Final Conference Paper - Gcwabaza and Crafford 21112016 - ammended (Internal)

The silent killers of strategy
implementation in quantity surveying
firms
Gcwabaza, L.F.1
1
Department of Quantity Surveying, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University,
s212257072@live.nmmu.ac.za.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The purpose of this research is to investigate the critical
impeders of effective-strategy execution which quantity surveying firms
must overcome in order to realize results in emerging markets.
Design/methodology/approach: This quantitative research study
entailed the use of a web-based survey to interrogate the issues in the
subject area. The population of relevance for the research consisted of
registered Quantity Surveyors currently occupying directorial positions,
or any other upper/senior managerial position in quantity surveying firms
in South Africa.
Findings: The results revealed the prominent strategy-implementation
obstacles, as experienced by quantity surveying firms. The results of the
study indicate three critical obstacles that require attention when
implementing strategic decisions: those related to the environment
(unforeseeable changes in the various elements of the business
environment, such as an attitude of the local populace; the inflation rate;
the government and the local authorities); organizations lack of
consistency and alignment between the organizational structure and the
developed strategies). Additionally, there are various obstacles related to
the consequences of planning (inadequate and improper use of
consultants and professionals for strategy development).
Research limitations: Only a few firms confirmed having a formal
strategy in place, this was further compounded by a small populace of
the focus of inquiry (large Qs firms) which exist in the market,
subsequently reducing the sample size to fully gain representativety of
the obstacles to implementation.
Practical implications: This research study investigates the importance
and effectiveness of strategy implementation in the South African
quantity surveying firms; and it investigates the barriers in strategy
implementation experienced in quantity surveying firms. The study
facilitates the understanding of the obstacles to an implementation
strategy, and how to overcome such obstacles. It provides information on
the critical challenges that require immediate attention, and their
influence on the performance and long-term sustainability of the firm.
Original/Value:
This paper highlights critical obstacles to strategy implementation that
compromise sustainable business performance.
KEYWORDS: Strategy Implementation, Strategic Management, Barriers,
Strategy, Obstacles, Quantity Surveying, South Africa

2 The silent killers of strategyimplementation in quantitysurveying firms
1. INTRODUCTION
The evolution of the business landscape demands that businesses
operating in competitive, dynamic and complex business environments
continuously seek innovative mechanisms, in order to manage, as well
as to sustain their business performance. Business effectiveness,
efficiency, productivity, growth and survival are contingent on the
businesses’ ability to conduct and manage their business operations
(Mankins, & Steele, 2005). However, in reality, very few organizations
realize their business objectives; and many others encounter failures.
These setbacks can be attributed to various micro- and macro-
environmental factors (Organizational structure and culture, alignment,
competition, rules and regulations) (Downes, 2001).
In the case of the successful businesses, they are able to perform
well, because of their good internal management practices. As for
businesses that encounter failures, they perform poorly and can hardly
survive – mainly because of inefficiency, misdirected operations, as well
as bad management practices (Zakaria, 2000).
In today's fast-paced, fast-changing, and increasingly competitive
world, the effectiveness of business strategies has become the focus of
considerable attention. When such strategies falter or fail, the
consequences can be far-reaching, and even devastating. Research has
revealed that companies continue to struggle with the implementation of
key strategic initiatives, including those related, but not limited to:
specialization, and diversification, or growth strategies (Mankins &
Steele, 2005). A company with a poor strategy is doomed to fail; but
even companies with well-conceived strategies will struggle to succeed if
they do not implement their strategies effectively.
Strategic scholars; David (2013), Speculand (2009), and Wheelen
and Hunger (2012), have opined that while firms possess the ability to
devise good strategies; the problem, however, lies on the
implementation. It is known that most strategic plans fail to deliver
(Hrebiniak, 2005). Frequently, this is because the strategy itself is not a
good one; but more often than not, the reason is a bit more banal – most
of the time, it appears that strategic plans are simply not implemented.
Speculand (2009) noted that nine out of ten strategies failed to be
implemented successfully; and similar observations have been made in
other studies.
Although considerable research has been conducted on strategic
management models, as introduced by Sharplin (1985), Greenly (1989),
Certo and Peter (1991) and Stahl and Grigsby (1992), the majority of
which, has been dedicated to the formulation of strategy (Rahimnia,
2009), whilst strategy implementation remains less considered by
researchers, ultimately creating a knowledge deficiency in the realm of
implementation. Part of the failure can thus be attributed to the lack of
knowledge on implementation.
The implementation knowledge deficiency comes as no surprise.
Alexander (1985) claimed that a profuse majority of literature had been
written on the formulation of strategy; but only “lip service had been
given to the other side of the coin, namely, strategy implementation”.
Atkinson (2006) further supported these claims by stating that these
studies, although increasing in numbers; are few and considered less
“fashionable” than those on formulation. Additionally, no studies have
been administered with the intention of investigating the implementation
of strategy in quantity surveying firms in South Africa.
In a 2013 article, Julian Birkinshaw – Professor of Strategy and
Entrepreneurship at London Business School – identified some of the
reasons why strategy implementation fails. He observed that
organisations might continue to implement a strategy – even when key

