You are on page 1of 168

1433 2012 /

: : .

1433 2012 /

" "



.
.

. :. ..
. .
.

. .


.

)

(
)
( . 77
.
.SPSS
5
:
) .(78
56 %72
54 %70 .


)
(
) (
)


( )
(

.

:
ISO9001,ISO14001,Europe GMP, Six Sigma




.


.


.

The relationship between strategic planning and excellence in


performance of the Palestinian pharmaceutical sector
Prepared by: Said Yousef Said Dwikat
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Diab Jarar

Abstract
This study aimed to identify the relationship between the elements of strategic planning
(strategic analysis, strategy formulation, strategy implementation, monitoring & evaluation of
strategies, flexibility of strategy, availability of Adequate human resources, top management
commitment towards strategic planning process, comprehensive & continuous improvement)
and excellence in performance of the pharmaceutical industry in Palestine measured by
(customers results, employees results, community results, the rate of return on investment,
market share, new employment rate). In order to achieve the objectives of the study, the
researcher designed a questionnaire that included 77 paragraphs in order to gather
information for a preliminary sample of the study. In light of this, data was collected,
analyzed

and

tested

using

the

statistical

package

for

social

sciences

SPSS.

The population of this study included all strategic managers in the pharmaceutical firms in
the West Bank and the number of firms was five. The sample size of the study included
strategic managers in the following positions; board members, general managers/deputy
general managers and the managers of functional departments and their number was 78. The
questionnaires were distributed to the entire population, 56 questionnaires were return back
representing 72% of the population, 2 of them were excluded as they were not valid for
statistical analysis, so that the real sample size was 54 representing 70% of the population.
The findings of the study revealed the following Results: the majority of the Palestinian
pharmaceutical companies are applying strategic planning process in a scientific way, there
is a statistical significant relation between the elements of strategic planning and the
qualitative excellence in performance measured by (customer satisfaction, employee
satisfaction and community satisfaction) ,there is a statistical significant relation between the
elements of strategic planning and the quantitative excellence in performance measured by
(rate of return on investment, market share and the proportion of new employees), there is


a positive difference in the level of performance according to the availability of formal and
written strategic plan comparing to those who do not have formal strategic plans.
In light of results the study presents a set of recommendations that are consistent with the
results analysis like, the pharmaceutical companies should increase their interest in the
comprehensive continuous improvement particularly in the

quality systems such as

ISO9001, ISO14001, Europe GMP, Six Sigma and others international standards since they
have a substantial

positive impact on excellence in performance, the pharmaceutical

companies should systemize the process of monitoring and evaluating the implementation of
strategic plans, the pharmaceutical companies should adopt the strategic planning approach in
all its stages and aspects on scientific and integrated basis, the companies need to involve all
employees and managers in the strategic planning process to ensure a common understanding
of what is required from them as well as to increase their commitment to the implementation
of the plans, It is very necessary to expand the perceptions of the managers about
performance; since performance is no longer measured by the financial aspects only
therefore the companies must develop other measurements like improvement of market share,
customer satisfaction, employees satisfaction, community satisfaction and other key
performance indicators, the managers of the pharmaceutical companies should devote the
culture of strategic planning and make it as an integral part of the general culture of their
companies also the pharmaceutical companies must ensure the flexibility of their
organizational structures as well as companies' flexibility to modify the general strategies
when necessary.


.




).(2008


) (WTO
2010
Investment Initiative Climate USAID


) .

1

2010 -11-8 ( . ) (


.


.(Hayley Carter1999) .

.



.



.
) .(2010


.

.

.


.




.
.


.(Wheeln & Hunger,2008) .

) (Porter,1998 "
" ) (Hax,2010 "
"


.

.

) .(2002







.
)(2005

Cam
), Tatoglu & Glaister, 2006) (Hakala & Kauranen,2009) (McLarney,2003
(Dincer
.



.




.
:
:

1967


.
1986

GMP

.
.


.
.

1969

1969

1973

1974

1985

1997

) (

) (2011



) . .(1999
DAI 2008 4500

1118

.

%55 % 60
%45 % 50
2009 140
% 1
%5
50 6 5
. Generic
Medicines
.
7

1300 .
%12 17
) .
2010 .(2011-1-25
Dimensions Health care
2008
2006 75
21
.UNRWA
%47
%27 %25 %1 )
( .
:

57

19

22

)(

2
)(Dimensions,2008

27


.

.

.

.

) .Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP
- 2006
1200 304
-
9

.
) .) (1999(2005
)(Dimension,2008





) Dual Use Materials
.(2011-1-8




Europe GMP




10

.



) .
11 -1-11
.(2011


.
)) (2009 ) (2009 (Dimensions Health (2007
)) care Consulting Co.2008) (2005 ) (2005
) (2005 ) (2004 (1999
:

) .Generic medicines ) (1999 .(2004

11



) . .(1999

) 27 (


1154 212 .


(Dimensions,2008).

2006 1200
304 3000(Dimensions,2008).

6 50 ) . (2009 ) .(2005

%60 ) .(2005

12


) . (2005

) .(2009
) . (2007

0.9
) .(2009

).
(2009


). (2009
) (
) .
(2007

13


) . .(2004
%30

%25
)
.(2011-1-8











14

. )


(






.

.






15

.
.


