Charles Pitt- Dissertation - Strategic Action - The Journey from Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation v1.1 FINAL

Charles James Pitt
Candidate Number: 1000432
Word Count: 9,877
Submission Date: 12th
Feb 2016
Strategic Action: The Journey from
Strategy Formulation to Project
Implementation
Diploma of Strategy and Innovation
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford

Strategic Action: The Journey from Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation
University of Oxford Page 2 of 39 Charles J. Pitt
ABSTRACT
This research helps to bridge the gap between strategy formulation and implementation
(execution). As a key delivery mechanism for strategy is projects, a model is developed that
demonstrates that strategy goes on an extensive translation process through portfolio, programme
and project management via the businesses and functions to get to tangible implementation and
change. This journey is analysed against best practice provided in both the strategic and project
management literature and experienced individuals case studies to understand what the key
roadblocks are in this translation process. It introduces the concept of ‘organisational rigidities’ as
the main barrier to effective strategy translation which can impede the true essence of the benefits
the strategy is trying to obtain. This work demonstrates that these can be reduced by improving the
understanding of feasibility in the strategy formulation stage, reducing length of project life cycles,
removing rigid organisational process and ensuring appropriative prioritisation of strategic projects.
If management are aware of these and the organisational rigidities that can muddy the translation
process they can equip the organisation to reduce execution risk.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................4
1.1 Table of Figures................................................................................................................................4
1.2 Problems and Challenges with Executing Strategy through Projects ..............................................5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................7
2.1 Current Thinking on Strategy Management Formulation and its Limitations ...................................7
2.2 How Often does Strategy Execution Fail?........................................................................................9
2.3 Why does Strategy Execution Fail so Often?...................................................................................9
2.4 Linking Strategy Formulation to Implementation through Portfolio, Programme and Project
Management...............................................................................................................................................11
2.5 Divergence between Strategy Formulators and Project Management...........................................13
2.6 The Process of Project Selection and Prioritisation .......................................................................13
2.7 Potential Issues with Executing Strategy through Project Management........................................15
3 RESEARCH METHOD............................................................................................................................18
3.1 Overview of Methods Employed and Summary of Literature Review............................................18
3.2 Research Context...........................................................................................................................20
3.3 Data Collection ...............................................................................................................................20
3.4 Data Analysis..................................................................................................................................21
3.5 Limitations.......................................................................................................................................21
4 FINDINGS IN THE JOURNEY FROM STRATEGY FORMULATION TO PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................................................22
4.1 Driver of Strategy: The Firm Internal and External Environment ...................................................22
4.2 Corporate Management Dissemination of Strategy .......................................................................23
4.3 Portfolio Management Process ......................................................................................................25
4.4 Business and Function Managements Role...................................................................................26
4.5 Programme Management...............................................................................................................27
4.6 Project Management ......................................................................................................................28
5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT ..................................................................31
5.1 Feasibility of Strategy Execution is Not Known ‘Enough’ when Formulated..................................31
5.2 Need for ‘Universal’ Prioritisation ...................................................................................................32
5.3 Core Rigidity of Project Management and Length of Project Lifecycle are not Effective Enablers of
Emergent Strategy......................................................................................................................................34
5.4 Final Conclusion .............................................................................................................................36
6 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................37
7 APPENDIX ..............................................................................................................................................39

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Table of Figures
Figure
Number
Name Page Number
1 Types of strategy as presented by Mintzberg and Waters (1985) 9
2 Key reasons for strategy implementation failure 10
3
Key aspects of resources and structure causing strategy
implementation
10
4
Flow from business strategy to individual objectives, through portfolio,
programme and project management
12
5 Framework for project portfolio selection 14
6
The Journey from Strategy Formulation to Project
Implementation Model
19
7 Point in project lifecycle where design and methodology is determined 31
8 The Battle for the Firms Resources 33
9 Example emergent strategy impacting the rigid project life-cycle 35

1.2 Problems and Challenges with Executing Strategy through Projects
Is your company spending too much time on formulating strategy and discussing the approach with little
actually being successfully translated into action and implementation?
Senior management and consultants spend significant resources and time talking about doing things, but
this is not always reflected in the ability to translate the words into actions. Translating strategy into tangible
action and change in large organisations is what this project will focus on, in particular by understanding
where the execution risk lays. The key driver is the high strategy execution failure rates in large established
organisations, where some studies suggest this is up to 90 per cent. The research will document and seek
to better understand the journey from strategy formulation to implementation through portfolio, programme,
project and change management. In particular, it will identify what are the key aspects in the translation
process of strategy through the organisation to tangible actionable tasks and more importantly what
roadblocks may be encountered.
There has been significant effort and research into exploring strategy formulation; however, it is relatively
limited in terms of implementation and execution of the strategy through projects. This is particularly
important as even though strategy is generally delivered by projects, there is a divergence between the
project management discipline and the strategic management discipline. The two in fact appear to be
developing in isolation. Hence there is a need to bridge this gap and understand where there are
roadblocks in this process that lead to such high execution failure rates. How can strategy be expected to
be executed well via project management when the two disciplines are not aligned and do not share the
same underlying assumptions?
Practical frameworks or guidance for organisations to overcome these challenges are few: hence the
project will explore the current relevant literature available in this domain and analyse this to determine
what is suggested as best practice. The key emphasis is on ‘practical’ guidance. There may be complex
academic models that exist, but in practice they are not feasible to use. Using the relevant literature, a
model has been created which shows the journey from strategy formulation to project implementation. This
model will then be discussed with experienced individuals involved in project and change management on
both the implementation of strategic projects and the strategy formulation. This will enable and

understanding of how relevant it is in practice and where the key roadblocks are to successfully translating
strategy into projects and change. These findings will help bridge the gap between strategy formulation and
execution and assist organisations in delivering strategically relevant projects and hence increase the
chances of strategy execution success.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
There does not appear to be a study that has been completed that directly addresses the research question
and problem; hence the literature review will be grouped into themes of key areas where research is
conducted to consider particular aspects. Essentially, there is the need to link strategy execution—also
referred to as implementation—to portfolio selection, programme management and project level
implementation. This link is required so that a deeper search of the literature on each aspect can be
conducted which will help in drawing conclusions later in the paper.
2.1 Current Thinking on Strategy Management Formulation and its Limitations
Interestingly the strategic management discipline—and, indeed, strategy formulation—is still a young field,
where even top strategic management textbook writers highlight that ‘…the existing toolbox of concepts
and techniques is inadequate for today’s complex organisations’ (Grant, 2013). Grant summarises that
successful strategies generally have the following elements:
 Clear and long term goals for the future;
 Solid understanding of the external competitive environment;
 Understanding of the internal environment;
 Clarity on what the internal resources and capabilities are;
 Effective implementation.
It is important to understand that what strategic management literature provides is a framework and a set of
tools which management can apply to their organisations; it does not provide a single correct answer to a
problem the organisation may face (Grant, 2013). Grant also highlights that while strategic management
provides analytical techniques and tools, the key limitation is that strategic questions and problems are
typically too complex to be programmed or put in a decision tree. They require professional judgement.
Grant is able to demonstrate that, despite this, the tools that strategic management provides put
management in a better position than if they just relied on experience and intuition. Another significant point
is the ever increasing change and uncertainty in organisations and the environment these days. Even a
sound strategy cannot guarantee success; a strategy isn’t effective unless it can be implemented in the
organisation (Grant, 2013). This research will focus on implementation.

