Journal of Management Research

ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Conceptual Frameworks for Strategy Implementation: A

Literature Review
Maher Hourani
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Sofia University
E-mail: maher.hourani6@gmail.com

Received: April 12, 2017 Accepted: June 4, 2017 Published: July 1, 2017
doi:10.5296/jmr.v9i3.11222 URL: https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v9i3.11222

Abstract
Strategy implementation is one of the four pillars of strategic management. It has gained
considerable attention of a large number of researchers as well as practitioners. This is
growing attention due to the publication of scary percentage of limited success of strategy
implementation in many worldwide business organizations. This paper presents a literature
review of a number of important conceptual frameworks for strategy implementation. This
paper is a humble attempt towards proposing a novel conceptual framework which can help
in drawing big picture of key factors affecting strategy implementation success.
Keywords: Conceptual frameworks, Strategy implementation, Internal factors, External
factors, Balanced Scorecard.

12 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

1. Introduction
Despite the clear importance of strategic management area and the obvious problems
associated with its execution, it has however, been substantially neglected by academics
(Atkinson, 2006). For many managers, strategy formulation is difficult while executing or
implementing it throughout the organization is even more difficult without effective
implementation, no business strategy can succeed. Unfortunately, most managers know far
more about developing strategy than they do about executing it (Hrebiniak, 2006). The
effectiveness of whole process of planning diminishes if the formulated strategies are not
implemented (Siddique and Shadbolt, 2016). Remarkably, organizations fail to implement
about 70% of their new strategies (Franklen et al, 2009). According to Johnson (2004), 66%
of corporate strategy is never executed. According to Kaplan and Norton (1996), 95% of a
company employees are unaware of or do not understand their company strategy.
1.1 Defining Strategy Implementation
Strategy implementation involves a broad range of efforts which focus on the transformation
of strategic intentions into action (Miller and Dess, 1996). As for Noble (1999), strategy
implementation is defined as: The communication, interpretation, adoption, and enactment of
strategic plans. For Wheelen and Hunger (2012), implementing a strategy involves taking
ideas, decisions, plans, policies, objectives and other aspects of the chosen strategy and
implementing them into action.
Strategy implementation is an iterative process of implementing strategies, policies, programs
and action plans that allows a firm to utilize its resources to take advantage of opportunities
in the competitive environment (Harrington,2006). Implementation is the actions initiated
within the organization and its relationships with external constituencies to realize the
strategy (Homburg et al, 2004).
Implementation in a hands-on operation and action-oriented human behavioral activity that
calls for executive leadership and key managerial skills (Schaap, 2006). Strategy
implementation is about designing appropriate organizational structure and control systems to
put the organization chosen strategy into action (Hill et al, 2007).
For Wheelen and Hunger (2012), strategy implementation is the sum total of the activities
and choices required for execution of a strategic plan. Li et al (2008) concluded from 60
articles that they have reviewed, three distinct conceptions of the term "strategy
implementation"; the first approach concentrate on a "process perspective" and takes strategy
implementation as a sequence of carefully planned consecutive steps. The second approach
treats strategy implementation as a series of more or less concerted (but often parallel) actions
and examines these actions from a "behavior perspective". Some authors combine the process
perspective and behavior perspective and form a third approach, which Yang et al called it as
"hybrid perspective".
This study stands for the adoption of Wheelen and Hunger (2012) definition of strategy
implementation due their comprehensive perspective as one of four pillars that forms the
strategic management basic integrated elements (Environmental scanning, strategy

13 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

formulation, strategy implementation and evaluation).

