Strategy Development and Organizational Process Analysis

It is important to note that any form of the organization operates with a specific strategy put in place in order to achieve its core objectives of profitability, growth, and competitiveness. Organizational strategy can be defined as a scope and direction developed to encompass long-term objectives with considerations of utilizing competencies and resources in order to obtain and maintain a competitive advantage in a specific environment to fulfill shareholders’ expectations (Johnson, Scholes, and Whittington, 2008). In other words, any form of the strategy includes key components, which include an organization, resources, competencies, competitive advantage, long-term objectives, environmental factors, and stakeholder expectations.

However, other experts interpret strategy differently. One of the most important elements of a strategy include competitiveness, and it is a specific circumstance, condition, or factor, which places an organization in a superior business position in comparison with its rivals (Porter, 1980). Therefore, the needs to be some form of business component and plan of obtaining the latter, which puts a company ahead of its competitors, which is a simplistic definition of the strategy.

However, one should be aware that competitiveness is not always a single variable as defined in the previous piece of literature. According to Porter’s Five Forces theory, power of suppliers, power customers, the threat of new entrants, the threat of substitutes, and rivalry contribute to the overall complexity of competitive advantage (Porter, 2008). Therefore, a more critical assessment of the defining strategy is based on multifactorial navigation through a complex world of external forces and internal capabilities in order to outperform other participants of the market (Collins, 2001). Despite the wide range of literature and knowledge accumulated around the topic, it is also important to understand that strategy and its implementation is a complex and intricate process, which can be prone to biased thinking, cognitive delusion, and failure of factual analysis (Rosenzweig, 2007). On the basis of all the definitions presented in the given subsection, a critical assessment reveals that a strategy can be defined as a set of plans, objectives, and attempts to achieve competitive advantage by adapting to the external forces through the use of internal capabilities with minimal error-making during prognosis.

How Strategies Are Developed

There is a wide range of considerations that need to be made when developing a strategy for an organization, and these include objectives, external environment, internal resources, leadership, management, and market developments. Thus, the process of developing a strategy implicitly involves changing the direction and scope of a company towards a new desired destination through a novel means of achieving these goals. Therefore, according to the competitive advantage theoretical framework, at the core of these alterations is change, which distinctively determines how a specific organization will obtain its competitiveness in the market (Holbeche, 2006).

However, one can critically address the previous statement by stating that strategies are manifestations of entrepreneurial spirit, which focuses on flexibility and adaptability even for large organizations (Ansoff, 1964). The main reason is the fact that strategic plans are prone to fail to predict or consider major future fluctuations, which is why an organization needs to act entrepreneurially under these unexpected pressures.

Subsequently, developing a strategy is a complicated and intricate process, where one needs to utilize his or her predictive and analytical skills to determine the most appropriate direction for a company at stake. Unlike Ansoff, according to the strategic organizational evolution framework, a strategic plan development is not a mere identification of desired objectives on the basis of current external forces and internal capabilities, but also evidence-based prediction of possible changes in the future according to which a company needs to evolve (Greiner, 1972). In other words, a strategy needs to be developed by factoring in the potential evolution and revolution of the company itself along the path towards its objectives. This can be considered as a more critical outlook in regards to the traditional definitions of how strategies are developed.

Thus, the development process of a strategy is based on a comprehensive analysis of both current and future factors, which might facilitate and hinder the achievement of competitiveness and success with an emphasis on becoming more valuable than others (Hamel, 1998). On the basis of literature and critical analysis, it is possible to state that developing a strategy is a process of research (Andrews, 1987). The latter leads to the identification of several strategic options, where the most promising one is chosen as a core strategy.

Who Should Be Involved

It should be noted that both traditional and contemporary literature lists a wide range of elements, which need to be included in an organizational strategy. However, there are four fundamental components of any business strategy. Thus, the involvement of both the management and shareholders is critical. According to the experts in the field, these involve mission and vision statements, precise and detailed objectives and goals, well-outlined action plans, and evaluative measures in order to monitor the overall progress in an incremental manner (De Wit and Meyer, 2004). In other words, no strategy can be developed and implemented without these core elements since they determine the direction, scope, and long-term desired plans for a company. However, other experts claim that an organization needs to transform into a so-called “thinking organization,” which emphasizes a constant self-evaluation, research, and reevaluation of its trajectory in relation to its desired goals and directions (Sims and Gioia, 1986).

