TERM PAPER

OF
Strategic Management

TOPIC: -Technology as a tool

Difference between Public Sector And Private Sector (use of

technology)

SUBMITTED TO: -

Ms. Neha Shandilya

Lecturer: L.S.B
LPU
SUBMITTED BY:-
Waseem Afzal Naik
Reg. no. 10907837
Section R1904 B57
Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................4
Features of Private sector and the public sector..............................................................................5
Characteristics of the public sector shaping strategic management..............................................10
Environmental factors................................................................................................................10
Transactional factors..................................................................................................................10
Factors in the organization.........................................................................................................11
Characteristics of the public sector shaping strategic management..............................................11
Strategy as positioning or scope.................................................................................................11
Strategy as setting long-term direction......................................................................................11
Strategic fit.................................................................................................................................11
Strategy as stretching competencies..........................................................................................11
The strategic triangle.....................................................................................................................12
Technology Integration as a Transforming Teaching Strategy.....................................................13
Information Technology as :A Strategic Tool for Tourism And Hospitality Management In The
New Millennium............................................................................................................................17
Information technology revolution............................................................................................17
Tourism is inevitably influenced by the business re-engineering experienced.........................18
Computerized networks and electronic distribution..................................................................18
Public sector innovation................................................................................................................20
What is innovation.....................................................................................................................21
How are innovations generated in – or introduced into the public sector?...................................22
Technology procurement...........................................................................................................22
Technology development...........................................................................................................22
Bureaucratic and organizational reform........................................................................................23
New policies...............................................................................................................................23
A typology of innovations in the public sector..............................................................................24
International agreements, laws, regulations and standards............................................................26
Technological and scientific developments...............................................................................26
Other societal developments......................................................................................................27
Factors creating a pull for innovation............................................................................................27
 Organizational overstretch or frustration with status quo..........................................................27
Lobbyism.......................................................................................................................................28
Technological interdependencies...............................................................................................28
Barriers to innovation....................................................................................................................28
The best way to organize the public sector....................................................................................29
The role of policy ..Democratic intervention.................................................................................29
Compare Public sector innovation with innovation in the Private sector?....................................30
A Snapshot of Technology Integration..........................................................................................32
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID): A strategic approach.....................................................34
Proposed Strategic Alignment Model:...........................................................................................35
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................36
References:....................................................................................................................................37
INTRODUCTION:

Strategic planning is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making
decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy, including its capital and people.
Various business analysis techniques can be used in strategic planning, including SWOT analysis
(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats), PEST analysis (Political, Economic,
Social, and Technological), STEER analysis (Socio-cultural, Technological, Economic,
Ecological, and Regulatory factors), and EPISTEL (Environment, Political, Informatics, Social,
Technological, Economic and Legal).

Strategic planning is the formal consideration of an organization's future course. All strategic
planning deals with at least one of three key questions:

1. "What do we do?"
2. "For whom do we do it?"
3. "How do we excel?"

In business strategic planning, the third question is better phrased "How can we beat or avoid
competition?". (Bradford and Duncan, page 1).

In many organizations, this is viewed as a process for determining where an organization is

going over the next year or more -typically 3 to 5 years, although some extend their vision to 20
years.

In order to determine where it is going, the organization needs to know exactly where it stands,
then determine where it wants to go and how it will get there. The resulting document is called
the "strategic plan."

It is also true that strategic planning may be a tool for effectively plotting the direction of a
company; however, strategic planning itself cannot foretell exactly how the market will evolve
and what issues will surface in the coming days in order to plan your organizational strategy.
Therefore, strategic innovation and tinkering with the 'strategic plan' have to be a cornerstone
strategy for an organization to survive the turbulent business climate.
Features of Private sector and the public sector :
Private sector
Organizing Pursuit of Profit, of Stability or of
Principles Growth of Revenues.
-Changing market conditions may
require innovations to enhance
perceived value for money or generate
new products. Market as a selection
process for innovations: business
cycles create periods of relative
austerity and prosperity for many
firms, and can be related to investor
willingness to support innovative
sectors and Start-ups.
Organizational Firms of many sizes, with options for
Structures new entrants.
– Large firms can have dedicated
innovation budgets; new entrants may
be forged around innovative products;
different firms may experiment with
innovations of different kinds.
Performance Return on Investment
Metrics
– While some innovations are hard to
cost-justify (e.g. IT infrastructure),
many can be quantified in terms of
increased sales, profits etc.
Public sector
Enactment of Public Policies.
- New and Changing Policies
may require Innovations of
many kinds Often the
problems with which these
policies are meant to contend
are highly complex, not always
well-understood, and policies
may thus have contradictory
effects. The political cycle as a
selection process debates
alternative policy directions,
and opportunities to
restructure public
organizations.
Complex system of
organizations with various (and
to some extent
conflicting) tasks
- Many innovations have to be
fitted into a massive complex
of organizational structures,
and “rolled out” in a
politically acceptable way
given concerns about social
equity and economic
efficiency.
Multiple performance
indicators and targets
- These often relate to
streamlining organizational
structures and achieving best
practice in the terms decided
and implemented as top-down
policy. Benefits f innovations
are often hard to quantify, or
those achievements that are
apparent are hard to value in