parts of the organisation know that they are no longer appropriate. To
quote the article:
“Where they struggled was in converting awareness into action. The
necessary knowledge about what to do existed; but the company lacked
the capacity to move on it in a decisive and committed way” (Birkinshaw,
2013).
Strategy implementation covers broad and complex issues.
Scholars and practitioners declare that the implementation stage is the
most cumbersome stage of the strategic-management process (Zakaria,
2014). Hrebiniak (2005) recognized the difficulty of strategy execution
and the reward from doing that correctly. He identified and discussed
various factors and problems that can lead to the incorrect
implementation of any strategy. This was further echoed in previous
studies by Delisi (2001), Downes (2001), Nickols (2000). These
problems are further elaborated on, as the ineffective co-ordination of
implementation activities (Al Ghamdi, 1999).
Strategy implementation is "all in, or nothing"; and failed
implementation has profound implications. Not only has the company not
achieved its goal, not gained the revenue increase it expected and not
conquered the new markets it hoped for. Businesses that do not have
the capacity to implement the strategy all the way, should explore some
structured-process improvements instead.
This research explores the strategy implementation obstacles, as
experienced by quantity surveying firms in the South African construction
industry.
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 Strategy implementation defined
Strategy implementation and execution are not easy to define; and
there is no universally accepted definition for these concepts.
Furthermore, substantial confusion exists on the distinction between
implementation and execution of strategy; since the two terms are used
interchangeably (MacLennan, 2011). For the purpose of this study, the
term ‘strategy implementation’ is used synonymously with the term
‘strategy execution’. Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984) defined Strategy
implementation as a series of interventions concerning organizational
structures, key personnel actions, and control systems designed to
control performance with respect to the desired ends.
Strategy implementation can also be defined as the process that
translates strategic plans into a series of tasks and activities; and the
process that ensures that these tasks are executed in a manner that is
conducive to achieving the predetermined strategic plans (Ehlers &
Lazenby, 2007).
2.2 The importance and effectiveness of strategy implementation
2.2.1 The importance of strategy implementation
“Over the past decade, I have watched more than 100 companies try to
remake themselves into significantly better competitors. The basic goal
has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business is
conducted, in order to help cope with a new, more-challenging market
environment. A few of these corporate change efforts have been very
successful. A few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in

