1. General Strategy
2. Company Strategy
3. Strategy Creation
4. Formulation of Strategies
5. Evaluation of Strategies
The word strategy originated in the military field and comes from the word “strategos” meaning general in Greek. It is being applied to other activities and, in particular, to business strategies. One of the main problems for the business strategists is the understanding of the competitive environment and the interpretation of the effects of the competition in a business.
Strategy is the definition of the long-term goals and objectives of a company, the adoptions of actions, and the allocation of necessary resources for the achievement of the objectives. - Chandler [5]
The strategy is the model of the objectives, policies, purposes, goals, and plans to achieve them addressed in such a way that they define in which business the company is or will be. - Andrews [6]
The strategy is to select the set of activities in which a company stands out to establish a sustainable difference in the market; the differentiation arises of the activities chosen and how they are the carried out. - Porter [7],
Farjoun [8] makes a contribution from a dynamic and organic view. The new ideas of natural and social sciences state that the strategic processes are not only rationalist models of unitary actors but also give importance to the complexity of the soft variables and take into account the messy side of reality. It maintains that while the mechanistic perspective for the formulation of strategies is discrete, directional, and differentiated, the organic perspective is dynamic, uncertain, interactive, and integrating.
Contemporaneously, a new wave of research studies was born that approach to the study of the theory of behavior and organization [10–16], and these authors point out that the strategy is a coalignment or an adaptive coordination of various states and trajectories.
Chiavenato [17] - There are four fundamental elements in the strategy which together make a whole. The mission is the answer to the question what is the organization for. The business to which the organization is dedicated is defined, the needs that are covered with its products and services, the market in which the company is developed, as well as the public image of the company or organization. The vision is the answer to the question what do we want the organization to be in the next years. The future situation that the company wants to have is defined and described. The purpose of the vision is to guide, control, and encourage the organization as a whole in order to achieve the desirable state of the organization. The values define the set of principles, beliefs, and rules that regulate the management of the organization. Global objectives indicate the results that are wanted to be achieved in a specific period of time. These elements constitute the institutional philosophy and the support of the organizational culture [18]. The basic objective of the definition of corporate values is to have a reference framework that inspires and regulates the life of the organization.
[This research covered the review of 69 books, 7 conference articles, and 140 journals that made major contributions. - Guillermo Fuertes et al. ]
1. General Strategy
It is responsible for conceiving the global direction of the organization. The classic approach of the strategic formulation is based on the rational methods of planning, resource allocation, and profitability. For Chandler [5], the structure follows the strategy. If the strategic plan is defined, the appropriate structure can be determined and created.
According to Ansoff [26], this approach places great confidence in the hierarchy or scorecard and trusts in the intelligence and ability of the leaders to adopt strategies that maximize long-term benefits; the control and knowledge are competence of the executive director. This approach requires a transformational leadership, considered as the most effective way of leadership in all the array of models; this comprises four types of behaviors: intellectual stimulation, motivation, commitment, and effort, that culminate in better performance [27].
Porter [28] indicates that the process of a competitive strategy is the development of the wide formula of how a company is going to compete, which must be their objectives (mission or objective) and which policies will be needed to carry out those goals.
According to Sloan [29], for the classic approach, the progress and stability of the business depends largely on the development or creation of strategies. The importance of each specialization of the strategy is recognized.
The evolutionary approach raises the inability to generate strategies from inside; according to [30, 31], this approach proposes that the organizations are drifting of the changes of the external environment and depends on the magnitude of it, that is the market which defines the strategy, being this in charge of guaranteeing the minimal or maximum benefits.
According to Freeman and Hannan [32], the organizational selection processes favor them and the organizations that can change the strategy and the structure as their environment change. The successful strategies only emerge as the process of natural selection offering its judgment. In this approach, the role of the top management is null and nevertheless are fundamental in the identification of the threats.
Following this approach, Peters and Waterman [33] state that the keys of excellence have to do with focusing on people, clients, and action. The eight principles for the excellence, proposed by these authors, allow any manager to make a diagnosis and evaluate its performance. These state that the application of these principles give the necessary clues for managers to convert their companies in organizations of excellence both in operation as in results. In the same way, supported on the evolutionary approach, Williamson [34] states that the strategy in the classic sense of rational planning oriented to the future is often irrelevant; this assertion is supported by Gotcheva et al. [35] who states that the organizations that better adapt to the environment are the ones that survive, even though in reality it seems to be that environment has adapted to them.
The systemic approach gives the capacity to the organizations of planning and acting effectively in their environments, it is relativistic. According to Granovetter [36] following the approach about the social incorporation of the economic activity, the systemic vision proposes the objectives of the strategy to be designed depending on the context of the social system in which it is developed, understanding that the strategies must be sensitive to the sociologic environment of the organizations which guides the strategy are particularities of a concrete sociological environment. According to Granovetter [37], a central principle of the systemic theory is to observe the decision makers as complex individuals, whose decisions are not based exclusively on economical conceptions, and understand the interrelation of the multiple variables of the society and its effect with the environment. Following the systemic approach, Whitley [38] states that a central principle of the economic sociology is that culture and the regulatory institutions help to constitute the nature of the economic actors and guide their actions, thus affecting the economic results.
According to Clegg et al. [39], the processualist approach shows the same skepticism as evolutionists regarding strategic rationality; they rely less on the capacity of the market to guarantee obtaining maximum benefits. Cyert and March [40] visualize the organizations as a system of rational adaptation that responses to a variety of external and internal restrictions when reaching decisions. Theorists of the strategies based on the resources as [41] state that the managers owe their strategies to competitive advantages of the organizations and the market processes, insisting on the informal learning and the personal vision [42]. The members of the organizations negotiate among them to arrive to define a set of objectives more or less acceptable of all, that is, the strategy is the product of a political commitment [43] and not of a calculation to obtain the maximum benefits [44]. There is a multiple interest in formation of coalitions to take care of the interests of the organizations. Following with this approach, Hamel and Prahalad [45] defend that the best competitive advantage of a company is its vision of the future; they claim that organizations must search and strengthen the most developed competitive advantages that are difficult to emulate by the competitors. At the same time, Weick [46] sees the organizations as a system that selects wrong information of its environment, stating that in the future the organizations evolve when they obtain knowledge outside themselves and their surroundings.
2. Company Strategy
It is the complement of the general strategy. Its application corresponds to the leader or director. The roles of senior management and the management of organizational projects are an essential part in the effective implementation of the company’s strategy [47]. At directive level, this strategy is used as a mean to perform various functions, serving as support in decision making and carry out coordination processes and communication of goals or the strategic purpose. According to Galbreath [48], any business strategy must incorporate in an effective way the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR). According to Bento et al. [49], CSR is necessary if developing competitive advantages is wanted in the current environment. Lee et al., Lindgreen and Swaen and Maon et al., [50–52] define CSR as a way of directing organizations based on the management of the impacts that its activity generates on its clients, employees, shareholders, local communities, environment, and society in general.
SM implies the formulation and implementation of the main objectives and initiatives adopted by the senior managers of a company, in relation to owners, based on the consideration of the resources, and an evaluation of the external and internal environment in which the organization competes [53]. Thus, it should have at least five attributes to be a business strategy [54]: (1) be measurable, (2) clarity in the objectives, (3) resource consumption, (4) assignment of responsible, and (5) that it can be checked. Companies now focus more on exploitation of external resources such as customers, rather than internal efficiency, to gain new competitive advantages. People’s ideas are fed by brands, and this exercise provides the opportunity to cocreate products in collaboration with customers [55, 56].
The adequacy of the strategies can be defined from various approaches, each of which reflects different indicators; these indicators are based on the profit impact of market strategy (PIMS) structure in order to define the strategic potential.
3. Strategy Creation
According to Peppard and Ward [57], any organizational strategy must define where the company wants to be in the future and evaluate objectively where it is now to decide how to get there; taking into account the options, alternatives, available resources, and the needed changes. A company achieves a superior profitability in its industry when achieving higher prices or lower costs than its competitors; this is achieved through the operative effectiveness or the strategic positioning [58]. For Rumelt [59], a good strategy is a coherent set of analysis, concepts, policies, arguments, and actions that give responses to a high-risk challenge. The strategies based on the costs have been considered among the generic forms of strategic positioning [60, 61].
