CONCEPTUALISING INTERNAL CONTROL

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AS INTERNAL CONTROL MECHANISM

INTRODUCTION

The problem being investigated is the lack of contemporary and relevant standard operating procedures which impede the effective issuing of driver licences at the MM DLTC. An extensive literature review was conducted on the determining and revision of methods and procedures in Chapter 2. However, this study would be incomplete if the development of methods and procedures is described without a discussion of effective and efficient ways to administer the implementation thereof. This chapter critically reviews an internal control system and mechanisms that could be of value to the MM DLTC.
This chapter aims to reflect on what has been learned about internal control over the years and find solutions for the implementation of methods and procedures in public administration. To complement the epistemological pluralism approach, two theories, namely: the institutional and the systems theory is utilised as the foundation for this chapter. With regard to the methodological approach, information was obtained from journal articles, unpublished dissertations and theses, research reports, textbooks, the internet and relevant legislation. Since internal control originated in the accounting and auditing context, the historical development of internal audit had to be explored to fully understand the changing role of internal control. For this reason, the literature review included relevant journal articles from both disciples; Public Administration; Accounting and Auditing. This chapter is divided into eight primary sections. A deductive approach was followed by conceptualising the concepts ‘internal control’ and ‘internal control system’, before embarking on refined descriptions in the other sections. The second section describes the changing role of internal control. The concept internal control has traditionally been regarded solely as a means to ensure accurate accounting and bookkeeping. However, internal control evolved with the advent of time to include all operational activities. The details of these developments are expounded upon in the second section.
A multi-theoretical approach is followed when the institutional and systems theory is described in relation to internal control in public institutions. Legitimacy is described as the primary focus of institutional theories while the systems theory is discussed accentuating effective and efficient control. An outline of the internal control regulatory framework is provided in section four.
Specific reference is made to the primary components of an internal control system in the fifth section. Features which influence internal control is discussed in this section. The section is concluded with a description of the significance of maintaining an internal control system. Common internal control mechanisms are briefly described in the sixth section, while the significant role-players legislated responsibilities in internal control is expounded upon in section seven. The chapter is concluded with a brief description of the evaluation of an internal control system.
The following section defines the concept ‘internal control’ as a process and relates it to an internal control system as a prelude to descriptions of its changing role including the theoretical foundation thereof.

CONCEPTUALISING INTERNAL CONTROL

Internal control exists at all levels in all organisations and at all spheres of government. Control is deeply rooted in the processes set to provide reasonable assurances that organisational objectives will be achieved effectively while complying with applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, internal control comprises of manual and electronic systems as well as the procedures and processes implemented to minimise the risks to which an organisation might be exposed to as a result of negligence, organisational weaknesses, fraud or any other irregularities. Internal control thus contributes towards the promotion of public accountability, since it provides an assessment, evaluation and report on illegalities, irregularities and ineffectiveness in the operational and financial areas of an organisation (Diamond 2016:374 & 379; Nzewi 2017:3).
In the following subsections, the focus is on simple definitions of ‘internal control’ and ‘internal control system’. Furthermore, internal control is described as a process.

Internal control defined

Control as a regulatory management task is regarded as one of the foundation processes of effective public management, and can be defined as a process designed to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of objectives. As stated in Chapter 1, section 1.6.4.3 (Implementing control mechanisms), internal control is a process that seeks to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, promote reliability of financial and managerial reporting and co-ordinate the effectiveness and efficiency of operations so that institutional objectives are implemented and pursued according to plan (Changchit, Holsapple & Madden 2001:438; Ijeoma & Nzewi 2016:62).
The following objectives are pursued to realise the aim of internal control:
Endorsing effective and efficient operations and programmes. Validating reliable financial and operational reporting.
Promoting sound and useful management information. Detecting, managing and preventing risks.
Protecting institutional interests, resources and assets from losses. Evaluating the level of performance and productivity.
The need to demarcate the broader work environments within which public officials have to operate, as well as the need to identify the way in which the officials individually and collectively must pursue their respective goals, necessitate internal control in public institutions. Internal control is utilised to determine whether resources and assets are managed as prudently as possible and the service is of an acceptable standard. In essence, internal control assists management to evaluate institutional progress, or the lack of it, to eventually achieve the institution’s objectives with the minimum resources. Indeed, the scope of internal control must be relatively wide to include all operational and managerial activities. It is thus fair to state that internal control cannot exist in isolation, but functions alongside other well-founded administrative functions and processes. For example, to exercise control successfully, it is important to determine minimum standards against which performance can be measured. This is done by means of standard operating procedures. Furthermore, the monitoring of an internal control system includes the review of existing procedures, while, standard operating procedures also need to be developed for the effective implementation of each of the internal control mechanisms (Arwinge 2013:42). The concept ‘internal control system’ is discussed below.