between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale.” (Kotter,,
1995:1).
Navigating from strategy to execution presents tremendous
challenges for today’s businesses. The importance of strategy
Implementation and execution are indisputable. Over the last three
decades, there has been an increased focus on the implementation and
execution of strategy; and managers are starting to be well aware of its
value-adding properties (Rommin, 2015). Research indicates that
strategy execution, rather than formulation alone, is a key requirement
for superior business performance (Holman, 1999; Flood, Dromgoole,
Carroll and Gordon 2000; Kaplan and Norton, 2001; Hrebiniak, 2008);
therefore, a migration needs to be made from the polarization of
managerial efforts – from the formulation to the implementation of
strategy. Furthermore, there is increasing acknowledgement that the
most important problems in the field of strategic management are
unrelated to strategy formation, but rather to strategy execution
(Speculand, 2009).
This confirms a knowledge and skill deficiency in the
implementation of strategy; and subsequently, it implies that links
between high failure rates of organizational initiatives and dynamic
business landscapes are largely due to poor or failed execution of new
strategies (Kaplan and Norton, 2008). Research conducted by Becker et
al. (2001:213) found that, for the average business, a 35% improvement
in the quality of strategy implementation was directly associated with a
30% increase in shareholder value. However, a similar improvement in
the sustainability of the strategy itself had no effect on organizational
performance. Based on these research findings, one may deduce that
effective strategy implementation is more important than the content of
the strategy itself.
Hrebiniak (2005:6) noted that effective and conscientious
implementation of strategy can lead to creating and maintaining the
competitive advantage, in addition to maximising the shareholders’
wealth.
“We [had] better remember that in the end, it’s all about execution.
You can be right on paper; but if you don’t execute, it’s not going to
work,” stressed George Shaheen, former CEO at Accenture (Rommin
Adl, 2015).
2.2.2 The effectiveness of strategy implementation
“Simply knowing what to do is not enough; in the final analysis, success
is judged in terms of actual rather than intended results. Choice and
action determine [the] actual results, and each is incomplete without the
other.” From “Implementing Strategy” (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984).
The key to achieving better and sustainable performance lies in
improving strategy execution. A raft of implementation literature counsels
that forging new business processes is the desired approach. But such
literature obscures a precise truth: superior execution can only be
achieved by a small number of specific activities that develop managers’
alignment, mindset and capabilities (Higgins, 2005:3). Effective
execution calls for unique, creative skills, including leadership, precision,
and attention to detail, breaking down complexity into digestible tasks
and activities, and communicating in clear and concise ways throughout
the organization, and to all its stakeholders (Cocks, 2010).
The effectiveness of a firm’s strategies depends on the utilization
and exploitation of the existing resources. To the extent that firms have
pools of underused resources, these create unique, firm-specific
opportunities for exploitation (Montgomery, 2004). The calamitous
problem with strategy implementation is the de facto success rate of
proposed strategies. Research studies have shown this to be as low as

10 per cent (Judson, 1999). The good news is that businesses are
improving in their strategy implementation efforts; and the failure rate has
fallen from 90% (2002) to 67% (2016) (Bridges, 2016).
Barlett and Ghoshal (1987:12) noted that in all the companies they
studied, the issue was not a poor understanding of environmental forces
or inappropriate strategic intent. Without exception, they knew what they
had to do; their difficulties lay in how to achieve the necessary changes.
Supporting this, Miller (2002) reports that organizations fail to implement
more than 70 per cent of their new strategic initiatives. Translating
strategy into actions is an arduous task for many firms, more so than the
formulation of strategy; and it requires a consistent, straightforward
methodology to driver strategic behaviour, to galvanize the management
team and to enhance the firm’s ability to navigate in troubled waters
(Allio, 2005).
The study of implementation has evoked limited attention from
strategists; and it is no surprise that very few firms are successful in their
implementation initiatives, regardless of their merit. This is documented
by the overwhelming literature on formulation in strategic-management
literature. Despite this abysmal record, strategy implementation does not
seem to be a popular topic at all. “A deep and cohesive body of strategy
implementation research does not [yet] exist” (Noble, 1999:119).
In addition, strategy implementation is considered the most difficult
component of the strategic-management process (David, 2001:6;
Hrebiniak, 2005); and the majority of implementation efforts fail to bring
about strategic success (Business day, 1999: 37; Mankins and Steele,
2005:64-72).
2.3 Barriers to effective strategy execution
Strategy execution is not solely a matter of operationalizing activities
through co-ordinated commands over resources, employees and their
work (Cocks, 2010). It has been declared that one of the pivotal
obstacles to successful execution lies in the shortcomings and
challenges of functionally based businesses, where co-operation, among
many, if not all, functions is necessary. Laxity in the execution of
strategy would not only result in inferior business performance, but also
difficulty in recreating strategy (Bonoma and Crettinden, 1998).
Nevertheless, success in execution is not merely a product of
formal structures for winning organizations (Hubbard et al., 2007) –
structures in these organizations are perpetually adapting to new and old
assignments. Research conducted by Alexander (1985) surveyed and
identified twenty-two major obstacles to strategy implementation, of
which ten were cited by over 50% of firms sampled as major problems.
Al Ghamdi (1998) conducted a similar study, which researched fifteen
implementation obstacles, and discovered that six of these were
problems experienced by over 70% of the sampled group.
He identified these six obstacles to comprise: implementation
requires more time than that allowed for at planning; major problems
emerged during the implementation stage; poor co-ordination, and other
non-implementing activities divert attention from implementation.
Furthermore, unclear implementation tasks and activities, and poor
information systems can complicate the problem-solving situation (Al
Ghamdi, 1998).
Based on case studies, research suggests that there are various
types of obstacles experienced by different business; and these fall into
two categories: endogenous problems to the business (micro-problems)
and exogenous problems (macro-problems) generated by external forces
in the business environment. These issues are directly influenced by the