According to Reitzig and Maciejovsky [62], the creation of a strategy is not only a task for the executives; on the contrary, the definition of the business approaches and new measures to initiate, involve all the hierarchy levels of the organization (head of business unit, heads of products, heads of functional areas within a business or division, administrators, and supervisors). The academics and professionals are more and more interested in the concept of sustainability (integrated measure of the economic, social, and environmental performance) [63]. For Iazzolino and Laise [64], the strategies must be socially sustainable, creating value not only for the shareholder but also for the other interested, for the employees. According to Radomska [65], the sustainability issues in the strategies are becoming a natural element of the business policies, and their actions are important for the business of the company and for the financial result, as to cost reduction, cleaner production, gas reduction, and so on [66]. For supply change management, the sustainability is an important issue, creating a new age of business thinking and a source of competitive advantage [67, 68].
In general, to create strategies, authors such as Král and Králová [69] suggest that all starts from the analysis of the environment surrounding the company, pretending with it the proposition of action plans, aimed at improving competitiveness. According to Nikulin and Becker [70], in order to analyze the situation in which a company is found, the most commonly used is the SWOT analysis, which allows to determine strengths and opportunities of the company as well as the weaknesses and threats that the market offers in the scope of its business. According to Hill et al. [71], in order for a strategy to be successful, it must be designed in the following way: (1) simple, coherent, and long-term goals; (2) deep knowledge of the competitive environment; (3) objective evaluation of the resources; and (4) effective implantation.
For Hussein et al. [72], another concept to be kept in mind when generating strategies, considered a key factor in the organization performance, is the organizational learning capacity. According to Mallén et al. [73], the application of this concept allows to analyze the relation between the degree of organization structure, performance of the organization, and the learning capacity of the organization. For Norashikin and Ishak [74], an organization with organizational learning culture improves significantly the competitive advantages, allowing to survive in a competitive world [75]; in the same way it provides improvements in the performance of the companies supported by the concept of transactional organizational learning, and this mechanism allows the organizations to keep the knowledge and transmit it to specialists for the generation or rethink of new rules [76]. J. Power and D. Waddell and D. Coghlan[77, 78] analyzed the relation between self-managed work and the organizational learning capacity as indicators of performance in the improvement of the innovative capacities of the companies.
The organizations change through the transformation and restructuring of the resources and capacities [79]. One of these transformations implies to decide what kind of organizational structure is the most propitious to achieve a competitive advantage [80].
3.1. Organizational Structures
Good organizational structures act as moderators for improving the influence that leaders have about the behavior, performance, and work of their subordinates, in search of the satisfaction of the client [81]. Different authors have defined the concept of organizational structure. For Mintzberg [82], all are the patterns of design to organize a company, taking into account all the forms in which work is divided and the subsequent coordination of the same, searching to meet the proposed goals and to achieve the objectives set. For Strategor and Anastassopoulos [83], an organizational structure is the set of responsibilities and relations that formally determine the functions that each unit must accomplish and the way of communication between each work team. Chin [84] made an evaluation of how the leadership of men and women influence in the organizational structures, this author states that skills of men and women gain similar legitimacy, but when an organization fails, the perception of competence of women leaders, the status, and the interpersonal skills fall more than those of men.
The following are the requirements for the implementation of an organizational structure: (1) hierarchy of power and authority for the establishment of responsibilities and goals, which must be verifiable, accurate, and achievable [85], for them to be precise they must be quantitative and for being verifiable they must be qualitative. (2) There must be a clear definition of the duties, rights, and activities of each person. The area of authority of each person must be set, that everyone must do to achieve the goals [86]. (3) To know how and where to get the necessary information for each activity, each person must know where to get the information and it must be provided [87].
Some elements that must be considered within an organizational structure are: (1) geography: it refers to the location of the company, the nearby companies necessaries, and the geographic distribution of the areas of the organization with an effective communication network [88]; (2) number of employees: in order for the organization to work efficiently, it must have clearly defined the number of employees that are required [89]; (3) evolution of the product: the organization must evolve to the extent its product does, being able to start as a small line and then diversify as needed; (4) distribution of the authority: it must be established if the organization works in a centralized or decentralized way [85]; (5) control: it refers to the requirements and regulations that must be implemented in function of the type of product that the organization offers, with the purpose of complying with them and offering a competitive product; and (6) market: the organizational structure of the institution must rotate around the suppliers and the consumers, and it must have a marketing team and adequate selling force. The organizations created the structures to coordinate the activities of work factors and control the member performance [90, 91]. Based on these two authors, Table 5 describes the advantages and disadvantages of each type of organizational structure proposed in this study.
3.2. Corporative Strategy
The objective of this strategy is to add value to the business portfolio of the companies reaching to overcome its competitors [92]. If an organization is in more than one line of business, a strategy at a corporative level will be needed (diversify company). The corporative strategy can be understood as the possibilities that an organization has to define its future positioning [93]. The way to announce this positioning can go from simple motivation messages until reaching to strict objectives and deeply detailed of the business, relating the indicators and the variables of business, with a rigid methodological approach [94]. Examples of that are the competitive priorities, which are translated from the operative decisions derived from the corporative strategies and the client requirements [95].
According to Mazzei and Noble [96], the corporative strategy is in charge of determining which data must be collected and analyzed, becoming a key factor for the correct decision making. For Dolphin and Fan [97], when formulating corporative strategies and the public relations have become in a function more and more important in the business organizations. Corporative communication managers are in charge of examining the impact and formulating the strategy [98]. For diversifying organizations, each division will have its own strategy that defines the products or services provided, the clients they want to reach, and so on.
3.3. Business Strategy
The strategy at business level generally is the same that the corporative strategy of the organization. Action plan for the small organization with only one line of business or the big organization has not diversified in different products or markets. The business strategies have potential to make an impact of first order about the risk of financial accident, a direct economic consequence for the owners, and investors of the companies [99]. These strategies are approaches and measurements created by the administration with the aim of producing a successful performance in a specific business line. The main importance of the business strategy consists on how to create and reinforce the competitive position of the company on a long term in the market. According to Bentley et al. [100], different authors provide typologies that describe how companies compete in their respective market environments. Porter [28] describes the business strategies in terms of leadership in costs and differentiation of products; March [101] in terms of exploration and exploitation; Treacy and Wiersema [102] in terms of operational excellence, leadership of product and trust with the client; Miles and Snow [103] and Dekoulou and Trivellas [104] in terms of innovation to identify and explore of new products and market opportunities; and Quezada et al. [105] they describe a methodology to formulate business strategies in small and medium manufacturing companies. These authors evaluate and generate action plans to improve the competitiveness, taking into account the owner preferences.
When an organization is in different business, the planning can be facilitated by creating a strategic business unit (SBU). SBU represents a unique business or a group of business related, for which is possible to formulate a common strategy. Each SBU will have its own distinctive mission and different competitors; this allows it to have an independent strategy from the other business of the organization.
3.4. Functional Strategy
For Dubey and Ali [106], this strategy is close to the definition of processes and actions, that is, it responds to how things must be done or how must be used and applied to the resources. The functional strategy depends and must be well defined and aligned with the corporative and the business strategies. According to Sharma and Fisher [107], the main types of functional strategies are: production strategies [108], I + D strategies [109], marketing strategies [110], human resources strategies [111, 112], technological strategies [113], organizational strategies [114], and financial strategies [115]. It is considered that the production strategy has been the most effective in the past and will continue to receive the maximum priority in the next years. In general, continuing with the order of importance are the technological strategy and the human resources strategy. The I + D strategy is the second highest in importance in the last few years.
