برنامه ریزی استراتژیک در ارتش: تغییرات استراتژی گروه امنیتی نیروی دریایی ایالات متحده، 1992-1998
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|27384||2000||28 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 10563 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Long Range Planning, Volume 33, Issue 3, June 2000, Pages 402–429
This is an account of the US Naval Security Group Command's (NSG) search for strategic management during a time of unprecedented change. In response to dramatic shifts resulting from the end of the Cold War, Congressional pressures for cross-service co-operation, and the emergence of new technologies, the NSG engaged in a six-year strategic planning process. The process helped the group refocus and develop strategies better suited to new demands for military preparedness. The process was incremental and eclectic; early leadership came from middle managers, rather than top officials. The process began with a ‘quick and dirty’ planning session initiated by department heads to deal with an immediate crisis and gained momentum and top-level involvement as the first session and subsequent strategic planning efforts showed results. The process was guided by a strategic planning framework specifically designed for public and non-profit organisations and relied on a variety of strategic planning tools and techniques, including stakeholder analyses, SWOT analyses and capturing the insights gained from scenario planning using the newer cognitive methods such as cognitive and oval mapping. This article provides a chronology of events over a six-year period, explores some of the strategic planning tools and techniques used, details results achieved and discusses some of the major lessons learned.
The management of change in large organisations is discussed extensively in the literature. Most of these discussions have dealt with situations where the chief executive is providing the strategic intent and is driving change from the top down. Change is difficult enough even with clear strategic intent; but what happens when middle level managers recognise the need for change, but cannot easily enter into a dialogue with the chief executive, or are not receiving clear strategic intent? This article presents a case study of one such organisation, the US Naval Security Group (NSG), and its six-year effort to create strategic change. This case study is applicable in many ways to all large organisations (business, government or non-profit), especially those that are large and bureaucratic with a hierarchical control structure. The case should be particularly interesting to middle level managers trying to foster change in their organisations, especially those in public and non-profit organisations that operate in a politically charged atmosphere. Furthermore, as Kanter stated in a recent article, “Organizational change has become a way of life as a result of three forces: globalization, information technology, and industry consolidation”.1 NSG had to contend with these same forces, although much earlier than many corporations. Thus the lessons learned are still relevant today. The overall framework for analysis of the case study will be a model for organisational transformation proposed by Gouillart and Kelly. The model conceives of an organisation as a living organism.2 There are obvious limits to the analogy, and other analogies are possible,3 however, their model is a useful framework with which to present the case and analyse the results. The process that actually guided the strategic planning efforts was Bryson's Strategy Change Cycle.4 While obviously not to be taken literally, the Gouillart and Kelly model does provide a holistic framework for organisational transformation that covers more than just strategic direction. The model views the organisation as a living, volitional being with ‘mind’, ‘body’ and ‘spirit’, emphasising four dimensions, each of which consists of three sub-dimensions. Most of our analytic emphasis will be placed on Gouillart and Kelly's dimension of reframing, or determining the strategic direction of change. The dimensions are: Reframing Corporate Direction (which addresses the corporate ‘mind’) 1.1. Achieving mobilisation (mental energy for change) 1.2. Creating the vision (sense of purpose) 1.3. Building the measures (sense of commitment) Restructuring the Company (which addresses the ‘body’ of the corporation) 2.1. Constructing an economic model (cardiovascular system) 2.2. Aligning physical infrastructure (skeletal system) 2.3. Redesigning work architecture (muscular system) Revitalising the Enterprise (which focuses on growth by linking the ‘body’ to the environment) 3.1. Achieving market focus (senses) 3.2. Inventing new businesses (reproductive system) 3.3. Changing rules through information technology (nervous system) Renewing People (which addresses the people side of the transformation and the ‘spirit’ of the company) 4.1. Creating reward structure (sense of gratification) 4.2. Building individual learning (self-actualisation) 4.3. Developing the organisation (sense of community) The distinguishing feature of this model is its biological analogy and its ability to integrate into its framework what some have labelled as various management ‘fads’, e.g. total quality management, business process re-engineering, strategic planning, and ‘balanced scorecard’ performance measures. Various organisations such as NSG have tried one