Long Range Planning, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 11 to 23, 1993 Printed in Great Britain
00246301/93 $6.00 + .OO 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd
0
11
Optimizing Profitability in Turbulent Environments A Formula for Strategic Success :
H. Igor Ansoff and Patrick A. Sullivan
This article describes a formula for strategic success which states that the profitability of a firm is optimized when its strategic behaviour is aligned with its environment. The formula was developed over a 25-year period and has been extensively field tested. The article briefly reviews other prescriptions for profit optimization which now compete for management attention, presents the formula, discusses the results of the field research, and describes a practical strategic diagnosis procedure which can be used to determine a firm’s preparedness to succeed in the future.
l
Strategic Planning (Ansoff 1965) Back to Baric$ Emerging Strategy (Mintzberg) Logical lncrementslism (Quinn) Stick to Strategic Knitting (Peters 8nd Waterman) * Return to the Core Business Put Your Customers First No Company is Going to Survive by Virtue of its History {Kuehler) Build the Future On Your Historical Strengths l
l
l
l
l
l
l
.l
The Problem For the first 50 years of the twentieth century the formula for optimizing profitability of firms appeared to be clear and unambiguous. Based on microeconomic theory, this formula was to manufacture an undifferentiated product at the least possible unit cost and to offer it to the market at the lowest price. This formula worked with outstanding success during the first 30 years of the twentieth century and was claimed to be universally applicable in all industries and market places. During the 1930s the first signs of difficulty appeared in the United States, and 10-20 years later in the increasing other industrialized countries. An number of firms found that the microeconomic success formula no longer optimized growth and profitability. As a result, managers and academics began to search for alternative formulas for profit optimization. Professor lgor Ansoff is a Distinguished Professor of Strategic Management at the U.S. International University in San Diego, California. He has been a leading pioneer in the development of strategic planning and strategic management and has published over 100 articles and books. Dr Patrick A. Sullivan is an Associate Professor of Strategic Management at US. International University in San Diego, California, and a partner in Sullivan & Associates, a management consulting firm.
Figure
1. Prescriptions
for optimizing
profitability
Over the years a long list of replacements for the microeconomic formula has appeared in business and academic literature. A selected list of these formulas is illustrated in Figure 1. All of these formulas have common characteristics: they are proposed by reputable researchers or experienced managers yet they all appear to contradict one another; most of the formulas have worked in some firms and failed in others, and each was claimed by its proponent to be a formula that would lead to profitability if properly applied. One of the important results of the research reported in this paper is that all of these formulas are valid under different environmental conditions. These conditions will be discussed later.
Historical
Success Patterns
A study of patterns of business success over the past 90 years begins to explain the paradoxical state of the success prescriptions described above. A somewhat simplified pattern of success behaviours, which evolved since the 1900s in the U.S., is
12
Long
Range
Planning
Vol.
26
October
shown in Figure 2. The milestone dates shown in the Figure apply to the U.S.A. and the same patterns have been observed 20 to 50 years later in other industrialized nations. As Figure 2 shows, during the first 30 years of the twentieth century success came to production driven firms which used the microeconomic success formula. The most visible example of such firms was the Ford Motor Company led by Mr Henry Ford I who pioneered the development of mass production technology and insisted on selling his cars ‘in any color so long as it was black’. In the 1930s some firms, notably those in consumer goods industries, became market driven by shifting their attention to satisfying customer needs and/or convincing the customer that their products were superior to those of competitors. The pioneer in this shift was the General Motors Corporation under the leadership of Alfred P. Sloan. About 1940 some other firms, primarily in industrial goods industries, shifted to product development driven behaviour by basing the firm’s success on the continual improvement of their products. The appearance of the Second Industrial Revolution in the 1940s led to a proliferation of research driven firms which succeeded through marketing products incorporating the latest state of the art technology. A majority of these firms were in the defence and aerospace industries. A significant number of firms such as pharmaceuticals and computers, showed that research driven behaviour could also be a success in civilian industries.
