Literature review of strategy implementation and strategy process frameworks Introduction Great strategies are worth nothing if they

cannot be implemented (Okumus and Roper 1999). It can be extended to say that better to implement effectively a second grade strategy than to ruin a first class strategy by ineffective implementation. Less than 50% of formulated strategies get implemented (Mintzberg 1994; Miller 2002; Hambrick and Canella 1989). Every failure of implementation is a failure of formulation. The utility of any tool lies in its effective usage and so is the case with strategy. Strategy is the instrument through which a firm attempts to exploit opportunities available in the business environment. The performance of a firm is a function of how effective it is in converting a plan into action and executing it. Thus implementation is the key to performance, given an appropriate strategy. In literature, implementation has been defined as the process by which strategies and policies are put into action through the development of programs, budgets and procedures (Wheelan and Hunger pp15). This involves the design or adjustment of the organisation through which the administration of the enterprise occurs. This includes changes to existing roles of people, their reporting relationships, their evaluation and control mechanisms and the actual flow of data and information through the communication channels which support the enterprise (Chandler 1962; Hrebiniak and Joyce 2005). Evolution The field of Strategic management has grown in the last thirty five years developing into a discipline in its own right. Borrowing extensively from Economics and Social sciences, it is still fragmented by the presence of number of distinct schools of thought, diversity in underlying theoretical dimensions and lack of disciplined methodology. The fragmentation is due to high degree of task uncertainty and lack of coordination in research a result of lack of uniformity and focus between the strategy field, its base disciplines and practitioners (Elfring and Voelberda 2001 pp 11). Strategy as a field of enquiry developed from a practical need to understand reasons for success and failure among organizations. This led to a focus on overall performance and on the top management. The works of Chandler (1962) and Andrews (1971) created a view that strategy is made at the top and executed at the bottom, further reinforcing the fields focus on the top management while implementation was seen as secondary (Floyd and Woolridge 1996) The emergence of corporate planning in the 1970s further heightened the disconnect between formulation and implementation, as operating decisions were made as if plans did not exist. Key insight was that plans were ineffective and line managers needed to be involved in the process (Floyd and Woolridge 2000).The development of analytical tools like BCG, PIMS further reinforced the notion that strategy was an exclusive top management function. The development of the strategic management paradigm delineated the formulation and implementation components of strategy, identified roles for all mangers except the lowest operating level in the formulation process. Implementation was design of standards, measures, incentives, rewards, penalties, and controls (Floyd and Woolridge 1996). Managers were thought to be more as obstacles. It 1

was Mintzberg and Waters (1985) whose view that strategy is a pattern in a stream of decisions, that expanded the role of other than the top management in strategy making since strategies could be emergent. Burgelman (1983) integrated both the top down and bottom up view of strategy by introducing the concept of autonomous development of strategy in addition to the normal intended strategy, reinforcing the observations of Bower(1970) who stated that the top management had little control on what projects get pushed for approval. Despite these studies; till the 1990s strategy formulation and implementation were seen as separate items, with a distinct focus on strategizing (achieving the fit between the environment and the plan) while effective implementation of it was taken as granted. Content research dominated. The works of Mintzberg (1978) Miller and Frieson (1980), Pettigrew (1985) brought into focus the gaps between formulation and implementation. This brought into prominence the research stream concentrating on study of change. This also challenged the paradigm of explicit formulation and implementation, as strategies could now be emergent, unrealized. It also strengthened the tiny but growing band of process researchers who were looking at the role of power, culture as shapers of strategy outcomes. Research on strategy implementation, though neglected, was taken by few researchers in form of development of frameworks (Hrebiniak and Joyce 2005; Bourgeois and Brodwin 1984; Skivington and Daft 1991; Miller 1997; Okumus 2001; Joyce and Hrebiniak 2005) and in the form of evaluation of individual factors affecting the implementation process like- the interests of middle managers (Guth and Macmillan 1986) or the usage of implementation tactics (Nutt 1987). The present context for strategic management has been described as hypercompetitive (Daveni 1994) which ensures that sustained advantage is transitory. Under these circumstances, strategy and form of organization need to be continuously assessed for appropriateness. Thus fast paced change makes strategy dynamic in character. Learning has become a key attribute along with organizing of knowledge resources. Under such circumstances, strategy formulation and implementation are viewed as intertwined sub processes in the strategy process. Strategy research has also undergone changes paralleling these changes. Starting with longitudinal process oriented studies of March and Simon (1958) chandler (1962), bower (1970), and mintzberg (1978), it shifted to use of quantitative methods which were cross sectional in nature. As the legitimacy of the field grew, and with advances in research methods along with liberal interjections from social sciences, the re emphasis on processual studies has emerged (Pettigrew et al 2002). The development of the now in vogue strategy process researchcan be traced to Europe, where attention was drawn to the role of power as an influence on strategy outcomes (Pettigrew 1973). The role of culture was probed and later the combined effects of culture and power were studied (Pettigrew 1985). A series of large scale empirical studies (Pettigrew and whipp 1991, Pettigrew et al 1992) developed a process approach which combined the content, process, context of change with longitudinal data collected at multiple levels of analysis, thereby introducing the element of time into the study and allowing for multiple levels of analysis but integrated. Thus process research has opened up the firms internal processes for study, and given an impetus to the role of time and

