Strategy Implementation Literature Review Final - 0

Strategy Implementation
Literature Review
Muhammad Imran Siddique 1
Professor Nicola Shadbolt1
March, 2016
1
Massey University, Palmerston North
Acknowledgements
Contributions from different sources are acknowledged as follows:
Professor Alan Renwick for reviewing the report

Dr Liz Dooley for her initial efforts in compiling relevant literature
Copyright
Copyright in this publication (including text, graphics, logos and icons) is owned by or
licensed to DairyNZ Incorporated. No person may in any form or by any means use,
adapt, reproduce, store, distribute, print, display, perform, publish or create derivative
works from any part of this publication or commercialise any information, products or
services obtained from any part of this publication without the written consent of
DairyNZ Incorporated.
Disclaimer
This report was prepared solely for DairyNZ Incorporated with funding from New Zealand
dairy farmers through DairyNZ and the Ministry for Primary Industries under the Primary
Growth Partnership. The information contained within this report should not be taken to
represent the views of DairyNZ or the Ministry for Primary Industries. While all
reasonable endeavours have been made to ensure the accuracy of the investigations and
the information contained in the report, OneFarm, Centre of Excellence in Farm Business
Management expressly disclaims any and all liabilities contingent or otherwise to any
party other than DairyNZ Incorporated or DairyNZ Limited that may arise from the use
of the information.
Date submitted to DairyNZ: March, 2016
This report has been funded by New Zealand dairy farmers through DairyNZ and the
Ministry for Primary Industries through the Primary Growth Partnership.
Contents
List of Tables .......................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ......................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary .................................................................................. iii
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Strategy Implementation .............................................................. 1
1.2 Strategy Implementation Definitions............................................... 2
1.3 Reasons for Ignoring Strategy Implementation ................................ 2
1.4 Problems in Strategy Implementation ............................................. 2
2.0 Strategy Implementation Models / Frameworks ........................................ 3
2.1 Strategy Implementation Frameworks and Approaches ..................... 3
2.2 Summary .................................................................................. 32
3.0 Best Practices for Strategy Implementation ................................... 33
4.0 Farm Business Strategy and its Implementation ............................. 37
5.0 Strategy Implementation Tools .................................................... 40
6.0 The Balanced Scorecard A Strategy Implementation Framework.... 41
7.0 Conclusion ................................................................................ 47
7.0 References ....................................................................................... 48
Appendix 1 Activities for Strategy Implementation .................................... 59
Appendix 2 Obstacles to Strategy Implementation..................................... 61
Appendix 3A Strategy Implementation Conceptual/Descriptive
Frameworks ...................................................................... 62
Appendix 3B Strategy Implementation Empirical Frameworks ................. 71
Appendix 3C Strategy Implementation Harvard Business Reviews............ 81
i Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management
Strategic Implementation Literature Review

List of Tables
Table 1.1 Difference between Strategy Formulation and Implementation ..... 2
Table 3.1 Guidelines and Best Practices for Successful SI ........................ 34
Table 3.2 Essential Foundations of World Class Strategy and their
Descriptions......................................................................... 37
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Implementing Strategy: The Model (Stonich, 1982) .................... 4
Figure 2.2 Performance appraisal, goal-setting and critical success
factors in Strategy Implementation (Reed & Buckley, 1988) ........ 7
Figure 2.3 The Elements of Effective Strategy Implementation
(Hambrick & Cannella, 1989) ................................................... 8
Figure 2.4 Business Strategy Implementation Model (Skivington & Daft,
1991) ................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.5 Framework for the implementation of strategy (Schmelzer
& Olsen, 1994)..................................................................... 12
Figure 2.6 A Framework for Analysing Organizations (Aaker, 1998) ........... 13
Figure 2.7 Strategy implementation framework and key variables
(Okumus, 2001)................................................................... 14
Figure 2.8 Strategy implementation framework and key variables
(Okumus, 2001)................................................................... 15
Figure 2.9 Intended Strategy Implementation (Thompson, 2001) .............. 16
Figure 2.10 Strategy Implementation Framework (Okumus, 2003) .............. 18
Figure 2.11 The conceptual model (Wu et al., 2004) .................................. 19
Figure 2.12 Aligned 8 Ss (Higgins, 2005) ................................................ 20
Figure 2.13 5 Ps Model of Strategy Implementation (Pryor et al., 2007) ...... 22
Figure 2.14 Closed-Loop Management System (Kaplan & Norton, 2008) ....... 23
Figure 2.15 Implementing Strategy and Organizational Design
(Hill & Jones, 2008) .............................................................. 24
Figure 2.16 Five key dimensions in successful implementation of strategy
(Brenes et al., 2008) ............................................................ 25
Figure 2.17 A framework of strategy implementation research
(Yang et al., 2009) ............................................................... 27
Figure 2.18 Conceptual model on the relationship between strategic
orientation, project portfolio management, and success
(Meskendahl, 2010) .............................................................. 29
Figure 2.19 Implementing Strategy and Contextual Factors
(Hrebiniak, 2006) ................................................................. 31
Figure 4.1 Eight Managerial Components of Implementation
(Nell & Napier, 2005) ............................................................ 39
ii Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management
Strategy Implementation Literature Review

Executive Summary
The purpose of the Dairy Farm Systems for the Future project 2 is to explore how
to identify and design farming systems best suited to the changing environment
and farmer circumstances.
The approach adopted has been to:
Develop a better understanding by farmers, industry and researchers of

possible, plausible future scenarios for dairying
Design and analyse potential farm system alternatives for each of the
scenarios
Define a rigorous approach for evaluating farming systems.
Build greater industry capability and collaboration in farm system design &
analysis.
This is supported by literature reviews on scenario analysis, strategy

implementation and modelling approaches for system design and analysis. The
first, obviously, will inform the scenario analysis process, provide comparisons of
similar studies and examples of what best to do with its outputs; the third is to
ensure the most up-to-date methods are used in the modelling based on a
comprehensive understanding of previous farm system modelling research. The
strategy implementation review, this report, is based on the recognition that
best strategy is only ever realised if implemented effectively. It is intended that
the farm system design will also include the pathway of how the current system
will evolve and the impact of this evolution on both the farm and the wider
regional/national stakeholders. This description of the implementation of each
strategy will be assisted by the frameworks and guidelines developed in this
literature review.
The key points when examining the scenarios that have been developed is that
they are all plausible, they all represent a significant shift from the status quo,
they all involve significant investment and change and that none of these is
easy. There are significant strategic risks identified for each scenario so the
process of designing and modelling farm systems for each of these scenarios
need to take these into account. Strategy formulation of dairy farm systems for
the future for each scenario will clearly identify the options available and
quantify their outcomes, therefore providing useful information for farmers and
other stakeholders faced with each situation.
While there is much research in both business and farm management literature
on strategy formulation and many tools developed to assist in the process, the
field of strategy implementation is less well researched. This literature review
identifies a range of research, mostly from the business literature, in which
academics have developed strategy implementation frameworks and models,
2
http://www.onefarm.ac.nz/research/current-research/dairy-farm-systems-for-the-future/
iii Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

some theoretical, some conceptual and tested empirically, others created from
empirical work. A number of frameworks and recommendations have evolved
since the early 1980s as documented chronologically in this report. The
commercial world, for the most part, echoes these recommendations in the best
practice section of the review. The tool that is best documented both in the
business and the farm management literature for strategy implementation is the
balanced scorecard; this tool is explored in this review and recommended for use
in the dairy farm systems for the future design.
iv Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Strategy Implementation
The effectiveness of the whole process of planning diminishes if the formulated
strategies are not implemented. Okumus and Roper (1999, p. 21) noted that
despite the importance of the strategy execution process, far more research
has been carried out into strategy formulation than into strategy
implementation. Alexander also observed that literature is dominated by a focus
on the long range planning process and strategy formulation rather than the
actual implementation of strategies, on which little is written or researched
(Alexander, 1985, p. 91).
Mintzberg (1994) emphasized that more than half of the strategies formulated
by organisations are never actually implemented. Despite the clear importance
of this management area and the obvious problems associated with its
execution, it has however, been substantially neglected by academics (Atkinson,
2006; Pellegrinelli & Bowman, 1994). Remarkably, organizations fail to
implement about 70 per cent of their new strategies (Franken et al., 2009;
Miller, 2002). Similarly, it was found that 40-60 per cent of the potential value of
the strategic plan is never realized and captured due to insufficiencies in
planning and implementation (Franken et al., 2009; Mankins & Steele, 2005). In
most cases, companies strategies deliver only 63% of their promised financial
value (Mankins & Steele, 2005). Kaplan and Norton (2005) believed that 95% of
a companys employees are unaware of or do not understand their companys
strategy. According to Johnson (2004), 66% of corporate strategy is never
executed.
It is believed that strategy formulation is difficult while executing or

implementing it throughout the organization is even more difficult. Without
effective implementation, no business strategy can succeed. Unfortunately, most
managers know far more about developing strategy than they do about
executing it (Epstein & Manzoni, 1998; Hrebiniak, 2006, 2013). David (2013)
highlighted the following differences between strategy formulation and strategy
implementation as shown in table 1.1. It is clear from the differences between
strategy formulation and execution that the later requires special motivation and
a quality leadership and it involves the whole organization in the process of
successful strategy implementation.
1 Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Table 1.1 Difference between Strategy Formulation and Implementation
Strategy Formulation Strategy Implementation

Positioning of the forces before the
Managing forces during the action
action
Focuses on effectiveness Focuses on efficiency
Primarily intellectual process Primarily an operational process
Requires good intuitive and analytical Requires special motivation and
skills leadership skills
Requires coordination among a few Requires coordination among many
individuals individuals
Source: (David, 2013)
1.2 Strategy Implementation Definitions

According to Miller and Dess (1996), strategy implementation involves a broad
range of efforts which focus on the transformation of strategic intentions into
actions. Strategy implementation has been variously be defined as:
The communication, interpretation, adoption, and enactment of strategic

plans (Noble, 1999, p. 120).
designing appropriate organizational structures and control systems to put the

organizations chosen strategy into action (Hill et al., 2007, p. 5)
the sum total of the activities and choices required for the execution of a
strategic plan. (Wheelen and Hunger,2012, p. 320)
1.3 Reasons for Ignoring Strategy Implementation

The reasons for undermining or ignoring strategy implementation phenomenon
both by researchers and management have been identified by Alexander (1991),
Noble (1999) and Aaltonen and Ikavalko (2002) as; the assumption about
strategy implementation being a straightforward process; strategy
implementation being considered to be less glamorous and important than
formulation; people overlook it because of the perception that anyone can do it;
lack of information on what constitutes it and where it starts and ends; and
practical difficulties in research involving middle-level managers.
1.4 Problems in Strategy Implementation

The problems identified by different researchers in the process of strategy
implementation include; misunderstanding of the strategy, poorly documented
strategy, lack of commitment to the strategy, lack of communication, insufficient
time allocation for strategy implementation, unaligned organizational systems
and resources, poor coordination and sharing of responsibilities, weak

management role in strategy implementation, inadequate capabilities (of both
managers and employees), poor reward system, competing activities, a lack of
strategic thinking and implementation skills in middle management, poor cultural
and structural alignment and other uncontrollable environmental variables
(Aaltonen & Ikvalko, 2002; Alexander, 1991; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Higgins,
2005; Pellegrinelli & Bowman, 1994). Verweire (2014) through discussion with
managers found five root causes for an unsuccessful strategy implementation as
follows;
More focus on financials in strategy discussions;

Functional strategies are no substitute for a business strategy;
Strategy implementation is too fragmented;
Manager frequently communicate about strategy but forget to translate
strategy into actions; and
Strategy implementation requires leadership capabilities
2.0 Strategy Implementation Models / Frameworks

There are some commonly used models and frameworks available for
researchers and practicing managers in the areas of strategy analysis and
formulation in strategic management such as SWOT analysis, Porters generic
strategies, portfolio models, product life-cycle theory and industry structure
analysis or competitive analysis (Hambrick & Cannella, 1989; Okumus, 2003).
By contrast, as argued by Okumus, (2003) and Verweire (2014), there is no
agreed-upon, generally accepted and dominant framework in strategy
implementation. The following section reviews the evolution of research in this
area. It identifies a range of research, mostly from the business literature, in
which academics have developed strategy implementation frameworks and
models, some theoretical, some conceptual and tested empirically, others
created from empirical work. A number of frameworks and recommendations
have evolved since the early 1980s as documented chronologically in this
section.
2.1 Strategy Implementation Frameworks and Approaches

Waterman et al. (1980) proposed a strategy implementation framework and
argued that organization effectiveness originates from the interaction of several
factors (non-linear relationships) and concluded that the interaction of the
following seven factors (Ss) play a critical role:
1. Structure 2. Strategy 3. Systems
4. Style 5. Skills 6. Staff and
7. Subordinate goals

They concluded that the proposed framework emphasized interactions and fit
among all the seven Ss and for an organization to achieve its objectives all
these variables must be aligned. Although Waterman et al. (1980) defined and
clearly elaborated each of these factors individually; they did not give clear
examples and explanations for the relationships and interactions between these
factors. This model needs to be evaluated empirically to learn how the
relationships among variables actually make strategy implementation happen.
According to Stonich (1982), strategy formulation is an integral part of strategy

implementation and for effectively implementing strategies, a constant effort is
required to match and fit together the basic organizational elements. He
proposed a conceptual strategy implementation framework that include five
interrelated variables: strategy formulation, organization structure, human
resources, management process (planning, programming, budgeting and reward
system), and culture as shown in figure 2.1. Stonich (1982) believed that if any
change or alteration is inevitable in any one of these variables, a periodic review
of all elements and the fit among them must be undertaken.
Organization Management
structure Process
Culture Strategic
Strategy
Objectives
Formulation
Achieved
Human
Culture
Resources
Figure 2.1 Implementing Strategy: The Model (Stonich, 1982)
Wernham (1984) conducted research in order to identify the factors influencing

the implementation of strategy within BT (British Telecommunications) and
assessed their relative importance. The findings of his survey (interviews)
suggested that strategy formulation and implementation are part of a continuous
interactive process and the process is cyclic in nature rather than a linear
sequence. Wernham found a number of problems which were impeding
successful strategy implementation. These problems were; lack of resources
(money, men, materials, other priorities), organisational Validity,

history/confidence, delay/time mismanagement, lack of information/support,
market validity, technical validity and conflicting goals.
On the other hand, Wernham also identified the factors which were helpful in
making strategy implementation successful. These included; adequate provision
of resources, technical validity, market validity, information and support, staff
enthusiasm/confidence, and top management backing.
Alexander (1985) conducted a survey in which 93 companys presidents

completed a questionnaire evaluating the implementation of one strategic
decision each in their respective firms. The 10 strategy implementation problems
were experienced by over 50 per cent of the sample group during
implementation and included;
1. Implementation took more time than originally allocated

2. Major problems surfaced that had not been identified beforehand
3. Co-ordination of implementation activities was not effective enough
4. Competing activities and crises distracted attention from implementation
5. Capabilities of employees involved with implementation were not enough
6. Training and instruction of lower level employees were not adequate
7. Uncontrollable factors in the external environment had an adverse impact
8. Leadership and direction given by departmental managers was not
adequate
9. Key implementation tasks and activities were not defined
10.Information systems used to monitor implementation were not adequate
Alexander (1985) also conducted follow up interviews with 21 CEOs and 25

federal and state government agencys heads and identified five factors which
help promote successful implementation. These included; communication, start
with a good concept or idea, obtain employees commitment and involvement,
provide sufficient resources and develop an implementation plan. He also
concluded that both problem prevention and doing the right things were
necessary for successful strategy implementation.
According to Hussey (1985), training is a power weapon for implementing

strategy but management in majority of cases either does not aware of this
option or ignore it due to certain organizational limitations. Hussey conducted
survey research based on two grounds. Firstly, the variables which are
considered important for strategy implementation can be altered through
training/education. Secondly, top management should review the training
objectives and initiatives on regular basis because it positively affects the
strategy implementation process. Hussey found that a majority of companies
had faith in on the annual training appraisal for assessing training needs instead
of periodic reviews. A minority of respondents explicitly related training

objectives to corporate strategy. In a reply to Alexanders (1985) ten most
frequent problems of strategy implementation, Hussey suggest that six of them
might be solved through proper training.
Galbraith & Kazanjian (1986) presented a conceptual strategy implementation

framework and highlighted that a strong fit is required among task, people,
organizational structure, information and decision process and reward systems
for the successful implementation of strategies. This fit provides the internally
consistent design which also matches with the organizations product-market
strategy.
Jenster (1987) proposed a strategy planning and strategic control process based
on the case study of 128 manufacturing firms which was closely integrated with
the firms information system. Jenster found that firms which had a high return
on equity identified their critical success factors for the implementation of
strategies. Followed by identification, these factors were used to monitor the
progress in implementation of strategic change. Based on these findings, Jenster
propose a nine step strategic process and information system for integrating
planning and control. These nine steps include;
1. Provide structure for the design process.