A critical analysis of the presented literature reveals that the thinking aspect is more important than the fundamental elements. In accordance with the contemporary evidence, some experts suggest that strategic planning failed to ensure the success of organizations since they lack a core component, which is strategic thinking (Mintzberg, 1994). In other words, the process of developing and implementing a strategy needs to include a strategic thinking pattern as a priority instead of determining mission and vision, etc.

Subsequently, by factoring in the strategic thinking elements, one needs to consider not the only mission and vision statements, precise and detailed objectives and goals, well-outlined action plans, and evaluative measures in order to monitor the overall progress, but also how an organization will strategically interpret incremental changes along the way. A strategically thinking company is a novel concept of how a corporate entity should operate while it is adhering to its outlined plan. In other words, it is an upgrade or modification of the evaluative part of the traditional view of what should be involved in a strategy. The core idea is a constant assessment of both the strategy and the company’s performance in the market.

What Tools Can Be Used to Develop a Strategy

In the case of tools that should be used to develop a strategy, a company needs to use as many as it can in order to ensure the comprehensiveness of the plan and research. The most basic and essential ones include the VRIO framework, visioning, PESTLE analysis, Porter’s Five Forces, SWOT, change management, and leadership (Lasserre, 2017). Firstly, SWOT analysis is the simplest and most effective way to determine the external and internal factors in regard to a company of interest. Strengths and weaknesses provide a succinct evaluation of the internal capabilities of an organization, whereas threats and opportunities illuminate external forces influencing the company. However, SWOT fails to prioritize the most important aspects of each quadrant and might lead to poor decision-making due to a one-sided structure (Lasserre, 2017). Therefore, a SWOT analysis should only be considered as one stage of the business strategic planning process.

VRIO framework is primarily focused on the value element of a strategy, which is organized into four layers, such as value, rarity, imitability, and organization (Lasserre, 2017). However, it is solely applicable to large enterprises, whereas smaller organizations’ environmental intricacies are not factored in.

Moreover, PESTLE analysis is a comprehensive tool, which allows an organization to comprehensively assess its external environment. The framework’s six dimensions are environmental, legal, technological, political, social, and economic factors (Lasserre, 2017). However, it does not provide any form of connection to a company’s internal capabilities and influence on these dimensions.

Porter’s Five Forces is a highly systematic evaluative and strategic planning tool, which assesses substitute products, customers, suppliers, entrants, and rivals (Lasserre, 2017). However, its major drawback is its applicability to a single organization, where the tool is intended to analyze the industry rather than a sole business. Therefore, it is not useful as a standalone evaluative method because no specific strategy can be developed on the framework (Lasserre, 2017).

In the case of visioning and change management, a company needs to be able to understand and plan forward for its internal change in accordance with its desired objectives (McCaskey, 1982). Leadership and management approaches need also be determined as a core element of a strategy through tools of creative imaginization in order to ensure a procedural adherence to the plan (Morgan, 1993). In other words, available tools are the VRIO framework, visioning, PESTLE analysis, Porter’s Five Forces, SWOT, change management, and leadership analysis.

How They Are Implemented

The described tools, methods, and instruments are implemented in unison in order to build a comprehensive basis on which a strategy is developed and designed. Since the previous segment described how each method could be flawed when used solo, it is important to point out that integrating them in conjunction with each other can be significantly more effective in developing a sound and plausible organizational strategy. In other words, organizational leaders implement these tools in a combinatory fashion in order to draw an accurate and reliable conclusion, which is a part of the lateral thinking process (De Bono, 1970). The core reason is that such an approach covers a wider range of critical areas in regards to a business than vertical thinking, which emphasizes depth. A strategy acts as a fundamental platform or basis on which the entire direction and scope of a company are built. Thus, such a strategy needs to be comprehensive and inclusive of all important aspects of a business, which means that no area of operations, plans, and goals is neglected.

More specifically, PESTLE analysis, Porter’s Five Forces, SWOT provide a highly encompassing analysis of the external environment and forces relevant for the company. These include the industry specificities, state and nationwide intricacies, and the company’s external position. Similarly, SWOT, VRIO framework, visioning, change management, and leadership analysis are designed to assess a company’s internal capabilities, which include resources, competencies, and leadership. Contrary to De Bono’s statements, on the basis of numerous cases, it is also safe to state that by incorporating these tools in unison is the most effective way to develop a well-researched and evidenced strategy, and dismissal of some of these methods can lead to serious challenges in the future (Christensen et al., 1982). In other words, a combinatory use of the stated tools is critical for strategy development.

How Organizations Ensure Strategies Are Maintained

After an organization develops and implements its strategy, the next important step is maintaining and adhering to the determined course of an action plan. Companies maintain their plans through four main measures, which include condition-based maintenance, risk-based maintenance, prevention, and correction. According to the strategic thinking framework, these are the core elements of a strategic thinking process since they all prioritize the outlined strategy as the control factor (Liedtka, 1998).

In a more critical sense, both condition-based maintenance and risk-based maintenance are centered around a specific risk and condition, which determines whether or not a strategy is being adhered to or abandoned. If a strategy was devised with a certain condition in mind, the deviation from the predicted or expected pathway might result in a reevaluation of the strategy for its plausibility. Contrary to Liedtka, according to the Fifth discipline concept, this is a prime example of a learning organization, which is open and prepared for unexpected forces (Senge, 1990). Prevention is the most standard approach to strategic thinking and maintenance since it focuses on preventing any form of non-adherence to the plan of action. In other words, the company establishes a set of preventative measures in order to avoid any deviation from the strategy.

In addition, an organization can utilize correction in order to adjust or return to the originally predetermined plan of action. Such an effort requires “sense making” skills from the management and leadership in order to quickly recognize how a company is deviating from its path (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). It should be noted that in practice, all of these maintenance approaches are used in conjunction with each other due to the ever-changing environment and

Organizational change is an inevitable part of its growth and evolution throughout its course of market functioning. Therefore, organizational change needs to be enveloped in the overall strategic implementation since the market and other external factors are prone to fluctuate and alter themselves. The order of change management can be combined into three stages, which include several sequential steps aimed at moving from the current state to the target (Senior and Fleming, 2006).

The first stage involves preparing changes. The stage includes actions to define goals, methods of making changes, identify possible limitations and reasons for resistance to change. The second stage involves the implementation of changes. This is where a change plan is developed, and actions are taken to implement it. In most cases, the main tool for implementing changes at the personal level is staff motivation, and organizational changes revolve around project management (Senior and Fleming, 2006). During this, various methods and types of motivation are used, with the help of which change is managed at the personal level. In order to manage organizational change, the most appropriate methods for managing the project are selected.

The third stage is to consolidate the changes. In the process, feedback from employees is collected, an analysis of the results achieved is carried out, the discrepancy between the target indicators and the changes actually achieved is determined, and adjustments are made to the procedure for implementing changes (Senior and Fleming, 2006). One of the most important elements in the change management process must not be forgotten, and this is the recognition of the achievements, successes, and results of employees. Recognition of individual and group achievements in performance improvement allows the changes made to be consolidated.

The change can also be enveloped as a revolution and evolution, which are more drastic examples of change management. Contrary to the previous claims, according to this concept, it should be a deep reorganization of the enterprise along the entire value chain (Hamel, 1996). The process of customer satisfaction is also subject to a radical reorganization. New solutions must be deliberately enforced in an undemocratic way.

In a more critical sense, leadership is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who are vested with all the necessary legitimate power to vigorously and quickly carry out the intended changes. Organizational development means the concept of planning, initiating, and implementing the processes of changing social systems with the involvement of a wide range of participants. Supporters of the evolutionary concept are based on the fact that, first of all, the views, values ​​, and models of behavior of members of the socio-technical system should change, and then the system itself.