3.5. Operation Strategy
Within the two functions is the configuration of a reference framework for the planning, the control of the production and fixation of guidelines to evaluate the contribution of the operation management to the general objectives of the company. The operation strategy starts from an analysis of the environment, the market and the competitors, as well as a study of the available internal resources, to fix objectives and plans of route. The corporative values serve as guide when planning the operation strategy. The final objective of the operation strategy is to find competitive advantages that clearly difference the company from its competitors [116]. It is that the value added to the product or service offered justifies a higher price in the final product that the customer is not only willing to pay, but satisfied to do it. This advantage must be sustainable overtime and difficult to imitate, among other qualities. The main responsibility of this strategy is delegated to the director of the operations area, subject to revision and approval for administrators of higher rank (general director or directive board). According to Wheelwright [117], it is necessary to design and implement operation strategies coherent with the business mission, always supporting the corporative objectives [118]. This strategy must provide the objectives of production to achieve competitive advantages, focusing in a uniform decision making model within the category of the key resources of production [119]. Moreover, to announce the way in which the business units develops or deploys the production resources [120].
Platts and Gregory [121] emphasize in the realization of manufacturing strategies, following three aspects of the process that include: design, development, and implementation of the production strategy. Platts [122] suggests an approach based on the audit to develop the production strategy. This author describes three stages for the formulation of this strategy: creation of the process, tests, and adjustments [123]. Table 6 classifies the fifty-two studies categorized in Table 1 (strategic creation and organizational structures), taking into account the phase of the strategic analysis to which the research belongs to.
4. Formulation of Strategies (FSP)
The main thing is to detect if there is or not a strategic problem or also called strategic GAP. There is a strategic GAP when the objectives set forth in the future cannot be achieved with the current strategy. According to Chang and Huang [124], the SM process consists of three stages: formulation of strategies, implementation of the strategy, and evaluation of the strategy.
In order to generate strategies, a previous analysis of the organizations that evaluate the definition of goals, the analysis of the situation and the planning must be carried out. Any company, regardless of the size, kind of industry, business segment, or country where its activities are developed, must have a process that allows the disposition of a methodology to formulate strategies. According to Sadler [125], this methodology initiates with the formulation of the strategic planning (FSP), defined as the way to diagnose and analyze the current competitive position and strategic problems that are affecting the company. FSP must be the guide to visualize what is wanted to be achieved and how the companies will achieve it. A correct FSP must start by identifying the current competitive position and market of the company, which allows guiding in a better way the destiny of the company. According to Masoud [126], through the FSP, it is possible to identify the areas that require improvements in its strategies and, at the same time, align them with the functional competences and compare them with the initial strategy, if it exists.
On the contrary, Mintzberg et al. [15] state that strategies based on planning, ignore the fact that these can come from the interior of an organization with no formal plan.
For Van der Kolk and Schokker [127], the control of management are all the guarantees that directors must give to ensure that the behavior of the employees is consistent with the objectives and strategies of the organization; this definition is built based on what is said in [128, 129].
In FSP, the different manager hierarchy and the management control system (MCS) have a considerable influence. In the first stage of the discussion, the strategy is formulated by the senior managers on behalf of the owners, based on the consideration of the resources and an evaluation of the internal and external environment in which the organization competes [47]; the middle and lower managers are restricted to the implementation of the strategy. The function of MCS is to support the implementation of the strategy proposed by the middle and lower managers. On the contrary, [130] states that the strategies must not necessarily be formulated by the senior managers but initiated by the lower levels of the organizations; this type of strategy is known as emergent. Mintzberg [131] states a form to classify strategies, which identifies planning
(i) Strategy as a plan: marks the direction or course of action in the future. Those are guides to address a specific situation. These strategies have two essential characteristics: they are elaborated before the actions in which they will be applied. They are developed consciously and with a specific purpose.
These can be general or specific.
(i) Strategy as an action guideline: type of maneuver to beat rivals in competitive situations or negotiations. The real strategy that is taken as a plan is the threat not the expansion [132].
(ii) Strategy as a pattern: it marks a constant behavior on time. The strategy is a model, especially a pattern in a flow of actions. It allows to know how to establish the specific directions of the organization; a definition that covers the behavior we want to produce is required.
(iii) Strategy as a position: it is a means to place the organization in a competitive environment. It looks towards the outside looking for placing the organization in an external environment in concrete positions placing determined products or services in particular markets.
(iv) Strategy as perspective: it is particularly inherent way of industrial organizations in their way of perceiving the world; it looks towards the interior looking for ways in which things are carried out in a company. Just as the personality type defines the behavior of the individuals, the type of strategy defines the behavior of the organization.
The strategic formulation process continues with the implantation, evaluation, and control. Even the best strategies could not reach success, if the administration fails, either when implanting them or when evaluating their results.
For David [133], SA is a clear and practical approach for formulation, implementation, and evaluation strategies, which in turn are subdivided in different stages and activities, all pointing to the attainment of the organizational objectives, by means of the obtaining of competitive advantages. Thompson and Strickland [134] state that the SA model has a fundamental purpose to convert the administrative guidelines of the strategic vision and the mission of the business in indicators of specific performance, in results and consequences that the organization wants to achieve. The administrators can have a follow-up of the progress of the company through the establishment of the objectives and the measurement of its success or fail at achieving them. Hill et al. [71] propose a model focused in medium and big companies that compete in a diversified industry or of one business. These authors expose that the strategy is the result of a formal process of planning and the most important role in this corresponds to the senior manager. The strategic managers are in charge of identifying the strategies, as well as to create them starting from a set of elements that are obtained as steps of this model. In Figure 1, the fundamental steps for the strategic formulation are described.
For the so-called implementation of the strategy, the capacity of the organization must be assessed; the strategy is linked to the operations and people who are going to put the strategy into operation, synchronize the people and their various disciplines linking the rewards to the results.
4.1. Methods for the Strategic Formulation
The techniques for formulating strategies can be integrated into a three-stage framework for decision making. These techniques can be applied to organizations of all types and sizes and can help strategists to intensify, evaluate, and choose strategies.
4.1.1. Stage One or Stage of Inputs
Summarizes the basic information that must be taken to evaluate all strategic factors, in order to detect and prioritize according to the levels of importance and significance [135]; according to Azarnivand and Banihabib [136], the techniques of this stage include:
(1) Internal Factors Evaluation (IFE) Matrix. Tool of strategic analysis that summarizes the internal audit of an organization [137] and evaluate the weaknesses and strengths of the organizational units. IFE offers a diagnosis of all the companies in its different functions [138]. Setiawati and Wahyono [139] propose the design of strategies for the positioning of a pharmaceutical product where IFE is developed starting from the functional aspects of the organization.
(2) External Factors Evaluation (EFE) Matrix. It allows to summarize and evaluate external factors (opportunities and threats) that impact the company in a negative or positive way [140]. EFE facilitates the strategists to summarize and evaluate economic, social, cultural, demographic, governmental, legal, technological, and competitive information that could benefit or damage in a significant way an organization in the future [141]. Pratiwi et al. [142] propose EFE with the objective of evaluating the spin-off of a company that dedicates to the biotechnological products in Malaysia, obtaining as result that the company has more strengths than weaknesses (EFE >2.5).
(3) Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM). This matrix can identify the main rivals of a company. The identification of critical factors of success is the most important process for the construction of CPM [143]. Pelaez [144] proposes the use of CPM to explore the competitive environment in three institutes of higher education in Philippines, evaluating strengths and weaknesses of competitors.
4.1.2. Stage Two or Stage of Adequation
It focuses on generating viable alternative strategies, aligning internal and external key factors. The techniques of this stage include:
(1) SWOT Matrix. This matrix allows to evaluate the problems inside and outside the company. It is composed of an evaluation of the internal competences as strengths and weaknesses and the externals competences as opportunities and threats [145, 146]. According to von Kodolitsch et al. [147], the strategists considering the factors contained in the SWOT matrix propose the design of four strategies:
(i) Strategy strength-opportunity (SO). This strategy maximizes both internal strengths and external opportunities (“maxi-maxi” strategy); the strategy can be chosen when you have abundant strengths and favorable external opportunities.
(ii) Strategy weakness-opportunity (WO). This opportunity-focused strategy minimizes weaknesses and maximizes opportunities (“mini-maxi” strategy); the strategy can be chosen in a precarious situation in which strengths are scarce and threads are increasing.
