Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RMIT BUSINESS
The School of Management
Final Report
Supervisor:
Student:
Justin Spangaro B.Eng (comms.)
Tim OShannassy
Student No.
8302946R
Phone:
(03) 9925 5951
Address: Level 16, 239 Bourke St.,
Melbourne, VIC., Australia, 3000.
Email:
tim.oshannassy@rmit.edu.au
Justin Spangaro
I declare that
except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is mine alone
the work has not been submitted previously in whole or in part to qualify for
any other academic subject or academic award
the work has been carried out since the official commencement date of the
research project and in accordance with the undertakings given in the signed
RMIT Business ethics approval
Student Signature................................................Date........................
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Synopsis...............................................................................................................................9
Research Topic: Definition, Background and Rationale ................................................9
Research Aims ..................................................................................................................11
Research Questions ..........................................................................................................12
Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................51
Hypothesis A
Hypothesis B
Hypothesis C
Hypothesis D
............................................................................................................................................. 51
............................................................................................................................................. 51
............................................................................................................................................. 51
............................................................................................................................................. 51
Operationalisation ...........................................................................................................53
Operationalisation of Primary Constructs ....................................................................53
Operationalisation of Strategic Thinking .................................................................................................. 53
A Systems Perspective ........................................................................................................................... 53
Intent focused. ........................................................................................................................................ 54
Intelligently Opportunistic: .................................................................................................................... 54
Thinking in time: ................................................................................................................................... 54
Hypothesis-driven .................................................................................................................................. 54
Operationalisation of Assumptions about strategic thinking versus strategic planning ............................ 55
Operationalisation of Strategic Planning ................................................................................................... 55
Operationalisation of the Criticality of the Impact of Technology on the Organisation ........................... 56
Operationalisation of the Interaction between analysis and formulation (iterative or linear) ................... 56
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS
Results and Discussion.....................................................................................................59
Hypothesis B ............................................................................................................................................. 61
Hypothesis C ............................................................................................................................................. 61
Hypothesis A ............................................................................................................................................. 62
Hypothesis D ............................................................................................................................................. 62
Secondary Constructs and Spearman Rank-Order Analysis ..................................................................... 63
Factor Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 64
Component 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 66
Component 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 66
Component 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 67
Regression Analysis of Secondary Constructs .......................................................................................... 68
Regression Curve Fit of CT versus ST/SP ................................................................................................ 68
Summary of Analysis.......................................................................................................70
Research Limitations .......................................................................................................73
Sample Size ............................................................................................................................................... 73
Linear Regression ...................................................................................................................................... 73
Factor Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 73
Survey Design ........................................................................................................................................... 73
Strategic Thinking Elements ..................................................................................................................... 74
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
79
REFERENCES
83
October 3, 2000
Executive Summary
This study investigates the nature of strategic management processes in
the high technology industry in Australia. The investigation reveals that
the field of strategic management is in a state of confusion over how to
find a balance between strategic planning and strategic thinking, and even
what is strategic thinking.
This research measures the emphasis on strategic thinking and strategic
planning and the criticality of technology to the organisations studied.
The proposition made is that high technology companies will need to
place greater emphasis on strategic thinking, according to contemporary
management theory on strategic thinking. Also, the research explores the
nature of the strategy formulation process and the role of analysis, to
attempt to resolve the debate about how new strategies are actually
formed.
The study shows that the proposition that high technology industries will
need to place a greater emphasis on strategic thinking is valid. FurtherSpangaro Systems Pty. Ltd.
Justin Spangaro
Executive Summary
October 3, 2000
Chapter 1: Introduction
Synopsis
This final report presents the findings of a study of the strategic management process in the high technology industry in Australia. The research
was conducted by Justin Spangaro in 1999/2000 as the final field
research dissertation for a Masters of Business Administration award at
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Justin Spangaro
strategic planning perspectives (Heracleous, 1998). Contemporary management literature has been seeking to reconcile and integrate these perspectives into a more holistic understanding of the strategy process
(Heracleous, 1998; Liedtka, 1998a; 1998b; Mintzberg 1994a; Mintzberg,
Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1999). Reconciling these opposing perspectives
offers the hope of resolving the dilemma apparent for practitioners of
strategy, that is, how to create an effective strategic management process
that attracts the benefits of both strategic thinking and strategic planning
while avoiding their respective shortcomings.
This study makes a constructive contribution to this debate by investigating the relationship between strategic thinking and strategic planning in
the high technology industry environment.
High technology industries routinely face turbulent and uncertain environments, highly complex products and markets, an unpredictable future,
widespread dissemination of critical competitive knowledge and high
rates of growth, and rely upon constant innovation and creativity to survive. The high-tech environment offers an ideal setting for a study of strategic thinking. Furthermore, many of these problems are the same as
those being faced for the first time by organisations faced with unprecedented forces of technology-driven change.
A competitive local high technology industry has been recognised as critical to the long term economic well-being of Australia (Brain, 2000;
Semple, 2000), and effective strategic management is key to this success.
To contribute to resolving the debate over the nature of the strategic management process, this research specifically examines the relative emphases on strategic thinking and strategic planning in the high technology
sector. The study also explores the nature of the strategy formulation process, particularly the often contentious role of analysis in strategy formu-
Introduction
10
Justin Spangaro
Research Aims
Research Aims
The aim of this project is to explore and examine the nature of the strategy process, in the context of the high technology industry in Australia.
The relationship between the impact of technology on organisations and
the relative emphasis placed on strategic thinking and strategic planning
are examined. In doing so, the validity of the definitions of strategic
thinking (Liedtka, 1998a) and strategic planning (Boyd & ReuningElliott, 1998) are tested and the two concepts contrasted.
In comparing strategic thinking with strategic planning, this research
makes a contribution by clarifying an important and contentious issue in
the strategy field, that is, how are the apparent incompatibilities between
strategic thinking and strategic planning resolved in practice, and what
are their respective roles?
In particular, this research uncovers and explains strategic management
processes in the Australian high technology sector. These results may
provide the basis for further comparative studies with similar sectors in
other countries, or with other industries within Australia.
The results presented of an analysis of strategy processes for the hightech sector could also have implications for the making of strategy in
other sectors that are now facing unprecedented technological change, for
example the banking and finance sector in an internet-based economy.
Finally, inferences are drawn from this research for the likely evolution of
the practice of strategy-making for industrialised economies as the preva-
Introduction
11
Justin Spangaro
Research Questions
lence of the knowledge worker increases and internal and external environments continue to become more complex.
Research Questions
This research aims to answer the following research questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
How much emphasis is placed on strategic planning in high technology organisations, relative to other types of organisations?
How much emphasis is placed on strategic thinking in high technology organisations, relative to other types of organisations?
Does the criticality of technology to an organisations business influence the balance between strategic planning and strategic thinking in
the strategic management process?
In high technology industries are analysis, strategy formulation and
hypothesis testing through implementation iterative and intertwined
processes or do they tend to be linearly and sequentially related processes.
Introduction
12
October 4, 2000
Introduction
The field of strategy has evolved over the last 35 years or so (OShannassy 1999a). Over time, the emphasis has shifted from strategic planning to the more contemporary concept of strategic thinking (Mintzberg
1994a; 1994b). However, as Heracleous (1998) states:
The relationship between the two ideas of strategic planning and strategic thinking is by no means clear in the literature, which is in a state of
confusion over the issue. Strategic planning is often used to refer to a
programmatic, analytical thought process and strategic thinking to refer
to a creative, divergent thought process.
It is argued that strategic planning and strategic thinking both have their
place in the strategy process (Mintzberg 1994a; Heracleous 1998;
Liedtka 1998a), and that both are necessary for effective strategy (Heracleous 1998; Liedtka 1998a).
This literature review explores the relationship between strategic planning and strategic thinking as these two concepts appear in the academic
literature on the subject. Attempts to reconcile these seemingly contra-
13
Justin Spangaro
Literature Review
14
Justin Spangaro
15
Justin Spangaro
int
e
nd
ed
str
a
teg
y
del
ibe
unrealised
strategy
rat
es
tra
t
egy
realised strategy
y
trateg
S
t
n
ge
Emer
Literature Review
16
Justin Spangaro
1. Crouch and Basch (1997) conducted a study examining the lexical and content analysis of the
cognitive process of strategic thinking. The results indicated that there was no evidence of representation of the planning, cultural or environmental schools in the process of strategic thinking.
Literature Review
17
Justin Spangaro
Strategic Planning
Strategic Planning
Strategic planning in the commercial world evolved since the late 1800s
in five principal stages identified by Hax and Majluf (1984) as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Literature Review
18
Justin Spangaro
Strategic Planning
as a formal, centralised process for the benefit of the board, and involving
senior management and the board. He suggests conducting the typical
formal annual strategy review as the fabled executive retreat, making
only passing reference to the need to encourage creativity. He recommends the use of Corporate Strategy Committees, comprised mostly of
board members with one-way input from business segments, as a methodology to make strategy formulation better informed and relevant.
Prahalad and Hamel (1990) introduced the concept of core competencies of the corporation, which should constitute the focus for strategy at
the corporate level (p299). This view integrates markets, products and
the organisation into a single combined perspective about what the organisation does particularly well. In this sense, planning revolves around
making sure that you exploit your Strengths and shore up your Weaknesses to be able to capitalise on Opportunities and defend against
Threats. Considering strategy as Position, the planning strategist navigates the core competence of the organisation to profitable waters. The
responsibility for identifying and developing the required core competence still sits in this view with the top level corporate planners. Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (1999, p218) assign this core competence
notion of strategy to the Learning School.
Characteristics of strategic
planning
The nature of strategic planning can be described in terms of the following characteristics:
Analytic. Planning is
(Porter 1979)
Formalised. Planning
be applied to improve the quality of the result (Ansoff 1965; Porter 1979;
1985; 1990)
Literature Review
19
Justin Spangaro
Strategic Planning
Detached. Planning
1999b).
Engages left-brain (or right-handed planning). Planning
favours analytic
Such criticism generally centres around the lack of opportunity for creativity, innovation, questioning of paradigms or the use of intuition in the
planning process. Consider Porters (1979, pp21-22) description of the
process under the heading Formulation of Strategy:
Once having assessed the forces affecting competition in an industry
and their underlying causes, the corporate strategist can identify the
companies strengths and weaknesses . . . Then the strategist can devise
a plan of action that may include (1) positioning the company so that its
capabilities provide the best defense against the competitive force; and/
or (2) influencing the balance of forces through strategic moves, thereby
improving the companies position; and/or (3) anticipating shifts in the
factors underlying the forces and responding to them with the hope of
exploiting change by choosing a strategy appropriate for the new competitive balance before opponents recognise it.
Literature Review
20
Justin Spangaro
Strategic Planning
It may be argued that influencing the balance is the chief aim of creative strategy making (and apparently where planning has failed to
deliver). In this view, analysis clearly precedes strategy formulation.
Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (1999, pp 66-79) claim that the concept that strategic planning may be used to formulate strategy is fallacious. They identify these fallacies of strategic planning: the fallacy of
predetermination (the environment is sufficiently predictable as is
required by planning), the fallacy of detachment (that strategists can
purely rely on hard data to remain separate from the objects of their strategies to remain detached from operations) and the fallacy of formalisation (that internalisation, comprehension, synthesis, insight and intuition
can be systematised and formalised to produce strategic thinking).
The sum of these misconceptions comprises the grand fallacy of strategic planning: Because analysis is not synthesis, strategic planning has
never been strategy making (p77).
Planning Today
Recent evidence (Glaister & Falshaw 1999) suggests that strategic planning is still used by most large companies. The strategies realised are
more deliberate rather than emergent, and formulation of strategy stems
from a deliberate process. Most plans address a time horizon of less than
five years. The tools used in the planning process are predominantly simple spread sheet what if analyses, analysis of critical success factors,
financial competitor analysis and SWOT analysis; relatively unsophisticated methods. Planning emphasizes closely related markets over totally
new markets. Strategic planning is seen as important and an effective way
to achieve improved performance.
Despite the chequered history of strategic business planning, the basic
premise that good strategy can lead to better outcomes is well rooted in
Literature Review
21
Justin Spangaro
Strategic Thinking
Strategic Thinking
The definition of strategic thinking is contentious in the academic literature (OShannassy 1999b; Heracleous 1998). There are schools of
thought about strategic thought, if you like.