Internal control system defined

An internal control system, as defined by Visser and Erasmus (2015:278), refers to the policies and procedures, as well as the organisational structures and control mechanisms designed and adopted by the management of an organisation to provide reasonable assurance that the organisational aims and objectives will be achieved while preventing, detecting and correcting any adverse events. The primary components of an internal control system include the control environment, risk assessment, control mechanisms, information and communication, and monitoring as described in section 3.6.1 below (Components of an internal control system).
Designing and implementing an internal control system is a legal requirement for national and provincial government departments as well as for municipalities. According to Section 38 of the PFMA, the accounting officer of a national or provincial department must ensure that an effective, efficient and transparent internal control system is implemented. The implementation of a control system is obligatory or disciplinary steps would be taken against any official who undermines the system. With regard to local government, Section 67 of the MFMA stipulates that any local municipality must implement and manage an internal control system to guard against fraud, theft and financial mismanagement. In terms of auditing an institution’s internal control system, Section 6(2)(e) of the PFMA, assigned the responsibility to the National Treasury to investigate any internal control system in any government department, public entity or other constitutional institution. Municipalities may also be investigated by the National Treasury in terms of Section 5(2)(d) of the MFMA. Furthermore, a provincial treasury is obliged to monitor compliance with the MFMA as stipulated in Section 5(4) of the MFMA (PFMA 1999: Section 6(2)(e) & Section 38; MFMA 2003:Section 67).
It is clear from the above that, among other factors, legal requirements necessitate the implementation of an internal control system. Other factors that stimulate the need for an internal control system includes: complexity of tasks; scope of delegations; frequency of errors; consequences and potential costs of errors; management style and a change in the organisational structure. In a rapidly changing environment, internal control becomes significantly more important. Changes in management, the staff composition and computer systems often result in a fundamental redesign of an internal control system. External changes, such as demands from stakeholders and partnerships with other significant role-players, may also lead to the implementation or the redesign of an internal control system. If change is not managed well in the organisational structure and other organisational systems, it may pose a threat to maintain an effective internal control system (Pickett 2001:223).
It is clear that without an accurate internal control system, reliable and relevant financial and management information will not be accessible to make informed decisions. Consequently, effective financial and management reporting will be lacking. An internal control system thus provides the public managers with vital information to determine whether the institution’s activities operate according to pre-determined plans, policies and procedures (Coe 1989:121 & 122).
Moreover, an internal control system produces accurate information to enable proper and appropriate corrective actions, where necessary. An internal control system should be logical in nature to effectively contribute to improved individual and institutional performance. When logically constructed, a control system stimulates productivity and growth as well as greater independence and responsibility among management and their subordinates. The prerequisite is that most employees have to accept the control system as useful and helpful in reaching the institution’s objectives. An internal control system thus reduces potential losses and expenses, but only when a variety of interrelated internal control mechanisms operate such that the benefits outweigh the cost of implementing it. To minimise the costs during the design and implementation of a control system, only the least possible control mechanisms needed to achieve desired results, should be applied (Crous 1990:490).
This section briefly conceptualised internal control to explain that it is a process designed and implemented by management to provide reasonable assurance about compliance with legislation, the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and the reliability of financial reporting. The next section outlines internal control as a process before, during and after the implementation of operational activities.

