Análisis de protocolos verbales para la fase 3 de la experimentación con el ambiente de

As noted in section (2.4), the strategic planning process is influenced by a number of organisational elements. Four organisational elements were noted as being of interest to the study in hand. These are: organisation size, organisational age (maturity), organisational level, and the availability of the strategic planning unit. Definitions are available under section (4.1.1.1).

Scholars emphasised that size constitutes a significant explanatory factor of comprehensive/rational decision behaviour (e.g. Fredrickson, 1984). Mintzberg (1994b) argues that planning may be more important in large firms due to its ability to improve coordination and control. Large organisations tend to have greater structural complexity than small organisations, making effective coordination more difficult (Robbins, 1990). Plans can be used to aid coordination either by making individual behaviours more organised or through forecasting events where increased coordination will be necessary to give organisational members time to prepare for that event. This argument is supported by Sapp (1980), who provided strong evidence of a positive relationship between organisational size and the use and/or formality of planning. Moreover, large organisations tend to be highly formalised through the use of standardised mechanisms.

113

In addition, Risseeuw and Masurel (1994) note that larger firms have greater planning incidences than smaller firms due to the ability of large organisations to access more resources (Barney, 1991). On the other hand, small organisations have fewer slack resources and are likely to have less diverse environments (Robbins, 1990). In the public and non-profit organisations it was found that large organisations were more likely to plan than smaller ones (Stone, 1989; Young and Sleeper, 1988). In light of the above, it is proposed that:

Proposition A.3.1: The extent to which a formal strategic planning formation process is practised is higher for large organisations than for small organisations within the research context (Dubai public sector).

The age of the organisation is another important organisational element noted as being of influence to the planning process. Leonard-Barton (1992) has pointed out that when firms focus on core capabilities, they create core rigidities that make it difficult to adapt to changes in their environment. This is particularly true for aged firms where processes are codified and mechanisms are formalised. Age can affect performance and the ability of an organisation to change by inducing organisational inertia (Leonard-Barton, 1992) and by impairing a firm’s ability to perceive valuable signals. Codification makes it hard to recognise, accept, and implement change within the organisation. Moreover, old age may make knowledge, abilities, and skills obsolete and induce organisational decay (Agarwal et al., 2002). Therefore, older firms are consequently less flexible and are less likely to react to the profitable innovation signals they receive from the market, which in turn affects their competitive edge.

In addition, Evans (1987) found that firm growth decreases with firm age and that it does so at a diminishing rate. Cooley and Quadrini (2001) supported this view and offer a model that explains this observation. On the other hand, Miller and Cardinal (1994) found a positive relationship between strategic planning and firm profitability and growth. Successful young firms tend to use, to a large extent, advanced planning and activity analysis (Zimmerer and Scarborough, 1996). Moreover, strategic planning is a process that helps organisations to identify strategic issues, forecast the future, and prepare for the future to help organisations to grow.

From the above, because a firm’s growth decreases with age (higher for young firms than older ones), as stated by Evans (1987), and Cooley and Quadrini (2001) and since strategic planning increases firm’s growth (Zimmerer and Scarborough, 1996), then it can be concluded that for young firms the planning activity is higher than in old firms. Thus it is proposed that:

114

Proposition A.3.2: The extent to which a formal strategic planning formation process is practised is higher for young organisations than mature organisations in the Dubai public sector.

In addition to the preceding organisational elements, ‘size’ and ‘age’, another important element to the present study is the organisational level at which planning takes place. Most of the planning literature talks about planning at a corporate level. However, planning is a function that takes place at various organisational levels. In fact, some types of planning (e.g. ‘bottom up’), start at unit levels and are aggregated upward to corporate planning. Even ‘top down’ conventional strategic planning starts at the corporate level and is cascaded down to planning at lower levels. Ansoff (1967) argued that for the planned levels to be implemented, they should be converted into coordinated action programs for various units of the firm. Along the same lines, Steiner (1979) states that ‘All strategies must be broken down into sub-strategies for successful implementation’.