.


.

.




.


.

16

:

.

.

.
.


-:


.

.

.

17


.

.

.


:
.1
.
.2



( )
(.

18

.3 )


( )
(.
.4
.






.


) (78 ) (56 %72
) (54 %70
. .
19

 

35

20

19

38

32

31

78

56

54


: .
: 2010-10-10 -3-7
.2012
:
: )
(.
)( :
:

.
20

) ( )
(.

21

:
:
.1


1.1


. .
) (Porter,1998
) (Hax,2010

.
) (Chandler,1962

. ) (Wheelen & Hunger, 2008

.

22



.
1.2

.

) .(Wheelen & Hunger, 2008

.
:
) .(Wheelen&Hunger,2008


:

.

23


.


.




.

) .(Wheeln&Hunger,2008) (2010


.
. ) .(2006


.

24

"
-:

) (2001 "
" .
.

Strategy

. ) (2006
:
) (.

.
.
25

.
.

.

.

.
1.3
) (2010 :
.
.
.
.
.

.
26

.
.

:
-

.
:


.
27

1.4
) (2003 :
.

.

:


.



28


.
1.5 )(


.


.
:
- :


.




29

) .(2010

.




& (Wheelen

) .Hunger,2008
:

):(2010

30

- :



)(Wheelen & Hunger,2008

:
 :


.
 :
.


.
.

) (%20 .

31

. :

.

 :


.
- :




.




.

32



.(David, 2010) .
- :

.





) .(Wheelen & Hunger,2008



%97
%80 %52

33

%33
) .(2007

:
 :



.
 :



.

.
 :

34


.
 :


.
.2



Smart Organizations Total
) Quality Management (TQM .
.
.
) (2010


.


35

. ) (2002
:
.
.
.
.
.
).(C.R.M
.
.
.



.
36

2.1

:
 .

.

.
 .
 .

.

).(2010

.
37

2.2


) (MBNQA ) (JUSE )(EFQM
. :
.1 ) (

.

. :
.
.

.
.
.
.
) . (2005
)(139-129 :2000

38


8 :
.

.
.

(http://www.baldrige.nist.gov/
.2 ) (
1951



.
)
( . )


(.
39

1984
.
(Evans & Dean,1999) .
http://www.juse.or.jp/e
.3


.

Enablers-:
-

Results:
-

40

""
-

" "
.


.
.(www.efqm.org, 2010, implantation guide) .

)(www.efqm.org, 2010

41

2.3

) (TQM



)( )(



.



.



.
42



)


(

.


.

.




) (
) ( . ) (

43

)( .

:

.1 )(2009
) (2009 "
"

.




.


%26
44

) (Generic Medicines
GMP

) 0.9 (

.
.2 )(2004
) (2004 " :
"
36


45

.

-:

.

GMP

.3 )(1999
) (1999 " "



""
. -:

46



.
.
GMP
-

.4 )(2005
) (2005 "
"
) (
)
( .

47

2003 %45 1996


%30 2001 %46 .2003


.%52.5
) (



. .

.
.5 )(2007
) (2007 "
"


.

48

) ( .

)(





.
.6 )(2005
) ( 2005 "
"

.

.
9001 14001 GMP

49

.


.
.7 )(2009
) (2009 "
"


.



%70
.


.
50

.8 ) (2005
) (2005



.



.

.1 (2003) Cam McLarney
Cam McLarney Dalhousie
) (2003 " "

.
)

51




( .

)
( .
)

(
(2009) Hakala & Kauranen .2
(2009) Hakala & Kauranen "
"
.



52

(Bracker et al., 1988; Lyles et


)al., 1993; Schwenk and Shrader, 1993

) (Gibson and Cassar, 2002


)
( .

.


.
130 ) (
-:
.

53

.



.


.
(2006) Dincer ,Tatoglu & Glaister .3
(2006) Dincer , Tatoglu & Glaister "
: "
135
.
-:

.
54

.

.


.
-

.4 )(2005
) (2005 " :
"
55




.
%52
%56
.
)
(
.

.
.5 )(2005
) (2005 "
"
. 72
:
) (
56

.

.
.6 )(2010
) (2010 "
: "
) (
.
5 .
:

 .
 .
 .
 .

0.05

57

.7 )(2008
) (2008 "
"
.
) ( 23
.
) (% 50 .
) ( 166

:

.
:
.1 )

(
.

58

.2

) (.
:
.


.
.
.8 )(2010
) (2010 "
: "
.


59


.
.9 )(2006
) (2006 "
"

"
"




.

60

-:

.

.

.

.
.
.10

)(2006

) (2006 " "





. %64.5

.
61





.

:
.1 ) (2004


. ) (2009

.
.2 ) (1999

62


.
.3
ISO9000 series
IRCA


.
.4 ) (2005



.


.5 ) (2009 ) (2005

) (2005
63

%52.5
.
) (2009


.
.6 ) Dimension Health care (2008
27



.

.
:

.1 (2006) Dincer , Tatoglu & Glaister


) (2003 ) (2009

64




.
.2 ) (2010


.
.3 ) (2008

.
.4 ) (2010 ) (2005
) (2006
.
.5 ) (2006

.

65


:
.1
.

.
.2



.
.3
.


) (
) (.
.4

.

.
66

:
3.1




.

)

(
:
: .
.


.

67

3.2



.


.
)(



.
"" :
: .
.

68

69

3.3
:
.1
.
.2
.
.3 .

. -:
: 7 :

.
: 8 59
. :

.

70

:


.

) (1961,Likert . 59
5-1


15 5-1 -:

3 2009 2010

2009

71

2010

3.4
:

.


) (SPSS
. -:
 Cronbach Alpha .
 .
 Adjusted R2

F T-test

ANOVA
 )(
:
Constant


72

)(
) (Residuals .
Data Transformation Log
Residual
.
Data Transformation Log


) 0.4 =b : 100 40
(.

)
Y1 Y2 (Y3 54
8 54 7
.Simulation
) Y41
Y42 Y43
5
)
(

73

Standardized Coefficient
Unstandardized
.Coefficient
 Independent sample T-test
) ""
"(
.
 :
.1  
= X1
= X2
= X3
= X4
= X5
= X6
=X7
=X8

74

.2  

.1 3
) ( =Y1
=Y2
=Y3
=Y
.2 3
=Y41
=Y42
=Y43
3.5
(

.

.

75

(

).(1
  1

    !   )$ & (

 ,-&

*+
  )'('  #$%"! (

0.971

  ) + (

0.858

, !-) ./  (+

0.972

 ECD  ? 6 =:8 ':'9 , 67 8 69 4' , ,32. $2
G 2 ' 46! ) (Lin, 1976) .(%60 'NG DL 6  +K,
.

76

:
4.1 :

2



 




88.9

48



11.1



100.0

54



Valid

%89
%11

.

3

  


 




  

24.1

24.1

13

!   10

50.0

25.9

14

10 % $  15

66.7

16.7

16 % $  20

100.0

33.3

18

*   20


100.0

77

Valid

%76


.

4

  


,

 

13.0

13.0

30

35.2

22.2

30 40

74.1

38.9

41 50

100.0

25.9

50

100.0

Valid

%74
50
.

78


5
) (

  


  -,

 




1.9

1.9

-%

72.2

70.4

38

$ % 

100.0

27.8

15

$ $-

100.0

54



Valid


%28
%70 %2
.

6

  


 




33.3

33.3

18

 - /

66.7

33.3

18

 - !
$0

79.6

13.0

 -
2%

100.0

20.4

11

$006 5 *   - 
 $

100.0

54

Total

Valid


%46 %33
%20 .
79


  7
/ 70 $6 3 4  / 01 -.

  


/ 70 $6 3 4  / 01 -.

 




9.3

9.3

!   5

33.3

24.1

13

6 % $  10

48.1

14.8

11 % $  15

64.8

16.7

16 % $  20

100.0

35.2

19

*   20

100.0

54



Valid

%67


.

80

 7




57.4

31

  8

7.4

  $ !;$9% :8$

35.2

19

<  -

100.0

54



Valid

% 64.8
%35
.

  9

 




68.5

37

=:,

31.5

17

>

100.0

54



Valid

% 31.5
68.5

81

.
4.2 :
:
.
  10

.47468

4.0571

X1

.73092

4.3519

.98982

4.0370

.60973

4.0741

.71814

4.2222

) (

.72804

4.1296

.67189

3.9630

.78885

3.9815

) (

.81650

3.7778

) (

.48636

4.0926

.58427

4.1296

.64428

4.0000

.66876

3.9259

.45415

3.9486

)
...(
)
...(


X2
82

.46880

4.3148

.53787

4.2222

.67189

4.0370

.74395

3.8889

.69866

3.7593

) (

.64563

3.8704

.72032

3.8333

.73164

3.7407

.70165

3.8704

.53040

3.9660

.65637

4.0556

.77815

3.8704

.81070

3.9444

.65610

4.1481

.64319

3.9630

.67500

3.8148

.51046

3.8593

.56326

4.1481

.65637

3.7222

.72588

3.9630

.74793

3.6852

.66351

3.7778

.43369

3.9577

)
...(

)
....(

X3

X4

_X_1234

83


)( ) (3




.


.
   : 0 ,- . !  )(' & %  "#$!   ) 02
!   78  4 56  4   4    4
 A% @% ? > = 4    "#$!    &2  0  ( 8-
= !  ) -% E  &>F6 E & E (D

84

02 I' 4.3!F2


.1 ) Y Y1
Y2 (Y3 :
)

X1

X2

X3

X4 X5 X6
X7 .(X8
)Using Backward method (n=54
FK 11 J
 02!F2 F  % & ,  "#$!   = L -%
Unstandardized Coefficients


Adju
sted
R
Squa
re

R
Squ
are

Si
g.

0.542
956

0.560
203

.00
0g

32.48
129

_X_8
log
2

0



_X_7
log
=
4


_X_6
log
 A%
@%
? >

@N6

_X_5
log
 
 4


_X_4
log

 4


0.617
072

0.446
582

_X_3
log
56
 4


_X_2
log
78
 4


_X_1
log
02
! 