2. A Review of Conceptual Models and Frameworks for Strategy Implementation
Models are theoretical systematic grouping of interdependent concepts and principles that
give a framework to, or tie together, a significant area of knowledge as scattered data are not
information unless observer has knowledge of the theory that will explain relationships
(Olum, 2004). Thus theories and theoretical models, provides criteria for what is relevant,
they enable us communicate efficiently and they challenge us to keep learning about our
world or the field we operate in as the environment is ever changing (Chiuri, 2015).
There are some commonly used models and framework available for researchers and
managers in the areas of strategy analysis and formulation in strategic management such as
SWOT analysis, Porter's generic strategies, portfolio models (Okumus, 2003, Wheelen and
Hunger, 2012). By contrast, there is no agreed-upon, generally accepted and dominant
framework in "strategy implementation" (Siddique and Shadbolt, 2016).
Kurt Verweire (2014) considers that some management authors see strategy implementation
as a performance measurement and management exercise, where strategies are translate into
key performance indicators (KPI) that you cascade further down the organization. Others see
strategy implementation as creating an organizational culture that empowers people to act in
line with the strategy. Still others see implementation as strategic project portfolio
management. Strategy implementation is all of that, and even more, strategy execution is a
broad domain that touches many different management areas, from direction and goal-setting
to HR, operations culture and the quality of leadership team that is in charge. So managers
should pay significant attention to developing an engaging organizational climate and
collaborative structure and culture.
Much of strategy implementation research has focused on executing strategy as an
operational process with related outcomes, instead of linking strategy implementation with
strategic competitive performance outcomes (Hutzschenreater and Kleindienst, 2006);
(Dederiches, 2010).
Reviewing strategy implementation literature shows that most approaches about strategy
implementation may be categorized in two groups; the first considered the term of strategy
implementation as a sum of factors that interplays, interacts, and integrates within strategy
implementation. This second group of approaches considered the term strategy
implementation as "process", therefore this group may be called as "process- oriented"
approaches (Amjad, 2013).
Whether approaches are “factor-oriented” or “process-oriented”, in their attempts to develop
conceptual frameworks of strategy implementation, this study will categorize the most
important of these attempts by focus area as shown in Table (1).

14 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Table 1. [Strategy implementation conceptual frameworks attempts by category of

approaches focus area]

Category of

Strategy Conceptual Model / Framework Components

Authors / Researchers
Implementation (Factors / Actions)

Approach

Factor-oriented • Structure Waterman and Phillips (1980),

• Interpersonal-behavior Hrebiniak (2005),(2006),(2013) ,
approaches • Strategic consensus, understanding, and Hill et al (2007), Schaap (2006)
strategy formulation quality Pryors et al (2007), Brenes et al
• Commitment (2008), Olson et al (2005), Olums
• Leadership, power structure (2004), Hill and Jones (2008),
• Communication systems Aakar (1998), Brinkschroder N.,
• Culture, shared values (2014),
• Resource allocation Verweir (2014),
• HR, people development, empowerment and Hrebiniak (2008) , (2013),
reward Okums (2001), (2003), Siddique
• Management mechanism and control and shdbolt (2016).
systems
• External factors PESTEL/ task environment
(uncertainty, competitors)
• Competitive advantage
Process-oriented • Strategy-as-practice (Strategizing), Pettigrew (1997), Whittington
• Implementation process barriers / drivers (2006), Jazabkowski et al (2007),
Approaches • Strategy implementation as iterative process Li et al (2008), Anderson (2004),
• Strategy-process Harrington (2006), Jazabkowski
and Whittington (2008), Dameron
and Torset (2014), Cardoso and
Lavardo (2011), Da Costa et al
(2015), Grand (2001),
Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst
(2006)

2.1 Strategy implementation conceptual “factor-oriented”, and “process-oriented”

approaches:
2.1.1 “Factor-oriented” approaches of strategy implementation:
This study highlights eight of the most important contributions conceptual models in strategy
implementation:
(1) Waterman and Phillips's model (1980)/ (Mckinsey 7's)

15 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Waterman and Philips (1980) proposed a strategy implementation framework in their article
"Structure is not organization" in Business Horizons 1980. One of the three authors, "Peters",
explained how the 7(S's) key factors became to be best known as Mckinsey's 7S, saying that
Ron Daniel, Mckinsey managing directors was bedeviled by frequency with which clever
strategies failed to be implemented effectively (Peters and Bay, 2011). The 7s model is the fruit
of three research stations; "structure is not organization" 1980 Business Horizons article. Then
Athos and Pascale research "The art of Japanese Management (1981), and Waterman and
Peters included it in "In search of Excellence" (1982) (Peters and Bay, 2011).

Figure 1. Waterman and Phillips, Conceptual framework (1980)/ (Mckinsey 7's)

(2) Aaker's conceptual framework (1998)
In his book "Developing Business Strategy", Aaker (1998) proposed a conceptual framework
which aimed to help business in identifying factors that are to be considered in actual and
potential strategy implementation problems. He suggested that these components must fit with
each other as well as with the strategy.