Management Some managers have considerable
Issues autonomy, others constrained by
shareholders, corporate governance, or
financial stringency. Successful
managers liable to be rewarded with
substantial material benefits and
promotion.
– Variation among firms in ability to
innovate and take risks in general.
Managers liable to pursue innovations
that they believe will be successful in
meeting company objectives – and
thus in furthering their own careers.
One of the most substantiated results
in the innovation literature is that
successful innovations typically
require product champions who are
prepared to take risks and continue to
support innovations through the
difficult periods often encountered in
early phases of Development and/or
implementation.
Relations with: Markets may be consumer or
~ End-Users industrial ones, and firms vary in the
intimacy of their links with the end-
users of their products, but typically
market feedback provides the verdict
on innovation.
– Innovation often motivated by need
to maintain or increase market share,
and one of the most substantiated
results in the innovation literature
relates success in innovation to
strictly financial and
budgetary terms.
While there are efforts to
emulate private sector
management practice, mangers
are typically under high levels
of political scrutiny. Successful
managers likely to receive
lower material benefits than
comparable private sector
managers.
– Major innovations are likely
to require approval of political
masters – or even to be
demanded and/or specified by
them. The role of championing
an innovation may be thrust
upon a manager – though
proactive managers can also
promote major innovations to
their political superiors, and
may be able to proceed with
less visible innovations with
little interference. Managers
motivated not only by aims of
furthering their own careers
through being associated with
successful innovations, but
also by pursuit of public
service objectives.
End-users are the general
public, traditionally seen as
citizens, though recently there
have been efforts to introduce
market-type principles and
move to see them as customers
or consumers.
– “Customer relations” have
often been underdeveloped,
with an assumption that public
servants know best about what
services are required, and thus
 understanding of end user
requirements.
Supply Chains Most firms are parts of one or
more supply chains, with larger firms
tending to organize these chains.
- Smaller firms may find their
innovation trajectories shaped by the
ways in which large players in supply
chins seek to specify details of their
products and production processes,
their stockholding, delivery, order
management and transactional
procedures (e.g. use of ecommerce
systems)
Employees Nature of workforce varies
considerably, and relations between
employees and management range
from fractious to harmonious. Efforts
about relevant innovations.
The customer side on the
relationship is somewhat
different from in private
sector: price is not necessarily
a market feedback
mechanisms; the customers
often pay a stipulated sum
and the state the rest (often the
difference in costs between
various actors) The marketing
strategies are different: the
public sector is not an
eager seller, the customer role
require active information
seeking citizens.
The services/products “sold”
has more far-reaching
personal consequences in
medical, health, social,
educational effects etc than
most of the products/services
in the private sector.
Public sector is typically
dependent on private suppliers
for much of its equipment, and
is a very important market for
many firms.
– Scope for public
procurement to impose
standards and other features
on suppliers; scope for
suppliers to introduce
innovations into the public
Sector (e.g. new computer
equipment, pharmaceuticals).
Public sector employees are
typically highly unionised
(economists and social
scientists in the central
 are made in some firms to instill
company loyalty and/or a customer-
centric approach, but employee
motivations are often mainly
economic ones of securing a
reasonable income.
– Employees rarely consulted
about technological and
organizational change, though
they may be encouraged to make
suggestions as to how to improve the
company’s products.
Companies have considerable
Sources of flexibility in sourcing innovation-
Knowledge related information from consultants,
trade associations, and public sector
researchers, but many smaller firms
have limited resources to do so.
administration and health- and
social professionals as nurses,
social workers, child-care
workers, teachers etc in the
public services). Many are
also professional workers
organized through professional
associations. While usual
concerns about status and
salary are experienced, many
workers enter public service
with idealistic motivations.
- Workforce may be able to
use industrial action to oppose
innovations seen as
threatening quantity or quality
of jobs or services.
Professional workforce may
bring innovation-related
knowledge from their
associations and networks –
but are also relatively well-
placed to try to adapt
innovations so as to maintain
professional status and
working conditions. Conflicts
among professionals might
facilitate and restrain
innovations. Workforce may
seek to introduce and influence
innovations in order to
improve quality of public
services.
Despite large resources, parts
of the public sector may be
constrained from using private
sources of knowledge
(other than those of suppliers).
Public sector sources of
knowledge (e.g. Universities)
may be highly oriented to other
parts of the public sector
– The public sector is able to
 – Much knowledge is generated
privately and efforts to retain
intellectual property may constrain
the diffusion of certain innovations
and underpinning knowledge. There
is believed to be considerable
variation across different sectors in
terms of the extent to which systems of
innovation give firms access to
relevant knowledge of new technical
and other developments
Time Horizon Short-term in many sectors, though
utilities and infrastructural services
may have very long horizons.
- Innovations typically need to pay off
in the shorter term, though some firms
do invest strategically in the hope of
major long-term advantages.
make use of a wide range of
sources of innovation-relevant
information and knowledge.
Recently efforts are being
made to make public sector
organizations more aware of
intellectual property issues:
while this is intended to
enhance innovation efforts,
this result is by no means
Guaranteed.
Often long-term (this means
that responsible decision-
makers may have moved on by
the time that results are
achieved) though many
decisions do have shorter
horizons.
- It may be difficult to assess
the consequences of innovation
in the short term. Major
investments may need to be
sustained over long
Periods.
Characteristics of the public sector shaping strategic management

The authorizing environment and the interdependent actors can be considered the actual market
of the public organization, further factors impact strategic management:

Environmental factors
– Influence of the political level
– Legal mandates

Transactional factors
– Coerciveness
– Scope of impact
– Public scrutiny, accountability
– Collective ownership
– Management must include societal values such as fairness, openness, inclusiveness,
honesty

Factors in the organization

– Goal setting processes are conflicted
– Measuring performance complex and difficult
Characteristics of the public sector shaping strategic management

Impact on the models available to strategic management:

Strategy as positioning or scope:
The more public an organization is, the more it will have to position itself within
the authorizing environment as its “market” in terms of producing outcome and
adjusting its scope.
Strategy as setting long-term direction:
Due to the turbulent nature of the authorizing environment a core unit of the
state will have more difficulty in setting long-term direction than a more
peripheral one which delivers concrete products and services.
Strategic fit ……can be seen here by maximizing public value while at the same
time attracting a maximum of permission and resources. This might lead to
trade-offs between what is perceived valuable and acceptable to the political
environment.
Strategy as stretching competencies:
Not only must the public manger use internal capabilities but rather rally
support from co-producers and external actors, which means that the
organizations strategy must be attractive
 The strategic triangle

A new approach to strategic management in the public sector. The strategic triangle
(adapted from Moore, 1995)
The three main management dimensions
Technology Integration as a Transforming Teaching Strategy

Technology integration means viewing technology as an instructional tool for delivering subject
matter in the curriculum already in place. Educators need to understand technology integration
more completely.

Observations of successful classroom models of technology integration should be provided to

teacher educators so they can help teachers integrate effectively. These technology-integrated
models should reflect diversity in grade levels and subject areas in order to provide a wide
spectrum for teacher educators. The purpose of the study was to explore how teachers who have
learned to integrate technology perform several years later in the actual task of integration. The
secondary purpose was to explore the relationship between teachers' beliefs and their use of a
various strategies to integrate technology in the classroom. These teaching strategies enhance
learning, enabling students to construct their own learning using computer technology as an
instructional tool.

According to the U.S. Department of Education (1999), less than 20% of American teachers feel
adequately equipped with the skills necessary to integrate technology into their classrooms.
Therefore, although technology offers the potential to enhance and improve the students' learning
experience, there is a lack of consensus on how to combine computers with other learning tools.
This absence of agreement causes too many teachers to be casual or even non-users of
computers.