Organizational development is understood as a long-term, thorough, comprehensive process of changing and developing an organization and its employees. The process is based on the training of all employees through direct interaction and transfer of practical experience. The purpose of the changes is to simultaneously increase the productivity of the organization and the quality of work. Evaluation of the appropriateness of using a particular method depends on many factors (Hamel, 1996). The determining factor is the attitude of the staff to change and the understanding of the authority powers both on the part of the management personnel and employees. Situational readiness for change should be assessed depending on the type of crisis in which the system finds itself.

How Innovation Is Accomplished

The last and one of the most critical elements of strategic development and implementation is innovation. The latter is accomplished by making strategic thinking a core competency, where the emphasis is put on harnessing human talent and encouraging creative effort (Bonn, 2001). It should be noted that novel organizational methodological frameworks translate into new measures of organizing the key processes. This includes cooperation with customers or research centers, integration with suppliers, outsourcing in the field of production, procurement, distribution of resources or products, solving personnel and support issues (Westland, 2017). In other words, innovations are achieved by creating a condition, in which such actions can take place. Innovation is heavily reliant on some degree of freedom provided for human talent, such as employees. Therefore, giving sufficient resources, space, and time for such endeavors is critical for any form of innovative practice. The latter also requires an appropriate style of leadership and management, which encourage and facilitate creativity and open-minded thinking. These efforts revolve around and deeply rooted in an organization’s internal capabilities and strengths, which might not always be available at some companies or businesses.

In a more critical sense, organizational innovations are implemented new methods of doing business, organizing jobs, and external relations. The stated processes affect the nature of management relations in the organization, reflected in the relationship between the definitions of management and self-government (Westland, 2017). Therefore, it is important to identify the range of changes in the nature of management relations in the process of innovative development of the enterprise.

In order to promote innovative efforts and thoughts, it is important to develop an internal environment suitable for such endeavors. Innovation is a process of success and failure, which is why fine-tuning this process is not as important as enabling creativity (Starbuck and Milliken, 1988). Organizational innovations are traditionally associated with the development of new forms and methods of organization and regulation of production and labor, as well as with changes in the ratio of the spheres of influence of structural divisions, social groups, or individuals of the company (Westland, 2017). A concentrated reflection of numerous organizational innovations is found in the development of the processes of establishing a hierarchy of socio-economic systems, centralization, and decentralization of management, the formation of bureaucratic and flexible organizational structures of management.

Relationship Between Strategy, Innovation, and Change

Strategy is linked to change due to the requirements of the modern-day business world. According to Hamel (1998), the companies that will be able to survive and thrive are the ones capable of reinventing themselves and their industries. This means that innovation and change have to be an integral component of the business because this is the only way for them to survive. Moreover, Hamel (1998) argues that “it is the revolutionaries…who are creating the new wealth” (p. 7). The author notes that the current competitive environment is different from that gave birth to the concept of strategy fifty years ago, which means that apart from using the theory of strategy, one has also to understand that competitive advantage is gained through innovation.

The goal of a business is to provide value and earn more than its cost of capital. In the modern-day environment, replicating the business model or a product is not problematic, considering the amount of information available online and the access to resources. Companies are overly focused on reducing their expenditures and ensuring that their return on the invested money is maximized; however, this approach is finite and cannot be continuously used to ensure that there are adequate profits. However, this approach is used by managers of most companies, and it does not allow for differentiation between firms, especially in saturated markets. Thus, innovation, or even the ability to incorporate innovation into the strategy as a component of the firm’s target for the future, is essential. Hence, businesses have to continuously develop and offer new products and services that address the needs of the customer in better and more effective ways. In another case, the competitors or new entrants will gain an advantage by either innovating or capturing a market share, which will not allow the business to earn profits that exceed the value of their capital.

From the perspective of strategy as a plan for the future that considers the current environment, innovation allows reaching the objectives beyond those described by Porter in his theories. This is because if the business integrates innovation and change into their strategic plan, they will consistently overcome the competitors and will not have to worry about the new entrants capable of offering the old types of products and services. Hence, a culture of innovation has become essential for the survival of contemporary businesses.