16 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Figure 2. Aaker's Conceptual framework for analyzing organization and strategy

implementation requirements (1998)
(3) Okumus's Conceptual framework of strategy implementation (2001), (2003).
Okumus (2001) identified ten key variables which were critical for strategy implementation.
These include: (strategy formulation, environmental uncertainty, organizational structure,
culture, operational planning, communications, resource allocation, people, control and
outcome). In (2003), Okumus developed his (2001) framework after identifying eleven key
implementation factors and succeeded in regrouping them into four categories: (strategic
content, strategic context, process and outcome). Based on this categorization Okumus (2003)
proposed a conceptual framework renewing his (2001) model; to become with emphasized
the interaction effect of the variables involved as shown in figure (7). Okumus (2003) further
clarified that different implementation factors in these four categories should not be evaluated
in isolation because a factor in one group can influence the other factors in the same and in
other group.

17 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Figure 3. [Okums strategy implementation conceptual framework]

(4) Pryor et al (2007) Conceptual framework [5P's Model]
Pryor et al. (2007) proposed a conceptual framework based on the alignment and integration
of widely accepted activities and functions of effective and successful strategy
implementation. These activities and functions include: (structure, systems, leadership
behavior, human resource policies, culture, values and management processes).
Pryor et al. (2007) advocated the inevitable intertwined elements of culture, organization,
people, and systems for strategy implementation and put forward a broad, process oriented
interpretation of these elements in the form of "the 5P's model of strategy implementation".

18 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Figure 4. [5Ps model of strategy implementation Pryor et al (2007)]

(5) Hill and Jones Conceptual framework (2008)
For both Hill and Jones (2008), the organizational design is the heart of implementing
strategies effectively. Organizations motivate and coordinate its employees and members
through the use of organizational structure, control systems and culture to work towards
achieving the desired results by developing the competitive advantage. They also believed that
organizational structure, control systems and culture directly affect the behavior, values and
attitudes of people and also help them in implementing the organization business model and
strategies.
Hitt, Ireland, and Hoskinson (2013), also developed their conceptual framework, they share
with Brenes et al (2008), the important role of corporate governance in strategy
implementation success. According to Hitt et al. (2013) effective corporate governance,
organizational structure and strategic entrepreneurships are necessary for successful
implementation of strategies. Corporate governance is a relationship among stakeholders and
helps determining the direction of firms and also control its performance.
Hitt et al (2013) believes that organization structure specifies the accomplishment of given
tasks whereas organizational control provides alignment to these tasks according to the
strategic intent and also suggests improvements in performance when it falls below
expectations.

19 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Figure 5. The Hill and Jones conceptual framework (2008)

(6) Brenes et al. Conceptual framework (2008): (Five key dimensions in successful
implementation of strategy)
In 2008, Brenes and his colleagues found that most successful companies between 300 local
business firm in Latin America, reported the top three dimensions that included: (corporate
governance leading the change, CEO's leadership and suitable motivated management and
employees, and the strategy formulation process).

Figure 6. Brenes et al (2008) Conceptual framework of Five key dimensions in successful

strategy implementation.
(7) Hrebiniak's Conceptual framework "implementing strategy and contextual factors" (2005),
(2008), and (2013).
Hrebiniak in his book; "Making Strategy Work" (2013), clarified that implementing strategy
takes place within an organizational or environmental context. The four major factors, for
Hrebiniak (2013) includes: (the change management context, the culture of the organization,
the organizational power structure, and the leadership context). Hrebiniak concluded that the
inability to manage change (considering some of the organizational characteristics , as the

20 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

size of the change and the time to manage it), can be one of the biggest obstacle to
implement strategy successfully .

Figure 7. Hrebiniak Conceptual framework [Implementation strategy and contextual

factors].
(8) Verweire's conceptual framework of strategy implementation (2014):
Kurt Verweire (2014) constructed a model to capture the essential elements of what
constitutes effective strategy implementation. Three main levels for achieving a competitive
advantage and a winning performance. The first lever of competitive advantage relates to the
"Strategy itself". It does not make sense to implement a low-quality strategy.
The two other levers concentrate on how to translate a winning strategy into great results:
"Alignment" that defines which activities your company should set up to make the strategy
concrete. The third lever of competitive advantage "Commitment" as a major determinant of
organizational effectiveness; deals with the organizational context in which a firm's activities
occur (Verweire, 2014).
Winning companies have a highly committed workforce that is able to provide relevant input
in the organization strategic discussions, as well as to translate the strategy into the

21 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

organization day-to-day activities. The whole organization is "strategy-focused", not just the
executive team. The result is an organization that is "performance-driven", yet thrives on a
collaborative and participative culture. Effective strategy implementation requires managers
to work on all three levers – strategy, alignment and commitment – to create a sustainable
competitive advantage.