To understand how strategy can be translated through the organisation it is critical to understand how it is
formulated and the limitations. Henry Mintzberg provides some other critical insights into the basis on which
strategy is formulated and highlights an important concept of the fallacy of detachment (Mintzberg et al.,
1998). This is that some people in organisations ‘…are permanently perched in the air’ and do the thinking,
while the rest ‘act’. The thinkers are separate from the actors (executors). He highlights that this underlying
assumption can be very costly to organisations, emphasising that:
‘Effective strategists are not people who abstract themselves from the daily detail (of the
organisation) but quite the opposite, they are ones that immerse themselves in it while
being able to abstract the strategic messages from it’.
Mintzberg also questions the reliability of the very data that strategic managers use to make decisions,
known as ‘hard data’. This has significant implications for practice, as it suggests that the management is
never properly informed to make strategic decisions in the first place. The key limitations of this ‘hard data’
in summary are:
 Limited in scope and lacks non-quantitative and non-economic factors.
 Too aggregated to provide insights for strategy formulation.
 Arrives too late, is retrospective and is largely unreliable.

Mintzberg’s view is that strategy is a creative activity and therefore you cannot apply the rigidities of
rational, systematic and formal planning. This is why he believes that formalisation ‘never feels quite right’
for strategy. He also introduces the concept that strategy is emergent and as a result is open, flexible,
responsive and willing to learn. How this fits in with the other types of strategy is shown in Figure 1 below.
For the purposes of this research it will take the view that strategy is emergent.

Figure 1. Types of strategy as presented by Mintzberg and Waters (1985)
2.2 How Often does Strategy Execution Fail?
In recent work by Cândido and Santos (2015), a detailed literature review was conducted with the key
purpose of understanding what the failure rate of strategic initiatives was. In different studies, this ranged
from 50 per cent to 90 per cent. The authors acknowledge that strategy implementation is indeed a difficult
task; however, whether an implementation is deemed a failure or not is sometimes subjective and hence
the varying range or success rate. Some parts of the strategy may be implemented, and some benefits
realised by the firm, but not the full original strategy implemented or realised, which is not necessarily a
‘failure’. For the purposes of this paper, failure will be defined as the change in the organisation not
occurring in a way that will enable the organisation to meet its strategic objectives to a sufficient level.
2.3 Why does Strategy Execution Fail so Often?
A comprehensive review of the literature was completed by Ivancic (2013), where each of the key reasons
for failure in research from 1980 to 2013 was highlighted. This is shown in Figure 2. It can be seen that over
the past 30 years almost all the highly circulated papers apart from two highlight resources and
organisational structure as a key reason for failure, key aspects of why these fail is shown in Figure 3.
These include tangible and intangible resources, and qualitative and quantitative. This research provides
the basis for why portfolio management is so important, as this is the key mechanism and tool for allocating
and prioritising resources. Ivancic provides a basic framework for effective strategy implementation and
suggest that further guidelines should be included in this framework, as part of future work. She also
suggests that failure should be explored in further works to ‘…determine whether the error refers to the
planning stage or the implementation phase and if correct monitoring mechanisms can be installed’.

Figure 2. Key reasons for strategy implementation failure (Source: Ivancic, 2013)
Figure 3. Key aspects of resources and structure causing strategy implementation failure (Adapted
from Ivancic, 2013)

Ivancic also highlights an important point that is mentioned in previous work, which is that even if a firm
gets strategy formulation and execution correct, this may not necessarily mean superior performance. This
then becomes an issue of whether the strategy formulated in the first place is appropriate or not. In any
case, the implementation and execution part must be successful to give a firm the chance of success.
2.4 Linking Strategy Formulation to Implementation through Portfolio, Programme and Project
Management
Based on the author’s literature review there appears to be no specific work in the strategic management
literature that conclusively links strategy to the specific activities involved in implementation. These are
deemed separate activities and even disciplines. Strategy literature is more focused on formulation and
getting this right in the first place: this could be referred to as the ‘what’. Implementation is seen as more
micro in nature and something not fully explored. This seems conflicting, as Roney (2004) highlights that ‘…
implementation is the Achilles heel of the strategic management processes.’ As there are no sound models
for strategy implementation provided as part of the strategic management literature, it is necessary to look
further into the project management literature to understand how it is translated to and delivered in projects.
This could also be referred to as ‘how’ the strategy may be executed.
Upon further research, some project management related journals and disciplines link business strategy to
portfolio management, and then further to programmes and projects that make up the portfolio. In
particular, Morris and Jamieson (2004) provide quite an objective-based flow from business strategy to the
lowest level of activity in the organisation, the individual, as shown in Figure 4. This demonstrates the
journey from ‘…corporate strategy (being) developed and implemented via the management of portfolios,
programs, and projects.’ A portfolio is defined as a group of projects/programmes that are carried out with
management sponsorship in an organisation. Morris and Jamieson (2005) define a project as a ‘…complex
effort, usually less than three years, made up of interrelated tasks in an organisation with a well-defined,
budget and schedule’.

Figure 4. Flow from business strategy to individual objectives, through portfolio, programme and
project management (Adapted from Morris and Jamieson, 2005)
Morris and Jamieson also highlight that ‘… it is important that organisations understand properly their
business management model and the position of project, or programme, management within it…’ This is
key to understand, as it is where the critical success factor of resource management comes into play and
this can be influenced to increase the chances of success. Morrison and Jamieson highlight the following:
‘A fundamental responsibility of project/programme management is to manage the resources needed
to define and deliver its programmes and projects effectively. We shall see that resource
management becomes a critical factor in moving (translating) from corporate strategy into project
implementation.’
On this basis, project management can be clearly linked to Ivancic’s (2013) findings on the key success
factors of resource management; that is to say, project management is key to strategy execution success.
Morris and Jamieson’s (2005) research also finds that only 50 per cent use a formal portfolio management
process, with 95 per cent using ‘some form’ of programme management process. This raises the question,
if there is no portfolio management process, how are projects being selected appropriately in these
organisations, and therefore resources used most optimally?

