Performance Management Blog

Archive for the ‘Index’ Category

The 2011 Global Peace Index

Friday, July 8th, 2011

Recently, the Institute for Economics and Peace published the latest report on the Global Peace Index (GPI). The GPI is a measure of global peacefulness which reflects the influence from domestic and international conflict, safety and security issues in society.

The 2011 GPI reports the peacefulness in 153 countries and is made up of 23 peace indicators. Each country is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 for each indicator, where 1 indicates most peaceful. Examples of peace indicators are:

Level of organized conflict;
Armed services personnel;
Weapons imports;
Jailed population.

According to the results of GPI 2011, the top five peaceful countries are Iceland, New Zealand, Japan, Denmark and Czech Republic. By contrast, Somalia is the most unpeaceful country followed by Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Full list of country rankings and score details are available to public through the interactive map.

Source: Global Peace Index, 2011

The key finds of the GPI 2011 Report address that the world is less peaceful for the third straight year due to an increase threat of terrorist attacks and likelihood of violent demonstrations.

Reference

Institute For Economics & Peace, 2011, Global Peace Index 2011, available at: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2011/scor (accessed 8 July 2011)

Tags: Global Peace Index 2011, GPI 2011, the Institute of Economics and Peace
Posted in Index, Performance Management, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Australian manufacturing industry contraction: highlights from the April 2011 Australian PMI

Monday, June 6th, 2011

According to the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the manufacturing industry in Australia is on a contraction trend, with the Australian Performance Manufacturing Index (PMI) below 50 points in April 2011 (which is the level separating expansion from contraction).

Some of the highlights of the Australian PMI survey are the following (Ai Group & PwC, 2011):

The manufacturing sector contracted in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, but expanded in other states;
Margins narrowed, as selling prices decreased, while wages and input costs increased;
The decline was more significant in the transport equipment and textiles, due to the strengthening of the Australian dollar, soft national demand and import competition;
However, manufacturing output expanded 2.4 point (especially led by the clothing & footwear, basic metals, and machinery & equipment sub-sectors);
Also, the capacity utilization rose to 74.4% (especially in the miscellaneous manufactures and food & beverages sub-sectors);
Overall, the areas that expanded from the previous month were Production, Input prices and Average wages (these two affecting production costs), as well as Capacity utilization, while the others contracted (Employment, New orders, Inventories, Export and Selling prices). (more…)

Tags: Australia, economic indicators, manufacturing, Manufacturing KPIs, manufacturing performance, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Posted in Index, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Women’s Economic Opportunity Index – a tool for improving the economic performance of human society

Thursday, February 10th, 2011

In one of our previous blog posts, “Gender diversity – global trends and the influence on organizational performance”, we explored several issues relating to gender diversity of top executives and managers in corporations, and the associated effects of gender diversity on organizational performance.

The debate on gender diversity was triggered by the fact that women do not have the same opportunities like man to reach top positions in organizations, despite the proved positive effects brought by managerial gender diversity, on the improvement of organizational performance.

A recent study released by the Economist Intelligence Unit explores the variation of the women economic opportunities around the world. The study conducted on a sample of 113 countries representing all continents was used to develop and inform the Women’s Economic Opportunity Index, the first of its kind.

The purpose of the index is to raise debate and create awareness about the factors that affect women’ ability to access business opportunities, in order to stimulate the creation of more productive and performing economies.

According with the Economist Intelligence Unit research, the women economic opportunity is defined as “a set of laws, regulations, practices, customs and attitudes that allow women to participate in the workforce under conditions roughly equal with those of men” (The Economist, 2011).

The results of the study show that the top 3 countries which made the most significant improvements in advancing economic business opportunities for women are Sweden, Belgium and Norway, all developed countries from Western Europe, while at the bottom of the table lay Sudan, Yemen and Chad, African countries from the “less developed world”.

Detailed results of the research are covered in the presentation below.