Figure
2. Driving
forces
for
succcss
1993 The four success behaviours discussed above had one common feature. In each of them behaviour was dominated by one of the four key functional activities found in all firms: production, marketing, product development or advanced research. As Figure 2 shows, since the 1950s firms in each category began to shift to the environment driven behaviour. Such firms continually evaluate the future critical success factors in their businesses and recognize that, in the environment of the 199Os, no single function is the success-determining function. As a result, all functions that are important to the firm’s success are allowed to exert influence on the firm’s strategy. Consequently, general management, and not the management of one of the functions, is the dominant guiding force in environment driven firms; and it balances contributions of the four functions in a way which optimized the firm’s future profit potential. Furthermore, environment driven firms, unlike the single function driven firms, do not make the assumption that their markets will continue to grow and remain profitable in the future. They continually monitor the environment for signs of demand saturation, technology substitution, structural changes in consumer demand, social and political discontinuities, and assess the future inherent profitability and growth in their historical markets. And, if the prospects in any of the firm’s markets loom unprofitable, environment driven firms search for an enter new areas of opportunity, while they divest from the unpromising market.
Optimizing
Profitability
in Turbulent
Environments:
An example of such firms was the American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation which, following deregulation of the telecommunications industry, converted itself from a production driven into an environment driven firm. Similarly Apple computers and Hewlett Packard shifted from the technology driven to the environment driven behaviour. Typically, such firms become more they were before the transformation.
successful
than
A Formula
for Strategic
formula. We will call it the Success Formula OY CSSF.
Environmental
Success Contingent
13 Strategic
Turbulence
The Contingent Strategic Success Formula is based on three key variables. The first is the Environmental Turbulence which is a measure of the degree of changeability (or discontinuity) and predictability of the_tirm’s environment.
As Figure 2 suggests, while many firms are shifting to the environment driven orientation, others remain successful using their historical success formulas. Over the past 10 years Ansoffhas gathered data from more than a thousand firms, in developed and rapidly developing countries around the world, on the success formulas which these firms expected to use in order to succeed in the 1990s.
In the Contingent Strategic Success Formula, Environmental Turbulence is the external variable, whose values specify the type of behaviour necessary for success. It is described by five different turbulence levels. Each level is further described by four factors which determined the turbulence level.
The results of this research show that in the 1990s about 85 per cent of firms expect to be environment driven in at least one of their Strategic Business Units (SBUs). The remaining SBUs are likely to be using one of the other four success behaviours.’
(2) Familiarity
These results suggest an explanation of the paradoxical claims of universal applicability by the proponent of the respective success formulas shown in Figure 1. The explanation is simply that in the environment of the 1990s there is no single success _formula which has universal validity.
Descriptions of the four elements at each turbulence level are shown in Figure 3. The environment at turbulence level 1 is essentially unchanging. When change does occur, it is very slow and response is gradual over a long period of time.
The results also suggest a need for a contingent success formula which consists of a series of different formulas and identifies the conditions under which each formula becomes successful. The remainder of this paper is devoted to presenting such a contingent
Figure
COMPLEXITY
National Economic
FAMILIARI-W OF EVENTS
Familiar
RAPIDITY OF CHANGE
Slower Than Response
Comparable to Response
VISIBILITY OF FUTURE
Recurring
Forecastable
3. Environmental
turbulence
(1)
of the successive
occur
(4)
Visibility
of the consequences
in the en-
events;
(3) Rapidity with which the events evolve are first perceived; and
after they
of these events.
In an environment at turbulence level 2, change is slow incremental. Change is slow and a firm can respond in the time between initial and full impact. Changes is as fast incremental in an environment at turbulence level 3. The future is a logical extension
+
Global Socio-Political
Discontinuous Familiar
Discontinuous Novel
Regional Technological
+
Extrapolable
scale
of E vents which
Complexity vironment;
Faster Than Response Predictable
Partially Predictable
Much Faster Than Response Unpredictable Suprises
Long
14
Range
Planning
Vol.
26
October
1993
of the historical past. Firms at this level must have a forward-looking strategy so response can start before initial impact.
the focus of attention environment.
At turbulence level 4, change is very fast and and the future is only partially discontinuous, predictable. Since the future bears little or no resemblance to the historical past, firms must have both a forward-looking strategy, and an environmental scanning system that is not based on extrapolation of the past.
Responsiveness of General Management Capability
The environment at turbulence level 5 is full of surprises. Change is moving so fast, and the environment is so unpredictable that even wellmanaged firms will experience strategic surprises. In a particular environment, the turbulence level is determined by using Figure 3 to select the subvariable (complexity, familiarity, rapidity and visibility), which best describes the environment, and then computing their average.