True technology integration is rare. It involves students constructing their own learning while
using both hardware and software tools and allows for student-centered approaches for both
teacher and student. Pierson (2001) argued that educational reform efforts should not only focus
on acquiring more machines for classrooms but also on developing teaching strategies that
complement technology use within the curriculum.

Today's students have often taught themselves technical skills and digital literacy and can
perform more than schools will currently allow. This holding back has been attributed to the lack
of technical confidence among teachers, school staff, and administration. At the postsecondary
level, professional development has been affected by lack of skills among university faculty in
delivering needed research, creating working models, and providing practical solutions for
teachers.

Principals have looked to new teachers as a solution to the technology gap. Newer teachers may
be more open to learning how to use technology, but they are also trying to gain teaching
experience and classroom management in their first years. While newer teachers may come in
with more technical skills due to having taught themselves, technology integration is not being
modeled or taught in their pre-service coursework.

Professional development teams provide in-service workshops to help new teachers learn the
basic operational skills of the computer and proficient teachers to upgrade their technology skills.
However, in-service sessions have consisted of "one-shot workshops" that have not been proven
effective in helping teachers make the transition from novices to exemplary technology-using
teachers, much less provide the resources needed for integrating technology into the curriculum.
"Experienced teachers need time for reflection and collaboration with other teachers so that they
can envision technology use in relation to their established practices in multiple contexts"
(Pierson, 1999, p. 28).

This lack of technological knowledge causes a variety of problems in schools. The present divide
between instructional technology (IT) staff and teachers using technology in the classroom has
continued to expand. The IT staff has focused on connections, networking, trouble shooting,
maintaining equipment, and keeping up with a growing and dynamic field. Classroom teachers
are frequently stuck trying to use an often-unreliable tool for instruction in a meaningful way to
meet state standards and reach all students. Any teacher with minimal knowledge about
computers is often called on for technical support because the gap in knowledge is so severe. The
systemic barriers to innovative technology use weary many of these teachers. This has caused
another dilemma in education: Too many experienced teachers are leaving the classroom.

Teachers are practical and often autonomous individuals. They may not mind learning new
skills, such as the computer, but they desire flexibility and control in implementing those skills.
Teachers want to personalize the lessons they teach and decide for themselves on the tools they
should use. Technology training and modeling of technology integration are not adequate at the
university level or in professional development. There is a gap in information about how to
integrate technology for the pre-service and in-service teacher. Technology integration is a
complex phenomenon that involves understanding teachers' motivations, perceptions, and beliefs
about learning and technology. There appeared to be a strong relationship among participants in
this study between integrating technology in the classroom and having a philosophy that leaned
towards using constructivist teaching strategies. The online survey revealed that the surveyed
Jacksonville University graduates had constructivist teaching beliefs based on 17 of 18 indicators
of constructivist philosophy.

Figure 1: Pierson's model of technology integration (modified). Note. From Pierson (1999).
Diagram modifications have been made to include student construction of knowledge. Used with
permission
Pierson (1999) defined technology integration as teachers utilizing content and technological and
pedagogical expertise effectively for the benefit of students' learning.

A fourth component to Pierson's integration model: student construction of knowledge, was

added by this researcher. This adapted model served as a conceptual construct to explain the
interwoven patterns of knowledge reflected in the Jacksonville University MAT program.

Johnson and Liu's (2000) model is based on a meta-analysis of 102 case studies of technology
integration (Figure 1). It identifies significant components of three predictors of technology
integration. The authors examined 67 cases from the K-12 environment, 24 from higher
education teacher training settings, and 11 from in-service training settings. All grade levels and
curricular topics were included. They found six instructional components common to all 102
case studies: (a) use of software, (b) use of Web-based instruction, (c) use of Web information
resources, (d) use of problem-based learning, (e) instructional design choice, and (f) tailoring
multimedia courseware (Johnson & Liu, 2000).

Figure 2. Johnson and Liu integration model.

Johnson and Liu (2000) presented their integration model as a first step in identifying effective
and successful technology integration. The present study focused on teachers working in a
standards-based environment and using the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS)
to describe how students used technology for productivity. Participants were familiar with
aligning standards through using county-mandated Florida Sunshine State standards in their
lesson plans. Florida's standards are based on (NETS), which were created by the International
Society of Technology in Education (ISTE).
Technology integration is where you use technology to do something that could not be readily
done with something else. Learning technology skills and content at the same time encourages
fascination and student curiosity. Technology can expand or extend a teacher's time after the
teacher gets over the hump of learning it.

Participants agreed that teachers should not use technology just for technology's sake. Instruction
should reflect research-based teaching strategies that are considered best teaching practices.
Technology should be integrated, engaging, and encourage student exploration to learn
independently.

.
Information Technology as :A Strategic Tool for Tourism And Hospitality
Management In The New Millennium

Information technology revolution: Information Technologies' (ITs) developments in

the 1990s revolutionize both the global economy and enterprises around the world regardless of
their size, product and geographical coverage. At the macroeconomic level, ITs are increasingly
regarded as instrumental in regional development and long term prosperity of regions. There is
therefore an emerging need for competitiveness of both enterprises and regions which will be
based on the new information society and the knowledge-based economic powers. Thus the
competitiveness of regional economies and enterprises will to a great extend depend both on the
conditions of utilization and on the development and application of these technologies
(EC,1993).  

Tourism is inevitably influenced by the business re-engineering experienced

due to the technological revolution (WTO, 1988). As information is the life-blood of the travel
industry (Sheldon, 1994), effective use of technology is fundamental to the tourism sector as we
approach the 21st century (Wayne,1995). Therefore "a whole system of ITs is being rapidly
diffused throughout the tourism industry and no player will escape its impacts" (Poon,1993). The
ITs' revolution, has profound implications for the tourism industry management, mainly by
enabling efficient co-operation and offering tools for a real globalization. ITs have undoubtedly
become one of the most important elements of the tourism industry as in few other economic
activities are the generation, gathering, processing, application and communication of
information as important for day-to-day operations (Poon,1993). Consequently the rapid
development of both tourism supply and demand makes ITs an imperative partner of the industry
and thus ITs increasingly play a more important role in tourism marketing, distribution,
promotion and co-ordination (Buhalis,1995).  

