PROCESOS CONCEPTUALES Hechos o datos → Causalidad lineal (de simple a
III.1. Revisión de la literatura sobre ideas previas de la IRC
• Group process and a network benchmarking process were used in the exploratory phase of
the research to find a NZBC benchmarking topic and to identifY the participants' perceptions of the leading practices and opportunities for improvement in strategy deployment for their organizations.
• Six strategy deployment themes were ascertained in the opportunities data. These were titled:
• Communication • Involvement or buy-in
• Learning and review
• Human resource management
• Performance measurement • Deployment options
• The themes identified in the opportunities data were also apparent in the leading practices data, with the addition of a seventh theme: alignment.
• The individual practices and opportunities for improvement were categorised in management skill terms as either 'hard' (systems or analytical) or 'soft' (people/social or cognitivelbehavioural) or a combination of both.
• The exploratory phase ensured that the doctoral research purpose and the NZBC benchmarking project topic were compatible. The benchmarking project that emerged - to determine best practices in deploying strategic i nitiatives - was complementary to the doctoral research purpose - to develop a strategy deployment framework.
• The findings from the exploratory phase helped shape the design and direction of the formal case studies of strategy deployment that followed.
Chapter
5
Within case findings
Contents5 . 1 Introduction . . . 1 1 4 5.2. The strategic initiatives . . . ... . . ... . . 1 20 5 .3 Organ ization A . . . ... . . ... . . . ... . . 1 2 1 5.3.6 Review of case study A . . . ... . . 1 26 5.4 Organization B . . . ... . . ... . . ... . . 1 2 7 5 .4.6 Review o f case study B . ... . ... . . ... . . ... . . ... . . 1 32 5 . 5 Organization C . . . ... . . ... . . 1 33 5 . 5 .6 Review of case study C . . . ... . . ... . . 1 3 8
5 .6 Organization D ... 1 39
5 .6.6 Review of case study 0 . . . .. .... . . ... . .. .. . .. . . ... . . . .... . . ... . . . ... ... . 1 45 5 . 7 Organization E .... . . ... . . ... . . .... . . 1 46
5 .7.6 Review of case study E . . . ... . . ... . . 1 5 1 5 . 8 Organization F . . . ... . . ... . . 1 52
5.8.6 Review of case study F ... ... ... 1 5 8
5 . 9 Organization G ... . . ... . . . ... . . 1 59
5 .9.7 Review of case study G . . . ... . . ... . . . .. 1 65
5 . 1 0 S ummary and conclusions: Major themes of Chapter 5 ... 1 65
5.1 Introduction
The previous chapter contained the findings from the group sessions that formed the exploratory phase of the research. The exploratory phase of the research described in Chapter 4 used a group process to identify the participants' perceptions of the leading practices and opportunities for improvement in strategy deployment for their organizations. The exploratory phase ensured that the benchmarking project that emerged - to determine best practices in deploying strategic initiatives - was complementary to the doctoral research purpose - to develop a strategy deployment framework.
The findings from the exploratory phase helped shape the design and direction of the case studies of strategy deployment that are presented in this chapter. Leading deployment practices were identified, and seven deployment themes were found in the group process data. These themes were titled: communication; involvement or buy-in; alignment; learning and review; human resource management; performance measurement; and, deployment options.
Chapter 5 gives a description ofthe seven case organizations and the strategic initiative that each had implemented. The data were collected over a thirteen month period between November 200 1 and December 2002. The highlighted areas in Figure 5 . 1 show the parts of the research process that are covered in this and the following chapter. The relationship of the case study data with the other components of the conceptual scheme for the research is highlighted in Figure 5 .2 .
The organizations were all New Zealand-based. Four were registered l imited liability companies (two private sector, one crown owned company, and one cooperative owned company) and three were public sector organizations (two crown entities and one state owned enterprise). A l l the organizations were undertaking performance improvement (CPE based) initiatives as members of the NZBC network. The organizations undertook regular (annual) self-assessment against the CPE (at least one division of the large organizations, and the whole enterprise in the smaller organizations).
Figure 5. 1 The research process, showing the research flow, the role of the participants, and outputs. A. Doctoral Research Purpose (researcher) B. Project Topic Selection (NZBC) Leading strategy deployment practices identified (group + researcher)
Follow -up case study interviews (researcher)
Revised dimensions of deployment [ver 2)
after case study analyses (grouD + researcher) Survey questionnaire to verify deployment dimensions ( researcher) Final framework of strategy deployment ( researcher)
PhD Thesis: Max Saunders
Strategy Deployment Best Practice Report
published
Context Public & private organizations involved in performance improvement initiatives
Data Strategy deploymtmt
qase §tJl4ies, site.
visits, bencbmarking, sU,t;Vey,
9PE
self-assessm,entsExisting Theory
and literature on strategy deployment
Strategy deployment framework Effectiveness measured by
benchmarking and CPE assessments
Figure 5.2 Conceptual framework for the research [adapted from Toulmin ( 1 958)].
