time for a 3 d organisation structure

Time for a 3-D Organisation Structure


IBCM © Research of 13

2-D Organisation Structure

1. From McKinsey Reporti: The CEO asked McKinsey to help undertake a comprehensive restructuring. His objectives were to bring the leadership closer to the business, reduce cost, simplify the organization, strengthen performance management, and improve responsiveness to customers—all in the space of a few months. This would be a tough challenge, given that the 25,000-strong workforce was spread across 150 countries. A 5-month restructuring effort reduces organizational complexity and achieves new efficiencies that help deliver $2 billion in incremental profit.

• McKinsey also elaborates Organisation Designii by these principles:

• Bring a rigorous approach to organization design: o design a robust new structure. o diagnostic tools highlight areas where the organization presents challenges,

which might lie in its structure, linkages, or culture, and help define criteria to guide the design process

o our design tests help clients make choices on critical questions such as the optimal business-unit structure; the role of the corporate center and shared services; and capabilities needed for pivotal roles.

• Link organization to strategy and realize value: o We make sure the design focuses management attention on the strategic

priorities and critical operations of each business unit, region, or product—be it international expansion, cost-cutting, or growth through acquisitions.

• Focus head offices on value creation:

• Drive accountability: o By careful design of performance-management processes, we make sure all

units have clear performance measures.

• Enable enterprise-wide collaboration:

• Deal with complexity: o Effective organization design must remove complexity that creates

unnecessary cost and organizational friction, and channel what’s left to employees who are equipped to handle it.

2. Organisation structure has developed over the years primarily in a 2-dimensional shape of debit and credit, be it Corporate or Government. For a small trader, a petty-cash-book was sufficient to start with. As and when his firm expanded he added a column in a spreadsheet. Each column added a limb to the existing organisation structure. It’s a convenient way of preparing a trial balance of expenses and income. Tallying a trial balance was easy but found tallying a Balance Sheet became complex.

3. Industry was looking for a better accommodation and a relief, in a Balance Sheet. During the discussion stage of the exposure draft [Exposure Draft E9, Accounting for Research and Development Activities] this was very evident. “The main issueiii was



whether to allow or require capitalization of development costs. The influential aerospace industry in UK argued that capitalization of development costs was appropriate in some circumstances. Yielding to this pressure, the IASC issued a new exposure draft, ED 17, in April 1976, which required capitalization of development expenditures in certain cases. E9 was made final with minor changes as IAS 9 in March 1978.” Further in Dec. 1993, ‘IAS 9 Research and Development Activities’ was renamed as IAS 9 Research and Development Costs.

4. In the meantime, the accounting treatment of brands has been a matter of debate and controversy in many countries, such as Australia and the United Kingdom for instance, where companies, such as Grand Metropolitan and Rank Hovis McDougall, decided in 1988 to include the value of brand names, either purchased or internally developed, in their consolidated Balance Sheetsiv. During the discussion stage of Exposure Draft E50 [Intangible Assets], brand value being used as a tangible asset was quite apparent. The importance of brands for the economic development of certain businesses were forced upon trying to tally the Balance Sheet. IAS 38 Intangible Assets was published on 1 July 1998. IAS 36 Impairment of Assets became operative from 1 July 1999.

5. During the Exposure Draft discussions, Intangible Assets definition was posing a problem. That problem was quietly shelved under, by NOT defining the word Intangible, the one and the only Accounting Standard to be so. IAS 38 Intangible Assets added fuel to the fire by giving up tallying a Balance Sheet.

6. Quote from a Conference Paper in 2011v:

• Q: Current measures for intangible assets, both financial and non-financial, fall short. According to a survey by the accounting firm Deloitte, “nearly half of respondents (48%) said the company’s non-financial metrics were ineffective or highly ineffective in helping the board and the CEO make long-term decisions.” (Deloitte, 2004). Report after report has described how financial measures, as reflected in accounting standards, do not provide adequate information to managers, investors and regulators. At one point, Cynthia A. Glassman, then Commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), worried that because accounting standards are “less effective in providing relevant information on intangible assets, such as technology rights, human capital, and innovation, the value of huge sectors of our economy may not be accurately reflected by financial reports.” …

• “In fact, it is not clear that the so-called GAAP standard is even particularly meaningful anymore: companies continue to search for beneficial ways in which to disclose information about themselves with or without formal sanction.”