extent of flexibility companies have to initiate strategic initiatives
successfully (Downes, 2001).
A research survey of 400 managers by Hrebiniak (2005) further
contributed to the identification of additional deterrent factors that cause
obstacles to successful strategy implementation. These include: the lack
of understanding of the role of organizational structure and design in the
execution process; the lack of feeling of ownership towards strategy or
execution plans among key employees; inadequate guidelines, or a
model, to facilitate strategy-execution activities; the inability to generate
“buy-in” or agreement on critical-execution steps or actions; the lack of
incentives or inappropriate incentives to support the execution
objectives, as well as insufficient financial resources to execute the
strategy.
Zakaria (2014) further elaborated that impediments to
implementation are largely the result of incompetence, poor co-ordination
and the lack of commitment.
Several researches have been conducted to examine the potential
factors affecting successful strategic implementation (Alexander, 1991;
Kotter, 2007; Strabel, 1996; Eisenhardt, 2002; Okumus, 2003; Atkinson,
2006; Hrebiniak, 2008; and Speculand, 2009). All these researchers
describe information systems, resource allocation, personnel
management, formal organizational structure, and organizational culture,
as factors that affect the implementation of strategy. What is imperative
about the aforementioned studies is that all of them have provided a list
of barriers to the successful implementation of strategy.
After examining and checking for redundancy, a list of
implementation obstacles was developed. In this study, the obstacles are
categorized into five dimensions of strategy-implementation obstacles.
The dimensions are: obstacles related to the consequences of planning;
organizational obstacles; management obstacles; individual obstacles
and environmental obstacles.
3. THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study builds on previous quantitative research on strategy in the
realm of quantity surveying in the construction industry. Leedy and
Ormrod (2001) alleged that quantitative research is specific in its
surveying and experimentation; as it builds upon existing theories.
Quantitative research seeks explanations and predictions that can refer
to other persons and places. The intention is to establish, confirm and
validate relationships, and to develop generalizations that contribute to
theory (Leedy and Ormrod, 2001, p. 102).
The quantitative research method was pursued; because the study
population was spread across South Africa; and because of geographical
dispersion, a qualitative approach was not feasible.
3.1 Population
The population of relevance for the research consisted of registered
quantity surveyors currently occupying directorial positions, or any other
upper/senior managerial position in quantity surveying firms in South
Africa. A population of 741 registered firms was derived from the ASAQS
online directory. A judgemental non-probability sampling technique
(Zikmund, 2003) was utilised. The main selection criteria were based on
accessibility to the test subjects, as well as the consideration of
individuals who would be suitable. As many as 50% of the population,
i.e., directors of QS firms, was sampled; and this amounted to 371
directors in SA, altogether.

3.2 Questionnaire Administration
The questionnaire was designed to investigate the prevalent and
recurrent implementation obstacles in quantity surveying firms, as
identified by previous research. The questionnaire and covering letter
was distributed via an online web-survey to registered QSs; and it was
also made available on the ASAQS website. The questionnaire was pilot
tested with three registered QSs prior to distribution. Between 4
September and 12 September 2016, the process of data collection was
undertaken. Emails were sent out in the first week, supplemented by two
reminder emails in the second and fourth weeks. Responses were
received from 44 respondents; of which 1 respondent had to be removed
from the study; as one respondent had submitted the questionnaire twice
(11.6%, N= 371).
The data analysis was done by using Microsoft excel. Frequency
distribution, descriptive statistics to analyse the data dispersion, and
percentage were the means of analysing the data. Interpretation was
based on the mean and standard deviation score of the five dimensions;
obstacles related to the consequences of planning, organizational
obstacles, management obstacles, individual obstacles and
environmental obstacles. To facilitate the comparison of results from the
questionnaire; a 7-point evidence Likert scale was used to survey the
implementation obstacles, the following scale was used to interpret the
data obtained.
Table 1 Data-analysis scale
Range Median
1.000 to 1.857 Not at all evident
1.857 to 2.714 Poor evidence
2.714 to 3.571 Less than adequate evidence
3.571 to 4.429 Adequate evidence
4.429 to 5.286 Good evidence
5.286 to 6.143 Excellent evidence
6.143 to 7.000 Superior evidence
4. RESULTS
In this research, the first step of the descriptive analysis was to rate the
current status of the dimensions of impeders to successful strategy
implementation in the quantity surveying firms studied. The results
suggest that all 5 factors surveyed have a considerable preventive role in
the implementation of strategy. The main objective of this study was to
investigate the obstacles to strategy implementation, as experienced by
South African quantity-surveying practices. The results of the study
indicate three obstacles that require critical attention, when implementing
strategic decisions: those related to the environment; organizations and
obstacles related to the consequences of planning. This is followed by
the two least-serious dimensions: management and individual
(personnel) obstacles. The mean, mode and standard deviation are
shown in Table 1 through to Table 5.
4.1 Environmental Obstacles

