Analysis of the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic controlling instrument with an example from the insurance industry

Table of contents

List of abbreviations

Table of figures

1. Introduction
1.1 The problem
1.2 The goal
1.3 Structure of the analysis

2. Controlling
2.1 Definition of controlling
2.2 Goals and duties of controlling
2.3 The controlling system
2.4 Strategic versus operative controlling
2.5 Selected performance measurement systems

3. BSC as a management system
3.1 Accruement and development of the BSC
3.2 Structure and goals of a BSC
3.3 Perspectives of the BSC
3.3.1 The financial perspective
3.3.2 The customer perspective
3.3.3 The internal-business-process perspective
3.3.4 The learning and growth perspective
3.3.5 Other perspectives
3.4 Requirements and implementation process of a BSC
3.5 Chances and risks of a BSC
3.5.1 Chances of a BSC
3.5.2 Risks of a BSC

4. The BSC as a management system in the ABC1 Versicherungs AG
4.1 The insurance industry
4.2 The company
4.3 Controlling in the ABC1 Versicherungs AG
4.4 BSC as a strategic controlling instrument in the ABC1 Versicherungs AG
4.4.1 Perspectives of the company’s BSC
4.4.2 Implementation of the BSC in the company
4.4.3 Chances and risks of using the BSC in the company
4.5 Critical comments

5. Summary

6. List of literature

List of abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table of figures

Figure I: Manager, controller and controlling

Figure II: The controlling system according to Horvath

Figure III: The BSC as a strategic management system

Figure IV: The four perspectives of the BSC

Figure V: Lagging indicators of the market share

Figure VI: Generic value chain model of the internal business process

Figure VII: Early and lagging indicators of the learning and growth perspective

Table I: Differentiation of controlling duties

Table II: Criteria of operative and strategic controlling in comparison

1. Introduction

1.1 The problem

In view of the growing competition, the increased change in customers’ wants and the potential of new communication and information technologies, more and more companies are faced with the need to permanently adjust and further develop their processes, products and offer.

To be able to exist in the market, a company must be in a position to recognise future developments early and include them in the strategy. A company should therefore use management instruments which make it able to adjust strategies quickly and communicate them transparently in the whole company.

There is increasing criticism of the classical controlling instruments. It is argued that controlling is supposed to provide management relevant data for the management which do not only include financial historical information as so far, but also include future related non-monetary figures. Against this background the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is becoming more important. It extends the previous focus on finance issues to assess the performance of a company with a range of other aspects and ratios. The customer perspective, the internal process perspective and the learning and development perspective are supposed to be considered equally next to the financial perspective in the BSC.

1.2 The goal

The targets of this thesis are split into a main target and a sub target.

The main target of this paper is split again into two parts:

- The first part of the main target is to show and to explain the relevant theoretical framework of the BSC, in particular to strategic controlling.
- The second part of the main target is to analyse the BSC as a strategic management system and to give an overview about this strategic controlling tool as it is seen in academic literature.

The sub target of this paper is to provide a link between theory and practice by applying the theory to a current example taken from the insurance industry.

The result is a recommendation for a BSC as a strategic controlling instrument for that specific insurance company. With this specific BSC for an insurance company comes also a tool for a well structured evaluation of the chances and risks involved with its application.

1.3 Structure of the analysis

Due to the goal of this paper, the analysis starts with an outline of the problem, that traditional controlling instruments are no longer suitable in markets with increasing competition, because of their past orientation. Thereby the analysis is focused on the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic controlling and steering instrument to solve this problem.

In the second step of this thesis the theoretical background of the Balanced Scorecard is presented. Therefore the paper provides a definition and explanation of controlling, its goals and a differentiation between strategic and operative controlling as it is seen in economic literature. Moreover a comparison of the BSC with different other performance measurements systems is given at the end of the first part.

