Managerial processes: business

process that sustain performance

Umit S. Bititci, Fran Ackermann, Aylin Ates and John Davies
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Patrizia Garengo
University of Padua, Padua, Italy
Stephen Gibb, Jillian MacBryde, David Mackay,
Catherine Maguire, Robert van der Meer and Farhad Shafti
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Michael Bourne
Craneld University, Craneld, UK, and
Seniye Umit Firat
Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose It is argued that whilst operational and support processes deliver performance presently, it is
the managerial processes that sustain performance over time. The purpose of this research paper is to better
understand what these managerial processes are and how they inuence organisational performance.
Design/methodology/approach The theoretical background is reviewed covering literature on
the subject of business process management, resourced-based view (RBV), dynamic capabilities and
managerial processes. A research framework leads to qualitative case study-based research design.
Data are collected from 37 organisations across Europe, classied according to their performance.
Findings Findings suggest that the ve managerial processes and their constituent managerial
activities, identied through the empirical research, inuence performance of organisations as an
interconnected managerial systemrather than as individual processes and activities. Also, the execution
andmaturityof this managerial systemis inuencedby the perceptions of the managers who organise it.
Research limitations/implications Within the limitation of the study the discussion leads to
eight research propositions that contribute to our understanding of howmanagerial processes inuence
organisational performance. These propositions and ensuing discussion provide insights into the
content and structure of managerial processes, as well as contributing to the debate on RBV by
suggesting that managerial processes and activities could be considered as valuable, rare and inimitable
resources. Furthermore, the discussion on how managerial perceptions inuence the organisation and
execution of the managerial system contributes towards our understanding of how and why dynamic
capabilities develop.
Practical implications The results suggest that in higher performing organisations, managers:
demonstrate a wider awareness of the overall managerial system; achieve a balance between
short-term and future-oriented activities; exploit their managerial activities for multiple purposes;
demonstrate greater maturity of managerial activities; and pay greater attention to the organisation of
the managerial system.
Originality/value This paper presents one of the rst empirical studies that attempt to understand
how business processes, and particularly managerial processes, as an interconnected managerial
system serve to sustain performance of organisations.
Keywords Organizational performance, Management strategy
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
Managerial
processes
851
Received 19 December 2009
Revised 8 December 2010
Accepted 13 March 2011
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management
Vol. 31 No. 8, 2011
pp. 851-887
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443571111153076
Introduction
For many years management practitioners and researchers have been concerned with
gaining a better understanding of how organisations survive and grow. Some
organisations seemto be able to rapidly develop and implement innovative responses to
threats and opportunities that emerge in their environment. In contrast, other
organisations seemto lack this dynamic capability even when they see and recognise the
same threats and opportunities. Some even fail to see or recognise threats and
opportunities until it is too late to take action. With a profound impact on organisational
growth and survival, such phenomena have attracted wide interest and investigations
have been conducted through an equally broad spectrumof lenses including: leadership,
strategy making, dynamic capabilities, transformation and change management as well
as business processes.
The business process lens of the organisation, where everything may be seen as a
process (Deming, 2000; Slacket al., 2006), provides the main motivation behind this paper.
More specically, authors suchas Harmon(2010), Davenport (2005) andBititci et al. (2010)
all argue that howorganisations congure and manage their business processes is a key
driver of organisational exibility and agility. In other words, the maturity andcapability
of business processes (Harmon, 2010; Bititci et al., 2010) is seen as a key determinant of an
organisations ability to adapt and respond to emerging threats and opportunities, and
thus its sustainability. In this context, we refer to sustainability as an organisations
ability to maintain or improve its performance over time. In fact, the literature suggests
that organisations with well developed, mature processes that enable horizon scanning,
monitoring, control as well as continuous improvement and evolution are more likely to
outperform their competitors and sustain their performance (Eisenhardt and Martin,
2000; Winter, 2003; Davenport et al., 2004, Morgan, 2006; Helfat et al., 2007; Bititci et al.,
2010; Harmon, 2010). This suggests that organisations should instil a plan-do-check-act
type capability (Deming, 2000) through their business processes to enable continuous
scanning, monitoring, control, improvement and evolution.
In the next section we present an overview of the theoretical background to our
exploratory research where we argue that whilst operational and support processes
deliver performance presently, it is the managerial processes that sustain performance
over time. This then becomes the core tenet of our research design with the specic
objective to understand what these managerial processes are and how they inuence
performance. We then present ndings of the empirical research conducted with
37 organisations across Europe, classied according to their performance. Analysis and
interpretation of the empirical data leads to identication of ve managerial processes
and their constituent managerial activities. Further analysis, interpretation and
reection of the ndings results in the development of research propositions that may be
summarised as follows: managerial processes inuence performance of organisations as
an interconnected managerial systemrather than as individual processes and activities.
Dynamic capabilities of an organisation is partly determined by the interconnectedness
of this managerial system where higher levels of process maturity is associated with
higher levels of interconnectedness and higher levels of performance. Organisations that
are able to balance short-term performance management activities with long-term
activities are more likely to be able to support sustained organisational performance.
And nally, the execution and maturity of this managerial system is inuenced by the
perceptions of the managers who organise the managerial system.
IJOPM
31,8
852
Owing to the exploratory nature of our research we do not suggest that our ndings
are exhaustive or universally representative. Rather, we would suggest that similar
studies would be likely to yield similar results to those emerging from our study. Thus,
our ndings should be interpreted in light of these limitations.
Theoretical background
The notion of business processes that has been around since the early 1980 s was rst
popularised by Hammer (1990) and has since gained wide spread acceptance across wide
range of academic and practitioner communities alike. In the strategic management
literature the process-based approaches to studying formulation, implementation and
realisation of strategies have been widespread (Pettigrew, 1992; Van de Ven, 1992). The
role of business processes and the value of processual thinking in business improvement
and change management have been extensively debated and widely recognised
(Harmon, 2010; Davenport, 2005; Jeston and Nelis, 2008). Similarly, froman information
systems perspective an in-depth understanding of business processes is considered a
critical prerequisite for specication, design and implementation of effective
information systems (Dumas et al., 2005; Davenport et al., 2004; Jeston and Nelis,
2008). Also in the quality management eld business processes and processual thinking
are central concepts that underpin concepts and methods such as Lean and Six-Sigma
(Pande et al., 2000; Hammer, 2002; Antony, 2006; Zu et al., 2008; Schroeder et al., 2008).
In fact, Bititci et al. (2010), in outlining an operations management perspective towards
dynamic capabilities provides a review of different tenets of business process-based
approaches across a wide eld of management research and practice. Similarly, Harmon
(2010) provides a comprehensive overview of the scope and evolution of business
process management from different perspectives.
Although the literature provides numerous denitions for business processes, all of
these reect, more or less, the same ontology, that a business process is a series of
continuous or intermittent cross-functional activities that are naturally connected
together with work owing through these activities for a particular outcome/purpose
(Davenport and Short, 1990; Hammer and Champy, 1993; Davenport, 1993; Ould, 1995;
Zairi, 1997; Slack et al., 2006, Harmon, 2010). What seems to make the business process
approach so distinct is that it not only focuses on activities, i.e. what is done and/or how
they are done, but it also places emphasis on howthese activities are interconnected and
how work ows through these activities to produce efcient and effective results.
The literature on business processes offers a variety of business processes
classications according to their purpose and function, such as: manage, operate and
support processes (Childe et al., 1994; CIM-OSA Standards Committee, 1989);
organisational and managerial processes (Garvin, 1998); and management and
organisational processes (Davenport, 1993). The classication of business processes by
various authors is presented in greater detail in Table I.
Although opinion seems to differ as to the classication of business processes, there
seems to be a degree of consensus that managerial processes[1] are super-ordinate to
the other categories of business processes and are primarily concerned with the future
performance of the organisation (Armistead et al., 1997). For example, setting new
directions, formulating and implementing strategies, competence building, monitoring
and control, managing organisational renewal, change and transformations are
classied as managerial processes. Whereas other processes such as customer-facing
Managerial
processes
853
operational processes reinforced by support processes are business processes that are
concerned with delivering performance presently (Childe et al., 1994; CIMOSA, 1989;
Armistead et al., 1997).
In short, we would suggest that operational and support processes[2] deliver
performance here and now but it is the managerial processes that sustain performance
in the long-term by directing, changing and managing the operational and support
processes (Figure 1).
In fact the business process eld is not the only body of literature that is concerned
with business processes that sustain organisational performance. For over 20 years the
body of literature on the resource-based view(RBV) of the rmhas been concerned with
how organisations develop competitive advantage and sustain performance by
leveraging their resources (Wernerfelt, 1984; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Barney, 1991;
Amit and Schoemacher, 1993; Barney et al., 2001). Here, it is suggested that
organisations develop tangible and intangible resources over time, some of which may
be distinctive (i.e. distinctive competencies) and some may be more difcult to replicate
than others (i.e. core competencies) (Wernerfelt, 1984; Dierickx et al., 1989; Prahalad and
Hamel, 1990; Amit and Schoemacher, 1993). In the RBV literature, organisational
learning through networking and effective management of knowledge is seen as a
critical competence that enables organisations to develop innovative responses
in emerging unpredictable contexts and thus sustain competitive advantage and
performance (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Nonaka, 1991; Pettigrew and Whipp, 1993;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Grant, 1996; Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Quinn et al., 1996;
Nahapiet and Goshal, 1998; Davenport and Prusack, 1998; Keogh, 1999; Osterloh and
Frey, 2000; McAdam, 2000; Easterby-Smith and Prieto, 2008).
Childe et al. (1994)
and CIMOSA
(1989) Davenport (1993) Armistead et al. (1997) Garvin (1998)
Operate processes Operational processes Operational processes Organisational
Get order
Develop product
Full order
Support product
Manage processes
Set direction
Formulate
strategies
Direct business
Support processes
Support technology
Support HR
Support nance
Etc
Product and service
development processes
Managerial processes
Competence building
Renewal
Direction setting
Support processes
Work processes
Operational
Administrative
Behavioural processes
Decision making
Communication
Learning
Change processes
Creation
Growth
Transformation
Decline
Managerial
Direction setting
Negotiation and selling
Monitoring and Control
Research
Engineering and design
Manufacturing
Logistics
Customer facing processes
Marketing
Order management and
sales
Service processes
Management processes
Strategy formulation
Planning and budgeting
Performance measurement
and reporting
Resource allocation
Human resource management
Infrastructure building
Stakeholder communication
Table I.
Classication of business
processes
IJOPM
31,8
854
Moreover, the RBV literature suggests that many of the resources that develop and
sustain competitive advantage could be organisational resources such as business
processes. In fact in a special issue of the Journal of Management on the RBV,
Barney et al. (2001) note three key areas for further examination, namely: how
organisations learn and share knowledge; how organisations develop and manage
alliances and relationships; and how organisations innovate.
In addition to the debate surrounding the implications of a rms stock of resources,
the body of literature on dynamic capabilities is also of particular interest, particularly
from a business process perspective. In essence, dynamic capabilities represent an
organisations ability to rapidly, and with minimumdisruption, extend, integrate, build,
modify and recongure its resource base of tangible, intangible and human resources
(Amit and Schoemacher, 1993; Teece et al., 1997; Helfat et al., 2007; Easterby-Smith and
Prieto, 2008). However, opinion varies as to what comprises dynamic capabilities or how
they are developed. For instance, Zollo and Winters (2002) structured view of dynamic
capabilities is rooted in organisational learning. In contrast, Rindova and Kotha (2001)
present an emergent view of dynamic capabilities. Others recognise that dynamic
capabilities, per se, are not a direct source of competitive advantage, rather, they are the
organisational and strategic routines (or processes) by which managers alter their
resource base (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Winter, 2003; Teece, 2009; Dving and
Gooderham, 2008; Furrer et al., 2008). In fact, some authors go further and suggest that
processes such as strategic decision making (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000), change
Figure 1.
Business process
architecture and
performance
M
a
n
a
g
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
Managerial processes
Operational processes
Support processes
M
a
n
a
g
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
S
e
t
