House of Strategy (HOS): from strategic objectives to competitve priorities

Dror, Shuki; Barad, Miryam

doi:10.1080/00207540600575779

Cited by 36 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Competitive priorities or competitive advantages are typically related to price (low), delivery (fast, reliable), product quality (high, stable), product variety and new products. We adopt here the approach suggested by Dror and Barad (2006), and replace the 'customer' perspective of the BSC with the set of 'competitive priorities' mentioned above. Since these priorities are measurable variables, they can be viewed as an improved (quantitative) definition of the BSC customer perspective.…”

Section: Modelling the Generic Hierarchical Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dror and Barad (2006) developed an approach which they called the 'house of strategy' (HOS) for translating the improvement needs of a company's business objectives into the relative importance of its competitive priorities. By expressing a company's customer-oriented perspective in terms of its competitive priorities, this approach overcomes the loosely defined customer perspective of the BSC.…”

Section: Modelling the Generic Hierarchical Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Median values of the relationship strengths between core processes and components of the organizational profile (matrix core). Strategy maps as improvement paths of enterprises 6639 of the above levels are selected by means of the mean square error (MSE) method presented in Dror and Barad (2006); see Appendix.…”

Section: Core Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Barad and Gien (2001) developed two QFD sequential matrices to link improvement models to manufacturing strategies. Dror and Barad (2006) developed the house of strategy (HOS) matrix for translating the improvement needs of a company's business objectives into relative importance of its competitive priorities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Barad and S. Dror improvement of each business objective (see Dror and Barad (2006) for a detailed presentation).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Strategy maps as improvement paths of enterprises

Barad

Dror

2008

International Journal of Production Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To locate and prioritize the improvement needs of an enterprise, a strategy map merging managerial principles of the BSC with quality principles stemming from the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award and the European Foundation for Quality Management is proposed. It comprises four hierarchical levels: business objectives, competitive priorities, core processes and components of the organizational profile. The implementation methodology for supporting its application in an individual enterprise makes use of quality function deployment (QFD), a quality design tool. A strategy map here represents a bottom up cause and effect potential improvement path of an investigated enterprise, starting from an improvement of its organizational profile towards an improved realization of its business objectives, thus providing a global perspective on the important linkages between its weakest components at different hierarchical levels. Analysis of two test cases for implementing strategy maps revealed strategy maps that differed from one company to another and discontinuities in some of the maps. We found processes, considered as core processes by interviewees that did not support any competitive priority and a competitive priority, strongly recommended by interviewees, that was not supported by any core process. Such findings call attention to the complex cause-and-effect relationships influencing the enterprise system behaviour, to the lack of management understanding of this behaviour and eventually they add motivation and support to the continuation of our work here.

show abstract

Section: Modelling the Generic Hierarchical Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modelling the Generic Hierarchical Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Core Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Barad and S. Dror improvement of each business objective (see Dror and Barad (2006) for a detailed presentation).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Strategy maps as improvement paths of enterprises

Barad

Dror

2008

International Journal of Production Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Key Performance Indicators for Measuring Sustainable Performance: A Case Study of Implementing Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 Strategy

Alghamdi¹,

Khadawardi²,

Al‐Ghamdi³

et al. 2021

Performance Improve Qtrly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research aims to develop a framework that generates sustainable performance systems and determines appropriate key performance indicators for the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission (SACM) in Australia. The study adopts the Parmenter (2015) framework to guide the study through combining the vision, goals, and strategies of SACM as well as its critical success factors. Appropriate KPIs are then developed using five procedural steps proposed by Keeble et al. (2003). The study employs semi‐structured interviews with senior managers and staff in the academic department at SACM and a focus group with external experts. The results depict four perspectives on the balanced scorecard for SACM. In total, 12 CSFs closely connected to actual work activities and 30 indicators of the most important daily activities are identified. This paper provides crucial information for academic researchers, managers, and human resources practitioners seeking more insight into KPI development in public sector organizations.

show abstract

House of Reliability Costs: Developing Reliability Program Activities

Dror

2013

Quality & Reliability Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliability is an important factor in the management, planning, and design of an engineering product. In order to meet the customer's requirements and achieve desired reliability level, different types of activities should be performed by the system developer/manufacturer. These activities have to be listed in corresponding reliability program and include: inspection, spare parts storage/providing, failure analysis, etc. On one hand, each activity from reliability program list requires some cost for its realization. On the other hand, when any activity was not performed, we should expect some losses because of system's failures. This paper presents an innovative method that enables a company to determine its vital activities in reliability program. The method is based on a House of Reliability Costs for translating the system's failure costs into relative importance of corresponding activities listed in the reliability program. A Mean Square Error (MSE) criterion supports the selection of vital reliability program activities. It divides a set of activities in reliability program into two groups: vital few (activities in reliability program) and trivial many. The partition minimizes the overall MSE and so, delineates two homogeneous groups. A case study is presented to illustrate the application of the developed methodology in a warfare system. The vital reliability program activities -treatment routine and spare parts storage -were found to be the best activities for reducing the costs of the warfare failures.

show abstract

House of Strategy (HOS): from strategic objectives to competitve priorities

Cited by 36 publications

References 10 publications

Strategy maps as improvement paths of enterprises

Strategy maps as improvement paths of enterprises

Key Performance Indicators for Measuring Sustainable Performance: A Case Study of Implementing Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 Strategy

House of Reliability Costs: Developing Reliability Program Activities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About