Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Strategic Decision-making (strategic + decision-making)
Selected AbstractsStrategic decision-making in healthcare organizations: it is time to get serious,INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2006David W. Young Abstract New and continuing environmental demands and competitive forces require healthcare organizations to be increasingly careful in thinking about their strategies. They must do so in a highly unusual (multi-actor) marketplace where a variety of system interdependencies complicate decision-making. A good strategy requires an attempt to understand the real, as distinct from the perceived, environment, and is characterized by explicit tradeoffs along three dimensions: service or program variety, patient needs, and patient access. The quality of these tradeoffs can be assessed in terms of whether the strategy is (a) attuned to critical success factors in the organization's environment, (b) highly focused, (c) linked to the organization's capabilities, and (d) accompanied by an activity set that is difficult for competitors to imitate. An organization also must be capable of adapting appropriately to changes in its environment. Thus, even the best strategy must be reviewed constantly if it is to remain viable. A strategy's sustainability can be adversely affected by increased buyer or supplier power, lowered barriers to entry, growing rivalry, the threat of substitutes, and increased slack in resource usage. By thinking more creatively in the future than they have in the past, healthcare organizations can make tradeoffs and choose a focused strategic position. They then can design an activity set that is appropriate for that position, and that will assist them to achieve both financial viability and superior programmatic performance. A well-designed activity set also will assist them to sustain their performance in the face of changing environmental demands and competitive forces. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Strategic decision-making: Process perspectivesINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, Issue 1 2006Said Elbanna This paper reviews the strategic decision-making process literature with respect to the synoptic formalism/political incrementalism debate. Procedural rationality is chosen as a representative of the synoptic formalism perspective; and both intuitive synthesis and political behaviour are employed as representatives of the political-incrementalism perspective. In this paper, the author discusses the theoretical underpinnings of these three process dimensions, as well as the key research efforts gathered together under each perspective. In conducting this review, a number of areas have been identified which could profitably be examined further, and a number of implications for managers will be highlighted and discussed. [source] Harnessing the Power of the Past?JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY, Issue 4 2005Lord Hoffmann, the Belmarsh Detainees Case This article examines styles of judicial reasoning under the Human Rights Act. It uses Lord Hoffmann's short speech in the Belmarsh Detainees case as a springboard from which to explore some important developments. The first part of the article examines the way in which some judges are ,turning to the local' by using historical examples as a means of countering powerful lines of argument run by the government in defence of its anti-terrorist policies. Later in the article, I turn to investigate the use of strategic decision-making by judges when applying the HRA. I conclude by asking whether the introduction of the HRA might lead to the development of a strange counterpoint between internationalist and nationalist rhetoric in judicial decision-making. [source] Exploring the Political Side of Board Involvement in Strategy: A Study of Mixed-Ownership Institutions*JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, Issue 8 2006Davide Ravasi abstract This article reports on a comparative study of strategic decision-making and board functioning in nine firms. Findings indicate that the heterogeneity of interests represented on the board, members' possession of relevant knowledge, and the presence of ex-ante conflict resolution mechanisms combine in shaping if and how board members engage in strategy-related activities and how strategic decisions are taken. Findings extend current understandings about the strategic functions of the board (monitoring, advice, and resource-dependence), suggesting how, under certain conditions, boards may act as negotiation forums where directors search for a reconciliation between diverging shareholders' interests and views. [source] | ||||||||||