(iii) Strategy strength-threat (ST). This strength-focused strategy maximizes own strengths and minimizes threats (“maxi-mini” strategy); the strategy can be chosen in rescue situations where maximizing the own strengths can be the only way to overcome substantial threats.
(iv) Strategy weakness-threat (WT). This strategy minimizes both weaknesses and threats (“mini-mini” strategy); the strategy can be chosen in a complicate situation in which strengths are scarce and threats are increasing.
For Lee [148], the main weakness of SWOT is a general dependence of qualitative analysis that simply classified the importance of individual factors without measuring them qualitatively. Shakerian et al. [149] implement a hybrid model SWOT - Fuzzy TOPSIS, with the aim of evaluating and classifying the internal-external environment and the commercial strategies in industrial organizations. This model achieves a high performance due to the different combined methods. Anguibi et al. [150] propose a quantified SWOT frame that integrates the realization of preferable diffuse linguistic to evaluate the competitive position of the container terminal of Abiyan in Western Africa.
(2) Strategic Position and Action Evaluation (SPACE, PEYEA) Matrix. This matrix was designed by Rowe et al. [151] with the purpose of determining which are the most suitable strategies for an organization in the competitive field, once the external and internal strategic positions are defined. Its structure of four quadrants allows to find out if fan organization is using the aggressive, conservative, defensive, or competitive strategies [152].
The axes of the matrix and the strategic action represent two internal dimensions (financial strength and competitive advantage) and two external dimensions (validation of the environment and industrial power) [153]. Jamali et al. [154] use SPACE to evaluate an Iranian cement company through the four dimensions: industry attractiveness, environmental stability, competitive advantage, and financial strengths. The results showed that this industry can follow an aggressive strategy since it takes advantages of its strengths in the opportunities.
(3) Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Matrix. Henderson [155] aims at helping the companies to position their products or business units in the market, this tool consists on making a strategic analysis of the portfolio of the company based on two factors: growth rate and market share [156]. The matrix is composed essentially of four quadrants, which in turn possess different strategies to develop. Each of the quadrants is symbolized by a caricature. Chang et al. [157] used BCG to analyze the market position and future strategy to improve the potential opportunities of self-connectivity in Asian airports.
(4) Internal-External (IE) Matrix. According to Allen [158], this matrix represents a tool to evaluate an organization, taking into account their internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) and their external factors (opportunities and threats); the IE matrix is similar to BCG matrix since both tools register the divisions of a company in a schematic diagram; this is the reason for which both are known as portfolio matrices [159]. IE is based on information generated by other matrices (IFE-EFE) capturing more information, quantifying them in an index that can be graphed, and locating in one of the nine quadrants of such matrix. Tahernejad et al. [160] propose IE to investigate the strategic factors that have led to the loss of market of a mining company that produces rocks located in Iran.
(5) Great Strategy Matrix (GSM). This matrix made the matrices SWOT, SPACE, BCG, and the IE matrix; GSM becomes an instrument to formulate strategies of an alternative character, placing the company in one of the four strategic quadrants of the matrix [161]. According to Christensen et al. [162], GSM is a tool that is used to evaluate and fine tune the proper choice of strategies for the company or organization. It consists of a Cartesian plane in two dimensions: the competitive position and the market growth; any kind of organization can be placed within the dimensions previously mentioned, according to its conditions. Lee and Lin [163] develop a hybrid method AHP-SWOT, based on the GSM model, to evaluate the competitive position of the containers port in the east of Asia.
4.1.3. Stage Three or Stage of Decision
This stage includes a single matrix.
(1) Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM). According to David [164], QSPM uses the obtained information at stage one to evaluate, in an objective way, the available alternative strategies identified in stage two. QSPM constituted by EFI and EFE is used to determine the strategic position giving a quantitative strategic matrix [165]. David et al. [166] use QSPM two strategies of alternative commercialization. The main contribution of this document was to reveal how and why QSPM can be useful, both theoretical and practical for the design of effective marketing strategies.
Table 7 classifies the thirty-two studies categorized in Table 1 (strategic formulation), taking into account the organizational characteristics and the different typology of strategies.
5. Evaluation of Strategies
According to Uhl and Gollenia [168], the strategic evaluation consists of measuring the impact that has had the strategic planning, opening the possibility of taking the necessary corrective actions. This process serves the organizations for knowing and analyzing if the proposed actions are really directing the company in the right direction. The processes of strategic evaluation are made through the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data [169]. The quantitative approach allows understanding the results in light of the investment and the growth forecasts; the numerical part of the results is measured starting from the key performance indicators (KPI). The qualitative approach allows to understand causes and consequences and interpretation of situations beyond numbers; this type of analysis will serve to know the effectiveness of the strategy and the departments of the organization that need corrective actions.
For the strategic evaluation, according to Cokins [170], all those factors coming from the environment, being threats or opportunities, that directly affect the operation of the strategy and that require an effective response must be considered. To identify these factors, it must be analyzed that the objectives set are the right ones that the observable results are consistent with the initial states, and the analysis of the plans and politics implemented are the right ones [171].
According to [172, 173], the processes to evaluate strategies are specifying the processes and the most important results to supervise and evaluate for measuring them in an objective way; establishing performance standards that make the difference between what is acceptable and what it is not; and compare the real performance with the expected one and apply the pertinent corrective actions [174].
For Rumelt [175], there are four criteria to evaluate a strategy:
(1) Coherence, the strategy must not present goals and politics mutually inconsistent;
(2) concordances, the strategy must represent an adaptive response to the environment and the critical changes produced inside;
(3) advantage, the strategy must anticipate the creation and/or the maintenance of a competitive advantage in the chosen area of activity; and
(4) viability, the strategy must not overload the available resources or create subproblems that do not have solution.
The coherence and the advantage are based on the external evaluation of an organization, while concordance and viability are mainly based on the internal evaluation Balanced Scorecard.
According to Hansen and Schaltegger [176], in the year 1992, BSC was presented in the Harvard Business Review, and the creators of this concept are Robert Kaplan and David Norton [177]. Initially, BSC focused on indicators of individual and group performance to measure and manage the implementation of the strategic objectives [178]. Different authors have given definitions of BSC; for Srivastava et al. [179], it is a method to measure the activities of a company in terms of its vision and strategy, providing the administrators a global view of the business performance. For Kaplan and Norton [180], BSC is a system of manager management that directs attention points in the organization. Its purpose is to translate the strategy in measures that only communicate their vision to the organization.
According to Cooper et al. [181], 75% of the companies that have a formal process of measurement of performance (46% of all the companies surveyed) use BSC as main method of strategic evaluation. Approximately, 60% of the big North American companies and 53% of the companies in the whole world use BSC [182].
The construction of BSC is made in seven steps: analysis of the vision and mission, internal and external analysis of the organization, key factors of the success, relation of the diagram of causes and effects between the factors, definition of the strategic objectives, election of the KPI, and elaboration of the BSC [183].
According to [184, 185], each strategic objective is assigned to one of the four performance perspectives developed for BSC:
(1) Financial: measurements of create value for the shareholder, (“how do we look to the shareholders?”), risk management, and product profitability [186].
(2) Customers: measurements that reflect the impact of the strategy on customers (“how do clients see us?”), market segmentation, customer profitability, customer acquisition, and customer satisfaction [187].
(3) Internal processes: measures of the critical organizational processes for the strategy, (“what should we stand out?”), profitability, distribution, and control of processes [188].
(4) Innovation and learning: measures for training the organization’s personnel with the necessary skills (“can we continue improving and creating value?”), technology, human resources, and training [189].
In [190, 191], each strategic objective is measured with key indicators of performance. Table 8 classifies the thirty-seven studies categorized in Table 1 (strategic evaluation), taking into account the perspectives and indicators developed for BSC.