A Critical Analysis of Selected Strategic Processes Within XYZ Organization Related to Relevant Theories

Who Is Involved

XYZ is a small firm with under 100 employees operating in the metalworking industry, which provides its clients with a set of services linked to the modification of metals. The company is located and headquartered in the capital city of the country, which makes its geographic scope in close proximity with the national market center. In other words, XYZ is faced with high levels of opportunity due to a large market share available to obtain but also threatened by a higher degree of competition and rivalry due to the increased concentration of other businesses operating in the same industry (Porter, 1980). My role and relationship to the company can be described as an intricate one since it is based on employment, knowledge, and appeal to its position in the industry.

Based on Porter’s theory, the current position of this company in the market requires a change in the strategic direction. The primary reason can be attributed to a high level of competition, and thus, there are several large firms that offer the same services. Hence, the power of the buyer is high because they can choose between the small, middle-sized sized or large companies that provide the metalwork services depending on their needs. The number of suppliers who sell the metal required to facilitate the service is limited, which means their bargaining power is high, and XYZ cannot negotiate lower prices for itself. One positive aspect is that the threat of new entrants is low because to buy the equipment needed for the provision of services, one would have to make a substantial investment.

Currently, XYZ has selected the lower cost strategy, and the management has reduced its profit margins to offer the clients a better price when compared to the competition. However, this strategy is difficult to sustain in the long run because the company is not obtaining the revenue that it could have. Moreover, the strategy selected for lowering the costs is also not beneficial because it is achieved through reduced profit margins and not by negotiating better prices with suppliers. The rationale for this approach is that XYZ needs to maintain the cooperation with the existing clients to ensure that they do not buy from the larger companies (De Wit and Meyer, 2004). However, these larger firms have the bargaining power to negotiate a better price with the suppliers and, therefore, can overthrow XYZ’s efforts. From the viewpoint of people’s engagement and contribution, the current strategy is not effective, and therefore, the engagement of the individuals is low, which will be discussed in detail in the recommendations section.

How Long the Process Takes

The process of metal manufacturing and modification is a delicate and complex process heavily dependent on both human talent and machinery. At the current stage, the entire process of metalworking takes time ranging from a day to a month, depending on the complexity of the work required. Simple orders can be fulfilled in several hours if there is no queue and challenging requests, which means that the full processing is conducted by the automated equipment with minimal human work involved. However, large or complex orders require up to a month to complete since there are factors of volume and extra modifications involved in the process, which creates higher value according the VRIO framework (Lasserre, 2017). In addition, these categories of orders are heavily reliant on both machinery and human talent, which is why the human resource is a critical component in the overall speed and quality of metalwork.

What Actually Happens

The company’s metalworking processes can be divided into three main domains, which involve joining, cutting, and forming. The former refers to a set of activities designed to merge metal products into a new and large final product, whereas the latter is more about the shaping and giving form to a metal object. A cutting process is a group of procedures comprised of activities to cut the metal raw materials into smaller usable elements. These categories of processes are not necessarily separated from each other since an order might involve all three procedures. Therefore, innovation plays a critical role in the process of metalwork (Westland, 2017). All of them can be done solely by the equipment and machinery and can also require a significant human input depending on the specific needs of each customer.

What Tools Are Used in the Strategy Development

Since the company adheres to the cost leadership strategy, the tools used in its development include Porter’s Five Forces with some elements of SWOT analysis. The main reason is that the metalwork industry is unique, where it is not affected by the majority of PESTLE elements and has fewer variations in regard to internal capabilities. In other words, internal capacity tools of assessment and PESTLE are not as useful as Porter’s Five Forces and SWOT (Lasserre, 2017). Thus, the company primarily adheres to the former in order to adhere to its cost leadership strategy.

The competition in an industry is a self-evident factor that impacts the strategy since this predetermines the potential profits and the approach that the firm’s leaders can take towards maximizing profitability. The assessment of the competition is based on the evaluation of how many companies there are in the industry, how many similar products they offer, and one can also examine the share of the market that these businesses already have (Johnson, Scholes, and Whittington, 2008). Evidently, a large number of competing firms and similar products provide more freedom to the suppliers and buyers because these competitors can offer a lower price or better deals, and therefore, the firm will lose the customers or will have worse profit margins.