The environmental obstacles variables are shown in Table 1. The study
results reveal that obstacles related to the environment are the most
critical, when attempting to implement a strategy. These findings are not
surprising; as notable research on strategic management has
characterized the environment as complex and unpredictable.
Unforeseeable changes in the various elements of the business
environment, such as the attitude of the local populace, the inflation rate,
government and local authority priorities can all have a crippling impact
on the businesses’ implementation tactics and their overall performance.
These results echo the findings of Ali & Hadi (2012), which indicates that
environmental factors are some of the crucial obstacles to effective
strategy implementation.
Table 1 Environmental Obstacles
Rank Variables Mean Std. Dev Mean
Evaluation
1 Economic obstacles
(inflation, down turn of
the market, etc.)
3.66 2.06 Adequate
Evidence
3 Political obstacles and
changes
3.61 2.17 Adequate
Evidence
3 State laws and
regulations related to
company activities.
3.61 2.23 Adequate
Evidence
4 Effects of competitive
environment (the
competitors, markets,
etc.)
3.39 1.87 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
5 Cultural and social
impeders
3.10 1.95 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
4.2 Obstacles Related to the Consequences of Planning
The second-most challenging obstacle consists of the obstacles related
to the consequences of planning, as shown in Table 2. According to the
results of this research, Inadequate and improper use of consultants and
professionals of strategic development is the major barrier to effective
implementation. These findings are in agreement with the findings of Al-
Ghamdi (2015), which suggests that businesses must, as much as
possible, make employees part of the planning process; and their
suggestion must also take into account all those stakeholders, who
would be affected by the change process. This, in turn, should facilitate
clarity for the respective roles and goals of the business. Furthermore,
successful strategic results are achieved when those responsible for
crafting the strategy are also part of the execution team (Speculand,
2009; Hrebiniak, 2008).
The process of formulating and executing a strategy are parts of an
integrated, strategic-management approach (Thompson, Strickland &
Gamble, 2008). Haudan (2009) criticises executives for assuming that
once a strategy is designed, it gets to be executed; and it highlights
executives’ failure to look inside the process and realise that execution is
much more complicated than they thought.

Table 2 Obstacles Related to the Consequences of Planning
Evaluation
1 Inadequate and improper use of
consultants and professionals
of strategy developing
3.02 1.92 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
3 Lack of conversion of
appropriate strategic plans into
business plans and short-term
operational objectives and the
distribution of these goals
between different sectors.
3.00 1.81 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
3 Inadequate identification of
company's major problems and
lack of focusing on them in
strategic planning process
3.00 1.89 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
4 The time limit for
implementation of strategies
2.93 1.63 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
6 Inadequate concentration on
need and demands of
customers and other
beneficiaries of company
2.83 1.67 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
6 Weakness and ambiguity being
in the developed strategies.
2.83 1.92 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
7 The ineffective role of experts,
and drafters of strategy in the
implementation of the company
business strategy
2.80 1.71 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
8 Inaccuracies in strategic
business planning
2.76 1.60 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
9 Poor relationship between
strategies and short-term goals
2.63 1.62 Poor
Evidence
10 Poor consensus between
decision makers and
implementers of strategic
business planning.
2.59 1.43 Poor
Evidence
4.3 Organization Obstacles
Table 3 reflects the results for the organization obstacles. The third
serious obstacle relates to organization obstacles. More specifically, the
results of the study indicate that a lack of consistency and alignment
between organizational structures and developed strategies are lacking.
According to Kroon (1995), the successful implementation of a strategy