2. Determine general elements which will influence success.
3. Develop a strategic plan or review/modify the current plan.
4. Identify a selected number of critical success factors (CSFs).
5. Determine who is going to be responsible for what.
6. Select the strategic performance indicators (SPls).
7. Develop and enact appropriate reporting procedures.
8. Initiate use of procedures by managerial personnel.
9. Establish evaluation procedure.
Jenster concluded that only a small number of firms were involved in systematic
monitoring of factors critical for firms strategic success and performed better
than who did not pay attention to it.
Reed and Buckley (1988), instead of viewing strategy implementation from a

problems solving perspective, investigated it with an alternative view i.e.,
problem avoidance. They provided a checklist to help executives improving the
chances of problem avoidance and increase the chances of implement the
strategy successfully. The checklist includes;
1. Identify strategic intent by matching strategy benefits with the

organizations needs
2. Interpret strategic intent into the specific managerial actions, at all
necessary organizational levels, that are needed to attain the benefits

3. Collate and translate all actions into comprehensive action plans
4. Produce a framework of key activities and identify the critical success
factors
5. Use goal-setting to translate the CSF (critical success factors) key
activities into targets for individual managers
6. Link reward and appraisal systems to individual manager goals
7. Use an interventionist approach to communicate an environment of
participant involvement aimed at problem avoidance
8. Finally, monitor the implementation process to ensure adherence to plans
and/or to modify plans as situations change.
Reed and Buckley (1988) suggested different but interrelated techniques to be

used for the effective implementation of strategies. These techniques include;
performance appraisal, goal settings and identification of critical success factors.
Figure 2.2 explains interrelationships of these techniques and how they can be
fit into the process of strategy implementation.
Corporate Goals and

Objectives
Strategy Benefits Strategic

Selection Risks Intent
Resource
Allocation/ Performance
Structure Goal
Critical
Fitting/ Success Action Plans
Systems Appraisal Settings
Factors
Design/
etc.
Output
Figure 2.2 Performance appraisal, goal-setting and critical success factors in

Strategy Implementation (Reed & Buckley, 1988)
Hamrick and Cannella (1989) examined the strategies of Bondall division (a

chemical manufacturer) for achieving a low cost position, going global,

consolidating, and others. In order to understand the common ingredients of
Bondalls own most effective business strategy implementations, Hamrick and
Cannella found that the following were the patterns of behaviour for the effective
strategy implementers at Bondall and the other units being studied:
1. Obtain broad-based inputs and participation at the formulation stage

2. Carefully and deliberately assess the obstacles to implementation
3. Make early, first-cut moves across the full array of implementation levers
- resource commitments, subunit policies and programs, structure,
people, and rewards
4. Sell, sell, sell the strategy to everyone who matters upward, downward,
across, and outward
5. Steadily fine tune, adjust, and respond as events and trends arise
These steps or elements of successful strategic implementation can be summed

up and portrayed as shown in figure 2.3.
Broad-Based
Inputs
Effective
New
Strategy
Careful Strategy
Implementation
Assessment of
Implementation
Obstacles
Figure 2.3 The Elements of Effective Strategy Implementation (Hambrick & Cannella,
1989)
Through the analysis and close understanding of implementation successes,

Hamrick and Cannella (1989) also found that the strategists set out with broad
game plans in mind but were flexible, open-minded, and always ready to find
out solutions of the problems which may arise through new strategies. These
strategists were opportunists and had broad guidance systems, but were
spontaneous and responsive towards change.
Judson (1990) reported the results of a study conducted by Daniel Gray (1986)
in order to find out the causes of the failure of strategies. The respondents
included were business unit heads, corporate planning directors and chief
executive officers of American multi-business corporations. The results showed
that majority of the respondents (nearly 65%) identified ten critical factors in
strategy formulation and implementation process. The factors 1-9 belong to

strategy formulation process and only 1 factor relates to strategy
implementation process. However, all these factors ultimately affect the outcome
of the intended strategic objectives. These include:
1. Poor preparation of line managers

2. Faulty definition of the business
3. Faulty definition of strategic business units (SBU)
4. Excessive focus on the numbers (financial details)
5. Imbalance between external and internal considerations
6. Managers unrealistic assessment of the firms strengths and weaknesses
7. Insufficient action detailing
8. Insufficient effective participation across functions
9. Badly handled reviews of business unit plans
10.Inadequate linkage of strategic planning with other control systems
Alexander (1991) also proposed a descriptive strategy implementation

framework focusing on the key implementers rather than on the strategy
formulators. Alexander believed that key implementers and the affected
employees decide whether the strategy is appropriate or not. He mentioned the
following key factors which influenced the perception of key implementers
regarding appropriateness of strategies:
1. The level of financial resources provided to implement it

2. The amount of human resources provided
3. The amount of time provided
4. The complexity of what will be required
5. The extent the strategy is compatible with the firms strengths
6. The magnitude of the change that is required
7. The number of other competing activities required attention
8. The overall feasibility of the strategy, and
9. The extent to which the strategy is communicated
Roth et al. (1991) empirically examined the impact of international strategy on

organizational design and the influence of the organizational design on the
strategy implementation process. They proposed a theoretical international
strategy implementation framework based on six factors and tested it
empirically. These six factors include;
1. coordination;
2. managerial philosophy;
3. configuration;
4. formalization;
5. centralization; and
6. Integrating mechanisms.

Using survey strategy, the data were collected from the Presidents or CEOs of
82 business units competing in global industries. They argued that these six
factors should be designed specifically in order to implement international or
multi-domestic strategies. They also found that global and multi-domestic
strategies require different implementation requirements and when there was a
proper alignment between strategy, administrative mechanisms (formalization,
centralization and integrating mechanisms) and organizational capabilities
(coordination, managerial philosophy and configuration), it was much easier to
implement the strategy and achieve the desired objectives. They, therefore,
recommended that the administrative systems and capabilities of the
organization should be realigned for the successful implementation of the
intended strategy.
In an empirical research, Skivington and Daft (1991) investigated 57 strategic

decisions and examined how these were implemented in the course of putting
the competitive generic strategies of low-cost and differentiation in integrated
circuits, petroleum, and health care organizations. The identified several factors
such as intended strategy, structure, systems, interactions, and sanctions that
affected successful implementation of strategies and divided these factors into
two broad groups i.e., framework and process factors. The framework proposed
by Skivington and Daft (1991) in figure 2.4 defines components of organizational
framework and process that may be used to implement intended organizational
strategies.
MODALITIES COMPONENTS CONCEPTS
Structure Specialization
Formalization
Organizational
Framework
Resource Allocation
Systems Evaluation
Employees Training
Intended
Strategy
Information Processing
Interaction Champions
Organizational
Process Turnover
Sanctions Rewards
Figure 2.4 Business Strategy Implementation Model (Skivington & Daft, 1991)

In an analysis to find out which framework and process factors need to be used
when implementing differentiation or low-cost strategies, they concluded that
both framework and process factors could be used in implementing either low-
cost or differentiation decisions. They also found that low cost and differentiation
strategy implementation employed different variables. For example, for the low
cost strategy, internal systems combined with sanctions seemed especially
important and for differentiation strategy, resource allocation of system variable
and champions and informal communications of process variables were
significant. Therefore, it was concluded that effective strategy implementation
was closely related with multiple organizational framework and process elements
or variables.
Bryson and Bromiley (1993) conducted a quantitative cross-sectional analysis of

68 case descriptions of major projects in public companies. From a large set of
variables identified during previous research, a smaller set of underlying factors
was estimated by factor analysis and grouped them into three categories;
namely:
1. context;
2. process; and
3. outcome.
They statistically illustrated how certain context factors influenced the process
factors and, subsequently, the outcome. The influences of context on process,
and context and process on outcomes were estimated using regression. The
results indicated that a number of contextual variables strongly influenced
aspects of the project planning and implementation process, and then indirectly
influenced project outcomes through the planning and implementation process.
In addition, both process and contextual variables affect outcomes directly.
However, the research results were not conclusive in terms of clearly illustrating
the relationships between the context and process factors.
Schmelzer and Olsen (1994) developed and empirically tested an

implementation framework in three restaurant firms using qualitative research
methods. A case study approach was chosen for the primary research and
primary data was collected from upper, middle and lower level managers
through interviews and the secondary data was collected from the relevant
documents of participant companies. Schmelzer and Olsen identified 14 factors,
grouped them into context and process factors, and further into primary and
secondary factors. They then developed several propositions to explain
associations between these implementation factors. These researchers referred
to strategy implementation as a progression from context variables to process
variables and argued that the two components work together to make strategy

happen as shown in figure 2.5. They also identified a number of new factors
which played critical role in strategy implementation, such as perceived
environmental uncertainty, organizational culture, information systems, training,
the size and geographic dispersion of the company, the life cycle of the company
and the demographic background of the managers. However, the factors of
environmental uncertainty, organizational culture, information systems and
training were already explained in the previous researchers work.
Context Process Variables
Perceived
Information
Size & Environmental
Systems
Geographic Uncertainty
Dispersion Rewards
& Incentives
Planning
S Decision-Making &
t
Life Cycle Stage r Control
u
c Formalization
t
Managers u
r Hierarchy
Demographics e Project
Initiation
Corporate
Strategy Organizational Resource
Culture allocation
Business
Strategy Method of
Training
Secondary variables Primary Variables Primary Variables Secondary variables
Figure 2.5 Framework for the implementation of strategy (Schmelzer & Olsen, 1994)
Miller (1997) investigated the implementation process of 11 strategic decisions

in six private and public organizations. Miller (1997) did not specifically propose
an implementation framework; however, based on in-depth interviews in the
sample organizations, identified and evaluated ten factors for the successful
management of implementation and categorized them into realizers and
enablers. It was concluded that backing, assessability, specificity and cultural
receptivity appeared to have the greatest impact on implementation process,

especially if the fifth factor, propitiousness is favourable. Therefore, these were
the crucial factors and were named as realizing factors whereas enabling factors
were familiarity, priority, resource availability, structural facilitation and
flexibility. Miller concluded that realizers are more critical in implementing
strategic decisions, whereas enablers are more heterogeneous and their
combined effect is not as powerful as realizers.
Aaker (1998) proposed a conceptual framework for analysing organizations and

considered that organizational components (structure, systems, people and
culture) help businesses identifying actual and potential strategy implementation
problems and suggested that these components must fit with each other as well
as with the strategy as shown in figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6 A Framework for Analysing Organizations (Aaker, 1998)
Okumus (2001) used a case study approach and after critical review of literature
identified ten key variables which were critical for strategy implementation.
These include; strategy formulation, environmental uncertainty, organisational
structure, culture, operational planning, communication, resource allocation,
people, control and outcome. Previous researchers have grouped implementation
variables into four categories such as ``content, ``context, ``process and
``outcome. Based on these classifications and the review of the characteristics

of the individual variables, Okumus (2001) proposed and empirically evaluated
the following strategy implementation framework as shown in figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7 Strategy implementation framework and key variables (Okumus, 2001)
After successfully evaluation his conceptual framework with the given variables,
Okumus (2001) also found three new strategy implementation variables. These
include; multiple-project implementation factor which fall under strategic
content, organisational learning factor which fall under internal context and
external partners factor which fall under strategic process. Based on new
findings, Okumus (2001), proposed a new modified framework and categorized
key implementation variables under four groups as shown in figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8 Strategy implementation framework and key variables (Okumus, 2001)
Thompson (2001) put forward a conceptual framework for the implementation of

intended strategies. According to Thompson, there are four essential
components which articulate the basis of a successful strategy implementation.
These include strategic leader, intended strategy (with clear objectives,
milestones and targets), organization structure and strategic resources and it is
the strategic leader who establishes coordination among other three important
components of strategy implementation as shown in figure 2.9. The prime
responsibility of the strategic leader is to ensure that all the objectives,
milestones and targets under intended strategy match with the organizational
structure and also to secure and allocate the relevant strategic resources (people
and financial resources). Thompson (2001) also emphasized that the people
inside the organization should use the other strategic resources within the
organizational structure to carry out the assigned tasks. Finally, the actions of
people should be carefully monitored and evaluated to check their compatibility
with the set targets and objectives and the success of the intended strategy.

Figure 2.9 Intended Strategy Implementation (Thompson, 2001)
However, this model did not explain the mechanism of monitoring and
evaluation the actions of the people within the organization. The major
shortcoming of this conceptual framework is the unclear role of strategic leader
at the levels of monitoring and evaluation of strategy implementation.
Rapert et al. (2002) concluded and confirmed that strategic consensus plays an
important role in the implementation process. They also concluded that frequent
communication between marketing and top management served to increase
strategic consensus through the development of shared attitudes,
understandings, and values and rewarded with higher levels of marketing and
organizational performance. Overall, the organization benefits from increased
vertical communication, shared understanding of strategies (consensus), and
improved marketing performance, as evidenced by higher levels of net operating
income, gross revenues, and growth in net revenues. The findings also validated
the importance of examining both communication and strategic consensus in
greater detail to fully understand their roles in the strategic implementation
process. Such examinations of organizational dynamics would help in
understanding why some strategic events fail while others succeed.
Aaltonen and Ikavalko (2002) proposed a conceptual model and stressed on the
importance of matching the planned and the realizing or emergent strategies in

the process of strategic implementation. They conducted research to find out
how strategies were communicated, interpreted and adopted in 12 service
organizations and also to know what kind of an effect they had on the actions of
organization members. The data were collected from a total of 298
representatives from top and middle management and operative personnel.
They found out that interpretation, acceptance and adoption of a strategy were
crucial factors along with sufficient communication among the implementers for
the successful strategy implementation. The other barriers to strategy
implementation include; a lack of understanding of strategy, conflicting activities
and events and lack of time. They concluded that it is not the structure of the
organization but the alignment between strategy and the organizational system
which hinders the successful implementation of strategies.
In an attempt to identify barriers to the successful implementation of activities

as part of a planned strategy in a Norwegian ferry-cruise, Heide et al. (2002)
found that communication problems was the major barrier in the strategy
implementation followed by organizational factors among the seven most
important factors. It was also concluded that many strategic initiatives fail to be
implemented because the vertical lines of communication are insufficiently
developed between the top management and the staff.
Okumus (2003) identified 11 key implementation factors and grouped them into
four categories: strategic content, strategic context, process and outcome.
Based on this categorization Okumus (2003) proposed a conceptual framework
and emphasized the interaction effect of the variables involved as shown in
figure 2.10. Okumus (2003) further clarified that different implementation
factors in these four categories should not be evaluated in isolation because a
factor in one group can influence the other factors in the same and in other
groups. This interaction effect can ultimately affect the outcome of the whole
process. However, this conceptual framework needs to be tested empirically for
further conclusions.

Figure 2.10 Strategy Implementation Framework (Okumus, 2003)
Wu et al. (2004) proposed a conceptual model based on the Sun Tzus principles
of war which include situation appraisal (contains 8 variables), strategy
implementation (contains 12 variables), strategic control (contains 9 variables)
and key success factors - KSF (contains 17 items) as shown in figure 2.11. The
data were collected from a total of 200 firms of which 100 were manufacturing
and remaining 100 were services firms in Taiwan. The respondents included for
the study were from the three different tiers of management i.e., high, middle
and low level managers/supervisors.
Using canonical analysis (a type of regression analysis), they found that there
were significant interrelationships between Sun Tzus principles of situation
appraisal and of strategy implementation, between Sun Tzus principles of
situation appraisal and strategic control, between Sun Tzus principles of
strategy implementation and strategic control, and finally Sun Tzus principles of
situation appraisal, strategy implementation and strategic control had significant
influences on KSFs.

Figure 2.11 The conceptual model (Wu et al., 2004)
Higgins (2005), based on the McKinsey seven Ss model, proposed a 8 Ss model

of strategy implementation and replaced Skills of McKinsey with reSources and
added a new factor Strategic Performance in the model. Higgins believed that
all the seven contextual Ss (strategy and purposes, structure, systems and
processes, style, staff, resources, and shared values) must be aligned in one
direction for optimal strategic performance as shown in figure 2.12.
Higgins (2005) also pointed out that impact of previous executives on strategy
and the strategy execution process might be the probable reason of
nonalignment of these Ss. By quoting two examples of two CEOs of Intuit and
Procter & Gamble, he analysed how the alignment of these 8 Ss made Procter &
Gamble a success (alignment of 8Ss) and Intuit a failure (misalignment of 8Ss).

