http://www.bibsonomy.org/burst/user/callagialla/STRATEGICBibSonomy BuRST Feed for /user/callagialla/STRATEGIC2008-08-21T05:08:14+02:00http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/28b31ec89086aec66aec9c7c5d0817113/callagiallacallagialla2008-03-31T14:38:05+02:00planningTECHNOLOGICAL STRATEGIC innovations <span style="color:#555555;">Claudia <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Werker">Werker</a> </span><em>International Journal of Innovation Management</em><em>5(1):105-127</em>(<em>2001</em>)Mon Mar 31 14:38:05 CEST 2008International Journal of Innovation Management1105-127Knowledge and Organisation Strategies in Innovation Systems52001planningTECHNOLOGICAL STRATEGIC innovations The purpose of the following analysis is to identify the most promising organisational strategies of innovative agents under different environmental constraints. To do so, the processes of the relationships between these agents are taken into account by putting three aspects together. First, it is shown that the transfer, storage, and use of knowledge are significantly influenced by this knowledge's characteristics. Second, the main principles of the generation and selection of innovation are introduced from the systemic point of view. As a third element, the variety of possible relationships between innovative agents are categorised to identify the different organisational principles that can be employed. By putting all these elements together, it is possible to show which strategies are the most promising under different constraints given by the innovation possibilities, the relevant institutions, the knowledge employed, and the kind of innovation expected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ae14c38bdd03ec167fb11ee8a27982b4/callagiallacallagialla2008-03-20T21:24:32+01:00modelling STRATEGIC systemProduct developmentProcess planningTECHNOLOGICAL decisionsEnvironment & developmentSURVEYSCHINAManagement equation control innovationsTECHNOLOGYRESEARCH complexityStructural <span style="color:#555555;">Y. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Li">Li</a> and L. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Li">Li</a> and Y. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Liu">Liu</a> and L. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Wang">Wang</a> </span><em>International Journal of Production Research</em><em>43(12):2577-2591</em>(<em>2005</em>)Thu Mar 20 21:24:32 CET 2008International Journal of Production Research122577-2591Linking management control system with product development and process decisions to cope with environment complexity432005modelling STRATEGIC systemProduct developmentProcess planningTECHNOLOGICAL decisionsEnvironment & developmentSURVEYSCHINAManagement equation control innovationsTECHNOLOGYRESEARCH complexityStructural In this study, we report the results of a large-scale survey study on business strategy and innovations conducted in China in November 2002. We focus on the impact of environmental complexity on the choice of management control systems and the effects of management control systems on product development and process decisions. Our findings provide some valuable insights to strategic change. When the pressure for change comes from the external environment, the strategic control approach is usually chosen to cope with environmental complexity. Strategic control focuses on the process of benchmarking a firm's strategic and operational decisions with that of their competitor's. Additionally, strategic control emphasises R&D and new product development, and aligns manufacturing strategy with corporate objectives. This approach has a long-term impact on a firm's position in the market place. When the pressure for change comes from the inside of an organisation and the company is more interested in maintaining its current market position, financial control approach is usually chosen to cope with environment complexity. Financial control approach focuses on incremental improvement in the manufacturing process and short-term financial performance. This approach provides risk-averse benefits to the company. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts) In this study, we report the results of a large-scale survey study on business strategy and innovations conducted in China in November 2002. We focus on the impact of environmental complexity on the choice of management control systems and the effects of management control systems on product development and process decisions. Our findings provide some valuable insights to strategic change. When the pressure for change comes from the external environment, the strategic control approach is usually chosen to cope with environmental complexity. Strategic control focuses on the process of benchmarking a firm's strategic and operational decisions with that of their competitor's. Additionally, strategic control emphasises R&D and new product development, and aligns manufacturing strategy with corporate objectives. This approach has a long-term impact on a firm's position in the market place. When the pressure for change comes from the inside of an organisation and the company is more interested in maintaining its current market position, financial control approach is usually chosen to cope with environment complexity. Financial control approach focuses on incremental improvement in the manufacturing process and short-term financial performance. This approach provides risk-averse benefits to the company. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/22e1886dbc825534077439ff60bce1235/callagiallacallagialla2008-03-20T21:24:32+01:00management.Business making.Communication Strategic planning. in planning.Decision <span style="color:#555555;">Mats <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Lindgren">Lindgren</a> and Hans <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Bandhold">Bandhold</a> </span><em>Palgrave Macmillan, </em><em>New York, </em>(<em>2002</em>)Thu Mar 20 21:24:32 CET 2008New YorkScenario Planning: The Link Between Future and Strategy2002management.Business making.Communication Strategic planning. in planning.Decision http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2003b18099e0ebfbbcc477bfb7b2a01e4/callagiallacallagialla2008-03-20T21:24:32+01:00intelligenceBUSINESS planningMANAGEMENTORGANIZATIONAL modelsRISE (Book) ANTITAKEOVER Planning, strategy The officersBUSINESS & Fall advantageCHIEF effectivenessSTRATEGIC planningCOMPETITIVE of Strategic strategiesBUSINESS <span style="color:#555555;">Henry <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Mintzberg">Mintzberg</a> </span><em>Harvard Business Review</em><em>72(1):107-114</em>(<em>1994</em>)Thu Mar 20 21:24:32 CET 2008Harvard Business Review1107-114The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning721994intelligenceBUSINESS planningMANAGEMENTORGANIZATIONAL modelsRISE (Book) ANTITAKEOVER Planning, strategy The officersBUSINESS & Fall advantageCHIEF effectivenessSTRATEGIC planningCOMPETITIVE of Strategic strategiesBUSINESS Strategic planning has fallen from the pedestal it occupied when it came on the scene in the mid-1960s. Henry Mintzberg argues that few managers understand why the highly touted "one best way" to create strategy failed. Fewer still have any idea what they should do with their planning staff. Strategic planning failed because it is not the same as strategic thinking. Planning is about analysis—about breaking a goal into steps, formalizing those steps, and articulating the expected consequences. Strategic thinking, in contrast, is about synthesis. It involves intuition and creativity. The outcomes of strategic thinking is an integrated perspective, a not too precisely articulated vision of direction that must be free to appear at any time and at any place in the organization. Strategic planning has not only never amounted to strategic thinking but has often prevented it. Planning rests on three fallacies: that prediction is possible, that strategists can be detached from their strategies, and, above all, that strategy making can be formalized. The failure of strategic planning is, in fact, the failure of systems to do better than or as well as people. All this time, strategic planning has really been strategic programming, the articulation and elaboration of strategies, or visions, that already exist. Organizations disenchanted with strategic planning should transform the planning job. Planners should make their contribution around the strategy-making process rather than inside it. They should supply the formal analyses that strategic thinking requires. They should support strategy making by helping managers think strategically. And they can be strategy programmers, helping to specify the steps needed to carry out the vision. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR Copyright of Harvard Business Review is the property of Harvard Business School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts) Strategic planning has fallen from the pedestal it occupied when it came on the scene in the mid-1960s. Henry Mintzberg argues that few managers understand why the highly touted "one best way" to create strategy failed. Fewer still have any idea what they should do with their planning staff. Strategic planning failed because it is not the same as strategic thinking. Planning is about analysis—about breaking a goal into steps, formalizing those steps, and articulating the expected consequences. Strategic thinking, in contrast, is about synthesis. It involves intuition and creativity. The outcomes of strategic thinking is an integrated perspective, a not too precisely articulated vision of direction that must be free to appear at any time and at any place in the organization. Strategic planning has not only never amounted to strategic thinking but has often prevented it. Planning rests on three fallacies: that prediction is possible, that strategists can be detached from their strategies, and, above all, that strategy making can be formalized. The failure of strategic planning is, in fact, the failure of systems to do better than or as well as people. All this time, strategic planning has really been strategic programming, the articulation and elaboration of strategies, or visions, that already exist. Organizations disenchanted with strategic planning should transform the planning job. Planners should make their contribution around the strategy-making process rather than inside it. They should supply the formal analyses that strategic thinking requires. They should support strategy making by helping managers think strategically. And they can be strategy programmers, helping to specify the steps needed to carry out the vision. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR Copyright of Harvard Business Review is the property of Harvard Business School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/28dcc4be7ed79f9bb1e984ba6f8df9b41/callagiallacallagialla2008-03-20T21:20:07+01:00Planning ManagementFuturologieScenario change STRATEGIC planningBUSINESS forecastingOrganizational <span style="color:#555555;">Peter <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Schwartz">Schwartz</a> </span><em>Wiley, </em><em>Chichester, </em><em>reprint edition, </em>(<em>2005</em>)Thu Mar 20 21:20:07 CET 2008ChichesterreprintThe Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World2005Planning ManagementFuturologieScenario change STRATEGIC planningBUSINESS forecastingOrganizational Michael Porter, Professor of Business Administration, Harvard University A Fascinating book about the art of unlocking fresh perspectives for the future, a crucial challenge in any organization. Stewart Brand Artful scenario spinning is a form of convergent thinking about divergent futures. It ensures that you are not always right about the future but - better - that you are almost never wrong about the future. The technology is powerful, simple, and enjoyable, and so is Schwartz's book.http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/226bf165049081e36dc7ee0d038415888/callagiallacallagialla2008-03-20T21:20:07+01:00managementBUSINESS planningDECISION in makingCOMMUNICATION STRATEGIC planning <span style="color:#555555;">Gill <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Ringland">Ringland</a> </span><em>Wiley, </em><em>Chichester, </em><em>2nd ed edition, </em>(<em>2006</em>)Thu Mar 20 21:20:07 CET 2008Chichester2nd edScenario Planning: Managing for the Future2006managementBUSINESS planningDECISION in makingCOMMUNICATION STRATEGIC planning