Depend
ent
Variable
(Cons
)tant
0.1981
9

coeffic
ients

Sig

_Y_mean
all_log

8.7E06

8.38
E-05

0.660
512

0.657
423

0.4348
82
0.6761
6

0.482
92

0.502
432

.00
0g

25.74
933

4.59
E-05

0.0629

0.356
615

0.380
894

.00
0g

15.68
841

0.388
383

0.423
002

.00
0f

12.21
849

0.000
457
0.550
141

0.478
786

-0.1433

0.003
245

0.001
916

0.6883
75

0.429
56
0.016
792

0.635
167
0.009
124

0.759
462
0.000
948

0.05
85

0.0137
2
0.9682
76

(
coeffic
ients

Y_1_log

Sig

coeffic
ients

Sig
coeffic
ients

Sig

Y_2_log
'I
8$
 &
Y_3_log
'I
8$
 D

) (
) ( Y )
Y1 Y2 ( Y3 P-Value 0.000
.0.05

F ) (32.48
2 " "
) (

.0.05 F .

) ( %54.3
)(Adjusted R2 Y
%54.3

.
Adjusted R2
.
Sig
X8 0.617072
86

X4 0.446582 %100
Y %61.7
%100
Y .%44.6

(Adjusted R2) %48.3 Y1


. Sig )
( Y1 X8
0.660512 X4 0.657423
%100 %65.7
%100
.%66.05

(Adjusted R2) %35.6

.Y2 Sig
) (Y2 X8
0.550141 X3
0.478786 %100
87

%47.87 %100
.%55
) (
(Adjusted R2) %38.8
.Y3 Sig
) (Y3 X5 X1
.X7 %100
%75.9
%100 %63.5
%100
.%42.9

ISO9001,ISO14001,GMP

Y Y1 Y2
.Y3
88

- -
-
.
-



.
) (

.







.

89







.


.

90

Y1 Y )

.2

X1 ( Y3 Y2
12

-% L = !    02  &  ,  F F2! 02
Unstandardized Coefficients
Depend
ent
Variable

Y_mea
n_all_l
og

coeff
icien
ts

q3
_lo
g

q4_l
og

q5_l
og

q6
_lo
g

q8
_lo
g

q9
_lo
g

q
1
0
_
lo
g

q11
_
log

(Cons
tant)

q1_l
og

q2_l
og

0.446
918

0.2
810
81

0.2
987
09

0.3
055
41

q7_l
og
0.1
628
7

0.107
921

0.0
372
96

2.3
1E05

0.0
330
46

0.0
839
01

0.065
727

0.4
214
46

0.3
145
94

0.30
501
8

0.3
973
75

0.862
487

0.0
254
66

0.0
005
8

0.0
840
51

0.0
202
24

0.4
528
73
9.7
E07
0.2
161
3
0.0
058
65

0.3
851
38
0.0
430
72

0.2
251
73

Si
g.

R
Squ
are

Adj
uste
dR
Squ
are

0.0
779
25
0.5
214
7

10.
925
48

.0
00
g

0.5
929
55

0.5
386
82

0.0
045
13
0.3
331
9
0.0
549
26

10.
713
92

.0
00
h

0.5
380
12

0.4
877
95

8.5
252
09

.0
00
h

0.4
809
65

0.4
245
48

8.9
185
9

.0
00
k

0.2
668
75

0.2
369
52

q12
_
log
0.2
267
1

Sig

(
Y_1_lo
g

coeff
icien
ts

Sig

Y_2_lo
g
I'
8$
& 
Y_3_lo
g
I'
8$
D 

coeff
icien
ts

1.017
37

Sig

coeff
icien
ts
Sig

0.001
6
0.898
9384
8
0.000
5018
56

0.3
754
9
0.0
039
66
0.2
785
64
0.0
319
55

0.05

91

0.0
639
66

0.2
874
79
0.0
777
31

12 X1
)( Y : Q4
Q2 .Q1
%100
) ( . %30
%100 )
( %28


.
%100 ) (
%30.5


.

: Q12
Q1 Q11
92

. Q2
%100 %52
.
%100
%39.7

.
%100
%42 %100
%31.45
ISO9001


.

: Q2
Q4 .Q7
%100
93

.% 38.5

.
%100 .%45
%100
.%37.5

Q5
(Q2 %100
%28
) (Societal Environment
.

%21.6

ISO14001
SA 8000 .
94



.
.3 ) Y Y1
Y2 (Y3 X2
FK 13 J

 02!F2 F   78  & ,  4  = L -%
Unstan
dardize
d
Coeffici
ents

Adju
sted
R
Squ
are

R
Squ
are

Si
g.

0.50
9853

0.52
834
9

.0
00
h

28.5
654

0.40
0463

0.42
308
7

.0
00
h

18.7
007
9

0.29
7539

0.31
079
3

.0
00
i

23.4
490
7

0.25
18

0.26
591
7

.0
00
i

18.8
367
1

q21
_lo
g

q20
_lo
g

q19
_lo
g

q18
_lo
g

q17
_lo
g

q16
_lo
g

q15_lo
g
0.509
229
3.51E06
0.539
245
0.000
449
0.577
02327
1
1.192
22E05

0.576
57964
6.589
87E05

:6
$ 
> 0.05

95

q14_lo
g
0.254
14694
2
0.061
59799
0.414
35643
8
0.038
70527
8

q13_log

(Consta
)nt
0.38394
5
0.08759
1
0.01878
6

coeffi
cients

Depen
dent
Variabl
e
Y_mean
_all_log

Sig
coeffi
cients

Y_1_log

Sig
0.95394
7
0.73267
7

coeffi
cients

Y_2_log

Sig
0.00183
1
0.738
66
0.004
495

coeffi
cients

Sig

Y_3_log

13
Y Y1
Q15
%100
) ( .%50
.

.