Figure 2.12 Aligned 8 Ss (Higgins, 2005)
Olsen et al. (2005) conducted a study involving over 200 senior managers and
validated that the overall firms performance was strongly affected by the
matching of firms business strategy with its organizational structure and the
behavioural norms of its employees.
Hrebiniak (2006) summarized recent research on implementing strategy and

identified the main obstacles to effective execution or implementation, and
described what managers must do to overcome the obstacles and achieve
strategic success. Hrebiniak used his own research and consulting work over the
past two decades also undertook an empirical study of implementation issues in
which data were collected from 443 managers involved in strategy execution.
Hrebiniak (2006) found predominant issues that impede strategy execution
which include:
Managers are trained to plan but not to execute and they know more
about strategic planning and formulation than implementation
Top-level managers believe that they are superior to strategy
implementation which is for low level employees to carry out
Misconception that strategy formulation and implementation are separate
and distinguishable parts of the strategic management process

Implementation is a process and is not the result of a single decision or
action. It is the result of a series of integrated decisions or actions over
time. Managers wanting a quick solution to execution problems will surely
fail in their attempts.
Strategy implementation always require more people that strategy
implementation
In an attempt to gain a clear understanding of challenges faced by managers as

they make decisions and take actions to execute their companys strategy to
gain competitive advantage, Hrebiniak (2006) conducted two surveys (Wharton-
Gartner survey and Wharton executive education survey) of 443 managers who
were involved in strategy formulation and execution. They were asked to rank
12 items which impact on strategy execution and were the obstacles to the
strategy execution process. The top five obstacles to strategy implementation
that resulted from the two surveys include;
1. Inability to manage change effectively and overcome resistance to change

2. Poor or vague strategy
3. Not having guidelines or a model to guide strategy implementation efforts
4. Poor or inadequate information sharing among individuals/units
responsible for strategy execution
5. Trying to execute a strategy that conflicts with the existing power
structure and unclear responsibility or accountability for implementation
decisions or actions
Pryor et al. (2007) proposed a conceptual framework based on the alignment

and integration of widely accepted activities and functions of effective and
successful strategy implementation. These activities and functions include;
structures, systems, leadership behavior, human resource policies, cultures,
value and management processes. Pryor et al. (2007) advocated the inevitable
intertwined elements of culture, organization, people, and systems for strategy
implementation and put forward a broad, process oriented interpretation of
these elements in the form of the 5Ps model of strategy implementation as
shown in figure 2.13.
In this conceptual model, the common elements discussed in strategy

implementation literature were aligned into an overlapping strategy
implementation framework which helps in understanding the composite nature of
these elements. It is also clear from this conceptual framework that in order to
achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness, all the individual components
must be aligned in a cyclic way around strategy implementation.

Purpose
Strategic
Theories
Performance Principles
Measurement Values and
and Feedback Culture
Theories Theories
Strategic
Implementation
People Processes
Behavioral System
Theories Theories
Figure 2.13 5 Ps Model of Strategy Implementation (Pryor et al., 2007)
According to Kaplan and Norton (2008), the major cause of a companys

underperformance is the breakdown of its management system. By linking
strategy and operations through a closed-loop management system can reduce
the failure chances of the new strategies as shown in figure 2.14. A closed-loop
management system for effectively implement strategies comprised of five
stages, beginning with strategy development, which involves applying tools,
processes, and concepts such as mission, vision, and value statements; SWOT
analysis; shareholder value management; competitive positioning; and core
competencies to formulate a strategy statement. That statement is then
translated into specific objectives and initiatives (with the help of other tools and
processes, including strategy maps and balanced scorecards). Strategy
implementation, in turn, links strategy to operations with a third set of tools and
processes, including quality and process management, reengineering, process
dashboards, rolling forecasts, activity-based costing, resource capacity planning,
and dynamic budgeting. As implementation progresses, managers continually
review internal operational data and external data on competitors and the
business environment. Finally, managers periodically assess the strategy,
updating it when they learn that the assumptions underlying it are obsolete or
faulty, which starts another loop around the system (Kaplan & Norton, 2008).

1
STAGE
DEVELOP THE STRATEGY
Define mission, vision and

values
Conduct Strategic analysis
Formulate Strategy
2 TRANSLATE THE TEST AND ADAPT

STAGE
STRATEGY Strategic plan THE STRATEGY

Strategic map
Define strategic Conduct profitability
objectives and themes Balanced analysis
Performance
Select measures and scorecard Conduct strategy
metrics
targets stratEX correlation analysis
Select strategic Examine emerging
initiatives strategies
results
3
STAGE
Operating
PLAN OPERATIONS MONITOR AND LEARN
plan
Dashboard Hold strategy reviews
Improve key processes
Budgets
Develop sales plan Hold operational
Pro forma
Plan resource capacity Performance reviews
P&Ls
Prepare budgets metrics
results
Execute processes and initiatives
Figure 2.14 Closed-Loop Management System (Kaplan & Norton, 2008)
According to Johnson et al. (2008), organizational configuration (structures,

processes and relationships through which the organization operates),
resourcing strategies (overall business strategies and strategies in separate
resource areas such as people, information, finance and technology), managing
strategic change, and practicing of strategy are important elements for
successful implementation of strategies.
According to Hill and Jones (2008), organizational design is the heart of

implementing strategies effectively. Organizations motivate and coordinate its
employees and members through the use of organizational structure, control
systems and culture to work towards achieving the desired results by developing
the competitive advantage. They also believed that organizational structure,
control systems and culture directly affect the behaviour, values and attitudes of

people and also help them in implementing the organizations business model
and strategies as shown in figure 2.15.
Organizational
Structure
To achieve superior:
Efficiency
Strategic Control Coordinate and Quality
Organizational Design
System Motivate Employees Innovation
Responsiveness to
customers
Organizational Culture
Figure 2.15 Implementing Strategy and Organizational Design (Hill & Jones, 2008)
Brenes et al. (2008) conducted research to learn and understand the key
success factors in the implementation of business strategy for local business
firms in Latin America. Using survey method, a questionnaire was mailed to 300
companies of different sizes, geographical scopes, and property schemes all over
Latin America. Research participant companies included family business firms,
private firms, state-owned firms, and firms with local and multinational scope.
The respondents were asked about 18 variables which were identified as
significantly relevant in strategic company performance. These all survey items
were based on a Likert-type scale (1 through 5, going from very low, low,
middle, high, and very high,) to measure the effect of the components indicated
and to evaluate the perception about the degree of success in implementing
business strategy. All these 18 variables were grouped into the five dimensions
i.e., strategy formulation process; systematic execution; implementation control
and follow-up; CEO's leadership and suitable, motivated management and
employees; and corporate governance (board and shareholders) leading the
change.
Brenes et al. found that most successful companies reported the top three
dimensions that included: corporate governance leading the change; CEO's
leadership and suitable, motivated management and employees; and the
strategy formulation process. A comparison of differences between the most and
the less successful companies clarifies more precisely why the latter have poor
performance. According to the study, the most significant differences in order of
importance between most and less successful companies include CEO's
leadership and suitable, motivated management and employees; systematic

execution; and the presence of corporate governance leading the change as
shown in figure 2.16
Figure 2.16 Five key dimensions in successful implementation of strategy (Brenes et

al., 2008)
Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) suggested that the majority of the companys
lower management do not understand or follow the companys strategy. This
creates a gap between strategy formulation and its implementation process.
Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) also suggested eight levers of strategy
implementation which would play a pivotal role in the development of the
organization, as lever does by making work easier by overcoming resistance
against it. They grouped these eight levers into two groups; structural levers
and managerial skills levers. It is not essential that all levers are crucial;
however, balance between the strong and weak levers is necessary for the
effective strategy implementation. Structural levers offer an implementation
toolkit that affects the formulation-implementation process and ensuring
formulation-implementation-performance cycle. These include;
1. Actions: who, what, and when of cross-functional integration and

company collaboration;
2. Programs: instilling organizational learning and continuous improvement
practices;
3. Systems: installing strategic support systems; and
4. Policies: establishing strategy supportive policies.
Managerial skills are optional in nature and vary with individual perceptions and
behaviour. Skill related implementation levers in the capable organizations
framework include;
1. Interacting: the exercising of strategic leadership;

2. Allocating: understanding when and where to allocate resources;

3. Monitoring: tying rewards to achievement; and
4. Organizing: the strategic shaping of corporate culture.
For the successful implementation of the well-formulated strategy, the

identification of the strong and weak levers are necessary which will provide
organizations with an evaluative opportunity to determine which levers are
working well, which levers need to be downplayed due to inherent weakness,
and which levers need to be improved given marketplace conditions (Crittenden
& Crittenden, 2008). Carpenter and Sanders (2009) identified the strategic
leadership functions and implementation levers for the successful
implementation of strategies. The functions of strategic leadership include; the
utilitarian of implementation levers, resource allocation decisions and
communicating the strategies to key stakeholders. According to Carpenter and
Sanders the mechanisms or the implementation levers that a strategic leader
employs for the successful implementation of strategy comprised of
organizational structure, systems and processes, people and rewards.
Yang et al. (2009) identified nine individual factors that influence strategy
implementation. These include: the strategy formulation process, the strategy
executors (managers, employees), the organizational structure, the
communication activities, the level of commitment for the strategy, the
consensus regarding the strategy, the relationships among different
units/departments and different strategy levels, the employed implementation
tactics, and the administrative system in place. They classify these nine factors
into soft, hard, and mixed factors. Soft factors (or people-oriented factors)
include the people or executors of the strategy, the communication activities as
well as the closely related implementation tactics, the consensus about and
commitment to the strategy, while the hard (or institutional) factors include the
organizational structure and the administrative systems as shown in figure 2.17.

Hard Factors:
Organizational structure
Administrative systems
Soft Factors:
Implementation tactics
Mixed Factors: Implementation
Strategy Consensus Outcome
Formulation Executors Commitmen
Communication
Mixed Factors:
Relationships among different units
/departments and different strategy levels
Phases
Pre- Organizing Managing Sustaining

I mplementation: Implementation: Implementation: _performance:
Gather Ensure buy-in Foster collaboration Monitor
viewpoints results
Figure 2.17 A framework of strategy implementation research (Yang et al., 2009)
Mixed factors include strategy formulation, relationships among different

units/departments and different strategy levels contain hard and soft factors
alike and are thus considered a mixed factor. They concluded that strategy
implementation should be considered and understood as a process during
strategy formulation which in turn is affected by hard, soft and mixed factors.
These factors interact with each other and in turn are influenced by four generic
phases of strategy implementation.
In an attempt to explore the phenomenon of strategy implementation, Cater and

Pucko (2010) found 12 of the most common strategy implementation activities
and classified them into four broad groups; planning, organizing, leadership and
controlling. They also found that managers rely more on those activities that are
part of planning and organising than on those that belong to leadership and
controlling. Using multiple regression analysis, they found the most important
activities for successful strategy implementation which include planning and
implementing projects, allocating strict responsibility for strategy
implementation, formulating and implementing development programmes and
using an efficient annual planning system. They also found that an unstimulative
reward system was the most relevant obstacle to effectively implementing the
strategies.

Cater and Pucko (2010) also found 13 of the most common obstacles to strategy
implementation and classified them into five broad groups as; problems in
strategy formulation, change implementation problems, organizational culture
problems, problems related to organizational power structure and leadership
problems. They found that poor leadership is the biggest problem for successful
strategy implementation in Slovenian companies. The top seven obstacles
include;
1. Reward systems do not stimulate strategy implementation

2. Strategy is not properly communicated to lower levels
3. Managers lack leadership skills for strategy implementation
4. Managers lack ideas how to persuade employees to execute the strategy
5. Strategy is poorly defined
6. Top management is not actively engaged in strategy implementation
7. Short-range orientation dominates the company
They also found the effect of different activities for and obstacle to strategy
implementation on return on equity (ROE) and found that inadequate leadership
skills and employees reluctance to share their knowledge had a negative
influence on ROE, while adapting the organisational structure to the selected
strategy as an activity for strategy implementation has a positive influence on
ROE. In short, company performance depends on proper organising activities, as
well as a suitable leadership and organisational culture which supports
knowledge sharing. A complete list of all activities for and obstacles to strategy
implementation is attached in Appendix 1 and 2.
In an attempt to close the gap between strategy formulation and strategy

implementation, Meskendahl (2010) proposed a conceptual framework based on
project portfolio management. According to Meskendahl (2010), the effect of
strategic orientation on business success is mediated by portfolio structuring and
project portfolio success. At the same time, a moderating effect of strategic
orientation on the relationship between project portfolio structuring and project
portfolio success is proposed as shown in figure 2.18. However, the proposition
stated by Meskendahl (2010) requires empirical validation and needs to be
tested by quantitative or empirical studies.
Project Portfolio Management defined as the simultaneous management of

the whole collection of projects as one large entity.

Figure 2.18 Conceptual model on the relationship between strategic orientation,
project portfolio management, and success (Meskendahl, 2010)
Wheelen and Hunger (2012) emphasized that strategy is successfully

implemented by modifying structure (organizing), selecting the appropriate
people to carry out the strategy (staffing), and communicating clearly how the
strategy can be put into action (leading). They listed a number of programs
which can be used to implement new strategy effectively. These programs
include organizational and job design, reengineering, Six Sigma, management
by objectives - MBO, TQM, and action planning. Wheelen and Hunger
emphasized that executives must manage the corporate culture and find the
right mix of competent and qualified people to successfully implement the
strategy.
Manning (2012) identified five sets of issues associated with successful strategy
implementation: strategic thinking (environment scanning to identify threats and
opportunities, problem identification and analysis); leadership (who effectively
communicate the overall strategic direction and develop individual with
necessary skills and knowledge to implement change), task management
(translating big picture to small practical details for implementation),
relationships with the people and necessary resources for the change to
implement.
Hakonsson et al. (2012) examined how and when executive style affects
strategy implementation in Danish small and medium enterprises (SMEs). After
analysing data from 407 small and medium sized (SME) Danish manufacturing
firms, they showed that a failure to align SME executive style and strategy leads

to a significant performance loss. In addition, they demonstrated that the
alignment of executive style and strategy is especially crucial for SMEs pursuing
change and innovation. They were also argued that in SMEs managers had to
dealt with different tasks and across a variety of areas and this may include the
areas in which they do not have interests or competencies, hence, leading to
failure of implementing the strategy.
According to Kohtamaki et al. (2012), participative strategic planning increases

personnel understanding about companys strategy and strategic goals and help
implementing the strategy efficiently. This in turn creates a sense of shared
purpose for the employees and increase personnel commitment to strategy
implementation. In a study of 160 small and medium sized IT companies, using
Mplus-analysis (structural equation Modelling SEM), they found that
participative strategic planning positively affected the personnel commitment to
strategy implementation thus increasing the performance of the company.
According to Hitt et al. (2013), effective corporate governance, organizational

structure and the control, strategic leadership and strategic entrepreneurships
are necessary for successful implementation of strategies. Corporate governance
is a relationship among stakeholders and helps determining the direction of firms
and also controls its performance. According to Hitt et al. (2013), organizational
structure specifies the accomplishment of given tasks whereas organizational
control provide alignment to these tasks according to the strategic intent and
also suggests improvements in performance when it falls below expectations.
After identifying issues and obstacles to strategy implementation process,

Hrebiniak (2006) & (2013) developed a model to guide strategy implementation
process comprising of key decisions and actions as shown in figure 3.19. He
emphasized that strategy formulation and execution are two separate entities,
yet they are highly interdependent. It is matter of fact that good planning results
into successful strategy implementation and vice versa. Moreover, there is a
logical flow of different execution decisions or actions as shown in figure 2.19.
For example, incentives and control must come at the end of execution process
and reinforce the right decisions.

Organizational power structure & Influence
Corporate
Strategy
Corporate
Structure
/Integration
Business Strategy Organizational

Leadership and short-term
operating culture
Business
objectives
Structure
/Integration
Incentives
and Controls
Change Management
Execution Results
Figure 2.19 Implementing Strategy and Contextual Factors (Hrebiniak, 2006)
Finally, Hrebiniak (2013) made it clear that this whole process of implementing
strategies takes place within an organizational or environmental context. The
four contextual factors include; (1) the change management context, (2) the
culture of the organization, (3) the organizational power structure, (4) the
leadership context. According to Hrebiniak, the inability to manage change (the
size of the change and the time to manage it change management context) is
the biggest obstacle to successful strategy implementation.