• On the macroeconomic level, several of the background papers prepared for this conference refer to the growing body of research that has sought to quantify total business investment in intangible assets. One among these studies is Nakamura (2003), which examined the U.S. economy using a broad concept of



knowledge investments. These investments included R&D, advertising and marketing, software, financial activities, and the creative activities of writers, artists and entertainers. Nakamura estimated the value of U.S. gross investments in intangibles in 2000 to be at least $1 trillion annually. More recently, Corrado and Hulten (2010) estimate that in 2007, by omitting investments in intangibles, $4.1 trillion was excluded from published national accounts data in the United States. Yet only a small part of these intangibles investments is captured in national accounts data, leaving policymakers with an incomplete view of the size and dynamics of the economy. UQ

7. In this context, McKinsey’s comprehensive restructuring for their clients help deliver

$2 billion in incremental profit is indeed impressive. Quite impressive indeed! Restructuring within the debit-credit 2-D framework? This arises out of new efficiencies that help deliver $2 billion in incremental profit. Point must be taken that 2-D framework consistently being inefficient year by year, offers a good incremental profit, should there be an effective restructuring. 5-months duration is necessitated in ferreting out the inefficiencies that are built-in to the 2-D framework. However, this 2-D framework should have costed the company much, much beyond $2-billion over the years, that incremental profit of $2 billion sounds remarkable.

• In Margin Call movie, said to be an extract of real events, Peter Sullivan says: Well... sir... if those assets were to decrease by just 25 percent, and remain on our books... well... that loss would be greater than the current market capitalization of this company. Again answering, what do you have in exposure now tonight? Peter says: $1.215 trillion.

• Pension fund assets in OECD countries hit a record USD 20.1 trillion in 2011 but return on investment fell below zero, with an average negative return of -1.7%, [Japan -4%, US -3.1%, UK -2%] according to the OECD’s Pension Markets in Focus. (Source OECD – 21/09/2012)

8. Corporate tries to rule its conduct by means internal to itself, by technique not self-

control. Profit motive not ethical motive dominates corporate objectives and power to operate them. For Corporate, there is a tendency to overlook ethical responsibility and extol its own intellectual superiority. Not until a OECD study is published, the Society does not come to know of a (-)3.1% return on an investment of $20.1 trillion. Not until Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison, his Ponzi scheme was made aware to the public. Corporate history since the industrial revolution has been an enormous growth in freedom of enterprise, economic prosperity, innovation, technical and intellectual advancement but it has also been, stoking the passions of greed, a slow and sure decay of morality and social order culminating in high unemployment and Occupy Wall Street movements.

9. 2-D framework is convenient for Corporate to promote Profit motive, only. Ethical

Motive is the internal validity of external dignity, of Society. They need to be measured and validated. Profit Motive overwhelms internal scrutiny. There is no place for ethical motive being measured in a 2-D debit-credit organisation structure.



Measuring Ethical Motive is crucial to bring the abstractions into reality, acknowledge value where value is due, and deconstruct what is valueless. Efficiencies truly brings in profits whereas sustainability of profits is possible only by sustainability of value system, as Volkswagen has found out recently losing $15 billion. 2-D Framework has enabled Volkswagen to suppress for a long-time the manipulations, at a high cost.

• McKinsey has delivered the goods but retained the 2-D framework. McKinsey who are quite capable in their consulting business, I enjoy reading their reports, can bring in incremental profits for Corporate in trillions of $. To do so, they must switch over to 3-D Framework, for that matter all corporate, as I am proposing hereinafter.

3- D Organisation structure

10. One Organisation structure forever - This would be a tough challenge, given that the

25,000-strong workforce was spread across 150 countries. A 5-month restructuring effort reduces organizational complexity. Indeed yes. The 2-D Framework besides being flat is asymmetrical. The greatest failure of debit-credit structure is its lack of a hypothesis. Balance Sheet tallying is an onerous task trying to accommodate several hypotheses within a single transactional operation. A square-peg in a round hole. That apart what could somehow be accommodated is indeed minimal, the last one being Intangible Asset. In my analysis, hardly 10% of process blocks get represented in a Balance Sheet. The rest get reported as a side issue but they i.e. 90% of process blocks represent the organisational complexities. A 5-month restructuring effort is indeed laudable considering connecting dots being in knots. Restructuring therefore is a point of contention so long the 2-D framework remains untouched. Why there’s a clamour for restructuring? Can’t we have a robust organisation structure for all, that is truly forever? Why would a strong Organisation structure be different from one to the other, Corporate or Government?