The strategy paradigm has evolved in the 1990s (OShannassy 1999a);
the modern concept of strategy, strategic thinking, sees strategy making
itself as a creative, intuitive, non-linear process, not able to be formalised
or mechanised by a typical strategic planning approach (OShannassy
1999a; 1999b; Ohmae 1982; Mintzberg 1994b, pp381; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel 1999, p72) and that attempting to formalise the process
actually critically inhibits the organisations ability to think strategically
(Stacey 1996, pp412-414).
Strategic thinking is then central to the strategy process, whereas strategic planning applies around the process (Mintzberg 1994b, p331; 1994a,
p108).
In another view, Porter (1991) and others see strategic thinking as a convergent and analytical process, and consider that such analysis is central
to the strategy making process (Heracleous 1998).
Ohmae (1982) integrates analysis ideally as part of the creative strategic
thinking process, as shown in Figure 2 on page 23. There are similarities
between this view and Mintzbergs (1994b) view that planing and analysis support the strategic thinking process (also Mintzberg, Ahlstrand &
Lampel 1999). The use of non-linear brain-power remains the essence of
strategic thinking (Ohmae 1982, p13).
Literature Review
22
Justin Spangaro
Strategic Thinking
typical
short
circuit
Phenomena
Grouping
Abstraction
Emergence of conclusion
Determination
of approach
Validation or rebuttal of
hypothetical solutions
by in-depth analysis
Provisional formulation of
hypothetical solutions
Implementation
by line managers
FIGURE 2.
Literature Review
23
Justin Spangaro
Strategic Thinking
FIGURE 3.
intent
focused
systems
perspective
Strategic
Thinking
intelligent
opportunism
thinking
in time
hypothesisdriven
This model also recognizes strategic intent (Hamel & Prahalad 1989;
Prahalad & Hamel 1990); that strategy creates and depends on tension
between current circumstances and a desired future. It integrates the
understanding that strategic thinking connects the past, present and future
(thinking in time), that strategies can be emergent as well as deliberate
(Mintzberg 1987) (intelligent opportunism), and that, as in the traditional
planning literature, strategy is about a holistic view of the organisation
and its environment (systems perspective).
In contrast to Porters (1979) strategic planning based view, in the strategic thinking paradigm analysis supports formulation, but does not strictly
precede it. If strategic thinking were observed, analysis would be at least
partly driven by attempts at formulation in iterative hypothesis-testing
cycles (Ohmae 1982; Liedtka 1998).
Literature Review
24
Justin Spangaro
Literature Review
25
Justin Spangaro
FIGURE 4.
1998a)
S tra te g ic T h in k in g
D isru p tin g
A lig n m e n t
C u rre n t
R e a lity
D e s ir e d
F u tu r e
S tra te g ic P la n n in g
C re a tin g
A lig n m e n t
Literature Review
26
Justin Spangaro
FIGURE 5.
Acting
Discovering
Choosing
Double-loop learning, however, is where the mental models, assumptions and choice of action alternatives themselves are adjusted to adapt to
the results, as shown in Figure 6 on page 27. Complex learning is the
shifting, breaking and creating of paradigms (Stacey 1996, p65)
FIGURE 6.
Previous Mental
Model
Acting
Discovering
New Mental
Model
Choosing
Literature Review
27
Justin Spangaro
In this dialectic view, the strategist uses both synthetic and analytical,
divergent and convergent processes for making strategy. This enables the
strategist to go up and down the ladder of abstraction . . . being able to
see both the big picture and the operational implications (Heracleous
1998). This process is represented by Figure 7 on page 28.
FIGURE 7.
Strategic Thinking
Thought process:
synthetic
divergent
creative
strategic
management
The purpose of strategic planning
is to operationalise the strategies developed
through strategic thinking, and to support
the strategic thinking process.
Thought process:
analytical
convergent
conventional
Strategic Planning
This learning model of strategy is particularly applicable to the high technology organisation in a turbulent environment:
Some organisations face perpetual novelty. . . their environments are
dynamic and unpredictable, which makes it difficult to converge on a
clear strategy at all. In this case, the structure tends to take the form of
adhocracy, or project organisation, and the learning approach becomes
almost mandatory - the means to work things out in a flexible manner.
At the very least, it allows the organisation to do something to respond
to an evolving reality in individual steps instead of having to wait for a
fully determined strategy (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel 1999,
p229).
Literature Review
28
Justin Spangaro
Literature Review
29
Justin Spangaro
Literature Review
30
Justin Spangaro
options and ideas rather than relying on their own limited mental models
of the competitive landscape.
In another study, Drago (1999) found that different types of organisational complexity affected strategic complexity. He examined product
diversity, vertical integration and international scope. Vertical integration
increased strategic complexity, while increased product diversity actually
led to a simplification of strategic complexity, or a focus on fewer competencies. It is suggested that this simplification is a result of focusing
towards areas of synergy.
In high technology industries the competitive environment is characteristically turbulent. Hodgekinson (1997) conducted a study that examined
cognitive inertia in turbulent markets (in real estate, in his study),
revealing that mental models of the competitive landscape can tend to
remain stuck in the face of obvious changes (hence cognitive inertia).
Such failure to adapt probably leads to poor strategy formulation and
strategic failure (p940). Apparent in this image is the single-loop versus
double-loop learning discussed previously. He concluded that within
volatile business environments changes in mental models of competitive
space significantly lag behind the changes in the material conditions of
the marketplace implying that actors should periodically engage in a
period of individual and collective reflection in order to reconsider anew
the extent to which their assumptions and beliefs about the external environment provide a viable basis on which to build effective strategies for
competitive success (Hodgekinson, 1997 p940). If we accept that high
technology industries operate in turbulent environments, and that narrowing this gap or lag between mental models and the changes in the marketplace leads to better strategy formulation, this conclusion adds weight to
the argument that strategic thinking as double-loop learning is critical for
strategic success.
Literature Review
31
Justin Spangaro
Examining the prescriptive literature on strategy formation in a high technology environment, much of the literature proposes methods for alignment of the technology strategy with the objectives of the corporate
strategy (e.g. Barker and Smith 1995; Adler, McDonald and McDonald
1992). Such alignment processes are primarily strategic programming
functions.
However, in line with the trend away from top down planning, some
authors emphasise the influence technical strategy and technical issues
may have on corporate strategy (e.g. Schroederer, Congden and Gopinath, 1995; McGrath, 1995). As Schroederer, Congden and Gopinath
(1995, p185) state: Although a new technology is generally adopted to
support a given strategy, the technologys full capabilities are often
unknown prior to their use. Consequently, exploiting the technologys
complete competitive advantages requires adjustment in the firms strategy.
The tension is apparent between creating alignment of technology strategy with the corporate strategy, and the disruptive, misalignment provoking effects of the introduction of new technologies and the creation of
new possible futures and consequent revision of the original strategy.
This process of alignment and misalignment, convergence and divergence parallels Heracleous (1998) and Leidtkas (1998a) description of
an integrated strategy making process that combines both strategic planning and strategic thinking. This process can also be seen as double-loop
organisational learning, redefining understanding of the firms view of
the competitive space as new possibilities or realities emerge.
Organisational processes for technology strategic management vary. In a
study of 95 large firms worldwide Roberts (1995) noted significant differences in the role technology played in corporate strategy formulation
between U.S., Japanese and European firms. Notably, Japanese compa-
Literature Review
32
Justin Spangaro
33
Justin Spangaro
Literature Review
34
Justin Spangaro
strategic
vision
strategic
balance
resources
competitive
strategy
differentiation
strategy
expansion
strategy
platform
strategy
supporting
strategies:
- time-based strategy
- cannibalisation
- global product
strategy
core
competencies
innovation
strategy
price-based
strategy
product-line
strategy
Literature Review
35
Justin Spangaro
Conclusion
Conclusion
This literature review has examined three principle issues: strategic planning, strategic thinking and strategy in the high-technology industry.
The definitions of strategic thinking and strategic planning are highly
contentious, and a range of views on definition have been presented. Strategic planning is generally considered to be an analytical, formal, convergent process, whereas strategic thinking is a creative, divergent, intuitive
process of strategy development. Both appear to be important for effective strategy. Contention exists around how successful, ground breaking
strategies are formulated, with some authors claiming that planning creates strategies, while others insist that strategic thinking does.
Some authors have attempted to resolve this dilemma by integrating the
two processes into a dialectic or holistic view, balancing intuition and
analysis, and regarding strategic planning as single-loop organisational
learning, whereas strategic thinking is double-loop learning.
In literature on strategy in the high technology sector evidence of both
strategic thinking and strategic planning may be found. The nature and
likely effectiveness of the process employed is dependent on a wide
range of contextual factors. Balancing the tensions between strategic
Literature Review
36
Justin Spangaro
Conclusion
thinking and strategic planning with consideration of these complex contextual factors is the art of strategic management in high technology
industries.
Literature Review
37
Justin Spangaro
Conclusion
Literature Review
38
Justin Spangaro
Introduction
Research Design
Two research models were constructed to describe the relationships
between phenomena being investigated. Research Model 1 is designed to
primarily investigate the relationship between the criticality of technology on an organisation and the balance between strategic thinking and
strategic planning employed in the organisation.
Secondly, moderating factors or control variables are measured to determine the influence that these factors may have on the relationship
between the criticality of technology and the strategic thinking/strategic
planning balance. Research Model 1 is depicted in Figure 9 on page 39.
FIGURE 9.
Research Model 1
technological inflexibility
organisational complexity and size
environmental hostility
need for innovation
environmental turbulence
product diversity
management experience
balance between
strategic thinking
and strategic
planning emphasis
criticality of
impact of
technology
Field Research
39
Justin Spangaro
Research Design
Research Model 2
technological inflexibility
organisational complexity and size
environmental hostility
need for innovation
environmental turbulence
product diversity
management experience
formulation and
analysis are
iterative or linear
processes
criticality of
impact of
technology
Field Research
40
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
Research Methodology
This research employed a hypothetico-deductive research methodology.
Inductive/Deductive
Methodology
Seth and Zinkhan (1990) identify that approaches anywhere on the continuum of research methods from the inductive to the deductive can be
valid for the study of strategy. In this case, a deductive methodology is
preferred. It is noted, however, that given the complexity of the phenomena being examined, scope remains for inductive analysis particularly in
regard to the phenomena of strategic thinking and the nature of the relationship to strategic planning.
Hypothesis testing/
falsification
The study was cross-sectional (taken at a single point in time); no longitudinal (over time) research was conducted.
Field Research
41
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
The majority of data gathered for this survey research was obtained by
means of a written quantitative survey, generally either sent and returned
Field Research
42
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
Field Research
43
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
was very effective at locating and targeting respondents who were most
qualified to respond to the survey and to obtain a high response rate. Generally, the closer to the personal network the invited participant was the
more likely that a well considered response would be received. Participants were offered a copy of the research findings to add incentive to
complete the survey and to give adequate consideration to their
responses.
In other cases, specific companies with a profile of success in the high
technology industry in Australia were selected based on general industry
knowledge. Contact was made by phone to request participation, and followed up with a mailed survey package. In some cases this was successful in obtaining a response and several participants were kind enough to
consent to an interview as well. The structured interview questions used
are provided in Appendix B: on page 99.
The types and size of companies surveyed ranged from mid sized local
companies to divisions of large multinationals and Australian based public companies with substantial international operations. Organisational
complexity was measured by the survey as an independent variable.
Fieldwork
From the literature and the research aims, a set of independent variables
and a set of dependent variables were identified as shown in Research
Field Research
44
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
Type of
variable
dependency
Dependent
variables
Variable
Abbreviation
SP
ST
Independent
variables
Type of
research
construct
Primary
Constructs
ST/SP or
STvSP
FAR
CT
MO
Organisational Complexity
OC
Technological Inflexibility
TI
Secondary
Constructs
Table 1 on page 45 shows that SP, ST, ST/SP, FAR and CT are primary
constructs, that is the research is designed to directly investigate relationships between these variables. On the other hand, MO, OC and TI are
secondary constructs, that is we are interested in the moderating effects
of these variables on relationships between the primary constructs.
Table 1 on page 45 also shows that SP, ST, ST/SP and FAR are dependent
variables, while CT, MO, OC and TI are being treated as independent
variables. The research principally examines the effects of the independent variables on the dependent variables, and therefore a cause/effect
relationship is assumed. While noted in the literature review as possible
moderators, the variables Need for Innovation, Environmental Turbulence, Environmental Hostility and Product Diversity were not operationalised to limit the scope of the research within manageable limits.