Strategic
Aggressiveness
The second variable in the formula is the Strategic Aggressiveness of a firm’s behaviour in the external environment. The level of strategic aggressiveness is determined by two elements: (1)Th e dg e ree 0fh c an gbt e e ween a firm’s successive strategic moves in the environment. (2) The database
used in choosing
Descriptions of the level of turbulence Figure 4. A firm’s determined just like
the moves.
two elements at the respective are shown in the lower part of strategic aggressiveness level is the turbulence level, except that
is now on thejirm
and not on the
The third variable in the CSSF is the Responsiveness of a jrm’s General Management. Description of the responsiveness levels is shown in the lower part of Figure 5. For purposes of this paper, general management responsiveness is measured by a single subvariable: The Way the Firm Manages Change. (In practical applications responsiveness is described by a number of elements (see Figure 5 below).
Contingent
Success Formula
Figure 6 summarizes Figures 3,4 and 5 and presents the formula in tabular form. In words the formula is stated as follows: For optimum profitability the levels of both the strategic aggressiveness andgeneral management responsiveness of the firm must be aligned with the environmental turbulence level.
Validation of the Contingent Strategic Success Formula The key concepts of the Contingent Strategic Success Formula were developed by Ansoff over a period of 25 years.‘” During this period Ansoff presented many occasions to senior managers,
the formula incorporated
DISCONTINUOUS SUPRISEFUL Discontinuous Discontinuous Predictable Change Unpredictable Change
ENVIRONMENTAL TURBULENCE
REPETITIVE No Change
EXPANDING Slow Incremental Change
CHANGING Fast Incremental Change
AGGRESSIVENESS
STABLE
REACTIVE
ANTICIPATORY
ENTREPRENEUR
CREATIVE
Discontinuous Novel
Figure
DEGREE OF CHANGE
Zero
Incremental
Incremental
Discontinuous Familiar
DATA BASE
Historical precedents
Historical Experience
Extrapolated
Future Opportunities
4. Matching
aggressiveness
to turbulence
Creativity
on it
Optimizing
Profitability
ENVIRONMENTAL TURBULENCE
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Figure
5. Matching
STRATEGIC AGGRESSMNESS
RESPONSIVENESS OF GENERAL MANAGEMENT CAPABlLllY
6. Matching
in consulting practice.
No Change
mental Change
Supressess Change
Adapts to Change
Fast Incremental Change
Seeks Familiar Change
for Strategic
Success
15
DISCONTINUOUS Discontinuous Discontinuous Predictable Change Unpredictable Change‘
Seeks Related Change
Seeks Novel Change
to turbulence
EXPANDING Slow Incremental Change
CHANGING Fast Incremental Change
DlSCONTlNUOUS Discontinuous Predictable Change
SUPRISEFUL Discontinuous Unpredictable Change
STABLE Stabe based on Precedents
REACTIVE Incremental Change Based on Experience
ANTlClPATORY Incremental Change Based on Extrapolation
ENTREPRENEURAL Discontinuous New Strategies Based on Observable Opportunities
CREATIVE Discontinuous Novel Strategies Based on Creativity
STABILITY SEEKING Rejects Change
EFFICIENCY DRIVEN Adapts to Change
MARKET DRIVEN Seeks Familiar Change
ENVIRONMENT DRIVEN Seeks Related Change
ENVIRONMENT CREATING Seeks Novel Change
REPETITIVE No Change
aggressiveness
and responsiveness
and used it in consulting
On all of these occasions the formula received a favourable reception. However, such credibility test was also passed by most of the other success formulas described in Figure 1, and later turned out to be valid in some cases and invalid in others. Thus, the ‘favourable reception’ credibility test does not guarantee that any of the formulas will optimize the profitability of firms which use it. With this in mind, during the period from 1984 to 1992, the authors of this paper conducted a series of empirical tests of the CSSF” in The Strategic Management Doctoral Program at the U.S. International University in San Diego, California. These tests are summarized below.“‘” ‘CSSF=the
A Formula
CHANGING
EXPANDING Slow Incre-
turbulence,
intruments,
Environments:
REPEllTlVE
responsiveness
ENVIRONMENTAL TURBULENCE
Figure
in Turbulent
contingent strategic success formula.