.Q15

.

96

.4

) Y Y1

Y2 (Y3 X3
FK 14 J

 02!F2 F   & ,  56!    = L -%
Adjust
ed R
Squar
e

Unstandardized Coefficients

R
Squar
e

Sig.

0.3598
19

0.3839
77

.000
e

15.894
54

0.3108
19

0.3368
26

.000
e

12.951
44

0.1019
22

0.1188
67

.011
f

7.0149
46

q27_lo
g

q26_lo
g
0.1954
5
0.0391
18
0.2664
63
0.0411
03

q24_l
og

q25_l
og

q23_lo
g
0.3046
31
6.5E05
0.3662
32
0.0003
9

q22_l
og

(Consta
)nt
0.896369
692
8.55353E
-06
0.646707
511
0.012427
877

coefficie
nts

Dependent
Variable
Y_mean_all
_log

Sig
coefficie
nts

Y_1_log

Sig
coefficie
nts

Y_2_log

coefficie
nts

Y_3_log

Sig
1.141681
641
4.20524E
-05

0.3677
43
0.0106
78

Sig

:6
$ 
> 0.05

14
Y Y1
Q23
Q26
%100
.%30

97


.

.


Q27
%100 %36

.

98

.5 ) Y Y1
Y2 (Y3 X4

FK 15 J

 02!F2 F    & ,   4  = L -%

Adjuste
dR
Square

R
Squar
e

Unstandardized Coefficients
Sig.

0.38847
3

0.4119
94

.000
d

17.516
54

0.28415
4

0.3116
87

.000
d

11.320
66

0.24309
5

0.2722
07

.000
d

9.3504
07

0.21069
2

0.2410
5

7.9402
37

q32_log
0.3993
58
0.0004
06
0.4272
1
0.0045
94
0.3417
38
0.0225
43
0.3852
72
0.0170
07

q31_log
0.2002
98
0.0156
13
0.2300
03

q30_lo
g

q29_log

0.0404
0.2824
94
0.0449
36
0.2110
15
0.0809
78

q28_lo
g

(Constant
)
0.7239724
02
0.0003006
13
0.6177772
68
0.0188545
91
0.6710440
6
0.0143395
59
0.7243720
27
0.0114438
2

coefficien
ts

Dependent
Variable
Y_mean_all_l
og

Sig
coefficien
ts

Y_1_log

Sig
coefficien
ts

Y_2_log

Sig
coefficien
ts

Y_3_log

Sig

:6
$ 
> 0.05

 A -26>=2 ! 15 :  ,  C*


)( Y
Q31
.Q32
%100
%23

99

. "
"

.

%100

%40

.


Q32
.Q29


.


.Q32
100

%100 .%38.5
" "

.
.6 ) Y Y1
Y2 (Y3 X5
 !16 :
 02!F2 F   & ,    4  = L -%
Unstandardized Coefficients

Adju
sted
R
Squa
re

R
Squ
are

Si
g.

.480

.499

.
00
0

25.
42
6

.382

.406

.
00
0

17.
40
3

0.283
16897
.339

0.31
0219
2
.364

.
00
0

11.
46
8
14.
57
1

.
00
0

Q40
_log

Q39
_log

Q38
_log

Q37_log
0.3032144
761857
0.0008199
787451128
0.411980
28
0.001358
02

Q36
_log

Q35
_log

Q34_l
og

Q33_log
0.3163464
284933
0.0002083
304597367

0.364
49333
0.004
05394
0.281322
0.014609

0.305167
0.013907
0.25
883
7
0.01
068
3

(Constan
)t
0.6715826
115837
0.0001253
895875321
0.389461
48
0.113524
98
0.725608
0.00242

coeffi
cients

Sig
coeffi
cients

0.341442

0.005441

0.001175

Y_1_log

Sig
coeffi
cients

Y_2_log

Sig
coeffi
cients

0.711969

Depen
dent
Variabl
e
Y_mean
_all_log

Y_3_log

Sig

:6
$ 
> 0.05

16 )(
Y Y2
Q33

101

Q37
.
%100 .%31.6


.

Q34
.Q37

.

.


Q33 .Q40



.

102

.7

) Y Y1

Y2 (Y3 X6
FK 17 J

 02!F2 F    & , % ? > @N6  = L -%

Adjuste
dR
Square

R
Squar
e

Unstandardized Coefficients
Sig
.

539.

567.

.
000

20.10
5

404.

..429

.
000

17.63
1

395.

.420

.
000

17.00
8

241.