READ  CONTEXTUAL PHILOSOPHY OF PUNISHMENT

Internal control as process

A ‘process’ may be defined as a collection of activities that requires one or more types of input and creates an output of value. Building on the definition that internal control is established by management to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, promote reliability reporting and co-ordinate the effectiveness of operations, it can be argued that the internal control process comprises of a collection of organisational measures and mechanisms that produce assurance that all financial and operational objectives are in place to meet the organisation’s objectives. Internal control can thus be viewed as a fundamental and basic process that does not solely relate to accounting and financial matters, but also produces an assurance of the reliability of information and safeguarding of the organisational assets (Visser & Erasmus 2015:278 & 279).
As mentioned previously, internal control is a regulatory management task that is interwoven with the total task execution process. Therefore, internal control is not static and should not be separated from the everyday tasks of public officials. Internal control thus has an ongoing nature and should be practiced continuously. It is not a simple systematic process but is indeed comprehensive as it takes place before and during the execution of a task as well as after the task has been completed (Fourie, 2007a:736).
The initial phase in the internal control process is to define specific and measurable accomplishments to be achieved within a specified time and under specific cost constraints. Hence, control prior to the execution of a task entails the design and acceptance of organisational objectives as well as the drafting of standard operating procedures that will be used as measures to assess the achievement of objectives. The procedures need to clearly formalise what is to be accomplished, who will be involved, when the activity will be completed and what and how many resources will be utilised to provide a basis for an ongoing monitoring process (Visser & Erasmus 2015:280).
The second phase in the control process involves the actual implementation of internal control to establish whether progress is being made towards achieving institutional objectives. Deviations from standard operating procedures formulated during the first phase of the control process are identified, and remedial measures are issued to ensure that anticipated results are achieved. It entails the comparison of actual performances with the expected outcomes. This allows for the identification of differences or performance gaps (Crous 1990:487 & 488; Visser & Erasmus 2015:280-282).
The third phase in the control process is to determine the reasons for discrepancies between actual and expected conditions by reviewing differences, assessing productivity levels and identifying neglected tasks. In essence, this involves collecting information about various operational activities and determining the basic reasons for deviations from predetermined methods and procedures. The detailed analysis of the reasons for differences links up with the fourth phase that is, recommendations for corrective actions (Pickett 2001:81). Control after execution primarily involves the issue of instructions of how to correct deviations from standard operating procedures and other set standards to ensure that similar errors and deviations do not re-occur. The final phase in the control process includes follow-ups and constant feedback. This is in effect a means to check the effectiveness of the suggested corrective actions and the manner in which the actions had been taken. Furthermore, provide recommendations of how to correct errors and deviations. Internal control after the execution of a task entails preparing reports on the internal control system applied in the organisation. This final step includes a detail description of any weaknesses of the internal control system as well as ways of improving the latter in the individual control mechanisms, that is, the monitoring and evaluation of the internal control system (see paragraph 3.9 (Evaluating an internal control system) for more detail) (Visser & Erasmus 2015:281-282).
Internal control as an on-going process has always been perceived as an integral part of financial management, and more so as an instrument for improving public services. The most influential aspects on the changing role of internal control is highlighted in the following section.