The thesis continues with a detailed analysis of the BSC as a strategic controlling instrument. At the beginning the accruement, development and structure of a BSC is presented. Furthermore it shows the several perspectives and the implementation process of a BSC and the role of the BSC in support of the management by implementing a company’s strategy into operative business action. This part of the analysis ends with a comparison of the opportunities and risks of the BSC.

To build a linkage between theory and practice, in the forth chapter a recommendation for a BSC in the ABC1 Versicherungs AG is given - and finally evaluated in comparison to theory. First of all, to present the ABC1 Versicherungs AG a brief market analysis of the insurance industry is outlined. Followed by a company description and an overview about controlling applied in the ABC1 Versicherungs AG. Afterwards the BSC is described as a strategic controlling instrument for that specific company under consideration of the necessary perspectives and the implementation process. In addition to this, the opportunities and risks connected with an implementation of a BSC in this company are identified.

At the end of the fourth chapter theory and practice are compared. Herewith similarities and differences between the theory used and the example presented from practice are elaborated.

The paper finishes with a summary and a brief outlook of future steps to implement the BSC successfully.

2. Controlling

2.1 Definition of controlling

The Anglo-Saxon term controlling has more meanings than just to control. Rather it can be understood as affecting, giving orientation and keeping in check. Therefore it means to have something under control, to be informed about processes and occurrences as well as the possibility to recommend and intervene in order to realise the ideas and visions of the management and the business objectives^[1].

There exist no consistent definition or translation for the term controlling in the economic and scientific literature^[2]. Furthermore controlling was and will steadily be enhanced and therefore several definitions of the term are given^[3].

An early approach to define the term controlling can be found at SCHIERENBECK in 1994. According to SCHIERENBECK controlling generally means a concept of business steering by systematic planning and performance monitoring. Thereby the coordination of all activities is just as important as gathering all relevant information and data for decisions^[4].

According to KÜPPER, in its nucleus the controlling function is the coordination of a integrated management system to ensure a target orientated steering^[5].

Elsewhere in his publications: Controlling understood as coordination can not be seen as synonymous with management. In particular the though of controlling`s steering function becomes evident by its character of connecting all management systems^[6].

According to HEIGL controlling shall be understood as function for the purchase, editing and evaluating of information for its application to steer the economic operation adjusted to its targets^[7].

And WEBER writes: Controlling has the duty to secure the rationality of leadership^[8].

HORVATH defines controlling as a subsystem for top management, which systematically coordinates planning and monitoring as well as the providing of information. By this controlling supports the adjustment and coordination of the whole management system. Accordingly controlling is a support for management^[9]. Controlling enables management to adapt the entire system and orientate it to opportunities of their business environment as well as to fulfil their coordination duties in regard to the operating system^[10].

GÜNTHER also follows HORVATH`s definition approach when he describes controlling as aid to management and so as part of the steering process. Controlling includes the acquisition and processing of information. Thereby controlling performs more than the only monetary orientated accounting, because also quantitative-, non-monetary- and qualitative information has to be acquired and processed and can have relevance for decisions^[11].

In regard to the process of controlling, GÜNTHER defines it as a cybernetic process to achieve the companies goals^[12].

Controlling in a company is an economic discipline which is developed from practice. It was enhanced by scientific research and has found its own way in the meantime. The duty of controlling can be seen as a task to ensure the character of uniqueness of its company by differentiation and plurality respecting the external chances and risks as well as of its internal strengths and weaknesses^[13].

Most definitions of controlling are made ex cathedra^[14]. HORVATH bases his statements and definitions on empirical research and he analysed controlling based on hypotheses^[15].

In the following thesis controlling is understood and used as defined by HORVATH.

2.2 Goals and duties of controlling

The whole management of a company lead by top management has the task to organise complex measures to assure that the corporate objectives are achieved. These objectives can be contents goals as well as formal goals^[16]. The main objective of controlling generally is to ensure the company's continuance as a going concern and derived from this the realisation of a profit target^[17].

