You are on page 1of 12

A framework to implement strategies in

organizations

Fevzi Okumus
School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR China, and School of Tourism and
Hospitality Management, Mugla University, Mugla, Turkey

Keywords In short, a comprehensive implementation


Corporate strategy, Introduction framework has yet to be developed in the
Strategic objectives,
Bartlett and Ghoshal (1987, p. 12) noted that strategic management field and this paper
Strategic management,
Organizational change in all the companies they studied ``the issue therefore aims to achieve this. The main
was not a poor understanding of objectives of this paper are to identify and
Abstract evaluate those factors that play a significant
The implementation of strategy,
environmental forces or inappropriate
strategic intent. Without exception, they role in implementing strategies, and to
directly or indirectly, relates to all
facets of management. Therefore, knew what they had to do; their difficulties propose a framework to explain and better
it is essential to follow a holistic understand complex issues of strategy
lay in how to achieve the necessary changes''.
approach when analyzing and implementation.
evaluating complex issues of Supporting this, Miller (2002) reports that
implementation. However, organizations fail to implement more than
research in this area is still 70 percent of their new strategic initiatives.
limited, and offers few practical
Given the significance of this area, the focus
Previous research into strategy
propositions. Given this situation, implementation
this article proposes an in the field of strategic management has now
implementation framework by shifted from the formulation of strategy to its One of the most cited implementation
identifying key elements/factors implementation (Hussey, 1998; Lorange, 1998; frameworks was proposed by Waterman et al.
of implementation and (1980). Based on their research and
categorizing them into different Wilson, 1994). There are some commonly
groups depending on their role and used models and frameworks such as SWOT, consultancy work, these authors argued that
importance. The role and industry structure analysis and generic effective strategy implementation is
importance of each essentially attending to the relationship
strategies for researchers and practicing
implementation factor, as well as between the following seven factors:
its relationship with other factors, managers in the areas of strategy analysis
1 strategy;
are explained. It is believed that and formulation in strategic management. By
the framework developed in this 2 structure;
contrast, there is no agreed-upon and
article can assist executives and 3 systems;
researchers to better understand dominant framework in strategy 4 style;
and evaluate complex factors of implementation. Concerning this, Alexander 5 staff;
implementation and deal with (1991, p. 74) has stated that:
challenges from a holistic
6 skills; and
One key reason why implementation fails is 7 subordinate goals.
perspective. Suggestions for
that practicing executives, managers and
practice and future research are
also given. supervisors do not have practical, yet Although Waterman et al. defined and
theoretically sound, models to guide their discussed each of these factors individually,
actions during implementation. Without they did not provide clear examples and
adequate models, they try to implement explanations for the relationships and
strategies without a good understanding of interactions between factors. Nor did they
the multiple factors that must be addressed, evaluate how their relationships actually
often simultaneously, to make make strategy implementation happen. The
implementation work. conceptual frameworks developed by Stonich
Noble (1999b, p. 132) has further noted that: (1982), Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984), Galbraith
There is a significant need for detailed and and Kazanjian (1986) and Reed and Buckley
comprehensive conceptual models related to (1988) consist of explicit key implementation
strategy implementation. To date, factors. These were the first implementation
implementation research has been fairly frameworks to have appeared in the field of
fragmented due to a lack of clear models on strategic management; however, none have
Management Decision which to build. subsequently been empirically tested. An
41/9 [2003] 871-882
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0025-1747] The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
[DOI 10.1108/00251740310499555] http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

[ 871 ]
Fevzi Okumus analysis of these frameworks reveals competing in global industries. These
A framework to implement important similarities among them. For authors identified six factors, which they
strategies in organizations example, they consist of similar factors argued should each be designed specifically
Management Decision including strategy formulation, in order to implement global or
41/9 [2003] 871-882
organizational structure, culture, people, multi-domestic strategies. These factors are:
communication, control and outcome. In 1 coordination;
their conceptual studies, Alexander (1991), 2 managerial philosophy;
Judson (1995), Miller and Dess (1996) and 3 configuration;
Thomspson and Strickland (1999) also 4 formalization;
discussed and referred to similar 5 centralization; and
implementation factors. 6 integrating mechanisms.
Hambrick and Cannella (1989) proposed an
implementation framework based on an The results of their research indicated that
empirical research project in a global and multi-domestic strategies require
multi-business company. They noted that different implementation requirements.
their research findings support the They found that when there was a proper
propositions of frameworks devised by alignment between strategy, administrative
Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984) and Galbraith mechanisms and organizational capabilities,
and Kazanjian (1986). However, in it was much easier to implement the strategy
comparison with other studies, they and achieve the desired objectives. They
emphasized the role and importance of therefore suggested that the administrative
communication when implementing systems and capabilities of the organization
strategies. A further framework developed by should be readjusted if the intended strategy
Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) for managing was to achieve its aims.