Mintzberg (1994b, p. 62) provides more details by stating that the implementation of strategies gives rise to a whole set of hierarchies, long-term or strategic plans, medium-term plans, and short- term plans. This in turn leads to a hierarchy of objectives in which organisational goals are broken down into specific targets and a hierarchy of sub-objectives. The strategies themselves are also broken down into a hierarchy of sub-strategies, mainly corporate strategies, business strategies, and functional strategies. The consequences of all these sub-strategies are then translated into a hierarchy of action programs. All of this operationalisation is done in the name of planning, but the intention as Mintzberg argues is really control. Despite the fact that control will limit the creativity within the process, the result of the planning process will lead to plans at a corporate level, departmental level, and unit level (Mintzberg, 1994b, p. 62).

Planning at a corporate level is also influenced by middle level managers. In the past, middle level managers have not been considered part of the strategy process except in providing some information and managing the implementation of pre-determined plans. However, the importance of middle level managers in strategic planning was recognised by some scholars such as (Burgelman, 1983a; Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). These authors suggest that middle managers regularly attempt to influence strategy and often provide the impetus for new initiatives. Even in the most deliberate contexts, strategies are revised as new information presents itself (Quinn, 1980).

115

It was noted from the literature that middle managers might influence strategy formation in two ways: upward and downward influences. Upward influences affect top management’s view of organisational circumstances and the decisions among the alternative strategies under consideration (Dutton and Jackson. 1987). Wooldridge and Floyd (1990) confirmed middle management’s upward influence on strategic decisions and showed a positive relationship between middle management involvement in strategic and organisational performance. Downward influences, on the other hand, affect the alignment of organisational arrangements within the strategic context, and facilitates the implementation of strategic objectives (Nutt, 1987).

From the above, it is concluded that planning takes place at various organisational levels, and the importance of planning at lower levels is no less important than the one at corporate level. In fact, they complement each other. As Nichol (1992) puts it, strategy synchronisation is a team effort, requiring contributions at various levels.

Within the research context of this study, the Dubai Government has issued a government requirement for all public sector organisations to initiate a strategic planning process at corporate level and cascade the planning activities down to the departmental levels (sections 6.2–6.4, Strategic Planning Manual – Executive Council, 2006) since strategic planning at a corporate level drives the development of strategic planning at lower levels within the research context. It can be proposed that:

Proposition A.3.3: The extent to which a formal strategic planning formation process is practised is higher at the corporate level than departmental level for public sector organisations in Dubai.

The last organisational element covered in this study and expected to have an influence on the formality of the SPFP is the existence of a strategic planning unit/department. The importance of having a specialised unit responsible for the strategic planning process is related to functional and contextual reasons. The functional reasons concern the functions of the strategic planning unit such as facilitating the process, following up on the achievement of the different steps or process stages, coordinating activities, meetings, teams, and other administrative requirements for the completion of the planning process, communicating process outcomes such as vision and mission statements, corporate values, as well as conducting strategic planning workshops and training.

116

The contextual reasons are related to public sector organisations within the research context (Dubai). The establishment of a strategic planning unit seems to be of special importance for public sector organisations operating within the research context as stated by the Dubai Government Strategic Planning Manual, under section 1.2, ‘each public sector organization should establish a strategic planning unit in the organization structure’ (Strategic Planning Manual – Executive Council, 2006). Issuing such a requirement for public organisations in Dubai is mainly due to three factors. First, strategic planning is relatively new to public management within the research context. Therefore, specialised units with qualified planners should facilitate the process among the various organisational structures. Second, the Executive Council of the Dubai Government (responsible for overseeing the various government departments’ functions) necessitates the need for high coordination with public organisations for better implementation of government requirements and for reporting and control purposes,the establishment of a strategic planning unit as a focal point will enhance coordination. Third, standardisation of the process across government departments. The Dubai Government issued a strategic planning manual to be followed by various organisations: the establishment of a strategic planning unit will enable government departments to follow the guidelines stated in the SP process and will formalise the process across various public sector organisations.

In addition to the above-mentioned functional and contextual reasons, the establishment of a strategic planning unit will formalise the SPFP because the planning unit will initiate, facilitate, and follow up on the completion of each step in the SPFP.

Proposition A.3.4: The extent to which a formal strategic planning formation process is practised is higher in organisations with a strategic planning unit than in organisations without a strategic planning unit.