.271

.00
1

8.766

Q47_lo
g

Q46_lo
g

Q45_lo
g

Q44_lo
g

0.1196
04
0.0494
38

Q43_lo
g
0.4015
48
0.0006
0.6480
72
1.12E05
0.5893
8
2.06E05

0.2563
36

Q42_lo
g

Q41_lo
g

(Consta
)nt
0.228689
1
0.441062
5

0.5556
04
2.07E05
0.6164
79
0.0006
37
0.5918
63
0.0005
28
0.6270
6

0.14785

0.0039
82

0.733756

-0.59831

coefficien
ts

Dependent
Variable
Y_mean_all_l
og

Sig
coefficien
ts

Sig
0.16489
-0.44337

coefficien
ts

0.273812
coefficien
ts

:6
$ 
> 0.05

17
)( Y :
Q41
Q43 .Q46
%100
) (

103

Y_2_log

Sig

Sig

0.0045
04

Y_1_log

Y_3_log

%55.5 9001
.
)(
Y1 Y2
Q41
.Q43

.

)(

Q41
Q45

104

.8 ) Y Y1
Y2 (Y3
X7
FK 18 J

 02!F2 F    & , = 4   = L -%
Adjust
ed R
Squar
e

R
Squa
re

Unstandardized Coefficients
Si
g.

.07439.

.271

.
000

10.4
84

.249

.278

.
000

9.44
8

..250

.294

.
001

6.66
5

.137

.154

.
004

9.13
0

Q53_l
og

Q52_lo
g

Q51_lo
g
0.2407
45
0.0088
13
0.2875
08
0.0147
92

Q50_l
og

Q49_lo
g
0.2881
54
0.0171
66
0.3626
44
0.0198
63

Q48_l
og

(Consta
)nt
0.835764

Sig
0.000457
0.607639
0.039231

0.884803

0.0039
57

0.00599

0.3878
09
0.0043
76

coefficie
nts

Y_1_log

Sig

0.4470
9
0.0214
04
0.4984
65

0.4225
81
0.0057
52

coefficie
nts

Dependent
Variable
_Y_mean_all
log

coefficie
nts

Y_2_log

1.140041

Sig
0.000391
coefficie
nts

Sig
Y_3_log

:6
$ 
> 0.05

18
)( Y Y1
Y2 Q49
)
( Q51
105

ISO 9001

ISO14001
.

.Q52


.%50

) .
.(2011-10-30
.9 ) Y Y1
Y2 (Y3 X8
 !19 :
 02!F2 F    & ,  &2  0   = L -%
Unstandardized Coefficients

Adjust
ed R
Squar
e

R
Squ
are

Sig
.

.359.

.395

.
00
0

10.8
91

. 232

.261

.
00
0

8.98
3

..237

.266

.
00
0

9.23
6

.124

.141

.
00
5

8.51
8

Q59_l
og

Q58_lo
g

0.325
838
0.045
384
0.451
062
0.054
667
0.481
25
0.018
692

Q57_l
og

Q56_lo
g

Q55_lo
g

0.299
697
0.004
649
0.347
923
0.019
621

0.222
748
0.092
68

0.356
39
0.024
459
0.388
033
0.005
184

:6
$ 
> 0.05

106

Q54_lo
g

(Constan
)t

0.18058
807
0.58714
05
0.27013
122
0.50499
975
0.1774
0.64796
6
1.07690
2
9.09E05

coeffici
ents

Depende
nt
Variable
Y_mean_al
l_log

Sig
coeffici
ents

Y_1_log

Sig
coeffici
ents

Y_2_log

Sig
coeffici
ents

Sig

Y_3_log

19
)( Y ) Q58
(Q56
%100
) ( .%30




.
%100 )
( %33

.ISO 9001
)(

.Q56

107

)(
) Q58
Q55 .ISO9001, ISO14001, GMP


.
Q56
.


.
   :P 0 ,- . !  )(' & %  "#$!   ) 02
!   78  4 56  4   4    4
 A% @% ? > = 4    "#$!    &2  0  ( 8-
= ! @ ) F ' Q- F!  (2  %> A .(RS%

108

.10

) Y41

Y42 (Y43

X1 X2 X3 X4
X5 X6
X7 .(X8

Y1 Y2 (Y3
)Using simple linear regression (n=5
20

 02!F2 F  % & ,  "#$!    = L @
Unstanda
rdized
Coefficien
ts
_Y_3
log

_Y_2
log

_Y_1
log

_X_8
log

_X_7
log

_X_6
log

_X_5
log

_X_4
log

_X_3
log

_X_2
log

0.0
21
0.2
68
0.7
98
0.0
47

0.5
34
1.1
94
0.1
55
0.0
78
0.4
18
0.6
31
0.5
09
0.2
17
0.1
77
0.7
21
2.9
46
0.0
66

0.1
81
0.5
56
0.4
58
0.0
05

0.7
57
1.4
04
0.0
53
0.2
52
0.7
26
0.3
76
0.6
60
0.2
45
0.0
95
0.8
91
3.2
41
0.0
15

0.4
40
0.9
38
0.2
14
0.2
49
0.6
31
0.3
77
0.2
59
0.1
33
0.3
83
0.4
64
2.0
51
0.1
98

0.5
87
1.3
02
0.1
27
0.3
74
0.9
25
0.2
64
0.4
12
0.2
04
0.2
43
0.5
88
2.7
76
0.1
26

0.5
45
1.4
36
0.1
50
0.1
92
0.7
63
0.4
49
0.4
40
0.2
41
0.2
23
0.6
37
3.3
04
0.1
02

0.0
52
0.6
02
0.7
02
0.0
04
0.1
69
0.9
05
0.0
06
0.0
36
0.9
06
0.0
82
1.6
03
0.6
30