strategic change consists of five factors: Hrebiniak (1992) proposed a conceptual
environmental assessment, leading change, framework to implement strategies in global
human resources, linking strategic and firms. He incorporated earlier work carried
operational change and coherence. There are out by himself and Joyce in (Hrebiniak and
also a number of sub-mechanisms under each Joyce, 1984), and suggested the following new
factor such as justifying the need for change, specific implementation factors:
using rewards, designing plans and . leadership;
monitoring. . facilitating global learning;
In their empirical research, Skivington . developing global managers;
and Daft (1991) investigated the . having a matrix structure; and
implementation of 57 decisions in integrated . working with external companies.
circuits, petroleum, and health care
Another framework, consisting of four
organizations. These authors first identified
factors, was proposed by Yip (1992):
several factors; namely:
1 organizational structure;
. intended strategy;
2 culture;
. structure;
3 people; and
. systems;
4 managerial processes.
. interactions; and
. sanctions. Yip argued that these four factors and their
They then divided them into two groups: individual elements determine the crucial
1 framework; and organizational forces that affect a company's
2 process factors. ability to formulate and implement
strategies. Bryson and Bromiley (1993)
Unlike other empirical and conceptual reported the results of a quantitative
studies, this research was specifically cross-sectional analysis of 68 case
designed to investigate which framework and descriptions of major projects in public
process factors need to be used when companies. These researchers identified
implementing differentiation or low-cost several factors and grouped them into three
strategies. The findings of this research categories; namely:
indicate that both framework and process 1 context;
factors could be used in implementing either 2 process; and
low-cost or differentiation decisions. 3 outcome.
Roth et al. (1991) empirically examined the
importance of international strategy on They then aimed to statistically illustrate
organizational design and its influence on how certain context factors influence the
the strategy implementation process. A process factors and, subsequently, the
quantitative research strategy was employed outcome. However, their research results are
and data was collected from 82 business units not conclusive in terms of clearly illustrating
[ 872 ]
Fevzi Okumus the relationships between the context and are cited above, Okumus (2001) identified a
A framework to implement process factors. number of implementation factors and
strategies in organizations Schmelzer and Olsen (1994) developed and constructed a conceptual framework by
Management Decision empirically tested an implementation categorizing those factors into four
41/9 [2003] 871-882
framework in three restaurant firms. A case groupings:
study approach was chosen for the primary 1 content;
research. Upper, middle and lower level 2 context;
managers were interviewed and the relevant 3 process; and
documents of participant companies were 4 outcome.
analyzed. Schmelzer and Olsen identified 14
He then investigated the implementation
factors, grouped them into context and
process factors, and further into primary and process of two strategic decisions in two
secondary factors. They then developed international companies via interviews,
several propositions to explain associations observations and document analysis. His
between the implementation factors. These research findings indicated that the factors
authors referred to strategy implementation identified earlier were found to be crucial in
as a progression from context to process and the implementation process of both
argued that the two components work companies. In addition, multiple project
together to make strategy happen. They implementation, organizational learning and
identified a number of factors, such as working with external companies were also
perceived environmental uncertainty, identified as new implementation factors.
organizational culture, information systems, Based on the research findings and
training, the size and geographic dispersion incorporating the new factors, Okumus
of the company, the life cycle of the company proposed a new framework and stated that it
and the demographic background of the is the combination of all factors working
managers. However, the factors of together that makes the transformation
environmental uncertainty, organizational process possible. However, the process
culture, information systems and training factors are primarily used in a synergistic
have all been referred to in most previous manner in an ongoing process, but
frameworks. understanding and manipulating the context
Feurer et al. (1995) found that Hewlett- in which strategies are implemented is
Packard mainly followed a structured particularly important. Okumus further
approach to formulate and implement claimed that strategic decisions are often
strategy. In particular, the strategies in this implemented without having a proper fit
company were developed by special between the strategy and the implementation
cross-functional task forces, and then were factors. Any inconsistency with one factor
implemented mainly by business units. influences the other factors and,
Feurer et al. (1995) referred to the strategy subsequently, the success of the
development and implementation process in implementation process. Therefore it is not
Hewlett-Packard as a learning process that always feasible to achieve coherence between
was facilitated by the company's implementation factors in situations of
organizational structure and culture. Miller dynamic and complex change.