The goals of controlling are to ensure and to sustain the ability of the management in regard to coordination, reaction and adaptation, so that the management can achieve the company’s results and intrinsic factual objectives^[18].

In the formal approach the major objectives of controlling are support of the planning process, coordination of several business activities as well as checking and monitoring the economic results^[19].

In regard to the given definition of controlling in the economic literature^[20], the duties of controlling can be derived. These goals can be split into fixed and variable assignments^[21].

The essential scope of duties of the controller are defined as follows^[22]:

- Planning, development of planning processes and carrying out planning processes^[23], the
- information and reporting, processes for generating data and for providing information to management^[24], and
- control tasks, definition of limits for tolerances, target-actual comparison, variance analyses, help for self control, forecasts and extrapolations and counter steering measures^[25].

HORVATH defines the duties of controlling as being all activities to realise the objectives of controlling (functional aspects)^[26]. The differentiation of the controlling duties can be made according to various criteria. The major possibilities for differentiating the controlling duties according to HORVATH are^[27]:

- In regard to the company goals, one can differentiate between operative and strategic controlling duties^[28].
- In regard to the aspect of carrying out controlling one can differentiate between system developing and building duties and system coupling duties^[29].
- In regard to the aspect of the controlling object one can differentiate between the tasks, the planning and check system and the information providing system^[30].

The following table shows the differentiation of controlling according to HORVATH.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Own illustration: Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), pp. 142-145.

Table I: Differentiation of controlling duties

Controlling deals with loop systems in regard to objectives as well as planning and control, of strategic and operative control factors^[31].

Whereas HORVATH defines the coordination function not only as major duty of controlling but - as specific characteristic of controlling - as a central term defining parameter^[32], other authors emphasize more the reference to decisions or the steering function of controlling^[33].

According to this, CHMIELEWICZ sees the duty of controlling in the adoption of accounting to the demand of information of management^[34]. REICHMANN also means the processes of providing information when he says that the controller is a communicator of methods, consultant for concepts and provider of information of management^[35]. However, the primary duty of controlling is to provide information to the management in regard to the problems of their decision-making process. Management defines company goals, formulates competitive strategies and sets the frameworks for operative actions.

Controlling analyses the requirements for information, elaborates economic concepts, provides methodical know-how, elaborates task related evaluations, and provides data processing (DP) based solutions^[36].

The following figure shows controlling as intersection and interlink between management and controller.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Cf. w.a., http://www.controllerverein.de/redaktion/download.php?id=449&type=file, as of November, 3rd 2006.

Figure I: Manager, controller and controlling

Controllers are utilised on different management levels in different functional areas e.g. in R&D, purchasing, marketing & sales, logistics and HR. The controller performs controlling tasks in each level and function. Controlling is increasingly expanding its territory of action into other fields. These are for example project-, product- or product lifecycle controlling in order to achieve a more strategic orientation of the company. Also utilised as investment-, financial participation- and especially in quality- and project controlling^[37]. As shown above, the established elements of the controlling duty are planning, internal accounting, cost planning, -analysis and -reduction, investment and profitability analysis and reporting.

Additionally, controlling has specific variable duties like DP, revision, taxes etc., depending on the corporate structure, on the management level at which controlling is positioned, on its actual task and especially on the corporate size^[38].

The International Group of Controlling (IGC) (formerly Interessengemeinschaft Controlling) developed a so called controller concept in 1996 and updated it in 2002^[39]. In the current concept the IGC characterises the standards and responsibilities of a controller and thus the duties of controlling^[40].

“Controllers design and accompany such management processes as identifying goals, planning and directing, thus shouldering some of the responsibility for accomplishing those goals.”^[41]

According to the ICG the duties and responsibilities of a controller in particular and thus of controlling are^[42]:

- Controllers provide transparency in such areas as strategy, performance measurement, finance and processes, thus helping to achieve better efficiency^[43].
- Controllers coordinate the various targets and plans. They organise enterprise-wide reporting with an eye to the future^[44].
- Controllers moderate and design the controlling process of goal-finding, planning and management control so that decision makers can better target their efforts^[45].
- Controllers provide the key data and information needed for business decisions^[46].
- Controllers develop and maintain controlling systems^[47].