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Managerial processes...
concerned with sustaining
and enhancing
performance in the future
Operate and support
processes... concerned
with delivering
performance here and now
Performance
Develop product
Get order
Fulfil order
Support product
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
e
c
h
'
g
y
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
t
c
.
.
.
.
e
t
c
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
B
u
i
l
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e
Managerial
processes
855
(Collis, 1994; Winter, 2003; Helfat et al., 2007), organisational learning and knowledge
management (Zollo and Winter;, 2002), innovation (Wang and Ahmed, 2007; Teece,
2009), alliancing and networking (Dyer, 1996; Helfat et al., 2007), and organisational
identity building (Fiol, 2001; Balmer, 2008) are all organisational routines or managerial
processes that sustain organisational performance.
Based on the literature covered in this section so far, it is clear that business processes
have an important role to play in dening how organisations perform. It is commonly
accepted that operational processes together with support processes determine an
organisations present performance. But it is the managerial processes that determine
how this performance is sustained over time.
For the purposes of this paper, managerial processes are considered to be the
strategic business processes that are concerned with the future performance of the
organisation. Based on the preceding literature, we would propose the following
denition:
[. . .] managerial processes are organisational routines that underpin the dynamic capabilities
of an organisation by controlling and reconguring the organisations resource base, thus
impacting on the organisations ability to attain, sustain or enhance performance in the
long-term.
The most widely recognised managerial process, both by practitioners and researchers,
appears to be the strategy process, i.e. the process by which strategy is formulated,
implemented, reviewed and refreshed (Wheelen and Hunger, 1986; Andrews, 1987; Ansoff
and McDonnell, 1990; Digman, 1990; Thomsonand Strickland, 1990; Hughes, 1996; Pearce
and Robinson, 1996; Ackermann and Eden, 2011; Mills et al., 1998; Focus, 1999; Acur and
Bititci, 2004; Munive-Hernandez et al., 2004). However, literature also contains process
archetypes for other managerial processes such as change (Lewin, 1951; Sirkin et al., 2005;
Burnes, 2004), performance management (Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1993; Goodman and
Lawless, 1994; Bititci and Carrie, 1998; Neely et al., 2000; Neely and Adams,
2001; Campbell et al., 2002), direction setting (Pearce and Robinson, 1991; Harari, 1994,
1995; Collins and Porras, 1995, 1996; Nanus, 1996) and environmental scanning (Aaker,
1983; Aguilar, 1967; Costa, 1995; Van Wyk, 1997; Choo, 1998; Liu, 1998; Beal, 2000;
Ngamkroeckjoti and Johri, 2000; Abels, 2002; Albright, 2004; Day and Schoemaker, 2006).
Althoughother literature maybe interpretedina waytosuggest that managerial activities
such as project management (Parnaby, 2009) and information management (Busch et al.,
2007) could be considered as managerial processes, inour viewthese are manifestations of
managerial processes such as change, communication and knowledge management as
supported by authors such as Armistead et al. (1997) and Garvin (1998).
Although the other managerial processes are not as prevalent as the strategy
management process, the boundaries between various processes do not appear to be
dened. However, in most cases researchers seem to focus on a single process alone,
without attempting to understand howone managerial process may interact with others
(e.g. how does the strategy process interact with the change process). In fact, detailed
study of these processes reveals so many overlaps between different processes that it is
not clear whether a number of interacting managerial processes are being studied or the
same process is being studied from different lenses under different names.
In conclusion, as evidenced by number of different bodies of literature, there appears
to be congruence towards the view that managerial processes are critical resources
that underpin an organisations ability to sustain its performance in the long-term.
IJOPM
31,8
856
In Figure 2 we illustrate this congruence as a relationship between the three separate
bodies of literature: business processes, RBV and dynamic capabilities. Although the
literature offers a number of opinions as to what these managerial processes may be and
howthey individually may inuence performance, we believe that our understanding of
the managerial processes is constrained by the lack of empirical research that explores
the relationship between managerial processes as a whole and organisational
performance.
Empirical method
Given that we were seeking to understand what these managerial processes are and
how they inuence performance we have adopted a qualitative case study-based
methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989b; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) with quasi-statistical
techniques where appropriate (Maxwell, 2005). Case study data were collected from
37 European manufacturing SMEs[3] operating in different sectors. However,
companies with less the 50 employees were avoided as according to Voss et al. (1998)
they represent different levels of managerial capabilities.
Figure 2.
Relationship between the
business process,
resource-based view and
dynamic capabilities
literature
RBV and dynamic capability literature
Business process literature
Organisations develop and sustain competitive advantage by leveraging
their tangible and intangible resources
Dynamic capabilities represent an organisations capacity, to extend,
modify and reconfigure its resource base
Managerial processes are organisational routines that underpin the
dynamic capabilities of an organisation by controlling and reconfiguring
the organisations resource base, thus impacting on the organisations
ability to attain, sustain or enhance performance in the long term.Such
processes may be:
Setting direction
Environmental scanning
Managing strategy
Managing performance
Resource planning and allocation
Alliancing and networking
Managing change
Strategic decision making
Communication
Competence building
Organisational learning
Knowledge management
A business process is a series of cross-functional activities that are
connected together with work-flows for a particular outcome/purpose
Business processes are classified as operational, support and
managerial processes
Operational and support processes deliver performance here and now
but is the managerial processes that determines how performance is
sustained and enhanced in the long term
Managerial
processes
857
Research was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of academics with support from
a core team of researchers. The research team comprised of academics from operations
management, management science, psychology, business process management,
strategic management, engineering/technology management, human resource
management and performance measurement. An interdisciplinary team was deemed
necessary to reect the multidisciplinary nature of the managerial processes as
illustrated through the literature in the previous section. The multiple perspectives
inuenced research design and data analysis ensuring a degree of robustness in data
analysis and interpretation.
Data collection and coding
A data collection protocol was developed, to ensure consistency and repeatability, and
piloted before it was rened and used with all 37 case studies. The protocol employed a
semi-structured face-to-face interview technique to encourage managers to talk freely
about how they manage performance. To decrease the informant bias, interviews were
conducted with more than one researcher in all case studies. Each interview lasted
approximately two hours. On average ve members of the management team were
interviewed. For triangulation purposes interviews were also conducted with shop-oor
employees as well as using secondary data in the form of internal reports and media
publications (Eisenhardt, 1989a; Miles and Huberman, 1994). In some cases,
supplementary follow-up interviews were conducted through site visits or telephone calls.
The case study design was informed by the business process denition discussed
earlier in order to surface the managerial processes used within organisations, i.e. a
business process comprises of a series of interconnected activities and practices through
which work ows towards a specic outcome or purpose. The interviewrecordings and
researchers notes were used to develop case study reports in accordance with the case
study protocol, the focus of which was to discuss the managerial activities and practices
within the organisation (McCutcheon and Meridith, 1993). Content analysis (Strauss,
1987; Davies et al., 2003) was employed using NVivo[4] software with the initial ten case
studies to develop and rene a taxonomy that captured, in each case study, what
managerial activities are carried out, and to what outcome or purpose. The taxonomy
was then used to code all 37 case studies resulting in 997 stories where each story
represented an activity carried out for a specic purpose. An extract from the emergent
taxonomy is shown in Figure 3 together with a coding example. Here, the informant
response is coded into the taxonomy as in Company 21, KPIs are checked for the
purpose (outcome) of performance and internal decision making which represents one
of the stories that emerged from the data.
To ensure consistency of coding between different researchers a coding book was
developed that dened the meaning behind each component of the taxonomy.
Inter-researcher reliability analysis was conducted by getting different researchers to
code the same case studies and then comparing variances in interpretations.
Performance analysis and ranking
Performance information was collected from the 37 organisations over a ten-year
period[5] (Kirby, 2005 and Richard et al., 2009) against the following leading and
lagging indicators: revenue growth; market share growth; protability growth; cash
ow growth; value-added productivity growth; customer satisfaction; new value
IJOPM
31,8
858
streams; investments; employee satisfaction and morale. The performance of each case
study organisation, relative to their sector, was assessed against the nine indicators
using a ve-point scale (1 well below sector average; 3 sector average; 5 well
above sector average), an approach consistent with previous such studies (Laugen et al.,
2005). The reliability and validity of the data collected was checked using publicly
available company performance information such as FAME and similar databases[6].
The case study companies were ranked according to their performance using three
different approaches (total scores, hierarchical clustering and K-means). Appendix 1
illustrates the ranking obtained from three different approaches together with the nal
clustering decision, which was reached by comparing the clusters across the three sets
of results. Although there were high degrees of consistency between the three sets of
results, in three cases (No. 6, 13 and 23) there were conicts. These conicts were
resolved by looking at the majority grouping.
Maturity assessment
Literature relatingtoeachmanagerial activityemergingfromthe datawas usedtodevelop
a maturity scale (Appendix 2) which was used to assess the maturity of each managerial
activity in each organisation. In effect, this indicated how the managerial activities were
conducted in each organisation, i.e. the managerial practices. Figure 4 shows the
relationship between processes, activities and practices as used in this research.
This assessment, including reliability and validity checks, was conducted initially by
the research team against the case study data, which were subsequently validated with
each organisation through workshops. Conrmed scores were then entered into the
taxonomy database along with company performance and background information.
Process maturity scores were calculated based on the average scores of activities
associated with outcomes corresponding to particular processes.
Data analysis and interpretation
Analysis of the managerial processes and activities that emerged from the case studies,
together with maturity levels against relative performance of the case study
organisations and the underpinning literature, served to inform an iterative process
of data analysis, discussion and reection within the interdisciplinary research team
Figure 3.
An extract from
the emergent taxonomy
and a coding example
What do managers
do?
Company context
Perceived
performance
Management
activities
Outcome of
activities
External
Info. flow
React Check Internal
KPIs Performance
Decision
making
Do Plan
Other Culture
Financial
perf.
"Aside from the standard financial measurements, we have a set of measures that we check on a regular basis to let us know
that we're hitting the targets and that thirgs are operating as they should if we're not hitting the targets, than we use the results
of the checks to decide how to move forward"
Staff
perf.
Managerial
processes
859
that eventually lead to ndings and conclusions discussed in the following sections.
Figure 5 shows this process of data analysis.
More specically the data from 37 organisations was analysed in two ways. First
the database of coded stories was analysed using quasi-statistical techniques in order
to identify patterns across 37 organisations, 232 interviews and 997 stories. Second, the
detailed case study reports and the interview recordings were investigated in further
detail in order to surface the relationships between managerial processes, their
maturity and organisational performance. Our research identied ve managerial
processes comprising of 36 managerial activities. However, we do not suggest that
Figure 4.
Managerial processes,
activities and practices
Business process
A series of continuous or intermittent cross-functional
activities that are connected together with work-flowing
through these activities for a particular outcome/purpose
A1
A2
A5
A4
A3
A6
Activity
An activity, also known as a sub-process, is a
specific task or package of work that needs to
completed for the process to be realised
For example...
The process
Manage performance
... will consist of a number activities
that are completed for the purpose
of managing performance. These
activities may be...
Check KPIs
Check staff performance
Communicate performance
Plan improvement projects
Etc.
... The activity Check KPIs
may be associated with good
and bad practices, as follows...
Good practice
Relevant set of balanced measures
are regularly checked, discussed
and understood by all
Bad practice
Only financial measures are used
which are reported to senior
managers but not shared with
anyone else
Practices
A practice is the manner in which an activity is
executed .The same activity may be executed in
different ways (goodorbad) by different people,
teams or organisations. Good practices are
associated with high levels of maturity and bad
practices are associated with low levels of
maturity
Appendix 1 provides a normative model that identifies
the good practices against each one of the managerial
activities that emerged from the research
Figure 5.
The iterative process
of data analysis,
discussion and reection Findings and conclusions
Analysis
Data analysis,
discussion and reflection
within the
interdisciplinary
research team
Inductive data
What do the companies do?
Managerial
processes identified
in organisations
Managerial activities
identified in
organisations
Managerial practices
identified in
organisations
Deductive data
What does the literature say?
Managerial
processes
Maturity assessment of
company practices
Best/normative
practices
C
a
s
e