(1997) investigated the implementation The balanced scorecard technique has been
process of 11 strategic decisions in six private linked to strategy implementation in recent
and public companies. She did not years (Creelman, 1998; Epstein and Manzoni,
specifically propose an implementation 1998; Kaplan and Norton, 1996, 2001). This
framework; however, based on in-depth technique aims to provide executives with a
interviews in sample organizations, she concise summary of the key success factors of
identified and evaluated ten factors and a business, and to facilitate the alignment of
further categorized them into realizers and business operations with the overall
enablers. Realizing factors include backing, strategy. It has four angles:
assessability, specificity, cultural receptivity 1 the financial perspective;
and propitiousness; whereas enabling factors 2 customer perspective;
are familiarity, priority, resource 3 internal business perspective; and
availability, structural facilitation and 4 the learning and growth perspective.
flexibility. Miller concluded that realizers
are more critical in implementing strategic The overall idea behind this technique is that
decisions, whereas enablers are more organizations are advised to align their
heterogeneous and their combined effect is performance measures in these four
not as powerful as realizers. perspectives. The developer of the technique,
Further to reviewing previous Kaplan and Norton (1996, 2000) suggested five
implementation frameworks, most of which principles:
[ 873 ]
Fevzi Okumus 1 translate the strategy to operational BergadaaÁ's (1999) four-step and De Feo and
A framework to implement terms; Janssen's (2001) ten-stage models. There are
strategies in organizations 2 align the organization to the strategy; important similarities among these works in
Management Decision 3 make strategy everyone's job; proposing certain tasks to be undertaken, or
41/9 [2003] 871-882
4 make strategy a continual process; and certain aims to be achieved at each stage of
5 mobilize change through leadership. the implementation process. These studies
also referred to similar implementation
In terms of using the balance scorecard
factors, including organizational structure,
approach in implementing strategies, Kaplan
culture, planning, resource allocation,
and Norton (1996) identified four main
communication and incentives to be
implementation factors:
considered or used at different stages of the
1 clarifying and translating the vision and
implementation process.
strategy;
2 communication and linking;
3 planning and target setting; and
4 strategic feedback and learning. Towards an implementation
framework
Some sub-factors or tasks are also identified
There are important similarities between the
under each factor. Contrary to the claim of
previous frameworks in terms of the key
``being the best practice in strategy
factors forwarded and the assumptions made.
implementation'' (Creelman, 1998), the
For example, they generally refer to, and
balance scorecard technique neither solves
suggest, similar implementation factors. The
all implementation problems nor provides
overriding assumption of these frameworks
new insights into strategy implementation.
is that multiple factors should be considered
This is because, first, these four
simultaneously when developing and
implementation factors (and sub-factors) are
implementing a strategy or strategic
very similar to the factors that have been
decision. Some frameworks combine several
identified by previous scholars of
elements under one factor while others refer
implementation. Second, as stated by
to each of these areas as a key factor. For
Nùrreklit (2000), the balanced scorecard is
example, in the frameworks proposed by
mainly a control mechanism, suggesting a
Galbraith and Kazanjian (1986), Okumus
top-down approach with limited
(2001), Stonich (1982) and Waterman et al.
participation from lower levels. In this
(1980), the issues related to managers and
technique, strategy development and
employees are incorporated under a separate
implementation are regarded as separate
factor entitled ``people'' or ``staff''. In the
phases. In addition, the technique does not
frameworks developed by Hrebiniak and
give much emphasis on or many
Joyce (1984) and Schmelzer and Olsen (1994)
explanations of problems in the strategy
manager's style, incentives and training are
implementation process involving conflicts
presented as individual factors. In some
and power struggles among interest groups,
frameworks such as Stonich (1982) and
organizational culture, resource allocation
Waterman et al. (1980) systems include
and training.
planning, resource allocations, budgeting
A number of recent studies on strategy
and rewards.
implementation (Aaltonen and Ikavalko,
However, each framework includes
2002; Dobni, 2003; Freedman, 2003; Linton,
different numbers and types of factors and
2002) identify similar implementation
some frameworks identify more factors than
factors. These include:
others. In addition, various titles are given to
. an organizational structure and culture
similar factors. For example, communication
that is receptive to change;
is also called interactions (Skivington and
. the backing of senior executives,
Daft, 1991), information systems (Schmelzer
developing the management systems and
and Olsen, 1994) and selling the strategy
skills for change;
(Hambrick and Cannella, 1989). Strategy
. communication activities;
formulation is referred to as strategy,
. the commitment of employees to the
business strategy, intended strategy, market
company's vision, providing incentives
strategy, vision, new strategy and strategic
and achieving coalignment between
decision. Outcome is referred as results and
implementation factors.
success. A further issue is that some
Unlike the above frameworks, several frameworks have a starting point, which is
conceptual studies propose linear usually the formulation of strategy
implementation models such as Vasconcellos (Hambrick and Cannella, 1989; Hrebiniak,
e Sa's (1990) ten-step, Noble's (1999) 1992; Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984; Galbraith
four-stage, Galpin's (1997) six-stage, and Kazanjian, 1986; Skivington and Daft,
[ 874 ]
Fevzi Okumus 1991; Stonich, 1982); whereas some other A further similarity between these
A framework to implement frameworks, such those proposed by Miller frameworks is that previous researchers
strategies in organizations
(1997), Schmelzer and Olsen (1994) and have grouped the implementation factors
Management Decision Waterman et al. (1980), do not specifically
41/9 [2003] 871-882 into a number of categories as follows:
point to a starting point when looking at . context, process and outcomes (Bryson
strategy implementation. and Bromiley, 1993);
From an analysis of the previous . planning and design (Hrebiniak and
frameworks discussed above, 11 key Joyce, 1984);
implementation factors can be identified. . realizers and enablers (Miller, 1997);
These are: . content, context and operation (Dawson,
1 strategy development; 1994);
2 environmental uncertainty; . content, context, process and outcome
3 organizational structure; (Pettigrew, 1987, 1992; Okumus, 2001);
4 organizational culture; . framework and process components
5 leadership; (Skivington and Daft, 1991);
6 operational planning; . context and process (Schmelzer and Olsen,
7 resource allocation;
1994);
8 communication; . contextual, system and action levers
9 people;
(Miller and Dess, 1996).