2.3 The controlling system

The economic literature agrees that there is not only one, dominating corporate goal in regard to decision problems. Rather a multidimensional target system with horizontal and vertical target relations is needed^[48].

The main corporate goals can be seen as the duty to ensure the company's continuance as a going concern as the long term, strategic target as well as profit and liquidity as the short term target. From these main corporate goals several sub targets can be derived again. For example it is possible to increase the profit by saving interest, by reducing the capital lockup, by increase the prices or by reducing the distribution costs^[49].

Ensuring the company's continuance as a going concern means making the company on a continuing basis adaptable for changes in the corporate environment and the thereby involved changes in the company. External opportunities and risks should be identified and linked to the strengths and weaknesses of the company to generate an optimal cover ratio between the company’s strengths with environmental opportunities^[50]. GÄLWEILER coined the term chance of succeeding for this interrelation^[51].

The part of controlling concerned with this, is strategic controlling^[52]. The chance of succeeding can be monetarily seen as the corporate value (shareholder value) against the background of a corporate value oriented management^[53].

The both short term main corporate goals profit and liquidity can be realised with a lag, because ensuring the company's continuance as a going concern takes financial resources and investments at first^[54].

From the chronological point of view the profit goals will be reached earlier than the liquidity goals^[55]. This is due to the principal of adjustment of the periodic accounting systems - year-end accounts and cost accounting - as well as to market and competition influences^[56].

For example at the introduction of new products the demand for the innovation can be less price sensitive and the competitors can be less aggressive. Indeed investments debit the liquidity in its entirety, however the periodic profit only by the amount of the depreciation (analogous to the costs of acquisition prorated to the asset life) and the interest on the invested capital^[57].

As a result of this the target profit runs ahead of the target liquidity. However liquidity is an essential requirement to take operative and strategic measures^[58].

According to HORVATH the controlling system, as a subsystem of management^[59], comprising a planning and monitoring system, an information providing system and a coordination system for the adaptation of planning and check as well as information supply^[60]. Insofar the duty of controlling as part of the steering system is the whole coordination in regard to the result / profit targets^[61]. These systems can be illustrated as follows:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 111.

Figure II: The controlling system according to Horvath

Thereby HORVATH names accounting as the major instrument, which provides the receiver orientated, decision supplying information need for steering. The basis of a management orientated accounting allows the development of budgets and the formulation of target figures as steering and coordination instruments^[62].

The controller is responsible for the development and effective use of controlling instruments, which contribute to the control of target achievement.

The information system is a main item of any controlling system. This system is integrated part of the target, planning and monitoring system of a corporation^[63].

According to DEYHLE, the information system has to ensure, that every manager, differentiated by function and hierarchy, gets the information, which is needed for his goal, planning and control functions. The information has to be provided in time and in different levels of summarisation according to the information need of each management level^[64].

The controller has to get the information in time by using the right instruments and after processing them, to deliver the data / information receiver orientated and summarised to the different management levels to fulfil these duties^[65].

This process is described by REICHMANN as a controlling system (in sense of a information system) with three levels^[66].

- On the bottom level the information is summarised in regard to the financial planning, profit and loss account, cost accounting and capital accounting^[67].
- On the medium level the figures are combined to turnover-, cost-, profit- and finance plans as well as to the budgeted balance sheet^[68].
- On the top level the figure are integrated in a management ratio system^[69].

An efficient management is only possible, if the management always has an all-embracing and actual knowledge about the situation of the company. Every managerial decision bases on information. Therewith exists the danger of wrong managerial decisions, because information does not exist or is provided incompletely or too late^[70].

