برنامه ریزی استراتژیک به عنوان یک عامل تغییر استراتژیک: یک مدل مولد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|27369||2000||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7980 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : European Management Journal , Volume 18, Issue 2, April 2000, Pages 195–206
In this paper, I describe an alternative model of a strategic planning process that attempts to link planning processes both with new views of the sources of competitive advantage and with the multiple theoretical lenses used to understand strategic change. I hypothesize that this is possible in a redesigned planning process that engages a broad group of organizational members in a strategic dialogue in which hypothetical futures are generated and tested, in a cognitive loop; then implemented as new capabilities, in a behavioral loop. This paper takes as its focus the relationship of strategic planning to strategic change. It hypothesizes that a `generative' model of planning processes, which I contrast with a more traditional approach to planning, offers the possibility of linking the two concepts more effectively. The argument utilizes learning and cognitive theories to support its point, and locates this discussion within the mainstream of the literature on strategy-making processes. It then delineates the specific differentiating dimensions of the generative model, posits the model's impact on firm performance, and finally, draws out implications for testing.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Taken together and successfully operationalized, the model of generative planning offered here, I hypothesize, can contribute more significantly than have traditional processes to the success of the organization. They will do this through the development of a strategic capability for strategy-making. Hart and Banbury's work (1994) supports such a view: `Firms able to accumulate several modes of strategy-making into a complex strategy-making process `capability' appear to outperform less process capable organizations on virtually every performance dimension save current profitability.' (p. 265) Interestingly, Powell (1992)has argued that strategic planning processes themselves cannot constitute a strategic capability because they fail to satisfy a key criterion for contribution to sustainable competitive advantage — inimitability. Traditional processes, he asserted, are codified, systematized, and taught to legions of MBAs in a manner that makes them easily imitated and, hence, of little relative value to the firm vis-à-vis competition. The generative process described here is significantly more difficult and time-consuming to build. It relies on the development of new skill sets and mind sets on the part of all organizational members as a precondition for its success in accomplishing the cognitive and behavioral challenges associated with change. In order to operate efficiently and effectively, it relies on the existence of shared purpose and a culture that supports experimentation, dissent, and self-examination. Once built, however, it is hard to imitate, impossible to buy from consultants or to learn in business school, and capable of creating significant value for customers on an on-going basis. Fully realized, it is more than a planning process; it becomes an institutional capability for strategy-making that does meet the criteria for providing a sustainable source of competitive advantage. It accomplishes this because it develops the individual strategic thinking and programming skills of organizational members as the foundation of the institutional capability. The argument presented here synthesizes and advances a set of themes prevalent in the fields of strategy and change to argue for a generative approach to strategic planning processes. This approach advocates a rethinking of traditional approaches to planning and aims at better achieving planning's espoused goal of providing assistance to organizations in changing environments. Beyond enhancing a firm's capability to react to externally induced change, such a process would provide the impetus to drive internally-induced change proactively, in the manner that Camillus (1996)envisions. The literature, both academic and practitioner, has long recognized the problems with traditional approaches to planning. Lenz (1987), for instance, clearly and cogently summarized the major pitfalls: the attempt to make a science of planning with its subsequent loss of creativity, the excessive emphasis on numbers, the drive for administrative efficiency that standardized inputs and formats at the expense of substance, and the dominance of single techniques, inappropriately applied. Over a decade later, the contribution made by strategy theorists in proposing clear alternatives to traditional processes has been hampered by a focus on the development of typologies that dichotomize, rather than seek to integrate, multiple theoretical lenses. The planning process proposed here attempts to achieve this synthesis and calls for engaging a broader group of organizational members in a strategic dialogue in which hypothetical futures are generated and tested, in a cognitive loop; implemented as new capabilities are developed, in a behavioral loop; the learning from which would be cycled back into the cognitive loop, in a process of ongoing experimentation both local and institutional. Such a process would rely on the development of improved conflict resolution and strategic thinking skills on the part of managers, and on the development of new technologies for working together. It would, I hypothesize, result in both the creation of improved outcomes for the organization in the short-run, and develop the strategy-making capability of the organization for the long-term.