10 control; and
11 outcome. Four areas of groupings emerge from an
analysis of the above categories. Considering
However, these factors are common
the role and characteristics of each
suggestions of key elements for consideration
when implementing strategy, this list should implementation factor, those 11
not therefore be regarded as a definitive one. implementation factors identified earlier can
Regarding the use, design and characteristics further be grouped into four categories:
of the implementation factors, each school of strategic content, strategic context, process
thought in the field of strategic management and outcome (see Figure 1).
has its own assumptions and suggestions 1 Strategic content includes the development
(Mintzberg et al.1998; Okumus and Roper, of strategy.
1999; Stacey, 1996). With the exception of the 2 Strategic context is further divided into
``configurational'' and the ``complexity'' external and internal context. The former
views, each school of thought requires or includes environmental uncertainty and
advocates a standard design for each factor. the internal context includes
For example, the ``planning school'' organizational structure, culture and
advocates a stable environment, a centralized leadership.
organizational structure, formal and 3 Operational process includes operational
top-down communication activities and planning, resource allocation, people,
standard formal planning and resource communication and control.
allocation activities; while the ``learning'' 4 Outcome includes results of the
school requires a decentralized implementation process.
organizational structure, bottom-up and
informal communication, flexible planning In order to provide further clarification, the
and resource allocation activities. According role and importance of each implementation
to the configurational school, the factor in the strategy implementation process
environment can be both stable and dynamic, is explained below:
the organizational structure should allow
flexibility and participation from different Strategic content
levels of management and the Strategy development refers to why and how
communication systems should allow strategy is initiated. Key areas to be
top-down, bottom-up and informal and formal considered are:
modes of communication. Finally, the . The new strategy should be consistent
complexity view states that it is difficult or with the overall strategic direction of the
even misleading to require standard factors company.
for each situation, as strategy . The aims of the new initiative should be
implementation is an evolving process; clearly identified.
therefore, it may not be possible to have and . The expertise and knowledge of strategy
maintain a certain pattern of factors. developers in managing change are
Previous studies on strategy implementation crucial.
did not appear to specifically advocate any . Active participation from all levels of
implementation approach. management is recommended.
[ 875 ]
Fevzi Okumus . The potential impact of ongoing and coordination and cooperation between
A framework to implement future projects on the new initiative different levels of management and
strategies in organizations
should be considered. functional areas.
Management Decision The potential impact of the new strategy
41/9 [2003] 871-882
. . The potential impact of the new strategy
on other ongoing strategic projects should on informal networks, politics and key
be assessed. shareholders.
. The attitude of powerful groups towards
External context this new strategy.
Environmental uncertainty: the degree of . The potential challenges of using the
uncertainty and changes in the task and
existing organizational structure when
general environments. The main issues are:
using process variables including
. Changes and developments in the general
operational planning, communication and
and task environments require a new
strategy. resource allocations.
. The new strategy should be appropriate to Organizational culture: the shared
the market conditions, trends and understanding of employees about how they
developments in the external do things within an organization. Issues to be
environment until the implementation
considered are:
process is completed. . The company's culture and subcultures
and their possible impact on the
Internal context
Organizational structure: the shape, division implementation process.
. The impact of organizational culture on
of labor, job duties and responsibilities, the
distribution of power and decision-making communication, coordination and
procedures within the company. Issues to be cooperation between different
considered are: management and functional levels.
. The potential changes in duties, roles,
. The implications of the new strategy on
decision-making and reporting the company's culture and subcultures.
relationships due to the new strategy. . Efforts and activities to change the
. Whether the organizational structure company's overall culture and
facilitates the free flow of information, subcultures and potential challenges.

Figure 1
Strategy implementation framework

[ 876 ]
Fevzi Okumus Leadership: the actual support and . The types of training activities to develop
A framework to implement involvement of the CEO in the strategic and prepare relevant managers and
strategies in organizations initiative. Leadership is crucial in using employees.
Management Decision process factors and also in manipulating the . The provision of incentives related to
41/9 [2003] 871-882
internal context to create a context receptive strategy implementation and their
to change. Key issues to be considered are: implications.
. The actual involvement of the CEO in the . The impact of company's overall HRM
strategy development and implementation policies and practices on implementing
process. new strategies.