Source: The Economist, (2011)

References

The Economist (2011), Imbalance of opportunity, available at http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/economic_opportunities_women, (accessed 8 February 2011)

Additional resources

smartKPIs.com (2010), Gender diversity – global trends and the influence on organizational performance, smartKPIs.com Blog, available at http://www.smartkpis.com/blog/2010/10/15/gender-diversity-global-trends-and-the-influence-on-organizational-performance/, (accessed 8 February 2011)

Tags: business opportunities, economic opportunities, equal pay, gender diversity, organizational performance, performance inprovements, women rights
Posted in Index | No Comments »

Employee Engagement – a key driver of business performance

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

Source: Compare Infobase Limited, 2007

Employee engagement has become in the recent years a hot topic. Although several scholars reported that it has rarely been studied in the academic literature and little scientific evidence is available about its antecedents and consequences (Saks, 2006; Robinson et al, 2004; Macey & Schneider, 2008), research initiatives in this area are on the rise (as illustrated by the number of journal published in the last few years).

Alignment between recruitment, retention and engagement is essential due to implications on the organizational delivery capability.

According to a research study documented by Echols (2007) cited in Bux & Tay (2010), “85% of value creation is driven by intangible assets such as people and not by asset on the balance sheet”. Searching and retaining the right talent and most of all, keeping them engaged represents today the key that drives lean organizations forward and sustains business performance in competitive and dynamic market conditions. A report on the American workforce shows that roughly half of all Americans in the workforce are not fully engaged or they are disengaged, leading to what was referred to as an “engagement gap” that it cost US businesses an estimated $ 300 billion a year in lost productivity (Saks, 2006 citing Bates, 2004; Johnson, 2004 & Kowalski, 2003).

What is Employee Engagement?

Many practitioners consider employee engagement a measure that reflects the extent to which employees contribute through their effort and enthusiasm to the success and performance of their organization.

In the same line of thought Crim and Seijts (2006) consider that an engaged employee is a person inspired, fascinated, fully involved, and committed for its work and willing to see the organization succeeding in its mission.

Accordingly, Sacks (2006) associates employee engagement with a sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, recognition, fairness and justice, a supportive work community and meaningful and valued work.

Robinson et al. (2004) from the Institute of Employment Studies attribute several characteristics to engaged employees:

Belief in the organization
Desire to work and make things better
Understanding of business context and the ‘bigger picture’
Respectful of, and helpful to, colleagues
Willingness to go the extra mile
Keeping up to date with developments in the field

What is takes to raise the level of employee engagement?

According with Robinson et al.(2004), it’s not enough to wish to improve employee engagement, but you need to have strong “building blocks” at the base of your initiative. Here are several aspects that need to be taken into account:

Good quality line management;
Two way communication;
Effective internal co-operation;
A development focus;
Commitment to employee well-being;
Clear accessible HR policies and practices, to which all managers from all levels are committed.

References

Bux, R.S. and Tay, A. (2010), The Relationship of Psychological Empowerment, Talent Engagement and Talent Outcomes, International Review of Business research Papers, Vol 6, No. 1, pp. 215-227

Crim, D and Seijts, H. G. (2006): What engages employees the most or, The ten C’s of employee engagement, Ivey Business Journal, March/April

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), The meaning of Employee Engagement, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30, available at http://www.learnership.co.uk/archive/29.pdf , (accessed 22 January 2011)

Robinson, D., Perryman S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement, a study supported by the Institute of Employment Studies Research Network, Report 408, available at http://www.managingpeople4profit.com/uploads/2/8/1/6/2816853/www-employment-studies-co-uk_drivers_of_engagement.pdf, (accessed 22 January 2011)

Sacks, M. A. (2006), Antecedents and consequence of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 606-619