For the development of the BSC model, Kaplan and Norton [212] pose it can be resorted to four phases with their respective products:
(1) Strategic concept—defines the strategic orientation of the organization; (2) objectives—policies and strategic measurements: consolidation of the executive team and the support of managers for the development of the strategic objectives and the key indicators; (3) policies, goals, and initiatives—BSC design finalization, establishment of all the preliminary parameters to be used in the organization; and (4) communication and implantation—integration of the management control and the strategic manager in the managerial agenda of the organization [213] (Table 9).
Finally, BSC transformations focused on the description of the function of the strategic maps, using chains cause-effect among the strategic objectives and how organizations use their leader staff to align the processes and key systems of management with the strategy [192]. Due to the complexity and speed of the changes in the external environment of the industrial organizations, Korableva and Kalimullina [167] propose to use a hybrid model BSC-SWOT for the optimization of the organizations taking into account the basic approaches and the commercial goals of the business.
It is becoming mandatory to consider the sustainability within the strategic decision making [199]. Maintain that the economic development, considering the environmental and social factors, is the new concept of sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) [200].
Even though BSC has been widely used for the strategic evaluation, it has some deficiencies in the implementation. For Abran and Buglione [205], obtaining a global BSC performance rating is poor, due to the lack of methods to combine the indicator scores; therefore, different authors propose the use of tools to overcome these deficiencies: Ravi et al. [201] use the analytic network process (ANP) with BSC in the problems of the reverse logistic in the industry of hardware of computers; Leung et al. [206] suggest the use of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to overcome the deficiencies of BSC; finally, Lee et al. [207] present a combined model fuzzy (FAHP) and BSC to face these problems.
A subject that acquires a lot of criticism in the system of measurement of the performance is its static nature. As a consequence, an increasing current of authors consider that the surroundings of static measurement are not suitable for this time. According to the state by [194–196], the classic BSC, stated by Kaplan and Norton, have deficiencies in organizations where its business has dynamic systems, where the interested parties define the performance in different ways (chains of commercial supply, humanitarian logistics). Norreklit [208] states that BSC has a linear vision of the cause-effect relations among the indicators in the strategic map; moreover, for Brignall [197], the relations cause-effect in BSC are an excessive simplification of the reality since this set of relations is recursive and dynamic. For Linard and Dvorsky [198], BSC presents a lack of clear formalization of the delay in time between the main indicators and the straggled; for Barnabè [202], BSC presents limited support as rigorous mechanism of validation and analysis of scenarios of the relations between the performance indicators, that is, the relations between the KPI in the strategic map do not express the dynamic relations.
This limitation compromises the accuracy of the system of managerial control BSC, making the alignment among the strategic objectives difficult [209]. In this way, the possibility of considering measurement systems of dynamic performances arises, as an attempt of being able to make a better adjustment of the business to the environment reality. [203, 204] propose dynamic BSC models that are supported in the dynamic of systems, as an improvement of the classic BSC model. The dynamic of system is a computer-assisted method that helps to understand the behavior of complex systems, and these techniques use tools such as diagrams of causal cycles, time delays, and stocks [214].
Kaplan and Norton [193] pose that BSC is not only a measurement system of strategic control, able to manage the problem of the implementation of the strategy. However, Simons [215] argues that BSC is a hierarchic falling model that is not rooted in the organization or the environment, so it is questionable as a tool of strategic control and points out that there exists a barrier between the strategy expressed in the plan proposed by the manager and the strategy expressed in the really started actions. Van Veen-Dirks and Wijn [210] affirm that BSC gives an inadequate feedback about the strategy content and does not give enough information about the external surroundings.
The defenders of BSC declare that each business unit must develop and use not only common but also unique measures [193]. However, Lipe and Salterio [211] have found that not all the measures in the BSC are treated equal during the performance evaluation process.
SM offers companies to add value, create, find, reinforce, and overcome its competitive position, indicating what actions must be adopted to achieve this position. The formulation of strategies allows companies to stand out the addresses or course of action in the future, indicating the action guidelines, marking a behavior in time, defining the internal management of the company with the objective of placing the organization in the best competitive environment to achieve the success.
Business success demands a continuous adaptation of the company to its environment. The competitiveness becomes the economic criteria by excellence to orient and evaluate the performance inside and out of the company. The business success depends in great measure on the kind of strategy adopted by the company; the companies are required to define strategies that allow the access to the actual competitive world, and if these strategies are not accompanied of the management tools that guarantee their materialization, the efforts are useless. There are several strategies and many tools that support each of them, however, the strategist must know and define, based on internal and external diagnostics which are the most indicated strategies that allow to arrive to a competitive advantage over the competitors of the same branch. This paper proposes a guide through a systematic literature review, which allows administrators and researchers to know general concepts and steps that must be followed when doing SM within their industrial organizations, allowing to know their position in the market and from there, to define where they want to go in the future.
Even though it is not a guarantee of success, SA allows organizations to make efficient decisions in the long term, take them to practice efficiently, and start corrective actions as needed. A key for the effective strategic evaluation is an integration of the intuition and the analysis.
References
C. Carter, 2013 “The age of strategy: strategy, organizations and society,” Business History, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1047–1057, .
S. Tzu, 2012 The Art of War, e-artnow, Beijing, China,.
D. Mackay and M. Zundel, 2016 “Recovering the divide: a review of strategy and tactics in business and management,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 175–194, .
G. Cattani, J. F. Porac, and H. Thomas, 2017 “Categories and competition,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 64–92, .
5. A. D. Chandler, 1962 Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise, Beard Books, New York, NY, USA, .
6. K. R. Andrews, 1971 The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Irwin, Homewood, IL, USA, .
M. Porter, 2008 Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, USA, .
M. Farjoun, “Towards an organic perspective on strategy,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 561–594, 2002.
J. Quinn, Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Irwin Professional Publishing, Homewood, IL, USA, 1980.
H. Mintzberg and J. A. Waters, “Of strategies, deliberate and emergent,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 257–272, 1985.
H. Itami and T. Roehl, Mobilizing Invisible Assets, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987.
P. M. Hirsch, R. Friedman, and M. P. Koza, “Collaboration or paradigm shift?: caveat emptor and the risk of romance with economic models for strategy and policy research,” Organization Science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 87–97, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. H. Bowman and D. Hurry, “Strategy through the option lens: an integrated view of resource investments and the incremental-choice process,” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 760–782, 1993.
D. Schendel, “Introduction to ‘competitive organizational behavior: toward an organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage’,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 15, no. S1, pp. 1–4, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Mintzberg, B. Ahlstrand, and J. Lampel, The Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through the Wilds of Strategic Management, Free Press, New York, NY, USA, 1998.
S. L. Brown and K. M. Eisenhardt, Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA, USA, 1998.
I. Chiavenato, Comportamiento Organizacional: la Dinamica del Exito de las Organizaciones, McGrawHill/Interamericana editores, Mexico City, Mexico, 2nd edition, 2009.
P. Mao, S. Li, K. Ye, and H. Cai, “A field theory based model for identifying the effect of organizational structure on the formation of organizational culture in construction projects,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 45–53, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, and P. Smart, “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review,” British Journal of Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 207–222, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Crossan and M. Apaydin, “A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1154–1191, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. A. P. Peres and F. S. Fogliatto, “Variable selection methods in multivariate statistical process control: a systematic literature review,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 115, pp. 603–619, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. H. Nguyen, S. de Leeuw, and W. E. H. Dullaert, “Consumer behaviour and order fulfilment in online retailing: a systematic review,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 255–276, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Charband and N. J. Navimipour, “Knowledge sharing mechanisms in the education: a systematic review of the state of the art literature and recommendations for future research,” Kybernetes, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1456–1490, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Pashazadeh and N. J. Navimipour, “Big data handling mechanisms in the healthcare applications: a comprehensive and systematic literature review,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 82, pp. 47–62, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Whittington, What is Strategy—and Does it Matter? Cengage Learning EMEA, Andover, UK, 2001.
H. I. Ansoff, Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach Tobusiness Policy for Growth and Expansion, McGraw-Hill, Arbor, MI, USA, 1965.
E. Kollenscher, D. Eden, B. Ronen, and M. Farjoun, “Architectural leadership: the neglected core of organizational leadership,” European Management Review, vol. 14, no. 3, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, USA, 2008.