Figure 8. Verweire Conceptual framework [Three Levers of Competitive Advantage] (2014)

2.1.2 “Process oriented” approach of strategy implementation
The rapid growth in the field of strategy-as-practice research may be attributed to a general
unease with the way that strategy research has developed over the last three decades. Since
1980's the landmark contributions by Michael Porter strategy research has largely been based
on the micro-economic tradition. As a consequence, research has typically remained on the
macro-level of firms and markets while reducing strategy to a few causally related variables
in which there is little evidence of human actions. In order to understand human agency in the
construction and enactment of strategy, it is necessary to re-focus research on the action and
interactions of the strategy practitioner in doing strategy. Strategy-as-practice may thus be
seen as a part of the broader concern to humanize management and organization research
(Pettigrew, 1997). For Whittington (2006), the Strategy-as-practice approach emphasize
explicit links between micro and macro perspectives on strategy as a social practice.

22 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Figure 9. Whittington Strategy-as-practice conceptual model (2006)

For a comprehensive understanding of “Strategizing” Strategy-as-practice model, Whittington
(2006) proposed three elements may be isolated, praxis, practices and practitioners. “Praxis”
comprises the interconnection between the actions of different, dispersed individuals and
group and those socially, politically, and economically embedded institutions within which
individuals act and to which they contribute. This definition is important, as it indicates that
“praxis” is both an embedded concept that may be operationalized at different levels from the
institutional to the micro, and also dynamic, shifting fluidly through the interactions between
levels (Jarzabkowski et al, 2007).
“Practices” is intrinsically connected to “doing” because they provide the behavioral,
cognitive, procedural, discursive and physical resources through which multiple actors are
able to interact in order to socially accomplish collective activity. As these resources are
utilized in routinized way that form patterns, they may be studied to understand “how”
strategic activity is constructed (Jarzabkowski et al, 2007).
Finally, “Practitioners” are obvious units of analysis for study, being active participants in the
construction of activity that is consequential for the organization and its survival. However,
identifying relevant practitioners and analyzing how their actions impact upon strategic
activity is a complex issue that opens many new arenas of research.
For A, B and C areas in figure (9), A is the interconnection between “practitioners” and
“practice”. B is the interconnection between “practices” and practice. C is the interconnection
between “practitioners” and practice. The remaining area in the middle is core of
“Strategizing” process.
The (SAP) Strategy-as-practice/strategizing model still confronting a big deal of ongoing
challenges. Although there has been impressive empirical progress given the nascent state of

23 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Strategy-as-practice as a field. However, contribution of this field may be further exploring

the issues raised by the keys in this conceptual framework. Raised by the key in this
conceptual framework of “praxis”, “practice” and “practitioners” and their relationships. The
key priority is for more empirical research, which has been explicitly framed and designed to
address the (SAP) research agenda.
The actual strategizing practice of attracting and developing firm resources thus will
substantially shape the resulting firm strategy and performance. However, despite the
significance of the approach, the perspective has been challenged as being conceptually
vague and tautological, focused on intangible and hard to observe concepts. While the
detailed analysis of the strategizing practice in strategy research often suffers from a local and
descriptive bias, its re-interpretation in a dynamic capability perspective guarantees an
explicit interest in the link between differences with respect to their strategizing practices,
differences in firm strategy, and differences in the resulting firm performance (Grand, 2001).
An overview to the “process-oriented” approach to strategy implementation show that this
approach has been influenced by scholars conceptualization of implementation within the
strategy process (Sminia, 2009), (Hutszchenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006). The key issues of
this approach are the intentionality and rational structuring versus the emergence of strategy
and how distinct strategy implementation is considered in the strategy process (Dameron and
Torset, 2014).
Some process-oriented literature focused on strategic change, however, there is a need to
conduct implementation research for strategic continuity as well. The issue of organizational
buy-in management leadership, provision of the required culture, and strategy communication
to the organization became the focus of implementation process-oriented research (Li et al.,
2008).
The strategy-as-practice view is an attempt to look at practitioners, practices and praxis
involved in strategic activities within organization. Although there are some major
difference in the details and emphasis between proponent of the “strategy-as-process” and
“strategy-as-practice” view (Whittington, 2007), there is an agreement that both share a
( processual ) view of strategy implementation (Langley, 2007).
2.2 Balanced Scorecard approach for assessing strategy implementation success
This paper, referring to what Robert S. Kaplan (2010) argued, “Norton and I believed that :
“if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it”. In fact , Kaplan (2010), continue in his
working paper for the Harvard Business school: “after publication of the 1992, 1996 HBR
article, several companies quickly adopted the balanced scorecard giving us deeper and
broader insights into its power and potential. During the next 15 years, as it was adopted by
thousands of private, public and nonprofit enterprises around the world, we extended and
broadened the concept into management tool for describing, communicating and
implementing strategy” (Kaplan, 2010).
This paper stands for the idea that any conceptual framework to be successfully developed
must illustrate, in its design, a cause-effect relationship between the context's factors of