Additional resources

Lockwood, N.R. (2007), Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s strategic role, Society of Human Resource Management, available at http://www.improvedexperience.com

smartKPIs.com (2010), Employee Engagement Index, smartkpis.com Blog, available at http://www.smartkpis.com/blog/2010/03/03/employee-engagement-index/ , (accessed 22 January 2011)

smartKPIs.com (2010), Gallup’s Customer Engagement Index, smartkpis.com Blog, available at http://www.smartkpis.com/blog/2010/03/11/gallups-customer-engagement-index/, (accessed 22 January, 2011)

smartKPIs.com (2010), Employee engagement and organizational performance, smartkpis.com Blog, available at http://www.smartkpis.com/blog/2010/08/06/employee-engagement-and-organisational-performance/ , (accessed 22 January 2011)

Tags: Employee Engagement, human capital, Institute of Employment Studies, Key Performance Indicators, knowledge economy, Measures, Performance Measures, recruitment, retention
Posted in Index, KPIs in practice, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

2010 Environmental Performance Index

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011

Environmental issues are today a hot topic on almost every government’s agenda. As the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) report states “there has never been a more pressing need for effective environmental policies as there is today”.

The 2010 Environmental Performance Index addresses these issues by providing a structure that grounds environmental policy-making in a set of 25 carefully selected quantitative indicators from an extensive review of the scientific literature and consultations with experts in different fields.

The set of 25 performance indicators grouped in two major areas, ecosystem vitality and environmental health presents the most relevant and pressing environmental issues the world confronts with (EPI, 2010). A data visualization graphic outlining the weighting given to each KPI (Key Performance Indicator) in the overall Environmental Performance Index can be viewed below.

Source: website, Environmental Performance Index 2010

The 2010 Environmental Performance Index draws upon ten years of research, six previous environmental sustainability reports and compiles the feedback of more than 70 governments and hundreds of policymakers from around the world.

Among the most important purposes for which the 2010 Environmental Performance Index was envisaged are to:

Highlight current environmental problems and high priority issues
Track pollution control and natural resource management trends
Identifying most efficient practices and policy models currently used
Identifying ineffective efforts in order to close them and redeploy funding
Provide a common base for cross country and cross sector performance comparison through benchmarking

The 2010 EPI ranks 163 countries according with the 25 performance indicators by 5 categories of scores as can be seen in the bottom right corner of the image below. Additionally by clicking on the image you will be redirected towards the online application and be able to access and experience a detailed 2010 EPI data visualization tool.

Source: website, Environmental Performance Index 2010

According with the 2010 standings the first four countries and the only ones who are scoring in the 100-85 interval are Iceland (93.5), Switzerland (89.1), Costa Rica (86.4) and Sweden (86.0). From the 163 countries that are ranked most of them scored in the 70-55 interval (73 countries) and 55-40 interval (53 countries). Data for the first 50 ranked countries can be visualized below. For more details on the complete ranking you can access the complete report by clicking in the links listed in the reference section.

Source: website, Environmental Performance Index 2010

For more information on Key Performance Indicators for environmental protection visit the smartKPIs.com KPI examples functional area, CSR/Sustainability and Environmental Care.

References

2010 Environmental Performance Index, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy (Yale University), Center for International Earth Science Information Network (Columbia University), in collaboration with World Economic Forum (geneva, Switzerland) and Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (Ispra, Italy), accessible at http://epi.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0157/epi2010_report.pdf, (accessed 13 January 2011) and http://epi.yale.edu, (accessed 13 January 2011)

Tags: 2010 EPI, Database of KPIs, Environmental Performance Index, Key Performance Indicators, KPI example, Library of KPIs, Performance Indicator, Performance Measures
Posted in Index, Library of KPI examples, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

The power of data visualization – lifespan and income in history

Thursday, December 23rd, 2010

Hans Rosling’s 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes – The Joy of Stats – BBC Four

More about this programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wgq0l
BBC presentation: Hans Rosling’s famous lectures combine enormous quantities of public data with a sport’s commentator’s style to reveal the story of the world’s past, present and future development. Now he explores stats in a way he has never done before – using augmented reality animation. In this spectacular section of ‘The Joy of Stats’ he tells the story of the world in 200 countries over 200 years using 120,000 numbers – in just four minutes. Plotting life expectancy against income for every country since 1810, Hans shows how the world we live in is radically different from the world most of us imagine.

