Stratejik Planlama Süreci Bileşenlerinin Firma Performansına Etkileri

Year 2008, Issue: 16, 21 - 47, 01.12.2008

Lütfihak Alpkan Türkan Doğan

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, stratejik karar alma ve planlama süreci bileşenlerinin (tarama yoğunluğu, planlama esnekliği, katılımcılık, formalizasyon, hatalardan öğrenme), firmaların temel stratejik performans göstergeleri (pazar performansı, kalite performansı, verimlilik performansı ve yenilik performansı) üzerindeki etkilerini ampirik bir çalışmayla ortaya koymaktır. Bu kavramlar arasındaki ilişkileri gösteren bir model geliştirilmiş ve bu ilişkileri test etmek için Kocaeli genelinde faaliyet gösteren 1200 imalatçı firmadan 600’ü örneklem olarak tesadüfî şekilde seçilmiş ve bunlardan 400 firmanın yöneticileri ile yüz yüze görüşme tekniğiyle anket uygulaması yapılmıştır. Analizlerden elde edilen bulgular genel olarak şunu göstermiştir ki, hemen hemen tüm planlama faaliyeti bileşenleri ile performans göstergeleri arasında bire bir olumlu ilişki mevcuttur; ancak her bir performans göstergesinin planlama ile ilgili kendine has öncülleri olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Buna göre, kalite performansının artırılması için stratejik planlamanın özellikle tarama yoğunluğu, planlama esnekliği ve katılımcılık cephelerine önem verilmesi gerekmektedir. Yenilik performansının artması için ön plana çıkan faktörler ise formalizasyon ve hatalardan öğrenmedir. Verimlilik performansının ise tek bir öncülü tespit edilmiş olup, o da formalizasyondur

Keywords

Stratejik planlama, firma performansı, Tarama yoğunluğu, planlama esnekliği, katılımcılık, formalizasyon, hatalardan öğrenme, kalite, verimlilik, yenilik

Performance Impacts Of The Strategic Planning Process Components

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the associations among
the components of the strategic planning process (scanning intensity, planning
flexibility, participation, formalization, learning from failure) and the dimensions
of firm performance (quality, efficiency, innovation) via an empirical field
research. A research model has been developed based on the literature review
depicting the relations among these variables. The relations in this model are
explored via a questionnaire survey carried out using the face to face technique
with the executives of randomly selected 400 manufacturing firms operating in
Kocaeli.
The results of the statistical analyses have revealed that almost all the
components of the strategic planning process are found to be correlated to each
of the performance indicators; but it is also found that each performance indicator has a different set of antecedents. In this respect, scanning intensity, planning flexibility, and participation are the main drivers of quality performance, whereas formalization and learning from failure are those of the innovation performance. Efficiency has a sole predictor, formalization. Managerial implications and further research suggestions are also provided.

Keywords

Strategic planning, firm performance, scanning intensity, planning flexibility, participation, formalization, learning from failure, quality, efficiency, innovation

