standard cost model: three different paths and their common problems
Clicks: 92
ID: 166442
2011
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
27.3
/100
92 views
15 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #23 of 26 articles by views in journal of structural chemistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Red tape is not desirable as it impedes business growth. Relief from the administrative burdens that businesses face due to legislation can benefit the whole economy, especially at times of recession. However, recent governmental initiatives aimed at reducing administrative burdens have encountered some success, but also failures. This article compares three national initiatives – in the Netherlands, UK and Italy - aimed at cutting red tape by using the Standard Cost Model. Findings highlight the factors affecting the outcomes of measurement and reduction plans and ways to improve the Standard Cost Model methodology.
| Reference Key |
torriti2011journalstandard
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Jacopo Torriti |
| Journal | journal of structural chemistry |
| Year | 2011 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.