0.1
60
1.1
64
0.4
97
0.0
11
0.2
86
0.8
56
0.0
58
0.1
30
0.6
98
0.2
48
3.0
76
0.3
87

0.3
53
1.7
20
0.2
85
0.0
77
0.7
24
0.6
41
0.2
27
0.2
58
0.4
18
0.4
60
4.1
78
0.2
04

0.2
98
0.7
45
0.0
04
0.0
19
0.9
26
0.0
84
1.0
83
0.6
22

0.0
58
0.9
33
0.1
15
0.0
81
0.5
79
0.3
59
1.6
47
0.2
75

X_1_log

0.216

0.431

0.262

-0.877

-1.385

-0.856

0.419

0.223

0.367

0.055

0.151

0.000

-0.402

-0.735

-0.034

0.689

0.506

0.970

0.107

0.281

0.191

-0.114

-0.209

-0.135

0.592

0.359

0.464

0.279

0.511

0.459

-2.115

-3.210

-2.399

0.351

0.170

0.202

Rsquare
coeffici
ents

Sig
Rsquare

Y41

coeffici
ents

Sig
Rsquare

Y42

coeffici
ents

Sig
Rsquare
coeffici
ents

Sig

:6
$ 
> 0.1

109

X_mean_al
l_log(a

_Y_mean
all_log

Depen
dent
Variabl
e
Y4

Y43

)
(X Mean

%15.1 )

(Y41
% 15.1 .


.

.
%100
%73.5

.
)
(X Mean %28.1

. Y42




110



.
%100
%21



.
)
(X Mean %51.1
.Y43
.
%100
%321



111



.
)(
0.1
%100

( .%140

Europe GMP

ISO9001 ISO14001


GMP
.


%100 %24.5

- -
112


.


%100 %324






.
%100
%41.8


.

113

%100 %6
.

%100
%29.8

.

%100
%21.7

.
%100 .%8
%100
%&164.7 ISO9001



.

114

%100
%294.6

.
%100
%108.3
.
%100
%21.7

.
%100
%41.8


.

115


0.1 )
( )
(.
   :D 0 .,Z % A ! F W !>  ? #6
% A #$!   @.[F- & %
Independent sample T-test -:
) " ""( Komogorove
smirnof test .
levinue test .
21

Std. Error Mean

Std. Deviation

Mean

6 F E

G 6
 
%

.01303

.07926

1.8424

37

=:,

.02038

.08402

1.7671

17

>

116

Y_mean_all_log

22

 02!F2 F    & , % ? > @N6  = L -%

Independent
Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances

t-test for Equality of


Means
Std. Error
Difference

Mean
Difference

Sig.
(2)tailed

Sig.

0.024

0.075

0.002

52

3.182

0.770

0.086

0.024

0.075

0.004

29.563

3.113

21

Df

Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed

Y_mean_all_log

22


%4.26

) ((1.8424-1.7671)/1.7671

Independent sample T-test


22 0.002 0.05 t
.3.182 (2009) Hakala & Kauranen
" "

117


.
(2006) Dincer , Tatoglu & Glaister " :
"

.
) (2010 " :
"

.

 & I  02 ],-  .,Z % A ! F W !>  ? #6
% A #$!   @ [F- & %5 !,Z > ( _    >^A A%
"#Z  .

118

4.4
4.4.1

(2009) Hakala & Kauranen "
"


.

.
Dincer , Tatoglu & Glaister
) (2006 " : "


.

) (2010 "

"

119


.0.05
0.05
.0.1
) (2008 "




.

) (2005 "

) ("





.
120

4.4.2
) (2009 "
"




)
...( .
) (2004 "
: "
) (

.

.

121

) (1999 "
"
.GMP


.GMP, ISO9001,ISO14001
) (2005 "
"
) (
.
%100

.%44.6
) ( 2005 "
"

.

122


.GMP, ISO9001,ISO14001
4.5






.

.


%100

%61.7 %100
%24.5

123





%100 %324




ISO9001 ISO 14001 Europe
.GMP

-:
ISO9001 .
ISO14001 .
GMP .

124

Europe GMP

.
) (6 Sigma
) (%10-5
- Conductors Industry Semi -
0.0001 6
.
.
http://www.pharmafocusasia.com/manufacturing/lean_sixsigma_manufact
uring.htm
.
) (Enterprise Resource Planning ERP
.
) (KPI
.
.
.

125

.
.
%100
.%44.6


-:
. .
Performance Measures .
.
.

126

.

SA 8000 .


)
2010 (.



Generic Medicines

.

Europe GMP Six
Sigma .


.
127



%70


. -:
)
( .

.

128

:
5.1
-:
.

.

) (

) (Sig
.

) (Sig
.
0.05


.

129

5.2
:

ISO9001,ISO14001,Europe GMP, Six Sigma

.




.



.

.

130



.

.

.

.

.

.

131



.



.

.

.
5.3
 8% % Q-  02!  



:
132


.
 8% % Q- 78  4
:


" "


.
 8% % Q-  56  4

.

133

:




.
 8% % Q-   4




:

.
 8% % Q-    4
.
134


.
8% % Q- % A @% ? > @N6


.
-



:




.
135

 8% % Q- = 4    "#$!  


.
-



:






.