The existing and increasing flow of data can only efficiently be handled by computerised support^[71].

Planning is a central part of the steering system. Also it can be understood as the systematic, future orientated setting of targets, measures and methods to achieve future goals^[72]. Furthermore planning is an important coordination instrument to steer corporate processes and an effort to eliminate uncertainty^[73]. The controller becomes the coordinator between overall targets and sub targets as well as overall plans and sub plans^[74]. In this connexion the controller adjusts the sub targets and sub plans and combines both to one overall plan^[75].

Planning and monitoring have to be seen close together^[76]. Without planning and target setting it is not possible to identify variances by target-actual comparisons. The analysis results of this comparison form the basis for corporate management - but due to a lack of planning and target setting, this analysis is not applicable^[77].

This ongoing and systematic monitoring (assumption-, progress- and result monitoring) of the corporate situation and development is the basis of potentially needed adoption and correction measures^[78]. In addition to this feedback principal, the management needs information for the planning in regard to the feed forward principal^[79]. More specialised analyses of variances than the classical target-actual comparison provide the possibility of future orientated steering^[80]. So controlling acts not only as a check, but also in preparation of decisions^[81].

The process of corporate management via controlling is based on two instruments^[82]:

- First on a adequate management style (management as to be understood as management / steering by objectives)^[83].
- Second on a respective information system as decision support for profit responsible mangers. Ratios and ratio systems respectively as differentiated instruments are thereby an important support and assistance^[84].

SCHREYÖGG disagrees with the basis understanding of planning and monitoring, seen as a combined function. According to SCHREYÖGG, the environmental dynamics and complexity necessitate a total different planning and monitoring process. In this process the monitoring has the duty to compensate the selection risk of planning. This means the monitoring is not the finishing part of the classical cycle planning-realisation-control, but has to continuously audit the selection decision of the planning process in regard to its further correctness and topicality from the very first^[85].

The planning and monitoring system is an instrument of objective orientated corporate management / steering^[86]. The focusing of the accounting figures as an information system only on the achievement of the company’s monetary targets is thereby not enough^[87]. Operative and strategic profit and liquidity controlling is an essential element of the planning and monitoring process for steering and monitoring the managerial activities^[88]. This should be complemented by including the society orientated reporting (for example about social and ecological consequences of the company’s actions) as a instrument of modern, future orientated corporate management^[89].

The multidimensional target system and the cybernetic process character of controlling cause inevitable complexity of the corporate management. The different elements of the system have to harmonised.

The idea of controlling can be implemented in a controlling system to meet the claim caused by the complexity of corporate management. The subsystems of strategic and operative controlling have to be linked together to create the multidimensional target system and these subsystems have to be integrated in a cybernetic process of goals, planning, realisation and control^[90].

2.4 Strategic versus operative controlling

Controlling can be split in strategic and operative controlling, which have different duties^[91], but complement one another to the overall system of controlling^[92].

At this point the term strategy should be defined, before strategic and then operative controlling are presented and explained in detail. Because there is no one definition of the term strategy in economic literature, the term is understood in this thesis as the path towards implementation of a corporate goal. The strategy describes the rough direction for the long term achievement of the goal by several steps. Moreover the implementation of a strategy consists of a bundle of several measures^[93].

According to GÜNTER and LANGGUTH, operative and strategic controlling can be distinguished by nine criteria. Thus there is no standardized and clear definition of it in the literature^[94]. Thereby it has to be considered, that both sub systems are closely interlocked with each other. Strategic and operative thinking have to be an unity. Both questions - Are we doing the right things (strategic thinking)? - and - Are we doing the things right (operative thinking)? - are inseparably locked together^[95].

The following table shows the criteria of operative and strategic controlling in comparison.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Cf. Günther, T. (1991), p. 38; Langguth, H. (1994), p. 24; Horvath, P. (2001), p. 15.