Unlike durable goods, intangible tourism services cannot be physically displayed or inspected at
the point of sale before purchasing. They are normally bought before the time of their use and
away from the place of consumption. In the marketplace, therefore, tourism products are almost
exclusively dependent upon representations and descriptions by the travel trade, ie. information
in printed and audio-visual forms for their ability to attract consumers. Timely and accurate
information, relevant to consumers' needs is often the key to successful satisfaction of tourism
demand. Experienced travelers are increasingly empowered by ITs use information and booking
systems independently in order to increase their personal efficiency and to create tailor-made
products which gratify their needs. ITs have a dramatic impact on the travel industry because
they force this sector as a whole to rethink the way in which it organizes its business, its values
or norms of behavior and the way in which it educates its workforce (Vlitos-Rowe,1995). ITs'
impacts in the tourism industry are increasingly evident in the marketing, distribution and
cooperation functions of both the private and public sector. More specifically, ITs enhance
tourism distribution to an electronic marketplace where easy access to information and ubiquity
is achieved and thus the interactivity of principals and consumers is enhanced. This new
potential can be very beneficial for innovative Small and Medium sized Tourism Enterprises
which hitherto had little means to communicate directly with consumers as well as to defend
themselves against the horizontal and vertical integration of large multinational tourism
corporations (Buhalis,1994 and 1995).

Computerized networks and electronic distribution : lead the dramatic structural

changes within the tourism industry, and become central to the distribution mix and strategy.
Computer Reservation Systems (CRS) are clearly regarded as the most important facilitators of
these changes as they formulate a new travel marketing and distribution system. In its simplest
form, a CRS is a database which enables a tourism organization, to manage its inventory and
makes it accessible to its distribution channel partners. The rapid growth of both tourism demand
and supply in the last decades, demonstrated that the tourism industry could only be managed by
powerful computerized systems. Airlines were the pioneers of this technology, although
international hotel chains and tour operators realized the potentials and followed by developing
centralized reservation systems. The need for CRSs arises from both the demand and supply, as
well as from the expansion of the tourism industry in the last decades.  

From the tourism demand side, the rapid growth of travelers urges the utilization of powerful
CRSs for the administration of the traffic. CRSs satisfy consumer needs for easy access to
transparent and easy to compare information on a wide variety of choices of destinations, holiday
packages, travel, lodging and leisure services, the actual prices and availability of such services.
They also provide immediate confirmation and speedy documentation of reservations providing
a greater degree of flexibility and enabling prospective travelers to book at the "last minute".
Moreover, "improved access to information covering all aspects of tourist activities provided the
framework for offering personalized services at prices levels comparable to those of standard
packages" (WTO,1988). Increasingly, tourists' satisfaction depends on the accuracy and
relevance of tourism information as well as the promptness of responding to consumers' requests
(Buhalis,1994). Tourism supply utilizes CRSs to manage its inventory and distribute its capacity.
CRSs are utilised to facilitate and manage the drastic expansion of tourism enterprises and
destinations globally and can be characterised as the "circulation system" of the tourism product.
CRSs enable tourism providers to control, promote and sell their products globally, while assist
them to increase their occupancy/load factor levels and to reduce seasonality. They can also
contribute to their profitability and long term prosperity as they enhance numerous business
functions. In addition, CRSs often charge competitive commission rates in comparison with
other distribution options, while enable flexible pricing and capacity alterations, in order to
adjust tourism supply to demand fluctuations. CRSs also reduce communication costs, while
provide managerial information on tourism demand patterns or competitors' position. Cooper and
Buhalis (1992) suggest that principals can enjoy several competitive advantages when
represented on CRSs, namely: products on the CRSs will provide value added products by
widening the availability of services on the system to allow customizing; CRSs can facilitate
yield management systems providing profitable inventory management; CRSs can affect price
competition through cost savings and efficiencies in operational management and
communication; CRSs allow an increased volume of transactions to be handled and both
simplify and speed the process; CRSs initially allowed operatives at the pint of sales to be locked
in or to prefer a particular company's system over a competing one or over competitors who are
not on a system.

 
At the destination base, Destination Integrated Computer Information Reservation
Management Systems are emerging as strategic tools for the competitiveness of Small and
Medium sized Tourism Enterprises and the diagonal integration of destinations. These systems
aim to ameliorate the information delivery and reservation function for prospective and actual
tourists by using widely distributed multimedia presentations. They attempt to facilitate multi-
integration at the destination level aiming to enhance the multiplier effects in the local economy
and to provide a strategic management tool for the entire range of tourism related enterprises at
destinations. This enables the delivery of a better co-ordinated tourism product which
consequently contributes to the consumer satisfaction (Buhalis,1994 and 1995). In addition they
can play an instrumental role in destinations' ability to improve their economic, socio-cultural
and environmental impacts and to sustain their resources (Buhalis,1996). 

The integration of a series of high capacity communications channels in the INTERNET and
the "Information Superhighway" convergence media, telecommunications, and information
technology, increasing the interactivity between consumers and suppliers (Budley and
Bennett,1994). It enables the provision of tailored made information and marketing material to
meet the needs of individual tourists. As a result, ITs become the single most important
determinant in bridging tourism demand and supply, as well as in facilitating the operation of the
tourism industry. Since the beginning of 1995, the World Wide Web has emerged as the fastest
growing area of the INTERNET, enabling distribution of multimedia information. As textual
data, graphics, pictures, video, and sounds become easily accessible it soon became the flagship
of the ITs' revolution and instituted an innovative platform for efficient, live and timely exchange
of both ideas and products. Consequently, unprecedented and unforeseen implications were
drawn by futurists and media reports, for the future of marketing, consumer behavior and even
societies. Encouragingly, there is evidence that the tourism industry launches several services to
take advantage of the information superhighway. The utilization of the INTERNET and the
World Wide Web for tourism distribution provides unprecedented opportunities for the industry.
Due to World Wide Web's interlinking structure, it can provide an extremely vital service by
incorporating similarly structured information and enable the packaging of a wide range of
diverse products and services. Although it is recognized that the currently available information
in the INTERNET is chaotic, mainly due to its immaturity and the lack of any type of
standardization, increasingly it becomes evident that the World Wide Web provides the
infrastructure for inexpensive delivery of information, concerning every single enterprise and
destination. Thus, the INTERNET empowers the marketing and communication functions of
remote, peripheral and insular destinations as well as Small and Medium sized Tourism
Enterprises which become able to communicate directly with their prospective customers and
differentiate their product according to their needs. It is increasingly evident that the
competitiveness and prosperity of both enterprises and destinations in the new millennium will
depend on the degree of innovation utilized in the utilization of new strategic tools provided by
the revolutionary information technology.
Public sector innovation
Innovation literature is directed at understanding and establishing a consistent and general basis
for understanding the main processes underlying social and economic change in modern
economies. Hence, it is something of a paradox that the innovation literature has almost
completely neglected studies of innovation in the public sector.