. Level of support and backing from the
Communication: the mechanisms that send
CEO to the new strategy until it is
formal and informal messages about the new
completed.
strategy. The main issues are:
. Open and covert messages coming from . Operational plans, training programs and
the CEO about the project and its
incentives can be used as communication
importance.
materials.
. The use of clear messages when informing
Organizational process
relevant people within and outside the
Operational planning: The process of
organization.
initiating the project, and the operational . The implications of using (or not using)
planning of the implementation activities
multiple modes of communication
and tasks. Operational planning has a great
(top-down, bottom-up, lateral, formal,
deal of impact on allocating resources,
informal, internal, external, one-time and
communicating, and providing training and
continuous communication)
incentives. Key issues to be considered are: . The problems and difficulties related to
. Preparing and planning implementation
communication and their actual causes.
activities. . The impact of organizational structure,
. Participation and feedback from different
culture and leadership on selling the new
levels of management and functional
strategy.
areas in preparing these operational plans
and implementation activities. Control and feedback: the formal and
. Initial pilot projects and the knowledge informal mechanisms that allow the efforts
gained from them. and results of implementation to be
. The time scale of making resources monitored and compared against
available and using them. predetermined objectives. The main issues
are:
Resource allocation: the process of ensuring . Formal and monitoring activities carried
that all necessary time, financial resources,
out during and after the implementation
skills and knowledge are made available. It is
process.
closely linked with operational planning and . Communication and operational plans are
has a great deal of impact on communicating
key to monitoring the process and
and on providing training and incentives.
providing feedback about its progress.
Key issues to be considered are:
. The procedures of securing and allocating Outcome: the intended and unintended
financial resources for the new strategy. results of the implementation process, which
. Information and knowledge requirements can be tangible and intangible. Key issues to
for the process of implementing a new be considered are:
strategy. . Whether the new strategy has been
. The time available to complete the implemented according to the plan. If not,
implementation process. the reasons for this.
. Political and cultural issues within the . Whether predetermined objectives have
company and their impact on resource been achieved. If not, the reasons for this.
allocation. . Whether the outcomes are satisfactory to
those involved in, and affected by, the
People: recruiting new staff, providing
process.
training and incentives for relevant . Whether the company has learned
employees. Operational planning and
anything from the strategy
resource allocation have a direct impact on
implementation process.
this factor. Key issues to be considered are:
. The recruitment of relevant staff for the In addition, the relationship of each factor
new strategy implementation. with other implementation elements and its
. The acquisition and development of new potential impact on the implementation
skills and knowledge to implement the process is also explained in the same list. It is
new strategy. believed that the framework developed above
[ 877 ]
Fevzi Okumus and explanations given above can help proposed above both emphasizes the
A framework to implement practicing managers and researchers when importance of content, context, process and
strategies in organizations outcome and also explains the potential role
they examine and evaluate complex cases of
Management Decision implementation. In the proposed framework, and importance of each factor in the process.
41/9 [2003] 871-882
strategy implementation is seen as a process The implementation factors in these four
that occurs in the strategic context. The groupings in Figure 1 should not be
strategic content is viewed as the strategic considered separately. This is because, as
direction of the company and the need to explained, a factor in one group can influence
design new initiatives. Strategies are the other factors in the same and in other
initiated and implemented in a strategic groups, then subsequently the outcome of the
context and the implementation factors in whole change process. This means that the
this grouping greatly influence the implementation process needs to be
implementation process (Bryson and examined and evaluated from a holistic
Bromiley, 1993; Okumus, 2001; Schmelzer and perspective over a long period of time, which
Olsen, 1994). The process factors primarily is referred to as the contextual and
utilized in the implementation process and processual approach.
the outcome are seen as the expected and According to this approach, in order to
unexpected results of the initiated strategy. understand and evaluate the implementation
When considering the strategy process, researchers and executives need to
implementation process in multiple sites, adapt a more comprehensive view and look at
particularly in international firms, the type content, context, process and outcome
and characteristics of implementation simultaneously (Dawson, 1994; Pettigrew,
factors in each region/site should be 1987, 1997). On the other hand, Argyris (1988)
analyzed and necessary actions should be and Buchanan and Boddy (1992) have stated
taken to prevent or overcome potential that it may not be possible for everyone to
barriers and problems. understand and evaluate the content, context
and process simultaneously, as more time
and resources are required in such an
` ... The overriding assumption among a very high majority of the approach.
frameworks discussed is that there must be ``coherence'' among the However, the contextual and processual
implementation factors if the strategy implementation process is to approach has received more support and
be successful... ' attention in recent years, since it provides a
more comprehensive view for understanding
and evaluating complex transformation
processes (Dawson, 1997; Hailey and Balogun,
Previous frameworks on strategy
2002; Pettigrew, 1997; Okumus, 2001). This is
implementation can be categorized into three
because having just a single focus for change
groupings.
and ignoring the wider context provides very
1 Frameworks in the first grouping
limited understanding about the issues and
developed by Hambrick and Cannella
their actual reasons. Following such a
(1989), Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984), Stonich
holistic approach is essential in evaluating
(1982), and Waterman et al. (1980) tend to
the best implementation options, challenges
simply list and describe the and enablers. In terms of practical
implementation factors. implications, considering these areas can
2 Frameworks in the second grouping help executives and middle managers to
(Vasconcellos e Sa (1990), Noble (1999), understand the wider implications of the
Galpin (1997), BergadaaÁ (1999) and De Feo processes of change in their organizations. It
and Janssen (2001) suggest rational will encourage them to not simply focus on a
step-by-step implementation models that specific part of the company, but also on
are often difficult to follow in complex other functional areas, customers and
situations of implementation. competitors.
