Closing The Strategy Execution Gap in The Public Sector

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322343612
Closing the strategy execution gap in the public sector
Article in International Journal of Public Leadership · January 2018

DOI: 10.1108/IJPL-04-2016-0010
CITATIONS READS
6 1,006
2 authors:
Anton Olivier Erwin Schwella

Stratex Consulting Stellenbosch University
3 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 128 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Social Innovation from a Public Governance Perspective View project
PhD Thesis View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Anton Olivier on 13 November 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Public Leadership
Closing the strategy execution gap in the public sector
Anton Jacobus Olivier, Erwin Schwella,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Anton Jacobus Olivier, Erwin Schwella, (2018) "Closing the strategy execution gap in the public
sector", International Journal of Public Leadership, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-04-2016-0010
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-04-2016-0010
Downloaded on: 10 January 2018, At: 07:46 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.
Downloaded by 41.182.45.237 At 07:46 10 January 2018 (PT)
To copy this document: [email protected]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:Eprints:I7PDI6DXECCJV66MW7HG:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2056-4929.htm
The strategy
Closing the strategy execution execution gap
gap in the public sector
Anton Jacobus Olivier
Stratex Consulting, Windhoek, Namibia, and
Erwin Schwella
School of Public Leadership, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Received 5 April 2016
University of Stellenbosch, Bellville, South Africa Revised 11 July 2016
Accepted 4 January 2017
Abstract
Purpose – In response to the significant gap between strategy planning and execution, a conceptual model was
developed in an attempt to close this gap, particularly in the public sector. The paper aims to discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a literature review and participatory action
research, stretching over ten case studies and eight years.

Findings – The MERIL-DE model integrates the identified “nine vital stratex components” of leadership,
strategic planning, project management, alignment, MERIL (Measure, Evaluate, Report, Improve and Learn),
drive, engagement, risk, and stakeholder management. The car analogy demonstrates this integration in a
practical way.
Research limitations/implications – The conceptual model should be used as guide in the tailoring of a
unique MERIL-DE model or Stratex Car for each public sector organization (PSO), according to its unique context.
Practical implications – In designing a tailored “Stratex Car” based on the MERIL-DE model, it is believed
to close this gap significantly. The strategy execution framework is presented as a tool to assess the total
strategy execution capacity (TSEC) of PSOs.
Originality/value – This is a new conceptual model for the unique public sector context, focusing on
successful strategy execution in the public sector.
Keywords Strategy execution, Public sector, Conceptual model, Closing the gap, MERIL-DE model,
Stratex Car, Nine vital stratex components
Paper type Research paper
This paper considers the research problem of consistent and general poor execution
of strategic plans in the public sector, which leads to poor service delivery and the
non-realization of the specified objectives and intended benefits to the public.
The nature of strategy execution

According to Childress (2013), there is no strategy without execution. Through execution, the
strategic plan, as hypothesis, is tested and reviewed where needed to achieve the specified
aims in the most efficient way. Thompson and Strickland (1987) regard strategy execution,
evaluation, and adjustment as part of strategic management and define strategic management
as the process whereby managers establish an organization’s long-term direction, set specific
performance objectives, develop strategies to achieve these objectives in the light of relevant
internal and external conditions, and then undertake the chosen action plans. Strategy
execution, as part of strategic management, is the action of doing what the strategy (or the
strategic plan) says and includes a review process. De Flander (2010) defines strategy
execution as “all the actions necessary to turn your strategy into success.” Execution,
according to Bossidy and Charan (2002), is the major job of business leaders. Hrebiniak (2005),
in turn, describes execution as a disciplined process or logical set of connected activities that
enables an organization to make its strategy work. Childress (2013) views strategy and
execution as inseparable, distinct, but intimately connected, much like two sides of a coin. International Journal of Public
Leadership
When separated, they do not work. He sees strategy as a living organism that only expresses © Emerald Publishing Limited
2056-4929
itself though the process of being delivered. It is a unique, disciplined journey involving the DOI 10.1108/IJPL-04-2016-0010
IJPL whole organization. Strategy without execution is consequently non-existent, and execution is
therefore the only competitive advantage. Childress (2013) continues by describing strategy as
a dynamic contact sport where the leadership team will grow in capability, alignment, and
confidence through agility to respond to the uncertain and dynamic environment through
frequent updates and adjustments. Childress (2013) also sees strategy as a journey of
breakthroughs to a different tomorrow, a journey requiring bold leaps in performance and
requiring changing the way things are done. Strategy therefore always requires doing things
in new ways. This distinctiveness is also captured in the definition of a strategic initiative or
project according to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), namely, that it is
being temporary, unique and creating a specific benefit (Project Management Institute (PMI),
2013). Because of this distinctiveness, there cannot be a perfect project plan and perfect
strategic plan, “but the sooner you begin to work your plan, the sooner you learn how to
improve your plan” (Childress, 2013). In the strategic plan, a portfolio of projects is
implemented, which consists of the various selected programs, projects, and activities (PMI,
2013). Hamm (2011) describes execution as a game marked by continually keeping score,
measurement, feedback, learning, and making improvements or corrections. Leaders are paid
and held accountable to produce results from this “game.”
Significance of strategy execution