dynamics in addressing issues of strategic choice and change. Process research has been fragmented, characterized by limited theory building and empirical testing( Pettigrew et al 2002). The evolution can be succinctly summarized as given below in the table Descriptor Environme nt Dominant paradigm of strategy content 1950s and 1960s Stable Growth, large corporations , control and coordination , production 1970s Dynamic , complex Strategy as direction of company, production orientation 1980s Dynamic complex Core businesses, competitive advantage, production orientation Factors along with structure leading to efficiency Cross sectional, quantitative, Vale based planning 1990s Highly dynamic Core competencies, production, services orientation How structures are created, adjusted and made to work? Processual Longitudinal Development capabilities, learning, 21st century Hyper competitive Services orientation, learning,

Fit structure Key to with implementa strategy and tion context Research Basis of corporate value added Strategy logic Processual , longitudinal case studies Skills of general manager

Resource allocation Cross sectional, quantitative, Portfolio planning

How structures are created, adjusted and made to work? Processual Longitudinal Learning and knowledge creation

What Economies Compete on Economies of Portfolio business to of scale and strengths, scope management be in efficiency synergy Based on Pettigrew et al (2002), Whittington (2002), Gould and Campbell (1993) Thus it can be seen that the evolution of research on strategy implementation is directly linked with the evolution of strategy research and the emphasis on implementation has been seen to be dependent on the dominant approach (perspective) guiding a researcher. Strategic decision process The core of the strategy process (including implementation) involves decisions and actions. Decision making is the rational application of knowledge to a choice problem (Simon 1976). It involves seeking answers to questions such as what are the alternatives, what are the consequences of each alternative, how desirable are the consequences and what criteria to apply to evaluate the alternatives. Such rationality is possible with highly structured problems but with highly unstructured problems- strategic decisionsit is not possible to get all the information and specify all the set of alternatives.