s
t
u
d
y

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
T
a
x
o
n
o
m
y

a
n
d

c
o
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
e

s
t
u
d
y

r
e
p
o
r
t
s
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,

R
B
V
,
d
y
n
a
m
i
c

c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Sustainable
performance
Performance analysis
and ranking
IJOPM
31,8
860
these managerial processes and activities are an exhaustive or universally
representative list. Rather, we would suggest that similar studies would be likely to
identify similar in meaning managerial activities to those emerging from our study
(regardless of nomenclature). As such the intent of our research design was to provide
a consistent mechanism for coding and analysing the data. Thus, our ndings should
be interpreted in light of these constraints.
Empirical ndings
What are the managerial processes in practice?
Previously, we referred to a managerial process as a strategic business process whose
intended outcomes impact the direction and control of the organisations future
performance. We develop this idea further by suggesting that the name of specic
managerial processes shouldbe consistent withthe realisedoutcome or intendedpurpose
of a set of managerial activities, e.g. where the outcome of performance is intended or
realised by a set of managerial activities, this indicates a performance management
process. This approach is consistent with teleological process theory in that it
accommodates multiple alternative means to reacha desiredendstate (Vande Ven, 1992).
Following discourse analysis as prescribed by Davies et al. (2003), ve main
managerial processes emerged from the full data set. Reecting on the interview data
with a focus on the intended purpose of activities as espoused by the managers
conducting them, we identied a number of internal and external outcomes. Through
an internal process of reection, discussion and data analysis within the research
group, we further clustered the outcomes into ve main processes. The ve managerial
processes that emerged from this analysis may be dened as follows together with
their constituent outcomes:
(1) Managing performance. The process by which the managers attempt to
manage the performance of the organisation comprising of a series of activities
interrelated to one another for the purpose of performance management. Its
purpose, to manage performance of the organisation, is broad and far reaching
including multiple performance outcomes such as: nancial, operational, staff,
suppliers, customers, market, product and brand.
(2) Managing decision making. The process by which the managers attempt to
manage decision making within the organisation comprising of a series of
activities interrelated to one another for the purpose of facilitating decision
making. Its purpose, to facilitate decision making, is also broad and far reaching
including operational and strategic decisions relating to multiple outcomes such
as: investment, stafng, suppliers, customers, processes, product and services.
(3) Managing communications. The process by which managers facilitate
communications within and outside the organisation comprising of a series of
activities interrelated to one another for the purpose of facilitating internal
information ow and external communications. Its purpose, to manage
communications, is broad and includes outcomes such as communicating with
internal (such as people, shop-oor, management team) and external
stakeholders (such as shareholders, policy makers, society, as well as suppliers
and customers) as well as gathering of relevant intelligence from the external
environment.
Managerial
processes
861
(4) Managing culture. The process by which the managers attempt to manage
culture and cultural change within the organisation comprising of a series of
activities interrelated to one another for the purpose of managing culture. Its
purpose, to manage culture, includes behavioural aspects of management with a
viewto improving motivation and engagement of people within the organisation.
(5) Managing change. The process by which the managers attempt to manage
change within the organisation comprising of a series of activities interrelated to
one another for the purpose of managing change. Its purpose, to manage change,
focuses largely on mechanistic and procedural aspects of change management,
including project management. The behavioural aspects of change management
are largely addressed as part of the managing culture process.
The titles of these outcomes reect the language of the managers interviewed. For
example, in most organisations, delivering performance was the main consideration
of all levels of management. For the individual managers, they were concerned with
meeting goals and targets but depending on individual and business factors, these
targets could relate to a broad range of business outcomes (such as brand value,
operational efciency, customer satisfaction, etc.) Therefore, the managerial process
of manage performance represents a high-level description of the activities carried
out by managers to meet a set of goals/targets rather than specic, detailed
descriptions of the company by company, individual by individual enactment of these
activities.
What are the managerial activities in practice?
The research identied 36 distinct managerial activities (Table II) that represent the
constituent activities of the corresponding managerial processes. The values in Table II
represent the number of organisations (from the 37 cases examined) a particular
activity was associated with a particular outcome/process[7]. For example, the activity
check nancial performance was associated with manage performance outcome in
25 organisations and with managing decision making outcome on 19 organisations.
It was observed that, unlike operational and support processes where individual
activities are largely exclusive to a process with little overlap, managerial processes
have a high degree of overlap between processes, where overlap means that an
activity is shared between a number of processes. The ndings from this set of case
studies shows that the dominant process is performance management, with the
majority of activities being carried out for this purpose. Indeed, during the interviews it
became evident that managers were preoccupied with performance management and
other processes were shaped by this emphasis.
How do managerial processes and activities inuence performance?
Here, the research team was interested in observing how the managerial processes and
activities differed in high, average and low-performing organisations. On classifying
performances of the 37 organisations, there was not a balanced representation in each
group (14 high, 19 medium and four low performers). In order to prevent skewing of the
results due to this imbalance, analysis was conducted by comparing:
.
High performers (14) to not-high (i.e. average and low) performers (23), and
.
Three highest performers (3) to the three lowest performers (3).
IJOPM
31,8
862
Managerial processes
Managerial activities
Manage
performance
Manage decision
making
Manage
communication
Manage
culture
Manage
change
Check nancial performance 25 19 2 1 3
Check KPIs 24 14 5 3 3
Check other 4 2 1 1 1
Check staff performance 20 8 3 8 1
Communicate change 5 3 14 16 15
Communicate company
performance 16 9 23 8 1
Communicate with competitors 3 3 9
Communicate with customers 25 7 14 2
Communicate general 7 9 23 10 2
Communicate strategic objectives 7 7 19 10 1
Communicate with suppliers 15 5 13 1 1
Dene improvement activities 16 2 5 6
Develop business activities plan 19 12 2 2 6
Develop business goals and
objectives 24 14 5 1
Develop KPIs 16 8 3 2 2
Develop vision mission and
values 10 14 4 9 1
External other tactical 2 3 4 1
Feedback 16 8 7 7 1
ID external factors that impact
on business 6 19 4 5
Implement activities plan 14 3 5 1 5
Implement change 11 1 7 22
Interact with trade unions 1 3 3 4 2
Invest 24 4 5 2 9
Monitor competitors 8 22 9 3 1
Monitor customers 17 11 3 1 3
Monitor macro environment 8 26 7 1 2
Monitor suppliers 18 11 6 2
Other 5 1 1 1
Plan change program 9 4 2 8 24
Plan other 2 1 3 1
Plan resource requirements 19 11 3 4 9
Plan short-term activities 19 7 4 1
Plan short-term performance
targets 28 11 2 3 1
Review business activities plan 10 11 4 1 3
Review business goals and
objectives 17 15 4 2
Review KPIs 12 8 2 1 1
Review vision mission and values 7 7 1 2 2
Revise business measures 13 2 4 4
Reward 18 3 22
Train 24 2 14 7
Note: The values in table represent the number of instances each activity was conducted within
37 case study organisations as aligned with the outcome of the process
Table II.
The overlap between
managerial processes
and activities
Managerial
processes
863
Comparison of the different groupings revealed that all ve managerial processes were
observed, albeit with different levels of emphasis, in all organisations, regardless of
performance (Figure 6). That is all organisations conducted managerial activities
intended to contribute to the management of performance, decision making,
communication, change and culture.
The comparison also suggested that the dominant managerial process, as measured
by frequency of occurrence and stated relative importance in interviews, was that of
manage performance regardless of performance cluster (Figure 6). However, it also
emerged that, relative to the other four processes, the not-high performing
organisations placed greater emphasis on managing performance.
In contrast, the highest performing organisations placed a greater espoused
emphasis on managing communications and managing culture as shown in Figure 6
and as evidenced by the following quotations from the three high performing
organisations:
People are self-managed around here [. . .] We recognise that everyone is different and
think it is important to learn how to respond to each individual [. . .] We solve problems
as they arise rather than looking for someone to blame [. . .] It took us some time to change
the way we work and we are still working at it (Managing Director of Company 15).
In terms of communication, we approach individuals and teams to inform them about the
changes happening in the organisation. The net result appears to be high level of engagement
from the business as to what and why change was required (Human Resources Manager of
Company 9).
Our rm has gone through many changes since it was founded in 1989 [. . .]
Our organisational culture is to adapt to changes with minimum resistance as we all have
a shared understanding of the needs of our business [. . .] (Operations Manager of
Company 17).
Analysis of the constituent activities against the pair groups being compared revealed
two distinctive differences. First, analysis of the link between activities and outcome
suggested that in the higher performing organisations, managers were able to
articulate more targeted outcomes per espoused management activity than in lower
performing organisations by a ratio of 3-2. The following quotation is representative of
the multi-purpose managerial activity espoused by managers across organisations:
Figure 6.
Managerial processes
and performance
0
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
%
Highest performers (3)
Lowest performers (3)
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
%
High performers (14)
Not-high performers (23)
IJOPM
31,8
864
We have a process of evaluating performance of individual client projects. All project records
are kept in a central system [. . .] This practice lets us better manage and control our nances
as well as establish a continuous improvement culture among our engineers (Managing
Director of Company 30).
As can be determined in this example, the managerial activity of internal
communication of performance information directly supports the process of
managing performance and plays a further role in the process of managing culture.
This observation is based on coding and analysis of interview discourse but it suggests
that in higher performing organisations, there is a greater perceived degree of
interconnectedness of the activities and processes in the managerial system.
Second, the comparison of process maturity scores against performance clusters
revealed that high performing organisations have higher average maturity levels across
all managerial processes (Figure 7). In other words, within the boundaries of this study,
organisational performance differentials appear to positively correspond to individual
managers enactments of the managerial activities, i.e. how each activity is conducted.
Discussion
The purpose of our research was to develop a better understanding of the business
processes that sustain performance of organisations over time. The theoretical
background identied that although the operational and support processes deliver
performance here and now, it is the managerial processes that sustain performance in
the long-term. As such the purpose of our empirical research was to explore what these
managerial processes are and how they inuence performance over time. Our empirical
research adopted a case study-based qualitative research design. Case study data from
37 manufacturing SMEs across Europe were analysed. Based on our empirical ndings
outlined in the previous section and through the process of discussion and reection
within the research team the following four observations emerged as pertinent points
for explaining the relationship between managerial processes and how they inuence
performance over time.
First, it appears that, unlike other processes where activities may be largely exclusive
to processes, managerial processes are highly interconnected through shared
managerial activities enacted for different purposes. This theme developed from the
analysis of Table II plus the fact that higher performing organisations demonstrated
higher levels of interconnectedness, suggesting that the level of interconnectedness
Figure 7.
Process maturity proles
of case study
organisations
0.0
Note: The horizontal values the process maturity levels based
on the nine-point maturity scale included in Appendix 2
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Performance
Decision
Communication
Culture
Change
Lowest performers (3)
Not-high performers (23)
High performers (14)
Highest performers (3)
Managerial
processes
865
seems to have a relationship with performance. It is therefore considered vital that the
interconnectedness of the managerial systemis explored and explained in greater detail.
Second, we observed that whilst all organisations apparently conducted the same
managerial processes and activities, differentials existed in the emphasis placed on
individual processes. We also observed that higher performing organisations
demonstrated higher levels of maturity across all processes as well as demonstrating
a degree of organisational maturity around these processes (see quotations above). We
therefore consider it critical that the organisation[8] of the managerial system is further
explored.
Third, based on the interview recordings and case study reports as reected in some
of the quotations extracted from our study, we observed that the perceptions of the
managerial system and resultant actions of individual managers varied signicantly,
potentiallyinuencing the organisationof the managerial systemandthus performance.
Consequently, we discuss the notion of managerial perceptions and its implications on
the organisation and interconnectedness of the managerial system.
Fourth, it is a widely expressed view that dynamic capabilities are inexorably linked
to the organisational and strategic processes by which managers recongure their
resource base. Thus, our discussion of these ndings would be incomplete without
discussing the implications of our ndings from a dynamic capabilities perspective.
It could be argued that the above four observations may be a matter of granularity
and that if practices and activities are aggregated at higher levels of abstraction we
would expect to nd greater levels of similarity, and conversely at greater levels of
detail we would expect to nd greater levels of differences. Thus, in the following