Collins (2001) in his book Good to Great states that what separates the good from the great
organizations is not strategy, but rather execution. Bossidy and Charan (2002) state that
“execution is the great unaddressed issue in the business world today.” Niven (2003, pp. 10-11)
agrees with this view when he states that “the execution of a strategy is more important and
more valuable than the formulation of a strategy […] [U]nfortunately, the vast majority of
organizations fail miserably when attempting to execute their strategies.” In a similar fashion,
Hrebiniak (2005) states that “formulating strategy is difficult, but executing it throughout the
organization is even harder.” Hrebiniak (2005) continues by stating that “[w]ithout effective
execution, no business strategy can succeed.” Hrebiniak (2005) argues that managers today
know far more about developing strategy than executing strategy, including overcoming
political and organizational obstacles. Welch (2005) believes that without a disciplined process
or logical set of connected activities, strategic goals cannot be attained, as “[t]he important
thing is not having a strategy, it’s getting it implemented.” In turn, De Flander (2010, p. 29)
asserts: “Strategy execution is a new, emerging competitive battlefield that starts to get more
and more attention.”
Lepsinger (2010) and OnPoint Consulting (2011) agree that if an organization cannot
execute its strategy, nothing else matters, i.e. neither the most solid, well-thought-out
strategy, not the most innovative business model, nor even technology that could transform
an industry. Lepsinger (2010) and OnPoint Consulting (2011) agree that the real
differentiator is the ability to get things done and deliver consistent results. Therefore, in
strategic management, it is strategy execution that matters most. Strategy execution seems
to be where the action is, as it is very dynamic and difficult, but also where the benefit is
created, where performance is improved and where competitive advantage is realized.
It seems as if strategy execution is the job of all, including top management. It could be
regarded as a game or a journey, i.e. a long game or journey that has a start and a finish.
The journey or game takes the whole organization to unfamiliar territory as it gains more
territory, moving to higher levels of performance and service delivery.
The size of the strategy execution gap

Research suggests that strategy execution is not given sufficient attention by organizational
role players. Childress (2013) states that 70 percent of CEOs who are fired are not
dismissed because of bad strategies, but rather because of poor execution. Research by
Mankins and Steele (2005), De Flander (2010), OnPoint Consulting (2011), Cruz (2013), and The strategy
Childress (2013) suggests that organizations on average realize only 40 percent of their execution gap
strategic ambition leaving an average gap of 60 percent between strategic planning
and execution. This average percentage was determined through surveys between 2002 and
2008, mostly in large private sector companies in first-world countries.
Organizations in general therefore face an average performance loss of 60 percent when
implementing strategy. At the high end, Zook and Allen (2001), Kaplan and Norton
(2001, 2008), Franken et al. (2009), and Dinsmore and Cabanis-Brewin (2011) reported a
60-90 percent failure rate of well-formulated strategies. The finding from Leinwand and
Mainardi (2016), also from the private sector, is that 66 percent of executives say their
organizations do not have the capabilities to support their strategy.
Reliable statistics based on sound research in the public sector seem not to be available
yet. The average gap between strategy planning and execution in the public sector is
therefore assumed to be also 60 percent. The nature and extent of this gap in public sector
organizations (PSOs) need to be determined in future research. This gap could be expressed
in terms of lost business income/benefit, lost public value, and/or objectives not achieved.
When measuring the extent of objective achievement, all leading and lagging objectives
(input, process, output and outcome objectives) could be assessed or just the lagging
objectives (outputs and outcomes) which may not tell the whole strategy execution story as
advocated by the balanced scorecard.
Research purpose and significance

As strategy execution is being considered the number one challenge in business today, it is
therefore clear that any research contributing to the closure of the gap between strategy
planning and execution in the public sector, in particular, will be valuable. The research is
justified by the significant practical problems that are experienced, as well as the gaps in the
body of knowledge, especially strategy execution in the public sector. The research intends
to present a new simplified and integrated model for strategy execution for today’s PSOs.
It intends to combine different theories and disciplines and to identify and integrate key
components into a usable model for improved strategy execution in the public sector,
operating in a complex, dynamic, and open system. By developing this model, this study
attempts to improve the chances for PSOs to successfully complete their strategic journeys.
Research methodology
While the objective of this study was to develop, test, and further improve a management
model or conceptual model that can be applied in PSOs to help close their strategy execution
gap, the main research question was:
RQ1. What does the ideal strategy execution model for the public sector look like?
The sub-questions were:
• What is the current practice? What are the main problems experienced with strategy
execution in the public service? Where are the main gaps or deficiencies?
• What are the main components of such a model?
• How can these key components be integrated best?
• How can this model be applied best in the public sector?
The qualitative research method was adopted as the most appropriate, using case studies
with the support of questionnaires and focus group discussions. The overall methodological
approach followed was that of Participatory Action Research (PAR).
IJPL Robinson (2011, p. 1,436) suggests, “[c]onceptual modelling is not a science but an art.”
This study holds that conceptual modeling involves analysis and synthesis – the analytical
part to identify the key components and the synthesizing part to put these together in a
balanced and integrative manner. Robinson (2011) describes the process of conceptual
modeling as starting with the observation and description (with assumptions) of the real
system in the “problem domain.” From there, the process moves to the abstract level where
simplifications are made to develop the conceptual model. In this “model domain,” the
conceptual model is tested and validated in the real world or “problem domain.”
This process is described as an iterative process and compares with the PAR methodology.
The conceptual model for closing the strategy execution gap in the public sector was
developed through five phases over this eight-year period. The initial model mostly
originated from theory (literature studies, ideas, and constructs). It was then applied, tested
in practice, tested with theory from literature, and improved further. The PAR cycles in
phases 2-4 included model development, application, verification, and improvement.
The participative action from the beneficiaries (PSO) during the ten case studies was
through individual interviews, focus group discussions, and workshops. The various
conceptual models were presented, tested for applicability, and improved from case study to
case study. A questionnaire was developed and used during initial case studies to help with
model assessment and improvement and to assess strengths and weaknesses of the model
components at organizations. Questions were also asked to determine whether any component
could be removed as critical or vital component or whether any additional component was
required in the conceptual model.
Case studies in empirical research