In event of highly unstructured problems, humans are boundedly rational. The search in this case is local, limited and attempt is to find a satisfying solution (Cyert and March 1963). Thus strategy process would consist of decisions and the actions that are driven by these decisions. The actions are a larger set and many actions are not a result of the strategic decisions and thus mere study of the decision making process does not cover the strategy process. Decision making under conditions of uncertainty or ambiguity can be achieved by a political process, especially in conditions where multiple groups exist with each having their own legitimate views of organisational interests (absence of shared goals). In such instances power is exercised in the broader interests of the organisation and not for serving self interests not in line with organisational interests (pfeffer 1981). Literature review Strategic management has developed by contributions from researchers from the fields of economics; organisational behavior; sociology; psychology; and public administration. Researchers from each field addressed strategic management from a perspective which dominated that field for e.g.: researchers from the field of economics used the rational perspective while researchers from the field of organisational behavior used the humanistic perspective. Thus research on strategy implementation has been dependent on the dominant approach (perspective) guiding a researcher. Approaches to strategy have been classified varyingly by different authors. The better known classifications are: Chafees ( 1985) linear, adaptive and interpretive schools Mintzberg et al (1998) ten schools of thought. Faulkner and Campbells (2002) rational, logical incremental, evolutionary and cultural schools of thought. Fajourn ( 2000)- mechanistic and organic Hutzschenreuter and kleindienst (2006)rational- mechanistic, cognitive, upper echelon, middle management, organic and micro perspectives. Chafee (1985) based his classification on the main focus which each type is built upon. The linear model has planning as the key focus point. Its emphasis on methodical, sequential, and directed action indicates a rational decision making process; stable environment and a more simplistic view of strategy with a predominant role for the top management. Time is viewed as static. The adaptive models focus is on the continuous evaluation of the environment and subsequent organisational adaptation. Environment is more dynamic; emphasis is more on means and goals are more nebulous and the role of the other levels of management is considered more significant. The interpretive model looks at an organisation as a collection of social contracts and strategy is an organisation wide activity driven by shared values and beliefs. Decision making appear truly consensual, tending to a political process. Mintzbergs classification (1998), the most famous; is based on what strategy is visualized as for e.g. in the design school strategy is seen as a conception while in the entrepreneurial school it is seen more as a vision. They can be grouped together into three broad classes:

1. The first three schools are prescriptive in nature. They are concerned with how strategies should be formulated. They thus tell about ideal strategic behavior. These concentrate on the behavior of the strategist as an individual. 2. The next six consider specific aspects of the strategy formation process. They describe how strategies get made. They concentrate on role of factors beyond the individual. 3. The last school is a combination of all the above schools, it seeks to be integrative. It tries to cluster the strategy making process, the content, organisational structures and their contexts into distinct stages. Faulkners classification (2002) and Hutzschenreuter and kleindienst (2006) are a more abridged variants of Mintzbergs classification. Fajourn (2000) takes a much more conceptual view of the strategy process and classifies all approaches into two main based on how time is treated; how is the flow of events looked at and finally the quality of constructs and models. The mechanistic approach looks at time as discreet; with the flow of events being linear, sequential, directional and static and the constructs and models are well developed, differentiated and emphasis is more on construct than on the relationships among the constructs. The organic view treats time as incessant and continuous with the flow of events being non linear, interactional and dynamic and emphasis on the relationships between constructs which are integrative in nature. It can be seen that the key parameters on which the approaches differ is the type of strategic decision process, the locus of decision making and analysis and the view of strategic change. Fajourns (2000) classification allows all the approaches to be distinctly placed in either of the class, whereby one class (mechanistic) is prescriptive and concentrates on the role of top individual as the strategist and therefore the locus of analysis is an individual, the locus of analysis can be an individual or a group but restricted to top management and views strategic change as episodic. Thus strategy is more a static, episodic activity and therefore is not viewed as a process but more as an event. It also distinctly segregates formulation from implementation. The other class (organic) focuses on a more inclusive role for other levels of management, viewing participation as necessary for management of environmental dynamism; treats strategy as a process. Therefore the locus of decision making can vary from an individual to a group; locus of analysis is a group and change is seen more as incremental. The implications for the strategic decision making process now is dependent on the requirement of environmental sensing mechanisms and the organisational integrative mechanisms ( such as meetings, committees, task forces, feed back mechanisms etc) which are put in place in line with the perceived environmental dynamism. The type of decision making process is not as significant as much as the patterns and utilization of environmental sensing and organisational integrative mechanisms. Equifinality is possible based on various combinations of participation (from mere information provision to consultation to active discussion to finally a stake in decision making) in decision making and the management of environmental dynamism. Literature on implementation of strategy can be categorized as:

1. Stream of literature where the predominant focus has been on content such as literature on diversification, innovation, mergers and acquisitions and collaborative strategies and their link to performance. 2. Stream which deals with organisational structure as proxy for implementation variables 3. Literature on strategic consensus and role of middle level managers 4. Stream which has attempted to develop frameworks for implementation of strategy 5. The resource allocation process literature Implementation has to be viewed along with strategy content. Strategy content literature can be grouped as those dealing with diversification, mergers and acquisitions, collaborative strategies, competitive strategies, and innovations driven strategies. Implementation of innovations: Innovation has been defined as the adoption of an internally generated or purchased device, system, policy, program, process, product or service that is new to the adapting organisation (Daft 1982). Innovativeness is adoption of multiple innovations (Damanpour 1991). Adoption of innovation encompasses generation, development and implementation. A Meta analysis of studies on innovations (Damanpour 1991) has shown that specialization (Kimberly and Evanisko 1981), functional differentiation (representing diversity of knowledge (Balridge and Burnham 1975)), professionalism (Pierce and Delbeccq 1977), managerial attitude towards change, technical knowledge resources (Dewar and Dutton 1986), administrative intensity( Damanpour 1987), slack resources( Rosner 1968), and external and internal communication (Miller and Friesen 1982) have a positive effect on adoption of innovations in organisations. Centralization (Thompson 1967) has a negative effect on adoption of innovations. Formalization, managerial tenure, and vertical differentiation were found to have no effect. While formalization and managerial tenure did not have any effect on both the initiation and implementation of innovations, vertical differentiation ( which represents differential of power) had a positive effect on administrative innovations and a negative effect on technical innovations( Damanpour 1991). Mechanistic organisations were found to be less conducive for generating innovations than organic organisations. The archetypes of these two types of organisations can be put at the ends of an no innovative continually innovative) continuum, on which most of the organisations would tend to fall within the length of the continuum. Organisations which are more mechanistic are more appropriate for administrative innovations while organic form is more appropriate for technical innovations. Literature on adoption of innovations has concentrated on individual variables affecting the process of adoption by way of bivariate relationships both at individual and organisational level (dobni 2006) Diversification strategies: Diversification means associated changes in administrative mechanism (ramanujam and varadrajan 1989). Research on diversification has concentrated on the concept of

relatedness; international diversification; mechanisms of strategy and effects of strategy on performance (Bergh in hand book of strategic management 2001hitt et al). The link between diversification and performance is perhaps the most researched link in the strategic management literature (palich et al 2000). Despite 40 years of research, the field has yet to show consistent findings and thus consensus on key relationships is elusive, which leaves the field as yet to mature (Gary 2005). Despite a large number of studies on the diversification performance link, the results are less clear now (palich; cardinal and miller 2000). The empirical studies start with that of chandler (1962) who stated that structure has to be aligned to strategy for ensuring effective performance. It was rumelts (1974) study that related constrained businesses show the best performance which set the trend of research on diversification. Examining rumelts results, betis (1982) concluded that the overrepresentation of an industry in the sample may be the cause; Christiansen and Montgomery (1981) concluded that market share explained the greater part of the results while Montgomery (1985) found insignificant results after controlling for industry structure factors. Further stimpert and dubhan (1995) showed that low profitability led to increased diversification. It can be seen that the research on diversification is focused on content rather than implementation issue despite calls for such research (hoskisson and hitt 1990). This conclusion is further corroborated when we look at the basis for undertaking diversification over the period 1950s till 2000 AD. In the 1950s and 1960s the basis for diversification was abundance of general management skills in a firm and implementation was taken for granted as it was believed that having general management skills ensured implementation. However the performance during these decades was below average. In the 1970s; the basis was portfolio management and focus on strategies of the firm with little focus on implementation. The performance was still found to be below average. The 1980s saw a shift to value based planning and reduce diversification while in the 1990s the emphasis was on creation of synergies; exploitation of core competencies portfolio based on management style. Success was found to be linked to sticking to similar businesses (Gould and hicks 2001-oxford hand book of strategy). The lack of focus on implementation is evident and indirectly gets proved when we see that performance is the best in diversification to related businesses only. This further gets supported from the empirical finding that in highly diversified companies there was a tendency to spin off the unrelated businesses into independent units, after which there was found to be an improvement n performance of those units (Sadler et al 1997). Of late there has been a realization that implementation may hold the key to diversification and performance link (Gary 2005) The diversification studies can be categorized into two streamsone which look at diversification and performance link and the other which looks at relation between diversification and performance using organisational structure( M form) as intervening variable( Whittington 2002). The first stream does not include implementation variables in their study while the other stream tried to look at only one form of organisation as proxy for implementation variables. This only highlights the fact what researchers in strategic management have been lamenting about non use of organisational and implementation variables in strategy performance link studies (Dess et al 1995; hoskisson