Table II: Criteria of operative and strategic controlling in comparison

The operative feasibility has to be considered at all strategic matters. On the other side operative matters only make sense in a strategic context. Due to this planning, control and monitoring have to be arranged and practised as a integrated over-all system. This means strategic and operative planning as well as substantive goals and formal objective orientated planning have to be linked-up^[96].

There is consensus about the question in economic literature, if strategic steering needs an objective orientated coordination support in regard to its exercise of function just as the operative planning and steering do. Thereby the support is not focused on profit targets, but on chances of succeeding which can be described as chances and risks. However functionally it is the same circumstance as it is in operative controlling^[97].

Strategic planning includes the development of chances of succeeding, this means the corporation detects and creates market positions, which generate profits on a long term basis^[98]. Strategic planning has to be “intrinsically woven into the entire fabric of management”^[99]. This is the approach of strategic management. It is also about the implementation, enforcement and monitoring of strategies. The approach of the strategic management requires the widening of the controlling perspective from the operative to the strategic action in the corporate^[100].

From the strategic point of view, strategic controlling is a sub system of overall controlling^[101]. The term strategic controlling, according to the term controlling, is not clearly defined in practise as well as in theory. This is shown by comparisons of several concepts^[102]. Differences exist in the terminology used and in the required scale of the strategic controlling system (e.g. inclusion of interfaces to operative and overall company planning, realisation and control). Only a couple of authors assign the coordination of the operative and strategic sub systems and the function of information supply to strategic controlling^[103].

According to HORVATH strategic controlling means carrying out of the controlling duties to support the strategic steering of the company^[104].

Strategic controlling is the coordination of strategic planning and monitoring with the strategic information supply. This means in particular the carrying out of planning management duties in regard to the strategic planning^[105].

It has to be considered, that the content part of the planning and monitoring process is not a component of the controller function. Rather this part of the processes is a duty of the management^[106].

As a derivation from the controlling concept, strategic controlling can be understood as^[107]:

- The supply of the management with relevant information for decisions^[108],
- and the coordination of several strategic and operative sub systems of a corporation, with the main target to ensure sustainable corporate existence^[109].

Strategic controlling is based on the cybernetic controlling process, which is comprised of the strategic planning, realisation and control. Furthermore strategic controlling supports the strategic leadership and management process^[110].

The following impacts on the conception of strategic controlling result from this concept^[111]:

- Strategic actions have to be planed (strategic planning) and to be controlled (strategic monitoring) concerning the achievement of objectives, the premises and the mission statement after the implementation has taken place^[112].
- Strategic controlling has to be incorporated into the controlling system^[113]. From this it follows, that the main target of ensuring the existence of the company as a going concern have to be seen on the same level as the main operative targets profit and liquidity. Furthermore that the strategic planning has to be coordinated with the operative planning. Moreover reactions to the strategic control arise from the operative control (e.g. concerning the aptitude of the strategy in case of perennial, serious losses) and finally also to the goals. The strategic goals have to be revised maybe (target revision)^[114].
- Suitable strategic decision criteria and analysis tools have to be developed for the decision support. As a result of the term strategic controlling described here, the strategies have to be itemised for implementation and support of the realisation. For example, expansion strategies have to be split in adequate operative actions, which can be evaluated concerning their achievement of the goals by a mile stone control (operative planning and control)^[115]

[...]

---

^[1] Cf. Ziegenbein, K. (2004), p. 22.

^[2] Cf. Ebert, G., Koinecke, J., Peemöller, V. (2000), p. 16.

^[3] Cf. Ziegenbein, K. (2004), p. 23.

^[4] Cf. Schierenbeck, H. (1994), p. 52.

^[5] Cf. Küpper, H.-U. (2005), p. 37.

^[6] Cf. Küpper, H.-U. (2005), p. 43.

^[7] Reichmann pick up the definition of controlling according to HEIGL from 1978, cf. Reichmann, T. (2006), p. 2.