2.5 Divergence between Strategy Formulators and Project Management
There has been some very significant research completed by Young and Jordan (2010) which highlights
that project, programme and portfolio management no longer have as much credibility from senior
management, which has significant implications for practice. This is believed to be due to the fact that in the
past 50 years, despite much effort in the field, project success rates have not significantly improved (Young
and Young, 2012). The belief is that this has reduced overall confidence in project management and has
the impact of causing senior management to disassociate from project management. This becomes a major
concern for project success, and indeed for strategy being implemented through projects, as it has also
been determined that senior management support is key for project success (Pinto et al., 2003).
Young and Young (2012) also highlight that project management literature—and, indeed, the profession—is
developing separately from the strategic management discipline. That is to say, it is not aligned with and
aware of developments in strategic management literature, which is particularly important in the current
dynamic environment. They further suggest that the two should be bridged: ‘… the project management
field should move towards embracing the delivery of strategy’. The author also observes that strategic
management is not aware or abreast of the changes in project management, and vice-versa. If this is the
case then then we would not expect that strategy would be seamlessly delivered by projects. This will be
explored further in this research.
2.6 The Process of Project Selection and Prioritisation
Formal mechanisms for selecting and prioritising projects are provided by project portfolio management
(PPM); however, there is by no means a clear framework or consensus on the most appropriate approach
for management to take.
A recent study by Carazo (2015) highlights the key issues with project management selection as ‘…multiple
and conflicting objectives, varying constraints, different planning horizon, and complex interdependences
between some projects, such as synergies, precedence, complementarity, incompatibility, etc.…’ These
must all be managed and considered when determining which projects to take on. Hence making it an all-
encompassing detailed task where there must be oversight over everything to do properly.

Archer and Ghasemzadeh (1999) define project portfolio selection as ‘…the periodic activity
involved in selecting a portfolio from available project proposals and projects currently underway…’ The key
emphasis of their study is to narrow down the portfolio selection techniques, as there are over a hundred,
most of which are too complex and require too many inputs for feasible application in organisations. They
present a framework for portfolio selection, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Framework for project portfolio selection (Source: Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999)
Key guidelines as part of Archer and Ghasemzadeh’s framework that suggest best practice have been
summarised below.
1. Before any projects are selected, strategic considerations in terms of both the external and internal
business environment should be considered.
2. Common measures should be used so that projects can be compared.
3. Current projects that have reached particular milestones/gates should be re-evaluated at the same
time as new projects. This allows a combined portfolio to be considered in light of the following:
 Changes in strategic focus;
 Changes to resources required or available;
 Changes in the general environment and requirements.
4. Screening should be used to eliminate projects before project comparison starts.

5. Direct time dependencies and resource competition should be considered as part of the process.
They also demonstrate the need for strategy to be set at the corporate level and filtered down to the project
level. In a subsequent work completed by Archer and Ghasemzadeh (2004), one of the single biggest
factors related to reaching strategic goals and determining project success is alignment of resource
demand with resource availability. They also highlight that selecting a project should be a strategic
decision, not operational.
In contrast, a simple approach to prioritisation is presented by Englund and Graham (1999), where they
suggest a complex selection mechanism is not required, and in most cases leads to the wrong outcome.
They emphasise that ‘…a comparative priority ranking of contribution to strategy is key’. Also, based on
their experience, the lower the number of projects, the better the chances of each being successful in
almost all cases.
A very extensive empirical study of 205 firms by Copper et al. (1999) was conducted to determine what
portfolio management mechanisms are most effective. They found that although financial models for
selection were used most overall, they do not yield the best results for firms. In general, they resulted in
portfolios with too many projects. The authors concluded that strategic approaches resulted in better
business outcomes, which is consistent with Englund and Graham (1999).
Meskendahl (2010) highlights another very interesting and significant point in terms of linking projects to
strategy—‘...that strategic fit of a project portfolio describes the degree to which the sum of all projects
reflects the strategic fit’. Also, the concept of synergies is introduced—that is, that the sum of all projects
delivers benefits beyond the results of individually managed projects. Hence the portfolio management
function coordinated management of projects is highly important for organisations.
2.7 Potential Issues with Executing Strategy through Project Management
Based on the review of various literatures, the following potential issues have been identified as key in
terms of delivering strategy through projects. In particular that can act as roadblocks in the translation
process from strategic objectives through the organisation to project objectives.

1. Businesses’ external environment is in a state of constant change with deregulation, globalisation,
technological discontinuities and environmental factors (Prahalad and Hamel, 1994). This could
impact on strategy and/or internal operations and processes in the organisation, further impacting
the ability to implement strategy.
2. The assumption of stability underpinning project management practices does not fit with the more
recent notion that strategy is emergent, ‘…a continuous interaction between strategy formulation
and execution in which strategy is constantly being adjusted and in light of new experience…’
(Mintzberg and Waters, 1985).
3. Formulated strategies by top management are typically not documented well or action orientated
(Young and Young, 2012). Typically, they are communicated informally in meetings or
presentations.
4. The expectations of stakeholders, including customers, investors, suppliers, and employees,
change at a faster pace than management planning cycles (Young and Young, 2012).
5. The key rationale for portfolio management is for the organisation to make rational investment
decisions to deliver organisational benefits in an effective manner (Dye and Pennypacker, 2000).
6. The multiple project environment does not permit management to be focused, hence authority is
delegated to lower authority where the visibility of whether a project is strategic and non-strategic
(operational) is blurred (Dye and Pennypacker, 2000). This issue is enforced by Pinto et al. (2003)
findings that senior management support is key for project success.
7. Programme management is strongly influenced by the traditional rational, rigid project management
tradition (Lycett et al., 2004).
8. The required level of documentation for a programme works against the need to challenge and
redefine the programme and the associated projects when strategy and approach should change
as more information becomes available (Pellegrinelli et al., 1997).
9. Project management started based on the assumption that structure means better control and
there is ‘one best way’ to get the job done (Whitty and Schulz, 2007).
10. Too many projects can be underway in an organisation with not enough resources or focus, and no
apparent link to strategy (Englund and Graham, 1999).
11. Projects may become urgent but not important; hence focus and prioritisation can be wrong
(Englund and Graham, 1999).

12. Decision rights on approach before and during the implementation may not be clear and decisions
second guessed, resulting in decision paralysis and inability to progress with implementation
(Neilson et al., 2008).

3 RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Overview of Methods Employed and Summary of Literature Review
The research method used in this project is a qualitative case study approach with semi-structured
interviews and observations being the key method to obtain data. As part of the interviews, case studies of
the participants’ relevant experience in executing strategy through projects will be used to apply to the
literature and draw conclusions. This then allows links to be made between practice and the literature to
find where key roadblocks lay.
The key purpose of the literature review is to establish a theoretical foundation to which the case studies
can then be applied—in other words, take the current best practice as implied in the literature and
understand what insights this can provide in practice. This is particularly important as the literature is quite
patchy and there is no literature to date that documents the journey from strategy formulation to
implementation in an easy and practical format for management to understand, and then even begin to
apply. To overcome this problem, I have developed a simple model that fits onto one page, see Figure 6
below, ‘The Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation Journey’. This is a key tool for the case study
interviews as it is an enabler for participants to understand ‘best practice’, and indeed where their
organisations may be on this continuum. Figure 6 below also includes the 18 interview questions.