Figures 3, 4 and 5 were expanded into a detailed questionnaire expressed in managerial language. The questionnaire was administered in nine different settings to senior managers of enterprises in seven different types of firms and five countries. A total of 420 firms was studied. The list of settings is shown in Figure 7. Managers used the questionnaire to diagnose the average environmental ?turbulence, strategic aggressiveness, and responsiveness of general management capability over the 5-year period immediately prior to administration of the questionnaire. In addition to responding to questionnaires, each firm also supplied data on their average financial performance. As the next step, the alignment of the firm’s strategy and capability with the environmental turbulence
16
Long
Range
Planning
Vol.
October
26
1993 Figure 8 illustrates the application of the gap concept to the measurement of alignment.
THE STARTEGIC SUCCESS FORMULA HAS BEEN STATlSTlCALLY PROVED IN THE FOLLOWlNG SETTINGS (A TOTAL OF 420 FIRMS):
Conclusions
from the Research*
(1) There
is no single success formula which can guarantee optimum profitability to all firms.
United States (Total 210) l Manufacturing Firms (43) l Retail and Service Firms tl6) l Federal Service Agency (69) l Regional Banks in San Diego (16) l Major U.S. Banks (28) l Savings & Loan Banks (39)
(2) Instead
formula level.
Strategic Success Formula provides a ‘conceptual umbrella’ which identifies the environmental turbulence levels at which success prescriptions found in management literature become valid. Figure 9 demonstrates this by matching names of distinguished management scientists who offered (apparently contradictory) success formulas with turbulence levels at which the formulas become valid.
Algeria (Total (34) l State-Owned Enterprises
Ethiopia (Total 54) l Statc&vvnad
Figure
7. Research
Manufacturing Firms
Manufacturing Firms
settings
was computed and compared performance of the firm.
with
the
financial
The alignment of environmental turbulence and a firm’s response was measured by the respective gaps between the level of turbulence and the level of strategic aggressiveness on the one hand, and general management responsiveness level on the other hand. For technical details of the research the reader is referred to Empirical Proof of A Paradigmic Theory of Success Behaviors in Environment Serving Organizations, Ansoff, Sullivan eta/., international Review of Strategic Management, Vol. 4 (II. E.. Hussey, ed), John Wiley and Sons, 1993.
CSSF deals only with (4) As its name implies, strategic behaviour of the firm. Once the strategic behaviour (which generates a firm’s pro@ potential in the form of new products, markets, and technologies and competitive strategies) is completed, the firm’s operating bchaviour must also be optimized before the firm can realize optimum profitability. The results of the research on CSSF show that firms which succeed strategically tend to be successful operationally.
Consequences 1990s
*For Research
,{ p
RESPONSIVENESS OF GENERAL MANGEMENT CAPABILITY
the gap concept
Findings,
see Appendix
.#r Aggresive-
’
8. Using
for Managing
to measure
alignment
in the
According to CSSF, firms which aspire to succeed during shifts in turbulence must anticipate and respond to such shifts.
AGGRESIVENESS
Figure
is a different contingent success each environmental turbulence
(3) The
United Arab Emirates (Total 25) l Western Banks
Indonesia tTotal(97) PrivatelyOwned
there for
,J? ness Gap 2’ 5: ;;c Capability Gap
1 % j, 2 $
1.
Optimizing
Profitability
in Turbulent
Environments:
A Formula for Strategic Success
17
Ansoff & McDonnell (19901 Henry Mintzberg (1990)
Ansoff 0970)
Cyert & March (1963)
Peters &Waterman (1982)
Ansoff, Declerk, Hays (1974)
Brian Quinn tl98Ot
Ansoff (3966)
Michael Porter (19801
Simon & March (1958)
Hemy Mintzberg* 11990) * Applies in Technology Driven Environments
I
I
J
3
4
5
A.P. Chandler (1962)
Cohen, March & Olsen (1972)
Lindblom (1959)
1
2
ENVIRONMENTAL TURBULENCE LEVEL
Figure 9. ‘Umbrella’ A mangement
nature of the contingent
system, derived from CSSF,
success formula application diagnosis.
called
Strategic Mangement provides practical management tools which assure that a firm’s profitability will be optimized in thefuture. These procedures are briefly
described below. (For a detailed description Strategic Management see ref. 6). (1) The first step is strategic diagnosis,
used at the beginning of a jirm’s cycle. The diagnosis identifies the gaps between a
firm’s present strategic aggressiveness and general management capability and the aggressiveness/capability which will be needed for success in the future (see ref. 16). Figure 10, which is a modification of Figure 9 , shows the
If both gaps are less than one, the firm is strategically ready for the future. (Although some improvements may be needed).