^[8] Cf. Weber, J., Schäffer, U. (2006), p. 27.

^[9] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 152.

^[10] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 153.

^[11] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), p. 4.

^[12] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), p. 5.

^[13] Cf. Ziegenbein, K. (2004), p. 3.

^[14] Cf. Graßhoff, J. (2003), p. 273.

^[15] Cf. Graßhoff, J. (2003), p. 274.

^[16] Formal goals are goals in regard to profit and liquidity, cf. Graßhoff, J. (2003), p. 251.

^[17] Cf. Graßhoff, J. (2003), p. 251.

^[18] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 143.

^[19] Cf. Reichmann, T. (2006), p. 7.

^[20] Cf. Chapter 2.1.

^[21] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 795.

^[22] Cf. Kalwait, R., Maginot, S. (1998), pp. 57-61.

Cf. Buchner, H., Mayer, F. (2000), pp. 129-133.

Cf. Syska, A. (2006), pp. 607-608.

^[23] Cf. Kalwait, R., Maginot, S. (1998), pp. 57-61.

Cf. Buchner, H., Mayer, F. (2000), pp. 129-133.

Cf. Syska, A. (2006), pp. 607-608.

^[24] Cf. Kalwait, R., Maginot, S. (1998), pp. 57-61.

Cf. Buchner, H., Mayer, F. (2000), pp. 129-133.

Cf. Syska, A. (2006), pp. 607-608.

^[25] Cf. Kalwait, R., Maginot, S. (1998), pp. 57-61.

Cf. Buchner, H., Mayer, F. (2000), pp. 129-133.

Cf. Syska, A. (2006), pp. 607-608.

^[26] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), pp. 142-145.

^[27] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), pp. 142-145.

^[28] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), pp. 142-145.

^[29] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), pp. 142-145.

^[30] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), pp. 142-145.

^[31] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 790.

^[32] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 795.

^[33] Cf. Amshoff, B. (1994), pp. 172-174.

^[34] Cf. Chmielewicz, K. (2002), pp. 132-137.

^[35] Cf. Reichmann, T. (2006), p. 6.

^[36] Cf. Reichmann, T. (2006), p. 8.

^[37] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), pp. 795-796.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2001), p. 15.

^[38] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 796.

^[39] Cf. Gleich, R., http://www.horvath-partners.com/hp3/media/DIR_200376/DIR_1143975/0x.

Gleich_Leistungssteigerung_und_Leistungsmessung_im_Control..pdf, as of October, 10th 2006, p. 2.

^[40] Cf. w.a., http://www.controllerverein.de/_cmsdata/_cache/cms_34.html, as of October, 10th 2006.

^[41] See w.a., http://www.igc-controlling.org/img/pdf/controller_e.pdf, p. 1, as of October, 11th 2006.

^[42] Cf. w.a., http://www.igc-controlling.org/img/pdf/controller_e.pdf, p. 1, as of October, 11th 2006.

^[43] Cf. w.a., http://www.igc-controlling.org/img/pdf/controller_e.pdf, p. 1, as of October, 11th 2006.

^[44] Cf. w.a., http://www.igc-controlling.org/img/pdf/controller_e.pdf, p. 1, as of October, 11th 2006.

^[45] Cf. w.a., http://www.igc-controlling.org/img/pdf/controller_e.pdf, p. 1, as of October, 11th 2006.

^[46] Cf. w.a., http://www.igc-controlling.org/img/pdf/controller_e.pdf, p. 1, as of October, 11th 2006.

^[47] Cf. w.a., http://www.igc-controlling.org/img/pdf/controller_e.pdf, p. 1, as of October, 11th 2006.

^[48] Cf. Coenenberg, A., Salfeld, R. (2003), p. 261.

^[49] Cf. Baum, H., Conenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), pp. 5-6.

^[50] Cf. Baum, H., Conenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), p. 6.

^[51] Cf. Gälweiler, A. (1981), p. 87.