24 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

strategy implementation process(during implementing). Thus, using Balanced Scorecard four

perspectives; Financial, Customers, Internal process, and learning and growth, will allow
measuring objectively the degree of achieved outcomes success of strategy implementation.
3. Obstacles of Strategy Implementation Success
Developing a sound strategy is only half the battle; the more difficult task is confronting the
obstacles that prevent leaders from executing their strategies. There are a multitude of reasons
proffered to explain why planning and execution sometimes fail to deliver expected
performance (AMA/ American Management Association, 2006-2016).
Each firm is unique in terms of its portfolio of products and markets, its resources and
capabilities, its corporate culture, its administrative heritage, its structure, systems, leadership
style, and the external environment together, can describe organizational identity and overall
configuration in achieving success to formulating and implementing any organization
corporate strategy. Regarding that internal fit is not enough; the critical requirement and the
key of this complexity, is fit with external environment as well, the strategic fit is the key
(Grant, 2010).
Kurt Verweir (2014) argued the issue of strategy implementation obstacles, said that; “in
many discussions with managers who struggle with strategy implementation, he have
discovered that there are five root causes for unsuccessful strategy implementation”:
• There is too much focus on financials in strategy discussion.
• Functional strategies are not substitute for a business strategy.
• Strategy implementation is too fragmented.
• Managers communicate about strategy but forget to translate strategy into action.
• Strategy implementation requires leadership capabilities.
Wheelen and Hunger (2012) considered the following problems in implementing strategy:
1. Implementation took more time than originally planned.
2. Unanticipated major problems arose.
3. Activities were ineffectively coordinated.
4. Competing activities and crisis took attention away from implementation.
5. The involved employees had insufficient capabilities to perform their jobs.
6. Lower-level employees were inadequately trained.
7. Departmental managers provided inadequate leadership and direction.
8. Key implementation tasks and activities were poorly defined.
9. The information system inadequately monitored activities.

25 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

As for the AMA (2006-2016), the listed “Top ten factors hindering strategic execution”; with
(expectations go for 10 years, till 2016), took the ranking by relative importance in a scale of
5-points, where 1= very little and 5= very much.
Table 2. [Top Ten Factors Hindering Strategic Execution] seen by AMA 2006 and expectation
in ten years, (5 points scale relative importance):

In Ten years
Factors (2006)
(2016)
Lack of adequate resources 3.18 3.00
Government regulations 3.09 3.17
Lack of follow-through 3.08 2.85
Competitive pressures 3.06 3.24
Inadequate communication and feedback 3.06 2.88
Lack of performance management links to outcomes 3.03 2.75
Culture not ready for change 3.02 2.74
Economic conditions are not favorable 3.01 3.33
Confusion over goals or expectations 2.99 2.78
Conflicting accountabilities 2.98 2.86

In this study, we believe that obstacles and problems that could hinder strategy
implementation or causing its failure; should be included as a part of a comprehensive
conceptual model as it is proposed in this study. In fact surrounding both internal and external
factors affecting strategy implementation outcomes success and examining them empirically
will permit further conclusions in the Jordanian private universities as the case of this study.
4. Conclusions
Strategy implementation represents one of the four pillars of strategic management. This
paper reviews theoretical literature on strategy implementation, and reveals some conclusions
and important pints:
1. As Wheelen and Hunger (2012) summarized, strategy implementation is “Where the
rubber hits the road”. Environmental scanning and strategy formulation are crucial to strategic
management but are only the beginning of the process. The failure to carry a strategic plan into
day-to-day operations of the workplace is a major reason why strategic planning often fails to
achieve its objectives.
2. Whether a researcher adopt the “Factor-oriented” or the “Process-oriented” or any other
approaches in formulating a conceptual model for strategy implementation, it is vital to
consider that they all will meet others at the end, due that all attempts seek “success” for the
strategy implementation outcomes but by different ways.
3. It would be an exaggerated simplifying to investigate probable affects on strategy
implementation success by focusing only on internal context factors. The big picture shows
that business organizations as open systems, exchange affects with their external environment
as well.