paragraphs we have expanded on these four observations engaging with case study
data at a ne grained level (interview recordings and case study reports) and the
relevant literature to better explore the implications of our observations.
Interconnectedness of the managerial system
Analysis of our empirical data suggests that managerial processes do not exist and
function independently; rather they function as part of a complex interdependent
managerial system. This contrasts with theoretical models of operational processes
(such as order fullment, customer support, product development Maull et al., 1995;
ODonnel and Duffy, 2002) where the activities that constitute these processes are largely
exclusive to the process. In the case of managerial processes however, the managerial
activities being shared across multiple processes for multiple outcomes result in a highly
complex and interconnected system. This is illustrated through the following
contrasting quotations: In Company 16, a high performer, the operations director said:
[. . .] we developed our performance scoreboard and positioned it so that everyone knows how
we are performing (communication). This way they can judge what needs to be done to
improve performance [. . .] We regularly meet in front of the scoreboard to discuss and make
decisions on what we need to do. This also encourages everyone else to use the scoreboard in
a similar way (behaviour/culture).
In contrast in Company 1, a low performer, the general manager said [. . .] we look at
our monthly accounts to make planning decisions [. . .] we use the KPIs to check and
motivate shop oor productivity.
Such multi-outcome managerial activities make sense at an organisational level
when we consider the notion that the managerial system as a whole is principally
IJOPM
31,8
866
concerned with achieving a workable balance between stability and constant change as
well as dealing with multiple potentially conicting goals (Ackermann and Eden,
2011). It is rational to assume that managers might instinctively seek to use their
actions to achieve multiple ends wherever they perceive such a possibility.
However, various authors have noted that managers routinely have to deal with
variety, uncertainty and complexity (Ashby, 1962; Mintzberg, 1994; Johnson and
Scholes, 1999) which leads to causal ambiguity between managerial activities and
performance effects. Therefore, identifying opportunities to achieve multiple outcomes
from singular managerial activities may be difcult, and the managerial system may
be challenging to conceptualise, articulate and manage for any one individual.
In general, our ndings suggested that between organisations the levels of
interconnectedness was varied. We observed that in the higher performing
organisations, individuals were able to demonstrate a greater degree of awareness of
the potential to use their managerial activities as part of multiple processes than in lower
performing organisations (as evidenced by the two contrasting quotations provided
above). In this way, the managerial systems in higher performing organisations might
be considered to exhibit a greater degree of interconnectedness which could be
purposefully harnessed in the attainment of organisational objectives.
This argument is of signicance from a resourced-based perspective where
valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable (VRIN) resources will only be of
potential signicance to organisational performance when they can be operationalised
(Barney, 1995). It would be erroneous to equate a managerial activity or process to a
VRIN resource on the basis of maturity as the VRIN framework is intended to assess
organisational resources versus strategic industry factors (and not a literature model of
best practice). Equally, from a pragmatic perspective, it is reasonable to assume that
where a managerial activity or process is of average or low maturity, it is highly
unlikely that it will represent a VRIN resource. However, where a mature managerial
activity or process cannot be imitated or replaced by competitors, it is conceivable that
it may contribute to organisational performance. In such circumstances where such a
managerial activity or process is exploited more fully, it should follow that
organisational performance will equally be enhanced.
This logic of leverage is a core tenet of resource-based theory and it appears to be
consistent with our research ndings about the interconnectedness of managerial
systems. We observed that higher performing organisations leveraged their managerial
activities (VRIN or otherwise) more fully than lower performing organisations
by actively seeking to exploit them for multiple outcomes. This highlights a potential
risk concerning reductionist investigations of individual managerial processes without
due consideration of the overall managerial system. In fact, the notion that managerial
activities have to be considered as part of an interconnected and interdependent
managerial system becomes more signicant when we analyse the structure of the
managerial system.
Before doing so, it is important to emphasise that we do not claim that possession of
a leveraged VRIN managerial activity or process alone is sufcient for establishing
superior organisational performance. Indeed, two organisations in the high performing
cluster explicitly related their success to non-managerial VRIN resources (legacy
patented technology in one case and inimitable favourable geographical location in
another). Instead, we suggest that:
Managerial
processes
867
P1. The higher the levels of process maturity and the greater the degree of
interconnectedness, the more likely it is for an organisation to be able to
realise related organisational performance effects.
P2. Managerial processes and activities that contribute to organisational
performance need to be considered not just as individual VRIN resources,
but also as a wider managerial system of interconnected processes.
P3. The managerial system should be studied, understood and managed as an
interconnected whole rather then as the sum of discrete, individual processes.
The organisation of the managerial system
The main trigger to this discussion was the fact that performance management clearly
emerged as the most dominant managerial process across the 37 cases. However, the
analysis also showed that higher performing organisations placed less of an emphasis
on performance management (although it was still prevalent), associating more
managerial activities with culture and communication processes than the lower
performing cluster. Exploration of interview transcripts revealed that managers were
able to infer that short- and long-termperformance benets would emerge fromfocus on
alternative outcomes, e.g:
I do not really want to spend all my time managing what people do day-to-day. I nd that if
I spend my time communicating, developing people (culture) and managing the way people
do things (change), performance usually follows (Managing Director of Company 3).
This is consistent with the performance measurement literature where interventions on
leading indicators deliver positive performance outcomes in lagging indicators in due
course (Kaplan and Norton, 1993; Bititci and Carrie, 1998; Neely et al., 2000; Neely and
Adams, 2001).
Our analysis suggests that higher performing organisations place a relatively
greater emphasis on processes that yield benets in the longer term (such as managing
culture and managing communication) rather than focussing exclusively on short-term
performance. This forward looking orientation of management activity in higher
performing organisations appears to enable them to better respond to the uncertainties
and complexities of the changing business environment described by many authors
(Amit and Schoemacher, 1993; DAveni, 1994; Teece et al., 1997; Aragon-Correa and
Sharma, 2003; Teece, 2009).
An inuential notion in resource-based theory is that of organisational stocks and
ows (Dierickx et al., 1989). These authors propose that howan organisation competes
in the present is determined by its current stocks of resources. However, future stocks
are determined by resource ows. The resources related to these ows can be subject to
effects such as time compression diseconomies and asset mass efciencies which mean
that resource-based advantages have to be anticipated and accrued over time. In effect,
whilst luck might explain superior performance of an organisation at any given
instance, over a sustained period of time, superior performance requires foresight and
forward looking management effort (Barney, 1991). Organisations are therefore
challenged to keep one eye on the present, deploying valuable resources effectively, and
one looking forward to build future-relevant, future-valuable resources in essence
managing continuity and change (Eden and Ackermann, 1998).
IJOPM
31,8
868
In our high-performing cases, the relative emphasis of the managerial processes
within the overall system could be argued to reect the challenges of managing the
present whilst predicting future operational needs. First, with less emphasis placed on
managing current performance and more placed on leading (future-oriented) processes,
the higher performing organisations could be said to have a more balanced
organisation of their managerial system, e.g. [. . .] my job was created to encourage
long-term strategic thinking in the business as we realised that most of our managers
were thinking short-term (Director of Strategy, Company 22) also:
Over the past six years or so we have invested a lot time and effort to get this company ready
for change. Although we did not need to change at the time, we knew that we will have to
change sometime. Now we nd changing easy [. . .] (Finance Director, Company 23).
In contrast, this quotation from the owner/director of a low-performing organisation
provides further evidence for this phenomenon [. . .] we do not have the luxury of long
range planning. I need people here servicing orders, that is our business [. . .].
Considering aspects of strategic management literature, proles of managerial
activity maturity scores in the higher performing cluster may be described in terms
of concurrent strategic thinking and doing (Wit and Meyer, 2003; March, 1991) in
managing the collective system. There appears to be a balance in anticipating,
planning, responding, and changing, emphasising the adaptive capabilities of the
higher performing organisations (Meyer, 1982).
At an organisational level, it is critical that within the interconnected managerial
system a workable balance between short-term and long-term oriented activities is
achieved. For individual managers, the implication is that they need to be better
equipped and motivated to achieve a balance between short-termand long-termactions.
Various authors ( Jay and Edward, 1994; March, 1991, Barney et al., 2001, Benner and
Tushman, 2003) suggest that the managerial system will maximise the long-term
performance of the organisation when it supports a balanced approach to exploration
and exploitation in the present. Consistent with the ndings of Wiklund and Shepherd
(2003), the theoretical implications of this is that a better understanding of how to
organise the managerial system to achieve a workable balance between short- and
long-term activities is essential.
From a resource-based perspective, comparison of the managerial systems in the
relative performance clusters suggests that anorganisation will be better able to manage
its resource stocks and ows purposefully when the emphasis of the managerial system
has an appropriate balance between present- and future-oriented processes:
P4. Performance management is the principle concern of managers regardless of
organisational performance but those that are able to balance current
performance management activities with more future-oriented activities are
more likely to be able to support sustained organisational performance.
Perceptions of the managerial system
In managerial processes, similar to operational processes such as production planning,
what ows between processes is information. In operational processes, this information
is frequently of an objective nature with reducible complexity and low levels of
uncertainty (e.g. 1,324 units produced last hour; 15,000 units required at customers
site by 4 p.m., 14 November). In managerial processes however, information that ows
Managerial
processes
869
tends to be far more subjective and uncertain and as a consequence of the central role
of managers, it is affected and shaped by managers perceptions, cognitions and
bounded rationality (Amit and Schoemacher, 1993; Easterby-Smith et al., 2000;
Narayanan et al., 2009).
As we suggested in the introduction to the discussion, the importance of managerial
perception to the operation of the managerial system became apparent during data
analysis. For example, in Company 12 in our study, the commercial manager illustrated
the scope for interpretation and managerial inuence in managerial processes when he
said:
There is a standard framework of policies and procedures within which we must operate;
however there is enough exibility to allow us to exert our own style of management onto our
teams. This suits the nature of our business in that each of us looks after a specic client and
all client needs are different.
Furthermore, in Company 19 one manager commented that [. . .] appraisals are key to
my departments future performance as they guide how people develop themselves
[. . .], whereas another manager stated that [. . .] personal development plans are just
another bureaucratic thing that we have to do in this place. This brief example was
representative of the varying intra-organisational approach to how processes were
deployed.
Our ndings, consistent with the views of Ambrosini et al. (2009) and Bowman and
Ambrosini (2003), suggest that whilst managerial processes, across organisations, are
homogeneous in structure, they are heterogeneous in execution. We suggest that
managers perception inuences how managers execute managerial processes and
activities which in turn inuences the interconnectedness and organisation of the
managerial systems and ultimately the sustainability of performance.
Our initial research aim was to build understanding of the managerial processes
which might inuence organisational performance and our research design supported
this activity at an organisational level. However, we cannot equate high average
managerial activity maturity, as suggested by triangulated data, with consistently
held managerial perceptions and mental models in our case study organisations and
therefore our commentary on the impact of managerial perceptions on the development
and deployment of the managerial system is limited.
We can deduce fromspecic case examples that a practical implication of the impact
of managerial perceptions is that the selection, education and training of managers can
impact the form and functioning of the managerial processes and the wider managerial
system. Consistent with ndings from literature, we uncovered various examples of
intervention (training, coaching, disciplinary, etc.) which helped to shape and refresh the
cognitive frames and mental models of managers, leading to espoused performance
improvements (Rumelt, 1995; Helfat et al., 2007; Azadegan et al., 2008).
The theoretical implications of managerial perceptions on managerial system
research are twofold. First, there is an implication that to advance understanding of
managerial systems, attention needs to be directed towards managerial agency factors
(Eisenhardt, 1989a; Regner, 2008) and managerial capabilities (Adner and Helfat, 2003;
Helfat et al., 2007) which determine how activities are enacted in light of managerial
perceptions and cognitions. Second from a methodological perspective, ne-grained
qualitative, longitudinal research designs may provide the most accurate instruments
for providing insights in this area:
IJOPM
31,8
870
P5. Managerial perceptions, developed from managerial cognition and mental
models, may play a critical role in determining the interconnectedness and