(3)
If the general management capability gap is greater than one, a discontinuous transformation of the general management capability must be made.
Figure 11 shows optimum profiles of general management capability at different turbulence levels. As the Figure shows, a gap of one requires a
FUTURE ENJ\IIRQNMENTAL TURBWLENCE ENVIRONMENtAL TURBULENCE
STf?ATEGIC AGGRESSIVENESS
RESPONSIVENESS OF GENERAL MANGEMENT CAPABIUTY
Figure 10. Strategic diagnosis
’
2
to strategic
(4
of
which should be annual planning
of gap measurement
3
4
6
Long
Range
Planning
KEY MANAGER(S)
I I
I I
26
October
Custodian
CULTURE
REWARDS
Vol.
Stabitty Seeking
I
FOR
/ Longetivity
PROBLEM SOLVING
KEY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Growth Leader
Entrepreneur
Efficiency Seeking
Growth Seeking
Opportunity Seeking
Profitability
Future Profti Potential
Creativity
Opportunity Finding
Opportunity Creating
Entrepreneurial Strategic Planning Strong Signal Issue Management
Entrepreneurial Stmtegic Planning Weak Signal Issue Management Suprise Management
1 Min~~tion
Optimizing
Diagnostic
Policies Procedures
l
l
l
Controller
I
Change Control
l
1993
Flnencial Control Budgeting
l
Extrapolative Strategic Planning
Creator
I
I
Opportunity Creating
I
I
I
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
KEY DATA BASE
I
I
Figure
Precedents
11. Optimum
general
Past Performance
Such discontinuous izational resistance
management
transformations to change.
Weak Signals
I
I
discontinuous transformation of key mindset, organizational culture, etc.
Vision of the Future
Extrapolation of Past Performance
capability
managers’
trigger
organ-
the general management capability (4) Therefore, transformation process must include anticipation, diagnosis, reduction and control of resistance to change (see part 6 of ref. 6). gap is greater than (5) If the strategic aggressiveness one, the competitive strategy of the firm must be transformed.6,‘7 11 shows, if the expected fittrre (6) As Figure environmental turbulence level is 4 or 5, the _firm must install three new key management systems: entrepreneurial strategic planning, issue management, and at level 5, surprise management. All three of these systems have been developed recently and are not yet widely used. Figure 12 describes the key differences between entrepreneurial strategic planning and extrapolative strategic planning (which is widely used in current practice). (For a description of the new systems see ref. 6.) The Strategic Management System must be used in turbulent environments. It consists of the following components :
1
I
profiles
In environments with frequent Turbulence Levels: (1)
Strategic
shifts in Environmental
Diagnosis
(2) Transformation ability
of General
(3) Transformation
of Strategy
(4) Anticipation, of resistance
diagnosis, to change.
environments
at Turbulence
In
Management
reduction
Levels
Cap-
and control
4 and 5:
(1) Entrepreneurial Strategic Planning (2) Real Time Strategic Response (Issue
Manage-
ment)
(3)
Surprise
(4)
Strategic
Management Control
Figure 13 shows a flow Management System.
diagram
of The
Strategic
Summary This paper presented a research-validated Contingent Strategic Success Formula which specifies the conditions under which a firm’s profitability is optimized.
Optimizing
I
I
Profitability
1. Turbulence Level
in Turbulent
1-3
I
2. Assumption About Future Environment
A Formula for Strategic Success
4-5
I
Extrapolation of the Past
Discontinuous From the Past
Strategy
Strategic Posture (Strategy + Capability + Strategic Investment)
Historical Success Which Matches ESO’s Strengths
+
Creatively Visualized Success Which Will Optimize ESO’s l Performance
Familiar
Unfamiliar
6. Organizational Renewal
Incremental
Discontinuous
7. Anticipation of Suprises
None
Active Anticipation
3. Planning of:
4. Planning Method
5. Type of Risk
I
Environments:
8. Control
I
I
Periodic/Operating
I
I
Real Time/Strategic
I
* ES0 = Environmental Serving Organfsattans
Figure 12. Comparison
of extrapolative
Figure 13. Strategic management
system
and entrepreneurial
strategic planning
19
I
I
I
20
Long
Range
Planning
Vol.
