Measurement of actual performance

Accurate and transparent accounts show income, costs, assets, liabilities, and cash position clearly. This information supports better budgeting, pricing, borrowing, and corrective decisions. Transparency also improves confidence among partners, lenders, employees, customers, and authorities. It does not hide expenses or remove the need for planning and market understanding.

The governing concept is measurement of actual performance as a necessary step in controlling. Control is not simply a belief that results are good. It requires predetermined standards, systematic measurement of actual performance, comparison with standards, analysis of deviations and corrective action when necessary. Even if the eventual results appear satisfactory, the manager cannot document, verify or compare them without measurement. Therefore option A is correct. Staffing obtains and develops employees, organising arranges duties and authority, and directing guides, supervises and motivates people. Those functions may have been completed successfully, but the formal control process is incomplete because its evidence-gathering stage has been omitted. Good performance does not remove the need to measure it; measurement confirms the result and supports future decisions.

Accepted output means the quantity that meets the applicable quality requirements and can be counted as usable production. Units placed on quality hold are not accepted at the time of measurement, so they must be deducted from total actual output. The calculation is: accepted output = actual output − units on quality hold = 190 − 16 = 174 units. Therefore option A is correct. Option D incorrectly treats every produced unit as accepted, ignoring the quality hold. Options B and C result from incorrect subtraction and do not represent the stated data. This distinction is useful in performance measurement because quantity alone is insufficient when some output is awaiting inspection or correction.