and resource measures. If I want to measure performance, I have to measure a result not the means, I must measure and manage the factors which lead to the result from the use of the means. Sometimes there is a confusion, so the proper use of performance measures is another important element.
Another aspect is related to what I said before. It’s not a theoretical concept, it’s very practical one. I will give you an example. In the telecommunication industry, there is the phenomenon of customer churn, i.e. the high and frequent mobility of customers from a provider to another. You can measure the number of customers in a given time, but if you want to understand the behavior of critical variables affecting the customer base over time, you must be able to link the different dots, the different elements together. This may allow organizations to understand the patterns of behavior of critical variables over time. Only then you may say “I’m in the right lane to manage and measure performance”.
Another important aspect is avoiding to be obsessed about the objective measurement. An objective measurement is not disputable in terms of errors in measurement. So, if I want to measure customer satisfaction, this is not that an objective measure. However, understanding non-objective measures and the factors which generates them, which have an impact on them is very important, if those measures relate to critical success factors from the financial, competitive or social point of view. Jay Forrester recently said something like this: if you ignore an intangible measure and an intangible variable, since it is very difficult to measure it, and that intangible variable is critical for the results, you are giving a precise value to this variable, and the value is 0. So when you ignore something because those factors are not objectively measurable you are just taking a precise position that they are not important but you are saying that they are important. So dealing with the complexity, accepting complexity and understanding that Performance Management is not just clicking buttons in a computer machine, but first of all framing reality, learning from the system, putting people around the table in a possibility to have a learning process around the performance of the company to improve or to keep it stable is very important and this is not something which happens from a day to another in an organization, this goes to the mental models of an organization. So there is a soft part of Performance Management which is as important as the hard part in terms of tools or reports. Learning facilitators and modelers have an important role too, I believe that the learning facilitator and the modeler role can be embedded in the role of the Performance Management systems analysts, the designers, that’s why I give such big importance to the design; is not the design itself, but the design as a means to verify whether the Performance Management system is used in a way that it is really functional to the development of an organization, or is just a bureaucratic tool and, therefore, a useless tool.
9. What would you consider best practice in Performance Management?
Using Performance Management as a learning vehicle, meaning what I said before, this can be perceived as very abstract. But this means verifying, even when you have performance measures, which can be counterproductive, which can induce unintended behavior in people, which can measure something that actually does not matter in terms of results, but it’s just a resource. In synthesis, I consider best practice a “learning oriented” approach to Performance Management, embodying what I said before, the proper use of performance measures, the possibility to use performance measurement in order to force a collaboration between different people in a group, understanding the counterintuitive and unintended effects as I mentioned earlier. So, I would label such best practice as a “learning oriented” planning and control system design and implementation, leading to good Performance Management. If you want a specific term, I would say “Dynamic Performance Management”. I published several articles about this and now I’m writing a book.
10 What aspects of Performance Management you think should be emphasized more during educational programs?
I think that in education, one aspect is related to the organizational implications of Performance Management, so I go back to what I said before. Another aspect is related to the tools, so I go back again to what I said before, to the method for setting performance measures, again – what I said before.
An aspect, which I didn’t mention, and it comes to my mind now, is the proper use of benchmarking tools. Benchmarking is very important in Performance Management, but when you don’t have an idea of how your company or your organization is performing, benchmarking can be very difficult to implement, as you don’t have an idea of what to measure, how to measure and whether the measure is a realistic one, and why the results have been produced when you don’t have a Performance Management system. So benchmarking is very interesting and potentially useful, as it can become a powerful lever for an organization which has a sophisticated and advanced Performance Management system to improve.
Simulation is another important aspect to consider, I mentioned it before.
11. Which are the limits in order to achieve high levels of proficiency in Performance Management among practitioners?
I believe that the major limitation relates to the linkage between line and staff. When I say staff I refer to the Performance Management systems designers, those people who have the keys of the Performance Management systems in their own minds and hands, metaphorically speaking. It is not possible to disregard the controller; once upon a time they were called controllers, now we talk about performance managers, but again this is a role of a learning facilitator. We’re talking about a group of people, a staff, trying to help other people operating in a line position in understanding the factors impacting on results, and in better setting goals and objectives, to link different parts of the organization, and the organization with its environment.