and hitt 1990; Ginsberg and Venkatraman 1985) although they explain twice as much variance as other factors (Hansen and Wernerfelt 1989). Mergers and acquisitions: Mergers and acquisitions continue to be used as a major strategy for growth by firms over the years despite evidence that more than 70% of these do not improve the firms performance(Hitt, Ireland and Harrison 2002; Hitt , Harrison and Ireland 2001). The factors cited for such a result are sluggish integration, illusionary synergies, managerial hubris (barfield1998). Diverse cultures, structures and operating systems (haspeslagh and Jemison 1991) make integration of firms acquired or intending mergers extremely difficult, duly highlighting the added significance of effective implementation of strategies in the strategy performance link (Larson and finkelstien 1999; Gary 2005). Integration in mergers and acquisitions is facilitated when both the firms have similar management processes, cultures, systems and structures (Harrison and St John 1998; Cartwright and Schoenberg 2006). Strategic alliances: Collaboration between companies has grown at a significant rate in recent years. They are important ways to supplement a firms competencies and addressing competition (Harrigan 1988). Strategic alliances are the most common form of such collaborative strategies. Strategic alliances are voluntary arrangements between firms involving exchange, sharing, or co development of products, technologies, or services. They can occur as a result of a wide range of motives and goals, take a variety of forms, and occur across vertical and horizontal boundaries (Gulati, 1998). The failure rates in alliances have been very high. Researchers have attributed lack of cooperation; conflict; poor information exchange and opportunistic behavior as causes for a relatively high rate of failure in alliances (Das and Teng 1998, 2005; Inkpen 2001, kauser and Shaw 2003). Researchers have tried to explain alliance success by looking at trust, control and risk inherent in alliance outcomes. Partner cooperation, which is the resultant behavior of these antecedents, determines the alliance performance. As can be seen the success of alliances is a function of management of interorganisational coordination which effectively links it to implementation. Research on organisational structure: Structures are essential part of strategy implementation (Whittington 2002) Empirical studies of the strategy structure-performance have given unclear or equivocal results. These studies have focused on the formal structure in organisations for e.g. hoskisson (1989) showed that relation between unrelated diversification and m-form of organisational structure is positive while it is negative for vertical integration strategies and equivocal for related diversification. It was khandwala (1973) who showed that congruence between structure, processes and systems is more important for performance (sufficient condition) than organisational fit with environment (necessary condition) and reinforced in the study by miles and snow(1978) where organisations following successful prospector strategies where found to have organic organisational forms. The study by miller (1986) was the first to emphasize the configurational elements when he

showed that it is essential to have congruence between strategy-structure and other systems which was reinforced by Pettigrew et al (2002) who viewed the elements to represent complementariness. Organisations need to be configured as a whole and not treat structural elements as isolated factors (Keats and o neill 2002 hand book of strategy). The role of managers in achieving this configurational congruence is due to the fact that managers are the first to notice salient differences in organisational performance; can also anticipate changes; strategize and plan structural changes and finally implement these changes. Research on strategy structure which started with chandlers monumental work (1962) viewing structure as a policy shifted and got obsessed with the M-form and diversification and did not look at other structural configurations, with changes in strategies as time passed by. This obsession led to structure being viewed more conservatively than what chandler had defined (Gould and luchs 1993), resulting in structure being viewed as a proxy for implementation. With waning interest, due to increasingly diverse topics holding researchers interest, structure was treated as peripheral construct as part of studies on change, culture or control. Research on structure then graduated to finding out how structures are created and adapted. Thus structure was treated as an instrument in practice (Whittington 2002) While literature in the business policy area got obsessed with one type of structure (mform) and one type of strategy (diversification) Whittington 2002); the organisational behavior literature looked at environment-structure adaptation leaving out its link to performance(Ginsberg and Venkatraman 1985). Research on content of strategies has either looked at strategy content-performance link without considering the organisation variables which represent the implementation process (Ginsberg and Venkatraman 1985; Dess et al 1995) or have tended to concentrate on variables of specific interest such as trust (in case of strategic alliances); culture( in mergers and acquisitions) or structural forms( in diversification) or concentrate on a list of variables at the individual level( as in innovations) due to a predominant emphasis on content. Strategic consensus The literature on strategic consensus, started as an attempt to look at factors affecting strategy formulation at the top management level. While majority of the studies have concentrated on consensus at the top management level; there has been a realization that consensus needs to be looked at all levels of managers in an organisation to explain the link between strategic consensus and performance (Woolridge and Floyd 1990; Floyd and Woolridge 1992; Dooley, Fryxell and Judge 2000; Markoczy 2001; Kellermanns et al 2004). However empirical testing of consensus-performance link is besieged with methodological problems and has tended to be in form of bivariate relationships (Kellermanns et al 2004). The importance of the strategic consensus is repeatedly stressed for development of theory about the strategy process (Bourgeois 1985; Priem 1990; Priem and Dess 1995).