organisation of the managerial system and therefore may underpin
sustainability of organisational performance.
P6. Research into managerial perceptions and the impact on managerial systems
and organisational performance should be conducted through ne-grained
qualitative approaches.
The managerial system and dynamic capabilities
Viewed as an extension of the RBV (Ambrosini et al., 2009; Easterby-Smith and Prieto,
2008), dynamic capabilities represent an organisations capacity to extend, integrate,
build, modify and recongure its resource base of tangible, intangible and human
resources over time (Amit and Schoemacher, 1993; Teece et al., 1997; Helfat et al., 2007;
Easterby-Smith and Prieto, 2008). Awidely expressed view is that dynamic capabilities
are inexorably linked to the organisational and strategic processes by which managers
recongure their resource base (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Winter,
2003; Teece, 2007; Dving and Gooderham, 2008; Furrer et al., 2008). By adopting the
view of Helfat et al. (2007) and Augier and Teece (2009) dynamic capabilities can be
described in part by managerial systems and are centrally underpinned by managerial
processes, we can apply our ndings to develop propositions relating to the nature of
dynamic capabilities and also dynamic capabilities research:
P7. The dynamic capabilities of an organisation are in part determined by the
interconnectedness of the managerial system, its organisation and the
perceptions of the managers there-in.
As with our viewof managerial perceptions and their impact on the managerial system,
these tentative propositions relating the managerial system to dynamic capabilities
were uncovered fromour analysis of the case study data. However, the nature of our case
study information renders it insufcient in its current form to support any further
inter-temporal analysis of the sampled organisations resource base. It does however
establish a baseline resource-based analysis of the case study organisations in the form
of management process models, performance and contextual data and transparent
research protocols. Arguably, repetitionof the case study approach over time inthe same
organisations will allow the development of an understanding of both the evolution of
managerial systems and related impacts on the dynamic capabilities of the reviewed
organisations:
P8. The understanding of dynamic capabilities will implicitly be advanced by
inter-temporal empirical research of managerial systems.
Conclusions
Our study suggests that across organisations managerial processes can be identied at a
high level of abstraction as homogenous in structure and intent but heterogeneous in
deployment andexecution. The ve managerial processes andtheir constituent activities
were observed to exist not in isolation but as part of a complex and interconnected
managerial system within organisations. Ostensibly, the level of interconnectedness,
together with the organisation of the managerial system, has a signicant impact
Managerial
processes
871
on sustainability and indeed enhancement of organisational performance. Furthermore,
the deployment of the managerial system, its organisation and interconnectedness are
greatly inuenced by individual managerial perceptions, and, the dynamic capabilities
of organisations are in part determined by the interconnectedness of the managerial
system, its organisation and the perceptions of the managers there-in.
Within the limitation of the study as outlined earlier, the ndings of this research
together with the eight research propositions that emerged from the ensuing discussion
contributes to our understanding of how managerial processes inuence organisational
performance. More specically it contributes to theory in a number of fronts. First, froma
business process perspective, this study provides one of the rst empirical insights into
the content and structure of managerial processes as a whole, enhancing our
understanding of how managerial processes inuence performance. Second, from a
resource-based perspective, it contributes to the debate on VRINresources by suggesting
that managerial processes and activities could be considered as VRIN resources as long
as they are seen as an interconnected managerial system (Barney et al., 2001). Third, our
discussion into howmanagerial perceptions mayinuence the organisation and execution
of the managerial system should contribute to our understanding of how and why
dynamic capabilities develop (McKelvie and Davidsson, 2009). And fourth, we believe the
research and analysis methodology provides a roadmap for future research where more
managerial processes may be explored in other organisations.
From a practical perspective, the research results suggest that:
.
Managers need to develop a wider understanding and awareness of the overall
managerial system as well as a deeper understanding of their own immediate
area of responsibility.
.
Managers need to be better equipped and motivated towards achieving a
workable balance between short-term and the longer term, future-oriented,
activities.
.
It is also important for managers to exploit their managerial activities for multiple
purposes whilst improving the maturity of the individual managerial activities.
.
The normative model provided in Appendix 2 of the paper may serve as a guide
to assist managers to evaluate the maturity of their managerial activities and
processes.
.
The fact that managerial perceptions appear to play a central role in shaping the
organisation of the managerial system and ultimately performance,
organisations needs to carefully consider the selection and education of
managers together with placement of managers in appropriate roles.
Finally, this study provides the basis for further research towards a better understanding
of the managerial process factors that inuence performance and underpin dynamic
capabilities. Particularly, we identify that further research needs to focus on
understanding the complex interaction between managerial process interconnectedness,
organisation of the managerial systems and the enactment of managerial processes and
activities based on managerial perceptions. This complements the views expressed in the
strategy as practice literature ( Jarzabkowski, 2004; Regner, 2008; Johnson et al., 2003) that
the important but highly complex and contextual organisational systems require
ne-grained, qualitative longitudinal empirical research to advance our understanding.
IJOPM
31,8
872
One further weakness of this research is that it does not consider the dyadic interplay
between the managerial processes and other business processes and resources that these
managerial processes manage. Future ne-grained, qualitative longitudinal empirical
studies should ensure that the interplay between managerial processes and other
business processes and resources are explored in greater detail. Of particular interest
would be how managerial processes recongure other managerial, operational and
support processes and resources to sustain competitive advantage thus performance.
Notes
1. Up to this point in the paper the phrases managerial, management and manage processes
were used interchangeably to reect the phrases adopted by various authors. From this
point forward the phrase managerial process will be used to as a collective description of
strategic business processes that are concerned with future performance of an organisation.
2. The term operational and support processes has been adopted to describe business
processes other than managerial processes as described in the paper. As the paper focuses on
the impact of managerial processes on performance, and in order to maintain the focus of the
paper, the authors opted not pursue a detailed discussions on the meanings and denitions
of operational and support processes which can be found in Childe et al. (1994), CIMOSA
(1989) and Davenport (1993).
3. Independent companies employing less the 250 people and with turnover not exceeding
e50 m or with a balance sheet total not exceeding e43 m.
4. NVivo is a qualitative data analysis tool (www.qsrinternational.com/).
5. According to Kirby (2005) and Richard et al. (2009) in performance studies a ten-year
timeframe is the minimum appropriate timeframe to overcome random variation.
6. FAME is a database that contains information for companies in the UK and Ireland.
For FAME and similar databases covering other regions www.bvdinfo.com/Products/
Company-Information/National.aspx
7. This is consistent with the denition of a business process as detailed earlier in the paper, i.e.
a business process is a series of activities that are connected together for a particular
outcome.
8. Organisation refers to relative emphasis and inter-process structure of the managerial
system.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1983), Organizing a strategic information scanning system, California
Management Review ( pre-1986), Vol. 25 No. 2, p. 76.
Abels, E. (2002), Hot topics: environmental scanning, Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 16-18.
Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2011), Making Strategy: Mapping Out Strategic Success, Sage, London.
Acur, N. and Bititci, U.S. (2004), A balanced approach to strategy management, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 4.
Adner, R. and Helfat, C.E. (2003), Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, p. 1011.
Aguilar, F.J. (1967), Scanning the Business Environment, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Albright, K.S. (2004), Environmental scanning: radar for success, Information Management
Journal, Vol. 38, p. 3.
Managerial
processes
873
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C. and Collier, N. (2009), Dynamic capabilities: an exploration of how
rms renew their resource base, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 9-24.
Amit, R. and Schoemacher, P. (1993), Strategic assets and organisational rent, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 33-46.
Andrews, K.R. (1987), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Irwin Edition, Homewood, IL.
Ansoff, I. and McDonnell, E. (1990), Implanting Strategic Management, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall
PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Antony, J. (2006), Six sigma for service processes, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 234-48.
Aragon-Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S. (2003), A contingent resource-based view of proactive
corporate environmental strategy, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28, p. 71.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organisational Learning: A Theory and Action Perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Armistead, C., Machin, S. and Pritchard, J.P. (1997), Implications of business process
management on operations management, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 886-98.
Ashby, W.R. (1962), Principles of the self-organizing system, paper presented at the Principles
of Self-Organization: Transactions of the University of Illinois Symposium, London.
Augier, M. and Teece, D.J. (2009), Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business
strategy and economic performance, Organization Science, Vol. 20, pp. 410-21.
Azadegan, A., Bush, D.M. and Dooley, K.J. (2008), Design creativity: static or dynamic
capability?, International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 28, p. 636.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2008), Identity based views of the corporation, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 42, p. 879.
Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J. (1995), Looking inside for competitive advantage, The Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 49.
Barney, J., Wright, M. and Ketchen, D.J. Jr (2001), The resource-based view of the rm: ten years
after, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 625-41.
Beal, R.M. (2000), Competing effectively: environmental scanning, competitive strategy,
and organizational performance in small manufacturing rms, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 27-47.
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28, p. 238.
Bititci, U. and Carrie, A.S. (1998), Integrated performance measurement systems: structures and
relationships, EPSRC Final Research Report GR/K 48174.
Bititci, U., Ackermann, F., Ates, A., Davies, J., Gibb, S., MacBryde, J., Mackay, D., Maguire, C.,
van der Meer, R., Shafti, F. and Bourne, M. (2010), Managerial processes: an operations
management perspective towards dynamic capabilities, Production Planning & Control,
Vol. 22 No. 2.
Bowman, C. and Ambrosini, V. (2003), How the resource-based and the dynamic capability
views of the rm inform corporate-level strategy, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14,
pp. 289-303.
Burnes, B. (2004), Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 6, p. 977.
IJOPM
31,8
874
Busch, H., Gardoni, M. and Tollenaere, M. (2007), Knowledge management aspects for business
process management: an approach through the information management within and
between processes, Advances in Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical
Engineering II, Part 6, Springer, Berlin, pp. 325-39.
Campbell, D., Datar, S., Kulp, S. and Narayanan, V.G. (2002), Using the balanced scorecard
as a control system for monitoring and revising corporate strategy, Harvard NOM
Working Paper No. 02-35, available at: SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract328880
Childe, S.J., Maull, R.S. and Bennett, J. (1994), Frameworks for understanding business process
re-engineering, International Journal of Operation and Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 12, pp. 23-34.
Choo, C.W. (1998), Information Management for the Intelligent Organization: The Art of
Scanning the Environment, 2nd ed., Information Today Inc., Medford, NJ.
CIM-OSA Standards Committee (1989), CIM-OSA Reference Architecture, AMICE ESPRIT,
Brussels.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1995), Building a visionary company, California Management
Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, p. 80.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1996), Building your companys vision, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 74 No. 5, p. 65.
Collis, D.J. (1994), Research note: how valuable are organizational capabilities?, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 15, p. 143.
Conner, K.R. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), A resource-based theory of the rm: knowledge versus
opportunism, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 477-501.
Costa, J. (1995), An empirically-based review of the concept of environmental scanning,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 4-9.
DAveni, R. (1994), Hypercompetitive Rivalries, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H. (2005), The comingcommoditizationof processes, Harvard Business Review, June.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusack, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 11-26.
Davenport, T.H., Harris, J.G. and Cantrell, S. (2004), Enterprise systems and ongoing process
change, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 16-26.
Davies, J.B., Ross, A., Wallace, B. and Wright, L. (2003), Safety Management: A Qualitative
Systems Approach, Taylor & Francis, London.
Day, G.S. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (2006), Peripheral Vision, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Deming, W.E. (2000), The New Economics, 2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Dierickx, I., Cool, K. and Barney, J.B. (1989), Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of
competitive, Management Science, Vol. 35, pp. 1504-13.
Digman, L.A. (1990), Strategic Management Concepts, Decisions, Cases, 2nd ed., Irwin Inc.,
Homewood, IL.
Dving, E. and Gooderham, P.N. (2008), Dynamic capabilities as antecedents of the scope of
related diversication: the case of small rm accountancy practices, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 8, p. 841.
Managerial