The public sector is vast. What happens in this part of the economy has major implications for
the economy as a whole. The public sector has traditionally played a crucial role as an enabler of
research in academia and in the private sector, but public sector has historically often played a
more direct role when public research programs have pioneered the development of major new
technologies. Public sector is likely to continue to play this role, and the story of technical
revolutions and administrative innovations cannot be anything like complete without studying
innovation in the public sector.

What is innovation?

The term “innovation” can be defined most generally as changes in behaviour. Efforts to produce
more specific definitions of the term have resulted in many good, but no single authoritative
definition. An important reason for this is that the meaning of innovation has been under constant
evolvement. Early definitions of innovation, like

Schumpeter’s (1934), restricted themselves to novel products and processes finding a

commercial application in the private sector. Later definitions have broadened their scope, also
including social innovations (e.g. organizational, institutional and political innovations),
innovations in services, and innovations in the public sector as well.

Studying innovation in the public sector, one has by the outset removed oneself from the
narrowest interpretations of innovation.. These include:

 Innovations involving changes in characteristics and design of service products and

production processes – including development, use and adaptation of relevant
technologies,
 Delivery innovations – involving new or altered ways of solving tasks, delivering
services or otherwise interacting with clients for the purpose of supplying specific
services,
 Administrative and organizational innovations – involving new or altered ways of
organizing activities within the supplier organization,
 Conceptual innovations – in the sense of introducing new missions, new worldviews,
objectives, strategies and rationales. These innovations are particularly important to
institutions operating under social or public objectives as they furnish a link between the
 social objectives of the policy and institution and the operational and economic goals
and functions of the agency 3 in question. This type of innovation includes major parts
of the impacts of the process we denote policy learning,
 System interaction innovations – new or improved ways of interacting with other
organizations and knowledge bases.

How are innovations generated in – or introduced into the public sector?

From a narrow definition of innovation one could be led to believe that innovations would have
to be transferred from the private to the public sector in one way or the other. This may be the
case in many instances, but obviously, when broadening the understanding of what an innovation
can be, innovations are also generated within the public sector itself.

Technology procurement
Procurement is one way innovations could be introduced into the public sector.

Public procurement will normally account for 10-15% of GNP in industrialized countries .This
publicly created demand is of tremendous importance for the national economies.

The greater part of what is procured is ordinary commodities, and these are not necessarily
innovative as such. Even though only a part of public procurement involves new technologies,
this is still a major contributor to the introduction of innovations in the public sector. Moreover,
if a public institution starts using a commodity, it is innovation seen from the perspective of this
institution, even if the product or service is known in the market.

Technology procurement is important for the public sector because it introduces better
technologies in the production of public services and goods. But what may be equally important
from an innovation perspective is that the transfer of the technology to the public sector often
entails some form of technology development, or at least some adaptation to the requirements of
the end-users of the technology. In other words: technology procurement engages public sector
employees in innovative processes when the technology is to be integrated into the context-
specific requirements of its application.

Another related aspect is the public organizations need for an absorptive capacity in connection
with the technology procurement. Absorptive capacity concerns the receivers’ ability to
assimilate and make use of the transferring technology.

 The development of an organization’s absorptive capacity will build on prior investment

in the development of its constituent, individual absorptive capacities, and, like
individuals’ absorptive capacities, organizational absorptive capacity will tend to develop
cumulatively”

(Cohen and Levintahl 1996: 544)

The process of innovation will frequently begin before the actual procurement because the
organizations need specialized skills in order to integrate the transferred technology

Technology development
There is of course a substantial amount of technology development also taking place within the
public sector itself, but -- as noticed before -- what you find depends on what you are looking
for. “Technology development” (like the concept of innovation) does not have a single
interpretation or definition. In this context, however, technology development is understood as
the development of new or improved artefacts, production processes, and new or improved forms
of work organization on both an individual and a systemic level.

From an economic point of view the rationale for the public sector as a whole is that it supplies
the society with the services which a pure market solution does not produce in a sufficient
quantity. Many of these services involve technological challenges where the solutions cannot
simply be imported from the private sector. This includes problems in connection with city
planning, traffic solutions, congestion, pollution, defense, collection of taxes, exploration of
space etc.

A number of public agencies, technical- and planning- sections and departments at nearly all
levels of the bureaucracy are engaged in technology development. In addition to this comes the
technological development done in other public organizations, like hospitals, national railway-
companies, schools and universities.

Bureaucratic and organizational reform

It follows from an extended interpretation of innovation that reforms also constitute innovations.
Bureaucratic and organizational reform could involve administrative and organizational
innovations, conceptual innovations and system interaction innovations.

The reforms tied to what has become known as New Public Management (NPM) serves as a
good illustration (although one needs to keep in mind that not all innovations necessarily are
positive):

 An example of a conceptual innovation was the implementation of privatization as a

principle for the downsizing of the public sector.
 The reforms of NPM also introduced administrative and organizational innovations.
Examples of this are the introduction of “managerialism” (entrepreneurial- and strategic
management, management by objectives, team management, etc.) and the introduction of
new systems for budgeting and accounting.
 NPM could also be said to involve system interaction innovations to the extent that the
reforms resulted in a strengthened interaction between the public and the private sector.
New policies
New policy and reform are related concepts, but while reform means changing something into an
improved condition, “new policy” is a more open-ended concept in that it allows for the
introduction of something totally different. The decisions to take 5 man to the moon or to create
a European Economic Community do not constitute reforms, but new policies involving a broad
range of innovations with deep impacts on both the public and private sector.

Most new policies are much less epoch-making than the above-sited. Still – new policies are
often the basis for innovations in the public sector.. The policy also involves the development
and implementation of new technical aids and innovations in how the staff co-operates with other
care-givers (relatives).

A typology of innovations in the public sector

Innovation in the public sector can be divided into several types:

 A new or improved service

(for example health care at home)

 Process innovation

(a change in the manufacturing of a service or product)

 Administrative innovation

(e.g., the use of a new policy instrument, which may be a result of policy
change)

 System innovation

(a new system or a fundamental change of an existing system, for instance by the establishment
of new organizations or new patterns of co-operation and interaction)

 Conceptual innovation

(a change in the outlook of actors; such changes are accompanied by the

use of new concepts, for example integrated water management or mobility leasing)

 radical change of rationality

(Meaning that the world view or the mental matrix of the employees of an
organization is shifting)
The first two types of innovation can be subsumed under product innovation.