2.2 Summary
The literature review on strategy implementation frameworks reveals some
important similarities among different descriptive/conceptual and empirically
analysed frameworks. First of all, nearly all frameworks identified and
acknowledged the impact of different factors in the process of strategy
implementation. Secondly, a number of frameworks grouped different individual
factors into broader categories and emphasised the interaction effect of these
variables. However, each framework included different number and kind of
factors with less or more numbers. Based on the focus of different researchers,
this literature review can be summarized as follows:
1. A number of researchers focused on the identification of

facilitating/success factors in the implementation process and argued that
a strong fit or alignment (linear or non-linear) is required among all these
factors for successfully implementing the strategies (Aaker, 1998;
Aaltonen & Ikvalko, 2002; Galbraith & Kazanjian, 1986; Hambrick &
Cannella, 1989; Hill & Jones, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Judson, 1990;
Olson et al., 2005; Reed & Buckley, 1988; Roth et al., 1991; Stonich,
1982; Waterman et al., 1980; Yang et al., 2009). .
2. In addition, some of the researches only identified the problems and
barriers to strategy implementation instead of focusing on factors or
group of factors (Aaltonen & Ikvalko, 2002; Alexander, 1985; ater &
Puko, 2010; Heide et al., 2002; Hrebiniak, 2006; Judson, 1990;
Manning, 2012; Skivington & Daft, 1991).
3. A number of researchers suggested a list of activities or steps to be
followed for successful implementation of strategies (Allio, 2005; Bigler Jr
& Williams, 2013; ater & Puko, 2010; Freedman, 2003; Pearce &
Robinson, 2011; Raps, 2005; Thompson et al., 2005).
4. Only few studies focused on the role of strategic leader and stressed his
critical role in strategy implementation process (Bigler Jr & Williams,
2013; Carpenter & Sanders, 2009; Thompson, 2001).
5. However, a number of researchers divided different factors into groups
and categories and emphasized the interaction between factors
(Alexander, 1991; Bryson & Bromiley, 1993; Carpenter & Sanders, 2009;
Hill & Jones, 2008; Hitt et al., 2013; Hrebiniak, 2006, 2008; Johnson et
al., 2008; Judson, 1990; Meskendahl, 2010; Miller, 1997; Okumus, 2001,
2003; Schmelzer & Olsen, 1994; Skivington & Daft, 1991; Thompson,
2001; Wheelen & Hunger, 2012; Wu et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2009).
Among all the proposed frameworks, either descriptive or conceptual, the

framework proposed by Okumus (2003) encompasses all the aspects which
previous and subsequent researchers highlight separately. It includes almost all

the critical factors considered important for strategy implementation into
appropriate groups and presents a logical relationship among all these groups.
This model also includes the role of senior management or leadership as a
backing and stresses their involvement on every level during strategic
implementation process. Although comprehensive, this model needs to be tested
empirically before its validation in the real world situations. It shows a linear
relationship among different factors and groups of variables involved in the
process of strategic implementation process when in reality, the process of
strategic implementation is a cyclic process and different variables interact with
each other linearly as well as non-linearly (cyclic). Empirical analysis of this
model using different quantitative and qualitative research methods will find any
relationship (cyclic or non-cyclic) among the factors or group of factors. A
complete list of frameworks is attached as appendix 3A, 3B and 3C.
3.0 Best Practices for Strategy Implementation

Apart from the work of researchers and academics, a number of practitioners
and professionals who were either a part of strategy formulation or strategy
implementation process or both also helped in explaining the process of
successful strategy implementation. These professionals highlighted the
obstacles and problems to successful strategy implementation and put forward
recommendations through their experience and learning.
Beer and Eisenstat (2000) identified six silent killers of strategy implementation
and concluded that managers who tackled these killers, instead of avoiding
them, successfully implemented the strategy and achieved the desired goals.
The six silent killers are presented in table 3.1.
De Feo and Janssen (2001) described ten such steps for corporate strategy to
become an integral part of an organizations culture: establishing a vision;
agreeing on a mission; developing key strategies; developing strategic goals;
establishing values; communicating company policies; providing top
management leadership; deploying goals, measuring progress with key
performance indicators and finally, reviewing progress.

Table 3.1 Guidelines and Best Practices for Successful SI
1. Top-down or laissez-fair senior management style,

Beer and Eisenstat 2. Unclear strategy and conflicting priorities,
(2000) 3. An ineffective senior management team,
4. Poor vertical communication,
Six silent killers of
5. Poor coordination across functions, businesses, or
strategy
borders,
Implementation 6. Inadequate down-the-line leadership skills and
development.
1. Communicate the strategy,
Freedman (2003) 2. Drive planning,
Five activities for 3. Align the organization,
successful SI 4. Reduce complexity,
5. Install an issue resolution system
1. Keep it simple: to break down the broader strategy to be
implemented into shorter-term actions, each with a
defined start, middle, and end
2. Establish a common language
3. Delineate roles, responsibilities, timeframes
4. Devise straightforward quantitative and qualitative
Allio (2005) metrics
5. Balance short term with longer term
List of ten practical
6. Be precise, use action verbs
guidelines for SI
7. Use a common format to enhance clarity and
communication
8. Meet regularly, but in structured, time-limited sessions
9. Anchor implementation activities in the firms financial
infrastructure: budget, metrics, rewards
10. Be prepared to consistently manage the
implementation process
1. Commitment of top management
2. Involve middle managers valuable knowledge
3. Two way communication
4. Integrative point of view consider all aspects not only
the organizational structure but cultural aspects and the
human resource perspective are to be considered as well
5. Clear assignment of responsibilities
Raps (2005) 6. Preventive measures against change barriers
Ten critical points 7. Emphasize teamwork activities
8. Respect the individuals different characters as human
resources are becoming the key success factor within
strategy implementation.
9. Take advantage of supportive implementation
instruments two instruments are the balanced
scorecard and supportive software solutions.
10. Calculate buffer time for unexpected incidents
1. Building an organization with the competencies,
capabilities, and resource strengths to execute strategy
Thompson et al. (2005) successfully
Eight managerial tasks 2. Shaping the work environment and corporate culture to
fit the strategy
3. Allocating ample resources to strategy-critical activities

4. Ensuring that policies and procedures facilitate rather
than impede strategy execution
5. Instituting best practices and pushing for continuous
improvement in how value chain activities are performed
6. Installing information and operating systems that enable
company personnel to carry out their strategic roles
proficiently
7. Their rewards directly to the achievement of strategic
and financial targets and to good strategy execution
8. Exercising strong leadership to drive implementation
forward, keep improving on how the strategy is being
executed, and attain operating excellence
1. Identifying short-term objectives
Pearce and Robinson 2. Initiating specific functional tactics
3. Outsourcing non-essential functions
(2011)
4. Communicating policies that empower people in the
Five steps
organization
5. Designing effective rewards
1. Select people with positive execution values and traits
2. Align the positive execution values and traits in five key
areas of business operations
3. Make sure everyone is adding value for internal and
external customers
4. Employ an appropriate form of an initiative management
process with associated disciplines
Bigler and Williams 5. Everyone develops and uses an appropriate growth and
innovation roadmap
(2013)
6. Develop an appropriate gain-making and gain-sharing
Nine steps
system
7. Develop an appropriate recognition and promotion
system
8. Use a one-on-one monthly personal communication
process to facilitate real communication, performance
reviews and learning
9. Develop an appropriate process to continually improve
the leadership development process
1. Focus on both crafting and implementing strategy pay
equal attention to both.
2. Oversee and stay committed to the implementation
constantly be involved by sharing information,
communicating with employees and checking the current
status often.
3. Adapt and amend the strategy and implementation as
Speculand (2014) required whatever was agreed to in the boardroom
Five recommendations rarely happens in the implementation so adjustments
must be made.
4. Create the right conditions for the implementation
ensure you have set up a culture that supports the
execution of the strategy.
5. Follow up to achieve a successful implementation,
follow up is the number one best practice for leaders to
focus on.

Freedman (2003) suggested that in order to build a strong foundation for
successful implementation of a strategy, an organization should complete the
five activities. Allio (2005) developed a short list of ten practical guidelines for
successfully implementing the strategies that would help the managers get the
job done and called them best practices for implementing strategy. In order to
overcome and improve the difficulties in the implementation context, Raps
(2005) brought ten critical points together to be addressed.
Thompson et al. (2005) emphasized on the communication of the strategic

intent to all members of the organization. This would ultimately help finding the
ways to put the strategy into place, make it work and successfully meet the
targets. They argued that although each company uses different strategy
execution approaches after altering them according to the companys situation,
however, these eight managerial tasks should be performed accurately to get
the desired results. According to Pearce and Robinson (2011), firms are
successful in implementing their strategies when they move precisely from
planning to work to working their plan.
Bigler and Williams (2013) described leadership development approach in firms

that relies mostly on on-the-job training using nine step approach based on
leadership development framework. They were of the opinion that in order to
successfully implement and maintain an effective strategy, expansion of the
leadership capabilities within an organization might be the reasonable choice.
According to Bigler and Norris (2004) nearly all the firms try to attain World-
class strategy execution skill which is very difficult to achieve. Every firm which
attain this World-class strategy execution through leadership development
achieve the sustainable competitive advantage which would be difficult to imitate
(Bigler Jr & Williams, 2013). The four foundation pillars of World-class strategy
execution skill are shown in table 3.2. According to Bigler and Williams (2013)
world-class leadership can only execute world-class strategy, therefore, the nine
steps should be followed through which world class on-the-job leadership with
essential leadership qualities and necessary skills can be developed.

Table 3.2 Essential Foundations of World Class Strategy and their Descriptions
Essential Foundations of
Descriptions
World Class Strategy
Understanding the firms market rhythm, which
Speed is the tempo of the market as determined by the
buying patterns of customers
Aligning executive, operating, and support
processes with the market rhythm, creating
Internal Alignment
cyclic, recurring timing rather than calendar-
based timing for all processes
Maintaining a portfolio of innovation and growth
Innovation initiatives with various objectives and in various
stages of completion
Evaluating executive efficiency (speed at
which initiatives are successfully launched),
Executive Behaviour productivity (rate at which initiatives achieve
their targeted return), and effectiveness (growth
rate of the market value of the firm)
Source: (Bigler Jr & Williams, 2013)
By adopting this holistic and practical approach of leadership development

through this nine step process, any firm can successfully develop leaders who
can efficiently execute strategy(s) through effective communication, learning
and working together (Bigler Jr & Williams, 2013). Similarly, Speculand (2014)
put forward five recommendations for leaders to conduct a successful
implementation.
It has been clear from the above discussion that although professionals and
practitioners have different recommendations and suggestions, all of them strive
for the ultimate goal of successful strategy implementation. The bottom line of
their recommendations and suggestions is that strategy should be simple,
properly communicated, coordinated and followed up correctly.
4.0 Farm Business Strategy and its Implementation

Formulation of strategy and setting strategic direction is different than
implementing strategies. Strategy implementation is different than formulation
of strategy or setting strategic direction. Managers, executives or top
management team are the main players in key organizational activities and
cover many aspects in the business and one important aspect relates to the
formulation, support and implementation of corporate strategy (Miller et al.,

2008). According to Miller et al. (2008) nearly half or more of the strategic
initiatives fail due to factors under managerial control. Small scale organizations
including family farm businesses are usually operated by owner (who also serves
as a manager) with only a few numbers of employees. A majority of small firms
having less than five employees fail soon after their start due to poor
management, insufficient financial resources, solely managing all business
operations by owner and lack of knowledge and expertise in planning and
controlling business activities (Basuony, 2014; Giannopoulos et al., 2013). The
lack of strategy implementation framework, particularly for small size
organization including farm businesses, also aggravates the situation.
According to Olsen (2004), implementation of strategies is the most difficult

component of strategic management and requires a careful understanding of
farms objectives and stakeholders vision. In the words of Olsen, the farms
strategy implementation involves designing the structure of the organization,
aligning functional strategies (such as production and marketing) with the
chosen strategy for the whole farm, obtaining and directing the needed
resources, and adapting the plan and implementation to the change that is
inevitable (Olson, 2004, p. 61). For the successful implementation of strategy,
functional areas strategies should be formulated so as to support the overall
strategic intent of the farm business.
Byrne et al. (2004) developed a customized balanced scorecard for Irish dairy
farmers to help them in strategic decision making and called it Dairy Farmer
Scorecard. Through case study research of six farmers, they concluded that the
balanced scorecard helped identifying the clear purpose of farm businesses.
They also found that farm business success is mutli-dimensional and the
balanced scorecard being a multidimensional performance measures successfully
served the purpose.
According to Nell and Napier (2005), for the implementation of strategies

efficiently and successfully on the farm, all eight managerial components should
be in place. These eight managerial components in the form of conceptual
framework are shown in figure 4.1. They believed that if all eight components
are addressed properly will lead successfully towards the achievement of short
term objectives, actions and ultimately the core strategy.

Allocating ample
resources to Establishing
Building strategy critical supportive
a capable activities systems &
farming policies
business
Instituting best
Action Agenda of practices &
Exercising Farmer/Management mechanisms for
strategic Team continuous
leadership improvements of
Installing support
Shaping the culture systems that enable
Linking rewards
of the farming the personnel of the
and incentives to
business to fit the farming business to
achieving key
strategy carry out the
strategic targets i l
Figure 4.1 Eight Managerial Components of Implementation (Nell & Napier, 2005)
Beijeman (2007) explored how farmer strategists identify farm business

strategies and subsequently implement those identified strategies. A multiple
case study method was used in this study and data were collected from
respondents who were declared farmer strategists by their peers. Beijeman
found that farmer strategists identified strategies through both social networks
and through monitoring the external environment and through both purposeful
searching and accidental discovery. He also found that farmer strategists
implement a combination of intended and emergent strategies and used a series
of implementation tests in order to decide the best strategy from a number of
alternative intended/crafted strategies. The implementation tests include a
combination of informal and formal feasibility, performance, competitive
advantage and synchronization tests. However, farmer strategists, at occasion,
implemented emergent strategies soon after implementing either intended or
emergent strategy without any planning in advance.
Hansson et al. (2010) conducted the study on Swedish sugar beet producers and
investigated the relationship between the implementation success of action
programs that farmers have undertaken in response to strategic problems in
their businesses, to the nature of the action program, and to the farmers
characteristics. They found that farmers who chose action programs that did not
allow for incremental implementation experienced the more successful

implementation. They also found that the more experienced farmers did not
achieve higher levels of implementation success, even though they should be
more experienced with implementation. It was also found that a higher degree
of internal locus of control increased the probability of achieving higher levels of
implementation success. The farmers with other problems than caused by the
sugar beet reform were less likely to be at the highest level of implementation
success. Lastly the farmers who applied analytical approaches to interpreting
information achieve higher levels of implementation success than those who
apply only intuitive approaches.
According to Betker (2013, p. 244) setting a strategy refers to developing a

plan that documents where a farmer sees his or her business in the future and
what management and investment decisions have to be made to attain the
vision. Amon the three types of farm business plans; strategic plans (5 years),
business plans (3-5 years) and operational plans (1 year timeline), a farmer is
expected to at least have an operational plan (Betker, 2013). In fact, a number
of farms do not have any formal plans yet they are successful.
According to Betker (2013), change is inevitable from a farm management

perspective and the important thing is how farmers deal with this change. In
order to successfully manage farm business, understanding and monitoring the
alignment of strategic direction, financial performance and management
structure is important as a farm business continues its lifecycle. The
development and implementation of a farm business management plan is
required which would create a business vision keeping in view the longer term
strategy with the preferred financial future. This management plan would then
successfully be implemented by adding an accountability element in it which can
be internal, external or both (Betker, 2013)
5.0 Strategy Implementation Tools

A number of tools are considered effective and operative in implementing the
business strategies. These include Mission and Vision Statements, Balanced
Scorecard, Cycle Time Reduction, Strategic Planning, Scenario Planning,
Strategic Alliances, Supply Chain Integration, Benchmarking, Tool Quality
Management, Reengineering, Activity-Based Management and Core
Competencies (Bourne et al., 2003; Frost, 2003; Pasanen, 2011; Rigby, 2001;
Rigby & Bilodeau, 2015). In early 1990s, the trend from more financial or
accounting based traditional performance management measures diverted
towards more balanced performance measures (Bourne et al., 2003). This not
only resolved many of the shortcomings present in traditional financial based
systems but also provided a comprehensive framework for effectively
implementing the business strategies. The balanced scorecard was one of the

non-traditional performance measures which effectively delivered in both large
companies as well as in small and medium enterprises (Bourne et al., 2003;
Pasanen, 2011).
According to Rigby and Bilodeau (2015), the balanced scorecard was one of the
six most used strategic management tools on the globe with 44% usage in
Europe, Middle East and African companies. They also projected that the use of
the balanced scorecard would increase to 65% in future irrespective of the
companys size. On the contrary, it was found that implementing the balanced
scorecard was not a success at all times and failure rate reached to 67% of
those who used the balanced scorecard to improve the implementation (Bourne
et al., 2003; Frost, 2003). Among various reasons of the failure of the balanced
scorecard in implementation, the improper and ineffective utilization of the
approach were at the top (Bourne et al., 2003; Frost, 2003; Rigby & Bilodeau,
2015). The balanced scorecard yielded better results when it was used on large
scale as a part of major effort instead of small scale and according to the nature
of the business i.e., customized BSC (Byrne et al., 2004; Rigby & Bilodeau,
2015).
6.0 The Balanced Scorecard A Strategy

Implementation Framework
Conventionally, financial frameworks were developed to measure the financial
performance of the organizations, for example, ROI model by DuPont (Epstein &
Manzoni, 1998; Kaplan & Norton, 1996). However, with the emergence of new
activities within the organizations like investment in relationships, technologies
and capabilities, these historical cost financial models were unable to capture the
effect of these activities. In order to capture the effect of financials and non-
financials indicators, Kaplan and Norton proposed a framework called Balanced
Scorecard with four dimensions. The Balanced Scorecard keeps focus on short
term financial outcomes along with recognizing the value of building intangible
assets and competitive capabilities and ultimately on strategies for long term
success (Kaplan & Norton, 1996).
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) serves as the instrumentation for managers to

navigate to future competitive success. It translates the organizations strategy
into a comprehensive set of performance measure that provides the framework
for a strategic measurement and management system. The Balanced Scorecard
not only helps achieving the financial objectives but also provides the
performance drivers for these financial objectives, linked together in cause-and-
effect relationships (Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Nooreklit, 2000).