Strategy implementation frame works and models A survey of literature (see okumus 1999 for a review) allowed identification of 16 frameworks or models which have exclusively looked at the strategy process or strategy implementation. A summary of the salient findings of these papers is placed as annexure. The frameworks or models can be classified based on three questions 1. whether their orientation is content or process 2. whether their focus is on a partial set of variables /process or on full set of variables/ process 3. Whether their approach is top down, prescriptive and rational process of decision making or it is bottom up, descriptive and participative process of decision making. Based on answers to these three questions, 7 studies look at content while 9 studies look at the process. Out of the seven studies looking at content, two are conceptual (bourgeois and brodwin 1984; Waterman, Peters and Philips 1980)) while five studies are empirical. One study (Joyce and hrebiniak 2005) looks at the complete set of variables, is more a prescriptive model, taking a top down approach; and the four look at a partial set of variables such as unit capabilities and manager expertise (Roth and Morrison 1992); matching locus of control and control mechanisms with strategy (govindarajan 1984); implementation tactics (nutt 1987) or fit between individual values and values of innovation (Klein and sorro 1992). Of the studies which look at process, 8 are empirical and one is a conceptual (hart 1992) which looks at the formulation part of the strategy process only. Of the eight empirical studies, four look at the entire process. Of the other four studies ; argyris( 1989) looks at learning from mistakes made during implementation of strategies; skivington and daft ( 1991) look at structure, market related expenditures; communication and sanctions; miller ( 1997) looks at implementation of strategic decisions and feurer(1995) looks at the strategic planning system of hoshin kanri in Hewlett Packard. In effect it can be seen that these four studies have not dealt with the entire process or set of variables. The four studies which have looked at the full process of strategy implementation; two studies are based on one (hambrick and canella 1989) or two case studies (okumus 2001); one is a cross sectional study (bromiley 1993); and the other one is a fully developed model. The resource allocation process model (bower and Gilbert 2005) has been developed over the last thirty years through a series of empirical case studies although literature does not consider it to be a strategy process model (okumus 2003). The list of variables that get generated fro the frame works are: Environment, structure, power/ participation, incentives/ rewards, control, alignment of sub goals, detailed planning, resource allocation, evaluation, competencies/ experience, learning/ training, communication and external partners. The literature on the implementation frame works while listing out the variables affecting the implementation process, has not looked at how these variables interact and influence other variables and how these interaction effects affect the overall implementation process and the outcome (Okumus 2003).