The innovations can be labeled in the following ways:

 Incremental innovations—radical innovations

(Denoting the degree of novelty, in industry most innovations can be

considered incremental improvements of already existing products, processes or services)

 Top-down innovations—bottom-up innovations

(denoting who has initiated the process leading to behavioral changes, “the top” –
meaning management or organizations or institutions higher up in the hierarchy – or “the
bottom” – meaning “workers on the factory floor”, in this case public employees, civil servants
and mid-level policy makers)

 Needs-led innovations and efficiency-led innovation

(Denoting whether the innovation process has been initiated to solve a 6 specific
problem or in order to make already existing products, services or procedures more efficient)

Why do innovations spread in the public sector?

Why do innovations spread in the public sector when the pecuniary interests of individuals or
groups of stockholders are missing? Several explanations can be offered to answer this question.

One group of explanations can be related to factors that creates a top-down or external
innovation push. The other can be related to factors or circumstances, within the public sector
itself, creating an innovation pull.

Push for innovations

Policies and political targets

Democratic countries have elections at fixed intervals. The electoral institution has many
functions; one of them is to ensure the vitality and revitalization of the policies that govern the
countries. So at least around the time of elections there usually is an outburst of political
reativity and innovation. This creativity and innovativeness expresses itself in the form party
programs (which the constituency is tempted with), but also routinely as a renewed willingness
of the incumbent government to innovate in order to muster political support. This is not to say
that there is no political innovation between elections. The continuing political discourse will
result in new, innovative initiatives between elections too. The point is that governments and
other political bodies have political ambitions, set political targets, and work to get these realized
through the democratic channel. Making use of the bureaucracy to implement the political will
throughout the public and private sector and in so doing creating a push for change and
innovation.

Popular opinion

Popular opinion can also create a push for innovations in the public sector, especially when
media catches on to the popular sentiments, bringing these to attention, amplifying and
politicizing them. Push from popular opinion is often comes from dissatisfaction with the service
level, e.g. the treatment queues at hospitals, dissatisfaction with the infrastructure of schools, the
quality of roads, etc. Citizens (especially in welfare states) have expectations to the quality and
extent of almost all public services, and when services do not live up to expectations popular
discontent often results. While the response at the service-level often is a request for more
money, the reaction of politicians is more often to push for new policies or reforms.

The public opinion thus creates feedback loops into the process of innovation in the public
sector. The feedback loop is, however, somewhat biased towards feedback of a negative
character. A relatively weaker feedback of positive responses to innovations is a problem if this
leads to underdevelopment or underutilization of innovations to which the public is positively
inclined.

International agreements, laws, regulations and standards

One very important aspect of globalization is the increased influence of supranational bodies on
the domestic policy of individual states. This is driven by the continuing development of the
corpus of laws and regulations of organizations like WTO, EU 7 and IMF and the gradual
ratification of these agreements in the form of national law.

 For example: an agreement on marketable quotas on co2- emissions would require each
country to set up a monitoring system for the industry, thus creating a push for innovation
in the public sector of the countries.

Technological and scientific developments

To state that the general technological and scientific development creates a push for innovation
in public sector (like other parts of the society) is almost superfluous. The challenge is to
understand the profoundness of this impact.

Not only does this development create a push given that technologies are interdependent (e.g. the
development and spread of broadband creates the need for better hardware and software in
servers and terminals, different network- and web-solutions; i.e. innovations in the user-producer
interface of public services); it also creates a push in the sense that it has a major impact on the
opportunities, priorities and agenda of politicians, civil servants and the general public.
A study of U.S. public programs awarded as innovative in 1993 revealed that almost one third
were making use of information systems representing cutting-edge technologies, and because of
the newness of the technology, these programs would not have been possible only a decade
earlier (Libbey 1994). This does not necessarily imply that these technologies have exerted a
great push as such, but rather a window of opportunity that has enabled the use of them as a basic
part in a public sector innovation.

Other societal developments

A number of other developments or incidents can also create an external push for innovation in
the public sector. The demographical development of a country is one of the factors that can
create a push for innovation in the public sector. Already mentioned is the home-care policy of
the Norwegian government. This policy is to a large extent a response to the growing number of
older people in need of care.

Increased migration also creates a push for innovation in the public sector. This does not only
relate to border control, but a whole range of services that need to be tailored to people with a
different language and cultural background to ensure their welfare and integration into society.

Economic developments, growth and crisis, can also create a need for modernization of the
public sector. An example that has underlying political causes (but is currently of great concern)
is the process of integration of the economies of many former communist countries into the
larger Western economy. This process is creating enormous pressures for innovation at almost all
levels in the public as well as the private sector of these countries.

There are a number of other factors that can create pressure for innovation in the public sector.

Natural catastrophes are one such factor. They can for example expose weaknesses in the
emergency preparedness of a country. War or the perceived threat of war is another factor that
historically has spurred innovation in the public sector of countries.

Factors creating a pull for innovation

User needs and preferences

Some critics question the responsiveness of public sector, claiming it is insulated to user needs
and preferences. Although this claim may have some merit in some contexts and in some
instances, there is nothing that indicates that this is as widespread and as chronic as sometimes
portrayed (by private sector employees).

To the contrary, evidence suggests that the public sector reacts to user needs and preferences,
bottom-up, through the day-to-day interaction with citizens at the service level, and, top-down,
through the democratic channel.
 Organizational overstretch or frustration with status quo
Both citizens and employees may feel frustrated by the inability of a public institution to provide
the services that is expected. This may lead to a public outcry. Press and media may spur policy
makers “to do something” about the problem, which may ultimately force the leaders of the
institution to implement reform.

Employers may also be the source of innovation, especially in an organization that encourages
learning and innovation. Employers may initiate reform for a wide variety of reasons:

 They may be ideologically inclined to do so, i.e. they have a word view or a rationality
that makes them believe that change is necessary.
 They may be idealists or altruists. They have found work in the public sector because
they “want to make a change”.
 By proposing innovations they may further their own careers. It is certainly true that
organizations may oppose radical changes, but it may nevertheless appreciate “fixers”
and “doers” that are able to get the leaders out of a tight spot.
 They may be intellectually curious or they may find the need for change an interesting
challenge. The fact that the public sector in European countries employ a large number of
academically trained personnel makes this more likely.