THE CHANGING ROLE OF INTERNAL CONTROL

The concept ‘internal control’ originated within the auditing field and has traditionally been regarded as a means to specially ensure accurate and reliable accounting and bookkeeping. As early as 1500, standard accounting techniques were developed to assess businesses’ financial positions. From 1500 up until about 1850, auditing and accounting standards were primarily concerned with the detection of financial related fraud, and none or very limited attention was given to internal control (Arwinge, 2013:76 & 77). As mentioned in Chapter 2, section 2.2.1.1 (The politics/administration dichotomy (1900 – 1926)), Public Administration as a discipline originated in 1887 with the publication of Woodrow Wilson’s article The Study of Administration. Wilson formulated the well-known politics/administration dichotomy that brought about the general acceptance of a top-down policy-making approach. Unfortunately, a clear explanation of the role of the execution of control in public institutions was lacking in Wilson’s 1887 article (Wilson 1887:120-125). It was only in 1905 that Lawrence Dicksee, an auditing specialist, recognised the significance of internal control, in the discipline Auditing and Accounting. Dicksee (1905: 53) outlined that the objective of a financial audit is threefold, that is: detect fraud; detect technical errors; detect errors in accounting principles. Internal control during this period was thus limited to be a set of dictating rules with the sole purpose of confirming accurate bookkeeping, with the exception of reference by Montgomery (1912:9) to the separation of duties as a mechanism to ensure satisfactory internal control.
In 1932, Mary Parker Follett wrote that “the object of organisation is control, or we might say that organisation is control” as published in 1937 in the collection edited by Gulick and Urwick “Papers on the science of Administration”. Follett openly described control as a process when she defined the essential values of organisation as the co-ordination of all related factors within a situation and as an ongoing process (Gulick & Urwick, 1937:161-169). In 1937, Gulick and Urwick introduced Public Administration scholars to the acronym POSDCORB that stood for planning, organising, staffing, directing, coordinating and budgeting. As in the case with the determining and revision of methods and procedures, Gulick did not openly describe internal control as a management task or as an essential administrative process. However, during this time-frame, public institutions expanded and demands for frequent and more thorough control increased (Gulick & Urwick, 1937:161).
As stated in Chapter 2, Public Administration evolved during 1938 to 1947 as an independent discipline. Public Administration then had the freedom to add a human dimension to the discipline. This accomplishment encouraged the study of the individual and his/her behaviour in government institutions. During this period, the human behavioural approach considered the individual’s control over his/her own working environment to be more important than rigid control systems and measures. Building on these developments, rhetoric about innovative control processes that makes provision for flexible and transparent internal control is often raised nowadays as part of the behavioural approach (Thornhill, Van Dijk & Isioma 2014:9; Nzewi 2017:2 & 3).
Since the second half of the twentieth century, increased incidents of fraudulent activities have been one of the primary reasons for improved organisational governance. What’s more, the increased complexity of organisations, rising costs in specialised auditing services, the upswing in information and communications systems, as well as demands by managers for more sophisticated information, all resulted in calls for greater reliance on control related measures and mechanisms. A quest for better financial transparency commenced and internal control as an accountability mechanism appeared more visible in governance (Brown 1962:696).
After World War II, Public Administration changed its character. In 1967, midst tension between the value of ‘efficiency’ and ‘legality’, Cloete identified six generic administrative processes, that is, policy-making, organising, financing, staffing, determining work methods and procedures and controlling, as an attempt to strengthen Public Administration as an autonomous discipline in South Africa. The implementation of internal control was described as an essential element to ensure that all public management and administrative actions are aimed at satisfying the needs of the public (Cloete 1967:58).
Regarding further developments in the auditing and accounting milieu, the financial scandals of the 1980s in the United States and the United Kingdom led to the founding of the Combined Code on corporate governance. The Combined Code integrated recommendations of the then Cadbury Committee (1992), Hampel Committee (1998) and Turnbull Committee (1999) in England, and served as a guideline to the directors of organisations on how to report on internal control. The guidelines included in the Combined Code extend beyond purely financial aspects to embrace a broad range of risk areas. The result of this effort was that internal control was now linked to risk management. This change signified a transformation in the relationship between auditing, internal control and risk management (Internal Control Working Party 1999:1 & 2; Spira & Page 2003:642 & 643).
The same period characterised policy implementation as continuous interaction between the shaping of objectives and the actions needed to achieve the objectives. Clear guidelines of who needs to perform a task, with what resources, when, how and why, were constantly sought from auditors and detailed audit reports in both the private and public sectors. However, in the 1980’s, an increased level of complexity of organisations’ operations made it impossible to verify each and every transaction without incurring unreasonable costs. By the end of the 1980s, the auditors availed themselves to organisations’ management and their clients, and also reduced their fees. Consequently, the auditors responded to the pressure by emerging risk management approaches that propagated drastic reduction in overly detail checking and documentation of internal control systems (Pressman & Wildavsky 1973:320-322).