10

Resource allocation process model The stream of literature dealing with the resource allocation process looks at the process of resource allocation as a proxy for implementation of strategy (Bower 1970). Resource has been defined in this literature as assets tied semi-permanently to firms and includes tangibles and intangibles (Wernerfelt 1984). The central proposition is that the way the resources are allocated in the firm shapes the realized strategy of the firm. Understanding the resource allocation process allows one to understand how strategy is made. The processes that lead to strategic outcomes are remarkably stable even as environments change. Despite the complexity of the process, many of the forces can be managed if they are understood. The process of resource allocation is intimately connected to strategy. This process is a complex, simultaneous, dynamic, multilevel and multirole phenomenon. Capital allocation decisions were made as a part of this complex process by managers who may have conflicting roles and often are at the middle level of the organisational hierarchy. It also showed that structural context shaped the strategy (Bower 1970). The process of resource allocation is also influenced by the strategic context (Burgelman 1983). Resource allocation is an iterative process (Noda and bower 1996) and is a bottom up process. Bounded rationality prevents any single individual from collecting and processing all relevant knowledge for an optimal decision (Simon 1947). Bottom up process relieves the top management of the need to collect all information and processing it to make a decision. This is done by distributing the decision rights to managers who possess the relevant specific knowledge. Further these managers have the incentive to define and support successful projects to the extent they are in line with their incentives and rewards. The persistence of the process produces a conservative bias which explains the inertia built up. The customers and shareholders could influence the resource allocation process thereby influencing the selection of proposals for investment (Christensen 1997). Innovations that fit the strategic context were called sustaining technologies while those that did not fit the context were called disruptive technologies and these were implemented successfully by setting up a new organisation (Christensen 1997). This process can fail when there are institutional barriers around sources of capital (sull 1999), when highly volatile and uncertain investment decisions are made (eisenmann 2002) and require corporate intervention to set it right or when the magnitude of investment exceeds the authority of the managers proposing and are not willing to bear the risk associated with the proposal (eisenmann 2002) or when the middle managers block proposals due to differences with the operating managers (kuemmerle 1998). Apart from the above mentioned factors, managerial cognition is another important factor. Resource allocation to disruptive ventures is seen when such events are framed as threats and yet were attempted to be adjusted among the existing strategic and structural context (Gilbert 2000). Thus cognitive framing shapes the resource allocation process. Normative functions of the resource allocation system: 1. Develop capabilities 2. Create value for the organisation and enhance employee reputation and security 3. allow for innovative proposals to get resources to facilitate creation of explorative capabilities

11

For effective implementation of autonomous or new strategic initiatives that are not in line with the present strategic context, both recognition and incorporation into the strategic context is required. The process can be changed. Top management can effect changes in the structural context to effect changes in the way definition and impetus is managed. By changing the strategic context, and the cognitive frames of the managers, the definition and impetus process can be managed. External forces (customer and capital market feedback) can also be harnessed to effect change in the same processes. In the whole process consensus at all levels is implicit. At the definition stage, the initiation may be in one department but the acceptance of the final definition is dependent upon the influence the project will have on other departments and hence their inputs will influence it. The final definition is thus, implicitly, a consensusual decision either by participation or by imposition or a combination of both. Customers Capital mkts

Strategic context Manage rial cognitio n

Definition Resource allocation approval

Customers

Structural context

Impetus

The resource allocation process (Bower and Gilbert 2005)

Realized strategy

Realized strategy becomes the key outcome variable in the resource allocation model. The role of the corporate office in the resource allocation process: The corporate office can intervene to support resource allocation to disruptive innovations and then either spin it off as a separate organisation or revise the strategic context to incorporate the strategic implication of the disruptive innovation. It can also be required when organisational politics hamper the implementation of the disruptive strategy. Similar intervention will be required when the environmental changes require large scale changes in strategic context or speed of decision making due to speed of change in environment or both. Corporate intervention will also be required in cases where units are working based on cooperative strategies or in transnational corporations. The resource allocation model is a process model. However it has been exclusively studied only in large manufacturing organisations and has not considered the link to performance outcomes. Its strength lies in its ability to give intermediate level constructs which facilitate the development of a comprehensive process model of strategy implementation (Bower and Gilbert 2005).