26 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

4. Assessing objectively the validity of any conceptual mode / framework needs to be tested
and re-tested empirically, before deciding their validation in the real situations. Empirical
analysis of different factors and groups of variables involved in the strategy implementation
process when in reality. Strategy implementation is a cyclic process and different variables
interact with each other linearly as well as non-linearly.

Therefore, any scientific attempt seeking objectivity in studying or investigating the subject
of strategy implementation success factors, is invited to consider having a comprehensive
view . Able to surround both internal and external contexts while seeking factors affecting
formulated strategy execution process , regarding the use of : Balanced Scorecard approach
with its four perspectives; (Financial, Customers, Internal process, and learning and growth),
as well as other strategy implementation obstacles . Such a comprehensive view could
allow measuring objectively the degree of achieved outcomes success of strategy
implementation enhancing wide horizons of improvement .
References
Aaker, D.A. (1998). Developing Business Strategy. 5th Edition, by John Wiley and Sons Inc.,
New York.
AMA, American Management Association. (2006-2016). The Keys to Strategy Execution. a
global study of current trends and future possibilities.
Amjad, A. (2013). Towards Competitive Theorization of Strategy Implementation
Process-empirical evidence from Applying The RBV Lens on Implementation Process. PhD
Thesis, University of Central Lancashire, UK, May 2013.
Anderson, T.J. (2004). Integrating The Strategy Formulation Process: An International
Perspective. The European Management Journal, 22(3), 263-272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.04.008
Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy Implementation: A Role for Balanced Scorecard. Management
Decision, 44(10), 1441-1460. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610715740
Brenes, E.R., Mena, M., & Molina, G.E. (2008). Key Success Factors for Strategy
Implementation in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 590-598.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.033
Brinkschroder N. (2014). Strategy Implementation: Key Factors, Challenges and Solutions.
PhD Thesis Abstract, university of Twente Netherlands. Copyright,
http://www.purl.utwente.nl.
Cardoso, F.E., & Lavarda R.A.B. (2011). Strategy Implementation: Practical Activities
Implementing The Deliberate Strategy. V Encontro de Etuelos em Estategia, Porto
Alegre/RS- 15 a 17 de Maio de 2011.
Chiuri, B. W. (2015). Challenges of Strategy Implementation in Higher Education Institutions

27 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

in Kenya. PhD Thesis, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.

Da Costa R., L., Nelson A., & Isabel M., (2015). Consultant as Strategic practitioners.
Business, Management and Economics Research, 1(8), 107-118.
Dameron, S., & Torset, C. (2014). The Discursive Construction of Strategist's Subjectivities:
Towards a Paradox Lens on Strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), March.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12072
Dederichs, J. (2010). Strategy-As-practice: Implementing An External Growth Strategy
Within a Subsidiary" PhD Thesis, University of Surrey UK.
Franklen, A., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. (2009). Understanding The Critical Management
Elements That Lead to Success. California Management Review, 51(3).
Grand, S. (2001). Building Strategizing Capabilities in Entrepreneurial Firms. Electronic
paper accepted at the nelson and Winter Conference in Aalborg, Denmark, June 12th-15th
2001. http://www.simon.grand@unisg.ch.
Grant R., M. (2010). Contemporary Strategy and Analysis. 7th Edition by John Wiley and
Sons, Ltd, Publication United Kingdom.
Harrington, R. (2006). The Moderating Effects of Size, Managers Tactics and Involvement on
Strategy Implementation in Food Service. Hospitality Management, 2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.02.004
Hill, C.W, & Jones, G.R. (2009). Theory of Strategic Management. 8th Edition by
South-Western Cengage learning, Canada 2009.
Hill, C.W.L., & Jones, G.R. (2008). Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach. 8th
Edition, by Houghton Mifflin, Boston USA.
Hill, C.W.L, Jones G.R, Galvin, P,, & Haidar, A. (2007). Strategic Management: An Integral
Approach. 2nd Edition, by John Wiley and Sons, Australia, 2007.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R., D., & Hoskinson, R.E (2013). Strategic Management:
Competitiveness and Globalization. 10th Edition, by Mason Cengage Learning, USA.
Homburg, C., Krohmer, H., & Workman, J.P. (2004). A Strategy Implementation Perspective
of Market Orientation. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1331-1340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00069-9
Hrebiniak L.G. (2006). Obstacles to Effective Strategy Implementation. Organizational
Dynamics, 35(1), 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.12.001
Hrebiniak, L.G. (2008). Making Strategy Work: Overcoming the Obstacles to Effective
Execution. Ivey Business Journal, 72(2), 1-6.
Hrebiniak, L.G., (2005). Business Strategy: Execution is the Key. 1st Edition, by Pearson
Education Inc, New Delhi.