On this regard, particularly in the public sector, it is crucial the role of the controller in facilitating the communication between elected officials and managers. So, I can also mention, from the experience that I’ve done in the last decade in the public sector, the number of limitations related to the relationship between the political and the managerial level in an organization, political goals vs. managerial objectives, but also the design and implementation of action plans and the possibility to have viable action plans until you reach the individual level, so this goes back to your third question.
12. If you are to name in a few words the main aspects governing Performance Management today, what would they be?
In a few words, Performance Management should be driven, or should be governed by a learning oriented perspective, a dynamic perspective, so considering time, considering linkages, considering how, from the synthesis to the detail and not vice versa, the organization can perform. I would mention “learning oriented”, as a first element, and from synthesis to analysis, and dynamic. But these are just very, very few words, just symbols that should be explained.
I would say that the keywords for Performance Management today are: Learning oriented, meaning that you, as an organization, don’t have to implement a mechanistic approach to Performance Management systems.
The other keyword is related to the approach from synthesis to analysis. When implementing a system of performance measures, you have to first of all understand from the synthesis, i.e. what kind of results are getting produced and then to analyze the factors impacting on them. This relates – on the one side – to what I call the instrumental view of Dynamic Performance Management, i.e. relationship between end results, performance drivers and the strategic resources. On the other side, it goes back to what I call the objective view of Dynamic Performance Management, meaning the processes. Analyzing processes is not going from detail to synthesis, but going from synthesis to detail; from the synthesis you then understand what factors impact on results. So, process analysis becomes a selective method, to understand how each part of the organization contributes to the KPIs of the organization, and understanding how such KPIs can be found not only at organizational or departmental level but also at the intra-departmental level, inside a department. Through process analysis it becomes a very important element.
I mentioned a third one which relates to using a dynamic approach, so nothing is static in real world and not everything can be objectively measured, even financial values, like sales revenues, have inside them non-financial and even a bit difficult to measure factors. In order to understand and then manage performance one has to accept a level of difficulty and lack of precision in measuring performance, so performance measurement is not only something related to static and objective values. Understanding delays or patterns of behavior is critical, particularly in those dynamic and complex systems where the organization may operate, so it becomes crucial for those companies operating in unpredictable environments.
13. We are developing a database of Performance Management subjects and degrees. Which are the subjects/degrees you have come across and at which university?
I can mention a very good program which is delivered by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the USA by the School of Government. It’s on Performance Management but it’s also focused on benchmarking. There is also, at this university, a Benchmarking Program, they collect data from municipalities, they compare the results from organizations in their “research triangle”, which is an area of different municipalities around Chapel Hill, and they have periodical meetings with the managers, I think twice a year. I’ve been invited twice in such meetings and they are very well conducted, and although my colleagues at Chapel Hill don’t use system dynamics, the spirit is very similar, they try to understand the factors that may have given rise to different results in performance and it is very interesting to me the fact that the managers from different municipalities accept to talk about their own system in the same context with other colleagues coming from other “competing” municipalities, so that is something that I directly know and this is something that I really appreciated in terms of behavior.
In Europe I know there are a number of schools doing good stuff in Performance Management, in the last 10 years I’ve been more involved in public sector Performance Management so I can for instance mention a school in Leuven and Antwerp, in Belgium, but I don’t know in detail the programs they perform.
At the moment I’m here in the Albany University, they are not focused on Performance Management itself, but they actually do Performance Management through modeling so the work they have done, both in research and in education, on system dynamics modeling around performance is very interesting.
Another group of people with whom I’m in touch is the Baruch College, New York, and I’ve published even papers with a colleague of mine based in Baruch College, related exactly to the issue I mentioned before about the unintended effects of performance measurement systems. They also teach Performance Management in the public sector.
In Italy, the Bocconi University in Milan and the Pisa and Siena Universities come to my mind specifically, since I am in touch with them for Performance Management more closely than with the others, but I have a great respect also for many other colleagues in Performance Management in Italy.
At the University of Palermo, besides the PhD program in “Model Based Public Planning, Policy Design and Management”, we have also a master, European Master in System Dynamics, which covers only a semester in Performance Management, but we are going to launch a master in public management, which will be explicitly focused on Performance Management. Also we offer a one year program on Dynamic Performance management.
For more interviews with professionals from all over the world, access Performance Management in 2013