12

Problems associated with the research in this field 1. Strategy implementation is still a neglected area for research (hrebiniak and Joyce 2001; hutzschenreuter and kleindienst 2006). Formulation and implementation are complimentary and logically distinguishable areas of strategic management research (hrebiniak and Joyce 2001). Empirical research shows many implementation related variables are important in explaining performance (Hanson and Wernerfelt 1989). Implementation of strategy directly or indirectly relates to all facets of management. Organisations fail to implement more than 50% of their strategic decisions (miller 2002; hambrick and canella 1989; mintzberg 1994). Despite the importance of implementation process, the emphasis of strategic management research has been on content or formulation (dess, gupta, hennart and hill 1995). The reasons for such paucity of research on implementation have been stated to be due to the complexity and difficulty associated with it; the field being less glamorous and implementation being viewed as a mere administrative exercise, an extension of the planning process (okumus and roper 1999). 2. There is no exhaustive and cohesive body of prior literature due to paucity of research (noble 1999; hutzschenreuter and kleindienst 2006). 3. The existing content of research on strategy implementation is widely spread and fragmented. Although strategy implementation is a function of multiple variables that must receive an integrated approach to understand the interactive effects; however they have received only differentiated attention in both strategic management and organisational behavior literature (hrebiniak and Joyce 2001) 4. There is no agreed upon and dominant frame work in strategy implementation (hutzschenreuter and kleindienst 2006) This has hampered both practioners and researchers alike (noble 1999, Alexander 1991). This has resulted in lack of a starting or reference point for practioners to use for their guidance and researchers, a model to build upon. The literature on the implementation frame works while listing out the variables affecting the implementation process, has not looked at how these variables interact and influence other variables and how these interaction effects affect the overall implementation process and the outcome (Okumus 2003). Methodological issues: Implementation has to be viewed along with strategy content. Strategy content literature can be grouped as those dealing with diversification, mergers and acquisitions, collaborative strategies, competitive strategies, and innovations driven strategies. Except literature on innovations which has dealt with factors influencing adoption of it; all other streams have looked at strategy contentperformance link without considering the organisation variables which represent the implementation process (Ginsberg and Venkatraman 1985; Dess et al 1995). Research in strategic management has predominantly been cross sectional in nature, concentrating mostly on simple bivariate relationships and has been plagued with the problems of multiple definitions of constructs (Ginsberg and venkatraman; hutzschenreuter and kleindienst 2006). The use of configurations

13

as a methodological principle offers potential to help in providing more useful explanations of the strategy process (hutzschenreuter and kleindienst 2006; miller 1996). In recent times there has been a proliferation of use of in depth single and multiple case studies, but large surveys still predominate. Longitudinal studies are rare, although as a method are gaining in use (Pettigrew et al 2002; hutzschenreuter and kleindienst 2006). Gaps in literature The gaps in literature concerned with implementation are: 1. The need to look at strategy as an integrated and dynamic process. Research concerning formulation and implementation is better if done together as strategy process research. Strategy process has been identified at various times as an important facet of strategic management research (gopinath and Hoffman 1995, Pettigrew et al 2002, hitt 2005). Study of the process is study of simultaneously occurring activities and their linkages. 2. The extension of the only process model (resource allocation model) dealing with strategy process to include performance outcomes and test its application in service and public utility organisations. 3. There is a need for achieving integration of the fragmented and dispersed pieces of research on strategy implementation. This requires a model which would look at the variables involved in implementation in an integrated way, duly looking at the interactive effects of the variables( hrebiniak and Joyce 2001; Chakravarty and Roderick 2002; Pettigrew et al 2002) 4. Lack of a good process model which explains the implementation process duly accounting for the interactive effects of variables influencing it and which would be more practioner and researcher friendly. Conclusion Strategy implementation is important but difficult because implementation activities take a longer time frame than formulation, involves more people and greater task complexity, and has a need for sequential and simultaneous thinking on part of implementation managers (hrebiniak and Joyce 2001). In view of these factors, research into strategy implementation is also difficult for it entails the need to look at it over time ( longitudinal studies); presents conceptual and methodological challenges as it involves multiple variables which interact with each other and show reciprocal causality(fajourn 2000). Topic of implementation is a neglected and overlooked area in strategic management literature. Published research reveals emphasis on strategy formulation. Strategy formulation and implementation are complementary and logically distinguishable areas of strategic management and part of the overall process of planning executing and adapting. More Research on implementation has been done in organizational theory and development than in strategic management. Implementation research needs to be interdisciplinary. The importance of implementation can be gauged from the study of Joyce (2000) which showed that firms with unusually high performance and firms which turned around their performance relied upon key activities of strategic direction, building a fast and effective organisation, establishing an adaptive culture and executing against focus of customer needs and cost (hrebiniak and Joyce 2001 hand book of strategy).

14