الگوی ترسیم نقشه راهبرد و هدایت راهبرد‌ها

نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه علم و صنعت

2 دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

در دنیای رقابتی امروز، سازمان‌ها برای رسیدن به اهداف و انجام مأموریت‌های خود نیاز به تدوین راهبرد، برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی و در نهایت ارزیابی عملکرد خود دارند. وزن دهی و الویت بندی راهبرد‌ها، سازمان را در تنظیم وقت و سرمایه متناسب با اهداف خودیاری می‌کند. در این راستا کارت امتیازی متوازن با ساختاری سلسله مراتبی خود می‌تواند به‌عنوان ابزاری جهت هموارسازی مسیر رشد سازمان مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. نقشه راهبرد حاصل از مفاهیم کارت امتیازی متوازن، در حقیقت مدل علت و معلولی پیچیده‌ای است که اثر بعد رشد و یادگیری سازمان بر فرایندهای داخلی، مشتری و نهایتاً وجه مالی سازمان را در برمی‌گیرد. برای گسترش مدل کلاسیک کارت امتیازی متوازن در سال‌های اخیر، روش‌های متنوعی مورد استفاده قرار گرفته است و به ترکیب آن با مدل‌های کمی و کیفی پرداخته‌اند تا برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی را تسهیل نمایند. جامعه آماری تحقیق شرکت نفت سپاهان است. مطالعه موردی، برای تکمیل پرسشنامه‌ها از نظرات مدیران و خبرگان صنعت نفت استفاده شد. در مدل پیشنهادی نقشه راهبرد شرکت مذکور به روش تحلیل مسیر ترسیم‌ شده است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Model for Designing Strategic Map and Guiding Strategies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Hadi Aliahmadi 1
  • Seyyed Mostafa Razavi 2
  • Hossein Safari 2
1 Science and Technology University
2 Tehran University
چکیده [English]

To rich the objectives and missions in today’s competitive world, organizations have to determine their strategies, exert strategic planning and eventually performance evaluation. Weighting and prioritization of strategic layers helps organization to adjust their time and investment, according to the organization objectives. Meanwhile, the Balanced Scorecard paves the way to grow and achieve excellence. Strategic map derived out of the balanced scorecard concepts is in fact a complicated causal model which includes the effects of growth and learning in the organization, on internal business processes, customers and finally the financial perspective. Recently, various methods have been employed to expand the classic model of balanced scorecard which has led to its combination with both quantitative and qualitative models. In this research which is a case study of various strategic layers (strategic objectives and contexts) of a petrochemical company, after a review on the literature of strategy, balanced scorecard, and a study of strategic contexts and objectives, we conclude to prioritization of the strategic layers of the company. Subsequent to the weighting and prioritization of strategic themes and objectives, the strategic map of the company is drawn.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Strategic Planning
  • Balanced Scorecard
  • Fuzzy Prioritization Method
  • Genetic Algorithm
  • MOORA Methodology
  • Strategic Map

 

1. اصغرپور، محمدجواد (1377). تصمیم‌گیری‌های چند معیاره، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.

2. حمیدی­زاده، محمدرضا (1393). برنامه‌ریزی استراتژیک و بلندمدت، سمت، تهران.

3. صالحی، مژگان (1391). ترسیم نقشه استراتژی شرکت شاتل با استفاده از خانه استراتژی، DEMATEL و TOPSIS فازی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. تهران. دانشکده مدیریت تهران.

4. علی احمدی، علیرضا و جعفری، میثم (1391). کارت امتیازی متوازن و کاربردهای آن. تهران. انتشارات تولید دانش.

5. قدسی پور، حسن (1382). مباحثی در تصمیم‌گیری چند معیاره برنامه‌ریزی چندهدفه، مرکز نشر دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر.

6. مک‌دونالد، جان (1381). ترجمه و تدوین، بدری نیک فطرت، تهران. نشر توحید.

7. مهدی پور، ف (1385). مکان‌یابی مجتمع‌های خدماتی – تفریحی بین‌راهی با استفاده از سیستم اطلاعات مکانی با تأکید بر الگوریتم ژنتیک. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه خواجه نصیر طوسی.

8. Abedinian, B and Jonosh,H. (2014).The MCDM Application in Urban Planning Projects: The CDS Project of District 22 of Tehran Municipality. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management. 9. 55-70.

9. Arabzad, S and Razmi,J and Ghorbani,M. (2012). Classify Purchasing Items Based on Risk and Profitability Attributes; using MCDM and FMEA Techniques.Research Journal of Internatıonal Studies. 80-85.

10. Brauers, W. K. M. and Zavadskas, E. K. (2006). The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control and Cybernetics.35(2),445–469.

11. Brauers, W. K. M. and Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 16(1), 5–24.

12. Brauers, W. K. M. and Zavadskas, E. K. and Turskis, Z. and Vilutiene, T. (2008). Multiobjective contractor’s ranking by applying the MOORA method. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 9(4), 245–255.

