پديد آورندگان :
قديمي، وحيد دانشگاه فردوسي مشهد , مطهري فريماني، ناصر دانشگاه فردوسي مشهد - دانشكده علوم اداري و اقتصاد - گروه مديريت , پويا، عليرضا دانشگاه فردوسي مشهد - دانشكده علوم اداري و اقتصاد - گروه مديريت
چكيده لاتين :
The structure of the strategy is a hierarchy that links a general strategy to more detailed details. An initial look at these structures reveals similarities and differences. Today's existence of this diversity is the source of new problems for strategic planners and managers.
Introduction
Diverse experts have explained the organizations’ general strategies and each from his or her viewpoint has explained the structure of these strategies. But the adaptive measures of the diverse strategy structures have not been noted. The present research has been done so as to reduce the ambiguity of the Iranian managers and planners which derive from the different strategy structures.
The strategy concept is a hierarchy that binds a general strategy to more detailed strategies. A preliminary look at these structures reveals their similarities and differences.
In one type of organization, organizational strategies can be identified in two types: general strategies and specialized strategies. Strategic strategies are strategies that are monopolized by an organization, industry or specific geographic range, and can never be a potential option for all organizations. In contrast to the general strategies, there are strategies that can be placed on the management board of all organizations for selection.
A common practice in strategic planning is to measure a valid pattern and structure that has taken its credibility from its own opinion. For this reason, for strategic planners whose practice is to use standardized strategy structures, the complexity of the future structure may lead to strategic pricing for their organization. The seemingly minor but important differences in various strategies of the strategy may indicate the existence of imperfections in these structures and their lack of comprehensiveness.
Materials and Methods
In this research; the first step was to find out the most frequent general strategy structures that have academic and executive usage in Iran. After that these were compared and contrasted. Comparative comparison was done through two phase. In the first phase, comparison between structures was done pairwise. In the next phase, the results of pair comparison summarized in the term of intersections, differences and circumscriptions. Differences emerged at three subject: in the tilted of strategy, in the concept of strategy and in structural position of strategy. Intersections included strategies that have same title, concept and position in different structures.
In this study, in order to increase the accuracy level, the study was carried out in two stages: in the first stage, the comparison between the structures was made in two ways, and in the next step, the results of paired comparisons were summed up in the form of commons, differences, and monopolies of the structures.
Discussion and Results
The purpose of this study was to provide an answer to the differences in the various strategies of the strategy to make the options on the table more transparent for strategic planners. To this end, valid and widely applicable public sector structures in the developed country were considered comparable. The main results of this comparison were as follows: Integration and diversity strategies were common in all structures. Competitive strategies, market development, product development, partnership, reduction in two or more structures are mentioned. The focus strategy has appeared in different structures with the same name but different meanings. Growth strategies, horizontal diversity, innovation, and stability are proposed only in a structure.
At the end of the comparative survey results, a comprehensive structure of public strategies was inferred, which could serve as a comprehensive reference point for organizational strategies for strategic planners. This structure states that strategies at the business level should include three categories of growth, stability and reduction. The growth strategy will be of two types: competitive and participatory. The stability strategy consists of three types of profit, no change and stop. The strategy of reduction is also based on four types of captivity, change of direction, assignment and dissolution. But the strategy at the organization level should include three types of growth, stability and reduction. Its growth strategy focuses on four types of concentration, diversity, integration and defensiveness. Stability strategies and similar reductions are defined as defined at the business level.
Conclusion
The proposed structures can be a new reference point for choosing a strategy between academics and strategic planners. Because in the design of this structure, on the one hand, the differences in the known strategy structures are reasonably summed up and, on the other hand, all the strategies presented in these structures are in the right place. Structural strategies of the comparative study in this research were limited to five valid and widely used structures in the country. Undoubtedly, the structures provided by leading and, at the same time, world-class experts, are far more likely to be the subject of future research. finally, from the compared and contrasted data a comprehensive structure of general strategies that can be used as a comprehensive reference of general strategies by strategic planners were obtained.