A. Sloan, My Years with General Motors, Reissue Edition, Crown Business, New York, NY, USA, 1990.
M. T. Hannan and J. Freeman, “Structural inertia and organizational change,” American Sociological Review, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 149–164, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Hannan and J. Freeman, Organizational Ecology, Harvard University Press, London, UK, 1993.
J. Freeman and M. T. Hannan, “Setting the record straight on organizational ecology: rebuttal to young,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 425–439, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. Peters and R. H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies, Harper & Row, New York, NY, USA, 1982.
P. J. Williamson, “Supplier strategy and customer responsiveness: managing the links,” Business Strategy Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 75–90, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Gotcheva, G. Watts, and P. Oedewald, “Developing smart and safe organizations: an evolutionary approach,” International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 83–97, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Granovetter, The Sociology of Economic Life, The Perseus Books Group, Boulder, CO, USA, 2011.
M. Granovetter, “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 481–510, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Whitley, “How national are business systems? The role of different state types and complementary institutions in constructing homogenous systems of economic coordination and control,” in Proceedings of the Paper Presented to the Workshop on National Business Systems in the New Global Context, Manchester Business School, Oslo, Norway, May 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
S. R. Clegg, C. Carter, M. Kornberger, and J. Schweitzer, Strategy: Theory and Practice, SAGE, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2011.
R. M. Cyert and J. G. March, “Organizational factors in the theory of oligopoly,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 44–64, 1956.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. Grant, Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Text and Cases Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2016.
H. Mintzberg, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans, Planners, Free Press, New York, 2013.
A. M. Pettigrew, The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making, Routledge, Oxon, UK, 2014.
F. Jaumotte and C. Osorio, Inequality and Labor Market Institutions, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
G. Hamel and C. K. Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business Press, Brighton, MA, USA, 1996.
K. E. Weick, “Cartographic myths in organizations,” Mapp. Strateg. Thought, vol. 1, p. 10, 1990.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Hyväri, “Roles of top management and organizational project management in the effective company strategy implementation,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 226, pp. 108–115, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Galbreath, “Building corporate social responsibility into strategy,” European Business Review, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 109–127, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. F. Bento, L. Mertins, and L. F. White, “Ideology and the balanced scorecard: an empirical exploration of the tension between shareholder value maximization and corporate social responsibility,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 142, no. 4, pp. 769–789, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-D. P. Lee, “A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: its evolutionary path and the road ahead,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 53–73, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Lindgreen and V. Swaen, “Corporate social responsibility,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Maon, A. Lindgreen, and V. Swaen, “Organizational stages and cultural phases: a critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 20–38, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Nag, D. C. Hambrick, and M.-J. Chen, “What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 935–955, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Hajli, M. Shanmugam, S. Papagiannidis, D. Zahay, and M.-O. Richard, “Branding co-creation with members of online brand communities,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 70, pp. 136–144, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhang and R. Chen, “Examining the mechanism of the value co-creation with customers,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 242–250, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Taghizadeh, K. Jayaraman, I. Ismail, and S. A. Rahman, “Scale development and validation for DART model of value co-creation process on innovation strategy,” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 24–35, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Peppard and J. Ward, The Strategic Management of Information Systems: Building a Digital Strategy, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016.
M. Porter, On Competition, Harvard Business Press, Brighton, MA, USA, 2013.
R. Rumelt, “Good strategy/bad strategy: the difference and why it matters,” Strategic Direction, vol. 28, no. 8, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. L. Fisher, “What is the right supply chain for your product,” in Operations Management: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, p. 548, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Oliveira, P. T. S. Nascimento, A. M. Mello, and A. Fleury, “Costs and benefits of following cost strategies in value chains,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), pp. 501–509, Portland, OR, USA, September 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Reitzig and B. Maciejovsky, “Corporate hierarchy and vertical information flow inside the firm—a behavioral view,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 36, no. 13, pp. 1979–1999, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Searcy, “Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: a review and research agenda,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 239–253, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Iazzolino and D. Laise, “Value creation and sustainability in knowledge-based strategies,” Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 457–470, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Radomska, “The concept of sustainable strategy implementation,” Sustainability, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 15847–15856, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Vencato, C. Gomes, F. Scherer, J. Kneipp, and R. Bichueti, “Strategic sustainability management and export performance,” Management of Environmental Quality An International Journal, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 431–445, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
M. J. Epstein and M.-J. Roy, “Sustainability in action: identifying and measuring the key performance drivers,” Long Range Planning, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 585–604, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Gracia and L. E. Quezada, “A framework for strategy formulation in sustainable supply chains: a case study in the electric industry,” NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 3–27, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Král and V. Králová, “Approaches to changing organizational structure: the effect of drivers and communication,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 5169–5174, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Nikulin and G. Becker, “Una metodología Sistémica y creativa para la gestión estratégica: caso de Estudio Región de Atacama-Chile,” Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 127–144, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Hill, G. Jones, and M. Schilling, Strategic Management: Theory, Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT, USA, 11th edition, 2014.
N. Hussein, S. Omar, F. Noordin, and N. A. Ishak, “Learning organization culture, organizational performance and organizational innovativeness in a public institution of higher education in Malaysia: a preliminary study,” Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 37, pp. 512–519, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Mallén, R. Chiva, J. Alegre, and J. Guinot, “Organicity and performance in excellent HRM organizations: the importance of organizational learning capability,” Review of Managerial Science, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 463–485, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Norashikin and N. A. Ishak, “Human resource practice and organizational learning capability: a proposed framework,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Human Resource Management Conference, Langkawi, Malaysia, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Zare, M. Jajarmizadeh, and N. Abbasi, “Relation between job characteristics model (JCM) and learning organization (LO),” World Applied Sciences Journal, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 1253–1259, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Kieser and U. Koch, “Bounded rationality and organizational learning based on rule changes,” Management Learning, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 329–347, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Power and D. Waddell, “The link between self-managed work teams and learning organisations using performance indicators,” The Learning Organization, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 244–259, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Coghlan, “Facilitating learning organizations: making learning count,” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 168–170, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Garud and P. R. Nayyar, “Transformative capacity: continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 365–385, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. d. M. Benavides Espinosa and J. M. Merigó Lindahl, “Organizational design as a learning enabler: a fuzzy-set approach,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 1340–1344, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Neubert, E. M. Hunter, and R. C. Tolentino, “A servant leader and their stakeholders: when does organizational structure enhance a leader’s influence?” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 896–910, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Mintzberg, “A typology of organizational structure,” in Organizations: A Quantum View, pp. 68–86, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1984.
View at: Google Scholar
J.-P. D. Strategor and J.-P. Anastassopoulos, Stratégie, Structure, Décision, Identité: Politique Générale D’entreprise, InterEditions, Paris, France, 1997.
L. G. Chin, “Unequal egalitarianism,” Gender in Management: An International Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 19–42, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Robert Baum and S. Wally, “Strategic decision speed and firm performance,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1107–1129, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. S. Pugh, D. J. Hickson, C. R. Hinings, and C. Turner, “Dimensions of organization structure,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 65–105, 1968.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Finlay, J. K. Martin, P. M. Roman, and T. C. Blum, “Organizational structure and job satisfaction,” Administration & Society, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 427–450, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Porter, “The role of location in competition,” International Journal of the Economics of Business, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35–40, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Zhou, “Lean principles, practices, and impacts: a study on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 241, no. 1-2, pp. 457–474, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. A. Ahmady, M. Mehrpour, and A. Nikooravesh, “Organizational structure,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 230, pp. 455–462, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Khan, “Operational approaches in organizational structure: a case for MNEs in developing countries,” in Multina, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, USA, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Campbell, “Comments on “corporate strategy and parenting theory,” Michael Goold, Andrew Campbell and Marcus Alexander, long range planning, volume 31, issue 2, April 1998, pages 308–314,” Long Range Planning, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 24–27, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
P. A. C. Hax and P. N. S. Majluf, Corporate Strategy: The Core Concepts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, 2006.
J. Leal, S. Lucas, and P. Magalhães, Handbook of Research on Information Management for Effective Logistics and Supply Chains, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, USA, 2016.
