m








‡ LECTURER:
DR. ANGELINE TAY
TUESDAY MORNING CLASS
FIRST PRESENTATION GROUP-2

DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008

 |
 

i
 







   




M
 
  

  


R



 Table of Contents:
 Issue/Problem Statement
 Introduction
 Proposed Framework
 Further Explanation
 Contextual and Processual Approach
 Concluding Remarks
 Recommendations
 More about Strategy Implementation
 Why Strategies Fail
 ISSUE / PROBLEM STATEMENT

‡ To propose a comprehensive corporate strategy

implementation framework by identifying key elements of
implementation and categorizing them into different groups
depending on their role and importance, as limited research
work is available in this important area of strategic
management discipline.
 INTRODUCTION

‡ Implementation of a strategy is far most difficult and time

taking process than formulating the strategy itself.

‡ There are some commonly used useful models for strategy

formulation (SWOT analysis for example) , however
strategy implementation is still a field to be explored
comprehensively.

‡ This article basically goes through an extensive literature

review of the work previously done in strategy
implementation.

‡ Based upon literature review, the author proposes a

comprehensive strategy implementation framework by
identifying key factors of strategy implementation and their
mutual relationship.
 INTRODUCTION (Cont«)
‡ There are some major deficiencies in the
previously proposed models by different
researchers on strategy implementation.
Those are:

 Previous studies on strategy implementation do not

specifically advocate any implementation approach, as
different schools of thought emphasize on different
previously identified factors.

 Similarity, in one way or the other, between previously

identified factors of implementation, despite the fact
that different models include different numbers and
types of factors.

 They didn¶t provide clear examples and explanations for

the relationships and interactions between their
proposed implementation factors.
 INTRODUCTION (Cont«)
‡ The article provide about 17 examples of
previous literature review of the frameworks
proposed by researchers in different time spans.

‡ It also provides critical analysis of Balanced

Scorecard Technique (Kaplan and Norton), used
for strategy implementation in recent years.

± Balanced Scorecard technique looks strategy

implementation in four angles:

‡ The financial perspective

‡ Customer perspective
‡ Internal business perspective
‡ Learning and growth perspective
 INTRODUCTION (Cont«)

‡ Balanced Scorecard has five principles and four

main implementation areas, but this technique
neither solves all implementation problems nor
provides new insights into strategy
implementation.
Reasons for this are:

± It is mainly a control mechanism, suggesting a top-down

approach with limited participation from lower levels

± Secondly, all implementation factors and sub-factors are

similar to the factors that have been identified by
previous scholars of strategy implementation
 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK

‡ Four grouping areas for strategy implementation

factors has been identified by the author, based
upon the role and characteristics of each factor.

Those are:
± Strategic Content
‡ Involves development of strategy
± Strategic Context
‡ Internal (structure, culture, leadership) and external
(environmental uncertainty)
± Operational Process
‡ Involves operational issues of business (planning,
resources, people, control etc)
± Outcome
‡ Results of implementation process (positive/negative)
PROPOSED FRAMEWORK (Cont«)
 FURTHER EXPLANATION
‡ In the proposed framework, strategy implementation is
seen as a process that occurs in the strategic context.

‡ The strategic content is viewed as the strategic direction of

the company and the need to design new initiatives.

‡ The process factors utilized in the implementation process

and the outcome are seen as the expected and unexpected
results of the initiated strategy.

‡ When applying this model in international firms, the type

and characteristic of the factors should be carefully
analyzed to overcome potential problems.

‡ Implementation factors, given in the four groupings, should

not be considered separately because a factor in one group
can influence the other factors in the same and/or other
groups.
 CONTEXTUAL AND PROCESSUAL
APPROACH

‡ Implementation process must be examined and evaluated

from a holistic perspective over a long period of time, which
is referred to as the contextual and processual approach.

‡ According to this approach, researchers and practitioners

need to adapt a more comprehensive view and look at
content ,context, process and outcome simultaneously.