Balance scorecard combines both qualitative and quantitative measures,
acknowledge the expectations of different stakeholders and relate an
assessment of performance to choice of strategy (Johnson et al., 2008, p. 451).
Among different performance management systems (PMS), the balance

scorecard or strategy scorecard is commonly used in businesses. It is the
framework which can be used to evaluate the balance between the strategic
(long term successes) and financial controls (short term goals) to attain the
desired level of a firms performance (Awadallah & Allam, 2015; Carpenter &
Sanders, 2009; Hitt et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2008). A number of researchers
(Carpenter & Sanders, 2009; Hitt et al., 2013; Jie & Parton, 2009) come to a
conclusion that the balance scorecard is used for evaluating the business-level
strategies and help in:
1. Translating the strategy into operational expressions

2. Aligning the organization with the strategy
3. Making strategy everyones job
4. Making strategy a continual process, and
5. Mobilizing change through executive leadership
A number of researchers believed that for the implementation of business/farm

strategies, the balanced scorecard can be successfully used for both farm (small-
medium producers, family farms, and the corporate sector) and non-farm
businesses due to its flexibility and design (Byrne et al., 2004; Jie & Parton,
2009; Lissitsa, 2004, 2005; Noell & Lund, 2002; Parker, 2000; Shadbolt, 2007,
2008; Shadbolt et al., 2003). However, there is a dearth of research on the use
of BSC as a tool for strategy(s) implementation in agribusinesses (Byrne et al.,
2004; Lissitsa, 2005). In addition, due to the nature, size and location of every
agribusiness enterprise (farming, livestock production), the balanced scorecard
must be customized according to each enterprises own strategy and competitive
advantage before its application.
In order to remain competitive and achieving long-term financial viability and

success in dairy farming, Parker (2000) summarized seven principles that
farmers can implement to improve their business management. According to
Parker, among all the seven principles, principal five (measuring performance
through the right indicators) can effectively be implemented by the use of the
balanced scorecard. This would help the farmers to measure the progress of his
business against the strategic intent and looking into the future (lead indicators)
by analysing the past decisions (lag indicators). However, care must be taken
while selecting critical success factors and on the right cause and effect
relationships between the lead and lag indicators.

According to Noell and Lund (2002), all the four perspectives of the BSC
(balanced scorecard) and the rules of strategic management are basically the
same for any size and type of business and are certainly as valid for farming as
for any other small business. In an exploratory study, Noell and Lund discussed
the pre-requisites for the implementation of BSC concept into practical farming
in Denmark. They concluded that these five major issues should be considered
for the successful implementation of the balanced scorecard for farms in
Denmark:
1. To shift from a more or less static strategic planning framework to a more

dynamic and comprehensive strategic management practice
2. To shift the main strategic focus from internal processes to customer
perspective and establishing of close links between those two
perspectives
3. To develop a stakeholder-perspective and focussing the entire strategic
management process on it
4. To start with the strategic thinking and planning, the primary focus should
be (and remain) the area of resources, capabilities and other potentials of
a given farm, while market and product opportunities should be chosen
accordingly
5. The farm accounting practice should be adapted to the needs of strategic
management and the Balanced Scorecard. The orientation of agricultural
accounting towards processes, products and services should be further
strengthened e.g. by the introduction of Activity Based Costing, Target
Costing and profitability measurements adjusted for cost of capital
(Economic Valued Added)
Shadbolt et al. (2003) conducted a study to determine the significance,

application and evaluation (as a management tool) of the balanced scorecard to
multi-enterprise family farm businesses. Shadbolt et al. (2003) concluded that
the BSC helps small scale family farm businesses (small scale organizations)
improving their performance by linking internal processes with financial
perspective and external factors to learning and growth perspective. However,
they identified two issues which aroused during the application of the BSC on
multi-enterprise family farm businesses. First, the customer perspective was
inadequate to serve the purpose because farm businesses usually place equal
importance on buyers (customers) and suppliers of inputs to the business.
Therefore, the customer perspective should be replaced with supply chain
perspective to enable management to include goals related to both buyers from
and supplier to the business. Second, the uncertainty in deciding which
perspective was more appropriate to address family expectations such as time
off, family holidays and childrens education. To address this issue, Shadbolt
(2003) recommended that financial perspective required expansion to include

shareholder expectations and renamed it as shareholder/financial perspective
instead of adding a new perspective.
In the very first attempt of using BSC as a strategic management tool in

Ukrainian agriculture enterprise, Lissitsa (2005) discussed prerequisites for the
functioning of the BSC concept into a practical agriculture using case study
approach. Lissitsa found the immediate results of the implementation of the BSC
approach by a BSC project team in the agricultural primary production division
of Agrosoyuz. These include: a balanced and more efficient use of available
resources, new monitoring and measurement system for controlling and to
managing the achievement/ objectives, simplification of management and
organisation systems in the enterprises and a clear understanding of every
employees role in achieving business success. However, the major and
significant understandings found through the implementation of the BSC
approach in Agrosoyuz include:
1. The BSC is used to communicate strategic objectives to employees, not to

order them what to do;
2. The BSC is a strategic management tool that could not be adopted one-to-
one in the classical form proposed by Kaplan & Norton. Rather it could be
adjusted to the specific conditions in agriculture in transition countries
such as Ukraine; and
3. The BSC management process is a continuous process and is based on
performance metrics that are tracked continuously over time to identify
trends, best and worst practices, and areas for improvement. It delivers
information to managers that can help to guide their decisions
It was interesting to note that six perspectives of the BSC were used by
Agrosoyuz according to its specific objectives of being the most innovative
agricultural enterprises in the country. These six perspectives include: financial;
customer; internal business; learning and growth or human resources;
innovations; and society.
Atkinson (2006) critically reviewed the strategy implementation literature to

identify the main obstacles to successful strategy implementation and then
proceeded to critically review the balanced scorecard and evaluated the
contribution it can make to strategy implementation. The primary aim of his
research was to develop a deeper conceptual understanding of the potential role
of the balanced scorecard with regard to effective strategy implementation.
According to Atkinson (2006), new multidimensional non-financial performance
measures (like balanced scorecard) are taking place of the traditional financial
orientated metrics. According to Bungay and Goold (1991), these non-financial
performance measures are helpful in analysing and achieving the small or short-

term targets which in turn leads towards the achievement of strategic goals.
Atkinson (2006) found that among the key issues identified was the need for
effective communication throughout the organisation that leads to a clear
understanding of key roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders including
middle managers (whose role is pivotal). In addition the establishment of
effective strategic control systems and the way in which these interact with
other management and operational control systems is important to ensure that
an organisation can deliver against its strategic objectives. This in turn requires
the identification of clear performance targets and measures that deliver long-
term value while mediating short-term demands. It is argued that the balanced
scorecard can provide a mechanism for addressing such issues by making
explicit link between the strategic objectives and operational goals, by
identifying clear performance targets at all levels in the organisation, and by
engaging employees at all levels of the organisation in the discussion of the
strategic priorities. According to Atkinson, if the balanced scorecard is
implemented fully, it can engage management in an evaluation of the strategic
plan and thus avoid planning errors and discourage misunderstanding. In short,
the balanced scorecard cannot make strategic implementation happen by magic;
however, it can provide the vehicle within which the whole organisation can
move forward.
In order to explore the established system of measuring performance of beef

supply chain in Australia, Jie and Parton (2009) reported the application of BSC
as a supply chain performance measurement tool. They concluded that the BSC
would be the most appropriate strategy management tool for majority of
Australian beef producers due to the following reasons;
1. BSC is used to develop business vision and goals by combining goals of

finance, customers, learning and growth, and internal business processes;
2. BSC translates an organisations strategy into measurable and attainable
goals;
3. BSC measures in a balanced way the performance criteria;
4. BSC is equally suitable for small-medium producers, family farms, and the
corporate sector;
5. Implementation of BSC by small-medium producers or family farms is
simpler than many other approaches and there is likely to be less inertia
to change.
Paustian et al. (2015) successfully implemented the balanced scorecard in order

to get insights into the success factors and key performance indicators in the
four BSC perspectives they consider most relevant for the operational success of
arable farms. The empirical results showed that the respondents actually
consider performance measures from all four BSC perspectives relevant for farm

management. However, the BSC required continuous revisions to the operational
conditions of the farm and helped farm managers to coordinate current actions
to future goals to achieve better farm performance.
Difficulties/Implementation Issues in Using Balanced Scorecard
Apart from the usefulness and advantages of the balanced scorecard, a number
of shortcomings and problems have been found to be associated with it. These
problems range from the development of the balanced scorecard to its
application in the organizations strategic management system.
According to Epstein & Manzoni (1998), the most probable issues which may
arise while using Balanced Scorecard as an implementation tool include;
1. Lack of a clear and shared view of the firms strategy

2. Developing and maintaining a Balanced Scorecard can create a workload
for many people
3. The Balanced Scorecard highlights trade-offs and thus brings increased
transparency, which may be threatening for some managers
4. Balanced scorecard must evolve over time as the companys (or the
units) environment, capabilities and/or strategy change
Nooreklit (2000), through the use of analytical approach, addressed the

concepts used in the balance scorecard for increasing the level of clarity and
precision in them. Nooreklit concluded that BSC is not only the measurement
system but also an effective control system; however, there are some problems
with some of its key assumptions and relationships. These include: the existence
and understanding of cause and effect relationship (instead of logical
relationship) and the creditability and effectiveness of the BSC as a management
solution. However, these are the critics based on theoretical perspective and
need to be empirically evaluated and tested before acceptance. In a
comprehensive quantitative study, Lord et al. (2005) replied to the critics on the
BSC and proved that there existed the cause and the effect relationships
between the BSC measures and was understood by the respondents. They also
proved empirically that the BSC was the valid strategic management tool and
proved its credibility and effectiveness in the industry.
In addition, Lord et al. (2005) also concluded that the traditional four
perspectives of the BSC proposed by Kaplan and Norton were adequate. The
authors also found that organizations preferred to modify the names of the
customized BSC perspectives according to the desired area of measurement, for
example, learning and growth perspective to that of people.

According to Jie and Parton (2009), the two major issues related to the balanced
scorecard include: unavailability of standard procedures in the use of BSC and
less flexibility as compared to other performance measurement system, for
example, activity based costing (ABS).
7.0 Conclusion
Notwithstanding the limitation of the BSc, it is widely accepted and used by a
large number of organizations (manufacturing & service industries, large & small
organizations, public & private sector and multi-enterprise family farm
businesses) for a number of purposes (Awadallah & Allam, 2015; Basu et al.,
2009; Bontis et al., 2007; Ciuzaite, 2008; Giannopoulos et al., 2013; Martinsons
et al., 1999; Murby & Gould, 2005; Nzuve & Nyaega, 2013; Paustian et al.,
2015; Shadbolt et al., 2003). These include:
1. To implement a strategy
2. To measure the overall performance of an organization
3. To manage and measure the intangible nature of knowledge
(management of intellectual capital)
4. To develop employee compensation/incentive system
5. To support decision making at the strategic management level
6. To manage multi-enterprise family farm businesses
7. To be used as a performance measurement and strategic management
tool
The common problems faced by organizations (small, medium and large) for the
implementation of strategies, in general, include organizational structure,
systems, processes, people (human resource), communication, coordination and
control (Aaker, 1998; Aaltonen & Ikvalko, 2002; Bryson & Bromiley, 1993;
Carpenter & Sanders, 2009; ater & Puko, 2010; Galbraith & Kazanjian, 1986;
Heide et al., 2002; Hill & Jones, 2008; Hitt et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2008;
Judson, 1990; Okumus, 2001, 2003; Olson et al., 2005; Skivington & Daft,
1991; Stonich, 1982; Waterman et al., 1980; Wheelen & Hunger, 2012). The
BSC addresses all these issue through its five principles: translating the strategy
to operational terms; aligning organization to the strategy; making strategy
everyones everyday job; making strategy a continual process; and mobilizing
change through executive leadership (Awadallah & Allam, 2015; Basuony, 2014;
Kaplan & Norton, 2001). In present day scenario, the BSC is the best available
management tool which can help organizations including family farms to
successfully implement their business strategy by involving all the stakeholders.
The balanced scorecard, being a fully integrated management system, offers a
control for all management and production activities on a farm and increase
farm performance.

7.0 References
Aaker, D. A. (1998). Developing business strategies (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Aaltonen, P., & Ikvalko, H. (2002). Implementing strategies successfully.

Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(6), 415-418.
Alexander, L. D. (1985). Successfully implementing strategic decisions. Long

range planning, 18(3), 91-97.
Alexander, L. D. (1991). Strategy implementation: nature of the problem.

International Review of Strategic Management, 2(1), 73-96.
Alexander, L. M. (1993). Implementing strategy through project management.

Long range planning, 26(1), 76-85.
Allio, M. K. (2005). A short, practical guide to implementing strategy. Journal of

Business Strategy, 26(4), 12-21.
Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: a role for the balanced

scorecard? Management Decision, 44(10), 1441-1460.
Awadallah, E. A., & Allam, A. (2015). A Critique of the Balanced Scorecard as a

Performance Measurement Tool. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 6(7), 91-99.
Basu, R., Little, C., & Millard, C. (2009). Case study: A fresh approach of the
Balanced Scorecard in the Heathrow Terminal 5 project. Measuring Business
Excellence, 13(4), 22-33.
Basuony, M. A. K. (2014). The balanced scorecard in large firms and SMEs: A

critique of the nature, value and application. Accounting and Finance
Research, 3(2), p14.
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation
and learning. Sloan Management Review, 41(4), 29-40.
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2004). How to have an honest conversation about
your business strategy. harvard business review, 82(2), 82-89.
Beijeman, A. J. (2007). Strategy recognition and implementation by New

Zealand pastoral farming strategists. (Honours of Applied Science), Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Betker, T. (2013). Farm Management Plans. Paper presented at the 19th

International Farm Management Congress, Warsaw, Poland.