Lobbyism
Both public as well as private sector organizations may decide to follow up on user
dissatisfaction, and make it a rallying cause for their members.

Technological interdependencies
The innovator frequently needs “complementary assets” to pull the innovation through,
particularly if other agents are trying to introduce similar innovations or even quite dissimilar
ways of addressing the same problems. Such assets can involve control of complementary
innovations (that enhance the value of the innovation to users), of marketing and distribution
channels, and intangible assets like brand names and intellectual property rights. Credit for the
innovation may not go to the original innovator and the dominant design may not be the first
design.
Barriers to innovation
The public sector is often described as “bureaucratic” – in a negative sense. It is often considered
a slow moving, rigid, hierarchically organized system, with specialized departments that are
directed towards concrete targets and having ambiguous defined limits of authority at the same
time. This “bureaucratic” system is by some perceived as time-consuming, oversized and
expensive, and a waste of taxpayers’ money. We will leave the discussion on whether the public
sector is more or less “bureaucratic” than its private counterparts, but start with the hypothesis
that public sector organizations may in some instances be “bureaucratic” in the negative sense of
the word. If this is the case the main problem seems to be the structure of the organization.
Administrative innovation will then be the solution; as it may create better structures for
absorbing policy learning and technical innovation.

Organizational structures might be understood as chosen, and change as guided by human

intention. The development of a structure follows a strategy (Chandler 1962), where the major
functions of a structure is to direct attention and action toward the accomplishment of pre-
determined goals. Various structural forms are chosen on the basis of their ability to facilitate
this goal-accomplishment (Child 1972; Scott 1992).

The best way to organize the public sector.

And, is it possible to reorganize the public sector into this one “best” structure? The hierarchical
organization of the public sector is based on a democratic principle; it is ultimately ruled by a
Parliament and a Government that are constituted through elections. The political party or parties
in power might have other perspectives on what is the best way to organize the public sector than
the minority. Such political perspectives might have been considered in the elections, and the
existing organization structures might therefore be understood as the democratic will of the
population.

The role of policy ..Democratic intervention

In the public sector the objectives for innovation are manifold, not clearly ranked and subject to
change. In the private sector objectives are manifold too, but once a decision has been made to
embark on an innovation project one tends to stick to the objectives until the plan has been
finalized or aborted. In the public sector objectives are more unclear and tend to be reformulated
all the time – also after the decision has been made.

The procedures in both sectors are about decision making, but the processes leading to decisions
in the public sector are often (but not always) political. For obvious reasons the main focus of
public sector innovation will not be sales and profits. Public institutions operate under other
regulatory and social rules than companies.
Public institutions must act in accordance with constitutional principles of governance that define
the basic standards for public activity: who can legitimately and reasonable decide what, when
and how? Interestingly these principles appear as reasonable when considered in isolation, but
may seem problematic and even contradictory if seen in context. These principles and their
contradicting relations must therefore be considered when studying innovation in the public
sector, and if possible hierarchically arranged and prioritized on the basis of the innovation
studied (Christensen and Egeberg 1992).

Compare Public sector innovation with innovation in the Private sector?

Incentive-structures

The lack of direct alignment of incentive structures at operational and strategic level implies the
need of considering a wider concept of “production system” than in market-based activities. The
required system concept must also include the formation and operationalisation of objectives,
policies and regulation.

Hence, special attention will be given in this project to innovation and learning processes in both
policy organizations, as ministries and policy agencies, in various regulation authorities, and in
public organizations providing a range of services for the public. This is in addition to the
functional system aspects, such as production related value chains, to be expected from
‘traditional’ innovation research.

A factor that seriously complicates any study of the dynamics of innovation in the public
institutions considered in this project is the lack of simple and clear cut relations between the
private objectives of the organization and its owners and incentives for and rewards from
innovation. The differences in these respects implies the need of caution in analyzing change and
innovation, they may lead to a different innovation dynamics. In particular we hypothesise that
the lack of a direct link of the socially oriented, strategic and functional objectives and the
operational and economic goals of the individual organization may lead to a new category of
innovations – denoted conceptual innovations.
Incentives for innovation in the public Incentives for innovation in the
sector /Individuals private sector /Individuals

 Prestige  Prestige
 Self-fulfillment  Self-fulfillment
 Professional recognition  Idealism
 Potential for spin-off business  Career
 Idealism  Power
 Career  Money (salary, profits, bonuses)
 Power  Job security via enhanced company
 Money (salary) competitiveness and profitability
 Imposed requirement

Incentives for innovation in the public Incentives for innovation in the public
sector /Organizations sector /Organizations

 Problem solving (in order to reach  Problem solving (in order to reach
 objectives)  objectives)
 Increased funding  Profits
 The propagation of a policy, idea or  Market-shares
 rationality  Pre-empt competition
 More staff  Growth (in size)
 Public relations  Public relations
A Snapshot of Technology Integration

The following classroom observation is a snapshot of Mrs. C, a sixth grade science teacher, who
is using technology in a variety of different ways. However, the integration of technology is not
the norm in all classrooms or schools.

As students entered the sixth-grade classroom, the routine became obvious. Students found their
seat based on letters of the alphabet. Seating the students this way allowed them to work with as
many people as possible throughout the school year. It also allowed a flexible set up for labs,
group work, or taking notes. Students completed a warm-up activity in their journals. Mrs. C
drew a letter from a cup to select different students each day to share what they had written.

The second activity incorporated technology. An LCD projector projected class-generated

student notes using Inspiration software. Students copied the notes, about different biomes, in
concept map format. Mrs. C shared the Missouri Botanic Gardens' Biomes of the World Web
site, which describes six of the world's biomes, three freshwater ecosystems, and three marine
ecosystems. Mrs. C asked the students to help her evaluate this Web site and clicked on various
links. She asked questions throughout the demonstration: "What is the difference between
ecosystems and biomes?" Her students responded, "Many ecosystems can exist in a biome."

She proceeded to click on the links about the temperate forest. The students recorded the data
collected: Temperate forests have four seasons. The trees leaves are deciduous, meaning they
change colors during autumn. There is substantial rainfall in the temperate forest. Mrs. C led the
class to look at the rainfall bar graph before asking, "Which biome has the greatest amount of
rainfall?"

Mrs. C concluded the lesson by going over the planning guide for the biomes before letting
students begin their group work. Groups had to report on their biome's climate, flora, fauna, and
terrain. The biomes researched were the taiga, tundra, tropical rainforest, deciduous forest,
grasslands, desert, temperate rainforest, and temperate forest. Students would develop biome
posters explaining how biomes were differentiated.