11. n-dimensional problems converted to n-problems of one dimension: The purpose of Organisation Structure - 25,000-strong workforce, an MNC, spread over 150 countries portray the enormity of the exercise dealing with data analytics supported by diagnostic tools developed by firms like McKinsey. The entire organisation is found asymmetrical of disparate elements that an organisation structure has inherent n-dimensional problems to be addressed. What is crucial in the exercise is to simplify the structure to the least number of manageable levels. This is to say n-dimensional problems that Corporate faces quantitative as well as qualitative elements of management be converted to n-problems of [?] dimension[s]. The least number of dimensions is 1. That’s to say: i. Rigorous approach to organisation design, ii. linking organisation to strategy and realize value, iii. focus head offices on value creation, 4. drive accountability, 5. enable enterprise-wide collaboration and 6. Deal with complexity, with all the sub-systems percolating all the time, must be brought under a single denominator. It’s the corporate goal congruence, achieved by



everyone. Irrespective of which department each belongs to in the debit-credit columnar structure each focuses on task accomplishment as set by the Corporate. Therefore, n-dimensional problems be converted to n-problem of one-dimension the denominator being the pulsating energy force. The pulsating energy force is for the Subject whereas n-dimensional problems are related to the Object. 25,000 workforce spread over 150 countries work in unison and accomplish tasks entrusted to them to achieve set goals. A potter and a nuclear scientist are the same, each according to their capability, as in case of 25,000-strong workforce taking responsibility for multifarious tasks having the capability related to the tasks assigned. That capability is constant which is 1, the pulsating energy within each. The numerator is the task assigned. When task assigned is completed the numerator is 1. With constant pulsating energy force being the denominator task accomplishment returns the value of 1. If there is no action taken the numerator is 0. Numerator is either 1 or 0. The result is a binary value of tasks entrusted and accomplished or simultaneously not-accomplished. That pulsating energy force is the Intangible. The equation therefore, is Return on Intangible [RoI] = [Action or Inaction]/Intangible. Action is the effort by each and Inaction the state of insentience. Connected to the time factor dT/dT series of tasks accomplished in specified time turns out the RoI at any given point of time.

12. Symmetry

• There’s an interesting Walt Disney Cartoon called Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land, wherein Donal Duck guides us to innumerable number of instances where Mathematics forms the basis of understanding Nature, from Music to man-made and Natural Objects to even playing billiards. A cosmologist should be able to help corporate on symmetry to consolidate and crunch data to a single digit, understanding what Keynes says: animal spirits – a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities. Universe is certainly well organised and well run than corporate.

• Universal Law of Nature: For the universe to exist as it does require that hydrogen be converted to helium in a precise but comparatively stately manner - specifically, in a way that converts seven one-thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly - from 0.007 per cent to 0.006 per cent, say - and no transformation can take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value very slightly - to 0.008 per cent – and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest

RoI – Return on Intangible

In the Subject-Object distinction of Quantitative and Qualitative elements of

Corporate Management Intangible is the Subject, that brings in the 3-D

Framework for the Organisation Structure



tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here. [Martin Rees]

o Corporate: Corporate is a mass and its objective is to convert part of it into

energy in a precise but comparatively stately manner. Every component needs to convert into energy. There is no room for inefficiencies. The Object is not only machineries but also IPRs, UNCAC, UNGC 10 Principles, ISO, COSO framework, Code of Business Principles, Conflict of Interest, Conflict of personal interest, conflict of conscience, Insider Trading, whistleblowing etc.

etc. that need to be converted to energy.

• Universal Law of Nature: I should say that everything is just right so far. In the long run, gravity may turn out to be a little too strong; one day it may halt the expansion of the universe and bring it collapsing in upon itself, until it crushes itself down into another singularity, possibly to start the whole process over again. [Martin Rees]

o Corporate: When USD20.1 trillion of Mutual Funds returns negative, Hydrogen in it fails to convert into energy. Holding such a mass of $20.1 trillion turning no energy where light does not emit, it pulls the rest nearby to become a corporate black hole.