3 Frameworks developed by Pettigrew The overriding assumption among a very
(1987), Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) and high majority of the frameworks discussed
Dawson (1994) emphasize the importance above is that there must be ``coherence''
of context and process but do not provide among the implementation factors if the
detailed explanations and discussions strategy implementation process is to be
about which implementation factors are successful. For example, Thompson and
important, what their specific roles are Strickland (1999) commented that:
and their impact on the implementation . . . the stronger the fits, the better the
process. execution of strategy.

Having identified the limitations of each Stonich (1982) argued that the effective
group, the implementation framework implementation of strategy requires a
[ 878 ]
Fevzi Okumus constant effort to match together the basic informal working groups and networks, and
A framework to implement elements that drive the organization. allow for the emergence of internal conflicts
strategies in organizations Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984, p. 17) stated that: among departments and groups. These
Management Decision . . . everything depends upon everything else mechanisms will help to challenge existing
41/9 [2003] 871-882 in strategy implementation mental models and eventually allow, and
and that therefore there should be harmony perhaps force, the company to invent and
among the key implementation factors. A create new ways of developing and
whole range of questions can be directed at implementing strategies even if there is no
practicing managers concerning how a coherence between implementation factors.
``harmony'' can be achieved and maintained.
Some sample questions for managers and
executives may include whether the Conclusions and recommendations
environment fits the strategy, culture and
This article has provided a comprehensive
structure, or whether the proposed decision
review of strategy implementation literature
fits the organizational structure, culture,
and, based on this, proposed an
resources and people. Such questions can
implementation framework. The article
assist in assessing and evaluating the
neither suggests an implementation model
implementation process and perhaps help to
that is linear and prescriptive, nor views
diagnose potential problems and barriers to
strategy formulation and implementation as
the strategy implementation process in
different phases. This is because strategy
advance. Previous studies by Alexander
implementation is far too complex to be
(1985), Kotter (1995) and Strabel (1996)
explained by prescriptive linear models. In
found that the main barriers to the
order to understand implementation issues
implementation of strategies include
and make the right choices, it is essential
implementation taking more time than
that researchers and practicing managers
planned, poor communication, lack of
should place themselves in a position where
coordination and support from other levels of
they can make informed judgments about the
management, resistance from lower levels
process of strategy implementation, rather
and lack of or poor planning activities. It
appears that these challenges and barriers than following ready-made solutions. To be
are all related to individual implementation able to do this, managers and researchers are
factors and also not being able to achieving advised to employ a holistic approach to
coherence between these factors. viewing the formulation and implementation
Potential implementation challenges and of strategy, and then evaluate how the
barriers can perhaps be foreseen and implementation factors interact with each
overcome by clearly assessing the other and how they impact on the process.
implementation factors and the relationships The framework developed above allows
among them that are illustrated in Figure 1 managers to view strategy formulation and
and explained in earlier. implementation together.
Given the complex, dynamic nature of Previous studies on strategy
implementation situations, it may really be implementation provided partial
difficult or in some cases even impossible to explanations and examples of how
achieve and maintain coherence between implementation factors interact with and
implementation factors. Therefore, it is influence other factors, what the exact nature
perhaps essential to understand how of the interactions is, and how the
strategies can be implemented without interactions help or prevent companies
having a proper coherence between the achieving coherence between strategy and
implementation factors. In this regard, the key implementation factors. As illustrated in
complexity school of thought in the field of the framework and explained in Table 1, this
strategic management (Stacey, 1995) provides paper provides explanations about the role
valuable propositions. According to the and importance of each implementation
complexity view, successful companies are factor and its relationship with other factors.
those that operate in a state of Concerning practical implications, the
non-equilibrium or ``bounded instability''. implementation framework and the
It is not good for companies to aim to guidelines can assist executives and
achieve ``coherence'' between the researchers in a number of ways. The
environment and the internal systems of the framework developed in this article can be
company, particularly as certain factors such used for a retrospective analysis of past,
as organizational structure, culture and the current and future cases of strategy
company's environment are constantly implementation. The strategy content, the
changing or evolving. Companies should characteristics of the external and internal
therefore attempt to develop diverse cultures, context, the operational process and the
[ 879 ]
Fevzi Okumus outcome can be evaluated for specific the limited amount of research in the area,
A framework to implement implementation cases. Specific questions can future studies can investigate how
strategies in organizations
be asked about the role and impact of each international or global firms implement their
Management Decision implementation factor on the process of strategies globally. Finally, it is evident that
41/9 [2003] 871-882
change and, subsequently, the outcome. most of the previous studies on strategy
Finally, the challenges, problems and implementation have been undertaken in
difficulties of implementation can be Anglo-Saxon countries particularly the USA
predicted and evaluated using the framework and the UK. Learning more about how
and checkpoints. The framework can further companies in other countries and cultures
be used for group discussions and training are developing and implementing their
workshops on strategy implementation. strategies would also provide new insights on
strategic management.