Bigler Jr, W. R., & Williams, F. A. (2013). World-Class Strategy Execution
Through'on The Job'leadership Development. Business Studies Journal, 5(1).
Bigler, W. R., & Norris, M. (2004). The new science of strategy execution: How
established firms become fast, sleek wealth creators: Greenwood Publishing
Group.
Bontis, N., Bart, C. K., Bose, S., & Thomas, K. (2007). Applying the balanced
scorecard for better performance of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 8(4), 653-665.
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J., & Platts, K. (2003). Implementing performance
measurement systems: a literature review. International Journal of Business
Performance Management, 5(1), 1-24.
Breene, R. T. S., Nunes, P. F., Shill, W. E., & Timothy, S. (2007). The chief
strategy officer. harvard business review, 85(10), 84.
Brenes, E. R., Mena, M., & Molina, G. E. (2008). Key success factors for strategy
implementation in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 590-
598.
Bryson, J. M., & Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and
implementation of major projects. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5),
319-337.
Burgelman, R. A., & Siegel, R. (2008). Cutting the strategy diamond in high-
technology ventures. California Management Review. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111770
Byrne, A., Ruane, D. J., & Kelly, T. (2004). The Development and Application of
the Balanced Scorecard for the Irish Dairy Farm Manager. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference AIAEE.
Calori, R., & Atamer, T. (1990). How French managers deal with radical change.
Campbell, A., & Alexander, M. (1997). What's wrong with strategy? harvard
business review, 75(6), 42-51.
Carpenter, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2009). Strategic management: a dynamic

perspective: concepts and cases (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.

ater, T., & Puko, D. (2010). Factors of effective strategy implementation:
Empirical evidence from Slovenian business practice. Journal for east
european Management Studies, 207-236.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). Making strategy: Learning by doing. harvard business

review, 75(6), 141-156.
Ciuzaite, E. (2008). Balanced scorecard development in Lithuanian companies:

Cultural implications, Balanced Scorecard development process framework
and discussion on interlink with employee incentive system (M.Sc.),
University of Aarhus, Denmark.
Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2008). Building a capable organization:

The eight levers of strategy implementation. Business horizons, 51(4), 301-
309.
David, F. R. (2013). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases: A Competitive

Advantage Approach (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
De Feo, J. A., & Janssen, A. (2001). Implementing a strategy successfully.

Measuring Business Excellence, 5(4), 4-6.
Dobni, C. B., & Luffman, G. (2003). Determining the scope and impact of market
orientation profiles on strategy implementation and performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 24(6), 577-585.
Eppler, M. J., & Platts, K. W. (2009). Visual strategizing: the systematic use of
visualization in the strategic-planning process. Long range planning, 42(1),
42-74.
Epstein, M., & Manzoni, J.-F. (1998). Implementing corporate strategy: From
Tableaux de Bord to balanced scorecards. European Management Journal,
16(2), 190-203.
Franken, A., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. (2009). Understanding the Critical
Management Elements That Lead to Success. California Management Review,
51(3).
Freedman, M. (2003). The genius is in the implementation. Journal of Business

Strategy, 24(2), 26-31.
Frost, F. A. (2003). The use of strategic tools by small and mediumsized

enterprises: an Australasian study. Strategic change, 12(1), 49-62.
Galbraith, J. R., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1986). Strategy implementation: Structure,

Systems, and Process (2nd ed.): West Publishing Company New York, NY.

Garvin, D. A., & Levesque, L. C. (2008). The multiunit enterprise. harvard
business review, 86(6), 106-117.
Garvin, D. A., & Roberto, M. A. (2005). Change through persuasion. If you read
nothing else on change, read these best-selling articles., 26.
Giannopoulos, G., Holt, A., Khansalar, E., & Cleanthous, S. (2013). The use of
the balanced scorecard in small companies. International Journal of Business
and Management, 8(14), p1.
Giles, W. D. (1991). Making strategy work. Long range planning, 24(5), 75-91.
Gratton, L. (1996). Implementing a strategic visionKey factors for success.

Hkonsson, D. D., Burton, R. M., Obel, B., & Lauridsen, J. T. (2012). Strategy
implementation requires the right executive style: Evidence from Danish
SMEs. Long range planning, 45(2), 182-208.
Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (1989). Strategy implementation as

substance and selling. The Academy of Management Executive, 3(4), 278-
285.
Hansson, H., Oskarsson, M., & hlmr, B. (2010). Successful implementation of

new strategies in the farm businessFacilitators and inhibitions found at
Swedish sugar beet farms. Journal of International Farm Management, 5(2),
1-22.
Heide, M., Grnhaug, K., & Johannessen, S. (2002). Exploring barriers to the
successful implementation of a formulated strategy. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 18(2), 217-231.
Higgins, J. M. (2005). The eight Ss of successful strategy execution. Journal of

Change Management, 5(1), 3-13.
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, G. R. (2008). Strategic Management: An Integrated

Approach (8th Ed.). Boston, USA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hill, C. W. L., Jones, G. R., Galvin, P., & Haidar, A. (2007). Strategic
Management: An Integrated Approach (2nd ed.). Australia: John wiley &
Sons.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskinson, R. E. (2013). Strategic Management:

Competitiveness and Globalization (Concepts and Cases) (10th ed.). Mason,
USA: Cengage Learning.

Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation.
Organizational dynamics, 35(1), 12-31.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2008). Making strategy work: Overcoming the obstacles to

effective execution. Ivey Business Journal, 72(2), 1-6.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2013). Making strategy work: Leading effective execution and

change. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. (1984). Implementing strategy: Macmillan New

York, NY.
Hussey, D. E. (1985). Implementing corporate strategy: using management

education and training. Long range planning, 18(5), 28-37.
Huy, Q. N. (2011). How middle managers' groupfocus emotions and social

identities influence strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal,
32(13), 1387-1410.
Jenster, P. V. (1987). Using critical success factors in planning. Long range

planning, 20(4), 102-109.
Jie, F., & Parton, K. A. (2009). Balanced Scorecard for Australian cattle
producers: An Application. Australasian Farm Business Management Journal,
6(1), 27-39.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy:
text and cases (8th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, L. K. (2004). Execute your strategywithout killing it. Harvard

Management Update, 9(12), 3-6.
Judson, A. S. (1990). Making strategy happen: transforming plans into reality:

Wiley-Blackwell.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2005). The office of strategy management. harvard
business review, 83(10), 72-80, 157.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating

Strategy into Action. USA: Harvard Business Press.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then
map it. Focus Your Organization on Strategywith the Balanced Scorecard,
61.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How
balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment:
Harvard Business Press.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). How to implement a new strategy without
disrupting your organization. harvard business review, 84(3), 100.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). Mastering the management system.

harvard business review, 86(1), 62.
Kleinbaum, A. M., & Stuart, T. E. (2014). Inside the black box of the corporate
staff: Social networks and the implementation of corporate strategy.
Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 24-47.
Kohtamki, M., Kraus, S., Mkel, M., & Rnkk, M. (2012). The role of
personnel commitment to strategy implementation and organisational
learning within the relationship between strategic planning and company
performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
18(2), 159-178.
Leonardi, P. M. (2015). Materializing strategy: the blurry line between strategy

formulation and strategy implementation. British Journal of Management,
26(S1), S17-S21.
Lissitsa, A. (2004). The Balanced Scorecard as a New Strategic Management

Instrument for Ukrainian Agricultural Enterprises. Ukrainian Agriculture
Crisis and Recovery, 117.
Lissitsa, A. (2005). The balanced scorecard implementation in farm enterprise-a

case study from Ukraine. Paper presented at the 15th Congress, Campinas
SP, Brazil, August 14-19, 2005.
Lorange, P. (1998). Strategy implementation: the new realities. Long range

planning, 31(1), 18-29.
Lord, B. R., Shanahan, Y. P., & Gage, M. J. (2005). The balanced scorecard: a
New Zealand perspective. Pacific Accounting Review, 17(1), 49-78.
Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2005). Turning great strategy into great
performance. harvard business review, 2607.
Manning, T. (2012). Managing change in hard times. Industrial and Commercial

Training, 44(5), 259-267.

Martinsons, M., Davison, R., & Tse, D. (1999). The balanced scorecard: a
foundation for the strategic management of information systems. Decision
support systems, 25(1), 71-88.
Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio

management and its successa conceptual framework. International Journal
of Project Management, 28(8), 807-817.
Miller, A., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Strategic Management (2nd ed.): McGraw-Hill
Inc.
Miller, D. (2002). Successful change leaders: What makes them? What do they
do that is different? Journal of Change Management, 2(4), 359-368.
Miller, S. (1997). Implementing strategic decisions: Four key success factors.

Organization Studies, 18(4), 577-602.
Miller, S., Hickson, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). From strategy to action:
involvement and influence in top level decisions. Long range planning, 41(6),
606-628.
Miller, S., Wilson, D., & Hickson, D. (2004). Beyond Planning:: Strategies for
Successfully Implementing Strategic Decisions. Long range planning, 37(3),
201-218.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. harvard business
review, 72(1), 107-114.
Murby, L., & Gould, S. (2005). Effective Performance Management with the
Balanced Scorecard: Technical Report. London: Chartered Institute of
Management Accountants and INSEAD, 23.
Naranjo-Gil, D., & Hartmann, F. (2006). How top management teams use
management accounting systems to implement strategy. Journal of
Management accounting research, 18(1), 21-53.
Neilson, G. L., Martin, K. L., & Powers, E. (2008). The secrets to successful
strategy execution. harvard business review, 86(6), 60.
Nell, W. T., & Napier, R. J. (2005). Strategic approach to farming success. Paper
presented at the 15th International Farm Management Association Congress,
Campinas, Brazil.
Noble, C. H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research.

Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 119-134.

Noell, C., & Lund, M. (2002). The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) for Danish Farms
Vague Framework or Functional Instrument? Paper presented at the Farm
Management. Proceedings of NJF Seminar No. 345.
Nooreklit, H. (2000). The balance score card-a critical analysis of some of its
assumption. Management accounting research, 11(1), 65-88.
Nzuve, S., & Nyaega, G. (2013). Application of balanced scorecard in

performance measurement at Essar Telecom Kenya limited. Available at
SSRN 2231330.
Okumus, F. (2001). Towards a strategy implementation framework.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7), 327-
338.
Okumus, F. (2003). A framework to implement strategies in organizations.

Management Decision, 41(9), 871-882.
Okumus, F., & Roper, A. (1999). A review of disparate approaches to strategy

implementation in hospitality firms. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 23(1), 21-39.
Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005). The importance of structure
and process to strategy implementation. Business horizons, 48(1), 47-54.
Olson, K. D. (2004). Farm management: Principles and strategies: Iowa State

Press Ames.
Parker, W. J. (2000). Seven principles for improving farm business

management. ASIAN AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCES, 13,
432-440.
Parmigiani, A., & Holloway, S. S. (2011). Actions speak louder than modes:
antecedents and implications of parent implementation capabilities on
business unit performance. Strategic Management Journal, 32(5), 457-485.
Pasanen, M. (2011). Strategic Management Tools and Techniques in Smes.

Paper presented at the Society of Interdisciplinary Business Research (SIBR)
2011 Conference on Interdisciplinary Business Research.
Paustian, M., Wellner, M., & Theuvsen, L. (2015). The Balanced Scorecard as a
Management Tool for Arable Farming. Proceedings in Food System
Dynamics, 262-275.
Pearce, J. A., & Robinson, R. B. (2011). Strategic management: Formulation,

implementation, and control: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Pellegrinelli, S., & Bowman, C. (1994). Implementing strategy through projects.
Pendlebury, A. J. (1987). Creating a manufacturing strategy to suit your

business. Long range planning, 20(6), 35-44.
Piercy, N., & Morgan, N. (1991). Internal marketingThe missing half of the
marketing programme. Long range planning, 24(2), 82-93.
Pryor, M. G., Anderson, D., Toombs, L. A., & Humphreys, J. H. (2007). Strategic
implementation as a core competency: The 5P's model. Journal of
management Research, 7(1), 3.
Raimond, P., & Eden, C. (1990). Making strategy work. Long range planning,
23(5), 97-105.
Rapert, M. I., Velliquette, A., & Garretson, J. A. (2002). The strategic

implementation process: evoking strategic consensus through
communication. Journal of Business Research, 55(4), 301-310.
Raps, A. (2005). Strategy implementation-an insurmountable obstacle?

Handbook of business strategy, 6(1), 141-146.
Reed, R., & Buckley, M. R. (1988). Strategy in actionTechniques for

implementing strategy. Long range planning, 21(3), 67-74.
Rigby, D. (2001). Management tools and techniques: A survey. California

Management Review, 43(2), 139.
Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2015). Management Tools & Trends 2015. London,
Bain & Company.
Roth, K., Schweiger, D. M., & Morrison, A. J. (1991). Global Strategy

implementation at unit level: Operational Capabilities and Administrative
Mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), 369-402.
Schmelzer, C. D., & Olsen, M. D. (1994). A data based strategy implementing

framework for companies in the restaurant industry. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 13(4), 347-359.
Shadbolt, N. M. (2007). The Balanced Scorecard: A Strategic Management Tool

for Ranchers. Rangelands, 29(2), 4-9.
Shadbolt, N. M. (2008). Strategic management of farm businesses: The role of

strategy tools with particular reference to the balanced scorecard. Journal of
Farm Management, 13(3), 205-218.

Shadbolt, N. M., Beeby, N., Brier, B., & Gardner, J. W. (2003). A critique of the
use of the balanced scorecard in multi-enterprise family farm businesses.
Paper presented at the 14th Congress, Perth, Western Australia, August 10-
15, 2003.
Shaw, G., Brown, R., & Bromiley, P. (1998). Strategic stories: How 3M is
rewriting business planning. harvard business review, 76, 41-54.
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2002). Pay dispersion and workforce
performance: Moderating effects of incentives and interdependence.
Strategic Management Journal, 23(6), 491-512.
Skivington, J. E., & Daft, R. L. (1991). A study of organizational framework and

process modalities for the implementation of business level strategic
decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 28(1), 45-68.
Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2000). Strategy type and performance: The
influence of sales force management. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8),
813-829.
Speculand, R. (2014). Bridging the strategy implementation skills gap. Strategic

Direction, 30(1), 29-30.
Stonich, P. J. (1982). Implementing strategy: Making strategy happen: Ballinger

Pub Co.
Sull, D., Homkes, R., & Sull, C. (2015). Why Strategy Execution Unravelsand
What to Do About It. harvard business review, 93(3), 57-66.
Taylor, B. (1995). The new strategic leadershipDriving change, getting results

Fhrungskrfte und Fhrungserfolg (pp. 37-61): Springer.
Taylor, B. (1997). The return of strategic planningonce more with feeling. Long
Thomas, L., & Ambrosini, V. (2015). Materializing strategy: the role of

comprehensiveness and management controls in strategy formation in
volatile environments. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S105-S124.
Thompson, A. A., Strickland III, A. J., & Gamble, J. E. (2005). Strategy: Winning
in the Marketplace; core concepts, analytical tools, cases (2nd ed.). Boston,
NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Thompson, J. L. (2001). Understanding corporate strategy. Oxford: Alden Press.

Tourish, D. (2005). Critical Upward Communication:: Ten Commandments for
Improving Strategy and Decision Making. Long range planning, 38(5), 485-
503.
Verweire, K. (2014). Strategy Implementation. Nw York, NY: Routledge.
Waterman, R. H., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not

organization. Business horizons, 23(3), 14-26.
Wernham, R. (1984). Bridging the awful gap between strategy and action. Long
Wheelen, T. L., & Hunger, J. D. (2012). Strategic Management and Business

Policy: Toward Global Sustainability (13th ed.). Boston, USA:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Wu, W.-Y., Hsiung Chou, C., & Wu, Y.-J. (2004). A study of strategy
implementation as expressed through Sun Tzu's principles of war. Industrial
management & data systems, 104(5), 396-408.
Yang, L., Sun, G., & Eppler, M. J. (2008). Making Strategy Work: A Literature
Review on the Factors influencing Strategy Implementation. ICA Working
Paper 2. Institute for Corporate Communication. Retrieved from
http://www.knowledge-communication.org/pdf/making-strategy-work.pdf
Yang, L., Sun, G., & Eppler, M. J. (2009). Making strategy work: A literature
review on the factors influencing strategy implementation. In P. Mazzola & F.
W. Kellermanns (Eds.), Handbook of research on Strategy Process (pp. 165-
181). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Zabriskie, N., & Huellmantel, A. (1989). Implementing strategies for human

resources. Long range planning, 22(2), 70-77.