‡ This approach has received more support and attention in

recent years, as it provides a more comprehensive view for
understanding and evaluating complex organizational
change processes.
 CONCLUDING REMARKS

‡ This article provides a comprehensive review of strategy

implementation literature.

‡ Proposes a theoretical framework of strategy

implementation by looking strategy formulation and
implementation as interdependent tasks.

‡ It also suggests that, to better understand implementation

issues, practicing executives should make informed
judgments about the process of strategy implementation,
rather than looking for ready-made solutions.

‡ The framework proposed provides good understanding of

the factors affecting implementation process, and the
relationship between them.
 RECOMMENDATIONS

‡ The framework developed in this study should be

empirically tested and improved by investigating real cases
of strategy implementation in organizations.

‡ Organizational change management training programs are

the necessity in today¶s turbulent business environment,
which should be considered very seriously for middle as
well as upper management.

‡ Lot of research work needs to be done in this very

important issue of strategic management field, as very
limited research work is available on the issue.

‡ Strategy implementation in global firms should also be

considered for future research work.
 MORE ABOUT STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION«.
IMPLEMENTATION «.
‡ Fortune magazine stated that ³less than 10% strategies
effectively formulated are effectively executed´.

‡ Again, according to Fortune magazine, only one of ten

companies that do an effective job of formulating strategy
are doing equally effective jobs of implementing it.

‡ In today¶s fast-moving fast-changing business world, where

best thing in business is not the thing anymore but the
service, the rules of management and leadership have
changed. So, effective leadership and communication within
the company are the key factors for the successful
implementation of a strategy.

‡ Work on these intangibles is a strategic investment equally

as important as new assets or mergers or acquisitions for
the company
 WHY STRATEGIES FAIL?

‡ The main barriers to the implementation of strategies

include implementation taking more time than planned,
poor communication, lack of coordination and support from
other levels of management, resistance from lower levels
and lack of or poor planning activities. (Alexander-1985,
Kotter-1995, & Strabel-1996)

‡ Henry Mintzberg believe that the strategic planning models

fail due to the lack of strategic thinking and because of
some fundamental flaws like I) the fallacy of prediction II)
the fallacy of detachment, and III) the fallacy of
formalization.

‡ According to Alexander (1991, p. 74)

± Practicing executives, managers and supervisors don¶t have
practical models to guide their actions during implementation.
 WHY STRATEGIES FAIL?

(MILLER¶S ICARUS PARADOX)

‡ Denny Miller, in his landmark study, investigated
the decline of powerful corporations. He found in
his study that ³the victories and strengths of
companies can often be the cause of their future
strategic failure´. He found four major causes of
strategic failure:

± Leadership traps

± Monolithic cultures and skills

± Power and politics

± Structural memories
 WHY STRATEGIES FAIL?

(DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES)
‡ Clayton M. Christensen in his book þ
þ

 reported that
³the logical competent decisions of management that are critical to the
success of their companies are also the reasons why they lose their
positions of leadership´. Such companies can be blind-sided by the
emergence of 
þ
þ
 

, he says. These disruptive
technologies are products or processes that appear in the marketplace,
but look harmless to the successful company.

‡ Examples of disruptive technologies:

± Small, off-road Japanese motorcycles introduced in US, threatened Harley

Davidson and BMW

± Transistors killed the vacuum-tube industry

± Digital evolution changed the field of photography by switching it from traditional

to digital
 WHY STRATEGIES FAIL?

(EXAMPLES OF HP & XEROX)

‡ Hewlett Packard (HP): CEO Carly Fiorina¶s strategic decision

to acquire Compaq in 2002 proved a drastic failure for HP
and the CEO too. Since then the company is struggling in
everything except its stellar printing business.

‡ XEROX: after facing many years of weak sales and high

costs, the company was near to bankruptcy when, in July
2004, Anne Mulcahy named CEO of Xerox. And because of
the leadership qualities she made relentless efforts to
stabilize Xerox.
 Ê M



×