` ... Future studies should follow the processual research approach
and collect empirical data in organizations from the top, middle References
Aaltonen, P. and Ikavalko, H. (2002),
and lower levels of management by employing both quantitative
``Implementing strategies successfully'',
and qualitative data-collecting techniques over a long period of
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13
time. Only in these ways will a deeper and richer understanding of
No. 6, pp. 415-18.
strategy implementation be gained... '
Alexander, L.D. (1985), ``Successfully
implementing strategic decisions'', Long
Range Planning, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-7.
Linking with the above issue, providing Alexander, L.D. (1991), ``Strategy implementation:
change management training programs for nature of the problem'', in Hussey, D. (Ed.),
middle and top managers should be seen as a International Review of Strategic
necessity in today's organizations. This is Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, John Wiley & Sons,
because organizations now face problems Chichester/New York, NY, pp. 73-96.
most when implementing their strategic Argyris, C. (1988), ``Review assay: first- and
initiatives. Therefore, the expertise and second-order errors in managing strategic
knowledge of executives and middle change: the role of organizational defensive
managers in strategy implementation are routines'', in Pettigrew, A.M. (Ed.), The
crucial. This is because directly or indirectly, Management of Strategic Change, Basil
many executives and managers are engaged Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 342-51.
in developing and implementing strategic Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1987), ``Managing
decisions or projects that have wider across borders: new strategic requirements'',
implications on many other functional areas. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2,
They may have sufficient knowledge and pp. 7-17.
experience in their own functional areas, but BergadaaÁ, M. (1999), ``Strategic decision and
they still need to be trained to manage implementation: Prodin2, a prospective
complex cases of implementation. Thus, it is dialectic interpersonal model'', Journal of
essential that senior executives and middle Business Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 211-20.
managers be trained about how best to put Bryson, J. and Bromiley, P. (1993), ``Critical
their strategies into practice in complex and factors affecting the planning and
dynamic environments. implementation of major projects'', Strategic
For future research studies, a number of Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 319-37.
Buchanan, D. and Boddy, D. (1992), The Expertise
suggestions can be given. The framework
of the Change Agent: Public Performance
developed in this study can be empirically
and Backstage Activity, Prentice-Hall,
tested and improved by investigating cases of
New York, NY.
strategy implementation in organizations.
Creelman, J. (1998), Building and Implementing a
Concerning research methods, future studies
Balanced Score-card, International Best
should follow the processual research
Practice in Strategy Implementation, Business
approach and collect empirical data in
Intelligence Unit, London.
organizations from the top, middle and lower Dawson, P. (1994), Organizational Change, A
levels of management by employing both Processual Approach, Sage Publications,
quantitative and qualitative data-collecting London.
techniques over a long period of time. Only in Dawson, P. (1997), ``In at the deep end: conducting
these ways will a deeper and richer processual research on organizational
understanding of strategy implementation be change'', Scandinavian Journal of
gained. Comparative research studies in Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 389-405.
service and manufacturing firms or public De Feo, J.A. and Janssen, A. (2001),
and private firms can certainly provide ``Implementing a strategy successfully'',
invaluable propositions for the theory and Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 4,
practice of strategy implementation. Given pp. 4-6.

[ 880 ]
Fevzi Okumus Dobni, B. (2003), ``Creating a strategy Organization Studies, Vol. 18 No. 4,
A framework to implement implementation'', Business Horizons, Vol. 46 pp. 577-602.
strategies in organizations No. 2, March-April, pp. 43-6. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J.
Management Decision Epstein, M. and Manzoni, J. (1998), (1998), Strategy Safari, Prentice-Hall, London.
41/9 [2003] 871-882 ``Implementing corporate strategy: from Noble, C.H. (1999), ``The eclectic roots of strategy
tableaux de board to balanced score-cards'', implementation research'', Journal of
European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, Business Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 119-34.
pp. 190-203. Nùrreklit, H. (2000), ``The balanced score-card ± a
Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K. and Wargin, J. (1995), critical analysis of some of its assumptions'',
``Analysis of strategy formulation and Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11
implementation at Hewlett-Packard'', No. 1, pp. 65-88.