 8% % Q-  &2  0 



.
-



:
Europe GMP, ISO9001,ISO14001

6 Sigma

136

137

5.4
.1 .

.2 ) (....
.

.3
.

.4
.

138


:
.1 )" (2007 -
" - .
.2 )" .(2005
" .
.3 ) (2010 .2009
.4 )" .(2009
" . -
.
.5 )" (2010
" ) ( - .
.6 )" (2005
" - .
.7 )" .(2004 " :
" .71-39.
.8 )" (2006 "
-.

139

.9) (2010 "


http://www.arado.org.eg/homepage .
.10 )(2002

) ( -

- .
.11 )" (2003 ".
.12 )" (2010 ")
( -.
.13 )" (2008 "
.
.14 )" (2009 "
- .
.15 )" (2006 "
-.
.16 ) (2007 " " .
.17 )" (2004 " .
.
.18 )" .(2005
".
.19 ) 2010 ( .
.20 )" (1999 "
-
140

2008 SA8000 .21


) "" (2005) .22
2 32 . (
.

1. Cam McLarney (2003), Centre for international Business studies, Dalhousie


University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. an analysis of strategic planning in
the Canadian automotive industry, Business Process management journal Vol. 9
No 4, 2003 pp.421-439.
2. Chandler, A.D., Jr. (1962). "Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of
the Industrial Enterprise". Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
3. DAI, (2008) Palestinian Enterprise Development (PED) Project, medicine
consumption and supply study.

4. Dincer .Omer, Tatoglu.E & Glaister (2006). the strategic planning process:
evidence from Turkish firms. Business Process management journal Vol. 29 No
4, 2006 pp.206-219.

141

5. The European foundation for Quality management Excellence Model.


www.efqm.org

6. Fred R. David. (2010), Strategic Management Concepts, 13th edition, Prentice


Hall International.
7. AL- Ghamdi, Salem M., (2005),The Use of Strategic Planning Tools and
Techniques in Saudi Arabia: An Empirical Study, International Journal of
Management, Vol.22, No.3, September: 376-395.
8. Hax

(2010),

Strategic

Management,

emerald

group

publishing

limited.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/learning/management_thinking/interviews/pdf/hax
.pdf
9. Hayley Carter, (1999) "Strategic planning reborn", Work Study, Business Process
management journal Vol. 48 Iss: 2, pp.46 48
10. Lin,N. (1976), foundation of social research, New York. McGraw-Hill
11.Mintzberg, Henry & Quinn, B. James (1996), "the Strategy Process: Contexts
and Cases", 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall International.
12.Palestine Pharmacy Handbook (2008), Dimensions health care consulting Co.
and Palestinian Pharmacist Association
13.Pharma

Focus

Asia,

E-Magazine

http://www.pharmafocusasia.com

142

for

pharma

industry

leaders,

14.Porter,(1998), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and


Competitors, Muze Inc.
15.Vidhu Shekhar Jha & Himanshu Joshi,(2009), Relevance of Total Quality
Management (TQM) or Business Excellence Strategy Implementation for
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) A Conceptual Study, International
Management Institute, New Delhi, India, http://mitiq.mit.edu/iciq
16.Wheelen, Thomas L. & Hunger, J. David, (2008),"Strategic Management and
Business Policy", 11th Ed, Pearson International Edition, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey.

17.Wheelen, Thomas L. & Hunger, J. David, (2006),"Strategic Management and


Business Policy", 10th Ed, Pearson International Edition, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey.
18.Sascha Kraus, Henri Hakala & Ilkka Kauranen(2009), Strategic planning and
growth

of

young

SMEs:

empirical

evidence

from

Finland.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-208534973.html

:
( http://www.baldrige.nist.gov/ ) .1

( http://www.juse.or.jp/e ) .2
143

:

.2010-9-25

.2011-1-8
.
.2011-1-11
.
2010 -11-8


. .2011-8-5

.2011-1-8

.2011-7-10
. .2011-10-10
.
.2011-6-25

144


)(1

..

. .

/

.

145

)(2




/______________________ /.
:

"
" .


.
.

.
.
.

: .

:.

146

15-11 O

10 O

O 20

O 20-16

30 O

50 -41 O

40- 31 O

O 50

__________________________

5 O

10 6

O 15 - 11

O 20 - 16

147

O /

O 20

:
.
.

)
(

)
...(

)
...(

)
(

) (

148

10
11
12

13
14
15
16 )
...(
17 ) (

18
19 )
....(
20
21

22
23

149

24
25

26
27

28
29
30

31
32

33

34
35
36
37

150

38
39
40

41
42
43
44
45
46
47

48
49
50
51 ) (

52
53

151

54
55 )(ISO9001,ISO14001, GMP
56 )
(
57 )
(
58
59

:

.
.
) (

60 ) (
61
62
63 ) (

152

64
65

66
67
68
69
70

71
72
73
74

153

2010 2009
#

75

________________%

76

________________%

________________%

________________%

________________%

77

2009

2010
________________%

154

---

---

---

---

15

17

155

$6> H2

18


 J H2 ,

19

K H2

20

22

22

22

35

37

38

42

44

44

51

62

64

66

67
156

67

68

70

72

75

77

77

82

85

119

123

129

129

130

132

138

139

157

139

141

143

144

145

145

146

158