S. Vachon, A. Halley, and M. Beaulieu, “Aligning competitive priorities in the supply chain: the role of interactions with suppliers,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 322–340, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Mazzei and D. Noble, “Big data dreams: a framework for corporate strategy,” Business Horizons, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 405–414, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. R. Dolphin and Y. Fan, “Is corporate communications a strategic function?” Management Decision, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 99–107, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. D. Smith, Strategic Planning for Public Relations, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 2013.
A. Habib and M. M. Hasan, “Business strategy, overvalued equities, and stock price crash risk,” Research in International Business and Finance, vol. 39, pp. 389–405, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. A. Bentley, T. C. Omer, and N. Y. Sharp, “Business strategy, financial reporting irregularities, and audit effort,” Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 780–817, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. G. March, “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning,” Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 71–87, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Treacy and F. Wiersema, The Discipline of Market Leaders, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, USA, 1995.
R. E. Miles and C. C. Snow, Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, USA, 2003.
P. Dekoulou and P. Trivellas, “Organizational structure, innovation performance and customer relationship value in the Greek advertising and media industry,” Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 385–397, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. E. Quezada, F. M. Córdova, S. Widmer, and C. O’Brien, “A methodology for formulating a business strategy in manufacturing firms,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 60-61, pp. 87–94, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Dubey and S. S. Ali, “Study on effect of functional competency on performance of Indian manufacturing sector,” Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1–15, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Sharma and T. Fisher, “Functional strategies and competitiveness: an empirical analysis using data from Australian manufacturing,” Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 286–294, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Soosay, B. Nunes, D. J. Bennett, A. Sohal, J. Jabar, and M. Winroth, “Strategies for sustaining manufacturing competitiveness,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 6–37, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Rodríguez-Castellanos, M. Hagemeister, and S. Ranguelov, “Absorptive capacity for R&D: the identification of different firm profiles,” European Planning Studies, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1267–1283, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-I. Lee and P. R. J. Trim, “How mutuality reinforces partnership development: Japanese and Korean marketing perspectives,” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 770–779, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. C. H. Law, “Using bonus and awards for motivating project employees,” Human Resource Management International Digest, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 4–7, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Adamson, E. K. Kelan, P. Lewis, N. Rumens, and M. Slíwa, “The quality of equality: thinking differently about gender inclusion in organizations,” Human Resource Management International Digest, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 8–11, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Behera, N. Nayak, and H. Das, “Performance measurement due to IT adoption,” Business Process Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 888–907, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Worren, “Functional analysis of organizational designs,” International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 774–791, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Phongpetra and L. M. Johri, “Impact of business strategies of automobile manufacturers in Thailand,” International Journal of Emerging Markets, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 17–37, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Zuckerman, Optimal Distinctiveness Revisited: An Integrative Framework for Understanding the Balance between Differentiation and Conformity in Individual and Organizational Identities, Handbook of Organizational Identity, Oxford, UK, 2016.
S. C. Wheelwright, “Reflecting corporate strategy in manufacturing decisions,” Business Horizons, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 57–66, 1978.
W. Skinner, “Manufacturing: missing link in corporate strategy,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 136–145, 1969.
View at: Google Scholar
S. C. Wheel Wright, “Manufacturing strategy: defining the missing link,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 77–91, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Hayes, S. Wheelwright, and K. Clark, Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing through Manufacturing, Free Press, New York, NY, USA, 1988.
K. W. Platts and M. J. Gregory, “Manufacturing audit in the process of strategy formulation,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 5–26, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. W. Platts, “A process approach to researching manufacturing strategy,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 4–17, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. S. Dangayach and S. G. Deshmukh, “Manufacturing strategy,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 884–932, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H.-H. Chang and W.-C. Huang, “Application of a quantification SWOT analytical method,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 43, no. 1-2, pp. 158–169, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Sadler, Strategic Management, Kogan Page Publishers, 2003.
E. Y. Masoud, “The impact of functional competencies on firm performance of pharmaceutical industry in Jordan,” International Journal of Marketing Studies, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 56, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Van der Kolk and T. Schokker, “Strategy implementation through hierarchical couplings in a management control package: an explorative case study,” Journal of Management Control, vol. 27, no. 2-3, pp. 129–154, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. A. Merchant and W. A. Van der Stede, Management Control Systems: Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, Pearson Education, Harlow, UK, 2007.
T. Malmi and D. A. Brown, “Management control systems as a package-Opportunities, challenges and research directions,” Management Accounting Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 287–300, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Mintzberg, “Patterns in strategy formation,” Management Science, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 934–948, 1978.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Mintzberg, “The fall and rise of strategic planning,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 107–114, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
T. C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1980.
F. R. David, “How companies define their mission,” Long Range Planning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 90–97, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Thompson and A. J. Strickland, Administración Estratégica, McGraw-Hill, Mexico City, Mexico, 2004.
M. M. E. Tehrani, “Analyzing strategic factors associated with issuance of environmental liability insurance policy in developing countries using SWOT and QSPM,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 359–365, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Azarnivand and M. E. Banihabib, “A multi-level strategic group decision making for understanding and analysis of sustainable watershed planning in response to environmental perplexities,” Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 629–648, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Capps and M. D. Glissmeyer, “Extending the competitive profile matrix using internal factor evaluation and external factor evaluation matrix concepts,” Journal of Applied Business Research, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1059–1062, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Arabi, Manual of Strategic Planning, Cultural Research Office, Tehran, Iran, 2006.
C. I. Setiawati and A. C. Wahyono, “Purposing division strategy for pharmaceutical producer Dexa Medica in the demanding market,” International Journal of Learning and Change, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 367–383, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Chladkova and S. Formankova, “Strategy for SMEs in the area of primary agricultural production,” Agricultural Economics, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 395–406, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Katsioloudes and A. K. Abouhanian, The Strategic Planning Process: Understanding Strategy in Global Markets, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, USA, 2016.
A. Pratiwi, W. Sutopo, R. Zakaria, and A. M. Rasli, “Formulating strategy through QSPM based on SWOT framework: a case study spin-off company in Malaysia,” Advanced Science Letters, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 8646–8651, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L.-T. Lu, “Strategic planning for Xiaomi: smart phones, crisis, turning point,” International Business Research, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 149, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Pelaez, “Competitive profile matrix as a tool for evaluating strategic performance of higher education institutions,” Journal of Strategy and Performance Management, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 77–91, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Kajanus, J. Kangas, and M. Kurttila, “The use of value focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism management,” Tourism Management, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 499–506, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. R. Ommani, “Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis for farming system businesses management: case of wheat farmers of shadervan district, Shoushtar township, Iran,” African Journal of Business Management, vol. 5, no. 22, pp. 9448–9454, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. von Kodolitsch, A. Bernhardt, P. Robinson et al., “Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as a tool for translating evidence into individualized medical strategies (I-SWOT),” AORTA, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 98–107, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-H. Lee, “Navigating SWOT-FANP with GSM method to prioritize the strategic location,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 140–163, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Shakerian, H. D. Dehnavi, and S. B. Ghanad, “The implementation of the hybrid model SWOT-TOPSIS by fuzzy approach to evaluate and rank the human resources and business strategies in organizations (case study: road and urban development organization in Yazd),” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 230, pp. 307–316, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. F. C. Anguibi, V. N. Balla, and B. M. Allate, “An evaluation of Abidjan container terminal competitive position in west Africa using a fuzzy quantified SWOT framework,” Open Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 648–666, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Rowe, R. Mason, and K. Dickel, Strategic Management and Business Policy: A Methodological Approach, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Boston, MA, USA, 1982.
J. Nouri, A. R. Karbassi, and S. Mirkia, “Environmental management of coastal regions in the Caspian Sea,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 43–52, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Adel, R. Jalali, and F. Khosravani, “A hybrid approach to select business strategy,” Scientific Research Quarterly of Business Management Explorations, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 124–143, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Jamali, E. Karimi Asl, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, and J. Šaparauskas, “Analysing larg supply chain management comoptitive strategies in iranian cement industries,” E+M Ekonomie a Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 70–83, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Henderson, The Experience Curve Reviewed, Wiley Online Library, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1973.