PAR was conducted in ten PSOs in Namibia over an eight-year period, ranging from 2006 to
2014. The unit of analysis was the organizational and unit level and not the individual level.
PSOs were analyzed with the focus on corporate and unit performance with regard to the
execution of corporate and cascaded unit strategies. The ten case studies used in empirical
research of developing the conceptual model were: one ministry (Ministry of Agriculture,
Water and Forestry); six local authorities (Eenhana Town Council, Ongwediva Town
Council, Bethanie Village Council, Omuthiya Town Council, Helao Nafidi Town Council, and
Walvis Bay Municipality); and three state-owned enterprises (National Road Safety Council,
Fisheries Observer Agency, and Namibia Statistics Agency).
The approach followed with the case studies was to rather select a large number of
diverse PSOs as case studies to get trends in different public sector environments than
doing in-depth studies of one or two PSOs. It is believed that this approach better lends itself
to the development of a conceptual model to be applied in all PSOs. The PAR methodology
applied in the ten case studies was therefore not applied in depth due to the large number of
case studies used in the current research. The conceptual model was developed, tested, and
improved under these different conditions found in the ten case studies.
These case studies followed consultancy appointments of the author, trading as Stratex
Consulting since 2004. These consultancies included mostly strategic planning with
preparations for strategy execution. The duration per consultancy appointment varied
between 4 and 18 months.
Strategy execution: a literature-based analysis

The focus of the study was on strategy execution in the public sector, while most literature
on strategy execution is based on the private sector. This section presents the main
perspectives from the literature review with regard to strategy execution. A significant
increase in research on strategy execution is observed after 2000. It started slowly with
Kaplan and Norton (2001) and then Bossidy and Charan (2002). From 2005 onwards, there
was a constant flow of research from Hrebiniak (2005), Morgan et al. (2007), Paladino The strategy
(2007), Spitzer (2007), Kaplan and Norton (2008), Harpst (2008), Marr (2009), and execution gap
Mukherjee (2009). Sources since 2010 include De Flander (2010), McKnight et al. (2010),
Lepsinger (2010), Cohen (2011), McChesney et al. (2012), Childress (2013), and Leinwand
and Mainardi (2016). These last two sources highlight leadership as the single most
important component for successful strategy execution.
Since 2013, the search for further strategy execution solutions continued, but with no
observed significant scientific research. Calhoun (2013) stresses the importance for
executives to be able to run and transform their existing business models concurrently for
which a well-defined formal strategy execution process is required, together with a
significant paradigm shift, including a move from functional optimization to synchronized
cross-functional optimization. Barrows (2014) confirms that strategy execution remains a
popular topic in management and most challenging business issue. Barrows (2014) makes a
distinction between two mainstream approaches to strategy execution to date, namely,
strategy execution described as a process, for example, by Bossidy and Charan (2002), and
strategy execution described as a system, for example, by Kaplan and Norton (2008).
Barrows (2014) sets the challenge to describe strategy execution, as a system of many
systems and processes, not in too simplistic terms, but also not in too much detail to find a
solution that is just right, capturing the lion’s share of strategy execution success.
This challenge does not mention the even more moving parts and more complicated systems
found in the public sector.
Barriers to successful strategy execution

What are the factors or components contributing to the aforementioned 60 percent gap?
The literature suggests various barriers to successful strategy execution. These barriers
could be grouped into seven categories:
(1) poor leadership (especially the CEO, but also top management and sponsors/champions
at all levels);
(2) poor strategic planning (wrong, incomplete, unclear, not SMART, not cascaded);
(3) poor project management (includes portfolio, program, and project management);
(4) poor alignment of the strategy with the rest of the organizational elements
(staff, skills, culture, structure, processes, technology, and budget);
(5) lack of a performance management system (PMS) (an institutionalized repetitive
cycle of measurement, evaluation, reporting, improving, and learning);
(6) poor drive (internal motivation from individual people); and
(7) poor engagement (of management and staff in strategic management – both in the
planning process and during the strategy execution journey).
Strategy execution solutions

Solutions offered in literature either take the form of certain critical elements or factors that
are required or an integrated system or model. Many of the sources stress the importance of
combining or integrating these factors or elements, but only a few propose how this
integration should take place in the form of an integrated system or model.
An example of the factor solution is provided by Bossidy and Charan (2002) who present
various critical factors, components, or processes for successful execution. They explain that
“the heart of execution lies in three core processes” (Bossidy and Charan, 2002), namely, people,
strategy, and operations. The authors do not fully explain how an organization can successfully
IJPL implement these three core processes. It is the view of the author that this “factor view” does not
contain enough detail to help managers implement it in their organizations.
Furthermore, the first significant model solution or management system for strategy
execution was presented by Kaplan and Norton (2008). It consists of six sequential stages
intended to help organizations capture what they call an “execution premium” – a measurable
increase in value derived from successful strategy execution. These stages consist of
26 detailed sub-activities where they explain how organizations can execute their strategies.
However, this system’s view contains so many sub-steps that it can be overwhelming for
managers to implement in their organizations. The author is therefore of the opinion that a
system view is better to address the complexity of strategy execution, but that the
components should be limited to the critical few with a clear application of the components
and the system as a whole, i.e. a non-linear system.
Cruz (2013, pp. 2-4) summarizes the solution to successful strategy execution:
Successful strategy execution depends on doing a good job of working with and through others;
allocating resources; building and strengthening competitive capabilities; creating an appropriate
organizational structure; instituting strategy-supportive policies, processes, and systems;