Figure 6: The Journey from Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation Model
(Author’s own work)
This model shows the translation of strategy from the internal and external business environment through
each level of the firm to the tangible implementation through project management. The questions are
designed to understand the translation process, hence pay particular attention to the blue arrows between
the different functions and process in the organisation. It is essentially a summary of the literature review,
only including the relevant content which makes links and shows the journey from strategy formulation to
project management implementation. This is a clearer and easier way to describe the process documented
in academic literature.
The model also has an extra supplementary column titled ‘Concerns Identified in Literature’ which details
issues and roadblocks that management faces in the journey from strategic formulation to execution.
Journey from Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation: Authors own work
Portfolio
Management
Corporate(Top)
Management
Programme
Management
Project
Management
(individual)
Firm
Environment
Business&
FunctionMgmt
Level of Firm ‘Best Practice’ Process based on Management Literature Concerns identified in as part of Literature Questions for Interviewees (Participants)
Emergent Strategy Formulated
(Mintzberg, 1994)
CHALLENGE: in Strategy due to
technological, business problems,
defensive moves, regulatory, political,
economic or poor performance.
Strategy: Plan of action devised to achieve
a particular goal (Ghemawat, 2002).
Strategy
documented/
communicated
in some form
ADDED to Exisiting scope
project or programme
Initiation
Typically not documented well or action
focused. Maybe just communicated in
meetings and presentations (Young and
Young, 2012)
Based on the assumption that structure
means better control and there is ‘one best
way to get the job done (Whitty and Schulz,
2007)
NEW: Product/
Business or
process
CHANGE: to
existing product/
process or
business
NEW Project or
Programme Created
Objective: Manage and control, risks, scarce
resources and priorities to meet strategic
objectives.
Constantly changing legislative, political,
economic, social and technological
factors. (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994)
Objective: To deliver strategic objectives through a series of
projects. They are meant to adapt to change and be a tool
for strategy implementation (Artto et al., 2008)
Strongly influenced by the
traditional rational, rigid project
management tradition (Lycett et al,
2004)
Required level of docmentation works
against the need to challenge and redifine
the programme when new infomaiton
comes to hand (Pellegrinelli et al. 1997)
NEW project(s)
formed
ADDED to scope of
existing project
Project Lifecycle
begins- Individual
PM assigned
Planning Execution
Key rational for Portfolio management is for
organisation to make rational investment
decisions to deliver organisational benefits in
an effective manner (Dye & Pennypacker,
2000).
As strategy is emergent it is
not static and potentially
could change over time.
Only 50% of organisations have a
portfolio management function
Morris and Jamieson (2005).
Go-Live
+
Closure
Part of strategy
Implemented and
Benefit realisation
begins….
Function or business management act on
Corporate Level Strategy
The multiple project environment does
not permit management to be focused,
hence authority is delegated to lower
authority where the visibility of whether
a project is strategic and non-strategic
(operational) is blurred (Dye and
Pennypacker, 2000).
1. How is strategy formulated and at what level of the
organisation? How often is it reviewed or changes? Is as
assessment made of the feasibility?
2. Is input from lower level of management encouraged? Or
does it just come from the top. Do you think this is effective?
3. How is strategy documented in the firm, formally, informally?
Does the strategy formulated stay constant for long, or is it
dynamic/emergent and constantly changing?
4.How is the strategy communicated through the firm? Is this
effective?
5. When individuals in corporate management change, assuming
everything else is constant, does the strategy change? If so, how
and why?
6. How does internal politics influence business strategy
development and execution? Is this positively or negatively
impact?
7. How are projects chosen? Is there a (portfolio management)
process of your organisation? What level is it performed at. Is
it formal or informal? How regular? Are all projects (including
in-flight) assessed in the process particular when previous
resource/completion estimates are updated?
8. How much of an influence does internal politics play in the
process compared to rational choices? is the impact positive
or negative for the firm? Assuming no internal politics, would
the firm be focusing/prioritising resources on the same things?
9. What influence does Business and Function management
have on new projects and project selection? Is this
appropriate? Why/why not?
10. To what extent is strategy bottom up, Is there conflict
between function/business and corporate?
11. How typically aligned are these business/functional
driven projects to corporate strategy? Can you give an
example of a project that was not aligned and why?
12. What role do ‘Programmes’ play in your organisation,
how are they linked to corporate strategy?
13. Are all projects included within a programme? If not,
why?
14. Do programme’s strategy and objectives change along
with emergent/dynamic strategy? Are they encouraged to
or rigid?
15. How are project resources prioritised? Is this formal or
who ‘shouts the loudest’?
16. How long does it take for the formulated strategy to be
translated to project objectives and to get to the project
mobilisation stage? If significantly long why is this the case?
17. Is the timeframe to execute projects generally quick
enough so that the delivered benefits are still relevant and
in line with strategy? If not why?
18. How reliable are resourcing and cost estimates? Are the
regularly updated to portfolio/programme management?
Benefits
realisation
begins
OPPORTUNITY: Corporate Level
Strategic Opportunity of gap in
market found for: New Product or
Change to existing product
The expectations of stakeholders, including
customers, investors, suppliers, and employees,
change at a faster pace than management
planning cycles (Young and Young, 2012).
Decision rights on approach may not be clear
and decisions second guessed, resulting in
decision paralysis and inability to progress with
implementation (Neilson et al., 2008).

Using cases from the participants’ experience, particularly of strategic change which was not implemented
effectively, links can be made and a better understanding of the journey across what appear to be two
separate disciplines working in isolation, strategic management and project management.
3.2 Research Context
So that the findings and conclusions drawn are not industry specific and can be applied across industries,
there is a spread across industries or participants. Also both typical strategy formulators and implementers
have been interviewed.
As the journey from strategy formulation to implementation has not been shown in such a way before,
presenting current academic research and findings of data in a diagrammatic format will provide a suitable
context for those working in the field to easily understand the research to date. This will then be used with
specifically tailored questions to understand the participants’ organisational experience in the journey from
formulation to implementation (see Appendix One for list of participants). This should then provide insights
where there are gaps or issues in the journey and enable us to understand the specific point at which a
roadblock could be caused.
3.3 Data Collection
Data is sourced from specifically selected participants from the author’s previous and current colleagues
and professional network across a range of industries and organisations. To increase the validity of the
data and findings, these are individuals with extensive experience in the field, including the following:
 Senior management with more than ten years’ experience.
 Experience of strategy formulation and execution through project and change management
delivery.
 Experience across large organisations.
 Worked on projects which have failed in execution or, once executed, delivered benefits were not in
line with, or do not met the original strategy or scope.

Semi-structured interviews with the participants were conducted by the author, typically at the site of the
organisations in which they work (see Appendix One for title of participants and industry sector). Names of
individuals and companies have been kept confidential; this is appropriate due to the sensitive nature of the
content to current and previous organisations. However, this does not reduce the validity of the data for the
intended use.
3.4 Data Analysis
The general method of constant comparison of data was used based on the answers from the participants;
this would then be compared and contrasted against the literature and the Journey from Strategy
Formulation to Project Implementation model. Detailed notes were taken during the interview process so
the findings could be compared, analysed and deconstructed to determine the themes and nuances based
on the participants’ case study observations. Where particular issues and roadblocks regularly surfaced or
were complete roadblocks to execution, conclusions could be reached by also drawing on the author’s
observations in the current place and previous places of employment.
Role of the author
As the author works in strategy execution and project and change management, the role of the researcher
is also important, as personal observations and experience can be contributed through the process. This
also allows a deeper foray into issues that occur in the interview process and the subsequent analysis.
Furthermore, observations and validation of case study experience can be sense-checked in the author’s
current organisation of employment.
3.5 Limitations
There are a number of limitations with this research due timeframe and limited number or participants
interviewed. There is a bias towards the financial services industry, where their experience was in large
global private companies. However it is noted that the findings apply across more than just one
organisation from each participant, as they were asked to draw on their career experiences. All
organisations are different so the findings may or may not apply depending on the circumstances.

4 FINDINGS IN THE JOURNEY FROM STRATEGY FORMULATION TO PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
The primary aim of this research is to understand why and at what points in the translation process from
strategy formulation to execution projects reach roadblocks, and why. A critical tool to bring together the
process is the Journey from Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation model, as shown below in
Figure 6, where this process is shown through the different levels and process of the organisation.
Participant questions are also included below.
The key findings will be presented through each level of the process, as shown in the Journey from
Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation model. This will provide insights into each activity in the
translation process and bring to light themes across processes. The author’s own observations from
previous and current firms will also be incorporated into the findings where appropriate.
4.1 Driver of Strategy: The Firm Internal and External Environment
What drives strategy and how is it formulated?
The internal and external environment, in particular as it currently stands and future changes, provides the
basis on which strategy is to be formulated. For simplicity, the author presented two subcategories in the
model—that a new strategy or a change in strategy is typically driven by a challenge or opportunity in
relation to the firm’s internal and external environment. This was generally accepted by the participants and
the overwhelming comment was that strategy is typically driven by challenges, particularly in relation to
regulatory and market pressures in terms of shareholder expectations. The head of change management
for a large financial services organisation highlighted that ‘…over 80% of projects are driven by regulatory
requirements’. Another senior programme manager highlighted that their programme scope was
‘…completely changed due to a commitment that had been made to the market to provide and improve
certain metrics’. This programme was previously business driven and the business did not champion this
change in scope. Another interesting perspective if that this also changes as a result of new management,
particularly in a crisis situation where there is poor performance or a challenge.

Who formulates strategy?
The general consensus was that the top level corporate strategy was largely completed in isolation. A
global head of international strategy in a large financial services firm highlighted that there will always be
new strategy and projects proposed by functions and business units as they have a ‘…vested interest for
their business and function to survive and grow’. Hence this improves the performance and power and
position of their business and function. Importantly, it may or may not be in the best interests of the
company, or indeed in line with the corporate strategy. Hence participants suggest that an assessment
should be made to ensure this fits in the overall strategic fit.
Another theme that also came to light, confirming the literature, was the fact that typically the strategy
formulated is not directly actionable, which has significant implementation implications. In other words, the
strategy will consist of a broad theme and other levels of the organisation will need to further translate and
define it to turn into action. This includes not only what the strategy is, but how it is implemented, and is
known as the approach or methodology. Further to this, all participants noted that there is a set timeframe
for implementation, which is conflicting. If corporate management doesn’t know how the strategy is to be
implementing, it is difficult to see how there can be clarity as to the strategy’s feasibility, and therefore
chances of success. Where participants saw this work better is where key stakeholders in the organisation
were engaged in the strategy formulation process, this reduces the need to ‘translate’ the strategy when it
disseminates to the business and functions later.
4.2 Corporate Management Dissemination of Strategy
How is strategy documented?
The results on how formal and explicit strategy documentation and communication are was very mixed and
surprising, considering that all participants’ case studies were in large established organisations. Some
firms used formal documents, email, presentations (even in town halls), while others relied on word of
mouth and very high level themes to be disseminated through the organisation. A senior project manager at
a large transport company in the UK highlighted that ‘…typically corporate management would give no
guidance or specific requirements on how to meet the new strategic objective: it was more a case of the
business unit or function determining this’ rather than a structured central approach. This meant that that
businesses and functions would then go off and ‘do their own things and duplication would result’. Even

worse, the solutions determined by different areas in the organisation conflicted with each other. This in
their experience occurred more often when quick reactive changes to strategy were made.
When only corporate management changes, how does strategy change?
Participants were asked to consider, when all other things remain constant but management changes, how
strategy changes and whether this was in the best interest of the organisation. Responses highlighted that
it depends if the change in management is under a distressed scenario, such as due to poor performance,
or for company and individual non-performance related reasons.
When in a distressed situation, typically where there has been poor performance, most participants
highlighted that not only may the strategy itself change, but also the manner of its implementation. A
strategy consultant with over 20 years’ experience in various industries highlighted that ‘…new
management will typically have a personal view on how things should be done, particularly in terms of team
structure and reporting lines’. However, sometimes this is necessary, as the previous poor performance or
‘crisis situation’ is used as the prerogative and driver for the change. In any case this is very disruptive to in-
flight projects where their current scope is not in line with the new strategy.
Interestingly, in a non-distressed situation, there is normally still significant change. The head of
transformation in a large financial services firm reinforced that ‘…new management typically want to be
seen to be doing something new and rustling feathers; if they don’t change the strategy, they can
sometimes make changes in how something is being implemented’. This is not always in the best interests
of the organisation and can cause significant disruption as the organisation can find itself in constant
change.
How do internal politics impact strategy development and translation down through the organisation?
All participants highlighted that internal politics and ’egos’ has a significant impact on strategy development
and typically was not beneficial to the firm. This was particularly resonant when determining by whom and
how the strategy is to be executed and the battle for resources. One senior programme manager
highlighted that typically it can be ‘he who shouts the loudest’ that will succeed in obtaining budget or
resources rather than a systematic and formal portfolio management approach that ensured that resources
are used optimally.

Most participants including those that focus on the strategy formulation highlighted that where there has
been the least adverse impact of politics, or in fact it works to the strategy’s advantage, is when the
stakeholders felt involved in the strategy formulation process from the beginning. A strategy consultant
highlighted that ‘…where the businesses and functions were around the table when the strategy was being
formulated, they would not put up barriers later in the process of implementation’. This meant that not only
implementation was more in line with strategy but it occurred quicker in the organisation.
4.3 Portfolio Management Process
What role does portfolio management play and how are projects chosen?
The portfolio management process is the first key step at which formulated strategy is translated into
potential action and hence the implementation process can commence. Participants highlighted that in most
cases in their experience some form of portfolio management function existed. However, it was not
consistent in terms of the level at which the function occurred. In one large financial services company, this
occurred above all businesses and functions where approximately 70 projects were included in the process.
However, in another large financial services firm, corporate management disseminated the relevant
component of the strategy down to the respective businesses or functions in which was ‘best suited’ to
execute.
Another very important point made in this process was that when re-assessing where an organisation’s
resources are currently being used in the portfolio, in-flight projects where not always reassessed as part of
the process. This was largely due to unreliable availability of cost incurred to date and expected cost to
completion data. A senior implementation manager in a large transport company emphasised that their
department ‘…would always seek at least the same or more funding for projects, as once you give up
budget or head count you lose it’. This has a significant implication, as resources will then typically not be
freed up until a project is delivered. This results in the implicit assumption that when new projects are
started, more resources are required, or it creates more conflict in the organisation as resources may need
to be reprioritised more often resulting in ‘more talk and less action’.
The global head of international strategy at one of the financial services firms highlighted that in all cases
when the strategy is translated to a project or programme there must be financial metrics to back up the

proposal. This can be very difficult when it relates to something new, or is process orientated, as financial
information is not available or reliable. This enforces Mintzbergs view on the difficulty of using ‘hard data’
and Copper at al’s (1999) findings that financial metrics are do not result in the right projects.
Resource prioritisation for projects
Another key missing principle required to translate effectively in many of the organisations is appropriate
prioritisation. Although a project may be approved, there was rarely a formal prioritisation process to
allocate resources. This means that prioritisation tends to be informal in nature and as a result prioritisation
can go to who ‘shouts the loudest’ or is in the best position politically to obtain it. A head of global change
programmes also noted that it is not particularly motivating to tell a team, programme or project that their
project is not a high priority, which might explain why the process is not always formal or explicit. It also
depends who owns the resources as to who makes the prioritisation decision. In one example, IT resources
were managed and controlled by a different programme office, and their prioritisation may well be different
from corporate strategy or another business of function. The conflict arising from this was noted as a
significant roadblock to getting things done. One senior programme manager of a large financial services
company highlighted that there can be ‘…meetings and meetings just to talk about the prioritisation and
need for some resources’ as each project might be ‘number one’ to different individuals and teams in the
organisation. Where there are critical dependencies across businesses and functions, this can be a key
roadblock to execution.
4.4 Business and Function Managements Role
As all businesses and functions should act according to corporate level strategy, the process of the strategy
being translated to the business and/or the functional objectives is key. Indeed, it is the case that the
businesses and functions should realise the benefits of the overall strategy. However, there are some
significant roadblocks in this process.
The key part of this process highlighted by most participants was their ability to transpose the corporate
objectives into an actionable project or programme. One of the main barriers to this is how actionable and
specific the corporate level strategy is in the first place. The head of transformation for a key function in a
financial services firm highlighted that it is often up to the interpretation of the respective business and

function heads to translate the strategy into a specific project or programme. They highlighted that ‘…this
can be quite subjective, particularly in terms of how the strategy is to be implemented’. This is made even
more difficult when it changes or is not explicitly defined in the first place. It also requires the business or
function to understand what others are doing. If this is overlooked and governance is not provided by
corporate management, then it can result in ‘everyone doing their own thing’ with duplication and no
synergies in the process.
Strategic business unit and functional objectives alignment to corporate objectives
Although most participants highlighted that programmes and projects were linked to corporate strategy, a
number of participants also highlighted that businesses and functions typically have a number of ‘pet
projects’ which may not be aligned to corporate strategic objectives, or even known about by corporate
management. In the case of a large resources company, this was a key distraction for the respective
function, as significant resources and time were used up on these projects. In addition, there can be
internal reasons that hold back execution. In one example, the head of business change in a large financial
services company highlighted that one function held off the demise of a key legacy system due to the
accounting treatment: they would have had to write off a large expense if they did so. There is in most
cases lots of ‘internal noise’ in terms of the organisations processes and way of doing things that slow down
or impede the strategy translation process.
4.5 Programme Management
Programme management plays a key role in execution as there is generally a defined set of strategic
objectives translated to the programme level, which facilitates the setting up of projects. Interestingly, it is
this characteristic of a ‘defined’ set of objectives that the participants saw as a roadblock to delivery in line
with the strategic objectives, particularly when they are emergent and changing. This was largely due to
there being a robust and rigid process to get approval for the programme in the first place, where defined
objectives are required, and this does not enable the programme to change as strategy changes. The head
of transformation for a key global function highlighted that ‘…as the external environment, particularly
regulation, is so dynamic and changing, so too does corporate strategy and the need for projects and
programmes to realign their objectives’. As the business case and scope have already been signed off,
there is significant process and effort involved in adjusting them. In some cases, participants noted that

there may also be project or work that is in-flight, and due to the core rigidities of the management process,
it is difficult to change, or there may be significant sunk cost. As a result, the project or work stream is still
delivered, as it is better to have something delivered sooner rather than nothing, or something at a future
date. A very important factor not mentioned in the literature was the short-term objectives of performance
management, particularly bonuses, verses the long term nature and milestones required as part of the
implementing truly strategic projects. As they do not match there is intrinsically pressure to delivery
something quicker or easier and hence the in this translation process objectives and benefit of the strategy
may not be delivered.
A programme manager of a large financial services company also noted that, in general, the process and
rigidity of programme management and its reporting was in itself a barrier to implementation. They said that
‘…a lot of time is spent at various different times on reporting for different levels of management and
committees’. This added very little value and they also noted that second guessing particular approaches or
tactics was another staller of progress in execution.
4.6 Project Management
Project management is the final and key step in the translation journey from the formulated corporate
strategy to execution of the strategy. In project management work, this is known as implementation. In this
process, the high level concept, plan or objective is turned into an approach or methodology and actionable
tasks. The corporate strategy may have progressed through corporate management, portfolio
management, businesses and functions without any tangible execution in the organisation until the project
lifecycle commences. Participants agreed with the proposal of the Journey from Strategy Formulation to
Implementation model that this is indeed the case. The strategy and the specific project objectives it
translates into determine the extent of the project. Creating a whole new project represents one end of a
continuum, the other being change to an existing project or process.
How project (strategic) objectives are implemented
Determining the approach to meet project objectives is critical for execution progress. In rigid and complex
organisations, there are many different ways of executing, and it is this process where the original
objectives of the strategy may be lost. The objectives and requirements may have gone through significant

processes in the organisation and the direct link to corporate strategy is no longer clear. Most participants
highlighted that the ‘how’ part of the strategy was typically not dictated by corporate or higher levels of
management. One senior project manager a transport company highlighted that generally there is little or
no guidance provided as to how the objectives are to be met. For example, one corporate level driven
strategy was to ‘improve the safety standards across the network and have the highest in the industry’,
which could be done in many different ways. This highlights the importance of the project lifecycle in
determining a detailed action plan for implementation. This was also confirmed by the remarks of the
strategy consultant, who highlighted that it is not feasible for the details of the implementation to exist at the
corporate level, ‘…although they need to have a gut feeling as to the feasibility of the strategy’. This was
echoed by other participants. There is also significant organisational barriers in terms of the resources and
capability of those involved in the project, as well as SME knowledge.
Length of project lifecycle
Another issue highlighted as a significate barrier to effective strategy implementation was how long the
project lifecycle takes in organisations. This core rigidity and process makes it very difficult for projects to
be in line with the dynamic nature of strategy. A project manager in a large financial services firm
highlighted that ‘…due to the internal processes required to get things done and make changes, this
significantly stretched the project lifecycle’. In one example, the project could not go live due to the simple
approval of data transfer from one system to another within the same organisation. This took nearly nine
months in one case. It was also highlighted that the long timeline of the project management lifecycle had
a significant impact of the benefits realisation, in general the longer the cycle the less relevant the benefits
delivered were to the original or current strategic objectives.
Ability to determine most feasible and appropriate solution (approach)
The solution or methodology process was noted as being a significant barrier to effective implementation,
as there are many ways of meeting a particular objective. This relies on the expertise of the people
engaged in the project to determine the best solution; hence it is key that senior management pick the right
individuals to be involved. Also, there can be ‘too many people that want a say’. If the wrong people are on
the project, then this can make things take longer or lead the project in the wrong direction; hence it will be
difficult to execute effectively. This also typically requires expert knowledge and knowhow. It was
highlighted that it is key that senior management champion the change and as part of the project initiation

process to ensure that the most appropriate talent is involved. Typically if this is too rushed or inappropriate
individuals involved then the strategy may not be translated properly.
Participants also noted that in this process the true essence of the corporate strategy could be lost as the
executors and subject matter experts are removed or may not even know what the higher level corporate
strategy was. Sometime it is not unit the project is delivered and the benefits realisation is supposed to
commence that this realisation comes to light.

5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT
The unsatisfactorily high failure rate of strategy in firms was the key driver for this research. Through the
review of current best practice in the literature, it is clear that there is a lack of systematic flow of the
processes that strategy goes through to arrive at tangible action in organisations. Hence the Journey from
Strategy Formulation to Implementation model was constructed and used as a tool to interview experienced
individuals executing in practice. The key focus was to explore how strategy is translated through
processes and different levels of large organisations to further understand what goes wrong in this process
to result in wrong delivery or no delivery at all. The key roadblocks identified are a result of what l will call
‘organisational rigidities’, which are essentially noise due to internal factors which act as blockers or at least
slow down and misalign the desired implementation. The key three roadblocks in the journey and
recommendations for management are outlined below.
5.1 Feasibility of Strategy Execution is Not Known ‘Enough’ when Formulated
A very important implication for management came out of this process: it is not until the initiation and
planning phase of the project management lifecycle that methodology and approach is known, and a more
accurate assessment of the resources and effort required to deliver the project is known, see Figure 7 for
diagrammatic example. If this is the case, then how can strategy formulators, typically very removed from
the limitations and complexities, formulate a strategy that is feasible? The important insight here is that this
strategy must be translated by the respective businesses and functions, remembering that lower level
management wants to be seen to be delivering and will be reluctant to say something can’t be done.
Figure 7: Point in project lifecycle where design and methodology is determined (Authors own
work)
Initiation
Project Lifecycle
begins.
Planning Execution
Go-Live
+
Closure
Design of methodology and approach and its
feasibility is not known until this phase of the
project life cycle.

The participants’ responses highlight that essentially there needs to be an assessment and understanding
of the feasibility of a new strategy in terms of the organisation’s current resources and capabilities as part of
the formulation process. More than just a ‘gut feel’ as many experienced was the case. This is typically
known by individuals lower down in the organisation, particularly subject matter experts in areas that will be
significantly changed by the new strategy. These people should be engaged in the strategy formulation
process to some extent. This is also a key enabler for getting things done more quickly later, if key
stakeholders are all around the table in the formulation process in the beginning, and strategy will be
translated down through the organisation more effectively.
There is also the need for a feedback loop once the ‘how’ of the strategy—the approach or methodology—
is determined. This is not something that is typically known until much later in the translation process, at the
project mobilisation phase. Once the methodology is determined, then a more accurate assessment of
time, cost and feasibility is known. However, through this research it was discovered that as information
translates back up through the organisation, it will be summarized and made more concise and ‘sugar
coated’. This can result in quite a different view from the real situation on the ground. It is not until further
down the track that it comes to light that the benefits of the desired strategy and objectives are not met to a
satisfactory level.
Summary of recommendations for practice
 Once the design approach and methodology is known, if this deviates from the anticipated,
expected benefits, time and cost, then this should be highlighted to corporate/senior management
so that the strategy and/or approach can be revised if appropriate.
 Engage relevant stakeholders of the expected impacted areas that can opine on the feasibility of
the strategy in the formulation process.
5.2 Need for ‘Universal’ Prioritisation
An ongoing problem in large organisations is too many projects being attempted at once, without the
appropriate resources and, even more disturbingly, no structured prioritisation across projects or link to
overall strategy. Based on the participants’ and the author’s experiences, this is complex, as there are
typically significant projects in-flight with sunk costs and there is already pressure on resources. Projects

also are not generally successful in isolation; there are complex interdependencies and mutual benefits
provided. Hence how these interdependencies link and are individually prioritised is key to getting things
done. This is intrinsically difficult, as each project is normally ‘number one priority’ for a particular business,
function or individual in the organisation and projects normally involve input across each of these. Hence
conflict and barrier to progress arises.
The key distinction for prioritisation is that the activities of ‘strategic’ projects must be prioritised in line with
strategic importance. Heads of each business and function must be aware of what is important at the
corporate management level. This research demonstrated that it is easy to get confused with what is urgent
but not important and what is operational and not strategic in nature. The key thing for management to be
aware of is that individuals make decisions based on known available information and their own self-
interest. We need to be clear and aware that this self-interest will typically be short term and may or may
not be in the best interest of the company.
Typically for something new or in light of a change, there is generally a need to reassign resources.
Participants demonstrated that it is not only other new projects that they are competing with, but also
business as usual operations and indeed in-flight projects. This constant internal conflict is highlighted in
the diagram below, in Figure 8.
Figure 8: The Battle for the Firms Resources (Author’s own work)
Constant Prioritisation: Battle for
available firm resources
New and
Explorative
Projects
Inflight
Projects
BAU
Activities
Internal conflict
for resources
across activities