The survey was designed and administered to enable the measurement of
the constructs described above. Survey responses were tabulated then
Field Research
45
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
Field Research
46
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
Furthermore, three other independent variables were measured: Technological Inflexibility (TI), Organisational Complexity (OC) and Management Orientation (MO). These measures were derived from likert scale
and some numerical response questions. Calculations are shown in
Appendix C: on page 101.
Field Research
47
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
TABLE 2. Summary
Question
no. of
points
Construct
Focus of question
SP
mission statement
SP
trend analysis
SP
competitor analysis
SP
SP
annual goals
SP
SP
ongoing evaluation
ST:IO
5
RS
ST:IO
RS
10
ST:IO
RS
11
ST:IO
RS
12
ST:SYSP
RS
13
ST:SYSP
RS
14
ST:SYSP
RS
15
ST:IF
RS
16
ST:IF
RS
17
ST:IF
RS
18
ST:TT
RS
19
ST:TT
RS
20
ST:HD
RS
21
A1
future is unpredictable
22
A2
23
A3
24
CT
25
CT
technological sophistication
26
CT
27
TI
28
TI
29
MO
30
OC
number of employees
linear
RS
linear
5
5
31
OC
level of diversification
32
OC
divisional structure
Field Research
48
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
Field Research
49
Justin Spangaro
Research Methodology
Field Research
50
Justin Spangaro
Hypotheses
Hypotheses
Following from the research questions on page 12, the following research
hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis A
H1: The more critical the impact of technology on the organisation, the
greater the probability that analysis, strategy formulation and hypothesis testing are iterative and intertwined rather than linearly and sequentially related processes.
H0: Whether analysis, strategy formulation and hypothesis testing are
iterative and intertwined or linearly and sequentially related processes is
unrelated to the criticality of the impact of technology on the organisation.
Hypothesis B
H1: The more critical the impact of technology on the organisation, the
greater the probability that strategic thinking will be more emphasised
than strategic planning.
H0: The relative emphasis between strategic thinking and strategic planning is independent of the criticality of technology to the organisation.
Hypothesis C
H1: The more critical the impact of technology on the organisation, the
greater will be the emphasis on strategic thinking.
H0: The emphasis placed on strategic thinking is independent of the
criticality of technology to the organisation.
Hypothesis D
H1: The more critical the impact of technology on the organisation, the
less will be the emphasis on strategic planning.
H0: The emphasis placed on strategic planning is independent of the
criticality of technology to the organisation.
51
Justin Spangaro
Hypotheses
52
Justin Spangaro
Operationalisation
Operationalisation
This section discusses how the concepts studied are operationalised.
The primary constructs of this study are
1.
2.
3.
4.
technological inflexibility
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
element is measured by
53
Justin Spangaro
lowing factors:
Does the organisation have a particular point of view or sense of direction about the long term market or competitive position that the organisation hopes to build over the coming decade or so?
Does the organisation have a competitively unique point of view about
the future which could lead the organisation to explore new competitive
territory?
Does the organisation have a goal or goals that are perceived as inherently worthwhile by its employees?
Intelligently Opportunistic: The intelligent opportunism
element is opera-
element is operationalised by
examining the degree to which the past and the future are considered
when formulating and implementing strategy. The following questions
are posed:
To what degree is an awareness about the past history of the organisation and/or other organisations used to predict what courses of action
might be effective in designing and implementing new strategies?
When planning and striving towards the future of the organisation, to
what degree is the gap between the way things were in the past and the
way things need to be in the future considered?
Hypothesis-driven. The
54
Justin Spangaro
versus
In my organisation the process of developing a new strategy is a linear
process where analysis is first conducted then new strategy ideas are
generated based on insights gained from the analysis.
Assumptions identified by Liedtka (1998a) as underlying strategic thinking are operationalised by investigating the nature of the relationship
between formulation and implementation, and asking the following questions:
Is the future predictable and specifiable in detail, or can we just predict
the shape of it?
Compare: First we formulate, then we implement versus Formulation and implementation are interactive and intertwined or concurrent
activities.
Is thinking about strategy the responsibility of the senior executives or
the lower level managers (or somewhere in between)?
Operationalisation of
Strategic Planning
Strategic planning was operationalised using the multi-variate measurement model of strategic planning characterised by Boyd and ReuningElliott (1998), which measures the strategic planning construct in terms
of the combined emphases on mission statement, trend analysis, competitor analysis, long term plans, annual goals, short term action plans and
ongoing evaluation.
55
Justin Spangaro
Operationalisation of the
Criticality of the Impact of
Technology on the
Organisation
Operationalisation of the
Interaction between analysis
and formulation (iterative or
linear)
This construct addresses one of the key areas of contention in the literature that compares strategic thinking with strategic planning (Heracleous
1998; Liedtka 1998a; 1998b; Mintzberg 1994a). It explores whether
strategy formulation is an iterative, hypothesis generation - testing process or a linear process of first analysis then formulation.
This construct is not operationalised separately, rather measurement is
derived directly from a combination of three measures: the operationalisation of the hypothesis-driven element of the strategic thinking construct, and testing of two assumptions: that formulation and
implementation are intertwined activities and that the future cannot be
predicted in detail, as specified in Operationalisation of Assumptions
about strategic thinking versus strategic planning on page 55.
56
Justin Spangaro
Two items are measured. The first measures the length of investment
gestation period (time to set up a new operating facility in months). The
second measures the adaptability of core technology to develop new but
related products on a five-point Likert scale ranging from very easily (1)
to cannot be done (5). (p763).
Operationalisation of
Management Experience
(type of)
Operationalisation of
Organisational Complexity
and Size
57
Justin Spangaro
58
Justin Spangaro
Chapter 4: Analysis
Results and Discussion
The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient rswas chosen as an
appropriate measure of association for analysis of the survey data. The
Spearman Rank-Order measure is a suitable test for association for small
paired data sets with ordinal data that is not necessarily normally distributed (Emory, 1976, p409; Siegel & Castellan, 1988, pp235-236). The
correlation coefficient rs indicates the significance and direction of the
correlation between two variables, and ranges from +1 to -1.
The Spearman Rank-Order correlation coefficients were calculated to
examine the relationship between the independent variables criticality of
technology (CT), organisational complexity (OC), management orientation (MO) and technological inflexibility (TI) and the dependent variables strategic planning (SP), strategic thinking (ST), formulation/
analysis relationship (FAR) and the ratio of ST/SP. The rs and values
calculated are summarised in Table 3 on page 60. The detailed results and
Spearman Correlation Coefficient calculations for each of the rs values
are shown in Appendix E: on page 111.
Analysis
59
Justin Spangaro
TABLE 3. summary
significanceb
significancec
Associated Hypotheses
or authors
predicted
association
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Hypothesis D
negative
CT
SP
-0.266
0.13
1.188
Hypothesis C
positive
CT
ST
0.341
0.069
1.524
Hypothesis B
positive
CT
ST/SP
0.448
0.022
2.004
Hypothesis A
positive
CT
FAR
0.284
0.10
1.270
complex, can
depend on TI
OC
SP
0.138
too large
0.617
OC
ST
0.000
too large
0.000
OC
ST/SP
-0.265
0.13
-1.187
OC
FAR
0.013
too large
0.060
SP
0.384
0.044
1.719
rs
Berry (1998)
positive
MO
MO
ST
-0.238
0.16
-1.066
Berry (1998)
negative
MO
ST/SP
-0.501
0.01
-2.242
MO
FAR
-0.196
0.21
-0.876
TI
SP
0.282
0.11
1.260
complex,
interacts with
OC
TI
ST
0.109
too large
0.487
TI
ST/SP
-0.159
0.25
-0.711
TI
FAR
0.080
too large
0.359
Analysis
60
Justin Spangaro
Having said that, there are notable correlations that are demonstrated to
be statistically significant, even with the small data set available, as
shown in Table 3 on page 60.
The rs values in Table 3 on page 60 show that correlation is present and in
the predicted direction for each of Hypotheses A, B, C and D (See
Hypotheses on page 43.). The significance level varies for each
hypothesis, as indicated by the values.
Hypothesis B
Hypothesis C
Analysis
61
Justin Spangaro
gic thinking. Once again, this correlation is central to this research, and
indicates that organisations in higher technology environments tend to
place more emphasis on practicing strategic thinking. This measure provides an absolute comparison, not a relative balance, so this has implications for management styles relative to other industries. The implication
is that more strategic thinking is performed in high technology organisations compared with lower technology organisations. Detailed calculations are shown in Table 10 on page 112.
Hypothesis A
Hypothesis D
Analysis
62
Justin Spangaro
planning than lower technology organisations. Furthermore this conclusion tends to support the other hypotheses.
Secondary Constructs and
Spearman Rank-Order
Analysis
Analysis
63
Justin Spangaro
Factor Analysis
Analysis
64
Justin Spangaro
TABLE 4. Correlation
Correlation Matrix
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
CT
TI
MO
OC
ST
SP
CT
TI
MO
OC
ST
SP
CT
1.000
-.082
-.258
.192
.313
-.204
.362
.129
.202
.083
.188
TI
-.082
1.000
.282
.028
.081
.233
.362
.108
.452
.364
.154
MO
-.258
.282
1.000
.426
-.155
.353
.129
.108
.027
.250
.058
OC
.192
.028
.426
1.000
.078
.172
.202
.452
.027
.368
.228
ST
.313
.081
-.155
.078
1.000
.006
.083
.364
.250
.368
SP
-.204
.233
.353
.172
.006
1.000
.188
.154
.058
.228
.490
.490
The correlation coefficients extracted from the data are shown in Table 4
on page 65. The correlation analysis shows positive correlation between
strategic thinking and criticality of technology (at significance p = .083),
which adds further support to Hypothesis C, that high technology businesses will engage in more strategic thinking. While not statistically significant (p = 0.188), the negative correlation between criticality of
technology and strategic planning also tends to support Hypothesis D,
that high technology companies will engage in less strategic planning.
Combined, these results add support to Hypothesis B, that there will be
more relative emphasis on strategic thinking than strategic planning in
high technology companies.
The factor values extracted from the data are shown in Table 5 on
page 68. Of the six components calculated, only three components
(shown) have eigenvalues greater than one, and are therefore significant
enough to include in the analysis. Factors greater than 0.40 may be considered statistically significant (Van de Ven and Ferry, 1980, p175) (noting the comments above about the small sample size).
Analysis
65
Justin Spangaro
Component 1. The
Analysis
66
Justin Spangaro
cations will be relatively stable and well defined, and management focus
will be on business operations rather than R&D.
Component 2 might be labeled the Specialist-Business Planners component, to describe the type of organisation where mature, purpose-specific (i.e. inflexible) base technology requiring little R&D is managed by
business-oriented management that tend to engage in strategic planning.
Component 3. Organisational complexity
Analysis
67
Justin Spangaro
TABLE 5. Varimax
values
CT
TI
MO
OC
ST
SP
1
.774
.109
-.323
.203
.815
-.146
Component
2
-.317
.826
.427
-2.57E-02
.233
.635
3
.145
-4.56E-02
.688
.910
-8.83E-02
.298
Regression Analysis of
Secondary Constructs
Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to correlate the independent variables for criticality of technology (CT), technological inflexibility (TI), management orientation (MO) and organisational complexity
against the primary constructs (i.e. dependent variables) of strategic
thinking (ST), strategic planning (SP), formulation/analysis relationship
(FAR) and the ratio of ST/SP. The regression analysis results are summarised in Appendix H: on page 133.
The regression analysis reveals that while some trends are apparent, there
are no statistically significant linear associations between the any of the
independent variables and any of the dependent variables. This lack of
correlation tends to support the idea that the relationships between the
independent and dependent variables in this study are non-monotonic,
and are complex and interactive, as indicated by Covin and Slevin (1998)
and Yasai-Ardekani and Haug (1997). Furthermore the failure to detect
correlations indicates that simple linear regression techniques are inadequate to analyse the type of data produced.
Investigating the argument that variable relationships may be non-monotonic, linear and quadratic curve fits were attempted in relating CT to ST/
SP. The full results are shown in Appendix G: on page 131, and a plot of
the CT, ST/SP curve is shown also in Figure 11 on page 69.
Analysis
68
Justin Spangaro
STVSP
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
O bs er v ed
.8
Linear
.6
Q uadr atic
1
CT
tionship may be nonmonotonic, and that the relationship between criticality of technology
and relative thinking/planning emphasis may be more complex than
anticipated by Hypothesis B.