motivating and rewarding people; and instilling a discipline of getting things done. Executing
strategy is an action-oriented, make-things-happen task that tests a manager’s ability to direct
organizational change; achieve continuous improvement in operations and business processes,
create and nurture a strategy-supportive culture, and consistently meet or beat performance
targets. Although there is no single managerial “recipe” for successful strategy execution, a few
frameworks may be used. There is unfortunately very limited literature on strategy execution.
This seems to be a topic that has failed to attract the most prominent management gurus like
Peter Drucker, Michael Porter, Henry Mintzberg, Gary Hamel or Collins and Porras.
It is evident that various attempts have been made over the last 13 years to find the solution
for the strategy execution gap. From all the proposed solutions, there is consensus that the
problem is big, complex, and dynamic. To make sense of all these proposed remedies and to
be able to apply them in a practical way that is simple enough, but effective, the multitude of
factors, elements, or keys are grouped into seven categories.
Before building a model by addressing these seven barriers mentioned, the public sector
context was analyzed in terms of strategy execution.
Strategy execution in the public sector context

Most literature on strategy execution comes from the developed world and the private sector
in which goods and services are produced with the prime purpose of making profit.
The questions asked were what are the main differences between the public and private
sector contexts? What are the implications of these differences in executing strategy in the
public sector? If these implications are significant, how could these context differences be
considered for strategy execution?
Significance of context in strategic management

In the same way that context determines the meaning of a sentence, it determines the
meaning of a strategy. A good strategy is responsive to context. Strategy separated from
context could be regarded as unrealistic or meaningless, as the purpose of strategy is to
find the best way of responding to opportunities and threats appearing in its external
environment or context, when considering and addressing internal strengths and
weaknesses. Context could be defined as the environment, atmosphere, or conditions
within which an organization operates and performs. The organization operates in
relation to its context, i.e. the context influences the organization, and the organization,
at the same time, influences its context.
The nature of the public sector The strategy
The public sector purpose or mandate is usually defined in legislation, setting out its role, execution gap
responsibilities, and authority. In its most basic form, the purpose of the public sector is to
serve the public. Their value proposition is to promote the social and economic well-being of
all its citizens. A PSO, like any other organization, is seen as an open system, relating to its
environment through numerous influences and stakeholders, including individuals, groups,
and other organizations. Starling (2011) regards the PSO as generally operating within a
system that is more open than that of the private sector. Niven (2003) reveals a 90 percent
failure rate in strategy execution for PSOs, due to the unique internal and external
challenges faced by governments. It therefore seems as if strategy execution in the
public sector is more difficult than in the private sector.
Differences between public and private sectors

