Structural Leveling of strategic objectives in Iran Alloy Steel Company

Document Type : Based on Msc

Authors

1 Assistant Prof., Department of Management, Meybod University, Meybod, Iran

2 MSc in Executive Management, Department of Management, Islamic Azad University - Yazd Branch

Abstract

Aim and introduction: Seting the strategic objectives map is considered a step to upgrade the effectiveness of company as an effective tool for aligning the strategic objectives and organizational strategies, and show the causal relationships between the strategic objectives. Drawing the strategic objectives map is done visually in the experimental space of organizations. With this method, the causal relationships between the strategic objectives in the various layers are not entirely clear, and it is unclear which the strategic objectives are interrelated. Therefore, it is essential providing an intellectual approach based on mathematics such as the Interpretive Structural Modeling for drawing the strategic objectives map. Interpretive Structural Modeling is a technique construct and understands the relationships between the elements of a complex system based on experts' opinions. The problem of this study is the uncertainty of the causal relationships between the strategic objectives in functional Levels of Iran Alloy Steel Company. Therefore, the purpose of the study is Leveling of the strategic objectives in multiple layers on the four perspectives of Balanced Scorecard in Iran Alloy Steel Company that multiple objectives are considered in each layer.
Methodology: The research category in the study is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-survey in terms of data collection method. The statistical population of the study includes 34 senior managers and experts in Iran Alloy Steel Company. In this study, the required data has been collected using library studies (documentary studies, study of domestic and foreign books and publications and search in databases) and field studies (interview and questionnaire). In the questionnaire of this study, the relationship between all the objectives in terms of how they relate and their impact on each other has been questioned. According to the 17 strategic objectives of Iran Alloy Steel Company, the number of questionnaire questions was 136. Matlab software used to draw causal relationships between the strategic objectives of the company through Interpretive Structural Modeling on the four perspectives of Balanced Scorecard in order to improve the performance of calculations and analysis.
Findings: The findings showed the relationships between the strategic objectives are leveled in 6 layers on the Balanced Scorecard. In terms of the driving power and dependence, the objectives of “Increasing investment to complete the unfinished projects in Iran Alloy Steel Company”, and “Expansion of the interactions between steel industry and research centers” were identified as the most effective objectives which were at level 6. At level 5, there was only the objective of "IT infrastructure development" which is in the category of independent (driving) objectives. At level 4, there were two objectives: "attracting efficient manpower" and "upgrading the performance of knowledge and information management" which are in the category of independent (driving) objectives. At level 3, there were seven objectives: “upgrading employee's ability”, “optimal technology management”, “development of superior technologies”, “upgrading product quality”, “development of production capacities”, “sustainable supply of raw materials, items, parts and equipment” and “promotion of social performance” which are in the category of  linkage objectives. At level 2, there were two objectives: "increasing the utilization rate of equipment" and "optimal use of assets" which are in the category of dependent objectives. Finally, at level 1, there were three objectives: “strengthening brand in target economic markets”, “increasing customer satisfaction”, and “growing profitability” which were identified as the most dependent objectives.
Discussion and Conclusion: According to the findings, Iran Alloy Steel Company to strengthen its infrastructure in the field of manpower and information technology, and the development and improvement of automation and information processing systems will be able to improve its internal processes, increase productivity, and while strengthening its brand in the market and attracting customer satisfaction to achieve profitability. Also, the results of this study are aligned and consistent with the logic of the four perspectives of balanced scorecard and real world in terms of the ISM model presented and the MICMAC analysis. For example, the five lower-level objectives in Interpretive Structural Modeling all include the learning and growth perspective of the Balanced Scorecard. Also, these are in the category of independent (driving) objectives in the MICMAC analysis, and are known as drivers for other objectives that the causal relationships between the objectives in the strategic objectives map are consistent with the balanced scorecard framework and the real world. In addition, the all objectives were located in three category of independent, linkage and dependent, and conflicting and autonomous objectives were not observed in results. However, the findings of this study in practice will enable Iran Alloy Steel Company to have a better understanding of the relationships of its objectives, and take conscious action to achieve objectives, and prioritize and budget them.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Afsharkazemi, M., Behruz, M. S., & Soufi, H. (2019). Analysis of the relation of investment criteria in the development of technology based on plan, project and portfolio Using ISM and DEMATEL. Modiriat-e-Farda Journal, 18(59), 177-200.
  2. Agrawal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. (2007). Modeling agility of supply chain. Industrial marketing management, 36(4), 443-457.
  3. Akbarian, M., & Najafi, A. (2014). Drawing Strategy Plan in Balanced Score Card by using DEMATEL Method. Industrial Management Studies, 12(34), 133-154. (In Persian)
  4. Aliahmadi, A. R., Jafari Eskandari, M., Khaleghi, G. H., & Salsabil, M. (2014). Determine causal relationships effect of science and technology development indices based on interpretative structural modeling and grey cognitive mapping approach base of BSC (Case Study: Iran University of Science and Technology). Quantitative Researches in Management, 5(2), 53-72. (in Persian)
  5. Aliahmadi, M. H., Razavi, S. M., & Safari, H. (2015). A model for designingstrategic map and guiding strategies. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 6(23), 113-136. (in Persian) 
  6. Attri, R., Dev, N., & Sharma, V. (2013). Interpretive structural modelling (ism) approach: an overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), 3-8.
  7. Azar, A., Khosravani, F., & Jalali, R. (2013). Soft operational research: Problem structuring approaches. Industrial Management Organization. Tehran. (in Persian)
  8. Azar, A., Tizroo, A., Moghbel Baarz, A., & Anvary Rostamy, A. (2001). Modeling the agility of supply chain using interpretive structural modeling approach. Management Research in Iran, 14(4), 1-25. (in Persian)
  9. Bazargani, H., Fathi, M. R., & Mohaghar, A. (2016). Designing a strategy map for power plant industry. Iranian journal of management sciences, 11(42), 125-139. (in Persian)

10. Bo, H., Leopold-Wildburger, U., & Strohhecker, J. (2017). Strategy map concepts in a balanced scorecard cockpit improve performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 664-676.