References

• dler, P.S. ve Boyrs, B., (1996), “Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling vs. Coercive” Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, 41(1):61-89.
• Çevik, O. (2003), İstatistiksel Analiz Teknikleri, Emek Ofset, Ankara. lpkan, L. (2000), “Strateji Belirleme Sürecinin Kapsamlılığı”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi (2):1–19
• Alpkan, L., Ceylan, A. ve Aytekin, M. (2002) , “Relationship Among Environmental Factors, Alpkan, L., Yı lmaz, C., Kaya, N., (2007),“Market Orientation and Planing Flexibility in SMEs
• Barringer, B. ve Bluedorn, A. (1999), “The Relationship Between Corporate Ent repreneur
• Bluedorn, A., Johnson, R. ve Catwright, D. (1994), “The Interface and Convergence of the Strategic Management and Organizational Environment Domains,” Journal of Manage
• Boisot, M., (1998), Knowledge Assets, Securing Competitive Advantage In The Inform ation
• Bowen, D. E,, Lawler, E. E. (1992, Spring). “The Empowerment of Service Workers, What,
• Bulut, Ç., (2007), Stratejik Oryantasyonlar ve Firma Performansı, ( Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi) GYTE Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı.
• Campbell, D.J., (2000), “The proactive employee, Managing workplace initiative.” The Acad- emy of Management Executive; 14(3):52-66.
• Carson, S.J., Tımothy, M.D., Grahame, R.D. ve George, J. (1999), “Understanding Institu- tional Designs within Marketing Value Sytems”, Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Is- sue):115–130.
• Chisholm, R.F., Vansina L.S. (1993), “Varieties of Participation.” Public Administration
• Cohen, S., Ledford, G.,(1994), “The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams, a Quasi- se Forms and Different Outcomes”, Academy of Management ployee Participation, Diver Review, 13(1):8-22.
• Covin, J.G., Green, K.M.,& Slevin, D.P. (2006), “
• Strategic Process Effects on the Entrepre- Cray, D., Mallory, G., Bu tler, R, Hickson, D. ve Wilson, D., (1988), "Sporadic, Fluid and Con
• Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. ve Evan W. (1989), “The Relationship Between Types of Innova
• Dinçer, Ö. (2004), Stratejik Yönetim ve İşletme Politik ası, Beta, 7. Baskı. İstanbul ss 35
• DPT (2003), “İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması”, http://www.dpt.gov.tr/bgyu/illerdesanayi/Kocaeli.pdf, 11.04.2007. tegy to Performance in Small Firms,” Strategic Management Journal, 26:1249- Stra
• Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., Davis-LaMastro, V., (1990), “Perceived Or and Employee Diligence, Commitment and Innovation.” Journal of Applied Psychology, ganizational Support
• Eppink, D. J. (1978), “Planning for Strategic Flexibility”, Long Range Planning 11(4):9–15.
• Eren, Erol (1997), İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim ve İşletme Politikası, Der Yayınevi,
• Fletcher, M. ve Harris, S. (2002), “Seven Aspects of Strategy Formulation”, International
• Small Business Journal 20(3):297–314. Fredrickson, James W., (1986). The Strategic Decision Process and Organizational Struc- ture, Academy of Management Review, 11(2): 280–297.
• Gray, C., ve Mabey, C.(2005), “Management
• Development, Key Differences between Small Innovation a Missing Link?” Journal of Marketing, 62(4):30–45. Hastings, R.P., (1996), “Staff strategies and explanationsfor intervening with c hallenging
• Hickson, D., Butler, R., Cray. D., Mallory, G. ve Wilson, D., (1989), "Decision and Organiza
• Decision Making and Their Explanation", Public Administra- tion: Processes of Strategic tion, 67(4):373–390. Hitt, M.A., Ireland,. D., Camp, M. ve Sexton, D.L. (2001). “Strategic Entrepreneurial
• Strategies for Wealth Creation”, Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7):479-491. Khandwalla P.N; (1977), The Design of Organizations, Brace Javanovich Inc. Harcourt, USA.
• Krijnen, H. G. (1979), “The Flexible Firm”, Long Range Planning 12(4):63–73.
• Kukalis, S. (1989), “The Relationship Among Firm Characteristics and Design of Strategic
• Planning Systems in Large Organizations,” Journal of Management, 15:565–579 Morris, W.T (1968), Decentralization in Management Systems: An Intr
• Columbus: Ohio State University Pres Columbus, Ohio. Robinson, R. B., Jr ve Pearce, J., II (1984), “Research Thrusts in Small Firm Strategic
• Organization of Marketing Ac- Ruekert, R.W., Orvılle C.W, JR. ve Roering K. (1985), “The Sharfman, M. ve Dean, J. W. (1997), “Flexibility in Strategic Decision Making”, Journal of
• Sims, H.P (1996), Businesses Witho
• Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E. ve Noordewier, T.A. (1997), “Frame Work for Market-based Or- ut Bosses, Wiley, New York.
• Stevenson, H.H. ve J.C. Jarillo-Mossi ( ), “Preserving Entrepreneurship as Companies Upton, D. M. (1995), “Flexibility as Process Mobility:The Manag ement of the Plant Capabili- Wallace, Jea n E. (1995), “Organizational and Professional Commitment in Professional and Nonprofessional Organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2):228–255.