In total, 16 key differences were identified that apply to strategy execution. It should be noted
that these 16 differences are not independent, but rather related to the others. Many sources
argue that strategy formulation or planning is more prone to these different influences and
that strategy execution is more technical in nature and less prone to be these influences. It is
the view of the author that a 20-80 rule (based on the Pareto principle) could apply to strategy
execution. There may only be 20 percent significant differences in context between the private
and public sectors, but if these differences are not fully addressed, it could hold back (brake or
break) 80 percent of strategy execution. Even if strategy execution is, say, 80 percent the same
in public and private sectors, the 20 percent differences are regarded as significant.
Differences in the 16 elements could be regarded as the critical few to be considered in
strategy execution in the public sector. These differences are found in:
(1) purpose;
(2) governance;
(3) leadership;
(4) culture, values, and guiding principles;
(5) decision making;
(6) economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental influences;
(7) political influences;
(8) planning and execution cycle;
(9) funding and budgeting;
(10) stakeholders, complexity, and transparency;
(11) strategic objectives;
(12) structure and human resources;
(13) flexibility and change;
(14) project management;
(15) costs and productivity; and
(16) performance management.
It can therefore be concluded that context matters for strategy execution and that these
differences should be considered to improve the chances for success in strategy execution in
the public sector. These 16 differences could be regarded as the 20 percent portion
IJPL mentioned above. Considering the unique context of the public sector, it would be unwise to
approach the strategy execution journey in the public sector in the same way as in the
private sector. In addition, when understanding that the nature of the PSO differs between
countries and between national, regional, and local governments, it is still deemed wise to
consider the 16 possible differences for strategy execution. More than strategic planning,
situational/contextual analysis should be applied for strategy execution, due to its much
longer duration and complexity.
In general, the public sector demands a more cautious approach in the execution of its
strategy, requiring more time for consultation, buy-in, and decision making. A simple,
focused, and clearly defined strategy is of utmost importance. The larger number of
stakeholders, the increased transparency, and increased complexity should all be noted.
An understanding of the greater openness to environmental and stakeholder influences and
the need to respond to these during strategy execution are important. The unique leadership
characteristics in the public sector, including its shorter term, its power base, and its criteria
for selection and success should be considered.
The increased number of oversight bodies complicate public sector management and
often lead to a more cautious, slow, and incremental approach to making changes.
An awareness of the level of corruption entrenched in the PSO is necessary. Strategy
execution should be aligned with the fixed and complex government planning and the
execution cycle. The political cycle should also be considered, and the knowledge that
funding for strategic initiatives is mostly uncertain and often reduced.
An awareness of the “vertical” hierarchical gap between political policy planners and the
administration responsible for execution is crucial. In addition, the “horizontal”
chronological gaps between the terms of elected politicians that may cause the stop-and-
go of strategy and projects should be expected. It may also lead to changing objectives. Care
should be taken with the often overambitious and unrealistic objectives determined more on
political than rational grounds and interpreted in different ways. Decision making is
typically more complex within these governing structures and restrictive processes.
Therefore, a more cautious and slow process involving the many stakeholders should be
expected, considering different political and rational views.
The level of motivation that is critical for executing strategy should be determined. Low
motivation in the public sector is often attributed to a lack of purpose, action plans, autonomy,
mastery, appreciation, and achievement. As values and guiding principles determine culture
that, in turn, determines behavior and eventually performance, the culture should be assessed
and managed. A wider variety in cultures and general lower levels of motivation in the public
sector should be expected. The level of performance management practised is also of critical
importance. A lower level of performance management in government should also be expected.
This will imply the absence of a culture and system to measure, evaluate, report, learn, and
improve performance regularly, which is a critical component for successful strategy execution.
The PSO typically has a larger and more complex organizational structure spread out
over many vertical hierarchical layers and geographic locations that makes communication,
engagement, buy-in, and coordination very challenging. Strategy is also often not properly
aligned with human, structural, physical, and other resources.
With the absence of or informal approach to project management, efficient and effective
strategy execution is highly unlikely. With the large and complex projects, expect more
frequent changes in scope, resulting in time and cost increases. Extensive outsourcing
makes procurement and contract management more complicated.
The lack of strategic thinking, by the leadership, but also at lower levels where actual
execution takes place in general in government, is a major obstacle for the strategy execution
journey. If these key differences (or handicaps) are not considered, they will appear
during execution in one way or another, as a “break” or “brake,” as described earlier.
Although strategy execution may be 80 percent the same, the 20 percent differences in the The strategy
public sector may cause strategy execution to become “stuck” and stay “stuck” for a long time. execution gap
Strategy execution in the public sector is more difficult due to its large number of moving
parts that constantly need to be aligned, compared to the private sector. The above
16 differences are regarded as impacting strategy execution significantly. Therefore, it should
be imperative to consider these differences formally before and during strategy execution in
the public sector.
It is the view of the author that the approach to strategy execution in the public sector
needs to be reviewed drastically. The private sector methodologies cannot simply be modified
and applied to the public sector. Strategic planning, performance management, and project
management systems should better reflect these differences. Rational, comprehensive
models are inappropriate in the public sector. Mintzberg (quoted in Ring and Perry, 1985)
suggests that “the conventional wisdom of strategy formulation that emphasizes the need to
state goals precisely, assess strengths and weaknesses, and make strategy explicit
may mislead organizations, such as those in the public sector, that face a confusing reality.”
This “confusing reality” refers to the complex, changing nature of the public.
Incremental and agile processes could perhaps manage these public sector constraints
better, compared to processes that are rigidly planned. An incremental or emergent strategy
could enable public organizations to be more responsive to the needs and demands of their
constituents (Ring and Perry, 1985). Such an approach could be more effective, but less
efficient, according to Ring and Perry (1985). Public sector managers should therefore use
different processes and skill sets in strategic management.
Risks, whether originating from the macro environment, pressure groups, politicians,
corruption, or self-enrichment from within a system and/or capacity constraints, should be
managed in a professional and diligent manner. If risks are not managed (identified, analyzed,
and responded to), any one or more of them could easily “break” or “brake” strategy execution.
These 16 differences should be used as a checklist to develop specific actions for the
promotion of successful strategy execution in the specific public sector context.
Toward a new model

The challenge for public sector leadership is therefore not only to know the key variables in
strategy execution, but to be aware of how each variable or element differs from that in the
private sector locally and even the public sector in other countries. The suggestion would be
to integrate these dynamically in the local context through an institutionalized strategy
execution framework (including portfolio management, project management and
performance management processes, and systems).
This is an area in which much more research is needed to close the gap between strategy
planning and strategy execution in the public sector. Although this gap is one of the major
global concerns and management issues today, the gap in the public sector seems to be even
bigger and more complex. For the public sector, tools such as the balanced scorecard and
portfolio/project management become even more important as vehicles for managing
continuity, inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes over time.
The strategy execution model for the public sector therefore requires modifications when
compared to the private sector model. Such a new model is presented in the next section.
In the author’s view, some previously presented models are overcomplicated and others
oversimplified. However, it can be agreed that strategy execution processes and systems
should be integrated and institutionalized. There could never be one solution that fits all
circumstances, due to the many variables, but a conceptual model integrating the critical
strategy execution elements and considering the key public sector differences can make a
significant contribution to close the strategy execution gap in the public sector, particularly.
IJPL The MERIL-DE conceptual model
Synthesis from literature review reveals seven elements or components holding the key to
close the strategy execution gap. These seven identified vital strategy execution components
are leadership, strategic planning, project management, alignment, performance management
(MERIL), drive, and engagement.
It was concluded that due to various unique characteristics found in the public sector
context, a different approach is needed to successfully execute strategy in the public sector.
It was found that the public sector generally presents more challenges in the execution of
strategy. In addition to the seven components identified in the literature review, additional
considerations are required, taking into account the differences in the 16 elements, to tailor
strategy execution for the PSO. The identified seven vital strategy execution components
( from reviewing mostly private sector sources) therefore had to be strengthened based on
realities in the public sector context to make it robust. These two additional vital
components for the public sector context are:
(1) risk management (risk identification, evaluation, and response based on regular
situational/contextual analysis); and