11. Bolanos, R., Fontela, E., Nenclares, A., & Paster, P. (2005). Using interpretive structural modeling in strategic decision-making groups. Management decision, 43(6), 877-895.

12. Dehghanan, H., Nasehifar, V., Bamdadsofi, J., & Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, M. (2019). Effective factors of multilevel performance management based on a balanced scorecard (Case Study: Applied Higher Education Institution of Applied Water and Power). Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 9(36), 113-128. (in Persian)

13. Drost, E.A. (2011). Validity and Reliability in Social Science Research. Education Research & Perspectives, 38(1), 105-123.

14. Erabi, S. M., & Hakak, M. (2008). Designing a strategic control model for Iranian industries (Based on BSC).Management Studies in Development and Evolution, 15(58), 1-21. (in Persian)

15. Gaderi, E., Maqsoodi, K., & Pirayesh, R. (2014). Compilation and evaluation of strategic plans. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 5(19), 195-236. (in Persian)

16. Jassbi, J., Mohamadnejad, F., & Nasrollahzadeh, H. (2011). A fuzzy DEMATEL framework for modeling cause and effect relationships of strategy map. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 5967–5973.

17. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). The strategy map: guide to aligning intangible assets. Strategy and Leadership, 32 (5), 10-17.

18. Khaki, GH. (2011). A Method with Thesis Writing Approaching, Tehran: Publications of State Scientific Researches Center. (in Persian)

19. Lashkar Bolooki, M. (2017). Strategy Implementation. Tehran: Aryana ghalam. (in Persian)

20. Lim, M.K., Tseng, M.L., Tan, K.H., & Bui, T.D. (2017). Knowledge management in sustainable supply chain management: Improving performance through an interpretive structural modelling approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 806-816.

21. Magliocca, L. A., & Christakis, A. N. (2001). Creating transforming leadership for organizational change: the cogniscope system aproach. System Research and Behavioral Science, 18(3), 259-277.

22. Mahmoudi Meymand, M. & Akbari, M. (2016). Design and development of organizational KM strategy map based on ISM approach. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 6(24), 211-233. (in Persian)

23. Nurcahyo, R., Pustiwari, S., & Gabriel, D. S. (2018). Developing a strategy map based on sustainability balanced scorecard framework for manufacturing industry in Indonesia. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7 (2.34), 48-51.

24. Olia, M. S., Mirghafoori, S. H., & Shahvazian, S. (2011). Conducting strategic map of organization with the use of ISM. Journal of Business Administration Researches, 2(4), 92-106. (in Persian)

25. Rezaei Ghahraman, M. R., & Aghasidehosseini, S. R. (2011). Twelve Steps to Developing and Implementing a Balanced Scorecard and Determining Performance Indicators. Tehran: Barga Publishing. (in Persian)

26. Safdary Ranjbar, M., Mansour, S., & Azami, A. (2015). Prioritizing and analyzing the interaction among factors effective on the success of new product development projects by ISM and DEMATEL. Production and Operations Management, 6(1), 149-170. (in Persian)

27. Seif, A. (2010). Educational Measurement, Assessment and Evaluation. Tehran: Doran. (in Persian)

28. Shahsavari Pour, N., Sayadi, H., & Ahang, F. (2017). Drawing strategic map for organizational structures. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 7(28), 143-168. (in Persian) 

29. Shahsavari Pour, N., Heydarbeigi, S., & Ahang, F. (2017). Drawing strategy map for food and drug products. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 8(30), 151-172. (in Persian)  

  1. Thakkar, J., Deshmukh, S. G., Gupta, A. D., & Shankar, R. (2006). Development of a balanced scorecard: An integrated approach of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP). International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(1), 25-59.

31. Yadav, N. (2019). Total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) of strategic performance management for Indian telecom service providers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(4), 421-445.

32. Warfiel, J. W. (1974). Developing interconnected matrices in structura modelling, IEEE transcript on systems. Men and Cybernetics, 4(1), 51-81.

33. Zarei, A., & Izadkhah, M. (2015). Interpretive structural modeling of strategy map in the holding company. Management Research in Iran, 19(3), 141-166. (in Persian)

34. Zarei Mahmoudabadi, M., Tahari Mehrjardi, M.H., & Mohebbi, H. (2013). Presentation a new model for measuring the performance of participating nations at the international game. Journal of Sport Management Review, 5(17), 105-123. (in Persian)

Journal of Strategic Management Studies
Volume 12, Issue 45
March 2020
Pages 205-224

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 November 2019
  • Revise Date: 15 January 2020
  • Accept Date: 15 January 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics