No description available.

Context: A relatively recent focus on evidence based management has been influenced strongly by evidence based medicine. Healthcare administrators are encouraged to utilize similar principles to optimize their decision making. There are no known studies that address whether or not and how evidence is used by healthcare administrators in decision making practice and process. Objectives: This study explores how evidence is conceptualized by public hospital executives and whether or not, and how, evidence is brought to bear on strategic decision making. Design: The study undertook a qualitative design, using a grounded theory approach. The focus was to uncover how evidence is conceptualized by decision makers, whether or not and how evidence as defined is brought to bear, and under what conditions and why evidence is brought to bear. The study included four public hospitals in the Greater Toronto Area, two academic health sciences centres and two community teaching hospitals. Hospital CEOs were asked to identify three strategic decisions (one clinical expansion, one partnership, and one decision on prioritizing quality improvement). Interviews were conducted with 19 healthcare leaders and decision makers, and content analysis was undertaken for 64 supporting documents. Results: Strategic decision makers in this study bring an amalgam of evidence to bear on strategic decisions. Evidence comes from sources internal and external to the organization, and includes a series of types of evidence ranging from published research to local business evidence. The reasons for bringing evidence to bear are highly intertwined. Evidence was sought, developed, and brought to bear on decisions in a formalized manner, and was used in concert with conditions internal and externalto the organization, and informed by the decision maker characteristics. Conclusion: Evidence plays a prominent role in strategic decision making. Strategic decisions were supported by processes requiring evidence to be brought to bear.

Context: A relatively recent focus on evidence based management has been influenced strongly by evidence based medicine. Healthcare administrators are encouraged to utilize similar principles to optimize their decision making. There are no known studies that address whether or not and how evidence is used by healthcare administrators in decision making practice and process. Objectives: This study explores how evidence is conceptualized by public hospital executives and whether or not, and how, evidence is brought to bear on strategic decision making. Design: The study undertook a qualitative design, using a grounded theory approach. The focus was to uncover how evidence is conceptualized by decision makers, whether or not and how evidence as defined is brought to bear, and under what conditions and why evidence is brought to bear. The study included four public hospitals in the Greater Toronto Area, two academic health sciences centres and two community teaching hospitals. Hospital CEOs were asked to identify three strategic decisions (one clinical expansion, one partnership, and one decision on prioritizing quality improvement). Interviews were conducted with 19 healthcare leaders and decision makers, and content analysis was undertaken for 64 supporting documents. Results: Strategic decision makers in this study bring an amalgam of evidence to bear on strategic decisions. Evidence comes from sources internal and external to the organization, and includes a series of types of evidence ranging from published research to local business evidence. The reasons for bringing evidence to bear are highly intertwined. Evidence was sought, developed, and brought to bear on decisions in a formalized manner, and was used in concert with conditions internal and externalto the organization, and informed by the decision maker characteristics. Conclusion: Evidence plays a prominent role in strategic decision making. Strategic decisions were supported by processes requiring evidence to be brought to bear.

This thesis challenges the neoclassical and the state-oriented views on economic and industrial development, using a strategic decision making theory framework and by focusing on the changing governance of the Korean water sector as an in-depth case. This research finds that a governance structure controlled by a few elites from the market or the state inevitably fails to meet the public interest. Strategic decision making theory (SDT) in this research incorporates Barzelay’s institutional processualism (Barzelay, 2003, Barzelay and Gallego, 2006) and Moe’s concept of purposive incentive (1981), in order to explain ‘changing’ governance and the reasons why some actors voluntarily participate in democratic decision making despite ‘collective action problems’. The Korean water sector, the case of this research, illustrates these ideas by showing that governance changes result from intense interaction between interested and purposive actors, critical events, and context. SDT analysis is complemented by an econometric analysis, which shows that the decentralisation of decision making power does not necessarily come with better performance unless proper governance is introduced. Solutions suggested in this thesis are democratic industrial governance and, as an intermediate means, a democratic regulatory agency, which is beyond merely (economic) regulation to remedy ‘market failure’ and economic bureaucrats pursuing long term career path.