13. Brauers, W. K. M. and Zavadskas, E. K. and Peldschus, F. and Turskis, Z. (2008). Multiobjective decision-making for road design.Transport, 23(3), 183–193.

14. Brauers, W. K. M., and Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 5–24.

15. Brauers, W. K. M., and Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). Robustness in the MULTIMOORA model: The example of Tanzania.Transformations in Business & Economics, 9(3), 67–83.

16. Brauers, W. K. M., and Zavadskas, E. K. (2011). MULTIMOORA optimization used to decide on a bank loan to buy property.Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(1), 174–188.

17. Brauers, W. K. M. and Zavadskas, E. K. (2011). From a centrally planned economy to Multiobjective optimization in an enlarged project management, the case of China. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research(1),167–188.

18. Brookes CJ. (2001). A genetic algorithm for designingoptimal patch configurations in GIS. InternationalJournal of Geographical Information Science 15(6).539-559.

19. Ci, E. (2013). A Prioritization Model for Components of Strategic Management Process. Proceedings of Annual Paris Business and Social Science Research Conference Crowne Plaza Hotel, France.

20. Chakraborty, S. (2010). Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing environment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 54, 1155–1166.

21. Chenhall,R and Langfield-Smith,K. (1998). The Relationship Between Strategic Priorities, Management Techniques and Managemenet Accounting: An Emperical Investigation Using a Systems Approach.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 243-264.

22. Eftekhari,A and Neshat,A and Azadi,S. (2014). Priority and Ranking Measurement of Urban Tourism Strategies Emphasizing Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) and Strategic Planning on Gorgan. International Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences. 3(8).2723-2731.

23. Falatoonitoosi, E and Leman,Z and Sorooshian,S. (2012). Casual strategy mapping using integrated BSC and MCDM-DEMATEL. Journal of American Science. 8(5). 424-429.

24. Farzipoor, R. (2009). A Mathematical Programming Approach for Strategy Ranking. Asia Pacific Management Review, 109-120.

25. Fouladgar, M and Yakhchali, s and Yazdani-Chamzini,A and Basiri,M. (2011). Evaluating the Strategies of Iranian Mining Sector Using an Integrated Model.IPEDR. 11.

26. Holland, J. (1975). Adoption in Natural and Artificial Systems.University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

27. Hosseinzadeh, M and Vesal,M and Shamsaddini R and Kamel,A. (2013). Prioritizing Competitive Strategies in Iranian SME's Based on AHP: Approach in Severe Economic Sanctions. International Journal of Business and Management. 8(16). 48-54.

28. Hosseini-Nasab, H. (2012).An Application of Fuzzy numbers in Quantitative Strategic Planning Method with MCDM. Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Istanbul, Turkey, July. 555-563.

29. Jafarnejad, A and Rahman, M and Karimi Zarchi,M. (2012). Formulation and Prioritization of Strategies in Tile and Ceramic Industry: A Case Study.New York Science Journal. 5(6). 79-80.

30. Kung, J and Carverhill,A. (2009). An efficient ex-ante criterion for ranking investment strategies. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 210. 258–268.

31. Mobin, M and Dehghani,M and Salmon,C. (2014). Food product target market prioritization using MCDM approaches. Proceedings of the Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference.

32. Muralidhar, P and Ravindranath, K and Srihari, V. (2012). Evaluation of Green Supply Chain Management Strategies Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS.IOSR Journal of Engineering Apr. 2(4). 824-830.

33. Quezada, L and López-Ospina, H. (2014). A method for designing a strategy map using AHP and linear programming. International Journal of Production Economics. S0925-5273 (14) 00266-7.

34. Somsuk, N and Laosirihongthong,T. (2014). A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 85. 195-210.

35. Verbeeten,F and Boons,A. (2009). Strategic priorities, performance measures and performance: an empirical analysis in Dutch firms. European Management Journal, 27, 113– 128.

36. Ward, M and Mitchell, S. (2004). A comparison of the strategic priorities of public and private sector information resource management executives.Government Information Quarterly, 21,284–304.

37. Wang, S and Lee,C and Tzeng, G. (2008). Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Evaluating the performance of mutual funds.Dynamical Aspects in Fuzzy Decision Making, 141-162.

38. Wang, L and Chu, J. and Wu, J. (2007). Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Production Economics. 107. 151–163.

39. Wong, W and Lee,D. (1990). Signature File Methods for Implementing a Ranking Strategy. Information Processing & Management, 26(5), 641-653.

40. Zavadskas, E. K. and Turskis, Z. and Tamošaitiene, J. & Marina, V. (2008). Multicriteria selection of project managers by applying grey criteria. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 14(4). 462–477.

41. Zavadskas, E. K.and Turskis, Z. and Ustinovichius, L. and Shevchenko, G. (2010). Attributes weights determining peculiarities in multiple attribute decision making methods. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics. 21(1). 32–43.