• Universal Law of Nature: On the other hand, it may be too weak, in which case the universe will keep racing away for ever until everything is so far apart that there is no chance of material interactions, so that the universe becomes a place that is very roomy, but inert and dead. [Martin Rees]

o Corporate: It is like having enough Hydrogen to spend on CapEx but none for the working capital to make the mass run. These towers of Babel are seen world over calling themselves as NPAs, inert and dead.

• Universal Law of Nature: The third option is that gravity is perfectly pitched - 'critical density' is the cosmologists' term for it - and that it will hold the universe together at the just right dimensions to allow things to go on indefinitely. Cosmologists, in their lighter moments, sometimes calls this he 'Goldilocks effect' - that everything is just right. [Martin Rees]

o Corporate: This is what McKinsey has brought in to the 25000-strong workforce spread over 150 countries - Corporate Critical Density, a ‘Goldilocks effect’, sans a 3-D ROI, the pedometer tracking walk the talk. With a CAGR set for 5-years from now, converted to CDGR [D – daily] a 25000-strong workforce spread over 150 countries moving towards targets, set for everyone, yoked together as a team but work independently, at an optimised level of performance, converting mass into energy, it would be getting into the groove of 007 factor of corporate critical density.



13. Corporate Atomic Structure

• Every one of us abide by Universal Law of Nature but not Corporate and Government. They are exceptional. Everything, however complicated - breaking waves, migrating birds, and tropical forests - is made of atoms and obeys the equations of quantum physics. If we do find ET, we will at least have something in common with them. They may live on planet Zog and have seven tentacles, but they will be made of the same kinds of atoms as us. If they have eyes, they will gaze out on the same cosmos as we do. They will, like us, trace their origins back to a 'Big Bang' 13.8 billion years ago. [Martin Rees]

• Nature: Every atom is made from three kinds of elementary particles: Protons, which have a positive electrical charge; Electrons, which have negative electrical charge; and Neutrons, which have no charge.

o Corporate Atomic Structure: Every substance is made up of three kinds of elementary particles: Corporate Policies, which has a positive charge; Practices, which has a negative charge; and the Society, which has no charge.

• Nature: Protons and Neutrons are packed into the nucleus, while electrons spin around outside.

o Corporate Atomic Structure: Corporate Policies and the Society are packed into the nucleus, while Practices spin around outside.

• Nature: Neutrons don't influence an atom's identity but they do add to its mass.

o Corporate Atomic Structure: Society doesn't influence the identity of Corporate but they do add to its mass.

• Nature: (e = mc2): e in the equation stands for Energy, m for mass and c2 for the speed of light squared. In simplest term, what the equation says is that mass and energy have an equivalence. They are two forms of the same thing: energy is

liberated matter: matter is energy waiting to happen. Since c2 (speed of light by itself) is a truly enormous number, what the equation is saying is that there is a huge amount - a really, huge amount - of energy bound up in every material thing.

o Corporate Atomic Structure: (e = mc2): e in the equation stands for Energy, m

for mass and c2 for the speed of light squared. In simplest term, what the equation says is that mass and energy have an equivalence. They are two forms of the same thing: energy is liberated matter: matter is energy waiting

to happen. Since c2 (speed of light by itself) is a truly enormous number, what the equation is saying is that there is a huge amount - a really, huge amount - of energy bound up in every material thing.



• Untapped energy within is indeed huge, really huge that given a 3-D Framework support the output would be truly huge, really huge.

14. Process

• 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are no longer with us. [Bill Bryson]

• Nature: Creative Process and Action Process – Nature shows the way of 6 stages of development from out of nothingness to create a substance. Creative Process is identical to every created substance, Nature or man-made. A baby or a diamond has its own specified time and progress, from nothingness to become a substance. The process steps within are the same, however.

o Corporate: Corporate also follows the same principle. Creative Process and Action Process. Creative process starts at subtler than the subtle level. Then the idea forms. Cling, sound a single element as in space; Corporate communicates this idea, two elements air. Corporate then forms a team, three elements fire; Corporate team discusses threadbare the idea, 4 elements water; Corporate issues a definitive strategy paper, 5 elements Earth.