Strategic decision-making is a fundamental process in business management as strategic decisions affect the long-term health of the organisation. However, a constantly and unpredictably changing business environment, becoming progressively more complex as time passes makes strategy formulation increasingly difficult. Shock events such as terrorist attacks, rapidly spreading communicable diseases, and unexpected business failures of large and well-established companies greatly affect organisations by making it difficult to effectively plan for the future. This thesis contributes to the strategic decision-making literature by investigating the role of shock events in a complex system, namely strategic decision-making. Using chaos/complexity theory as an intellectual platform this thesis argues that strategic decision-making is a complex, open, dynamic and non-linear system and that shock events can represent an opportunity in strategic decision-making. A number of contemporary writers are calling for more integrated models. In response this research proposes a generic and integrative framework that highlights the complexity of strategic decision-making and its processes. The research is qualitative and a single-case study approach was chosen, examining the decision-making processes in a large Australian regional airport. Data collection was triangulated, consisting mainly of in-depth interviews with executives but also included questionnaires, and quantitative and qualitative archival data. It was found that shock events influenced strategic decision-making by causing evolutionary changes in the strategic decision-making processes. In addition it was found that shock events impacted on internal drivers such as cognition and organisational culture. The shock event was perceived as an opportunity, which resulted in changing decision-making processes a change in business strategy. It was concluded that environmental perception, intuition and an opportunity-seeking culture can play an important part in strategic decision-making following a shock event.

This thesis seeks to find out which factors affect the decision to implement “lean” within manufacturing firms, and thus to build on the theory of lean implementation-driving factors. The research problem addressed, is the lack of literature regarding driver factors for lean implementation, and the potential applicability of strategic decision making (SDM) literature to the subject.   The thesis has been designed as a multiple case study of six manufacturing companies that have implemented lean, three of which are leaders in the market with longer lean experience. To gain a wider perspective on the topic, these case studies have been supplemented with an additional three pilot interviews with lean consultancy firms.                Based on our findings, this study comes to conclusions concerning the relevance that individual, organizational, and external factors have on the decision to implement lean. It also shows the influence that various factors not mentioned in previous literature have on the decision to implement lean (such as “following the trend” and organizational age). This study also reveals the dissimilarities between factors influencing strategic decision making and those influencing lean implementation, such as governmental regulations and objectives of sustainability. Finally, this paper includes suggestions for further research within the topic.