demands a compatible business culture. This obstacle deals with how
well people across the company understand the company’s strategy, and
realizes why it is critical to success to recognize the actions required to
make it a reality. Leaders and employees must understand the
businesses strategy and communicate with it persistently. Incentives and
rewards should be aligned to the targets that define strategic success.
This is the social side of the alignment, the place where executives
convince the business to understand and support their initiatives
(Pateman, 2008).
Table 3 Organization Obstacles
Evaluation
1 Lack of consistency and
alignment between
organizational structure and
developed strategies.
3.05 1.85 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
3 Lack of proper
communication between
individuals, departments and
units of the organization.
3.00 1.90 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
3 Inadequate control systems
and performance
measurement and feedback.
3.00 1.79 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
4 Inadequate financial
resources to implement
strategies.
2.98 1.76 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
6 The instructions, procedures
and processes within the
company being intangible
and inappropriate.
2.95 1.91 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
6 Inappropriate allocation of
financial resources within the
company
2.95 1.89 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
9 Inappropriate educational
systems for performing
processes and various steps
in the implementation of
business strategies.
2.93 2.02 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
9 Lack of effective coordination
between different levels of
company
2.93 1.88 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
9 Lack of proper information
systems in organization.
2.93 1.81 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
9 Lack of programs, tools and
models for implementing the
strategy.
2.93 1.99 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
11 Organizational culture 2.90 1.83 Less than

incompatible with
organization strategies.
Adequate
Evidence
12 Low efficiency and success
of marketing systems of
company.
2.85 1.86 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
13 Inadequate and poor
information sharing between
individuals and units involved
in implementing the strategy.
2.78 1.75 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
14 Existence of inadequate
physical facilities and
equipment.
2.63 1.90 Poor
Evidence
15 Destructive competitive
activities between the units
and existing of unit-based
vision in the company.
2.61 1.90 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
16 Inadequate motivation
systems in company.
2.59 1.56 Poor
Evidence
17 Improper utilization of new
technologies and practices in
manufacturing and other
business processes of
company.
2.49 1.77 Poor
Evidence
18 Existence of work
compensate system and
improper services in the
company.
2.39 1.82 Poor
Evidence
4.4 Management Obstacles
The management obstacle variables are reflected in Table 4. The study
results indicate that, inadequate commitment of managers to the
organization and its strategic plans is ranked as the most critical
impediment. Executives assume that after they have crafted their
strategy, they can move on, falsely believing that the bulk of the work is
complete. Speculand (2009) argues that executives’ failure to take
personal responsibility for the execution process is a major contributing
factor to most unsuccessful executions. Top management must develop
adequate commitment in middle managers and operational levels. This
result is emphasized by Heed (2002); as he declared that 91% of
successful businesses emphasized the imperative role of committed and
capable management.
Table 4 Management Obstacles
Evaluation
1 Q5-4 Inadequate commitment
of managers to the organization
and its strategic plans.
2.98 1.92 Less than
Adequate
Evidence

3 Inadequate understanding of
managers and employees of
company strategies and future
prospects.
2.85 1.86 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
3 Inadequate protection and
consideration of company's
managers and other
beneficiaries to implementing
the business strategies.
2.85 1.75 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
4 Political factors related to the
company power.
2.80 1.81 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
6 Existence of inappropriate style
of leadership and management
in the company.
2.61 1.53 Poor
Evidence
6 Inappropriate management of
staff
2.61 1.56 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
7 Managers fear of
endangerment of their job
security.
2.44 1.64 Poor
Evidence
4.5 Individual (Personnel) Obstacles
Individual (personnel) obstacles are shown in Table 5. Individual
(personnel) obstacles have the lowest impact among the five obstacles
in implementing the strategies of quantity surveying firms. However, this
does not imply that this obstacle can be ignored; and it has little to no
relevance; however, it has a lesser role in comparing with the other
obstacles. Amongst the five variables of Individual obstacles; people's
inadequate understanding of their company’s business strategies has the
most significant role in preventing the effective implementation of
strategies. If strategic decisions are made by top management, and then
communicated vertically down the company, they risk the potential of
creating obstacles (Groons, 1985). Lawrie (2014) echoes these findings,
by stating that once the strategy has been articulated clearly, it needs to
be shared with the people in the organisation who will carry it out; and
their thoughts and feedback should be incorporated. This process helps
to validate the strategy; and it also provides tangible confirmation that
those who would execute the strategy understand clearly what is
required – two steps, which in our experience, are often missing.
Table 5 Individual (Personnel) Obstacles
Evaluation
1 People's inadequate
understanding of their company
business strategies.
2.95 1.81 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
2 Employees fear of
endangerment of their job
security
2.93 1.96 Less than
Adequate
Evidence
3 Low capacity and capability of
staff in line with the objectives
2.85 1.96 Less than