Viewing the graph of Figure 11 on page 69, the data appears to be generally more consistent at the high-technology end of the scale. At the
lower-technology end, there appears to be more variability in the data,
and there are fewer samples. As this study has focused on high-technology industries, it is of less interest what occurs at the lower end of the
scale, but it is useful to offer some tentative explanations for the phenomenon observed.
There appear to be two plausible explanations for the curved relationship.
One possible explanation is that at the lower-technology end of the scale,
the balance between strategic thinking and strategic planning is more
affected by other concerns, such as organisational complexity, environmental hostility or management style. The samples that record high ST/
SP scores at the low-tech end are likely to be spurious, caused by other
unrelated factors.
Another possible explanation may be that the lower-tech businesses have
a lower propensity for formal planning. There are no clear reasons for
Analysis
69
Justin Spangaro
Summary of Analysis
this, but it may be speculated that management styles vary in lower technology industries. Some evidence was noted in the survey process that
the more traditional, operations-focused low-tech businesses were relatively less concerned with formal strategic management overall, and their
manner of ad-hoc strategic management may in fact approximate strategic thinking.
Summary of Analysis
The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient analysis proved to be
an effective method of detecting correlations in the data. The data
revealed statistically significant evidence verifying Hypothesis B (to 95%
confidence) and Hypotheses A and C, and to 90% confidence. Indicative
evidence (to 87%) was also found in support of Hypothesis D.
The complex nature of the relationship between the moderating constructs of organisational complexity, technological inflexibility and management orientation is also apparent from the Spearman Correlation
results. The principal finding is that management orientation appears to
have a direct influence on the strategic thinking/strategic planning balance, with business oriented managers preferring the planning approach.
Factor analysis revealed further insights into the data, with correlations
noted supporting Hypotheses B, C and D. This analysis revealed three
components underlying the relationships examined, further supporting
the research hypotheses and providing further insight into the strategy
process. These components indicated strong relationships between (1)
high technology and strategic thinking; (2) technological inflexibility and
strategic planning; and (3) organisational complexity and business-oriented management.
Analysis
70
Justin Spangaro
Summary of Analysis
Analysis
71
Justin Spangaro
Summary of Analysis
Analysis
72
Justin Spangaro
Research Limitations
Research Limitations
Sample Size
Linear Regression
Factor Analysis
Survey Design
73
Justin Spangaro
Research Limitations
The quantitative methodology used does not readily allow for the exploration of subtlteties of the thinking processes that form part of the subject
of this investigation. Research into organisational cognition is a fundamentally challenging task. However, it is believed that the breadth and
sophistication of the strategic thinking construct developed minimises the
limitations of a quantitative methodology.
Strategic Thinking Elements
74
Justin Spangaro
Research Implications
75
Justin Spangaro
Research Implications
76
Justin Spangaro
The research found that formulation, analysis and hypothesis testingdriven action are more intertwined and incremental in high technology
organisations. This finding provides support for the contentious arguments of Mintzberg (1994a; 1994b), Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel
(1999), Heracleous (1998), Leidtka (1998a; 1998b) and Ohmae (1982)
that strategic thinking is hypothesis driven. It tends to argue against Porters (1979, pp21-22) view that strategy formulation follows after analysis, at least in the uncertain high technology environment. This implies
also that high-tech companies should not necessarily expect to produce
grand strategies; a hypothesis-driven incremental approach appears to
be more suitable.
Such findings may have important implications for old-economy
medium- or low-tech industries suddenly facing unprecedented levels of
technological change that affects their business, such as banks, traditional
media organisations and retailers in an internet driven marketplace. As
the influence of technological change increases the criticality of technology to these businesses, strategic management processes will need to be
adapted to suit the new environment. Traditional strategic planning will
need to give way to more strategic thinking, reflecting the changing
nature of the industry.
Even in these industries, strategic planning is still required for coordination of effort, to legitimise a dialogue around strategic issues and for optimal deployment of ever-scarce resources for strategic advantage.
Learnings from this research can be employed to facilitate strategic planning. Room for intelligent opportunism and for timely abandonment of
bad strategies should be build into the strategic planning process. Some
organisations facilitate this by monthly strategy reviews, and by having a
systematic process of identifying, discussing and making decisions on
important unexpected strategic opportunities, such as a newly identified
acquisition target or product-market.
Research Implications
77
Justin Spangaro
Research Implications
78
Justin Spangaro
Chapter 6: Conclusion
This research investigated the nature of the strategic management process
in the context of the high technology industry in Australia.
The strategic management process was examined by measuring the
emphasis placed on strategic thinking and strategic planning and also
exploring whether formulation and analysis were intertwined or sequential activities.
Research hypotheses (see page 51) B, C and D were based on the proposition that high technology organisations would have a greater emphasis
on strategic thinking, compared with more conventional organisations. In
general this proposition was found to be correct, with Hypothesis B significant to 97% confidence. A corresponding decrease in emphasis on
strategic planning was also revealed, as predicted. The statistical significance of Hypotheses A, C and D were lower than 95% confidence, due to
the small sample size but still provided useful indicative results supporting the predictions.
The research found that high technology companies in Australia tend to
engage in strategic thinking more than other organisations. Organisational complexity, technological inflexibility and management orientation are important moderating factors that influence the nature of the
strategic management process, and their effects are complex and interrelated. In particular, a business management orientation tends to lead to
strategic planning, whereas technically oriented management tend to
practice strategic thinking.
These findings also help to resolve a contentious issue in the strategic
management literature over how new strategies are actually formulated.
Conclusion
79
Justin Spangaro
The indications are that new strategies are produced by a continual process of iterative analysis, formulation and testing combined in incremental fashion. This incremental view prevails over the concept that effective
grand strategies can be produced by at a single point in time following
extensive analysis. The incrementalist view is particularly applicable to
the high technology sector.
The research also adds support to a view of strategic thinking proposed
by Liedtka (1998a; 1998b), that strategic thinking can be described in
terms of five elements: it requires thinking in time, uses intelligent opportunism, it is hypothesis driven, requires a systems perspective and is
intent focused.
Furthermore strategic thinking appears, to a degree, to substitute for strategic planning, so raises some questions about whether strategic thinking
can really be developed as a reform of the strategic planning process, as
suggested by some authors (Liedtka, 1998a; 1998b).
Management in high technology organisations need to develop a strategic
thinking capability. Emphasising the development of flexible technologies and minimising organisational complexity can free management to
be less business-planning oriented and fosters strategic thinking.
Strategic management is a complex and inexact business. The design of
strategic management processes are critical to the effective management
of business, and to long term competitive advantage. High technology
industries face fundamental revolutionary change to their competitive and
internal environments, and cope with significant complexity, as a matter
of routine. They must constantly foster innovation to survive. Strategic
management processes in these types of organisations have evolved
towards strategic thinking to cope with these pressures.
Conclusion
80
Justin Spangaro
The challenges routinely faced by high technology industries are common to many traditional organisations that are facing unprecedented levels of technological change in their competitive environments. Similarly,
innovation and responsiveness are recognised to be keys to business success. The value of strategic thinking to the high technology industry provides lessons to traditional industry attempting to cope with sudden
technological upheaval. The message should not be lost either on todays
management who may consider that formal planning and control are the
panacea for dealing with the strategic management problems of the
future.
Conclusion
81
Justin Spangaro
Conclusion
82
Justin Spangaro
References
. Adler, Paul; McDonald, D.William & McDonald, Fred 1992, Strategic Management of Technical
Functions, in Sloan Management Review, Winter 1992, Cambridge.
Andrews 1980a, Directors Responsibility for Corporate Strategy, in Strategy: Seeking and Securing Competitive Advantage pp 449-460, Montgomery, C.A. & Porter M. E. eds., Harvard Business
Review pub., Boston.
Andrews 1980b, The Concept of Corporate Strategy, rev. ed. Dow-Jones Irwin, Homewood, Illinois.
Ansoff, Igor 1965, Corporate Strategy, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Argyris C. 1977, Double Loop Learning in Organisations, Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct,
p15-25.
Barker, Derek & Smith, David J.H. 1995, Technology Foresight Using Roadmaps, in Long Range
Planning, Vol 28, No. 2, pp21-28, 1995, Elsevier Science Ltd., London.
Bateson G. 1972, Steps to and Ecology of Mind, Intertext, London.
Berry, Maureen 1998, Strategic Planning in Small High Tech Companies, in Long Range Planning,
Vol 31 No. 3 pp 455-466, 1998, Elsevier Science Ltd., London.
Boyd B. K. and Reuning-Elliott E. 1998, A Measurement Model of Strategic Planning, Strategic Management Journal Vol. 19 181-192 (1998), John Wiley & Sons.
Brain, P. 2000, Borrowing Puts Australia on the Road to a Meltdown, The Age, September 13 2000,
Business p5, Fairfax, Melbourne.
Butler R.J., Price H.R., Coates P.D., & Pike R.H. 1998, Organising for Innovation: Loose or Tight
Control?, in Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5 pp 775-782, 1998, Elsevier Science Ltd., London.
Claver, E., Llopis, J., Garcia, D. & Molina, H. 1998, Organisational Culture for Innovation and New
Technological Behaviour, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol 9 No. 1 pp
55-68, JAI Press Inc.
References
83
Justin Spangaro
Covin, Jeffrey., & Slevin, Dennis 1998, Adherence to Plans, Risk Taking and Environment as Predictors of Firm Growth, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 9, Number 2,
pages 207-237, JAI Press Inc.
Crouch, A. & Basch, J. 1997, The Structure of Strategic Thinking, in Journal of Applied Management Studies, Jun 1997, Carfax Publishing Company, Abdington.
Cureton, E. & DAgostino R. 1983, Factor Analysis: An Applied Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum &
Associates, London.
De Wit, Bob & Meyer, Ron 1998, Strategy Process, Content, Context, 2nd Edn., International
Thompson Business Press, London.
Diaz M. & Gomez-Mejia L. 1997, The Effectiveness of Organisation-Wide Compensation Strategies
in Technology Intensive Firms, The Journal of Technology Management Research, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp301-315, JAI Press Inc.
Drago, William A. 1999, Simplicity/Complexity as a Dimension of Strategic Focus: Effect on Performance in Different Organisational Domains, in Management Research News, Vol 22 Number 7
1999.
Emory C. William 1976, Business Research Methods, Richard D. Irwin Inc., Homewood, Illinois.
Franko, L.G. 1989, Global Corporate Competition: Whos Winning, Whos Losing and the R&D
Factor as One Reason Why, Strategic Management Journal, pp449-474.
Glaister, Keith W. & Falshaw, J.Richard 1999, Strategic Planning: Still Going Strong?, in Long
Range Planning, Vol. 32 No. 1 pp 107 to 116, Elsevier Science Ltd., London.
Hamel, Gary & Prahalad, C.K. 1989, Strategic Intent, in Strategic Planning: Selected Readings,
Pfeiffer J.W. ed., Pfeiffer & Co. San Diego.
Hax, A.C. & Majluf N.S., 1984, Strategic Management: An Integrative Perspective, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Heracleous, L. 1998, Strategic Thinking or Strategic Planning?, in Long Range Planning, Vol. 31.
No. 3., 1998, Permagon, London.
Hodgekinson, G. 1997, Cognitive Inertia in a Turbulent Market: The Case of U.K. Real Estate
Agents, Journal of Management Studies, 34:6 November 1997, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Langley, Ann 1995, Between Paralysis by Analysis and Extinction by Instinct, Sloan Management
Review, Spring 1995, pp 63-76.
References
84
Justin Spangaro
Liedtka, Jeanne M. 1998a, Linking Strategic Thinking with Strategic Planning, Strategy and Leadership, Vol 26 No. 4 pp 30-35, 1998, Chicago.
Liedtka, Jeanne M. 1998b, Strategic Thinking: Can it be Taught, Long Range Planning, Feb. 1998
pp 120-129, Elsevier Science Ltd., London.
Lowendahl B and Revang O. 1998, Challenges to Existing Strategy Theory in a Postindustrial Society, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 755-773, 1998, John Wiley and Sons.
McGrath, Michael E. 1995, Product Strategy for High-Technology Companies; How to Achieve
Growth, Competitive Advantage and Increased Profits, Irwin, New York.
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J.A. 1985, Of Strategies: Deliberate and Emergent, Strategic Management Journal, July/September, pp 257-72.