Appendix 1 Activities for Strategy Implementation
Activities as
Activity
operationalized in the Activities addressed in the literature
group
study
Formulating and implementing Programming and budgeting (Pucko 2006), Developing programs, budgets and procedures
development programs (Wheelen/Hunger 2006)
Translating strategy into projects (Pellegrinelli/Bowman 1994)

Planning and implementing
projects Managing projects (Kovac 1996; Grundy 1998; Hauc/Kovac 2000; Minarro-Viseras et al.
2005; Pucko 2006)
Planning Using an efficient annual Establishing operating-level objectives (Hrebiniak/Joyce 1984)
activities planning system
Tactical (annual) planning (Pucko 2006) Annual business planning (Birnbaum 2007)
Action planning (Pucko 2006; Wheelen/Hunger 2006; Birnbaum 2007)
Applying action planning
Turning strategy into action (Farsight Leadership Organization 2007)
Fitting the organization to the strategy (organization design) (Lorange 1982; Kovac 1996)
Organizing for strategy Designing a primary and operating organizational structures (Hrebiniak/Joyce 1984)
Organising implementation Organizing for strategy implementation (Pucko 2006) Organizing for action
activities (Wheelen/Hunger 2006) Developing organizational structure (Birnbaum 2007)
Translating enterprise-level plans into lower- unit-level plans (Kaplan/Norton 2005)

Allocating strict responsibility
Allocating responsibility for strategy implementation (Pucko 2006) Involving people from all
for strategy implementation
organisational levels (Wheelen/Hunger 2006)

Triggering enthusiasm in employees (Nichols 1994) Directing employees (Pucko 2006)
Leading by coaching people (Wheelen/Hunger 2006) Motivational leadership (Farsight
Using leadership to direct Leadership
employees
Organization 2007) Leading the change (Brenes et al. 2008)
Emphasizing communication between all parties (Al-Ghamdi 1998)
Using formal communication Communicating the corporate strategy (Kaplan/Norton 2005)

Leadership
activities Communicating strategy to people (Speculand 2006)
Aligning employees goals with strategic goals (Kaplan/Norton 2005)

Applying MBO (management by
objectives)
Management by objectives (Pucko 2006; Wheelen/Hunger 2006)
Executing HR activities (Fulmer 1990; Ulrich 1998) Staffing (Pucko 2006; Wheelen/Hunger
Applying HRM activities
2006) Managing human resource factors (Birnbaum 2007)
Creating incentives and control mechanisms (Hrebiniak/Joyce 1984)
Using an efficient tactical Controlling the implementation of strategies (Pucko 2006)

control system
Controlling
Monitoring and control (Birnbaum 2007) Implementing control and follow-up actions
activities
(Brenes et al. 2008)
Applying the BSC (balanced Using the balanced scorecard (Kaplan/Norton 1996, 2006)
scorecard)
Consistently measuring progress and performance (Farsight Leadership Organization 2007)
(ater & Puko, 2010)

Appendix 2 Obstacles to Strategy Implementation
Obstacle
Obstacles as operationalized in the study Relevant references
group
Strategy Strategic analysis is not properly conducted Pucko/Cater 2008
formulation Strategy is poorly defined Giles 1991; Hrebiniak
Change Managers lack capabilities to implement change
Hrebiniak 2005, 2008
management management
Managers do not trust information generated
Hrebiniak 2005
outside their units
Employees are reluctant to share knowledge
Hrebiniak 2005
Organizational with colleagues
culture Short-range orientation dominates the Alexander 1985; Al-
company Ghamdi 1998
Strategy conflicts with existing organizational
Hrebiniak 2005, 2006
power structure
Organizational Managers lack ideas how to persuade Hrebiniak 2005; Gurkov
power employees to execute the strategy 2009
structure Top management is not actively engaged in Hrebiniak 2005; Brenes
strategy implementation et al. 2008
Managers lack leadership skills for strategy
implementation Hrebiniak 2005
Al-Ghamdi 1998;
There are no guidelines or a model to guide
Hrebiniak 2005;
strategy execution efforts
Kaplan/Norton 2006
Hambrick/Cannella
Strategy is not properly communicated to lower
1989; Hrebiniak 2005;
Leadership levels
Kaplan/Norton 2005
Reward systems do not stimulate strategy
implementation Terborg/Ungson 1985
(ater & Puko, 2010)

Appendix 3A Strategy Implementation Conceptual/Descriptive Frameworks
S.NO. Author(s) Type Year Model Focus Remarks
7 Factors and
7-S factors of strategy implementation These
Waterman, Linear
Conceptual factors are: strategy, structure, systems, style,
1 Peters, & Journal 1980 relationship and
framework staff, skills, and subordinate goals. Interaction
Phillips (1980) a Strong fit is
among variables , (non-linear relationship)
required
Proposed a conceptual strategy implementation
framework that include five interrelated variables:
Stonich Conceptual strategy formulation, organization structure, Strong fit among
2 Book 1982
(1982) framework human resources, management process (planning, five factors
programming, budgeting and reward system), and
culture
Described the implementation factors such as
organizational structure, reward system,
objectives and control mechanisms. It emphasize
Hrebiniak & Conceptual Description
3 Book 1984 that the process of strategy implementation be
Joyce (1984) framework of Factors
built around a set of implementation factors which
are significant enough to be treated separately in
terms of the managerial emphasis laid on them.
Described factors of implementation such as task,
organizational structure, people, reward system,
Galbraith &
Conceptual information and decision process, objectives and Strong fit among
4 Kazanjian Book 1986
framework control mechanism. It recommends that the factors
(1986)
process of strategy implementation be built
around a set of implementation factors.

Problem
Combined the use of goal-setting and critical
avoidance
success factors with performance appraisal which
approach
will facilitate the strategy implementation process.
Reed & Identification of
Conceptual Suggested different but interrelated techniques to
5 Buckley Journal 1988 critical success
framework be used for the effective implementation of
(1988) factors but did
strategies. These techniques include; performance
not talked about
appraisal, goal settings and identification of critical
what are those
success factors.
factors
Identified ten critical factors in strategy
formulation and implementation process. The Identified
factors 1-9 belong to strategy formulation process factors
and only 1 factor relates to strategy Identified
implementation process. Used quite similar factors problems in
6 Judson (1990) Book 1990 Descriptive
of implementation such as organizational strategy
structure, culture, people, communication, control, formulation and
rewards and outcome and recommends that the implementation
process of strategy implementation is built around (Practitioners)
a set of implementation factors.
Proposed a descriptive strategy implementation
Description of
framework focusing on the key implementers
factors
rather than on the strategy formulators. Alexander
Focusing on key
believed that key implementers and the affected
Alexander implementers
7 Journal 1991 Descriptive employees decide whether the strategy is
(1991) who decided
appropriate or not. Factors considered by
about
implementers include; financial resources,
appropriateness
organizational structure, time, people,
of strategy
communication, control and outcome.

Conceptual Developed and empirically tested an
framework implementation framework , identified 14 factors, Identification
Schmelzer &
8 Journal 1994 /Empirical grouped them into context and process factors and grouping of
Olsen (1994)
tested factors
case study
Describe factors of implementation such as task,
organizational structure, people, reward system,
Miller & Dess Conceptual information and decision process, objectives and Description of
9 Book 1996
(1996) framework control mechanism and recommended that the factors
process of strategy implementation be built
around a set of implementation factors.
Restructuring the Organization (making it leaner,
fitter and simpler), Re-engineering Business
Processes (simplifying and speeding up the
companys key processes such as product
development, delivery, etc.), Company Culture
(making the companys mission, values and beliefs Description of
10 Taylor (1997) Journal 1997 Descriptive more explicit and emphasizing the need to factors
produce value for customers, shareholders and (Practitioners)
other stakeholders), Human Resource
Management (revising the contract with the
employees, e.g. to allow more flexible working, to
hold staff more accountable and to link rewards
more directly to performance)
This frameworks uses quite similar factors of
Conceptual Factors and
11 Aaker (1998) Book 1998 implementation such as organizational structure,
framework strong fit
culture, people, and system

Identified obstacles to strategy implementation;
Lack of a true growth culture in the organization
Obstacles
Lorange from top to bottom, Too much organizational
12 Journal 1998 Descriptive identified
(1998) complexity, Strong organizational kingdom, Lack
(Practitioners)
of speed and urgency, Lack of tradition-breaking,
and Lack of cost competitiveness
Identified six silent killers of strategy
Beer and implementation and concluded that managers who
Obstacles to SI
13 Eisenstat Journal 2000 Descriptive tackled these killers, instead of avoiding them,
(Practitioners)
(2000) successfully implemented the strategy and
achieved the desired goals
Similar to Hrebiniak (2013), There are four
essential components which articulate the basis of Strategic leader
a successful strategy implementation. These is the key player
include strategic leader, intended strategy (with in
Thompson Conceptual
14 Book 2001 clear objectives, milestones and targets), implementation.
(2001) framework
organization structure and strategic resources and Different
it is the strategic leader who establishes components and
coordination among other three important their alignment
components of strategy implementation
Described ten such steps for corporate strategy to
become an integral part of an organizations
culture: establishing a vision; agreeing on a
De Feo & mission; developing key strategies; developing
10 steps of SI
15 Janssen Journal 2001 Descriptive strategic goals; establishing values;
(Practitioners)
(2001) communicating company policies; providing top
management leadership; deploying goals,
measuring progress with key performance
indicators and finally, reviewing progress

They discussed that strategic consensus plays an Strategic
important role in the implementation process and consensus and
frequent communication between marketing and frequent
Rapert et al. Conceptual top management served to increase strategic communication
16 Journal 2002
(2002) framework consensus through the development of shared between
attitudes, understandings, and values and marketing and
rewarded with higher levels of marketing and top
organizational performance. management
Freedman Conceptual
17 Journal 2003 Five phases to the strategy process. List of activities
(2003) framework
Conceptual Identification of different factors and grouping Identification of
Wu et al. framework/ them different factors
18 Journal 2004
(2004) empirical and grouping
analysis them
Eight managerial tasks should be performed
Thompson et List of activities
19 Book 2005 Descriptive accurately to get the desired results.
al. (2005) (Practitioners)
10 guidelines to be followed for SI List of activities

20 Allio (2005) Journal 2005 Descriptive
(Practitioners)
In order to overcome and improve the difficulties
in the implementation context, Raps (2005) List of activities
21 Raps (2005) Journal 2005 Descriptive
brought ten critical points together to be (Practitioners)
addressed
Based on the McKinsey seven Ss model proposed
a 8 Ss model of strategy implementation and
Higgins Conceptual Factors and their
22 Journal 2005 replaced Skills of McKinsey with reSources and
(2005) framework alignment
added a new factor Strategic Performance in the
model.

Based on the alignment and integration of widely
accepted activities and functions of effective and
successful strategy implementation. These
Pryor et al. Conceptual Factors and their
23 Journal 2007 activities and functions include; structures,
(2007) framework alignment
systems, leadership behaviour, human resource
policies, cultures, value and management
processes.
Strategy is a cyclic/iterative process not the linear.
A strategy loop consists of four major steps: Strategy is a
Conceptual Making sense of a situation cyclic process /
24 Sull (2007) Journal 2007
framework Making choices on what to do and what not to do nonlinear in
Making those things happen nature
Making revisions based on new information
Organizational configuration (structures, processes
and relationships through which the organization
operates), resourcing strategies (overall business
Johnson et al. strategies and strategies in separate resource Grouping of
25 Book 2008 Descriptive
(2008) areas such as people, information, finance and factors
technology), managing strategic change,
practicing of strategy are important elements for
successful implementation of strategies.
Organizational design is the heart of implementing
strategies effectively. Organizations motivate and
coordinate its employees and members through Grouping of
Hill & Jones Conceptual
26 Book 2008 the use of organizational structure, control factors and
(2008) framework
systems and culture to work towards achieving the alignment
desired results by developing the competitive
advantage.

Suggested eight levers of strategy implementation
which would play a pivotal role in the development
Crittenden &
of the organization, as lever does by making work Grouping of
27 Crittenden Journal 2008 Descriptive
easier by overcoming resistance against it. They factors
(2008)
grouped these eight levers into two groups;
structural levers and managerial skills levers.
They used the implementation levers, as they call Grouping of
them, of organizational structure, systems and factors /
Carpenter &
processes, people and rewards, and strategic Strategic leader
28 Sanders Book 2009 Descriptive
leadership that involve making lever and resource is the key player
(2009)
allocation decisions, and communicating the who align the
strategy to stakeholders. group of factors
Identified nine individual factors that influence
strategy implementation. These include: the
strategy formulation process, the strategy
executors (managers, employees), the Identification
organizational structure, the communication and grouping of
Yang et al. Conceptual
29 Journal 2009 activities, the level of commitment for the factors and
(2008) framework
strategy, the consensus regarding the strategy, interaction
the relationships among different among factors
units/departments and different strategy levels,
the employed implementation tactics, and the
administrative system in place.
Based on project portfolio management Interaction
Meskendahl Conceptual between
30 Journal 2010
(2010) framework different
variables

The five steps which maximises the likelihood of Five steps
implementing strategies successfully include; (Practitioners)
Pearce & Identifying short-term objectives, Initiating
31 Robinson Book 2011 Descriptive specific functional tactics, Outsourcing
(2011) nonessential functions, Communicating policies
that empower people in the organization and
Designing effective rewards
Structure (organizing), selecting the appropriate Alignment of
Wheelen & people to carry out the strategy (staffing), and different
32 Book 2012 Descriptive
Hunger (2012) communicating clearly how the strategy can be components
put into action (leading) (Practitioners)
Identified
Manning Five sets of issues associated with successful
33 Journal 2012 Descriptive Issues/problems
(2012) strategy implementation
(Practitioners)
Bigler Jr & The four foundation pillars of World-class strategy Leadership
34 Williams Journal 2013 Descriptive execution; speed, Internal alignment, innovation, development
(2013) executive behavior (Practitioners)
Effective corporate governance, organizational
Description of
Hitt et al. structure and the control, strategic leadership and
35 Book 2013 Descriptive factors
(2013) strategic entrepreneurships are necessary for
(Practitioners)
successful implementation of strategies
Translation of strategic thought into strategic
Consensus
action is facilitated by managers and employees
between top
36 David (2013) Book 2013 Descriptive understanding of the firm business, feeling
management
themselves a part of the company and their
and staff
involvement in strategy formulation activities.

Interrelationship of different key decisions and Logical flow
Hrebiniak Conceptual actions. between
37 Book 2013
(2013) framework different
components
Speculand Put forward five recommendations for leaders to
38 Journal 2014 Descriptive Practitioners
(2014) conduct a successful implementation.

Appendix 3B Strategy Implementation Empirical Frameworks
S.NO Author(s
Type Year Analysis & Model Focus Remarks
. )
Identified problems of strategy Implementation, SI is not a linear
Wernham Survey/
1 Journal 1984 Identified factors making implementation more process / Identified
(1984) Empirical
effective, organizational fit is required for SI. factors
identified implementation problems, identification of
Alexander Survey/ factors which help promoting the strategy Identification of
2 Journal 1985
(1985) Empirical implementation, problem prevention and doing the problems to SI; and
right things were necessary for successful strategy factors help SI
implementation
Training is a powerful weapon for implementing Training for
Hussey Survey/
3 Journal 1985 strategy and training objectives and initiatives should Strategists a
(1985) Empirical largely ignored area
be periodically reviewed by top management.
by researchers
Firms which had high return on equity identified their Factors
critical success factors for the implementation of identification
Jenster Case study/ strategies. Followed by identification, these factors
4 Journal 1987
(1987) Empirical were used to monitor the progress in implementation
of strategic change. Based on these findings, Jenster
propose a nine step strategic process and information
system for integrating planning and control.
Developed Strategy and implementation are inseparable; Factors
Pendlebur conceptual implementation success depends upon the right identification
5 Journal 1987 framework based balance between people, systems and technology
y (1987)
on survey/
empirical research

5 steps identified from the examination of Bondalls Identified different
Hambrick
own most effective business strategy implementations variables and
6 & Cannella Journal 1989 Empirical emphasized that a
(1989)
strong fit is
required for SI
Timely information from all the major functional Information and
Zabriskie
specialists (marketing, production, HR, finance and resource allocation
&
7 Journal 1989 Empirical other as needed) along with resource allocation is two very
Huellmant
required for strategic decisions to implement important factors
el (1989)
successfully
Need a clear vision of what the company should be, Factors
select the people appropriate to that vision (involve all identification
Raimond &
Case study/ people who are essential to the implementation of the
8 Eden Journal 1990
Empirical strategy in the planning stage); performance measures
(1990)
appropriate to vision and goal, resources allocation,
information selection
A good strategy (deliberate or emergent) does not turn Problem solving
into reality without managerial skills and that superior approach
managerial skills are useless without sound strategic
thinking and orientation. Seven clusters of possible
Calori &
Survey/ actions were found: formulating a strategic project,
9 Atamer Journal 1990
Empirical managing the development of re resources and skills,
(1990)
negotiating with the environment, dealing with power,
improving internal communication on strategic
questions, influencing norms of behaviour and
developing a cluster of transformational managers

The identified several factors such as intended Factors identified
Empirical analysis/
Skivington strategy, structure, systems, interactions, and and divided into
framework
10 & Daft Journal 1991 sanctions that effected successful implementation of two groups
developed based
(1991) strategies and divided these factors into two broad
on analysis
groups of framework and process factors.
Effective Communication of strategy in the internal Factors
Piercy & Case market-place made up by top management, other identification
11 Morgan Journal 1991 studies/Survey functional units, and operational staff is important, communication and
(1991) / Empirical use/develop an appropriate language for managers to common language
describe the strategy
They proposed a theoretical international strategy 6 factors and
Roth et al.
12 Journal 1991 Empirical implementation framework based on six factors and strong fit/alignment
(1991)
tested it empirically is required
Identified three reasons of strategy implementation Strategy

failure: strategy is not strategy at all, strategy is itself formulators and
not implementable, and strategy is not owned by the implementers
Giles Case study/ implementers. Implementers must be a part of should work
13 Journal 1991 together
(1991) Empirical strategy generation process and must be allowed to
inspect and challenge the logic by which the strategy
was created. SI is a continuous process surrounded by
the correct sequence of people.
From a large set of variables identified during previous Group of factors
Bryson & research, a smaller set of underlying factors was identified and
14 Bromiley Journal 1993 Empirical estimated by factor analysis and grouped them into relationship
(1993) three categories; namely: context, process and between factors
outcome.