The knowledge gained from the exploratory phase of the research was used to guide the writing of the case study template that was used for each case. The themes identified by the group work were incorporated as questions in the template. At the beginning of the formal phase of the research further group work with the NZBC workgroup led to seven constructs I of strategy deployment being proposed for further investigation in the case studies. Eisenhardt ( 1 989) argues that a priori specification of constructs permits researchers to measure constructs more accurately. The constructs evolved from the seven deployment themes identified in the initial group work and were provisionally titled communication, buy-in, alignment, learning, deployment infrastructure, understanding the business drivers, and deployment options. These constructs were explicitly measured in the case study template (interview protocol) and the survey questionnaire (Chapter 7). Having questions relating to the constructs in the case study protoco; and the survey questionnaire gave strong triangulated measures on which to ground the emergent framework (Eisenhardt, 1 989; Silverman, 200 1 ; Voss et aI, 2002).
The case study template was the basis for the interview schedule and was sent to each interviewee prior to the site visit by the researcher to conduct the interview. The unit of analysis
I The terms construct and dimension are used interchangeably in the text from this point when referring to
the constructs of strategy deployment. The defmition used of construct was from Cooper & Emory ( 1 995, p33) "an idea or image specifically invented for a research or theory-building purpose". The constructs were referred to by the NZBC workgroup participants asfeatures.
for the case studies was the strategic initiative that each organization had recently deployed. Chapter 3 detailed the data collection process used for the cases.
Transcripts of the interviews were created and studied. Transcript analysis consisted of a careful review of the emergent practices and their perceived importance, and the central themes were further delineated. The description of each strategic initiative presented in this chapter is based on data collected from interviews, documents and observations while the researcher was with the organization and its people.
The within case analysis focussed on the strategy deployment practices used by the organization, and looked for evidence of the constructs in the individual organization's implementation of a strategic initiative. In this chapter the broad strategic environment for each organization is also described, with an outline of the strategic planning process used by the organization. The same format is used throughout the chapter to describe each organization and its strategic initiatives, and follows the 1 0 points of the case study template shown below. A summary review of each case study is given at the end of each section.
1. Brief description of the strategic initiative
• Origin of idea
• Sources of background information on the strategic initiative
• Overview of implementation
• Reference to any models/approaches used to guide the implementation process
• Is the strategic initiative now i n use? or not? (still being developed/implemented?)
2. Objectives of the strategic initiative
List these or outline their nature. For example, intended benefits
3. Design / analysis / planning
• Crucial design/development/planning decisions (for example, what were the business drivers
and how were they derived)
• Any features designed to facilitate deployment
• Consideration given to alternatives to this initiative (for example: careful, casual, not at all)
4. Chronology of case
This could be a narrative, timeline or bullet points of the main events (with dates or timeframe)
5. Deployment (implementation)
• Communication (for example: was/is there a communication plan; type of communication
used - meetings, documents, informal etc; use of feedback)
• Were action plans developed from the objectives? Who developed them? How were they aligned throughout the organisation?
• Barriers encountered (technical or political)
• Brief account of how these were overcome (or what needs to be done to overcome them)
• Reference to any guidel ines/advice used or developed as a result
6. C hampion(s) [Infrastructure for deployment]
Was there a champion? Individual or team? If a team was it created especially to implement this initiative?
Organisational position(s) of champion(s) (CEO, team leader, staff members etc) Characteristics of champion(s)
• Driven by (for example: need, technology, available funds, strategy) • Recognition (awards, compensation, other?)
• Technology orientation (innovator, leader, follower)
• Other
7. Organisational climate for the initiative
Level of buy-in (eg supportive, neutral, resistant, variable) Has this changed during implementation?
8. Organisational support
• Financial
• Human resources (HR). For example, sufficient staffing
• Moral / other
• Policy on intellectual property (who owns the JP?)
9. Outcomes (highlight critical elements) • Benefits/costs to clients/customers,
• Benefits/costs to organisation/staff/other stakeholders • Achievement of objectives
• Learning accomp l ishments (value added)
• Changes in practices, pol icies, attitudes or culture
10. Evaluation and review
• Evaluation method(s) used. For example, post project audit
• Did the planned strategic initiative get changed during implementation? How and why? • Dissemination activities undertaken
• Any further developments planned
• New skills or expertise developed as a result of this initiative
• Future requirements for skills, expertise or staff development.
The within case findings present the key practices perceived by participants to have influenced the strategic initiative. The comments in quotation marks are verbatim comments from the participants or from documents.