Management Decision, Vol. 33 No. 10, Okumus, F. (2001), ``Towards a strategy
pp. 4-16. implementation framework'', International
Freedman, M. (2003), ``The genius is in the Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
implementation'', Journal of Business Management, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 327-38.
Strategy, March-April, pp. 26-31. Okumus, F. and Roper, A. (1999), ``A review of
Galbraith, J. and Kazanjian, R. (1986), Strategy disparate approaches to strategy
Implementation: Structure Systems and implementation in hospitality firms'',
Process, 2nd ed., West Publishing Company, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
New York, NY. Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 20-38.
Galpin, T.J. (1997), Making Strategy Work, Pettigrew, A.M. (1987), ``Context and action in the
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. transformation of the firm'', Journal of
Hambrick, D. and Cannella, A. (1989), ``Strategy Management Studies, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 649-70.
implementation as substance and selling'', Pettigrew, A.M. (1992), ``The character and
The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3 significance of strategy process research'',
No. 4, pp. 278-85. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1,
Hrebiniak, L. (1992), ``Implementing global
pp. 5-16.
strategies'', European Management Journal,
Pettigrew, A.M. (1997), ``What is a processual
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 392-5.
analysis?'', Scandinavian Journal of
Hrebiniak, L. and Joyce, W. (1984), Implementing
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 337-48.
Strategy, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Pettigrew, A.M. and Whipp. R. (1991),
Hussey, D. (1998), ``Strategic management: past
Managing Change for Competitive Success,
experiences and future directions'', in
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Hussey, D. (Ed.), The Strategic Decision
Reed, R. and Buckley, M. (1988), ``Strategy in
Challenge, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester/
action ± techniques for implementing
New York, NY, pp. 1-28.
strategy'', Long Range Planning, Vol. 21 No. 3,
Judson, A.S. (1995), Making Strategy Happen,
pp. 67-74.
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Roth, K., Schweiger, M. and Morrison, J. (1991),
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The
``Global strategy implementation at unit level:
Balanced Score-card ± Translating Strategy
operational capabilities and administrative
into Action, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA. mechanisms'', Journal of International
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001), The Business Studies, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 369-402.
Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Schmelzer, C. and Olsen, M. (1994), ``A data-based
Score-card Companies Thrive in the New strategy-implementing framework for
Business Environment, Harvard Business companies in the restaurant industry'',
School Press, Boston, MA. International Journal of Hospitality
Kotter, J. P. (1995). ``Leading change: why Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 347-59.
transformation efforts fail'', Harvard Business Skivington, E.J. and Daft, L.R. (1991), ``A study of
Review, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 59-67. organizational framework and process
Linton, J.D. (2002), ``Implementation research: modalities for the implementation of business
state-of-the-art and future directions'', level strategic decisions'', Journal of
Technovation, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 65-79. Management Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 45-68.
Lorange, P. (1998). ``Strategy implementation: the Stacey, R.D. (1995), ``The science of complexity: an
new realities'', Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 alternative perspective for strategic change
No. 1, pp. 18-29. process'', Strategic Management Journal,
Miller, A. and Dess, G. (1996), Strategic Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 477-95.
Management, International ed., McGraw-Hill, Stacey, R.D. (1996), Strategic Management &
New York, NY. Organizational Dynamics, 2nd ed., Pitman
Miller, D. (2002), ``Successful change leaders: what Publishing, London.
makes them? What do they do that is Stonich, P. (1982), Implementing Strategy: Making
different?'', Journal of Change Management, Strategy Happen, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 359-68. Strabel, P. (1996), ``Why do employees resist
Miller, S. (1997), ``Implementing strategic change?'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74
decisions: four key success factors'', No. 3, pp. 86-92.

[ 881 ]
Thompson, A. and Strickland, A. (1999), Strategic
Fevzi Okumus
A framework to implement Management Concepts and Cases, 11th ed.,
Further reading
strategies in organizations Govindarajan, V. (1988), ``A contingency approach
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston, MA.
Management Decision to strategy implementation at the business
Vasconcellos e Sa, J., (1990), ``How to implement
41/9 [2003] 871-882 a strategy'', Business, Vol. 40 No. 2, unit level: integrating administrative
pp. 23-32. mechanisms with strategy'', Academy of
Waterman, R.H., Peters, T.J. and Phillips, J.R. Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4,
(1980), ``Structure is not organization'', December, pp. 828-53.
Business Horizons, Vol. 23 No. 3, June, Hope-Hailey, V. and Balogun, J. (2002), ``Devising
pp. 14-26. context-sensitive approaches to change: the
Wilson, I. (1994), ``Strategic Planning isn't dead ± examples of Glaxo Wellcome'', Long Range
it changed'', Long Range Planning, Vol. 27 Planning, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 153-78.
No. 4, pp. 12-24. Noble, C.H. (1999), ``Building the strategy
Yip, G.S. (1992), Total Global Strategy, implementation network'', Business Horizons,
Prentice-Hall, London. November-December, pp. 19-28.

[ 882 ]

You might also like