5 minutes
Strategy evaluation criteria
Dr..
Alaa Jarad
Garad@alaagarad.com
January 11, 2021
Last week's article dealt with the importance of evaluating the strategy in its three phases, pre, intermediate and subsequent, and usually the subsequent evaluation takes the lion’s share, followed by the interim evaluation, and then at the end the pre-evaluation. In the various sectors, I encountered only four institutions that were concerned with pre-evaluation, to ensure the quality of their strategy and their alignment with implementation, then success was their ally, and they deserve to be called truly learning-driven institutions, as they always sought to obtain internal pre-evaluation through their cadres, and external from Through competent experts and neutral parties.
Seymour Tiles, one of the most important professors of strategy evaluation, says that if we agree that the strategy is simply a set of goals and plans for an organization, despite the simplicity of the definition, agreeing on a roadmap, in which all managers in the organization believe, and insist on It's not easy to implement.
Consequently, Tails sets six main criteria that can be relied upon in the pre-evaluation of the strategy to avoid its failure. These criteria are:
First: Internal consistency, which means the existence of policies that support and support that strategy, and the harmony of those policies with each other, for example when the strategy depends to a large extent on the human element in implementation, and there are no appropriate policies to empower workers, educate them, or appreciate their efforts, then the strategy will not succeed, due to the absence Pivotal policies.
Second: Consistency and suitability with the external environment, because the institution does not operate in isolation from the external environment, so it must be ensured that the surrounding challenges and threats are studied. For example, if the strategy depends on the existence of an advanced digital infrastructure, is that available .. and to what extent?
There are many examples of companies that invested huge sums in technology that did not reap the benefits, due to the poor digital infrastructure in the country in which the company operates, and government legislation and policies must be considered.
- Third: the appropriateness and availability of the available resources to implement the strategy, as there are strategies that depend on the premise of obtaining funding from one party, and placing all the eggs in one basket, and the donor may not fulfill the funding.
Fourth: The appropriate degree of risk, there is no work without risks, but the institution must be well aware of its ability to accept the degree of risk, and whether it has acceptance of high risks, medium risks, or only simple risks.
Fifth: The appropriate time range, and here the size of the organization plays an important role, as the decision-making process in large enterprises takes longer than medium and small enterprises, as well as the time to introduce the product to the market plays a fundamental role in competition and the success or failure of the strategy.
And finally: the feasibility of the strategy, and you can simply take the opinion of neutral experts on the success of that strategy.
Of course, there are many management tools that, if used effectively, help in weaving the strategy from the start.
No business is without risk, but the organization must be well aware of its ability to accept the degree of risk.
@Anime_Games
Garad@alaagarad.com
To read the previous articles of the writer please click on its name .
Garad@alaagarad.com