(2) stakeholder management (of the numerous partners, sponsors, interest groups, etc.
from the public and private sectors)
The final conceptual model as developed in 2014 integrates the nine vital strategy execution
components to close the strategy execution gap. These nine vital components are integrated
into the MERIL-DE model, as presented below in Figure 1 and described in the Table AI.
This conceptual model represents the synthesis part of the research and is based on the
analysis done on strategy execution in the public sector context.
hip
Politics
d ers Learn
(Direct)
L ea Review
(Get wiser)
the
plan
Strategic
planning Improve
(Respond)
(Plan) gage (Dialogue
En )
Project
Alignment
management Drive
(Execute) (Motivate)
Focus on indiv
Follow the plan and groups
nd
ard ty a
rew abili d
un an
Li p
st eo
co Dem
en p
t
to le
yo
ur
Hindsight and
ac
Respond
Measure foresight Report
to change
(Communicate)
(Sense)
Risk Mgt
(ESTLE,
Evaluate SH Mgt
Or (Make sense) (Collaborate)
competition, ga
nis
Pu
etc.) bli ati
cs ona
Figure 1. ec
tor
l co
ntex
t
MERIL-DE model con
text
The model is referred to as the MERIL-DE model. The name of the model is derived from The strategy
the acronym describing the performance management cycle of measure, evaluate, report, execution gap
improve and learn – all through drive and engagement.
MERIL-DE is presented as the model to be used to close the strategy execution gap in the
public sector. The model is depicted as one engine with connected gears. This whole Stratex
Engine needs to be built and made operational for every PSO that wishes to improve the
implementation of its strategy. Apart from the connected gears there are the two boxes called
“strategic planning” and “project management.” These two boxes represent the conventional
“plan-and-execute” process, the more stable process repeated every five years and amended
annually. In contrast, the gears represent the more dynamic “sense-and-respond” process, also
often referred to as the agile process. The blue background represents the organizational
context, surrounded by the (external) public sector context. This boundary between internal
and external context, however, is fairly porous and blurred. Embedded in this blue
organizational context are two relatively stable components, namely, leadership and
alignment (of strategy to structure, culture, processes, technology, and other organizational
elements). In contrast to the more permanent and stable executive leadership are the more
changing or dynamic political leadership and influences, as depicted in the red gear.
The reason for this red color is to make a distinction from the vital components that can be
managed. The political gear positioned at the top can at any time (moderately or substantially)
change the strategic direction. The sun represents the organizational vision, aligned with the
national and political vision, directing movement of the Stratex Car (vehicle analogy for
moving the organization to its preferred strategic position). The source of energy comes from
inside, i.e. from drive. This represents the mostly internal motivation of individuals and
groups. Around drive, linked to the other components, is the yellow area of engagement.
This area of lubrication allows the gears to move smoothly in an integrative way.
Chronologically, the MERIL-DE model story could be told as follows:
A good strategic plan is developed based on thorough situational analysis (external and
internal analysis), including the political direction and priorities at that time. SMART
objectives are identified with related initiatives by using tools such as strategy maps and
scorecards. The corporate strategy is cascaded to units with clear accountabilities and
responsibilities for groups and individuals. The strategic initiatives are then converted to
detailed project plans that are properly executed, controlled, and closed, managing all ten
knowledge areas described in the PMBOK (PMI, 2013), namely, project scope, time, cost,
quality, human resources, communication, risk, procurement, stakeholder, and integration
management. The gears start turning during execution, when the strategic plan is executed
by means of projects. Many of these projects are outsourced and require proper procurement
and contract management. Measure represents the sensing mechanism, sensing compliance
to the plan – both strategic and project plans, the views of the people, benchmarks, changes,
and risks in the environment. Data are captured with technological support. Thereafter, the
data are evaluated (through analysis and synthesis) by means of dialog and technology to
make sense of and give meaning to the data. This is normally followed by informal and
formal reporting for transparency and communication purposes. Reporting, in turn, can
precede evaluation. Based on reported information and knowledge, it is shared with both
internal and external stakeholders – internal stakeholders to demand accountability and
rewarding good performance and external stakeholders – to maintain and improve
collaboration. This reporting is done according to the communication and stakeholder
management plan and often serves as a trigger for releasing more funds. This is followed by
making the improvements and learning from these improvements to get “wiser,” the term
used by Senge (1990) and others in the learning. Based on these learnings – from both
successes and failures – the strategic plan and related project plans are adjusted or
improved. Improvements could include any or more of the organizational development
IJPL elements with focus on organizational, unit, and/or individual levels. Learning and
knowledge are institutionalized to make the organization all the wiser. All this is fueled
by “drive” and lubricated by “engage.” Drive provides the energy setting and keeps the
Stratex Engine in motion through engagement (continually engaging the minds and hearts
of employees) providing the connection and ensuring that the engine runs smoothly as a
whole. While this motivational energy driving the engine comes from the inside (individual
and group motivation), it has to be sustained by means of engagement, feedback, rewards,
learning, and development.
The “plan-and-execute” mechanism is complemented by a “sense-and-respond” mechanism.
The performance management cycle is the continual alignment of organizational, unit, and
individual performance toward achieving agreed-upon objectives. It facilitates continuous
improvement of organizational, unit, and individual performance and ensures high levels of
drive (in terms of motivation, the engine, or energy) through engagement, dialog, or interaction.
MERIL-DE provides the sense-and-response capability during execution of strategy and
projects. Performance indicators for both objectives and initiatives are measured against
targets and compared to benchmarks. Risks are identified, analyzed, and responded to on an
ongoing basis. By understanding progress (or the lack of progress) through proper evaluation,
the organization is able to respond appropriately and learn from its successes and failures
through ongoing dialog. During dialog, there is the need to sense, measure, take note, or listen
to the actual performance compared to planned performance, to listen to the risks, to listen
to the people, and through evaluation to develop a solid hindsight as well as foresight
(Garbers-Strauss and Roodt, 2001). Performance reporting (or feedback) is done regularly to
inform both internal and external stakeholders. Appropriate rewards and corrective measures
can be implemented based on verifiable performance reports. This performance management
process should be standardized and institutionalized as a regular and closed-loop system.
Technology can support this process.
Further details of these nine vital stratex components are presented in the Appendix.
The Stratex Car