processes
875
Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W. and Hofstede, A.T. (2005), Process-aware Information Systems:
Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Dyer, J.H. (1996), Specialised supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence
from the auto industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, p. 271.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Prieto, I.M. (2008), Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management:
an integrative role for learning?, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, p. 235.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D. (2000), Organizational learning: debates past,
present and future, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 783-96.
Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998), Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management,
Sage, London.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989a), Agency theory: an assessment and review, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, p. 57.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989b), Building theories from case study research, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), Dynamic capabilities: what are they?, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, p. 1105.
Fiol, C.M. (2001), Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage,
Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 691-9.
Focus (1999), Focus Strategy Management v3b, Sirius Concepts Limited, Ayr.
Furrer, O., Thomas, H. and Goussevskaia, A. (2008), The structure and evolution of the strategic
management eld: a content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 10 No. 1.
Garvin, D.A. (1998), The process of organization and management, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 39, p. 4.
Goodman, R.A. and Lawless, M.W. (1994), Technology and Strategy: Conceptual Models and
Diagnostics, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Grant, R.M. (1996), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the rm, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 109-22.
Hammer, M. (1990), Reengineering work: dont automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review,
July/August.
Hammer, M. (2002), Process management and the future of Six Sigma, MITSloan Management
Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 26-32.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation, Vol. 1, Collins, London.
Harari, O. (1994), Beyond the vision thing, Management Review, Vol. 83 No. 11, p. 29.
Harari, O. (1995), Three vital little words, Management Review, Vol. 84 No. 11, p. 25.
Harmon, P. (2010), Scope and evolution of business process management, Handbook on
Business Process Management, International Handbooks Information System, Part I,
Vol. 1, Springer, Warren, MI, pp. 37-81.
Helfat, C.E., Finklestein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J., Winter, S.G., Dyer, J.
and Kale, P. (2007), Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in
Organisations, Blackwell, Oxford.
Hughes, D. (1996), Strategem a methodology and computer based tool for strategic
regeneration, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 11 Nos 3/4, pp. 286-95.
IJOPM
31,8
876
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004), Strategy as practice: recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use,
Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 529-60.
Jay, B.B. and Edward, J.Z. (1994), Competitive organizational behavior: toward an
organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 15, p. 5 (special issue).
Jeston, J. and Nelis, J. (2008), Management by Process: A Roadmap to Sustainable Business
Process Management, Elsevier, Oxford.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1999), Exploring Corporate Strategy, Pearson Education,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Johnson, G., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. (2003), Guest editors introduction: micro strategy and
strategizing: towards an activity-based view, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The balanced scorecard measures that drive
performance, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 71-9.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), Putting the balanced scorecard to work, Harvard Business
Review, September/October, pp. 134-47.
Keogh, W.K. (1999), Understanding process and adding value within small innovative rms,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 114-25.
Kirby, J. (2005), Toward a theory of high performance, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83
Nos 7/8, pp. 30-9.
Laugen, B.T., Acur, N., Boer, H. and Frick, J. (2005), Best manufacturing practices what do the
best-performing companies do?, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 131-50.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY.
Liu, S. (1998), Business environment scanner for senior managers: towards active executive
support with intelligent agents, Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences IEEE, Koloa, Kauai, HI, USA, pp. 1060-3425.
McAdam, R. (2000), Knowledge management as a catalyst for innovation within organizations:
a qualitative study, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 233-41.
McCutcheon, D. and Meridith, J. (1993), Conducting case study research in operations
management, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 239-56.
McKelvie, A. and Davidsson, P. (2009), From resource base to dynamic capabilities:
an investigation of new rms, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 63-80.
March, J.G. (1991), Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization
Science, Vol. 2, pp. 71-87.
Maull, R.S., Weaver, A.M., Childe, S.J., Smart, P.A. and Bennett, J. (1995), Current issues in
business process re-engineering, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 15 No. 11, p. 37.
Maxwell, J.A. (2005), Qualitative Research Design An Interactive Approach, Sage, London.
Meyer, A.D. (1982), Adapting to environmental jolts, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27,
pp. 515-37.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques, Sage, London.
Mills, J., Platts, K. and Gregory, M. (1998), Manufacturing strategy: pictorial
presentation, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18
No. 11, pp. 1067-85.
Managerial
processes
877
Mintzberg, H. (1994), The fall and rise of strategic planning, Harvard Business Review,
January-February, pp. 107-14.
Morgan, G. (2006), Images of Organisations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Munive-Hernandez, E.J., Dewhurst, F.W., Pritchard, M.C. and Barber, K.D. (2004), Modelling the
strategy management process: an initial BPM approach, Business Process Management,
Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 691-711.
Nahapiet, J. and Goshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.
Nanus, B. (1996), Leading the vision team, The Futurist, Vol. 30 No. 3, p. 20.
Narayanan, V.K., Colwell, K. and Douglas, F.L. (2009), Building organizational and scientic
platforms in the pharmaceutical industry: a process perspective on the development of
dynamic capabilities, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 25-40.
Neely, A. and Adams, C. (2001), Perspectives on performance: the performance prism,
Handbook of Performance Measurement, Gee Publishing, London.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Richards, H., Gregory, M., Bourne, M. and Kennerley, M. (2000), Performance
measurement system design: developing and testing a process-based approach,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20, pp. 119-45.
Ngamkroeckjoti, C. and Johri, L.M. (2000), Management of environmental scanning processes in
large companies in Thailand, Business Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 331-41.
Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review,
November-December, pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
ODonnel, F. and Duffy, A.H.B. (2002), Modelling design development performance,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 11,
pp. 1198-221.
Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000), Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms,
Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 538-50.
Ould, M.A. (1995), Business Processes: Modelling and Analysis for Re-engineering and
Improvement, Wiley, Chichester.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola,
and Other Top Companies are Honing Their Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parnaby, J. (2009), Business process systems engineering, International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 9 Nos 3/4, pp. 497-508.
Pearce, J.A. and Robinson, R.B. (1991), Strategic Management Formulation, Implementation and
Control, Richard D.Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.
Pearce, J.A. and Robinson, R.B. (1996), Strategic management formulation, implementation and
control, Long Range Planning, Vol. 29 No. 6.
Pettigrew, A. (1992), The character and signicance of strategy process research, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 5-16 (Special Issue: Fundamental Themes in Strategy
Process Research (Winter)).
Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1993), Managing change for competitive success, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 572-6.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), The core competence of the organisation, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-100.
IJOPM
31,8
878
Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P.H. and Kinkelstein, S. (1996), Leveraging intellect, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 7-27.
Regner, P. (2008), Strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities: steps towards a dynamic view
of strategy, Human Relations, Vol. 61, p. 565.
Richard, P.J., Devinney, T.M., Yip, G.S. and Johnson, G. (2009), Measuring organisational
performance: towards methodological best practice2, Journal of Management, Vol. 35,
pp. 718-804.
Rindova, V.P. and Kotha, S. (2001), Continuous morphing: competing through dynamic
capabilities, form, and function, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, p. 1263.
Rumelt, R.P. (1995), Inertia and transformation, in Montgomery, C.A. (Ed.), Resource-based and
Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston, MA.
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A. (2008), Six Sigma: denition and
underlying theory, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 536-54.
Sirkin, H.L., Keenan, P. and Jackson, A. (2005), The hard side of change management, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 83 No. 10, pp. 108-18.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Johnston, R. and Betts, A. (2006), Operations and Process
Management Principles and Practice for Strategic Impact, Vol. 1, Pearson Education
Limited, Harlow.
Strauss, A. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Teece, D.J. (2009), The nature of competition in regimes of rapid technological change, Dynamic
Capabilities and Strategic Management: Organisation for Innovation and Growth, Oxford
University, Oxford.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Thomson, A. and Strickland, V. (1990), Strategic Management, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Il.
Van de Ven, A.H. (1992), Suggestions for studying strategy process: a research note, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 169-88.
Van Wyk, R.J. (1997), Strategic technology scanning, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 55, pp. 21-38.
Voss, C., Blackmon, K.L., Cagliano, R., Hanson, P. and Wilson, F. (1998), Made in Europe: small
companies, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2007), Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 31.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), A resource-based view of the rm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 171-80.
Wheelen, T.L. and Hunger, J.D. (1986), Strategic Management and Business Policy, 4th ed.,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2003), Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation,
and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 13, p. 1307.
Winter, S.G. (2003), Understanding dynamic capabilities, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 10, p. 991.
Wit, B.D. and Meyer, R. (2003), Strategy: Process, Content, Context, Int, Thomson Business Press,
London.
Managerial
processes
879
Zairi, M. (1997), Business process management: a boundaryless approach to modern
competitiveness, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 64-80.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities,
Organization Science, Vol. 13, p. 339.
Zu, X., Fredendall, L.D. and Douglas, T.J. (2008), The evolving theory of quality management:
the role of Six Sigma, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 630-50.
Appendix 1
Total performance K-means results
Case no. Scores Clusters
Wards method
clusters Clusters Distances Final clustering decision
15 24 High 1 1 1.254 High
16 24 High 1 1 0.987 High
18 24 High 1 1 1.356 High
22 24 High 1 1 1.356 High
9 23 High 1 1 1.763 High
20 23 High 1 1 1.114 High
29 22 High 1 1 1.306 High
30 22 High 1 1 0.879 High
17 21 High 1 1 1.254 High
21 21 High 1 1 0.757 High
35 21 High 1 1 0.757 High
3 20 High 1 1 0.879 High
13 20 High 2 2 2.043 Medium
27 20 High 1 1 0.879 High
37 20 High 1 1 0.879 High
11 19 Medium 2 2 1.583 Medium
23 19 Medium 2 1 1.519 Medium
31 19 Medium 2 2 1.083 Medium
2 18 Medium 2 2 0.916 Medium
7 18 Medium 2 2 1.227 Medium
8 18 Medium 2 2 1.133 Medium
12 18 Medium 2 2 1.548 Medium
24 18 Medium 2 2 1.397 Medium
34 18 Medium 2 2 0.786 Medium
6 17 Medium 3 3 1.620 Low
25 17 Medium 2 2 0.533 Medium
32 17 Medium 2 2 0.975 Medium
14 16 Medium 2 2 1.133 Medium
33 16 Medium 2 2 1.685 Medium
4 15 Medium 2 2 1.843 Medium
5 15 Medium 2 2 1.181 Medium
26 15 Medium 2 2 1.781 Medium
36 14 Medium 2 2 2.439 Medium
10 13 Medium 2 2 2.274 Medium
1 8 Low 3 3 1.768 Low
19 6 Low 3 3 0.791 Low
28 5 Low 3 3 1.061 Low
Table AI.
Ranking for case study
companies according
to performance
IJOPM
31,8
880
Appendix 2
N
o
t
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
F
u
l
l
y
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
A
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
i
s
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
r
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
,
a
c
h
i
e
v
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
a
l
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
P
e
a
r
c
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
C
h
o
o
(
1
9
9
9
)
,
H
a
m
m
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
(
1
9
9
9
)
,
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z
a
n
d
K
e
n
n
e
r
l
e
y
(
2
0
0
5
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
a
l
l
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
K
a
n
t
e
r
(
1
9
8
3
)
,
P
e
t
t
i
g
r
e
w
(
1
9
8
7
)
,
P
e
a
r
c
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
C
a
m
i
l
l
u
s
(
1
9
9
6
)
,
a
n
d
K
a
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
o
n
(
1
9
9
3
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
K
P
I
s
A
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
s
e
t
o
f
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
a
n
d
d
e
p
l
o
y
e
d
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
o
w
h
o
w
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
r
e
b
e
i
n
g
m
e
t
K
a
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
o
n
(
1
9
9
3
)
,
P
e
a
r
c
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
B
i
t
i
t
c
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
P
a
t
o
n
a
n
d
M
c
C
a
l
m
a
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
a
n
d
N
e
e
l
y
(
2
0
0
2
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
v
i
s
i
o
n
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
v
a
l
u
e
s
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
c
l
e
a
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
i
c
h
r
e