Following the note taking and research time, Mrs. C gave students the remainder of the class
period to work with their groups on their biome project. She supported project-centered learning
in the classroom. The first observation focused on students in the planning stages of a biome
project. Some of the students were involved in using the classroom computers for collecting
research and resources. Six students were sent to the media center to gather more research. Other
students were using library books at the front of the room or watching a video using headphones
about the desert.

Mrs. C delivered information about biomes in an interesting way that invited students to want to
know more about their research topic. She modeled the process of research and multitasking
involved in project-centered learning. Her students competently manipulated various forms of
technology, from accessing the Internet for research to creating titles for student projects to using
encyclopedia CD-ROMs or viewing a video to gather more information.
Findings from the classroom observations indicated that teacher graduates were effectively
integrating technology into their classrooms. According to participant interviews, technology
integration was consistently emphasized through curriculum development in Jacksonville
University's MAT in ILET. This study's findings indicated that teaching strategies that engage
and involve learners were effective in accomplishing technology integration in the classroom.
Several effective strategies were observed: (a) using technology as an instructional tool
applicable to the classroom setting and curriculum, (b) teacher facilitation and management of
the learning environment, and (c) incorporation of national educational technology standards.

Students were observed constructing their own knowledge through WebQuest development and
Web design. They created their own descriptive paragraphs with Kid Pix and explored topics of
choice-everything from police vehicles to the Bermuda Triangle. The students reflected on their
own project development by evaluating each other's work. Some students calculated monthly
payments on a $10,000 car using a Web-based financial calculator. They worked in small groups
and engaged in active learning by interacting with the teacher through questioning and with their
environment using a variety of tools from scissors to digital cameras.

Perception affects use. Participants had learned to use technology as an instructional tool. In their
own classrooms they used it to search for knowledge, apply knowledge, and present their own
students' construction of knowledge. They used technology to reinforce skills as well as
supplement and enhance daily lessons.

Teachers who perceived technology as a tool to help themselves and their students work more
productively defined technology integration as "putting the technology to work for you." "The
computer is like an employee-it has to earn its pay. I put it to work," explained a computer
applications college professor. An elementary school computer teacher said,

In summary, this study found that integrating technology effectively was demonstrated across
grade levels and course content using such constructivist teaching strategies as active, authentic,
constructive, cooperative, and intentional/ reflective learning. Results revealed that technology
integration varied according to individual teaching beliefs, perceptions towards technology
innovations, and how the teacher practiced and put technology to work in the classroom. Active,
authentic, constructive, cooperative, and intentional/reflective learning were teaching strategies
found in 50% of the classroom observations.

This study revealed that technology integration varied according to individual teaching beliefs
and perceptions towards technology innovations. If technology integration is the first level
towards transforming teaching and learning, then understanding the possibilities in the classroom
can give researchers, teacher educators, and professional development facilitators more
knowledge to move teachers in this direction
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID): A strategic approach
A strategic perspective on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), an important connective
technology for building effective supply chain for the consumer products is presented. Suppliers
are cautiously responding to the retailers' demands in implementing this technology. The primary
question for the industry is which immediate or near term RFID initiatives can produce positive
return on investment. Industry survey in which participants rate the validity of various research
suppositions derived from industrial experts provides basic understanding of the issues involved.
An analytical model of RFID technology deployment using Wal-Mart RFID compliance
example illustrates how lower shipment processing costs and lead times result in smaller cycle
inventory and safety stocks.

 Information technology;
Destination Management Systems ;tourism impacts; small and medium tourism enterprises;
strategic destination management.
Information technologies have revolutionized the management of contemporary organizations
and introduced a paradigm shift in the way businesses operate. The tourism industry is inevitably
affected and a variety of new computerized systems are designed to facilitate the inter-
organisational and intra-organisational management and communications. As a result, several
destinations benefit by developing destination management systems which enable them to
coordinate their operations and promote their products. Integrated Computer Information
Reservation Management Systems is acting as strategic tools which enable the establishment of
platforms for enhancement of tourism benefits at the destination level. In this sense they can
contribute to the profitability of tourism enterprises at the micro level, and the economic impact
of tourism at the macro level. These systems can also reduce social, cultural and environmental
negative impacts by bridging the gap between visitors and locals and by assisting them to build
realistic expectations from their involvement in tourism activities or enterprises.

Technology strategy for a strategic planning tool in a multinational company: Sustained

competitive advantages require continuous improvement for a company to maintain its strength
or weakness in the marketplace. Information technologies play a crucial role for a competitive
future. To create sustainable growth, role and performance measurement of information
technologies in management processes such as strategic planning, audit etc. steadily increases in
today psilas highly competitive business world. The purpose is to focus on technology strategy
of a strategic planning tool and case of Siemens AG. The initiator of the technology was Siemens
Turkey where the tool of regional strategic planning (Dynamic Strategic Planning System copy
(DSPS)) was also developed for the first time among the regional companies of Siemens AG.
Siemens Turkey has been the responsible for the development since 2001 and decided an
aggressive technology strategy to make a radical innovation after the criteria are evaluated.
Technology strategy is questioned during two in-depth interviews with a manager and a technical
system administrator and technology strategy of DSPS is mapped with S-curve according to
inputs from in-depth interviews.
Proposed Strategic Alignment Model:

The proposed model is depicted in Figure. It is based on four key domains of strategic choice:

1. Business strategy,
2. Organizational infrastructure
3. Processes; I/T strategy;
4. I/T infrastructure and processes
 Conclusions

The strategic triangle could serve as a consulting, teaching or research tool in the public sector
Benefits

– Incremental flexibility
– Reduction of complexity
– creates focus
– Easily communicated and understood.

Drawbacks
– Focus can shift over time
– Complexity and breadth of operations is “underrepresented”
 References:
 http://www.eller.arizona.edu/spap/faculty/milward/PMR.pdf
 http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-54-1-no-21-10044-54,00.html
 http://pmi-ittelecom.org/pmtopics/the-communications-plan-is-a-strategic-tool/

 Archdale, G., 1992c, WTO report on computer reservation systems, WTO, No.7,
July/August, pp.12-13. 

 Archdale, G. 1993, Computer reservation systems and public tourist offices, Tourism
Management, Vol. 14(1), pp.3-14.
 International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management 2007 - Vol. 10,
No.1  pp. 41 – 56
 International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Issue Volume
10,Number 1 / 2007