and tasks. Adequate
Evidence
4 Lack of team spirit among
employees.
2.41 1.56 Poor
Evidence
5 Employee resistance to change
process within the company.
2.37 1.36 Poor
Evidence
5. CONCLUSION
The empirical findings of this research send some valuable messages for
those who are directly responsible for the implementation of strategic
decisions. In general, the study reveals the prominent strategy-
implementation obstacles, as experienced by quantity surveying firms.
The results of the study indicate three critical obstacles that require
attention, when implementing strategic decisions: those related to the
environment, the organization and the obstacles related to the
consequences of planning. This is followed by the two-least serious
dimensions: management and individual (personnel) obstacles. The
obstacles identified in this study are in line with those previously
identified in earlier studies.
The study reveals that strategic plans formulated by Qs firms are
susceptible and vulnerable to environmental changes and shifts, which
indicates inconsistency in the planning and also the shortcomings of the
strategic plans themselves for not satisfactorily predicting and
establishing countermeasures for potential environmental obstacles. It
also evident from the study results that a lack of commitment from
management to follow-through with intended strategic decisions derails
implementation initiatives. There is initial effort to implement, however,
not maintained throughout the prescribed implementation period – this
can also largely be attributed to divergent strategies and complexity in
converting strategy into daily operational tasks and objectives.
Interestingly, the study revealed that the silver lining linking the
prominent obstacles to implementation was ineffective communication of
the strategy and proposed implementation plan.
It is important to note, that failed strategy implementation may have
pervasive consequences. The business has not only, not achieved its
goal, not acquired the desired revenues, and not conquered the new
markets it hoped for. This study is important as, not only does it
contribute towards overcoming the knowledge deficiency within strategy
implementation literature, but it is also the first of its kind within the
quantity surveying profession. Further study is required to critically
assess the effectiveness of Qs firms in implementing strategic decisions
and the framework used in the execution process, this, together with the
findings from this study shall help firms create a fail-safe model for
implementation, and purpose made for the Qs profession.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
From the research findings, we can deduce that planners should place
more emphasis on implementation issues while they are drafting their
plans. Most of these obstacles are avoidable if they have been
accounted for during the formulation stage.
A comprehensive approach is required for translating strategy into
tangible results. Effective execution calls for explicit day-to-day
operational objectives and requirements of all the employees, together

with a greater understanding of the bigger picture. Deliberate effort and
attention comprise the cornerstone of the execution process – to ensure
success. Executives who seek quick and effortless alternatives to
execution would more often than not fail in their attempts. To address the
shortcomings in execution, strategic objectives should be expressed as
business deliverables; which, in turn, communicate the specific actions,
required for the successful execution of strategy and the realization of
business goals. The suggested guidelines for a more sophisticated
implementation process revolve around four I’s: Identify Inform, Involve
and Incentivize. This requires:
a) More sophisticated obstacle identification, delineation and role
clarification
b) Development of better information and communication systems
and feedback mechanisms
c) Employee and managerial involvement in both the formulation
and implementation of strategies
d) Motivational reward incentives tied to successful implementation.
Those involved should always be on the alert on the threat and
challenges that can develop from the various obstacles. A proactive
approach on the part of those involved in implementing strategy or
project could reduce the risk of the obstacles becoming a much bigger
threat.
REFERENCES
Abu Baker, A. H., Tuail, M. A., Yusof, M. N., and Virgiyantyi, W. 2011.
Implementation of strategic management practices in the Malaysian
Construction industry. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social
Science. 5(1):140-154.
Alexander, L. 1985. Successfully Implementing Strategic Decisions.
Long Range Planning 18(3):91-97.
Al-Ghamdi, S. M. 1998. Obstacles to successful implementation of
strategic decisions: the British experience. European Business Review
98(6):322-327.
Ali, M. and Hadi, A. 2012. Surveying and identifying the factors affecting
successful implementation of business strategies in companies from
Fars Province industrial towns. International Journal of Business and
Social Sciences. 3(1): 265-272.
Argyris. C. 1999. On Organisational Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Atkinson, H. 2006. Strategy implementation: a role for the balanced
scorecard? Management Decision. 44(10):1441-1460.
Barlett, C. A. and Goshal, S. 1996. Release the entrepreneurial hostages
from your corporate hierarchy. Strategy & Leadership. 24(4):36-42.
Bin Zakaria, M., bin Dahalan, J. and Ahmad, N. 2004. Strategy
implementation obstacles encountered by Malaysian engineering
contractors. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Technology and Operations Management.
Certo, S. and Peter, J. 1991. Strategic Management. Singapore:
McGraw-Hill
Cocks, G. 2010. Emerging concepts for implementing strategy, The TQM
Journal. 22(3):260-266.
David, F.R. 2013. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases (14th
ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
David, F.R. and Adams, D. 2009. Strategic management: Concepts and
cases.
DeLisi, P. 2001. Strategy Execution: An Oxymoron or a Powerful
Formula for Corporate Success. Organizational Synergies,
http://www.org-synergies.com.
Downes, L. 2001. Strategy Can Be Deadly – Industry Trend or Event,
The Industry Standard, (May 14).