Hereafter, auditors began to rely increasingly on a risk-based approach and the ‘Audit Society’ emerged. An important development in the emerging Audit Society was a rapid rise of internal control systems. By now, public service delivery began to rely heavily on private business-like styles, and decision-making was perceived as market driven. With regard to public administration, the shift from purely administrative to entrepreneurial organisations was labelled as the New Public Management movement (refer to Chapter 2, section 2.2.1.5 (From Public Administration to Public Management (1970 – 1990)). In the 1990s, internal control would only be welcomed in public institutions as democratic, flexible and decentralised procedures. As in the case of standard operating procedures, internal control was re-introduced to public administration as part of a free-market orientated government (Arwinge 2013:11).
During the 1990’s, calls for improved financial transparency and accountability dominated organisational governance. This led to the introduction of the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in 1992. The COSO produced a report that specifically addressed the role of internal control in securing improved corporate governance. The report comprised an analysis of the primary features of internal control as well as a framework for the establishment and evaluation of internal control. Internal control was defined in the 1992 COSO report as (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission 2015a:9):
“A process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories:
effectiveness and efficiency of operations; reliability of financial reporting; and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.”
The 1992 COSO framework confirmed internal control as a process that provides reasonable assurance that organisational objectives, both financial and non-financial, have been met, but added the words “in an effective manner”. The utilisation of the concept ‘effectiveness’ in the definition was a drastic change in how managers and auditors perceived internal control. Strict financial and budgetary controls were complimented with transparent control mechanisms including all operational activities. Internal control no longer only refers to accurate accounting and policy implementation, but became part of public management and essential government processes. During December 2014, the 1992 COSO framework was superseded by the 2013 integrated framework for internal control (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission 2015a:Online).
Furthermore, in 1995, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants developed criteria for a control framework, and provided a definition of control that directly relates internal control to achieve organisational objectives (Spira & Page 2003:640 & 641). By now, the definition of control was clearly extended beyond financial control. During the same period, Power (1999:15-20 & 42) argued that there has been an important change in the nature of governance, that is, regulation from above to regulation from the inside of an organisation. He stated that governance changed from a compliance-based style of regulation to a risk based orientation. The result was that internal auditing and internal control extended to risk management. Internal control started to look beyond compliance and financial regulatory to also consider performance management and productivity measures. According to Kettl (2002:584), in the latter part of the 1990s, globalisation and the arrival of the Internet applied pressure on governments to reduce most of their traditional responsibilities and rigid hierarchical structures faded. As a result, collaboration between government and the private sector thrived and a more inclusive public service emerged. Public managers had to rely on flexible internal control and procedures to cope in continuous changing environments.
After 1994, significant transformation took place within the public service in South Africa. In fact, the South African public service is still undergoing transformation. Issues such as race, discrimination, physically challenged persons and gender, continue to drive the transformation process. Furthermore, since 1994, internal control became a significant concern and the PFMA was introduced in 1999. Section 38 of the PFMA requires an accounting officer to implement and maintain a system of internal control. Treasury Regulation 3.1.10 elaborated on the provisions issued in terms of the PFMA and stipulates that an audit committee must review the effectiveness of an internal control system. These, and other reforms on financial management and subsequently internal control, have a constitutional mandate. Section 215(1) of the Constitution of 1996 stipulates that national, provincial and municipal budgets must promote transparency, accountability and the effective financial management. Internal control thus became central in supporting good governance in the South African public service, particularly with regard to values such as accountability and transparency (PFMA 1999:Section 38; Treasury Regulations 2005:Regulation 3.1.10; Constitution 1996:Section 215 (1)).
Since 2010, internal control maintained a formidable presence in government institutions. Today, a significant number of organisational activities fall under internal control. Modern internal control mechanisms rely less on the burden of strict and formal authority, while providing more opportunities for self-regulation and cooperation with non-governmental organisations. In the public sector, internal control is no longer solely driven by auditing related concerns, but rather by public choices and public participation (Basheka 2012:61). Internal control thus evolved to include the social implications of government’s actions. It is not surprising that public managers pay increasingly more attention to the design of effective internal control systems. Internal control has thus become an autonomous field of expertise. Remarkably, internal control systems now lie at the centre of governance in the public sector (Arwinge 2013:11).
This section briefly considered the changing role of internal control by illustrating that traditionally internal control had a direct relationship to auditing and accounting checks. However, with the introduction of broader definitions, internal control significantly expanded its domain to general management control that covers all operational activities. To fully understand the concept of internal control in public institutions, the theoretical foundation of internal control is expounded upon in the context of public administration.