or more of these tools and found them wanting, as each is not a complete change framework in itself, but rather a useful tool with application to a particular phase organisational transformation. Bryson's ‘Strategy Change Cycle’ was the underlying process used by NSG throughout the six-year transformation period. This model is one of the first that specialised in the peculiarities of public and non-profit sector strategic planning. The ten-step process (see Table 1) proceeds from the initial ‘planning to plan’, through strategy formulation, implementation, process review and feedback. The individual steps are similar to other strategic planning models, except that the order is particularly important for public and non-profit entities. Especially important is the emphasis on analysis of an organisation's mission and mandates, and on its stakeholders. These are the key strategic drivers for public and non-profit sector organisations. Additionally, the process is very strong on strategy formulation, using an inductive issues-based approach. Bryson asserts that this leads to better decision-making in highly political environments. In other words, moving from specific issues to policies and programmes, to more general policies, to finally the most general policies, works better than the more typical ‘rational model’, in which policies, programmes, and projects are developed deductively after starting first with goals and objectives. Such was the case for NSG.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
A number of conclusions may be drawn from NSG's experience with initiating and institutionalising strategic planning that are applicable to other kinds of public organisations. First, the process in an established organisation can be evolutionary in nature.24 NSG's strategic planning was prompted in the first instance by the occurrence of three ‘inflection points’: the end of the Cold War (globalisation), Congressional pressure for ‘jointness’ (industry consolidation), and dramatic changes in information technology (the Information Age). Once underway, strategic planning moved from a functional to a more integrated focus involving a transformational strategy for NSG as a whole. Contrary to what is often suggested, the process began with strategic planning efforts by department heads that were disconnected from strategic thinking by the top leadership. In the end, department heads and top leadership were working more closely on strategic concerns, in part as a result of the establishment of a strategic planning department. Finally, as the process unfolded, participants gained a greater understanding of organisational strategic planning (as opposed to war planning) and of many different tools for doing it. Second, the process would not have succeeded without strong sponsors and champions along the way.25 At different points, the comptroller, Deputy Commander and ultimately the Admiral, provided crucial legitimacy and direction, or sponsorship, for the effort. One department head, in particular, kept pushing the process along by introducing new ideas, tools and techniques, and he also helped organise the department heads to pursue strategic planning when top leadership support was in doubt. Third, it is important to start where you are, i.e. the evolution and institutionalisation of strategic planning begins at the beginning and if you do not have top management support, you should begin where you do have support. The strategic planning efforts of the department heads proved crucial in preparing NSG for the changes prompted by ‘jointness’. A number of jobs were saved and NSG was well positioned before its rivals to be a major actor in the realm of IW. Ultimately, the efforts of the department heads were complemented by the efforts of top leadership that were already underway, and the strategies and strategic thinking capacity of NSG as a whole were strengthened in ways that could not have been anticipated in advance. Strategic planning, thus, is often a leap of faith that may well be justified by the outcomes of the effort. Fourth, surprises should be expected. The department heads were surprised and pleased by the efforts of the comptroller, Deputy Commander, and ultimately the Admiral to foster strategic planning. They were also surprised and pleased by many of their actions, such as the BOGGSATTs and the use of a variety of new tools. They were also surprised by the transformational strategy for NSG that was developed and adopted, when it was not clear that one was needed at the start, i.e. if everyone already knows what the organisation should be doing strategically, it does not need strategic planning. If people do not know the answer, and are open to new learning and possibilities, strategic planning can be of use. Furthermore, strategic planning can help create the organisation's own desirable surprises, rather than having it need to respond to surprises sprung on it by someone else. Finally, the concepts, procedures and tools of strategic planning make a difference. NSG benefited from the writings of many authors as it pursued strategic planning and made use of a number of tools. Organisations interested in strategic planning would be wise to learn more about the process and gain skill in using the many techniques that can be used to foster strategic thinking and acting. The result can be public organisations that better serve their mission and create real public value.