The implementation of strategy can be ensured Project
through a series of projects, By using project management
Alexander Survey/
15 Journal 1993 management techniques Managers can control
(1993) Empirical
strategy implementation, Project management sets
detailed targets for achieving particular goals.
Projects and project management with the help of Project
Pellegrinell
programme approach (grouping projects) help in management
i& Case study/
16 Journal 1994 effectively implement the strategies or strategic
Bowman Empirical
change, Clear communication about strategic
(1994)
objectives
Strategic leadership along with Organization structure, Factors identified
culture, business processes managing people as a structure, culture
Taylor
17 Journal 1995 Empirical strategic resource with tighter measurement of and people
(1995)
performance and performance related
incentives/rewards
Identified six top priority strategic factors; Factors
decentralized decision making, Creating horizontal identification and a
team working, Facilitating communication and strong fit is
Gratton Case study/
18 Journal 1996 learning, Managing performance, Recruiting and required among
(1996) Empirical
retaining talent, Training and development. Clear fit is them
required between specific strategy and related people
and processes.
Identified and evaluated ten factors and categorized Identification of
Miller Case study/
19 Journal 1997 them into realizers and enablers factors and
(1997) Empirical
grouping them

Different strategy types require individualized profiles Sales force
of sales force management practices for optimal management is the
effectiveness and sales force management is important focus
to the successful implementation of business strategy.
Sales force management focus on five key sales
management practices. These practices are
Slater &
Survey / representative of the three broad critical sales
20 Olson Journal 2000
Empirical management issues identified by Churchill, Ford and
(2000)
Walker (1990) (i.e., sales plan formulation,
implementation, and evaluation). The practices
include: (1) selling strategy (2)internalization of selling
activities (3) extent of managerial supervision (4)
focus of salesperson control (5) salesperson
compensation plans
Five phases to the strategy process, proposed Identification of
conceptual framework and empirically tested and again factors and
Okumus Case study/ proposed conceptual framework grouping them.
21 Journal 2001
(2001) Empirical Proposed the right
alignment of the
factors
Effective strategy implementation demands a Factors
Shaw et Case study/
22 Journal 2002 synergistic amalgam of organizational processes and identification
al. (2002) Empirical
systems process and system
very important
About matching the planned and the realizing Identified barriers
Conceptual
Aaltonen & strategies towards organizational vision. Focus on to implementation
framework/ Case
23 Ikvalko Journal 2002 organizational structure and culture that is receptive to of strategies.
study/empirical
(2002) change, elaborate building up of change management Factors and their
analysis
systems and skills, and communication and employee alignment

commitment to vision.
It was concluded that many strategic initiatives fail to Barriers and

be implemented because the vertical lines of communication
Heide et Case study/ communication are insufficiently developed between between the top
24 Journal 2002
al. (2002) Empirical the top management and the staff. management and
staff is the major
one.
Empirical analysis Refined the Five phases to the strategy process SI a linear process
Okumus
25 Journal 2003 of own conceptual
(2003)
framework
The key to successful strategy implementation lies in Behaviours
Dobni & the ability to guide and manage employees behaviours Management
Survey/
26 Luffman Journal 2003 on a collective basis and the alignment of
Empirical
(2003) organizations behaviours and actions to specific
requirements
Success depends on a combination of relevant Involvement of
experience and firm readiness, involvement of senior senior management
people engenders a great commitment to strategies. is essential for SI
Miller et Multiple Case Managerial Implications: prioritise decisions, ensure
27 Journal 2004
al. (2004) Study/ empirical political acceptability (What happens during
implementation needs to be acceptable to the various
stakeholders in the process) and dont change
organizational structures unless really necessary.
Olson et Reiterates the significance of organizational structure Alignment of
28 Journal 2005 Empirical
al. (2005) and processes in strategy implementation different factors
two way communication, critical feedback and Communication
Tourish
29 Journal 2005 Empirical willingness of employees to implement a strategy is
(2005)
vital to organisational success

Naranjo- Relationship between top management and use of Management
Gil & management accounting system in SI accounting system
30 Journal 2006 Empirical
Hartmann
(2006)
Based on empirical The inability to manage change (the size of the change Identification of
Hrebiniak work proposed and the time to manage it) is the biggest obstacle to obstacles
31 Journal 2006
(2006) conceptual successful strategy implementation.
framework
A ventures top management must make sure to Alignment between
Burgelman dynamically create alignments between the companys strategy and
32 & Siegel Journal 2008 Empirical corporate strategy and its strategic actions. The strategic actions
(2008) Strategy diamond can be used to systematically
examine a ventures strategy execution.
Out of 17 Fundamental traits of organizational Information and
effectiveness, decision rights (everyone has a food communication are
idea of the decisions and actions for which he or she is very important
Neilson et
33 HBR 2008 Survey/Empirical responsible) and information flow quickly across the factors
al. (2008)
organization were on the top rankings for effectively Empirical analysis
implement strategies. though the author
is a practitioner
Conducted research to learn and understand the key Factors
Brenes et
34 Journal 2008 Survey/Empirical success factors in the implementation of business identification
al. (2008)
strategy for local business firms in Latin America

Identify and develop the knowledge and capabilities Development of
required to implement strategic decisions required skills and
successfully; Successful implementation requires the capabilities
Miller et Case study/ ability both to manage the logistics of what has to be
35 Journal 2008
al. (2008) Empirical done and to create receptive organizational contexts:
managers operating at the core need the diverse range
of skills and abilities in order to be steer strategic
decisions through to success
Strategic change portfolio alignment, i.e., the Strategic change
identification and prioritization of an agreed collection portfolio alignment
of programs that will deliver the strategy; strategic
change execution, i.e., actually delivering the benefits
Franken et Survey/
36 Journal 2009 of the strategic change through implementing the
al. (2009) Empirical
programs in the change portfolio; and change
capability improvement, i.e., continually improving the
ways in which change programs are identified and
undertaken
Visualization (the graphic representation of data,
Eppler &
Case study/ information and knowledge) can improve the strategy Visualization is a
37 Platts Journal 2009
Empirical process in terms of thinking, communicating and useful instrument
(2009)
engaging others
12 of the most common strategy implementation
Identification of
activities and classified them into four broad groups;
planning, organizing, leadership and controlling. Found activities and
ater & obstacles to
13 of the most common obstacles to strategy
38 Puko Journal 2010 Empirical successfully
implementation and classified them into five broad
(2010) implementing the
groups; problems in strategy formulation, change
implementation problems, organizational culture strategies
problems, problems related to organizational power

structure and leadership problems.
Implementing a new strategy can be more successful if Socio-cultural

top executives express their vision clearly and design aspect of
appropriate task systems, such as formal structures, organization should
Huy Survey/ control systems, and incentives. The structural, social- be aligned with
39 Journal 2011
(2011) Empirical cultural, and emotional dynamics of strategy organization
implementation are interwoven with one another in settings
organizational settings and need to be understood
holistically.
Business unit managers should welcome collocation of Communication
Parmigiani their headquarters with their corporate parents, as this
& Case study/ can improve both quality and growth. This collocation
40 Journal 2011
Holloway Empirical improves communication, which may assist in
(2011) understanding and deploying the business template
across the system
Hkonsson A failure to align SME executive style and strategy Alignment between
41 Journal 2012
et al. Empirical leads to a significant performance loss strategy and
(2012) executive style
Kohtamaki Participative strategic planning increases personnel Participative
42 et al. Journal 2012 Empirical understanding about companys strategy and strategic approach
(2012) goals and help implementing the strategy efficiently.
Corporate staff is central to the implementation of Social structure
Kleinbaum
Survey/ corporate-level strategy; Social structure of the
43 & Stuart Journal 2014
Empirical corporation influences strategy implementation
(2014)
success
Strategy formulation and strategy implementation are Strategy
Leonardi Case study/
44 Journal 2015 not separable but inherently intertwined; To formulation and
(2015) Empirical
materialize a strategy is to focus on the materiality implementation

through which the strategy is enacted.
two aspects of strategy formation, Middle Managers

Thomas & comprehensiveness and management controls and MCs
Survey/
45 Ambrosini Journal 2015 (MCs) help how strategy materializes and positively
Empirical
(2015) influence middle managers implementation
performance.

Appendix 3C Strategy Implementation Harvard Business Reviews
S.NO. Author(s) Type Year Model Focus Remarks
The development of a good strategy lies in managers Academic &
understanding of two fundamental points: practitioner
Campbell &
having a well-articulated, stable purpose, and the
1 Alexander HBR 1997 Descriptive
importance of discovering, understanding, documenting,
(1997)
and exploiting insights about how to create more value
than other companies do.
Managers must ensure that strategy is not a reflection of Offers
the biases (and possibly ignorance) of the management managers tool
team (biases that are likely to be rooted in the kit
organizations past successes) and also ensure that once
Christensen a company has outlined a viable strategy, it allocates
2 HBR 1997 Case study
(1997) resources in a way that correctly reflects the strategy.
Offers managers tool kit: 1. Identify the driving forces in
companys competitive environment, 2. Formulate
strategy that addresses the driving forces, 3. Create a
plan for the projects to implement the strategy
Presenting a plan in narrative instead of bullets creates a
(Shaw et al., Academics and
3 HBR 1998 Case study richer picture of strategy not only for the plans authors
1998) practitioner
but also for its intended audience.
Strategy maps provide a visual representation of a
companys critical objectives that drive organizational
Kaplan &
performance and also provide employees a clear line of
4 Norton HBR 2000 Case study
sight into how they are linked to the overall objectives of
(2000)
the organization allowing them to work in a coordinated,
collaborative way toward the companys desired goal.

The strategic fitness model designed to implement 5 stage
strategy quickly and effectively by fitting the organization strategic
to the strategy and increasing fitness, the capacity of the fitness model
Strategic organization to learn and change. This process involves 5
Beer & fitness steps: 1. A conversation about strategy needs to move
5 Eisenstat HBR 2004 model/Appl back and forth between advocacy and inquiry, 2. The
(2004) ication in conversation has to be about the issues that matter
real world most, 3. The conversation has to be collective and public,
4. The conversation has to allow employees to be honest
without risking their jobs, 5. The conversation has to be
structured
Four phases of change through persuasion process: Change
Phase 1: convince employees that radical change is through
Framework
Garvin & imperative (explain new direction is right one), Phase 2: Persuasion
/Application
6 Roberto HBR 2005 Position and frame preliminary plan, gather feedback and
in real
(2005) announce final plan, Phase 3: Manage employee mood
world
through constant communication, Phase 4: Reinforce
behavioral guidelines to avoid backsliding
Through survey identified reasons of strategy-to- Identified
performance gap: companies rarely track performance reasons of
against long term plans, multiyear results rarely meet strategy-to-
projections, a lot of value is lost in translation, performance
Mankins & performance bottlenecks are frequently invisible to top gaps, seven
Survey /
7 Steele HBR 2005 management, the strategy-to-performance gap fosters a rules for
Empirical
(2005) culture of underperformance. Seven rules to closing the successful
gap between strategy-to-performance: keep it simple- Strategy
make it concrete, debate assumptions not forecasts, use execution
a rigorous framework and speak a common language,
discuss resource deployment early, clearly identify

priorities, continuously monitor performance, reward and
develop execution capabilities
Proposed to create a new unit at the corporate level to Strategy office
oversee all strategy related activities and called it Office concept
Kaplan & of Strategy Management (OSM) with the following tasks:
8 Norton HBR 2005 Descriptive Create and manage the scorecard, Align the organization,
(2005) Review strategy, Develop strategy, Communicate
strategy, Manage strategic initiatives, Integrate strategic
priorities with other support functions
A strategy map and the balanced score card organized Concept of
Kaplan &
around specific strategic themes gives executives a way strategy map
9 Norton HBR 2006 Case study
to communicate shared priorities and motivate people to
(2006)
share them in even the most complex business.
Employ a Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) who handle the Concept of
Breene et al three critical strategy implementation tasks: engendering CSO
10 HBR 2007 Descriptive
(2007) commitment to strategic plans, driving immediate change
and promoting decision making that sustains change
A closed-loop management system for effectively Proposed
Kaplan & implement strategies: The loop comprises five stages; closed-loop
Theoretical
11 Norton HBR 2008 Develop the strategy, Translate the Strategy, Plan management
Framework
(2008) Operations, Monitor and Learn, Test and Adapt the system
Strategy
Principles of organizational design for successful Organization
implementation of strategies for multiunit enterprise: can profit from
Garvin &
Survey / Allow overlapping roles and responsibilities, Use the following
12 Levesque HBR 2008
Empirical integrators at all levels, Set up information funnels and principles of
(2008)
filters, Appoint translators to convert strategies into organizational
action, Share responsibility for talent development design

Two levers are crucial for successful strategy execution: Settle decision
1. Clarifying decision rights specifying who own rights and
each decision and who must provide input and information
Online encourage higher level managers to delegate flow first
Neilson et al. operational decisions before altering
13 HBR 2008 Survey /
(2008) 2. Ensuring information flow where its needed organizational
Empirical
facilitate information flow across organizational structure and
boundaries and help field and line employees to
reward system
understand how their day to day decision affect
the company
Exposed five of the most pernicious myths and replaced Explained the
them with more accurate viewpoint: 5 most
Alignment with coordination important
Sticking to the plan with receptiveness to adaptation aspects of
Sull et al. Survey / Communication with understanding strategy
14 HBR 2015
(2015) Empirical Performance culture should include a culture that execution
supports execution
Execution should be driven from the middle
(management) but guided from the top (management)
instead of driven by the top (management)


Strategy Implementation Literature Review Final - 0

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Strategy Implementation Literature Review Final - 0

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Strategy Implementation

Muhammad Imran Siddique 1

Professor Nicola Shadbolt1

Contributions from different sources are acknowledged as follows:

Professor Alan Renwick for reviewing the report

Date submitted to DairyNZ: March, 2016

i Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategic Implementation Literature Review

ii Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

The approach adopted has been to:

Develop a better understanding by farmers, industry and researchers of

This is supported by literature reviews on scenario analysis, strategy

iii Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

iv Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

It is believed that strategy formulation is difficult while executing or

1 Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

Strategy Formulation Strategy Implementation

1.2 Strategy Implementation Definitions

The communication, interpretation, adoption, and enactment of strategic

designing appropriate organizational structures and control systems to put the

1.3 Reasons for Ignoring Strategy Implementation

1.4 Problems in Strategy Implementation

2 Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

More focus on financials in strategy discussions;

2.0 Strategy Implementation Models / Frameworks

2.1 Strategy Implementation Frameworks and Approaches

1. Structure 2. Strategy 3. Systems

4. Style 5. Skills 6. Staff and

3 Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

According to Stonich (1982), strategy formulation is an integral part of strategy

Figure 2.1 Implementing Strategy: The Model (Stonich, 1982)

Wernham (1984) conducted research in order to identify the factors influencing

4 Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

Alexander (1985) conducted a survey in which 93 companys presidents

1. Implementation took more time than originally allocated

Alexander (1985) also conducted follow up interviews with 21 CEOs and 25

According to Hussey (1985), training is a power weapon for implementing

5 Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

Galbraith & Kazanjian (1986) presented a conceptual strategy implementation

1. Provide structure for the design process.

Reed and Buckley (1988), instead of viewing strategy implementation from a

1. Identify strategic intent by matching strategy benefits with the

6 Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

Reed and Buckley (1988) suggested different but interrelated techniques to be

Corporate Goals and

Strategy Benefits Strategic

Figure 2.2 Performance appraisal, goal-setting and critical success factors in

Hamrick and Cannella (1989) examined the strategies of Bondall division (a

7 Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management

Strategy Implementation Literature Review

1. Obtain broad-based inputs and participation at the formulation stage

These steps or elements of successful strategic implementation can be summed

Through the analysis and close understanding of implementation successes,

8 Centre of Excellence in Farm Business Management