G. Genoveva and S. T. Siam, “Analysis of marketing strategy and competitive advantage,” International Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1571–1579, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
Y.-C. Chang, W.-H. Lee, and C.-H. Wu, “Potential opportunities for Asian airports to develop self-connecting passenger markets,” Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 77, pp. 7–16, 2019.
M. G. Allen, “Diagramming GE’s planning for what’s watt,” Planning Review, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 3–9, 1977.
R. Allio and M. Pennington, Corporate Planning: Techniques and Applications, Amacom, New York, NY, USA, 1979.
M. M. Tahernejad, M. Ataei, and R. Khalokakaei, “A strategic analysis of Iran’s dimensional stone mines using SWOT method,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 149–154, 2013.
H. D. Mohammadian, Principles of Strategic Planning, Fachhochschule des Mittelstands, Bielefeld, Germany, 2017.
C. Christensen, N. Berg, and M. Salter, Policy Formulation and Administration: A Casebook of Senior Management Problems in Business, Irwin, Homewood, IL, USA, 1980.
K.-l. Lee and S.-c. Lin, “A fuzzy quantified SWOT procedure for environmental evaluation of an international distribution center,” Information Sciences, vol. 178, no. 2, pp. 531–549, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. R. David, “The strategic planning matrix-a quantitative approach,” Long Range Planning, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 102–107, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Pazouki, S. A. Jozi, and Y. A. Ziari, “Strategic management in urban environment using SWOT and QSPM model,” Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 207–216, 2017.
M. E. David, F. R. David, and F. R. David, “The quantitative strategic planning matrix: a new marketing tool,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 342–352, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Korableva and O. Kalimullina, “Strategic approach to the optimization of organization based on BSC-SWOT matrix,” in IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Applications (ICKEA), pp. 212–215, Singapore, September 2016.
A. Uhl and L. A. Gollenia, Business Transformation Management Methodology, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 2016.
W. M. P. Van Der Aalst, M. La Rosa, and F. M. Santoro, “Business process management,” Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2016.
G. Cokins, Strategic Business Management: From Planning to Performance, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2017.
A. Presley, L. Meade, and J. Sarkis, “A strategic sourcing evaluation methodology for reshoring decisions,” Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 156–169, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Haynes, N. Nunnington, and T. Eccles, Corporate Real Estate Asset Management: Strategy and Implementation, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK, 2017.
A. M. Rugman and A. Verbeke, Global Corporate Strategy and Trade Policy, vol. 12, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2017.
J. F. Chang, Business Process Management Systems: Strategy and Implementation, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY, USA, 2016.
R. Rumelt, The Evaluation of Business Strategy, McGraw-Hill, Nueva York, NY, USA, 1980.
E. G. Hansen and S. Schaltegger, “The sustainability balanced scorecard: a systematic review of architectures,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 133, no. 2, pp. 193–221, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-C. Shen, P.-S. Chen, and C.-H. Wang, “A study of enterprise resource planning (ERP) system performance measurement using the quantitative balanced scorecard approach,” Computers in Industry, vol. 75, pp. 127–139, 2016.
R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, “The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 70, pp. 71–79, 1992.
R. K. Srivastava, T. A. Shervani, and L. Fahey, “Market-based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 2–18, 1998.
R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, “Balance without profit,” Financial Management, vol. 1, pp. 23–26, 2001.
D. J. Cooper, M. Ezzamel, and S. Q. Qu, “Popularizing a management accounting idea: the case of the balanced scorecard,” Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 991–1025, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Rigby and B. Bilodeau, Management Tools and Trends 2009, Bain & Company, Boston, MA, USA, 2009.
N. Hamid, “Use balanced scorecard for measuring competitive advantage of infrastructure assets of state-owned ports in Indonesia,” Journal of Management Development, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 114–126, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA, USA, 2001.
I. Martins and O. Belo, “A Balanced Scorecard Approach for Evaluating the Utility of a Data Warehousing System,” in Proceedings of the European, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS), pp. 633–645, Coimbra, Portugal, September 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
M. R. Galankashi, S. A. Helmi, and P. Hashemzahi, “Supplier selection in automobile industry: a mixed balanced scorecard-fuzzy AHP approach,” Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 93–100, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Agrawal, R. K. Singh, and Q. Murtaza, “Outsourcing decisions in reverse logistics: sustainable balanced scorecard and graph theoretic approach,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 108, pp. 41–53, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Singh, E. U. Olugu, S. N. Musa, and A. B. Mahat, “Fuzzy-based sustainability evaluation method for manufacturing SMEs using balanced scorecard framework,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Martello, J. G. Watson, and M. J. Fischer, “Implementing a balanced scorecard in a not-for-profit organization,” Journal of Business and Economics Research (JBER), vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 61–74, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Santarelli, H. Abidi, M. Klumpp, and A. Regattieri, “Humanitarian supply chains and performance measurement schemes in practice,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 784–810, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Valdez, G. Cortes, S. Castaneda, L. Vazquez, J. Medina, and G. Haces, “Development and implementation of the balanced scorecard for a higher educational institution using business intelligence tools,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 164–170, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, “Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: part I,” Accounting Horizons, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 87–104, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 75–85, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
C. D. Ittner and D. F. Larcker, “Coming up short on nonfinancial performa nce measurement,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 81, no. 11, pp. 88–95, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Norreklit, “The balanced scorecard: what is the score? A rhetorical analysis of the balanced scorecard,” Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 591–619, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Neely, “The evolution of performance measurement research,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1264–1277, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Brignall, “The balanced scorecard: an environmental and social critique,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference On Performance Measurement, Boston, MA, USA, July 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Linard and L. Dvorsky, “People—not human resources: the system dynamics of human capital accounting,” in Proceedings of the Operations Research Society Conference, University of Bath, Bath, UK, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
L. M. D. F. Ferreira, C. Silva, and S. G. Azevedo, “An environmental balanced scorecard for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM),” Benchmarking: An International Journal, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1398–1422, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Falle, R. Rauter, S. Engert, and R. Baumgartner, “Sustainability management with the sustainability balanced scorecard in SMEs: findings from an Austrian case study,” Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 545, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Ravi, R. Shankar, and M. K. Tiwari, “Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 327–356, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Barnabè, “A “system dynamics-based balanced scorecard” to support strategic decision making,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 446–473, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Bianchi and G. B. Montemaggiore, “Enhancing strategy design and planning in public utilities through “dynamic” balanced scorecards: insights from a project in a city water company,” System Dynamics Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 175–213, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Bianchi and W. C. Rivenbark, “Performance management in local government: the application of system dynamics to promote data use,” International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 37, no. 13, pp. 945–954, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Abran and L. Buglione, “A multidimensional performance model for consolidating balanced scorecards,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 339–349, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. C. Leung, K. C. Lam, and D. Cao, “Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process & the analytic network process,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 682–691, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. H. I. Lee, W.-C. Chen, and C.-J. Chang, “A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 96–107, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Norreklit, “The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of some of its assumptions,” Management Accounting Research, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 65–88, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Barnabè and C. Busco, “The causal relationships between performance drivers and outcomes,” Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 528–538, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Van Veen-Dirks and M. Wijn, “Strategic control: meshing critical success factors with the balanced scorecard,” Long Range Planning, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 407–427, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. G. Lipe and S. E. Salterio, “The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures,” The Accounting Review, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 283–298, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA, USA, 1996.
J. Keyes, Implementing the IT Balanced Scorecard: Aligning IT with Corporate Strategy, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY, USA, 2016.
J. D. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Irwin McGraw Hill, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
R. Simons, Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy: Text and Cases, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2000.
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Guillermo Fuertes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Guillermo Fuertes, Miguel Alfaro, Manuel Vargas, Sebastian Gutierrez, Rodrigo Ternero, Jorge Sabattin, "Conceptual Framework for the Strategic Management: A Literature Review—Descriptive", Journal of Engineering, vol. 2020, Article ID 6253013, 21 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6253013
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/je/2020/6253013/
No comments:
Post a Comment