Business Management for Built Environment Professionals - Assignment Example

Based On The Disparate Schools Of Thought On Strategy, What Do You Consider To Be Strategy? A universally accepted definition of strategy does not exist. Some authors have taken the simplistic approach to define strategy whereas others like Mintzberg have approached strategy in a pluralistic view. Those of the pluralistic view argue that strategy has many forms. Others like Whittington criticize the notion that managers are well prepared and are capable of planning strategies that are long term and can maximize profits (Ehnert 2009, p45). Strategy is given five different meanings by Mintzberg; “Strategy as a plan, a pattern, a ploy, a position, and a perspective” (Ehnert 2009, p45). Based on these meanings of strategy, Lampel and Mintzberg categorize the different strategy formation schools and they are known as the ten schools of thought. The design school defines strategy as the process of conception; it enables the managers to scan the organization business surroundings for any threats and opportunities. The planning school describes strategy as a planning process; this school of thought is characterized by cybernetics and systems theorists (Ehnert 2009, p45). The positioning school defines strategy as an analytical process and the process is influenced by concepts like those of Porter’s five forces model and by industrial economics. The entrepreneurial school defines strategy as a visionary process; the leader of the company plays a critical role in the identification of future opportunities for growth. The cognitive school defines strategy as a mental process and the mind process is created in the minds of the strategists through maps, schemes or frames. The mind processes influence how the organization surrounding is dealt with. The learning school describes strategy as an emergent process (Kazmi 2008, p18). The process is unanimously created over time and in mutual adjustments between the internal decisions and outside events (Ehnert 2009, p45). The political school defines strategy as a process of negotiation among the interest groups in the organization and between the organizations. The cultural school describes strategy as a social process and it based on shared meanings and beliefs. The environmental school defines strategy as a reactive process and these are the forces that the organization must reckon with and respond to for their survival. The configurationally school describes strategy as a process of transformation (Ehnert 2009, p45). From the Mintzberg schools of thought, strategy is divided into perceptive, descriptive and integrative schools (Kazmi 2008, p18). From the different definitions provided by the different schools of thought, strategy can be defined as the internal and external forces that enable the organization to run smoothly and realize its goals and visions. The meaning has encompassed all the aspects of strategy as defined by the different schools of thoughts. All the school of thoughts has some elements of internal and external factors, for example, the cognitive school is an internal factor and the political school is both an internal and external factor. It is imperative to note that the meaning of strategy is diverse and there is no universally accepted meaning. Based From The Above, How Would You Describe The Strategy Process? Strategy process comes in many different ways and the process can be analyzed in three main issues. These issues include strategic thinking, strategy formation and strategic change. Strategic Thinking The main focus is the strategist and the main question here is how the mangers are supposed to organize their thinking in order to accomplish a successful strategic reasoning process (Meyer and Wit 2010, p52). In other words, strategic thinking involves the collection of information, formulation of ideas and making a plan action (Horne and Wootton 2000). Collection of information entails thinking in a logical way about the changes in areas such as economics, technology, ethics, society, politics and markets. It also involves thinking in a numerical way when performing an audit on the strategic capability of the organization. The information that has been collected need to make sense and making sense of the information requires reflective thinking skills (Horne and Wootton 2000). The formulation of ideas entails thinking about future; it is quite difficult to get clear and particular information about future and in that process it is imperative to make use of the thinking skills. Thinking skills that are used include prediction, visualization, imagination and forecasting (Horne and Wootton 2000). Making of a plan action takes the assumption that the action has to sustain the things or make change to the things for better and this is the desired result for strategic thinking. Making a plan action entails creative thinking about the probable actions to be taken. All the options are evaluated ethically, empathetically and numerically when taking into consideration the desirability. They are also evaluated pragmatically and politically when taking into consideration the risk and feasibility (Horne and Wootton 2000). Strategy Formation Strategy formation in most of the organizations is thought to be revolving around three general forces. These forces are environment, bureaucracy and leadership. The environment undergoes changes continuously but not in a regular manner. It is also characterized with wide swings and regular discontinuities in the rate of its change. “An organizational operating system, or bureaucracy, that above all seeks to stabilize its actions, despite the characteristics of the environment it serves” (Mintzberg 1978, p941). Leadership plays a role in mediating the two mentioned forces that is bureaucracy and environment. Leadership also sustains the stability of the bureaucracy or the organization’s operating system and at the same time it insures its adaptation to the change in the environment (Mintzberg 1978, p941). Strategic Change When an organization introduces latest ways of performing business, it introduces essential changes in the way the people and the organization operate daily. Effective and novel ways of doing business are required and it may go to an extent of changing the organization’s systems, goals, values, culture, mission, work processes and structures (Jacobs 1997, p23). From the information provided above, strategy process entails the following three issues; strategic thinking, strategy formation and strategic change. The three issues are all encompassed in the ten schools of thought. Each of the issue has importance in the organization’s strategy process. The three issues are developed from the meaning of strategy in the ten schools of thought. Each of the ten schools of thought defines strategy as a process of doing or accomplishing something within, between and outside the organization. For example, the cognitive school defines strategy as a mental process and the mind process is created in the minds of the strategists through maps, schemes or frames. In other words, the mental process is utilized by the strategist to create schemes, frames, action or plan for the organization. One of the three issues, that is strategic thinking, will involve the mental process. This means that the thinking skills in strategic thinking are part of the mental process and thus strategy process can derive its description from this school of thought. Thus, strategy process is a mental process that assists the strategist in creating schemes, frames, action, or plan for the organization. It is imperative to note that strategy process will have varied meanings because of the different schools of thought. Although the schools of thought of strategy differ, the meanings are interrelated and each cannot do on its own. This means that the definitions have to be used collectively for the success of the organization. The strategy processes have to be used collectively. How can strategy and the strategy process be drawn upon and used by contemporary built environment organizations within the current climate? According to Ding and Langston (2001, p275), whatever levels of management that the built environment organization is involved in regarding strategy, the element of making choices is the most dominant. Performance guided management will always streamline decisions in a cost and productivity responsive manner throughout the operations. According to the authors, management alternatives are brought to the context of the organization’s ambitions of growth and productivity. While choices made involve various aspects of the strategy process in the management decision making, an understanding of the built environment needs is required from technical and tactical perspective (Ding and Langston 2001, 276). Strategy at the built environment level is perhaps the most advanced scope that infrastructure management context can be considered. Generally, the prime theme of interest under the circumstances of the built environment management is an array of management policy issues that touch on different sections of the diverse industry. For any built environment organization in contemplation of a winning strategy and strategy process under the circumstances of the modern climate, there are numerous considerations that ought to be made. This is due to the realization of the fact that strategy is a continuously evolving tool of management that enables the organization to reposition itself and handle market sophistication and complexity issues in a fashionable manner (Koskela et al 2008, p49). Catching up with the reality of the fact that outdated practices and routines of organizational management is an expensive cost to operate at has paved way to investment in built environment management that heavily relies on strategy formulation (Knight and Ruddock 2008, p71). Various concepts applied in built environment management are usually formulated with regard to managerial necessities of such sectors as facilities management, project management, properties management, real estate management among several other infrastructure and construction management needs. The most important diagnosis and preparatory assignments that built environment organizations embark on during the formulation of strategies and strategic process include determination of capability to manage the organization. To determine the capability, there are certain functions of the management that must be classified and clearly identified (Ding and Langston 2001, p276). These functions include property portfolio management which is the function dealing with how capable the organization is able to handle and manage additional properties with continued growth from one portfolio to a higher one. Property procurements for the organization will change with shift of portfolio occasioned by growth and restructuring the procedures and the relevant financial management becomes handy (Howes and Robinson 2005, p5). The property investment strategies that dictate the appropriateness in timing, type and manner of procurements depict how balanced the property portfolio management is. In addition, capital project portfolio management must be identified as an important function that facilitates understanding of how capable the organization is in carrying out prioritization of capital allocation to projects. The most valuable project identification is not only identified by a quick look at the projects list and picking the highest returns attached project since far reaching implications touching management decision making analysis come into play. There are difficult decisions to be made when the management allocates resources to prospective projects with the sole aim of maximizing profits for the organization. Research methods have continuously been formulated to address decision making using informed and accurate qualitative and quantitative measures (Knight and Ruddock 2008, p140). Modern organizations have been armed with computer software that can assist in drawing project specific inferences that direct the most appropriate project to invest in. strategic management allows organizations to preferentially allocate capital to projects while maintaining competitive ground without loss of their profitability objective. An additional function for consideration in the determination of the capability of built environment organizations to stage a strategic positioning is their Operations, Maintenance and Services portfolio management capacity. Assessments are done to reveal how reliable operations sustainability can be guaranteed in the unforeseeable future with the delivery of quality products being uncompromised. Alternatively, both preventive and corrective maintenance functions on the project facilitating sustenance of competitiveness and maintaining customer satisfaction should be undoubted. Additionally the servicing every growth unit of the organization to guarantee growth and competitiveness within a dynamic environment should be assessed. Business value can only be sustained throughout the operation life of the organization if taken as a strategic tool of management. Service portfolio should be designed in such a manner that will handle challenges of