READ  INTEGRATION OF HUMAN NICHES AND ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF INTERNAL CONTROL

Several recently completed dissertations and theses in Public Administration (Matshego 2011:31-53; Adanri 2016:24-28; Morgan 2016:21 & 22) revealed that a multi-theoretical approach is applied to understand internal control within the context of public administration. In this Chapter, a complementary approach between the institutional and the systems theory is followed to provide a clear understanding of how internal control enhances the implementation of methods and procedures in public institutions, including local municipalities.
The theories used in this chapter supplement the perspectives and theories described in Chapter 2. This section below discusses the institutional theory followed by the systems theory.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 RATIONALE FOR CONDUCTING THE RESEARCH
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.4 AIM AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.5 SCOPE OF RESEARCH
1.6 CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
1.7 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
1.9 ETHICS CLEARANCE
1.10 STRUCTURE OF THESIS
1.11 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 2: DETERMINING AND REVISING METHODS AND PROCEDURES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 PERSPECTIVES ON METHODS AND PROCEDURES
2.3 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF METHODS AND PROCEDURES
2.4 NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF METHODS AND PROCEDURES
2.5 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2.6 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
2.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AS INTERNAL CONTROL MECHANISM
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 CONCEPTUALISING INTERNAL CONTROL
3.3 THE CHANGING ROLE OF INTERNAL CONTROL
3.4 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF INTERNAL CONTROL
3.5 INTERNAL CONTROL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
3.6 INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM
3.7 INTERNAL CONTROL MECHANISMS
3.8 ROLE-PLAYERS IN INTERNAL CONTROL
3.9 EVALUATING AN INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM
3.10 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY
4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.4 RESEARCH APPROACH
4.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.6 POPULATION AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
4.7 DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENTS
4.8 DATA ANALYSIS CYCLE AND PROCESSES
4.9 STRATEGIES TO DESIGN A FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
4.10 QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS – VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
4.11 QUALITATIVE SOUNDNESS – TRUSTWORTHINESS
4.12 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.13 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 5: FUNCTIONING OF THE DRIVING LICENCE TESTING CENTRE: MADIBENG MUNICIPALITY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
5.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF ADVANCING THE CASE STUDY
5.4 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF ISSUING DRIVER LICENCES
5.5 DRIVER FITNESS REGULATORY INSTITUTIONS
5.6 STRUCTURE AND SCOPE OF DRIVING LICENCE TESTING CENTRES
5.7 DRIVING LICENCE TESTING CENTRE: MADIBENG MUNICIPALITY
5.8 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES TO ISSUE DRIVERS LICENCES
5.9 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 RESPONSE RATE TO QUESTIONNAIRE
6.3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS TO QUESTIONNAIRE
6.4 ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATIONS AND FINDINGS OF QUANTIFIABLE DATA: QUESTIONNAIRE
6.5 ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATIONS AND FINDINGS OF QUALITATIVE DATA: FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS
6.6 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 7: CONTRIBUTION OF THE RESEARCH, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 CONTRIBUTION OF THE RESEARCH
7.3 SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTERS OF THE THESIS
7.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND REALISATION OF RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES
7.5 CONCLUSIONS
7.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
7.8 AREAS OF FURTHER STUDY
LIST OF REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

Related Posts