The strategic decision making process (SDMP) is a major issue in organisations. It is part of the larger topic of strategic management and related to strategic planning. Achievement of strategic objectives outlined in the strategic plan of an organisation depends on the decisions taken through the process. Yet the literature shows that the concept of SDMP is not well understood and organisations find it difficult to develop and implement an SDMP, particularly Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The literature indicates that decisions are taken in organizations in different ways for example using intuition, data, collaboration and ad-hoc considerations. In addition contextual factors are argued to affect the SDMP although very little research has been conducted to explain how contextual factors affect SDMP they do in HEIs. Some examples of contextual factors namely decision process characteristics have been identified and discussed as part of the SDMP literature in industry. However, lack of knowledge about SDMP and how contextual factors influence SDMP is regarded as to be a major obstacle for HEIs in taking decisions and choosing the best alternative amongst available decisions. This research seeks to contribute to address this important issue. Whilst there are many strategic decision characteristics (contextual factors) identified in the literature, this research focuses on decision importance. The rationale for choosing decision importance was that there is always some concern in the minds of the decision makers in the HEIs on what constitutes an important decision. What is considered as important decision while the decision is being taken may prove to be less important after implementation if there is no clear understanding of how to assign importance to a decision. Even in the industrial sector, Elbanna and Child (2007) it has been argued that decision importance has not been studied well. Relying upon the theoretical model developed by Elbanna and Child and other arguments found in the literatue, this research argued that the SDMP is a combination of relationships between decision characteristics, SDMP characteristics and decision outcomes that are influenced by environmental factors. As far as environmental factors were concerned environmental uncertainty was chosen as an external environment factor while organisational performance was chosen as the internal contextual factor. These two factors were argued to moderate the relationship between SDMP characteristics and SDMP outcomes and theoretical support for this conceptualisation was taken from the model developed by Elbanna and Child. A research model was developed to address the research questions, and the aim of the study was “to examine the different decision specific characteristic, SDMP characteristic and SDMP process outcome variables and develop a relationship amongst them in the context of HEIs in a changing environment”. The research was conducted in the United States of America and data was gathered from faculty members involved in decision making at the department level and higher. A positivist epistemological and objective ontological stance was adopted and a deductive approach was used. The research model was tested using the data collected from 485 valid responses to a survey questionnaire. Linear regression was the primary analysis approach and supplemented by path analysis. Results from the regression analysis showed that decision importance exerts influence on decision effectiveness through the mediators, rationality in decision making, intuition and decentralization in decision making. However, the outcome of path analysis showed that only rationality in decision making and intuition are important while decentalisation was not found to be statistically significant. Similarly environmental factors exerted pressure only on the relationship between rationality in decision making and decision effectiveness. The contradicting SDMP factors rationality in decision making and intuition were both found to be necessary to SDMP in the HEI context. This research has contributed to knowledge in terms of establishing a relationship between decision importance and decision process effectiveness mediated by rationality in decision making and intuition and development of the model. Theoretically the findings of this research show that the modification imposed on the model developed by Elbanna and Child was found to be statistically significant and found support from the literature. Environmental factors affected the relationship between rationality in decision making and decision effectiveness. This research has provided a model that can be used to help decision makers in HEIs to implement SDMP practically in the organization, to guide the process towards more robust decisions. The findings of this research find application in supporting policy makers to increase the likelihood of more effective decisions so that the decisions taken more effective.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Psychological Sciences / Satoris S. Culbertson / Developing effective strategic thinkers in an organization requires a dedication to early identification, selection, development, and practice, along with the conceptual understanding and measurement tools to make it happen. In support of this, the current research focused on three objectives: 1) establishing theoretical support across multiple disciplines for the concept of a strategic thinking mindset, 2) developing the Strategic Thinking Mindset Test (STMT) using situational judgment test methodology for the U.S. Army, and 3) evaluating the results of a pilot test of the STMT for reliability and construct validity. The STMT focuses on three characteristics of a strategic mindset: Flexibility, Humility, and Inclusiveness. These characteristics were derived from themes found common to strategic thinking literature across the disciplines of psychology, management, and military science. In all stages of this research, officers and non-commissioned officers of the U.S. Army served as participants. The first three stages involve the development and keying of content for the STMT. A sample of 125 participants provided scenarios in Stage 1. In Stage 2, 75 participants gave feedback on the scenarios and provided realistic response options. In Stage 3, 224 participants rated the response options according to expression of the characteristic and effectiveness. In Stage 4, the pilot version of the STMT was administered to 229 participants, along with several other measures used to establish construct validity evidence. The results of the pilot test revealed that, although there is some evidence supporting the construct validity of the STMT as a three-factor test of flexibility, humility, and inclusiveness, the overall profile of evidence suggests that the construct(s) being measured are unclear. Low inter-item correlations contribute to a low internal consistency in the measure, which further limits the STMT’s use as a predictor. The pilot test revealed interesting results related to cognitive ability, specifically a negative relationship between the mindset and cognitive ability under best/worst response instructions, rather than a positive relationship or no relationship, as was the case under most/least likely response instructions. Future research recommendations are discussed in the areas of SJT development, scoring, format, and the further refinement and measurement of the strategic thinking mindset.

Background: The Chinese market is growing fast and rapidly in a high pace. Many foreign companies see the possibilities in this and are expanding their business to China. When operating business in China strategic decisions are taken by the management, sometimes without reflection of what influences the process. This makes the influence on the management strategic decision-making process vital when expanding to China, since it may reflect on the company’s strategic plans.   Purpose: To further explore and extend the research area on how the expansion to China influences the management and their strategic decision-making process.   Research questions: RQ1: Do the expansion to China influence the management strategic decision-making process?   RQ2: How does the expansion to China influence the management strategic decision-making process?   Methodology: Conducted as an abductive qualitative multiple case study, examined with semi-structured interviews with an exploratory purpose.   Conclusion: The empirical investigation showed that the management and their strategic decision-making process are influenced by the expansion to China. The influences are; rationality, decision speed, environment, politics, culture and how management view their strategy through the strategic lenses.

This study explores the relationship between diversity within executive decision-making teams at institutions of higher education and their propensity for strategic change. Previous research in the areas of strategic change, group decision making, and higher education was drawn from in this study. Statistically significant relationships were discovered the demographic background of executive decision-making teams at public colleges and universities, as measured by both the pursuit of new degree and certificate program offerings and multiple measures of student retention. The results also indicated the presence of an insufficiently diverse pool of potential executives for colleges and universities to draw from.