^[52] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 248.

^[53] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 489.

Cf. Günther, T. (1997), p. 68.

^[54] Cf. Mayer, E., Liessmann, K., Freidank, C.-Ch. (1999), pp. 124-126.

Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 882.

Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther T. (2004), pp. 6-7.

^[55] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 882.

Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther T. (2004), pp. 6-7.

^[56] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther T. (2004), pp. 6-7.

^[57] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther T. (2004), pp. 6-7.

^[58] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 882.

Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther T. (2004), pp. 6-7.

^[59] Cf. Chapter 2.1.

^[60] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 111.

^[61] Cf. Chapter 2.2.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 110.

^[62] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 111.

^[63] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 801.

^[64] Cf. Deyhle, A. (1991), pp. 2-4.

^[65] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 802.

^[66] Cf. Reichmann, T. (2006), pp. 5-8.

^[67] Cf. Reichmann, T. (2006), pp. 5-8.

^[68] Cf. Reichmann, T. (2006), pp. 5-8.

^[69] Cf. Reichmann, T. (2006), pp. 5-8.

^[70] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 803.

^[71] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 626.

^[72] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 803.

^[73] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006b), p. 159.

^[74] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006b), p. 122.

^[75] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 804.

^[76] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 110.

^[77] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther T. (2004), p. 8.

^[78] Cf. Ziegenbein, K. (2004), p. 546.

^[79] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther T. (2004), p. 8.

^[80] Cf. Ziegenbein, K. (2004), p. 138.

^[81] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 804.

^[82] Cf. Simon, H., v. d. Gathen, A. (2002), p. 9.

^[83] Cf. Simon, H., v. d. Gathen, A. (2002), p. 9.

^[84] Cf. Simon, H., v. d. Gathen, A. (2002), p. 9.

^[85] Cf. Schreyögg, G. (1994), p. 345.

^[86] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006b), p. 122.

^[87] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 804.

^[88] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006b), p. 122.

^[89] Cf. Hopfenbeck, W. (2002), p. 804.

^[90] Cf. Hahn, D., Hungenberg, H. (2001), pp. 19-22.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2001), p. 15.

^[91] Cf. Chapter 2.3.

^[92] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 248.

^[93] Cf. v. Oetinger, B., v. Ghyczy, T., Bassford, Ch. (2003), pp. 32-35.

Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), p. 2.

^[94] Cf. Günther, T. (1991), p. 38.

Cf. Langguth H. (1994), p. 24.

^[95] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 248.

^[96] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 249.

^[97] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 248.

^[98] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 249.

^[99] See Steiner, G. (1997), p. 3.

^[100] Cf. Bea, F., Haas, J. (2005), pp. 102-105.

^[101] Cf. Deyhle, A. (2001), p. 24.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 249.

^[102] Cf. Günther, T. (1991), pp. 54-57.

Cf. Langguth, H. (1994), pp. 27-31.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 248.

^[103] Cf. Langguth, H. (1994), pp. 28-29.

Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), p. 7.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 249.

^[104] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), pp. 7-8.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 249.

^[105] Cf. Horvath, P. (2006a), p. 249.

^[106] Cf. Horvath, P. (1978), p. 195.

^[107] Cf. Langguth, H. (1994), p. 23.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2001), p. 15.

^[108] Cf. Langguth, H. (1994), p. 23.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2001), p. 15.

^[109] Cf. Langguth, H. (1994), p. 23.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2001), p. 15.

^[110] Cf. Langguth, H. (1994), p. 23.

Cf. Horvath, P. (2001), p. 15.

^[111] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), pp. 9-11.

^[112] Cf. Horvath, P. (2001), p. 15.

Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), pp. 9-11.

^[113] Cf. Horvath, P. (2001), p. 15.

^[114] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), pp. 9-11.

^[115] Cf. Baum, H., Coenenberg, A., Günther, T. (2004), pp. 9-11.