e
c
t
s
i
t
s
v
a
l
u
e
s
K
o
t
l
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
P
e
a
r
c
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
a
n
d
C
a
m
i
l
l
u
s
(
1
9
9
6
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
t
h
a
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
T
h
e
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
i
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
s
c
a
n
n
e
d
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
.
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
S
W
O
T
a
n
d
P
E
S
T
L
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
s
f
o
r
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
A
a
k
e
r
(
1
9
8
3
)
,
P
o
r
t
e
r
(
1
9
8
5
)
,
C
o
s
t
a
(
1
9
9
5
)
,
C
a
m
i
l
l
u
s
(
1
9
9
6
)
,
B
i
t
i
t
c
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
A
b
e
l
s
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
l
e
s
(
2
0
0
5
)
P
l
a
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
C
h
a
n
g
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
a
r
e
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
m
e
t
i
c
u
l
o
u
s
l
y
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

c
l
e
a
r
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
r
e
l
a
i
d
o
u
t
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
a
b
l
e
,
s
p
e
c
i

c
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
L
e
w
i
n
(
1
9
5
1
)
,
B
e
c
k
h
a
r
d
a
n
d
H
a
r
r
i
s
(
1
9
8
7
)
,
J
i
c
k
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
K
a
n
t
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
2
)
,
P
a
t
o
n
a
n
d
M
c
C
a
l
m
a
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
G
a
r
v
i
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
a
n
d
M
e
n
t
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
)
P
l
a
n
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
V
e
r
y
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

l
i
n
k
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
t
h
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
,
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
g
a
p
s
i
d
e
n
t
i

e
d
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
e
d
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
a
n
d
B
a
t
t
e
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
,
P
e
a
r
c
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
K
a
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
o
n
(
1
9
9
3
)
,
B
o
u
r
n
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
M
e
n
t
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
a
n
d
S
i
r
k
i
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
5
)
P
l
a
n
s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
T
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
r
e
w
e
l
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
o
u
t
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
,
w
i
t
h
a
c
l
e
a
r
l
i
n
k
b
e
i
n
g
m
a
d
e
t
o
b
o
t
h
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
g
o
a
l
s
,
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
s
p
e
c
i

c
,
m
e
a
s
u
r
a
b
l
e
,
a
c
h
i
e
v
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
t
i
m
e
l
y
B
i
t
i
t
c
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
7
)
,
H
o
a
n
d
M
c
K
a
y
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
A
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
a
n
d
F
a
g
e
r
h
a
u
g
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
a
n
d
P
e
t
t
i
g
r
e
w
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table AII.
Normative maturity
scales
Managerial
processes
881
N
o
t
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
F
u
l
l
y
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
P
l
a
n
s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
T
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
g
i
v
e
n
c
l
e
a
r
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
m
e
e
t
r
e
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

t
h
e
s
e
r
e

e
c
t
a
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
K
o
t
t
e
r
(
1
9
9
5
)
,
E
l
r
o
d
a
n
d
T
i
p
p
e
t
t
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
M
e
n
t
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
a
n
d
S
i
r
k
i
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
5
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
.
V
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
r
e
a
c
h
a
l
l
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
L
e
w
i
n
(
1
9
5
1
)
,
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
a
n
d
B
a
t
t
e
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
,
B
e
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
0
)
,
K
o
t
t
e
r
(
1
9
9
5
)
,
G
a
r
v
i
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
a
n
d
D
a
w
s
o
n
(
2
0
0
3
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
i
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
V
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
r
e
a
c
h
a
l
l
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
T
r
e
a
c
y
a
n
d
W
i
e
r
s
a
m
a
(
1
9
9
6
)
,
B
i
t
i
t
c
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
7
)
,
N
e
e
l
y
(
1
9
9
9
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
b
e
n
e

t
s
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
(
e
.
g
.
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
l
o
b
b
y
i
n
g
o
f
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
,
e
t
c
.
)
M
a
s
k
e
l
l
(
1
9
8
9
)
,
M
c
G
e
e
(
1
9
9
2
)
,
B
i
t
i
t
c
i
a
n
d
C
a
r
r
i
e
(
1
9
9
8
)
,
N
u
d
u
r
u
p
a
t
i
(
2
0
0
3
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
v
a
r
i
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
o
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
b
o
t
h
f
o
r
m
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
M
a
c
p
h
e
r
s
o
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
4
)
,
W
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
E
a
s
t
e
r
b
y
-
S
m
i
t
h
a
n
d
P
r
i
e
t
o
(
2
0
0
8
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
A
n
y
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
y
b
e
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
u
s
e
t
o
a
l
l
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
i
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
d
v
i
a
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
A
a
k
e
r
(
1
9
8
3
)
,
C
o
s
t
a
(
1
9
9
5
)
,
C
h
o
o
(
1
9
9
9
)
,
A
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
a
n
d
F
a
g
e
r
h
a
u
g
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
a
n
d
A
b
e
l
s
(
2
0
0
2
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
r
e
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
t
o
a
l
l
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
b
y
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
m
e
a
n
s
w
h
e
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
C
a
m
i
l
l
u
s
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
8
)
,
S
c
h
o
l
e
s
(
2
0
0
5
)
,
a
n
d
M
i
l
l
e
t
t
(
2
0
0
6
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
o
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
t
o
b
o
t
h
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
f
u
t
u
r
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
M
a
s
k
e
l
l
(
1
9
8
9
)
,
M
c
G
e
e
(
1
9
9
2
)
,
B
i
t
i
t
c
i
a
n
d
C
a
r
r
i
e
(
1
9
9
8
)
,
a
n
d
N
u
d
u
r
u
p
a
t
i
(
2
0
0
3
)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
S
t
r
o
n
g
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
r
o
m
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
w
e
l
l
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
a
n
d
d
e

n
e
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
o
f
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
C
a
m
i
l
l
u
s
(
1
9
9
6
)
,
F
i
n
k
e
l
s
t
e
i
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
6
)
,
D
a
y
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
e
m
a
k
e
r
(
2
0
0
6
)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
a
r
e
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
o
w
n
e
d
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
d
b
y
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
.
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
t
i
m
e
l
y
m
a
n
n
e
r
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
K
o
t
t
e
r
(
1
9
9
5
)
,
a
n
d
P
a
t
o
n
a
n
d
M
c
C
a
l
m
a
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
t
r
a
d
e
u
n
i
o
n
s
T
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
e
n
g
a
g
e
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
o
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
r
a
d
e
u
n
i
o
n
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
b
o
t
h
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
m
a
l
m
a
n
n
e
r
s
.
I
t
m
a
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
r
a
d
e
u
n
i
o
n
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
i
t
s
e
l
f
a
s
a
m
e
a
n
s
o
f
a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g
t
r
a
d
e
u
n
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
L
a
v
i
e
(
2
0
0
6
)
,
a
n
d
T
e
e
c
e
(
2
0
0
7
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table AII.
IJOPM
31,8
882
N
o
t
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
F
u
l
l
y
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
w
h
e
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
l
i
n
e
w
i
t
h
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
e
c
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
7
)
,
K
a
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
o
n
(
2
0
0
5
)
,
T
e
e
c
e
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
a
n
d
H
e
l
f
a
t
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
T
r
a
i
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
s
d
e
p
l
o
y
e
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
a
n
d
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
l
y
t
o
r
a
i
s
e
t
h
e
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
l
i
n
e
w
i
t
h
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
L
e
w
i
n
(
1
9
5
1
)
,
K
o
t
t
e
r
a
n
d
S
c
h
l
e
s
l
i
n
g
e
r
(
1
9
7
9
)
,
K
a
t
z
e
n
b
a
c
h
a
n
d
S
m
i
t
h
(
1
9
9
3
)
,
C
a
m
i
l
l
u
s
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
8
)
,
a
n
d
H
a
c
k
m
a
n
(
2
0
0
2
)
C
h
e
c
k

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
i
s
c
h
e
c
k
e
d
o
n
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
f
r
o
m
h
i
g
h
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
d
a
t
a
a
n
d
i
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
y
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
t
h
e
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
V
a
n
d
e
r
m
e
r
w
e
a
n
d
V
a
n
d
e
r
m
e
r
w
e
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
C
a
m
i
l
l
u
s
(
1
9
9
6
)
,
W
a
l
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
P
r
i
e
m
(
1
9
9
9
)
,
P
r
o
c
t
o
r
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
o
u
i
a
n
d
K
a
r
a
m
i
(
2
0
0
2
)
C
h
e
c
k
K
P
I
s
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
.
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
c
h
e
c
k
e
d
a
n
d
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
o
d
b
y
a
l
l
V
a
n
d
e
r
m
e
r
w
e
a
n
d
V
a
n
d
e
r
m
e
r
w
e
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
D
a
f
t
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
8
)
,
L
i
u
(
1
9
9
8
)
,
W
a
l
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
P
r
i
e
m
(
1
9
9
9
)
,
a
n
d
P
r
o
c
t
o
r
(
2
0
0
0
)
C
h
e
c
k
s
t
a
f
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
o
f
f
o
r
m
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
s
t
a
f
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
i
n
s
i
t
u
a
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
l
i
n
k
e
d
t
o
s
p
e
c
i

c
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
,
t
e
a
m
a
n
d
/
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
a
s
k
s
Z
o
b
e
l
(
1
9
9
8
)
,
M
e
r
c
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
9
)
,
I
t
t
n
e
r
a
n
d
L
a
r
c
k
e
r
(
2
0
0
3
)
,
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
o
a
n
d
B
o
u
r
n
e
(
2
0
0
4
)
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
T
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
h
a
s
a
h
i
g
h
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
a
b
o
u
t
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
g
l
e
a
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
k
e
s
s
u
c
h
d
a
t
a
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
a
n
d
B
a
t
t
e
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
,
P
e
t
t
i
g
r
e
w
a
n
d
W
h
i
p
p
(
1
9
9
3
)
,
D
a
w
s
o
n
(
1
9
9
4
,
1
9
9
6
,
2
0
0
3
)
,
a
n
d
A
b
r
a
h
a
m
s
o
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
o
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
p
l
a
n
s
a
r
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
b
y
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
m
e
a
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
f
e
d
i
n
t
o
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
a
n
d
B
a
t
t
e
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
P
e
t
t
i
g
r
e
w
a
n
d
W
h
i
p
p
(
1
9
9
3
)
D
a
w
s
o
n
(
1
9
9
4
,
1
9
9
6
,
2
0
0
3
)
,
a
n
d
A
b
r
a
h
a
m
s
o
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
m
a
c
r
o
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
T
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
(
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
,
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
,
s
o
c
i
a
l
,
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
,
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
,
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
)
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
i
t
s
e
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
f
e
e
d
s
t
h
i
s
d
a
t
a
i
n
t
o
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
a
n
d
B
a
t
t
e
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
,
P
e
a
r
c
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
P
e
t
t
i
g
r
e
w
a
n
d
W
h
i
p
p
(
1
9
9
3
)
,
D
a
w
s
o
n
(
1
9
9
4
,
2
0
0
3
)
,
C
a
m
i
l
l
u
s
(
1
9
9
6
)
,
A
b
r
a
h
a
m
s
o
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
C
h
o
o
(
2
0
0
1
)
,
N
e
e
l
y
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
a
n
d
D
a
y
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
e
m
a
k
e
r
(
2
0
0
6
)
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
T
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
f
e
e
d
s
t
h
i
s
d
a
t
a
i
n
t
o
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
a
n
d
B
a
t
t
e
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
,
P
e
t
t
i
g
r
e
w
a
n
d
W
h
i
p
p
(
1
9
9
3
)
,
D
a
w
s
o
n
(
1
9
9
4
,
2
0
0
3
)
,
A
b
r
a
h
a
m
s
o
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
a
n
d
C
h
o
o
(
2
0
0
1
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table AII.
Managerial
processes
883
N
o
t
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
F
u
l
l
y
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
D
e