Mintzberg, Henry 1987, Crafting Strategy, in Strategy: Seeking and Securing Competitive Advantage, pp 403-420, Montgomery, C.A. & Porter M. E. eds., Harvard Business Review pub., Boston.
Mintzberg, Henry 1994a, The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning, in Harvard Business Review, JanFeb 1994 p107-114.
Mintzberg, Henry 1994b, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, The Free Press, New York.
Mintzberg H., Ahlstrand B. & Lampel J. 1999, Strategy Safari, Prentice-Hall, Hertfordshire, U.K.
Moon, Chul W. 1998, Technological Capacity as a Determinant of Governance Form in International
Strategic Combinations, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp 35-53.
Ohmae, Kenichi 1982, The Mind of the Strategist, Mc-Graw-Hill, New York.
OShannassy T. 1999a, Lessons from the Evolution of the Strategy Paradigm, RMIT Business
Working Paper Series, No. WP 99/20 (November 1999).
OShannassy T. 1999b, Strategic Thinking: A Continuum of Views and Conceptualisation, RMIT
Business Working Paper Series, No. WP 99/21 (November 1999).
Pfeiffer J.W. 1984, History of Strategic Planning, in Strategic Planning: Selected Readings, Pfeiffer
J.W. ed., Pfeiffer & Co. San Diego.
Porter, Michael 1991, Know Your Place, Inc, Sept. pp90-93.
References
85
Justin Spangaro
Porter, Michael 1979, How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy, in Strategy: Seeking and Securing
Competitive Advantage pp11-25, Montgomery, C.A. & Porter M. E. eds., Harvard Business Review
pub., Boston.
Prahalad C.K. & Hamel G. 1990, The Core Competence of the Corporation, in Strategy: Seeking
and Securing Competitive Advantage pp 277-300, Montgomery, C.A. & Porter M. E. eds., Harvard
Business Review pub., Boston.
Roberts, Edward B. 1991, Transformation and the Success of High Technology Companies, International Journal of Technology Management, Geneva.
Roberts, Edward B., 1995, Benchmarking the Strategic Management of Technology - 1, Research
Technology Management, Jan/Feb 1995, Washington.
Sarrazin, J. 1975, Le Role des Processus do Planification dans les Grandes Enterprises Francais: Us
Essai dInterpretation, these 3ieme cycle, Univerite de Droit, dEconomie et dans Sciences dAixMarseille.
Sarrazin, J. 1977/1978, Decentralised Planning in a Large French Company, International Studies
of Management and Organisation, Fall/Winter 1977/78, pp37-59.
Schroeder, D., Congden, S. & Gopinath, C. 1995, Linking Competitive Strategy and Manufacturing
Process Technology, Journal of Management Science, 32:2 March 1995, Blackwell Publishers,
Oxford.
Scott, George M. 1999, Critical Technology Management Issues of New Product Development in
High-Tech Companies, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2000:17:57-77.
Semple, Peter 2000, IT is key to renewing Melbourne, The Age, September 13, 2000, Property
Business p9, Fairfax, Melbourne.
Senge P.M. 1990, The Leaders New Work: Building Learning Organisations, Sloan Management
Review, Fall pp7-23.
Seth A. and Zinkhan G. 1990, Strategy and the Research Process: A Comment, Strategic Management
Journal Vol. 12 75-82 (1991), John Wiley & Sons.
Siegel Sidney. & Castellan N. John Jr. 1988, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences,
2nd edn., McGraw Hill Inc., New York.
References
86
Justin Spangaro
Stacey R. 1996, Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, 2nd ed., Pitman Publishing,
London.
Sun Tzu 1971, The Art of War, Oxford University Press, New York.
Taylor, Bernard 1997, The Return of Strategic Planning - Once More with Feeling, in Long Range
Planning, June 1997, Elsevier Science Ltd., London.
Van de Ven, A. & Ferry, D. 1980, Measuring and Assessing Organisations, Wiley, New York.
Wilson, I. 1994, Strategic Planning isnt Dead - its Changed, in Long Range Planning, Vol. 27, No.
4, pp12-24, 1994, Elsevier Science Ltd., London.
Wilson, I. 1998, Strategic Planning for the Millennium, in Long Range Planning, Vol. 31, No. 4,
pp507-513, 1998, Elsevier Science Ltd., London.
Yasai-Ardekani, M. & Haug, R. 1997, Contextual Determinants of Strategic Planning Processes,
Journal of Management Studies, 34:5 September 1997 pp729-767, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Zikmund, W.G. 1994, Business Research Methods, Fourth edition, Dryden Press, Fort Worth.
References
87
References
Justin Spangaro
88
General Instructions
General Instructions
Please answer the questions below as accurately as possible. Circle the answer that best indicates your
response to the question or degree of agreement with the statements indicated as appropriate.
These questions are presented in four sections. The first section examines strategic planning. The second section provides measures of strategic thinking. The third section explores the criticality of the
impact of technology on your organisation. Finally, the fourth section measures some of the moderating factors of the strategy process.
At the end of each section, extra space is provided so that if you wish you may add any comments you
think might be helpful. Pilots have shown this survey will take 10 -15 minutes to complete, and your
answers and comments are very important to this research.
If at any point in the process you would like clarification, have questions or concerns or wish to discuss the survey please do not hesitate to contact Justin Spangaro on (0427) 087 313 (24 hours),
(03)9815 0012 or jspangar@bigpond.com.
a mission statement
1
no emphasis
2.
moderate
emphasis
5
very strong
emphasis
trend analysis
1
no emphasis
3
moderate
emphasis
5
very strong
emphasis
89
3.
competitor analysis
1
no emphasis
4.
5
very strong emphasis
annual goals
1
moderate emphasis
5
very strong emphasis
no emphasis
7.
5
very strong emphasis
moderate emphasis
no emphasis
6.
5.
3
moderate emphasis
moderate emphasis
5
very strong emphasis
ongoing evaluation
1
no emphasis
3
moderate emphasis
5
very strong emphasis
90
Please circle the numbers in the following scales that best describe the strategy implementation process within your business unit:
8.
9.
10.
11.
Please indicate how much you agree with the statement below:
Strategy making in my organisation is performed based on a clear mental model or understanding of the complete end-to-end system of value creation and the interdependencies
within it.
1
Strongly
agree
generally
agree
somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
somewhat
disagree
generally
disagree
Strongly
disagree
91
13.
In this question, please select the number that indicates your relative level of agreement with the
two statements below:
When thinking about the environment, the strategy makers in my
organisation tend to think strategically about the whole external
business ecosystem within which
the organisation operates.
14.
Once again, please indicate your level of agreement with the below statement:
The strategy makers in my organisation understand and think about the effects of their
actions on other parts of the internal business systems.
1
Strongly
agree
generally
agree
somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
somewhat
disagree
generally
disagree
Strongly
disagree
16.
The organisation I work in has a particular point of view or sense of direction about the long term
market or competitive position that the organisation hopes to build over the coming decade or so.
1
Strongly
agree
generally
agree
somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
somewhat
disagree
generally
disagree
Strongly
disagree
The organisation I work in has a competitively unique point of view about the future which could
lead the organisation to explore new competitive territory.
1
Strongly
agree
generally
agree
somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
somewhat
disagree
generally
disagree
Strongly
disagree
92
17.
The organisation I work in has a goal or goals that are perceived as inherently worthwhile by its
employees
1
Strongly
agree
generally
agree
somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
somewhat
disagree
generally
disagree
Strongly
disagree
This time please indicate your level of relative agreement with the two statements below:
An awareness about the past history
of my organisation and/or other
organisations is almost always used
to predict what courses of action
might be effective in designing and
implementing new strategies?
19.
In this question, please indicate your level of agreement with the statement:
When planning and striving towards the future of the organisation, an important consideration for our organisation is to be concentrating on the gap between the way things were or
have been in the past and the way things need to be in the future to succeed.
1
Strongly
agree
generally
agree
somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
somewhat
disagree
generally
disagree
Strongly
disagree
93
In this question, please choose on the scale below your view about which statement best describes
the strategy formulation process in your organisation. Choose a number from 1-7 that indicates
your relative agreement with the statements.
In my organisation the process
of developing a new strategy is
an iterative process where creative new strategy ideas are
generated then their usefulness is tested by a process of
analysis, conducted repeatedly
over time.
(If not sure about your answer, just tick here [ ] and leave this question blank, and if you like you may
add your own explanation or description at the end).
22.
23.
94
25.
Please select the appropriate choice below indicating your best estimate of the percentage of total
operating expenses of your organisation in any given period (say, last financial year) that is spent
on research and development activities.
1
less than 5%
5% - 10%
11% - 16%
17% - 22%
How would you characterise the external environment within which your business unit functions?
An environment demanding little
in the way of technological
sophistication
26.
How much research and development (R&D) activity takes place within your business units principal industry?
Virtually no R&D in industry
(e.g. bakery, real estate, construction)
If you were required to set up a new operating facility to do what you do today, how many months
do you expect that it would take for the facility to become operational?
..................... months
95
28.
Considering the core technology(s) of your organisation, how easily can this core technology be
adapted to develop new but related products?
1
very easily
with reasonable
ease
cannot be done
Considering the executive management of your business unit, would you say their skills and experience are technically-oriented or business-oriented?
1
very
technically
oriented
quite
technically
oriented
partly
technical,
partly business
quite business
oriented
very business
oriented
Organisational Complexity
30.
Please estimate the total number of employees that work for your entire organisation.
....................... people (approx.)
31.
Please select the statement that best describes the level of diversification of your organisation:
we are a single product company
we have dominant product(s) or businesses that are linked via product markets that
enjoy either technological or market related synergies but generally not both
we have a number of related products or businesses that are generally linked via
product markets that enjoy either technological or market related synergies but generally not both
we do not have particularly dominant products or business and they generally serve
unrelated markets
96
32.
Please select the statement that best describes the divisional structure of your entire organisation:
functional divisions
holding company
multidivisional
Thank you for completing this important survey. If you would like to receive a summary of the
research findings, please fill in the information below:
I would like to receive an electronic (pdf) copy via email
yes
no
I would like an email that tells me the web address of the published results so I can
view them myself. My email address is:
yes
no
yes
no
My email:
I would like a printed copy sent in the mail. My mail address is written below, or I
have attached a business card here instead for convenience:
My postal address:
----------------------------------if desired detach here for your records --------------------------------------Please ensure that your responses are included in the research results by forwarding immediately in
the enclosed self-addressed envelope to:
Spangaro Systems Pty. Ltd.,
Level One, 302 Barkers Road,
Hawthorn,
Victoria, Australia, 3122.
Attention: Justin Spangaro
97
98
Justin Spangaro
Appendix B:
99
Appendix B:
Justin Spangaro
100
Justin Spangaro
The strategic thinking (ST) construct was derived from the summation of
the mean scores for each of the elements or sub-constructs, namely
Intelligent Opportunism (IO), Systems Perspective (SYSP), Intent
Focused (IF), Thinking in Time (TT) and Hypothesis Driven (HD), plus
an average each of the results of testing the three assumptions measures
A1, A2 and A3 (refer Table 2 on page 54). The calculation for the overall
strategic thinking (ST) construct for each respondent i is given by:
A1 i + A2 i + A3 i
IO i + SYSPi + IF i + TT i + HD i + -------------------------------------3
ST i = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
(EQ 1)
where
( 8 q 8 ) + ( 8 q 9 ) + ( 8 q 10 ) + ( 8 q 11 )
i
i
i
i
IO i = Intelligent Opportunism = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
(EQ 2)
( 8 q 12 ) + ( 8 q 13 ) + ( 8 q 14 )
i
i
i
SYSP i = System Perspective = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
(EQ 3)
( 8 q 15 ) + ( 8 q 16 ) + ( 8 q 17 )
i
i
i
IF i = Intent Focused = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
(EQ 4)
( 8 q 18 ) + ( 8 q 19 )
i
i
TT i = Thinking In Time = --------------------------------------------------2
(EQ 5)
HD i = Hypothesis Driven = 8 q 20
(EQ 6)
Appendix C:
A1 i = q 21 i
(EQ 7)
A2 i = 8 q 22i
(EQ 8)
A3 i = q 23 i
(EQ 9)
(EQ 10)
101
Justin Spangaro
Criticality of Technology
(EQ 11)
Formulation/Analysis
Relationship
(EQ 12)
(EQ 13)
Appendix C:
102
Justin Spangaro
mean (12 months) and range (24 months) will then give a weighted rating
on a scale of 0 to 5.
q 27 i
------------------- + q 28i
( 24 5 )
TI i = ---------------------------------------2
Management Orientation
(EQ 14)
Organisational Complexity
(EQ 15)
(EQ 16)
distribution of organisa-
tional size found in the sample, size is found to range between 80 and
111,000, with a mean of approximately 28,000. Using the linear value of
size would not provide a meaningful distinction between small, medium
Appendix C:
103
Justin Spangaro
and large organisations; the results would be swamped by the larger values. A normal distribution is desirable for adequate sensitivity of the
measure to all values in the range, and it was found that plotting the log
of organisational size gave an approximately normal frequency distribution with a mean at about 4.4, as shown in Figure 12 on page 104. This
value of 4.4 is sufficiently close to the mid point of the seven point scale
range used for question 31, so no additional weighting is required. This
approach is consistent with that used by Yasai-Ardekani and Haug (1997,
p744).