The application of the MERIL-DE conceptual model is demonstrated in this section by using
the car analogy. For successful strategy execution, a complete, roadworthy, ( fuel-) efficient,
and reliable “vehicle” is required. The “Stratex Car” should be designed and built to take the
PSO on the strategy execution journey.
The lights are showing the direction and the road ahead (the vision). The driver controlling
the car is normally the owner, sponsor, or champion of the trip (leadership).
The road map is offering guidance of where to go and the best route to take (the strategic
plan). The engine and fuel provide the energy and power to drive the vehicle forward
(drive – mostly internal motivation of individuals collaborating in teams through dialog,
making the journey a sustainable one, without regular motivation through external rewards).
Gears with oil/lubrication allow all moving parts to be engaged and to run smoothly
(engagement through dialog that is more than just loose/informal communication, but
communication engaging the hearts and minds of everyone in the organization).
The chassis and body are the frame or structure of the car, proving supporting strength
(the aligned organizational design, including people, processes, and technology, supporting
the strategy and project management). The wheels are where the vehicle touches the ground,
where the action is, where strategy occurs through clear actions, projects, and programs
(project management). The dashboard enables everyone to sense/know what is happening and
to make sense of it, as it enables measurement and evaluation through dialog with everyone in
the car and reporting/sharing facilitating good decision making and agreed-upon
improvements to be implemented with learning taking place – from successes and failures,
informing adjustments to the journey, the car, and the passengers, as required (the PMS).
The maintenance plan allows for regular inspections – both reactive repairs and The strategy
proactive maintenance. This, however, requires regular stops. The bumpers and airbags execution gap
provide the safety features to make the journey safer, enhancing the chances to reach the
desired destination in one piece and on time (risk management). Modifications to the vehicle
are made to travel on the more rugged terrain of the public sector road (gravel and sand with
steep slopes) under more severe and changing weather conditions, making the vehicle
stronger, more robust, and better equipped with the best outdoor gear, including 4 × 4 and
differential lock capability and high-lift jacks (also risk management). Finally, regular
communication by means of cell phone or radio is needed to inform family and friends of
progress on the journey and expected time of arrival (stakeholder management).
This car must be robust, durable, sustainable, economical, user-friendly, green, fast,
powerful, and intimidating to others. Is this the car as depicted in Figure 2.
A more detailed description of the nine vital stratex components is presented in Table AI.
Each of these nine components is described in terms of its role in the car analogy, its position
and function in the MERIL-DE model, and a brief description and elements contributing to
the establishment of each component.
Quantitative analysis
Quantitative research had a limited complementary role in the PAR qualitative research.
Quantitative analysis was only used in questionnaires where responses to statements
were expressed in terms of numbers. A questionnaire was developed and used during
initial case studies to help with model assessment and improvement and to assess
strengths and weaknesses of the model components at organizations. Responses to
7. Engagement 2. Strategic plan

Gears engaging Road map
and lubrication
1. Leadership 5. MERIL –
5. MERIL – Driver Improve
Evaluate and
Steering wheel
learn
Discussions
5. MERIL –
Measure
Dashboard
6. Drive
Stratex Engine and
we deliver
fuel
service
3. PM
Wheels
Public sector road