n
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
A
c
t
u
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
v
s
p
l
a
n
d
r
i
v
e
s
r
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
d
e

n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
o
n
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
a
d
h
o
c
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
a
n
d
B
a
t
t
e
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
,
B
e
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
0
)
,
B
o
u
r
n
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
,
2
0
0
3
,
2
0
0
5
)
a
n
d
B
i
t
i
t
c
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
3
)
F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
a
l
l
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
.
3
6
0
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
i
s
a
l
s
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
a
n
d
B
a
t
t
e
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
T
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
a
n
d
a
d
j
u
s
t
s
/
r
e
d
e
p
l
o
y
s
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
A
g
u
i
l
a
r
(
1
9
6
7
)
,
D
a
f
t
a
n
d
W
e
i
c
k
(
1
9
8
4
)
,
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
a
n
d
B
a
t
t
e
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
,
E
c
c
l
e
s
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
L
i
u
(
1
9
9
8
)
,
C
h
o
o
(
2
0
0
1
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
T
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
c
h
e
c
k
s
t
h
e
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
o
f
i
t
s
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
i
t
s
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
a
l
l
i
t
s
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
.
W
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
i
e
s
i
t
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
N
a
d
l
e
r
a
n
d
S
c
h
e
n
d
e
l
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
7
9
)
,
P
e
t
t
i
g
r
e
w
(
1
9
8
7
)
,
T
u
s
h
m
a
n
(
1
9
8
9
)
,
a
n
d
E
c
c
l
e
s
(
1
9
9
1
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
K
P
I
s
K
P
I
s
a
r
e
k
e
p
t
u
p
t
o
d
a
t
e
a
n
d
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

l
e
g
a
c
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
p
u
r
g
e
d
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
K
P
I
s
e
t
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
i
s
s
u
f

c
i
e
n
t
t
o
t
r
a
c
k
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
o
f
a
l
l
k
e
y
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
g
o
a
l
s
F
e
r
r
a
r
a
(
1
9
9
6
)
,
N
e
e
l
y
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
4
)
,
G
a
r
v
i
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
B
o
u
r
n
e
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
a
n
d
N
u
d
u
r
u
p
a
t
i
(
2
0
0
3
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
v
i
s
i
o
n
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
v
a
l
u
e
s
T
h
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
r
e
k
e
p
t
a
l
i
v
e
b
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
r
e

e
c
t
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
i
s
n
o
t
a
f
r
a
i
d
t
o
c
l
a
r
i
f
y
i
t
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
r
a
s
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
b
r
i
n
g
s
t
h
e
V
M
V
s
a
l
i
v
e
K
a
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
o
n
(
2
0
0
5
)
R
e
v
i
s
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
T
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
c
h
e
c
k
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
t
o
t
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
a
n
d
t
h
u
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
u
s
e
f
u
l
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
e
v
e
r
y
d
a
y
l
i
f
e
)
.
A
l
s
o
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

s
K
P
I
s
m
a
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
o
f
r
o
l
l
e
d
u
p
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
F
e
r
r
a
r
a
(
1
9
9
6
)
,
N
e
e
l
y
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
4
)
,
B
o
u
r
n
e
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
a
n
d
N
u
d
u
r
u
p
a
t
i
(
2
0
0
3
)
R
e
w
a
r
d
A
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
r
e
w
a
r
d
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
s
a
r
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
a
t
e
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
l
i
n
e
w
i
t
h
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
L
e
w
i
n
(
1
9
5
1
)
,
B
e
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
0
)
,
G
a
r
v
i
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
M
e
n
t
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
a
n
d
K
a
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
o
n
(
2
0
0
5
)
Table AII.
IJOPM
31,8
884
Reference list for Appendix 2
Aaker, D.A. (1983), Organizing a strategic information scanning system, California
Management Review (pre-1986), Vol. 25 No.2, pp. 76.
Abels, E. (2002), Hot topics: environmental scanning, Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 3, pp. 16-18.
Abrahamson, E. (2000), Change without pain, Harvard Business Review ( July/August), pp. 75-9.
Aguilar, F.J. (1967), Scanning the Business Environment, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Analoui, F. andKarami, A. (2002), Howchief executives perceptionof the environment impacts on
company performance, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No.4, pp. 290-305.
Andersen, B. and Fagerhaug, T. (2002), Eight steps to a new performance measurement
system, Quality Progress, Vol. 35 No.2, p.1125.
Beckhard, R. and Harris, R.T. (1987), Organisation Transitions Managing Complex Change,
2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990), Why change programs dont produce change,
Harvard Business Review November/December, pp. 158-166.
Bititci, U. and Carrie, A.S. (1998), Integrated performance measurement systems: structures and
relationships. EPSRC Final Research Report GR/K 48174, Swindon
Bititci, U., Martinez, V., Albores, P. and Mendibil, K. (2003), Creating and sustaining competitive
advantage in collaborative systems: the what? And the how?, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 14.
Bourne, M.C.S., Neely, A.D., Mills, J.F. and Platts, K.W. (2003), Implementing performance
measurement systems: a literature review, International Journal of Business Performance
Management, Vol. 5 No.1, pp.1-24.
Bourne, M.C.S., Neely, A.D., Platts, K.W. and Mills, J.F. (2002), The success and failure of
performance measurement initiatives: the perceptions of participating managers,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22 No.11,
pp.1288-1310.
Bourne, M.C.S., Neely, A.D., Platts, K.W. and Mills, J.F. (2005),The success and failure of
performance measurement initiatives, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 22 No.11, pp. 1288-1310.
Bourne, M.C.S., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A. and Platts, K. (2000), Designing, implementing
and updating performance measurement systems, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 20 No.7, pp.754-771.
Bullock, R.J. and D. Batten (1985), Its just a phase were going through: a review and synthesis
of OD analysis, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 10, No. December, pp. 383-412.
Camillus, J.C. (1996), Reinventing strategic planning, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 24 No.3,
pp. 6-12.
Camillus, J.C., Sessions R.T. and Webb, R. (1998), Visionary action: strategic processes in
fast-cycle environments Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 20, pp. 20-24.
Choo, C.W. (1999), The art of scanning the environment, Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science, Vol. 25 No.3, p. 21.
Choo, C.W. (2001), Environmental scanning as information seeking and organizational
learning, Information Research, Vol. 7 No.1.
Costa, J. (1995), An empirically-based review of the concept of environmental scanning,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No.7, pp. 4-9.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems.
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No.2, p. 284.
Dawson, P. (1994), Organisational Change: A Processual Approach, Paul Chapman Publishing
Ltd, London.
Dawson, P. (2003), Reshaping Change: A Processual Perspective, Routledge, London.
Day, G.S. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (2006), Peripheral Vision, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Managerial
processes
885
Easterby-Smith, M. and Prieto, I.M. (2008), Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management:
an integrative role for learning?, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, p. 235.
Eccles, T. (1994), Succeeding with Change: Implementing Action-driven Strategies, McGraw-Hill,
London.
Elrod, P.D. and Tippett, D.D. (2002), The death valley of change, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 15 No.3, pp. 273-91.
Finkelstein, S., Harvey, C., and Lawton, T. (2006), Breakout Strategy: Meeting the Challenge of
Double-digit Growth, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Franco, M. and Bourne, M.C.S. (2004), Are strategic performance measurement systems really
effective?, Proceedings of the 11th EurOMA Annual Conference, Fontainebleau, Paris, 27-29
June.
Garvin, D.A. (2000), Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Hackman, J.R. (2002), Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances,
Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1999), How process enterprises really work, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 77 No.6, p. 108.
Helfat, C.E., Finklestein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J. and Winter, S.G.
(2007), Managers, markets and dynamic capabilities, Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding
Strategic Change in Organisation, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Ho, S. and McKay, R.B. (2002), Balanced scorecard: two perspectives, The CPA Journal, Vol. 72
No.3, pp 20-5.
Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (2003), Coming up short on non-nancial performance
measurement, Harvard Business Review, November, pp. 88-95.
Jick, T. (1991), Implementing Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work. International
Thomson Business Press, London.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, T. (1992), The Challenge of Organisational Change:
How Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), Putting the balanced scorecard to work, Harvard Business
Review, September/October, pp. 134-47.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2005), The ofce of strategy management, Harvard
Business Review, October, pp. 72-80.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K (1993), The Wisdom of Teams, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1991), Principles of Marketing, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73 No.2, pp. 59-67.
Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979), Choosing strategies for change, Harvard Business
Review, March/April.
Lavie, D. (2006), Capability reconguration: an analysis of incumbent responses to technological
change, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, p. 153.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY
Liu, S. (1998), Business environment scanner for senior managers: towards active executive
support with intelligent agents IEEE, pp. 1060-3425.
Macpherson, A., Jones, O. and Zhang, M. (2004), Evolution or revolution? Dynamic capabilities
in a knowledge-dependent rm, R&D Management, Vol. 34, p. 161.
Martinez, V. and Kennerley, M. (2005), Impact of performance management reviews: evidence
from an energy supplier, Conference Proceedings EUROMA Operations and Global
Competitiveness; Budapest, Hungary, June 19-22.
IJOPM
31,8
886
Mento A.J., Jones, R.M. and Dirndorfer, W. (2002), A change management process: grounded in
both theory and practice, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 3 No.1, pp. 45-59.
Neely, A.D. (1999), The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next?,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 19 No.2, pp. 205-228.
Neely, A.D., Adams, C. and Kennerley, M. (2002), The Performance Prism: The Scorecard
for Measuring and Managing Business Success, FT/ Prentice-Hall, London.
Neely, A.D., Kennerley, M. and Martinez, V. (2004), Does the balanced scorecard work:
an empirical investigation, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Performance
Measurement, Edinburgh, UK.
Nudurupati, S.S. (2003), Management and business implications of IT-supported performance
measurement system, PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Paton, R.A. and McCalman, J. (2000), Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation,
2nd ed., Sage, London.
Pearce, J.A. and Robinson, R.B. (1991), Strategic Management Formulation, Implementation and
Control, Homewood, IL, Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Pettigrew, A. (1987), Context and action in the transformation of the rm, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 649-70.
Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1993), Managing change for competitive success, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 18 No.3, pp. 572-76.
Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (Eds). (2002), Handbook of Strategy and
Management, Sage, London.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Proctor, T. (2000), Strategic marketing management for health management: cross impact
matrix and TOWS. Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol. 14 No.1, pp. 47-56.
Scholes, J. (2005), Steps to implement, European Business Forum, Vol. 21, Spring, pp. 10-13.
Sirkin, H.L., Keenan, P. and Jackson, A. (2005), The hard side of change management, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 83 No.10, pp. 108-118.
Teece, D.J. (2007), Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, p. 1319.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen A., (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No.7, pp. 509-33.
Treacy M. and Wiersema F. (1996), The Disciplines of the Market Leaders, Harper Collins,
London.
Walters, B.A. and Priem, R.L. (1999), Business strategy and CEO intelligence acquisition,
Competitive Intelligence Review, Vol. 10 No.2, p. 15.
Corresponding author
Umit S. Bititci can be contacted at: u.s.bititci@strath.ac.uk
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Managerial
processes
887