FIGURE 12.
no. of samples
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
log(org. size)
is weighted by a fac-
Appendix C:
104
Justin Spangaro
(EQ 17)
where
g
Tx =
(t
3
i
ti )
(EQ 18)
i=1
and a similar calculation is performed for Ty, and where g is the number
of groupings of different tied ranks in the ith grouping. d is the distance
between rankings of the data pairs (Siegel & Castellan, 1988, p239).
Appendix C:
105
Justin Spangaro
Appendix C:
106
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29
11
19
26
37
38
40
42
43
45
46
48
49
50
51
median
mode
30 31 32
12
2500
18
3 101000
180
24
2300
4 111000
3 110000
24
2000
2100
1500
12
55000
2200
500
450
24
2200
12
55000
80
50000
2000
600
12
1000
24
1500
3 2.5
7.5
2100
2000
3 4.4
mean
3.5 3.8 3.3 3.8 4.4 4.6 3.8 5.1 4.8 5.1 4.7
std dev
1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.6 0.9 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.9
3 2.2 3.3 2.6 3.6 2.9 4.2 5.3 3.6 3.2 2.7 5.8 5.8
11 2.1
Respondent
Appendix D:
TABLE 6. Raw
107
Justin Spangaro
Strategic Thinking, Strategic Planning and High-Technology Industries
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
11
19
26
37
38
40
42
43
45
46
48
49
50
51
adjustment:a
27 28 29
30 31
32
7 2.5
3 3.3979
2 1.17
6 3.8
3 5.0043
7 0.6
1 2.2553
2 1.17
3 3.3617
2 1.17
7 1.3
4 5.0453
7 1.3
3 5.0414
5 2.33
7 1.3
2 3.3222
2 5.83
7 1.3
3 3.1761
5 2.5
4 4.7404
7 0.6
3 3.3424
7 1.3
3 1.17
3 2.6532
4 3.3424
6 2.5
5 4.7404
4 5.83
6 0.6
2 1.9031
2 1.17
7 0.8
4.699
1 1.9
3.301
3 1.17
3 1.3
3 2.7782
5 5.83
2 2.5
2 1.17
4 3.1761
4.67
RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS
RS
5
/4.8
3.301
2.699
log()
*7/6
Appendix D:
Respondent
a.Weightings applied to q27 & q32. q30 log scaled. Columns marked with RS are reverse scored:
108
Justin Spangaro
Strategic Thinking, Strategic Planning and High-Technology Industries
TABLE 7. Adjusted
Primary and secondary constructs (measures). Refer Table 2 on page 54 for details.
IO
SYSP
IF
TT
HD
A1
A2
A3
CT
FAR
TI
MO
OC
ST
STvSP
asmptns
2.857
3.5
2.667
6.5
5.333
2.75
2.188
4.13889
1.44861
4.667
4.286
2.5
6.333
5.667
3.5
5.333
5.667
3.375
4.668
4.66667
1.08889
2.75
5.333
5.667
4.5
6.333
4.667
1.313
1.807
4.48611
1.12153
4.667
2.25
5.667
6.333
2.176
4.48611
1.12153
3.857
3.75
3.667
4.333
5.5
5.333
1.625
4.682
3.93056
1.01903
4.333
3.25
4.667
4.5
5.667
4.667
1.625
4.125
4.06944
1.01736
3.857
5.333
6.333
4.667
4.434
4.5
1.16667
4.333
11
3.143
3.5
4.333
4.667
5.5
3.667
1.625
3.719
1.27273
19
5.333
1.625
4.725
3.93333
0.78667
4.667
26
3.143
3.333
2.333
2.75
5.58
3.27778
1.04293
2.333
37
3.286
3.5
6.333
5.5
6.333
1.313
5.447
5.66667
1.72464
5.667
38
3.714
3.75
4.333
5.5
5.333
1.625
2.289
4.15278
1.11806
4.333
40
4.143
2.5
4.5
4.667
4.667
4.218
4.16667
1.00575
42
4.857
2.75
4.667
5.667
2.5
2.667
4.667
3.5
4.114
3.70833
0.76348
4.667
43
4.429
1.75
5.333
4.667
2.333
1.75
4.858
4.23611
0.95654
3.333
45
3.143
3.667
4.667
1.313
1.69
3.66667
1.16667
3.667
46
2.667
5.333
5.5
5.667
1.417
5.566
4.75
1.58333
48
3.714
2.5
4.333
2.438
2.489
4.08333
1.09936
3.667
49
4.714
3.333
1.625
4.537
4.05556
0.86027
3.333
50
3.714
5.333
6.333
5.5
1.667
5.667
2.25
2.056
4.80556
1.2938
4.667
51
4.571
6.5
3.5
3.921
5.4
1.18125
SP
Appendix D:
Respondent
secondary and sub-constructs (measures, indices) extracted from the adjusted data (refer Table 7 on page 108)
109
Justin Spangaro
TABLE 8. Primary,
Appendix D:
Justin Spangaro
110
Justin Spangaro
Item No.
CT
SP
21
20
400
11.5
16
-4.5
20.25
19
13
36
19
13
36
11.5
10.5
14
13
16
10.5
5.5
30.25
16
12
144
11.5
21
-9.5
90.25
10
11
19
13
169
12
11.5
3.5
12.25
13
7.5
15
-7.5
56.25
14
20
-17
289
15
7.5
17
-9.5
90.25
16
17
16
14
196
18
-6
36
19
19
-14
196
20
-7
49
21
18
-9
81
y
4
Ties2
Ties3
3
3
rs1
rs2
k
Appendix E:
Ties1
Tx, Ty
di
Ties4
di
2
114
2 d 2
i
3N
r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
1937.5
21 z
-0.25812
-1.15433
-0.26571
-1.18829
30
0.156 1
0.292 2
0.25
0.1
-0.906667
rs
-0.26571
rs
0.128997
111
Justin Spangaro
versus ST
RANKS
CT
Item No.
21
10
11
121
11.5
17
-5.5
30.25
19
14.5
4.5
20.25
19
14.5
4.5
20.25
11.5
7.5
56.25
14
36
16
16
16
10
100
11.5
6.5
42.25
10
25
11
19
21
-2
12
11.5
11
0.5
0.25
13
7.5
12
-4.5
20.25
14
15
7.5
13
-5.5
30.25
16
17
16
18
-2
18
-7
49
19
-2
20
19
-18
324
20
-11
121
9
x
Ties1
Ties2
Ties3
Tx, Ty
0.292 1
0.37 2
-1.56
Appendix E:
2 d 2
i
N
1012
21 z
r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
2
114
rs2
rs1
di 2
21
Ties4
CT - ST
di
ST
0.342857
1.533304
0.340856
1.524352
6
0.1
0.05
rs
0.340856
rs
0.068682
112
Justin Spangaro
versus ST/SP
RANKS
Item No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CT - STvSP
Ties1
Ties2
Ties3
Ties4
Tx, Ty
CT
21
11.5
19
19
11.5
14
16
16
11.5
6
19
11.5
7.5
3
7.5
4
16
2
5
1
9
x
4
3
3
2
114
STvSP
19
9
12.5
12.5
7
6
14
17
2
8
21
11
5
1
4
15
20
10
3
18
16
y
2
rs1
rs2
k
0.435
0.508
-4.866667
a1
a2
di
di2
2
2.5
6.5
6.5
4.5
8
2
-1
9.5
-2
-2
0.5
2.5
2
3.5
-11
-4
-8
2
-17
-7
4
6.25
42.25
42.25
20.25
64
4
1
90.25
4
4
0.25
6.25
4
12.25
121
16
64
4
289
49
d 2
i
848
21
0.449351
0.448047
N
r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
2.009557
2.003727
6
0.025
0.01
rs
rs
Appendix E:
0.448047
0.022319
113
Justin Spangaro
versus FAR
RANKS
Item No.
CT - FAR
CT
FAR
21
16
25
11.5
18
-6.5
42.25
19
12
49
19
12
144
11.5
4.5
20.25
14
12
16
12
16
16
12
144
11.5
15
-3.5
12.25
10
1.5
4.5
20.25
11
19
21
-2
12
11.5
4.5
20.25
13
7.5
12
-4.5
20.25
14
12
-9
81
15
7.5
1.5
36
16
-3
17
16
18
-2
18
-5
25
19
20
18
-17
289
20
-11
121
21
9
x
Ties1
Ties2
Ties3
3
3
Ties4
Tx, Ty
rs1
rs2
k
Appendix E:
di 2
di
2
114
2 d 2
i
5N
3r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
1090.5
21 z
0.291883
1.305341
0.283927
1.269759
150
0.156 1
0.292 2
0.25
0.1
-0.906667
rs
0.283927
rs
0.108904
114
Justin Spangaro
versus SP
RANKS
Item No.
OC - SP
OC
SP
15
16
-1
13
-11
121
13
-9
81
16
10.5
5.5
30.25
11
13
-2
13
10.5
2.5
6.25
16
17
21
-4
16
10
21
17
289
11
19
13
169
12
-2
13
12
15
-3
14
10
20
-10
100
15
18
17
16
-3
17
20
18
324
18
-1
19
14
19
-5
25
20
-5
25
21
18
-9
81
y
0
Ties2
Ties3
2 d 2
i
3N
1328.5
21 z
2r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
Ties4
Tx, Ty
16
x
Ties1
di 2
di
rs1
0.156 1
rs2
0.292 2
-0.906667
0.137338
0.614193
0.137931
0.616848
36
0.25 rs1 out of
range of rs!
Appendix E:
0.1
rs
0.137931
rs
0.269929 ERROR
115
Justin Spangaro
versus ST
RANKS
Item No.
OC - ST
OC
ST
10
-5
15
17
-2
14.5
-12.5
156.25
14.5
-10.5
110.25
16
12
144
11
13
16
-3
17
12
144
400
10
21
20
11
19
21
-2
12
11
-5
25
13
12
12
14
10
49
15
18
13
25
16
-1
17
20
18
18
-2
19
14
49
20
19
-16
256
21
20
-11
121
y
0
Ties2
2 d 2
i
N
Ties3
1543.5
21 z
r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
Ties4
Tx, Ty
25
x
Ties1
di 2
di
rs1
0.156 1
rs2
0.292 2
-0.906667
-0.00227
-0.01016
-0.00032
-0.00145
6
0.25 rs1 out of
range of rs!
0.1
rs
rs
Appendix E:
-0.00032
0.421701 ERROR
116
Justin Spangaro
OC
5
19
-14
15
36
12.5
-10.5
110.25
12.5
-8.5
72.25
16
81
11
25
13
14
-1
17
-9
81
17
15
225
21
13
169
11
19
21
-2
12
11
-5
25
13
12
49
14
10
81
15
18
14
196
16
15
-14
196
17
20
20
18
10
-3
19
14
11
121
20
18
-15
225
21
16
-7
49
y
0
2 d 2
i
N
Ties3
rs2
k
Appendix E:
1951.5
21 z
r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
Ties4
rs1
196
10
Ties2
Tx, Ty
di 2
x
Ties1
STvSP
di
STvSP
-0.26721
-1.19499
-0.26535
-1.18666
0.156 1
0.292 2
0.25
0.1
-0.906667
rs
-0.26535
rs
0.129398
117
Justin Spangaro
versus FAR
RANKS
Item No.
OC - FAR
OC
FAR
16
-11
15
18
-3
12
-10
100
-3
16
81
11
12
-1
13
12
1
16
17
15
10
21
1.5
19.5
380.25
4
11
19
21
-2
12
-1
13
12
12
14
10
12
-2
15
18
1.5
16.5
272.25
16
-6
36
17
20
18
18
19
14
11
121
20
18
-15
225
21
20
-11
121
y
0
Ties2
Ties3
2 d 2
i
5N
1510.5
21 z
3r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
Ties4
Tx, Ty
121
x
Ties1
di 2
di
rs1
0.156 1
rs2
0.292 2
-0.906667
0.019156
0.085668
0.013421
0.060021
150
0.25 rs1 out of
range of rs!
Appendix E:
0.1
rs
0.013421
rs
0.407256 ERROR
118
Justin Spangaro
versus SP
RANKS
Item No.
MO -SP
MO
SP
11.5
10.5
110.25
11.5
16
-4.5
20.25
13
-12
144
11.5
13
-1.5
2.25
18
10.5
7.5
56.25
11.5
13
-1.5
2.25
4.5
10.5
-6
36
4.5
0.5
0.25
90.25
11.5
21
-9.5
10
18
14
196
11
11.5
5.5
30.25
12
4.5
-3.5
12.25
13
11.5
15
-3.5
12.25
14
18
20
-2
15
21
17
16
16
4.5
0.5
0.25
17
4.5
2.5
6.25
18
18
10
100
19
11.5
19
-7.5
56.25
20
4.5
-3.5
12.25
21
18
18
Ties1
Ties2
Ties3
6
5
Ties4
Tx, Ty
rs1
rs2
k
Appendix E:
di 2
di
834
2 d 2
i
3N
2r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
907.5
21 z
0.410714
0.384381
1.83677
1.719005
36
0.37 1
0.435 2
-2.6
0.05
0.025
rs
0.384381
rs
0.044469
119
Justin Spangaro
versus ST
RANKS
Item No.
MO -ST
MO
ST
11.5
10
1.5
2.25
11.5
17
-5.5
30.25
14.5
-13.5
182.25
11.5
14.5
-3
18
14
196
11.5
3.5
12.25
4.5
16
-11.5
132.25
4.5
-1.5
2.25
11.5
6.5
42.25
10
18
17
289
11
11.5
21
-9.5
90.25
12
4.5
11
-6.5
42.25
13
11.5
12
-0.5
0.25
14
18
15
225
15
21
13
64
16
4.5
2.5
6.25
17
4.5
18
-13.5
182.25
18
18
81
19
11.5
4.5
20.25
20
4.5
19
-14.5
210.25
21
18
20
-2
Ties1
Ties2
Ties3
2 d 2
i
N
rs1
rs2
k
Appendix E:
834
1823.5
21 z
r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
Ties4
Tx, Ty
di 2
di
-0.18409
-0.82328
-0.23836
-1.06597
0.156 1
0.292 2
0.25
0.1
-0.906667
rs
-0.23836
rs
0.159164
120
Justin Spangaro
MO
STvSP
di
STvSP
11.5
19
-7.5
11.5
2.5
6.25
12.5
-11.5
132.25
11.5
12.5
-1
18
11
121
11.5
5.5
30.25
4.5
14
-9.5
90.25
4.5
17
-12.5
156.25
11.5
9.5
90.25
10
18
10
100
11
11.5
21
-9.5
90.25
12
4.5
11
-6.5
42.25
13
11.5
6.5
42.25
14
18
17
289
15
21
17
289
16
4.5
15
-10.5
110.25
17
4.5
20
-15.5
240.25
18
18
10
64
19
11.5
8.5
72.25
20
4.5
18
-13.5
182.25
21
18
16
x
8
Ties2
Ties3
2 d 2
i
N
rs1
k
Appendix E:
834
2209.5
21 z
r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
Ties4
rs2
56.25
Ties1
Tx, Ty
di 2
-0.43474
-1.94422
-0.50123
-2.24158
0.435 1
0.508 2
-4.866667
0.025
0.01
rs
-0.50123
rs
0.011391
121
Justin Spangaro
versus FAR
RANKS
Item No.
MO -FAR
MO
FAR
11.5
16
-4.5
20.25
11.5
18
-6.5
42.25
12
-11
121
11.5
4.5
20.25
18
11
121
11.5
12
-0.5
0.25
4.5
12
-7.5
56.25
4.5
0.5
0.25
11.5
15
-3.5
12.25
10
18
1.5
16.5
272.25
11
11.5
21
-9.5
90.25
12
4.5
-2.5
6.25
13
11.5
12
-0.5
0.25
14
18
12
36
15
21
1.5
19.5
380.25
16
4.5
-2.5
6.25
17
4.5
18
-13.5
182.25
18
18
11
121
19
11.5
8.5
72.25
20
4.5
18
-13.5
182.25
21
18
20
-2
Ties1
Ties2
Ties3
6
5
Ties4
Tx, Ty
rs1
rs2
k
di 2
di
834
2 d 2
i
5N
3r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
1747
-0.60112
-0.19597
-0.87639
150
0.156 1
0.292 2
0.25
0.1
-0.906667
rs
rs
Appendix E:
21 z
-0.13442
-0.19597
0.20592
122
Justin Spangaro
versus SP
RANKS
Item No.
TI - SP
TI
SP
15.5
14.5
18
16
13
-11
121
16
17
13
7.5
10.5
-3
7.5
13
-5.5
30.25
21
10.5
10.5
110.25
7.5
3.5
12.25
7.5
21
-13.5
182.25
10
15.5
11.5
132.25
11
-4
16
12
7.5
-0.5
0.25
13
12
15
-3
14
19.5
20
-0.5
0.25
15
11
17
-6
36
16
-2
17
18
14
36
19
7.5
19
-11.5
132.25
20
13
25
21
19.5
18
1.5
2.25
y
3
Ties2
Ties3
6
2
Tx, Ty
rs1
rs2
k
2
246
2 d 2
i
3N
2r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
1092.5
21 z
0.290584
1.299533
0.281918
1.260775
36
0.156 1
0.292 2
0.25
0.1
-0.906667
rs
rs
Appendix E:
210.25
Ties1
Ties4
di 2
di
0.281918
0.11112
123
Justin Spangaro
versus ST
RANKS
Item No.
TI - ST
TI
ST
15.5
10
5.5
18
17
14.5
-12.5
156.25
17
14.5
2.5
6.25
7.5
3.5
12.25
7.5
-0.5
0.25
21
16
25
7.5
1.5
2.25
7.5
2.5
6.25
10
15.5
14.5
210.25
11
21
-19
361
12
7.5
11
-3.5
12.25
13
12
12
14
19.5
16.5
272.25
15
11
13
-2
16
17
18
-14
196
18
14
25
19
7.5
0.5
0.25
20
13
19
-6
36
21
19.5
20
-0.5
0.25
x
3
Ties2
Ties3
Tx, Ty
30.25
Ties1
Ties4
di 2
di
2 d 2
i
N
rs1
0.156 1
rs2
0.292 2
-0.906667
21 z
r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
2
246
1357
0.118831
0.531429
0.108963
0.487296
6
0.25 rs1 out of
range of rs!
Appendix E:
0.1
rs
0.108963
rs
0.301879 ERROR
124
Justin Spangaro
TI
STvSP
15.5
19
-3.5
18
81
12.5
-10.5
110.25
17
12.5
4.5
20.25
7.5
0.5
0.25
7.5
1.5
2.25
21
14
49
7.5
17
-9.5
90.25
7.5
5.5
30.25
15.5
7.5
56.25
11
21
-19
361
12
7.5
11
-3.5
12.25
13
12
49
14
19.5
18.5
342.25
15
11
49
16
15
-13
169
256
17
20
-16
18
14
10
16
19
7.5
4.5
20.25
20
13
18
-5
25
21
19.5
16
3.5
12.25
y
3
Ties2
Ties3
Tx, Ty
rs1
rs2
k
2 d 2
i
N
21 z
r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
2
246
1764
-0.14545
-0.65049
-0.159
-0.71107
0.156 1
0.292 2
0.25
0.1
-0.906667
rs
rs
Appendix E:
12.25
10
Ties1
Ties4
di 2
di
-0.159
0.246691
125
Justin Spangaro
versus FAR
RANKS
Item No.
TI - FAR
TI
FAR
15.5
16
-0.5
18
18
12
-10
100
17
10
100
7.5
0.5
0.25
7.5
12
-4.5
20.25
21
12
81
7.5
3.5
12.25
56.25
7.5
15
-7.5
15.5
1.5
14
196
11
21
-19
361
12
7.5
0.5
0.25
13
12
12
14
19.5
12
7.5
56.25
15
11
1.5
9.5
90.25
16
-5
25
17
18
-14
196
18
14
49
19
7.5
4.5
20.25
20
13
18
-5
25
21
19.5
20
-0.5
0.25
y
3
Ties2
Ties3
6
2
Tx, Ty
0.25
10
Ties1
Ties4
di 2
di
2
246
rs1
0.156 1
rs2
0.292 2
-0.906667
2 d 2
i
5N
3r
s (no ties)
rs (ties)
1389.5
21 z
0.097727
0.080293
0.43705
0.359082
150
0.25 rs1 out of
range of rs!
0.1
rs
rs
Appendix E:
0.080293
0.3335 ERROR
126
Justin Spangaro
ST
ST
ASMPTNS
A1
A2
A3
IO
SYSP
IF
TT
HD
FAR
ASMPTNS
.643
.643
.131
.672
.121
-.150
.518
.582
.394
.792
.758
.657
.709
-.026
.146
.293
.187
-.032
.394
.877
A1
.131
.657
.083
-.352
.515
-.019
-.299
-.063
-.125
.506
IF
.582
.187
-.299
.379
.314
-.509
.645
-.065
.331
.185
TT
.394
-.032
-.063
-.102
.224
-.024
-.083
-.065
.280
.035
HD
.792
.394
-.125
.647
.016
-.172
.159
.331
.280
FAR
.758
.877
.506
.841
-.295
.106
.252
.185
.035
.702
Proximity Matrix
.702
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q1
1.000
.196
.390
.098
.266
.392
.080
.197
.040
.337
.122
.039
.366
Q2
.196
1.000
.605
.585
.561
.261
.622
.197
.002
.003
.004
.126
.001
Q3
.390
.605
1.000
.449
.422
.133
.652
.040
.002
.021
.028
.282
.001
Q4
.098
.585
.449
1.000
.361
.179
.538
.337
.003
.021
.054
.219
.006
Q5
.266
.561
.422
.361
1.000
.085
.294
.122
.004
.028
.054
.357
.098
Q6
.392
.261
.133
.179
.085
1.000
.381
.039
.126
.282
.219
.357
Q7
.080
.622
.652
.538
.294
.381
1.000
.366
.001
.001
.006
.098
.044
Appendix F:
Correlation Matrix
.044
127
Correlation
A1
1.000
.083
-.352
.515
-.019
-.299
-.063
-.125
A2
.083
1.000
-.231
-.165
.373
.379
-.102
.647
.367
.367
.070
.012
.469
.107
.398
.305
A3
-.352
-.231
1.000
-.277
.077
.314
.224
.016
.070
.171
.171
.250
.058
.055
.339
.001
.126
.377
.095
.178
.475
IO
.515
-.165
-.277
1.000
-.586
-.509
-.024
-.172
.012
.250
.126
.004
.013
.461
.240
SYSP
-.019
.373
.077
-.586
1.000
.645
-.083
.159
.469
.058
.377
.004
IF
-.299
.379
.314
-.509
.645
1.000
-.065
.331
.107
.055
.095
.013
.001
.001
.368
.258
.396
.083
TT
-.063
-.102
.224
-.024
-.083
-.065
1.000
.280
.398
.339
.178
.461
.368
.396
HD
-.125
.647
.016
-.172
.159
.331
.280
1.000
.305
.001
.475
.240
.258
.083
.123
.123
Rotated Principal Component Factor Analysis of Strategic Planning Elements and Assumptions
Component Matrixa
A1
A2
A3
IO
SYSP
IF
TT
HD
1
-.457
.537
.336
-.777
.743
.844
5.811E-02
.540
Component
2
.587
.731
-.693
.294
.170
-2.04E-03
-.241
.419
Communalities
3
-8.25E-02
.148
.175
.192
-.374
-.159
.804
.627
A1
A2
A3
IO
SYSP
IF
TT
HD
Initial
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Extraction
.561
.845
.624
.727
.720
.737
.708
.860
Appendix F:
Sig. (1-tailed)
A1
A2
A3
IO
SYSP
IF
TT
HD
A1
A2
A3
IO
SYSP
IF
TT
HD
Correlation Matrix
128
Justin Spangaro
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q8
1.000
.722
.697
.391
-.619
-.323
-.361
-.449
-.188
-.255
-.113
-.050
-.073
Q9
.722
1.000
.386
.117
-.297
.192
-.415
-.089
.027
-.149
-.252
-.025
.231
.001
.001
.001
.060
.004
.103
.077
.035
.235
.161
.333
.425
.391
Q10
.697
.386
1.000
.593
-.798
-.257
-.439
-.637
-.566
-.463
.087
-.336
-.248
.001
.063
.063
.327
.124
.230
.049
.367
.458
.284
.164
.463
.186
.006
.000
.160
.039
.003
.009
.031
.370
.093
.169
Q11
.391
.117
.593
1.000
-.703
-.278
-.197
-.321
-.404
-.499
.318
.091
-.304
.060
.327
.006
Q12
-.619
-.297
-.798
-.703
1.000
.279
.476
.744
.424
.459
-.410
.084
.026
.004
.124
.000
.001
.001
.140
.224
.105
.054
.021
.107
.364
.118
.139
.027
.000
.045
.032
.051
.374
.461
Q13
-.323
.192
-.257
-.278
.279
1.000
-.279
.342
.188
.156
.076
-.048
.630
.103
.230
.160
.140
.139
.139
.090
.235
.275
.386
.427
.003
Q14
-.361
-.415
-.439
-.197
.476
-.279
1.000
.587
.250
.262
-.221
.140
-.078
.077
.049
.039
.224
.027
.139
Q15
-.449
-.089
-.637
-.321
.744
.342
.587
1.000
.642
.381
-.480
.087
.193
.035
.367
.003
.105
.000
.090
.007
.007
.167
.154
.197
.296
.384
.003
.066
.026
.371
.229
Q16
-.188
.027
-.566
-.404
.424
.188
.250
.642
1.000
.182
-.337
.100
.479
.235
.458
.009
.054
.045
.235
.167
.003
.242
.093
.351
.026
Q18
-.113
-.252
.087
.318
-.410
.076
-.221
-.480
-.337
-.020
1.000
.294
.301
.333
.164
.370
.107
.051
.386
.197
.026
.093
.469
.469
.156
.202
Q19
-.050
-.025
-.336
.091
.084
-.048
.140
.087
.100
.261
.294
1.000
.240
.425
.463
.093
.364
.374
.427
.296
.371
.351
.156
.126
.126
.120
Q20
-.073
.231
-.248
-.304
.026
.630
-.078
.193
.479
.216
.301
.240
1.000
.391
.186
.169
.118
.461
.003
.384
.229
.026
.202
.120
.177
.177
and Rotated Principal Component Factor Analyses of Strategic Thinking Construct Questions 8-20
Component Matrix
2
-.705
-.364
-.901
-.703
.899
.351
.561
.819
.632
.572
-.283
.183
.303
.278
.665
3.375E-02
-.163
-.130
.704
-.513
3.737E-02
.326
7.402E-02
.102
9.504E-02
.804
Component
Component
1
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q17
-.255
-.149
-.463
-.499
.459
.156
.262
.381
.182
1.000
-.020
.261
.216
.161
.284
.031
.021
.032
.275
.154
.066
.242
3
-.416
-.491
-.185
.142
-.159
.160
-8.64E-02
-.303
-.266
.155
.901
.475
.303
4
.388
.230
-7.04E-02
.270
-.122
-.429
.352
.150
.251
.182
1.063E-02
.731
.100
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
-.331
-9.41E-03
-.707
-.631
.821
.187
.565
.879
.735
.463
-.651
8.512E-02
.186
2
.872
.892
.499
.262
-.423
-8.14E-02
-.305
-9.87E-02
.151
-.232
-.359
-3.42E-03
.133
3
-.171
.262
-.170
-.335
6.012E-02
.880
-.492
3.876E-02
.221
.147
.298
-2.53E-02
.795
4
1.153E-02
-6.47E-02
-.273
.187
-9.28E-02
-.112
.234
5.078E-02
.165
.316
.511
.892
.397
Appendix F:
Correlation
Correlation Matrix
Sig. (1-tailed)
129
Justin Spangaro
Appendix F:
Justin Spangaro
130
Justin Spangaro
MODEL: MOD_3.
Dependent variable.. STVSP
Method.. LINEAR
.37138
.13792
.09255
.22528
Analysis of Variance:
Regression
Residuals
F =
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
1
19
.15427463
.96428844
.15427463
.05075202
3.03977
Signif F =
.0974
SE B
Beta
Sig T
.058917
.850430
.033792
.170568
.371379
1.743
4.986
.0974
.0001
Method.. QUADRATI
.66002
.43563
.37292
.18727
Analysis of Variance:
Regression
Residuals
F =
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
2
18
.48727721
.63128586
.24363860
.03507144
6.94692
Signif F =
.0058
SE B
Beta
Sig T
-.511883
.067572
1.887731
.187359
.021929
.365276
-3.226630
3.639145
-2.732
3.081
5.168
.0137
.0064
.0001
131
Justin Spangaro
Plot of ST/SP versus CT; observed data with linear and quadratic
regression equations
FIGURE 14.
STVSP
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Observed
.8
Linear
.6
Quadratic
1
CT
132
Linear Regression Correlation Coefficient Matrix for ST/SP versus CT, TI, MO and OC
Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients
ts
Model
B
Std. Error Beta
t
1
(Constant 1.139
.291
3.908
CT
458E-02
.039
.281
1.155
TI
.70E-02
.064
-.061
-.265
MO
7.20E-02
.067
-.296 -1.076
OC
156E-03
.047
.045
.173
Linear Regression Correlation Coefficient Matrix for ST versus CT, TI, MO and OC
a
Coefficients
Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients
ts
Model
B
Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant 3.741
.724
CT
797E-02
.096
.263
TI
625E-02
.160
.148
MO
9.71E-02
.166
-.170
OC
070E-02
.117
.096
t
5.165
1.021
.603
-.583
.348
Appendix H:
a
Coefficients
a.Dependent Variable: ST
133
Justin Spangaro
Linear Regression Correlation Coefficient Matrix for SP versus CT, TI, MO and OC
Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients
ts
Model
B
Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant 3.323
.800
CT
6.36E-02
.106
-.151
TI
.113
.176
.154
MO
.147
.184
.228
OC
731E-02
.129
.099
t
4.152
-.601
.642
.799
.366
% Confidence Interval fo
Correlations
Collinearity Statistics
Sig. Lower Bound
Upper BoundZero-order Partial
Part Tolerance VIF
.001
1.626
5.019
.557
-.288
.161
-.204
-.148
-.137
.821
1.218
.530
-.260
.487
.233
.159
.147
.910
1.099
.436
-.243
.536
.353
.196
.183
.640
1.562
.719
-.226
.321
.172
.091
.084
.712
1.405
a.Dependent Variable: SP
Linear Regression Correlation Coefficient Matrix for FAR versus CT, TI, MO and OC
a
Coefficients
Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
ts
Coefficients
Mode
B Std. Error Beta
t
1
(Constan 4.054 1.535
2.641
CT
.121
.203
.150
.594
TI
.353
.338
.250 1.045
MO
-.433
.353
-.351 -1.229
OC
.108
.248
.118
.437
% Confidence Interval fo
Correlations
Sig. ower Bound
Upper Bound
Zero-order Partial
.018
.800
7.308
.561
-.310
.552
.242
.147
.311
-.363
1.070
.143
.253
.237
-1.181
.314
-.268
-.294
.668
-.417
.633
.005
.109
ollinearity Statistic
Part Tolerance VIF
.135
.239
-.281
.100
.821
.910
.640
.712
1.218
1.099
1.562
1.405
Appendix H:
a
Coefficients
134
Justin Spangaro
Justin Spangaro
Index
A
a values 59
Abbreviation 45
adaptability of core technology 57
adherence to plans 33
Adler, McDonald and McDonald 32
alignment 25
alignment and misalignment 32
alignment of technology strategy 32
Analysis 59
Analysis versus intuition 29
analytic/intuitive debate 23
Andrews 15, 18, 20
Ansoff 14, 19
Ansoffs 15
Argyris 26
Assumptions 55
B
Barker and Smith 32
Bateson 26
Berry 33, 57, 63, 67
Bivariate regression curve fit 50
Bivariate Regression Curve Fit Analysis 49
Boyd & Reuning-Elliott 11, 41
Boyd and Reuning-Elliott 55
Brain 10
Butler 25, 34
C
Calculations 101
central 22
Central Limit Theorem 64, 73
Characteristics of strategic planning 19
Claver 29
Complex learning 27
Concept of Strategy 14
Conclusion 79
Connecting Planning with Thinking 25
Constructs 45
constructs 48
core competencies 19
Corporate Strategy Committees 19
Covariance 127
Covin and Slevin 33, 54, 56, 68
Criticality of Technology 102
criticality of technology 39
Criticality of Technology to the organisation 45
Crouch and Basch 17
CT 45, 59
Cureton and Agostino 64
D
Data 107
Data Collection Methods 42
Data Transposition and Interpretation 101
De Wit and Meyer 16
deliberate strategy 16
Dependent variables 45
135
Inductive/Deductive Methodology 41
Inflexibility of Technology 102
intelligent opportunism 24
Intelligently Opportunistic
54
Intent focused 54
Interview Questions 99
J
Japanese companies 32
Justin Spangaro 82
L
Langley 29
left-brain 20
Leidtka 75, 77
Leidtkas 32
length of investment gestation period 57
Liedtka 10, 13, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 40, 53, 55, 56, 62, 80
likert scale 42
Likert scales 46
Linear Regression 73
Literature Review 13
Lowendahl & Revang 29, 34
Lowendahl and Revang 34
M
Management Orientation 103
management orientation 78
Management orientation (business or technology) 45
McGrath 32, 34, 35
measure of strategic thinking 42
Measurement scales 42
Mintzberg 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 29, 40, 56, 77
Mintzberg and Waters 16
Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel 10, 11, 15, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29,
62
Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel 17, 19, 21, 77
missing items 46
MO 45, 59
moderating factors 39
Moon 56
Multiple Linear Regression 133
Multiple linear regression 50
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis 49
N
Need for Innovation 45
need to support innovation 57
non-linear brain-power 22
number of employees 57
O
OShannassy 20, 22
OShannasy 9
OC 45, 59
Ohmae 20, 22, 23, 24, 77
Operationalisation 53
Operationalisation of Organisational Complexity 57
Justin Spangaro
136
schools of thought 17
Schroederer, Congden and Gopinath 32
Scott 29
Secondary Constructs 45, 63
secondary constructs 53
Semple 10
Senge 26
Seth and Zinkhan 41
Siegel & Castellan 59
Siegel and Castellan 49
single-loop learning 26
single-loop organisational learning 14
single-loop versus double-loop learning 31
Single-loop/ double-loop learning 26
SP 45, 59
Spearman Rank-Order Correlation analysis 73
Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient 105
Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient Analysis 49
Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient analysis 70
Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient Calculations 111
Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient rs 59
ST 45, 59
ST/SP 45, 59
Stacey 20, 22, 26, 27
Statistical Analysis Methods 49
Strategic conversations 25
strategic intent 24, 33
Strategic Planning 18, 102
strategic planning 9
strategic programming 20
Strategic Thinking 22, 101
strategic thinking 9
Strategic Thinking Elements 74
strategy formation 32
Strategy formulation 20
STvSP 45
Sun Tsu 14
Survey Questionnaire 89
survey questions 48
SWOT 21
Systems Perspective 53
systems perspective 24
Justin Spangaro
U
U.K. 33
umbrella strategy 33
unrealised strategies 16
V
Van de Ven & Ferry 42
Van de Ven and Ferry 65
Variable 45
Varimax factor rotation 49
Varimax Rotated Factor Analysis 49
Varimax rotated factor analysis 64
W
Wilson 25
Y
Yasai-Ardekani and Haug 30, 56, 63, 66, 68, 76
Z
Zikmund 46
T
Taylor 25
technological flexibility 36
Technological Inflexibility 45
Technological inflexibility 56
ten schools of thought 17
Thinking in time
54
thinking in time 24
TI 45, 59
turbulent environments 31
turbulent markets 31
Type of research construct 45
Type of variable dependency 45
137