• Strategy paper or policy or IPR is created signifying the quality of the created substance. A well discussed plan enables Action process to perform without a hurdle. Action process starts from gross substance and follows the same 6 stages of development, beginning from the state of insentience. Action process ends in task accomplishment.

• In Corporate both the processes are the responsibility of individuals entrusted with a specific task. dT/dT series of Tasks/ accomplished in respective Time gets rated in line with Creative Process. Collectively the status of each task in Corporate be rated to arrive at a single rating for the corporate. A consistent rating of 5 means every task given to each person is completed as on date.

• Growth is linear and triggered by an individual. Antimatter must collide with matter for a pure energy to be formed. In Corporate the individual entrusted must take an effort to move the idea in the creative process from one stage to another and in action process move the substance from one space to the other. RoI is a binary value of performance of each person, of what is moved from one space to the other. Corporate holistically and comparatively stately manner pushes the Object or rather converts the mass into energy, at every process block.

15. Consolidation of 3-D Framework

• Prepare an overall umbrella under Corporate Social responsibility



a. Split the same into two: a. Corporate Fiscal responsibility and b. Corporate Ethical Responsibility

• Prepare ground for CREAM Analytics. 1. C – Corporate Governance, 2 – Risk Management, 3. split E into 3.1 P&L and 3.2 Balance Sheet, 4. A – Accounting Quality and 5. M – Management Quality

a. 1, 2 and 3.1 would be for Corporate Fiscal Responsibility and 3.2, 3 and 4 for Corporate Ethical Responsibility.

• Process Blocks for each would consist of Corporate Atomic Structure. a. Corporate Atomic Structure is governed by its characteristics of converting

mass into energy

• Two processes Creative Process and Action process would be the only process platform by which any of the process blocks would fit in.

a. For Creative Process the VIP is the manager in-charge of the specified Corporate Atomic Centre.

b. Creative process headed by CEO encourages innovation, strategies, project management, CapeEx, forward planning, technology direction etc., for each Atomic centre with a team of 5 people,

c. Among five one will be ethical responsibility personnel ensuring compliance, 2 to 5 of fiscal responsibility team – 2. Man in-charge of the process block who is the VIP, 3. a higher up as a facilitator ensuring the VIP gets what is needed, of line function 4. & 5: Staff function Finance, HR, Technology ensuring service to the facilitator.

d. For Action Process the VIP is in the lowest rung, a salesman or a worker who will be 2 as above. 1, 3,4,5 would form a team for each process block.

• RoI with its binary value of performance measures, indicate the status of the day.

• Entire organisation RoI is calculated with a single digit 0-5 rating system.

• Prepare an Index of Inactivity for each process block. Since optimum is 5 anything below will form part of Index of Inactivity.

Based on the 3-D Framework McKinsey’s formula for Organisation Design shall be verified.

• Bring a rigorous approach to organization design: o 3-D Framework would be applicable to all corporate thereby enhancing the

design input.

• Link organization to strategy and realize value: o Strategy is a Creative Process, with an integrated approach to the Corporate

Atomic Structure converting mass into energy value is realised.

• Focus head offices on value creation: o Focus on Creative Process where managers head each process block. o Head offices will be the prime mover of Policies [Protons], joining hands with

the Society [Neutrons] forming a nucleus provides the impetus for Practices [Electrons] to spin around the nucleus to consistently optimise their performance.

o Protons has 1837 times mass of electron, so would be the value created Policies of Corporate. The Society does not change the identity of Corporate but adds mass to it.



o Society is the provider for mandatory provisions for the organisation whereas Policies coming out of the head offices provide the non-mandatory initiatives and create policies.

o With a 3-D Framework incidents such as Volkswagen fiasco could never happen.

o Governance is not compliance and ethics, Joseph Murphy says, and disputes OECD's conclusion that companies generally have adequate internal compliance controls. He continues in the same breath: One need only look at the record at Siemens (whose code of conduct was described as the ―read, laughed and filed code), or the long, legalistic (and ineffective) code that existed at Enron to see the great danger in such sweeping conclusions.vi

o I can only quote Deming: “It isn’t necessary to change, survival is not mandatory.” And remind

o 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are no longer with us. [Bill Bryson]

• Drive accountability: o RoI is the accountability o Corporate Atomic Structure achieves self-governance. There is no need for

supervision, as much as Hydrogen is not supervised.