October
26
1993
PERFORMANCE OF 59 U.S. FIRMS VS STRATEGIC GAP ROI of Company / ROI of Industry
Small Gap e 1 DISSERTATION
PERFORMANCE OF 40 SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS VS MANAGER CULTURE PROFILE GAP Financial
Performance
Small Gap < 1
Large Gap > 1 PEIN WANG 1991
Figure 14. Strategic effectiveness vs performance loan associations, Indonesian firms
1986
PERFORMANCE OF 54 INDONESIAN VS STRATEGIC GAP
Index
DISSERTATION
Large Gap > 1
PETER HATZIANTONIOU
ROI & ROS of Company
Small Gap c 1 DISSERTATION
U.S.
manufacturing,
FIRMS
/ ROI & ROS of Industry
Large Gap > 1
SETIADI DJOHAR 1991
wholesale,
retail firms,
savings
and
Optimizing
Figure 15. Strategic Emirates banks
Profitability
effectiveness
in Turbulent
Environments:
vs performance
San Diego
A Formula
banks,
major
for Strategic
U.S.
banks,
Success
United
Arab
21
22
Long Range Planning Vol. 26
October
1993
Figure 16. Strategic effectiveness vs performance Ethiopian state owned enterprises, Algerian state owned enterprises, U.S. Federal public works organizations
Optimizing
Profitability
in Turbulent
Environments:
These conditions consist of five matching levels of environmental turbulence, strategic aggressiveness and the responsiveness of general management capability.
A Formula
for Strategic
Success
23
(11) Alfred Olanrewaju
Lewis, Strategic Posture and Financial Performance of the Banking Industry in California: A Strategic Management Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business and Management, United States International University (1989).
(12) Abainesh Mitiku, The Relationship of General Management Capability with Performance in State-Owned Industrial Enterprises in Ethiopia A Strategic Approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business and Management, United States International University (1991).
A systematic management process derived from the Success Formula-the Strategic Management System-was briefly described. (13)
Tamer Tamer Salameh, Analysis and Financial Performance of the Banking Industry in United Arab Emirates: A Strategic Management Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business and Management, United States International University (1987).
(14)
Patrick A. Sullivan, The Relationship Between Proportion of Income Derived From Subside and Strategic Performance of a Federal Agency Under the Commercial Activities Program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business and Management, United States International University (1987).
(15)
Pien Wang, Determinants of Perceptions of Environmental Turbulence and Strategic Responses of Savings and Loan Top Managers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business and Management, United States International University (1991).
(16)
H. lgor Ansoff, ANSPLAN-CD. Computer Based Interactive Program for Strategic Diagnosis (1992). (A proprietary product.)
(17)
H. lgor Ansoff, ANSPLAN-A Computer Based Interactive Program for Competitive Strategy Analysis (1990) (A proprietary product.)
References (1) H. lgor Ansoff, Management Expectations of Future Success Behaviors, unpublished results (1992).
(2) (3)
H. lgor Ansoff, Corporate Strategy, McGraw Hill (1965). H. lgor Ansoff, Roger Declerk, and Robert Hays, From Strategic to Strategic Management, John Wiley and Sons, London (1976)
Planning
(4)
H. lgor Ansoff, Strategic don (1979).
(5)
H. lgor Ansoff, Implanting London (1984).
(6)
Management,
Strategic
Macmillan Press, Lon-
Management,
Prentice Hall,
H. lgor Ansoff and Edward McDonnell, Implanting Prentice Hall, London (1990).
Strategic
Management,
(7)
Hassane Chabane, Restructuring and Performance in Algerian State-Owned Enterprises: A Strategic Management Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business and Management, United States International University (1987).
(8)
Setiadi Djohar, The Relationships Between Strategic Effectiveness, Competitive Efficiency and Performance in Indonesian Firms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business and Management, United States International University (1991).
(9)
Peter Hatziantoniou, The Relationship of Environmental Turbulence, Corporate Strategic Profile, and Company Performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business and Management, United States International University (1986).
(19)
Reuben Mietamuno Jaja, Technology and Banking: The Implications of Technological Change on the Financial Performance of Commercial Banks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business and Management, United States International University (1989).
Appendix
1. Research
The contingent strategic success validated in all nine projects.
Findings hypothesis
was
strongly
The probability that the results were obtained by chance was very small. (p =0.04 to p