The power of suppliers is an element that refers to the businesses’ profit margins and the ability to lower production costs. If the suppliers’ power is high, which happens in cases when there are many competing businesses and a small number of suppliers, they can choose to sell their products at higher prices, which will drive up the production costs simultaneously. Therefore, the evaluation of the strategy begins with examining the number of suppliers and the potential leverage that the business might have when negotiating with these suppliers for future deals. Ideally, the business should have the power of the suppliers, and it is best to work in markets where the supplier power is low as opposed to that of the firm, which is the case when there are many suppliers in a single market (Porter, 1980). In that case, the business can negotiate lower prices and increase its profit margins without changing the price for its customers and have an advantage over the competition.

The assessment of the five factors that impact the competition presented above shows that the development of the strategy is a complex process where a multitude of factors must be considered. Additionally, it highlights the fact that the strategy is linked to the company’s environment and the interactions between the suppliers, customers, competitions, and potential new competitors. The conclusion that arises on the basis of the five forces assessment is that the company can choose to either offer lower prices or a unique product in cases when the market is saturated.

How It Is Implemented

The strategy was implemented mainly through investment in advanced machinery in order to minimize the human talent requirement. By designing a process framework, which is capable of producing relatively individualized work on an automated basis, the company is able to achieve lower costs of production due to the higher efficiency of the machinery. These measures lead to lower waste of raw materials and less intervention from human talent. The majority of the workforce is assigned supervision-related tasks as well as maintenance of the equipment, which means that there are fewer expenditures on employees (Sims and Gioia, 1986). Such a strategy also eliminates a threat of new entrants and substitutes since advanced machinery cannot be outperformed by the human talent in the case of efficiency of production and manufacturing.

How Its Performance Reviewed

The evaluation process at XYZ company is strict and highly detailed, where the key indicators are output, time spent on each order, and raw material waste. The company interestingly combines the measures and elements of both lean manufacturing and mass production. It attempts to design its production line set up in order to minimize waste of resources but also wants to increase its output for mass orders. Therefore, the company uses all available means to reduce costs in terms of both material waste and effective production.

How Often the Process Is Repeated

As a rule of thumb, most processes are repeated only once for the sake of efficiency and speed. It is evident that such an approach might hinder the overall quality of the product, but any form of repetition will generate a lagging in the procedural transitioning. The cost leadership strategy is inherently based on compromising the quality or efficiency of manufacturing, and the company is willing to undermine its quality by an insignificant margin in order to gain higher speed and output.

An Assessment of the Extent to Which People Within the Organization Are Engaged with and Contribute to A Selected Strategy

Since the majority of processes are automated, the people at the company are either managers or equipment maintenance workers with few metalwork employees. The managers contribute to the company’s selected strategy to the greatest extent since they are tasked to negotiate deals with suppliers in regards to raw materials. The top management is comprised of key decision-makers, who contribute to the strategy the most since they are responsible for the plan implementation through the acquisition of and investment in advanced machinery (McCaskey, 1982). The managers, especially middle-level managers, are focused on acquiring raw materials for the lowest market price, which is the main contributor to the cost leadership of XYZ. The contribution of equipment maintenance workers is minimal since they are solely tasked to periodically check the functionality of machinery in order to ensure their longevity of service. In other words, these workers contribute to the selected strategy indirectly and minimally.

It may seem that in such a structure, all decisions are made only by the head of the enterprise, but this is not the case. Any manager and even any employee can and even are obliged to make decisions in the course of work of the unit, which contributes to the implementation of assigned tasks and plans and, at the same time, does not affect the work of neighboring units and the indicators of the structural unit. Any head of a structural subdivision alone manages his or her subdivision. If questions and problems arise that do not allow them to fulfill their duties, the employee or manager turns to a higher manager, and if one can solve them on his or her own, the question is exhausted. If not, the question rises to an even higher level.

However, all employees of the enterprise are people, and they always establish contacts with each other, discussing and often solving a number of joint production issues, reducing the flow of issues to the upper levels of the hierarchy. All the unresolved issues are limited to the head of the enterprise. If the enterprise operates in a stable external environment, the manager copes with the flow of questions and problems that require his or her solution, which means that his or her overload increases.

