“ Strategy is defined as the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of a company, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary to carry out those goals ” Chandler (1962)
Strategy is a process and could be considered in less than three stages. These are: strategic analysis; This is the stage where through analysis the strategist identifies the opportunities, threats, strengths and weaknesses in the environment; the strategic formulation stage, where a choice is made and the strategy implementation stage is the stage where strategy is translated into action.
Strategy implementation or strategy implementation is defined as “the translation of strategy into organizational action through organizational structure and design, resource planning, and strategic change management.”
When analyzing the definition, it is obvious that the implementation of the strategy is somewhat complex. Therefore, the successful implementation of a strategy would be how well the various components are successfully integrated and interact to carry it out.
To identify the significant problems encountered when implementing a new strategy in a company, a critical look at the components that will be applied in the implementation of the strategy would be a good indicator. These are considered below: Organizational structure and design; and implementation of the strategy; Translating strategy into organizational action by using the organizational structure will also depend on the type of structure in use in the organization. This is so because the needs of a multinational organization are different from those of a small business. It is also possible that the degree of devolution or centralization may influence the implementation of the strategy.
For example, using a matrix structure that often takes the form of geographic and product divisions or functional and divisional structures that operate together; the time required to make decisions can be much longer than in more conventional structures. Organizational structure and the design aspect of strategy implementation refer to how human resources are mobilized and organized in the organization to carry out corporate strategy. The major major problems encountered through the use of the organizational aspect in strategy implementation is the fact that most employees can leave the company if they feel that they are in fact being “used” if they are not motivated. This is particularly true when the CEO or senior management impose the strategy on employees.
Another problem found here is the form and manner in which information is transmitted from one range to another. If there is a blockage that prevents the flow of information processes, it means that decisions would be made based on outdated or obsolete information. This can be solved by delegating the central command to facilitate the flow of information between all ranks and files, especially when implementing a new strategy in a company. You must recognize the organizational structure and the design configuration where operational and strategic decisions are made, you must compromise if the implementation of a new strategy is successful in any business.
The next aspect in strategy implementation: resource planning establishes the resources and competencies to be created. It is about identifying the resources needed and how those resources will be deployed and controlled to create the competencies needed to implement the strategies successfully. This resource configuration depends on: the protection of unique resources, that is, when a strategy depends on the uniqueness of a particular resource, such as a patent; and it must be protected; by legal means; pool resources (mix resources to create competition) business process reengineering (to create dynamic performance improvement) and exploit experience by continually learning and improving to improve competition.
One of the main problems of strategy implementation as a result of resource planning is the inability to translate strategic purpose statements, such as gaining market share into critical factors that will make the purpose achievable and ultimately achieved. This critical success factor analysis can be done as a start in resource planning. For example, a defined schedule might be required for an organization trying to introduce, say, a new product for Christmas. A detailed review of the schedule must be carried out for production and marketing to be successful; as well as the allocation of funds for this undertaking. The problem here is that due to the lack of uniformity in the times required for the various activities, it is difficult to know where to start.
Scholes and Johnson (1999) write that the circularity of the problem is quite common in the development of an action plan and raises the question of where to start: with a market forecast, a level of funds available, a production level constraint or That? The answer is that it may not matter too much where the starting point is, as the plan will have to be reworked and readjusted several times. A useful guideline is to approach the problem through what appears to be the area of greatest change. An organization planning new growth strategies may well begin with an assessment of market opportunities. Someone starting a new business can start with a realistic assessment of how much capital they might have available.
Critical path analysis is recommended for strategies that have detailed implementation planning. Another anticipated problem is the conflict that arises between departments over the allocation of funds, especially when there is money involved in implementing the new strategy.
The next component in the strategy implementation stage is strategic change management. It is widely accepted that strategic change is based on four underlying premises:
1. There is a clear vision within an organization of the strategy to follow.
2. Change will not occur unless there is a commitment to change.
3. The approach to managing strategic change is likely to depend on the context.
4. The change must address the powerful influence of the paradigm and the cultural network on the strategy that the organization is following.
There are two types of change: incremental change, which is simply based on the skills, routines and beliefs of the members of the organization, so that the change is efficient and likely to win their commitment, and transformational change, which requires that the organization change its paradigm. overtime. It could be a change in routine (“the way we do things around here.” It could also be a change in strategy that will necessitate change. Although strategy implementation refers to the changing aspect of the organization’s structure, the resource planning and control systems that affect the daily operations of the organization’s members; people’s behaviors and perceptions may not have changed.
To achieve successful strategy implementation, management must also adopt appropriate styles for managing change processes. For example, if there is a change management problem based on misinformation, or lack of information, the education and communication style will be used. This involves explaining the reasons and means of strategic change. Collaboration or participation that involves those who will be affected by the strategic change in the identification of strategic issues; styles of intervention, direction and coercion.
Associated with managing strategic change is the problem of managing change. It becomes absolutely difficult to manage the change that occurs as a result of implementation. For example, some managers will lose their job as a result of the change (disengagement), others may be laid off as a result of an increase in size, others may lose their job titles or the position they most valued as a result of business process reengineering. . . This will demotivate staff and the organization may lose competent staff. Others may have to retrain for new positions or demote them if they want to stay with the organization. This type of problem can be avoided if management adopts a participatory leadership style and engages staff from the formulation through the implementation stages of the strategy.
In conclusion, it might be worth noting that just as there are numerous definitions of strategy, their implementation style may differ and so may their attendant problems and solutions. However, since implementation involves controlling the behaviors of others and sometimes perceptions and culture, most problems would be human-related and possible solutions would likely depend on the management style and behavior of the individual. leadership in terms of structure and availability and allocation of resources.