Interested in public service KPIs?

smartKPIs.com contains over 1000 KPI examples specific to the public sector, grouped in two categories: State/Federal Government and Local Government.

Tags: BBC Four, Hans Rosling, income, lifespan, The Joy of Stats, Wealth
Posted in Business Intelligence, Data visualization, Government, Index, KPIs in practice, Performance Management | No Comments »

Optus Social Media Index Report – An insight in the Australian small and medium business sector

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

A recent report prepared by Stacombe Research and Planning on behalf of Optus Small and Medium Businesses provides a new and interesting perspective on how small to medium businesses view and use social media.

Study methodology

The study is based on both a qualitative and quantitative research:

The qualitative component of the study comprises three interviews with key social media opinion leaders and five discussion groups involving six to eight employees and owners of small and medium business;
The quantitative component of the study is based on interviews with 340 employees of small to medium businesses responsible for making key social media decisions within their organizations.

Key findings

According with the research results, thought there is an overwhelming number of social media tools available, not all are engaged by small and medium businesses. The most appealing ones are Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and LinkedIn.

As the study further reveals, it is expected that in the next years the growth of the „big four” social media tools, in the preferences of small and medium businesses to increase with a steady pace, with LinkedIn benefiting the most.

The study also reveals that, while becoming more popular within business environment, social media tools serve different purposes in the organizational strategies. While, businesses planning to become involved in social media, primarily see it, as a tool „to drive sales through, acquisitions and retention”, those already active in social media „perceive the main benefits in networking and building relationships with the customer”. The major difference between these two types of businesses stay, as the study further reveals, in the metrics used to determine success.

Performance indicators most likely to be used by companies already using social media tools are mostly quantitative in nature, such as: # Followers, # Fans, # Friends. On the other hand, those businesses looking to adopt social media tools in the future are more focused on qualitative aspects, such as # Quality of fans, or # Quality of followers.

Optus Social Media Index Report – video presentation

Conclusion

In the last years social media presented a powerful opportunity for small and medium businesses to connect and get engaged with customers and build relationships with prospects. Among the key benefits are:

Opening new revenue streams;
Establishing new relationships;
Cementing current customer contacts;
Enhancing online brand reputation.

References

Optus Business Social Media Index, (2010), Report Summary, available at http://kathiemelocco.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/SMReportSummary.pdf , (accessed 12 December 2010)

Tags: Facebook, Key Performance Indicators, LinkedIn, Metrics, Optus Social Media Index, Performance Indicator, Social Media, Twitter, YouTube
Posted in Index, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Global measurement of luxury and wealth – The Cost of Living Extremely Well Index (CLEWI)

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

Forbes lauched in 1976 the Cost of Living Extremely Well Index (CLEWI) that measures the price of a basket of luxury goods, being considered to be for the very rich what the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index is to ordinary people. The index is based on the selection of 40 goods and services reserved to very rich customers, such as:

Dinner costs at the famous La Tour d’Argent in Paris: decreased with 15%, to $ 1,704;
Average cost for a yearling racehorse from championship lines: decreased with 16% to $271,551;
Cost of Bombardier Learjet 40XR aircraft: $10.6 million versus $9.3 million one year ago.

The Cost of Living Extremely Well Index (CLEWI) was set to 100 in 1976 and had been continuously increasing since then.

Source: Forbes (2010)

Over the 12 months ended in August the CLEWI rose 1%, keeping pace with the Consumer Price Index’s 1.1%. During this period, the aggregate net worth of the Forbes 400 Richest People in America rose 8%, from $1.27 trillion up to $1.37 trillion (Forbes, 2010).

This index is tracking the cost of luxury items, being a relevant indicator both for the luxury market and the wealthy population. Conventional wisdom once dictated that no matter the turbulence within economy, the richest segment of the population would stay above the fray, allowing makers of luxury products to maintain their sales. However, as shown by CLEWI, this statement is questionable today, as not even luxury, nor richness can be immune to the global economic slide.