Eisenhardt, K.M. 2002. Has strategy changed? Slaon management
Review. 43(2): 88-91.
Hanley Jr., C. A. 2007. The execution challenge: Translating strategy
into action. Bank Accounting & Finance. 20(6):17-20.
Haudan, J. A. 2007. Successful strategy execution takes people – Not
paper. Employment Relations Today. 33(4): 37-41.
Higgins, J.M. 2005. The Eight S’s of Successful Strategy Execution.
Journal of Change Management. 5(1): 3-13.
Holman, P 1999. Turning great strategy into effective performance.
Strategy Strategic Planning Society, UK.
Hrebiniak, L.G. 2005. Making strategy work: Leading effective execution
and change. Pearson Education Inc: New Jersey.
Hrebiniak, L.G. and Joyce, W.F. 2001. Implementing strategy: An
appraisal and agenda for future research.
Hubbard, G. 2000. Strategic Management. Thinking, analysis and action.
Australia: Prentice Hall.
Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. 1992. The balanced scorecard –
measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. 70(1):71-
79.
Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. 2000. Having trouble with your strategy?
Then map it. Harvard Business Review. September-October: 1-11.
Kotter, J.P, 1995. Leading Change: why transformation efforts fail.
Harvard Business Review, 7471, 1.
Leedy, P. D., and Ormrod, J. E. 2001. Practical Research: Planning and
Design. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Merrill Prentice Hall
Mankins, M. and Steele, R. 2005. Turning great strategy into great
performance. Harvard Business Review. 83(7/8):65-72.
Nickols, F. 2000. Strategy Is . . . A Lot of Things. Distance Consulting.
Okumus, F. 2003. A framework to implement strategies in organizations.
Management Decisions. 41(9):871-882.
Olsen, M. D., Tse, E.-Y. and West, J.J. 1992. Strategic Management in
Hospitality Industry. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Pateman, A. 2008. Linking Strategy to operations: Six stages to
execution. Business Performance Management. 6(4):10-13.
Rahimnia, F., Polychronakis, Y. and Sharp, J.M. 2009. A conceptual
framework of impeders to strategy implementation from an exploratory
case study in an Iranian University. Contemporary Middle Eastern
Issues. 2(4):246-261.
Rommin Adl. 2015. Bts Insights. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.bts.com/news-insights/articles/the-heat-is-on-ceos-under-
pressure-to-perform, [Accessed 9 September 2016].
Saunders, M., Mahn, R., and Smith, R. 2008. Benchmarking Strategy
development practices. Benchmarking: An international Journal.
14(5):609-623.
Speculand, R. 2006. The Great Big Strategy Challenge. Strategic
Direction. 22(3):3-6
Speculand, R. 2009. Beyond Strategy: The Leader’s Role in Successful
Implementation. John Wiley and Sons: Singapore.
Stahl, M.J. and Grigsby, D.W. 1992. Strategic Management: Formulation
and Implementation. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Strabel, P. 1996. Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business
Review. 74(3):86-92.
Thompson, A. A., Strickland, A. J., and Gamble, J. E. 2008. Strategic
Management Concepts and Cases, 16th Edition. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Wheelan, T.L. and Hunger J.D. 2012. Strategic Management and
Business Policy (13th ed.). Pearson Education Inc: United States of
America.
Zikmund, W.G. 2003. Business research methods, 7th edition. Ohio,
USA: Thompson South-Western.

Final Conference Paper - Gcwabaza and Crafford 21112016 - ammended (Internal)

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

Similaire à Final Conference Paper - Gcwabaza and Crafford 21112016 - ammended (Internal)

Similaire à Final Conference Paper - Gcwabaza and Crafford 21112016 - ammended (Internal) (20)

Final Conference Paper - Gcwabaza and Crafford 21112016 - ammended (Internal)