innovativeness, risks, efficiency, clarity, expertise, improvement, enablement and business value (Howes and Robinson 2005, p130). It follows that, useful elements of servicing the operation framework of the organization can be detected by the nature of its support system, education, business transformations services, business objectives services and development services. Placing strategy at the helm of built environment management seeks to establish a conscious approach of dealing with intricacies of this project intensive industry with accurate and timely management intervention. Current management scope of the industry has successfully identified four process areas that strategy and strategy process must be cautious of in implementing policies for the organization (Eileen 1999, p7). These four process areas act as a breakdown of the professional’s input areas that demand extra attention for the best possible market positioning in the industry. Building and construction analysis has a principle referred to as the building life cycle, which has is the origin of the four main process areas for built environment management framework. Ideally, the process areas dissect a building project from the initial stage known as the cradle to the final stage referred to as the grave. Adopted from gensightgroup.com Firstly, the framework identifies the process area where planning for the sole organizational objective is incorporated in the organizational work plan. The organization does not only identify a winning formula, but reconciles it with the organization’s future objective. Realignment is sought to ensure that every strategic plan proposed in the beginning passes the mission and vision scrutiny so that the organization realizes its prime business intention. Every project undertaken by the organization must assist it to meet the goals and values outlined in its development items of strategic importance (Inalhan 2002, p164). Secondly, built environment professionals deal with capital planning as a process area identified by the building life cycle. Under this process area, strategy is formulated in terms of understanding the effective asset portfolio of the organization within the growth policy envisioned by the management. As observed earlier, allocation of capital resources to new projects must be guided by a certain decision pattern that applies preferential analysis of several investment options without compromising profitability or competitiveness. Thirdly, project management area that closely resembles capital planning highlights project quality issues from new constructions and installations to maintenance and renovations (Ding and Langston 2001, p278). Any transaction that can be attached onto a project for a certain consideration is usually under the project management. Fourthly, Operations, Maintenance and Services area requires management attention such as would enable handling organizational occupants support (Ding and Langston 2001, p278). Without a comprehensive approach to the operational issues of the organization, a smooth and efficient delivery of services and products would be compromised as would profitability of the organization. According to the author, the management needs to establish the operational and maintenance needs of the organization at the strategy process level in order to cater for the size, various types of workforce, the process involved in operations and the actual form of business engaged. Hazards and disaster management in the organization must also be catered for in the strategy formulation through programmatic mainstreaming (Bosher 2008 p343). According to the author, reduction of operational costs must always be approached as a financial risk that the management can undertake to quantify to cover against havoc (Amaratunga and Haigh 2010, p12). Reference List Amaratunga, D. & Haigh, R. (2010) “An Integrative Review of the Built Environment Discipline’s Role in the Development of Society’s Resilience to Disasters,” International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, vol. 1 no. 1 pp11-24 Andersson, N., Carassus, J., Kaklauska, A. & Lopes, J. et al (2006) “Moving from Production to Services: a Built Environment Cluster Framework,” International Journal of Strategic Property Management, vol. 10 no. 3 pp. 169-184 Biehl, L., Engel, B. A., Harbor, J. M., Johannsen, C. J., Landgebe, D. A., Majumder, S. & Rochon, G. L. (2003) “Remote Sensing as a Tool for Achieving and Monitoring Progress Toward Sustainability,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, vol. 5 no. 3/4 pp. 310-316 Bosher, L. (2008) Hazards and the built environment: attaining built-in resilience. Abingdon, OX: Tailor & Francis Ding, G. K. C. & Langston, C. A. (2001) Sustainable practices in the built environment. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann Ehnert, I. (2009) Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective. London, UK: Springer. Eileen, M. (1999) “About the Built Environment,” Facilities and Design Management, vol. 18 no. 4 p.7 Horne, T. & Wootton, S. (2000) Strategic thinking: A step-by-step approach to strategy. London, UK: Kogan Page Publishers. Howes, R. & Robinson, H. (2005) Infrastructure for the built environment: global procurement strategies. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann Inalhan, G. (2002) “Management and Business Skills in the Built Environment,” Facilities, vol. 20 no. 3/4 pp. 164-165 Jacobs, R. W. (1997) Real-time strategic change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kazmi. (2008) Strategic management and business policy. New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Knight, A. & Ruddock, L. (2008) Advanced research methods in the built environment. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons Koskela, L., Molloy, E., Rooke, J., Sinclair, M. & Siriwardena, M. (2008) “Models and Metaphors: Complexity Theory and Through-Life Management in the Built Environment,” Architectural, Engineering and Design Management, vol. 4 no. 1 pp.47-57 McLennan, P. “Service Operations Management as a conceptual Framework for Facility Management,” Facilities, vol. 22 no. 13/14 pp. 344-348 Meyer, R. & Wit, B. (2010) Strategy: Process, content, context, an international perspective. Hampshire, UK: Cengage Learning EMEA. Mintzberg, H. (1978) Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), pp934-948. Renu, D. (2010) “Understanding Management control Systems in Call Centers,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 59 no. 8 pp. 792-810 Terence, L. Trudi, C. (2007) Complex built-environment design: four extensions to Ashby False. Kybernetes, (36)9/10, pp1422-1435. Read More