The auditing of a strategy performance is a process by which a service performance can be monitored and analysed with identical services provided somewhere else or at an earlier time. The performance evaluation process is an essential issue to reckon with by the IT department’s management. As once said by Bill Gates: ‘‘A bad strategy will fail no matter how good your information is and a poor execution will only help to obstruct a good strategy’’ (Gates, 1999, 4). Therefore, a well-developed IT strategic planning processes aligned with the business will help an organisation to avoid non-value added processes and focuses on its main competencies to achieve its mission. The importance of information technology processes, implementation and ongoing review cannot be understated in conferring additional advantages to a firm, such as mass production and product branding.
These are doing the right projects and doing projects right. The first set is basically influenced by external environmental factors whilst the next is greatly induced by internal organizational characteristics (Copper, 1999, p. 115-116). The organizational antecedents are many but for the purpose of this study, organizational complexity and size, financial resources, and union impacts on innovation adoption will be
It is therefore essential to subscribe to a holistic approach when analysing and evaluating complex issues of implementation (Okumus, 2003). Waterman et al. (1980) proposed one of the most commonly cited implementation frameworks. Based on their research and work as consultants, these authors proposed an argument that effective strategy implementation is essentially attending to the relationships between the following seven factors: Strategy; structure; systems; style; staff; skills; and subordinate goals. Waterman et al.
An advanced combination of analytic tools allows organizations to test and perfect new ideas in virtual environments, thus reducing time to market. Innovation is systematically fostered and supported through information access and sharing. * Level 5 knowledge process encourages innovation at the highest levels. Extensive analytics provide the ability to model the future while minimizing risk. As a way of stimulating new ideas, organizations encourage and facilitate collaboration on an enterprise-wide basis.
According to Alvin Toffler “If you don’t have a strategy…you will be part of somebody else’s strategy”. Lenses help you to see the complexity in strategic development. Strategic development is a structured plan implemented to achieve organizational goals. A great strategy doesn’t necessarily emerge from an innovative idea but rather a well-developed plan will emerge as a result from commitment to a strategy development process. A fit strategic development process will produce valuable information for good decision making, which is the corner stone of a great strategy.
1.1 Background of the Study Projects, especially in the construction industry have become very dynamic and complex which has resulted stakeholder and team orientation become an emergent development (Turner, 1999; Winch and Bonke, 2002; Hoezen, 2012). Teamwork had been widely implemented to meet customer’s high expectation and to compete in modest global environment. Mohrmar et al. (1995) expounded team deployment is an essential element in an organization and a highly effective teams have proven in providing good working relationship with minimal team conflicts and increase the potential to achieve greater outcomes (Demkin, 2008). This consistent with Martinsuo and Ahola (2010) and, Schottle and Gehbauer (2012) literatures that effective project
Thus, the matching relationship between organizational innovation and technological innovation is shown by the both of result and process. The definition of matching relationship should contain the matching result and matching process. The degree of matching level should be judged the degree of organic unity between the matching
Prior literature suggest that we operationalize IS strategy in terms of a shared organizational perspective and view Information system as an enabler of innovation ( McFarlan et al. 1983; Tai and Phelps 2000), while some view IS playing a supporting role in
5.2 Organizational dimension In the dimension of organizational structure, when there is a need to add the contributions of different types of internal and external expertise to each phase, the models loose links between phases and organizational functions that erstwhile own them. Thus, innovation is gradually becoming recognized as inherently cross functional, whereas the organizational dimension is enriched and has become the focus of some models - particularly those covered in last subtopic of section 4. Innovation models based on the concept of ambidexterity such as Bessant et al. (2005) highlight that the managing of innovation opportunities outside the organization domains (in terms of technology, market knowledge, etc.) demands specific processes and work structures from those involved in incremental innovations.
Project organizational culture (a direct influence) – various authors have researched the direct influence of project organizational culture on project success such as; organizational policies, procedures, rules, formal and informal roles (Cleland, 1999); top and line management supporting/attitude, monitoring, prioritization and project staffing (Kerzner, 2009, Andersen et al., 2009, Young & Jordan, 2008; Kearns, 2007; Tinnirello 2001; Doll, 1985); support of departments in the pursuit of project goals, employee commitment to the project goals in the context of balancing them with other, potentially competing goals, project planning – how managers evaluate it and how they view the outcomes of projects -the way work is estimated or how resources are assigned to projects, performance of project teams (Pinto,