In order to meet top level corporate strategy, strategic priorities must filter down to the organisational
activities required to execute the strategy. As project tasks cross businesses, functions and teams, each
must be aware of their relative importance.
 Where there are dependencies for the project, it is critical that they are aware and accept the
importance of their tasks linked to the project and execution of the overall strategy.
 Ensure a universal prioritisation framework that goes across business and functions is linked to
level of strategic importance.
 All related parties required for implementation should be engaged from the beginning: this will
ensure ‘buy in’ and reduce organisational rigidities later down the track.
5.3 Core Rigidity of Project Management and Length of Project Lifecycle are not Effective
Enablers of Emergent Strategy
Participants all agreed that strategy is not static across their organisations, as presented by Mintzberg
(1994), but it is emergent. This research extends Mintzberg’s work to highlight the impact it has on
implementation. As each organisation is different and has its own set of internal and external variables,
there are many reasons that strategy can change. In fact it may not be just the strategy that changes—it
can also be how the strategy is implemented or in other words, the solution to meet the strategy that
changes. Either way, as the strategy goes through the organisation and is translated to project objectives it
can impact the scope, timeframe, methodology, benefits and outcomes or projects. This is in conflict with
the assumption of structure and control in projects and the idea that there is one best way to get the job
done (Whitty and Schulz, 2007). This was demonstrated in participant’s experience where can be difficult
to change project in-flight, and indeed as the timeframe to deliver the project is so long it is regular that the
project face these challenges. Project and programme management need to make the decision to disrupt
the project to align to the new strategy, which could further stretch the timeline, or do nothing. In the case of
doing nothing this is where participants demonstrated that strategy execution can fail. Figure 9 below
highlights this disruption to progress.

Figure 9: Example emergent strategy impacting the rigid project life-cycle (Author’s own work).
Initiation
Project Livecycle
begins
Planning Execution
Go-Live
+
Closure
The key issue is that organisations find themselves in a constant state of change, which is disruptive to
progress. Participants also highlight that business units and functional senior management often move or
change roles, and this in itself can change strategy or how it is implemented. Their strategic direction and
prioritisation of current in-flight projects could be very different to that of the previous management. Hence if
the current in-flight projects deliver, they will not meet the updated desired strategic objectives.
 Ensure regular tollgates and checkpoints that ensure the project is still in line with strategy and its
benefits will still be delivered.
 Encourage organisational design that facilitates fast decisions and change, remove change
blockers.
 When working out the approach as part of a project delivery, ensure it is ‘future proofed’ against
potential changes.
Constant emergent strategy translated to project
objectives: Impacts scope, timeframe, methodology,
requirements and benefits when already ‘locked down’.

5.4 Final Conclusion
Through this research we can better understand how corporate strategy goes on a significant journey in the
organisation before it reaches tangible project objectives and tasks, which are a key enabler for effective
execution. It is in the translation process through the organisation where the true essence of the intended
benefits of the strategies can be lost. The project life cycle and its timeframe in large organisations does not
typically match strategy delivery expectations and the emergent nature of strategy, therefore organisations
need to remove barriers to change in such a way to shorten the project life cycle. Also assessing feasibility
of strategy as part of the formulation process, as well as ensuring the resources needed to deliver are
appropriately prioritised across the organisation will help remove roadblocks in the process and increase
the chances of effective execution.
If management are aware of these and the organisational rigidities that can muddy the translation process
they can equip the organisation to reduce execution risk, and ultimately implement strategy and the
associated benefits more effectively.

6 REFERENCES
Archer, N. & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999) An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International
Journal of Project Management, 17 (4), 207.
Cândido, C. & Santos, S. (2015) Strategy implementation: what is the failure rate? Journal of Management
& Organization, 21 (2), 237–262.
Carazo, A. F. (2015) Project portfolio selection. In: Schwindt, C. & Zimmerman, J. (eds.) Handbook on
project management and scheduling Vol. 2. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 709–728.
Dye, D. & Pennypacker J. (1999). Project Portfolio Management and Managing Multiple projects: Two sides
to the same coin?. Project Portfolio Management: Selecting and prioritizing project for competitive
advantage. West Chester, PA: Centre for business practices.
Englund, R. & Graham, R. (1999) From experience: linking projects to strategy. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 16 (1), 52–64.
Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. (1994) Competing for the future. Harvard Business Review, 72 (4), 122.
Ivancic, V. (2013) The biggest failures in strategy implementation. Interdisciplinary Management Research,
9, 197–208.
Meskendahl, S. (2010) The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success:
a conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 28 (8), 807–817.
Lycett, M, Rassau, A, & Danson, J. (2004) Programme management: a critical review, International Journal
of Project Management, 22, 4, p. 289.
Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J. & Ahlstrand, B. (1998) Strategy safari: a guided tour through the wilds of strategic
management. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J. (1985) Of strategies deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal,
257– 272.
Morris, P. & Jamieson, A. (2005) Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. Project Management
Journal, 36 (4), 5–18.

Neilson, G., Martin, K. & Powers, E. (2008) The secrets to successful strategy execution. Harvard Business
Review, 86 (6), 60–70.
Pellegrinelli, S. (1997) Programme management: organising project-based change. International Journal of
Project Management, 41, 141–149.
Pinto, J. K., Clelend, D. I. & Slevin, D. P. (eds.) (2003) The frontiers of project management research.
Newton Square, PA, Project Management Institute.
Roney, C. W. (2004) Strategic management methodology. Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers.
Whitty, J. & Schulz, M. (2007) The impact of Puritan ideology on aspects of project management.
International Journal of Project Management, 25, 10–20.
Young, M. & Young, R. (September 2012) The rise and fall of project management: are we observing the
birth of a new discipline? Journal of Project, Program & Portfolio Management, 3 (1), p. 58–77.
Young, R & Jordan, E. (2010). Engaging top managers in the execution of strategy through projects.
European Institute of Advanced Studies in Management. Valencia Spain.

7 APPENDIX
APPENDIX One:
Position Title (in current firm) Main Career Industry Experience
1 Senior Project Manager Transportation Industry
2 Head of Business Finance Change Financial Services
3 Head of Transformation Financial Services
4 Global Head of Change Delivery Financial Services
5 International Head of Strategy Various—Strategy Consulting
6 Senior Programme Manager Financial Services
7 Programme Manager Financial Services
8 Learning and Development Manager Financial Services
9 Director Various—Strategy Consulting
10 Transformation Programme Manager Financial Services
11 Strategy Consulting Freelancer Oil Industry
12 Strategy and Planning Manager Financial Services
13 Director and Head of Strategy Various—Strategy Consulting

Charles Pitt- Dissertation - Strategic Action - The Journey from Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation v1.1 FINAL

More Related Content

Similar to Charles Pitt- Dissertation - Strategic Action - The Journey from Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation v1.1 FINAL (20)

Charles Pitt- Dissertation - Strategic Action - The Journey from Strategy Formulation to Project Implementation v1.1 FINAL