Recommendations About How Strategic Processes Within the Organization Could Be Improved

The main problem with XYZ company is the fact that it is trying to set up both lean manufacturing and mass production despite being a fairly small organization. It makes heavy investments into machinery and equipment without basing it on its natural growth as an enterprise with a large market share. Thus, the company needs to become big first before making such a heavy investment into advanced machinery (Senior and Fleming, 2006). In addition, it heavily undercuts its quality of production by purchasing cheaper raw materials, which might not benefit its customer base growth.

Since XYZ is a small company in an industry where the competitive rivalry is high, the selected strategy should be a focus on differentiation. The basis of this approach is that XYZ selects a niche in the market, for example, a specific set of companies that require a particular type of metalwork and continues to develop in this direction. The rationale for this recommendation is the issue of company size and low costs since XYZ has difficulty competing with the larger businesses, and the lowering of costs affects the profit margin. By selecting a niche, XYZ will be able to offer some exclusive services to these companies while maintaining its profit margin.

In the previous section of this paper, the aspect of the culture of innovation has been discussed, and the importance of it is linked to the people’s aspect of operations. This is because, by definition, innovation involves the application of creativity and thinking beyond what currently exists in the industry. This creativity and the focus on developing new products must be an integral part of the values that the employees of the business adhere to and abide by. The second recommendation is for XYZ to reexamine its corporate culture and create an alignment between the vision for innovation and the employees’ views of the strategy and their values. In this way, XYZ will be able to achieve its strategic target of capturing the market share in the niche of the metalwork industry.

Reference List

Andrews, K. (1987) The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood: Irwin.

Ansoff, I. (1964) Corporate strategy. London: Penguin Books.

Bonn, I. (2001) ‘Developing strategic thinking as a core competency’, Management Decision, 39(1), pp. 63-70.

Christensen, C. R. et al. (1982) Business policy: text and cases. Homewood: Irwin.

Collins, J. (2001) Good to great. New York: Random House.

De Bono, E. (1970) Lateral thinking. New York: Harper & Row.

De Wit, B., and Meyer, R. (2004) Strategy: process, content, context. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Gioia, D. A., and Chittipeddi, K. (1991) ‘Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation’, Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), pp. 433-448.

Greiner, L. E. (1972) ‘Evolution and revolution as organizations grow’, Harvard Business Review.

Hamel, G. (1996) ‘Strategy as revolution’, Harvard Business Review.

Hamel, G. (1998) ‘Strategy innovation and the quest for value’, MIT Sloan Management Review.

Holbeche, L. (2006) Understanding change: theory, implementation and success. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Johnson, G., Scholes, K., and Whittington, R. (2008) Exploring corporate strategy. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Lasserre, P. (2017) Global strategic management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Liedtka, J. M. (1998) ‘Strategic thinking: can it be taught?’, Long Range Planning, 31(1), pp. 120-129.

McCaskey, M. B. (1982) The executive challenge: managing change and ambiguity. New York: HarperCollins.

Mintzberg, H. (1994) The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: The Free Press.

Morgan, G. (1993) The imaginization: the art of creative management. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M. E. (2008) ‘The five competitive forces that shape strategy’, Harvard Business Review.

Rosenzweig, P. (2007) The Halo effect. New York: Free Press.

Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senior, B., and Fleming, J. (2006) Organizational change. Hoboken: Prentice Hall.

Sims, H. P., and Gioia, D. A. (1986) The thinking organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Starbuck, W. H., and Milliken, F. J. (1988) ‘Challenger: fine-tuning the odds until something breaks’, Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), pp. 319-340.

Westland, J. C. (2017) Global innovation management. London: Red Globe Press.

Removal Request
This essay on Strategy Development and Organizational Process Analysis was written by a student just like you. You can use it for research or as a reference for your own work. Keep in mind, though, that a proper citation is necessary.
Request for Removal

You can submit a removal request if you own the copyright to this content and don't want it to be available on our website anymore.

Send a Removal Request