References:

Forbes (2010), Forbes Price Index of Luxury Goods Keeps Pace With Inflation, available at: http://blogs.forbes.com/scottdecarlo/2010/09/23/forbes-price-index-of-luxury-goods-keeps-pace-with-inflation/ (accessed 21 November 2010).

Tags: CLEWI, Consumer Price Index, Cost of Living Extremely Well Index, Forbes, Luxury, Wealth
Posted in Index, Measure | No Comments »

Global measurement of retail theft

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

The Centre for Retail Research recently launched the Global Retail Theft Barometer 2010 report, revealing that total global shrinkage (stock loss from crime or waste expressed as a percentage of retail sales) cost retailers and the public US$ 107.3 billion, equivalent to 1.36% of their retail sales.

The results indicate that the top European country with the highest losses from employee theft is the UK, with 36.8% of product losses, while Austria has the lowest figure (22.7%).

In the U.S., Canada, and Australia employee theft was estimated to be greater than shoplifting losses. In the U.S. for example, employee fraud contributing to 43.7% of shrinkage ($17.2 billion) , while shoplifting for 34.9% ($13.7 billion).

Retailers apprehended 6.2 million store thieves in 2010, with the most stolen items including branded expensive products, such as perfume and fine fragrances, alcohol, cosmetics and skincare.

Source: Centre for Retail Research (2010)

The Key Performance Indicators used within the 2010 Global Retail Theft Barometer are:

$ Shrinkage cost – reached US$ 107.3 billion, equivalent to 1.36% of the retail sales. Shrinkage has decreased by 5.6% as retailers put almost 10% more funds into security and loss prevention.
$ Global cost of crime per family (household) was $185.59.
# Shoplifting attempts: 31% of retailers declared that shoplifting had increased compared to the previous year, when 41% had found that shoplifting attempts had increased. Note that this proportion is not the increase in net shoplifting but the percentage of store groups affected.
$ Cost of shoplifting was $45.5 billion. Though the main crime problem that retailers faced was shoplifting, this was accounted for 42.4% of shrinkage, as retailers were organised enough to prevent the increase in shoplifting from pushing up shrinkage.
$ Employee theft reached $37.8 billion, accounted for 35.3% of shrinkage.

Source: Centre for Retail Research (2010)

The internal error and administrative failure (e.g. pricing or accounting mistakes) was 16.9% ($18.1 billion), and supplier or vendor theft and fraud was 5.4% of shrinkage ($5.8 billion). Both these totals had improved over the previous year (Centre for Retail Research, 2010).

The 2010 edition of the Global Barometer covers 42 countries, including the U.S., China, Australia, France, Germany, Brazil, UK, South Africa, Turkey, and India, having 1103 respondents from large retail corporations. The report reached its tenth edition, being initiated and compiled by the Centre for Retail Research, originally a university research group, providing authoritative research and analysis of the retail and service sectors in Britain, Europe and globally.

References:

Centre for Retail Research (2010), Global Retail Theft Barometer 2010, available at: http://www.retailresearch.org/grtb_globaltrends.php (accessed 15 November 2010)

Tags: administrative failure, Centre for Retail Research, Employee theft, Global Retail Theft Barometer 2010, internal error, Report, Retail, Retail theft, Shoplifting, Shrinkage, supplier or vendor theft and fraud
Posted in Index, KPI, KPIs in practice, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

eurobrand 2010: LVMH Group, Nokia and Vodafone, Europe’s top valuable brand corporations

Thursday, November 11th, 2010

The European Brand Institute, Europe’s leading research institute for intangible assets, based in Vienna, Austria, has released the 2010 results for its annual brand valuation study, ‘eurobrand’.

The study provides a ranking of Europe’s most valuable brands, both individual and brand corporations, as well as detailed brand analyses from country and industry perspectives. More than 3.000 brand corporations in 24 countries and 16 industries are examined (European Brand Institute, 2010a).