• Enable enterprise-wide collaboration: o Achieving large-scale collaboration across the entire enterprise—on

customer solutions, product development, innovation, and the like—can unlock tremendous value.

o 3-D Framework enables a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities.

• Deal with complexity: o n-dimensional problems are converted into n-problems of one dimension

with RoI. o No room for complexities, eclipses are predictable. Even school children can

learn management techniques playing a game of hopscotch.

16. The 3-D Framework is the extract of my work on IBCM1 – Inactivity Based Cost Management. Activity has a cost incidence whereas Inactivity a Cost Consequence. Cost Consequence is valid for only one-day, i.e. today, neither by the dateless past nor of the infinite future. Measure then and there before it escalates. The 5-principles IBCM affirms:

1 COPYRIGHT

IBCM - Inactivity Based Cost Management - Copyright ˝ REGN. NO. L-27490/2006 DATED December 1, 2006 Govt. of India, Copyrights Office, by the Author, Jayaraman Rajah Iyer



• 1. What gets measured gets managed; what you don’t measure you can’t improve, o Cost Consequence is difficult to measure. However, each Corporate Atomic

Structure is self-governed by its inherent mass being converted to energy. The 007 factor is crucial and hence governing becomes the responsibility of the person or VIP or one may call the owner entrusted with the specified structure. Non-performance is simultaneously brought out. In an organisation like 25000-strong workforce spread over 150 countries, each with 200+ process blocks, each teamed up in a 3-D, a single person’s non-performance brings down the rating of the group.

• 2. Measure what is measurable make measurable what is not so; o establish relationship between Nature, Atomic Structure and Corporate

Atomic Structure enabling ‘goldilocks effect’; o P&L and Balance Sheet cover hardly 10% of the total process blocks which

are quantitative, whereas the rest 90% belong to qualitative aspects of management. Volkswagen is a good case study how its Management Quality failed miserably. Corporate Atomic Structure related to Nature clearly defines each aspect of management of corporate affairs. Enron, Volkswagen, Toshiba cases can never get repeated that they could escape early warning system is because of the current 2-D Framework of Organisation Structure, that these companies adopt.

• 3. How to measure? o the driver that drives the inference engine, is derived from Nature. o Both Creative Process and Action Process are spot on identifying the status of

its movement. Object is inanimate, Subject is the pulsating energy that moves the Object from one space to the other. Pedometer to walk the talk measures precisely.

• 4. Return on Intangible o who moved what? Simultaneously an Index of Inactivity – establish who

failed to convert the specified mass into energy? Accountability leading to self-governance, a simplistic concept understood by an uneducated ordinary person within a company;

o Return on Intangible is connected to the Subject and is finite whereas Return on Investment is connected to the Object that is infinite.

• 5. Emergent Property Phenomena o Nobel laureate Murray Gellmann describes beautifully on what emergent

property means? o You don’t need something more to get something more. That is what

emergent property means. o That’s what 3D-Framework is.



Contact:

Jayaraman Rajah Iyer CEO, Founder IBCM© Research +919487390439 [email protected]

Reference:

i Rapidly simplifying an organization turns around performance, http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/how-we-help-clients/rapid-restructuring ii http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/how-we-help-clients/organization-design

iii Financial Reporting and Global Capital Markets: A History of the International Accounting Standards Committee, 1973-2000; By Kees Camfferman, Stephen A. Zeff; Published by Oxford University Press, 2007 p 113

iv Accounting for brands in ED50 of IASC [Intangible Assets] compared with French and German practices – An illustration of the difficulty of International harmonization.; For Presentation at the 19th Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association Bergen, Norway, May 2-4, 1996; Dr. Herve.L Stolowy and Dr. Axel Haller page 7

v New Building Blocks for Jobs and Economic Growth May 16th-17th 2011 Background paper for the conference session: “Global Competition and Collaboration” p-3 vi Mr. Joseph E. Murphy (Corporate Compliance and Ethics Professional): Review of the OECD antibribery instruments: compilation of responses to consultation paper: 31 March 2008

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/how-we-help-clients/organization-design