28 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Hrebiniak, L.G. (2013). Making Strategy Work: Leading Effective Execution and Change. 1st
Edition, by upper saddle River: Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey, USA.
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Kleindienst, I. (2006). Strategy-Process research: What Have We
Learned and What is Still to be Explored. Journal of Management, 32(5), 673-720.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306291485
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun J, & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The Challenges of a practice
Perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), 5-27.
Jazabkowski, P., & Whittington, R. (2008). A Strategy-as-Practice Approach to Strategy
Research and Education. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 282-286.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492608318150
Johnson, L.K. (2004). Execute Your Strategy Without killing it. Harvard Management
Update, 9(12), 3-6.
Kaplan R. S. (2010). Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard. Working paper no.
10-074, Harvard, Business School, Boston.
Kaplan R., S., & Norton D. P. (1996). Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy. California
Management Review, 39(1), Fall. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165876
Langley, A. (2007). Process Thinking in Strategic Organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3),
271-282, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127007079965
Li Y., Guohi S., & Eppler M. (2008). ICA working paper, "A Literature Review on Factors
Influencing Strategy Implementation. www.knowledge-communication.org
Miller, A., & Dess, G.G. (1996). Strategic Management" 2nd Edition, by McGraw-Hill Inc.
USA.
Noble, C.H, (1999). The Electric Roots of Strategy Implementation Research. Journal of
Business Research, 42(2), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00231-2
Okumus, F. (2001). Towards a Strategy Implementation Framework. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7),
327-338.https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110110403712
Okumus, F. (2003). A Framework to Implement Strategies in Organizations. Management
Decision, 41(9), 871-882. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310499555
Olson, E., Slater, S., & Hult, G. (2005). The Importance of Structure and Process to Strategy
Implementation. Business Horizons, 84(1), 47-54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.10.002
Olum, Y. (2004). Modern Management Theories and Practice. A paper presented on the 15th
East-African Central Banking Course, held on 12th July 2004 at Kenya School of Monetrary
Studies, 2004. http://www.yolum@ss.mak.ac.ug.
Peters, T., & Bay, G., (2011). A Brief History of The 7-S ("McKinsey 7-S") Model. New

29 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2017, Vol. 9, No. 3

Zealand, 09 January 2011. http://www.tompeters.com.

Pettigrew, A. (1997). What is Processual Analysis?. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
13(4), 337-348, December. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00020-1
Pryor, M., Anderson, D. Toombs, L.， & Humphreys, J. (2007). Strategic Implementation as a
Core Competency: The 5P's Model. Journal of Management Research, 7(1), 3.
Schaap, J.I. (2006). Toward Strategy Implementation Success: An Empirical Study of The
Role of Senior-Level Leaders in The Nevada Gaming Industry. Gaming Research and Review
Journal, 10, 13-37.
Siddique, I., & Shadbolt, N. (2016). Strategy Implementation Literature Review. by "Agrione.
Center of Excellence in Farm Business Management, Report, March.
Sminia, H. (2009). Process Research in Strategy Formation: Theory, Methodlogy, and
Relevance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 97-125.
Verweire K. (2014). Strategy Implementation. First edition, by Routledge, London and New
York.
Waterman, R.H, Peters, T.J, & Philips, J.R. (1980). Structure is not Organization. Business
Horizons, 23(3), 14-26, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(80)90027-0
Wheelen, T., & Huger, J. (2012). Concepts in Strategic management and Business policy,
13th Edition, by Pearson / Prentice Hall, Boston, USA.
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research. Organization
Studies, 27(5), 613-634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606064101

30 www.macrothink.org/jmr