Below are top 5 valuable single brands:

Source: European Brand Institute (2010b)

The most valuable 5 brand corporations are:

Source: European Brand Institute (2010c)

According to Gerhard Hrebicek, Director of the European Brand Institute, the highest growths in brand values were registered in Pharma, Health and Biotech Industries (i.e. GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Aventis and Novartis). The highest decreases in brand values, as affected by the economic recession, were in IT and financial services (RBS, UniCredit and Deutsche Bank) (European Brand Institute 2010a).

References

European Brand Institute (2010a), eurobrand 2010 Press release, Vienna.

European Brand Institute (2010b), Brand Ranking – Single Brands, Vienna.

European Brand Institute (2010c), Brand Ranking – Brand Corporations, Vienna.

Note

To access the documents above and more information on eurobrand 2010, visit http://www.eurobrand.cc and register for the eurobrand2010 PRESS KIT.

Tags: eurobrand 2010, European Brand Institute, Gerhard Hrebicek, LVMH, Nokia, Vodafone
Posted in Index, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Ranking hospitals performance by web presence

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

A previous blog post, USA top hospitals ranking based on performance improvement, presented the Thomson Reuters 100 Top Hospitals: National Benchmarks, an annual, quantitative study dedicated to measuring performance across the industry, that identifies the best hospitals in USA, overall, as measured on the 100 Top Hospitals Balanced Scorecard.

Continuing the incursion into the most popular and used hospitals ranking, this post presents the “Ranking Web of World Hospitals”, an initiative of the Cybermetrics Lab, a research group belonging to the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), the largest public research body in Spain.

Although the original aim of the Ranking was to promote web publication, supporting open access initiatives, electronic access to scientific publications, nowadays it also facilitates the ranking of institutions based on web indicators. This type of ranking can better reflect the whole picture, because it covers not only only formal (e-journals, repositories), but also informal scholarly communication media. The ranking is not only focused on research results but also in other indicators which may reflect better the global quality of the scholar and research institutions worldwide (Cybermetrics Lab, 2010).

Design and Weighting of Indicators

The Web indicators measure electronic contents, especially those used for scholarly communication, but also basic information about the hospital, its organization, services and personnel. The rank takes into account both the volume of information published and the impact or visibility of such contents measured by the number of external links the web pages received from others.

Four key performance indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines:

Size (S): # Pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead.

Visibility (V): # Unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead.

Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Microsoft Excel (.xls), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google.

Scholar (Sc): #Papers and citations for each academic domain (Google Scholar). These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.

The Ranking Web of World Hospitals offers more than ranking, by sharing ten best practices, regarding URL naming, website content, popularity and statistics etc. An interesting aspect with regards to this ranking is that the 1000 hospitals ranked are also split by continents, illustrating also top hospitals on each geographical area.

Source: Cybermetrics Lab (2010)

The Ranking Web of World Hospitals was introduced as a tool for showing the commitment of health organizations to the electronic publication and dissemination of academic information related to medicine. The Top Hospitals should be prone to share their information not only with other colleagues (physicians, researchers, scholars) but also with the rest of society, patients, community leaders, managers and citizens in general. The ranking intends to motivate both institutions and scholars to have a web presence that reflect accurately their activities (Cybermetrics Lab, 2010).

References:
Cybermetrics Lab 2010, Ranking Web of World Hospitals, available at: http://hospitals.webometrics.info/index.html (accessed 16 October 2010)

smartKPIs.com 2010, USA top hospitals ranking based on performance improvement, available at: http://www.smartkpis.com/blog/2010/10/21/usa-top-hospitals-ranking-based-on-performance-improvement/ (accessed 1 November 2010)

Tags: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Cybermetrics Lab, Hospitals, Hospitals ranking, The Ranking Web of World Hospitals
Posted in Data visualization, Government, Index, KPI, KPIs in practice, Measure, Performance Measurement, smartKPIs.com | No Comments »