8. Risk
4. Alignment 4 × 4 modifications Figure 2.
Chassis and body 9. Stakeholders
for bigger obstacles The “Stratex Car”
Owners, customers, partners driving on the public
sector road
IJPL statements in the questionnaire were converted into numbers to allow for quantitative
analysis. After the development of the final MERIL-DE model, the questionnaire was
adapted to the Stratex Assessment Framework (SAF). The SAF is therefore aligned to the
final MERIL-DE model with its nine vital components. Each of the nine components with
subcomponents/elements contains a number of statements serving as assessment criteria.
The average number of criteria per component is ten. Each statement is rated between
0 and 10. A higher rating indicates better capacity.
Note: this SAF instrument to calculate total strategy execution capacity (TSEC) for a
PSO is a topic for future research.
Figure 3 presents an example of how the TSEC for a specific PSO could be calculated.
In this example, each of the components (column 1) are weighted equally (1/13 ¼ 0.077).
These weightings are shown in the second column. In the third column, the average
ratings from the SAF are inserted. Tentative ratings between 0 and 10 are given for
demonstration purposes. In the last column, these weightings and ratings are multiplied to
Score
Component Weight (W ) Rating (R)
(S = W × R )
1. Leadership 0.077 6.0 4.62
2. Strategic planning 0.077 7.5 5.77
3. Project management 0.077 3.0 2.31
4. Alignment 0.077 5.5 4.23
5.1 Measure 0.077 7.5 5.77
5.2 Evaluate 0.077 3.5 2.69
5.3 Report 0.077 6.0 4.62
5.4 Improve 0.077 4.5 3.46
5.5 Learn 0.077 3.5 2.69
6. Drive 0.077 3.0 2.31
7. Engage 0.077 5.0 3.85
8. Risk management 0.077 4.5 3.46
9. Stakeholder management 0.077 6.0 4.62
1.000
Total score (TSEC) 50.4
Lead
80%
SH SP
70%
60%
Risk 50% PM
40%
30%
20%
Engage 10% Align
0%
Drive Measure
Figure 3.
TSEC example with
component scores Evaluate
presented in table and Learn
radar diagram format
Improve Report
calculate a score for each of the 13 components and subcomponents. These component The strategy
scores are illustrated in the graph in terms of percentages. A higher score indicated a execution gap
better or stronger capacity. A color code was used to highlight strengths and weaknesses.
In this example, the indicators were set as follows: green for ratings of 66 percent and
higher; orange for ratings between 50 and 66 percent; red for ratings between
33 and 50 percent; and black for ratings below 33 percent. The target would be to achieve,
for example, a rating of 66 percent (green) on each component. The total score in the last
column gives the TSEC. In this example, the TSEC is 50.4 percent, which is indicated as
orange according to the above key.
Figure 3 could be interpreted as follows: This TSEC score indicates the organization has a
50.4 percent chance of successfully executing its strategy. The strategy execution gap is
therefore 49.6 percent (100−50.4 percent). The reason for this low capacity could be seen in the
graph. While certain vital components are strong in the organization (e.g. the strategic plan and
measure), project management and drive, in particular, are extremely weak (below 33 percent
strength). The red bars, namely, evaluate, improve, learn, and risk, are the other weak
components with capacity strengths below 50 percent. As the weak links in the chain could
easily cause a total collapse, it would therefore be advised to focus effort on the strengthening
of project management and drive in the organization. Regular assessments (at least annually)
could be done for TSEC calculations to determine trends.
In future research, the SAF could be used in surveys to determine the strategy execution
gap of individual PSOs as well as the public sector in general. Through research, the criteria
and weights can be refined and adapted for different contexts.
Model applications, limitations, and benefits

In the use of the MERIL-DE model, key applications, limitations, and expected benefits
are presented. First, the nature and the verification of MERIL-DE as conceptual model
are addressed.
Conceptual model development and verification

Conceptual modeling helps humans to think and solve problems. The MERIL-DE
conceptual model was formed after a conceptualization process in the mind that was based
on observations and experience. The model is a representation and simplification of the real
world, consists of the composition of concepts, and is used to help understand the subject
matter of strategy execution. It therefore serves as guide or stimulus for thinking and
applying knowledge in the PSO. The MERIL-DE model can be regarded as a theory
supported by a conceptual model. It consists of propositions such as strategic management,
project management, and performance management, each with its various interlinked
concepts. These MERIL-DE components could also be regarded as models on their own, for
example, strategic management with its balanced scorecard model (Kaplan and Norton,
2001) and project management with its project management model (of five process groups
and ten knowledge areas) (PMI, 2013).
The MERIL-DE model is not a presentation of a step-by-step process. Although it depicts
a general sequence of events in a cyclical fashion, it rather presents the pieces of a puzzle or
essential building blocks for executing strategy in a specific context, namely, the public
sector. It is an integrated system representing a part of the real world. This integrated
system includes nine key components or independent variables for improving strategy
execution in the public sector, i.e. in the real world. The dependent variable is successful
strategy execution or closing the strategy execution gap. Arrows are inserted between the
variables to represent the hypothesized relationships between variables. MERIL-DE
contains both one-way arrows and two-headed arrows. The one-way arrows depict a general
IJPL sequence from one independent variable to the next independent variable. The two-headed
arrows show unanalyzed correlations between variables (Creswell, 1994).
The need for the MERIL-DE model was born at the empirical level where the reality of
poor strategy execution in the public sector was observed or experienced. At the same time,
the process of literature review was started on the abstract level to identify key concepts,
propositions, and theories related to strategy execution. Initial models were developed,
tested/verified, and improved by means of empirical studies (PAR).
The MERIL-DE model as conceptual model can be applied as a visual presentation of an
organizational system to improve business performance. According to Ostenwalder,
Pigneur and Tucci (2005), a conceptual business model cannot be successful per se.
Its success or value is found during implementation. This conceptual model, based on the
sound theory, has been verified and improved during empirical tests in PAR cycles.
It should be noted that the purpose of these empirical tests were to verify and improve the
MERIL-DE conceptual model and not to practically implement the model as a whole.
Further research is therefore required in the application of the MERIL-DE model, in the
practical design and putting the vital components in place in an integrative manner and
then measuring success in terms of improved strategy execution, closing the strategy
execution gap. This will involve putting in place and integrating structures, systems,
methodologies, staff, and skills described in this model and monitoring both their individual
performances and combined performance. The value of the MERIL-DE model will be in its
implementation. Although it remains a conceptual model, its origin was in reality (a broken
reality) and its application should go back to reality ( for a less broken reality – where
strategies are more successfully executed where the gap between strategic planning and
execution is increasingly being reduced). In this translation from conceptual into concrete
things, it should be remembered that organizations are complex and dynamic, always
subjects to internal and external pressures, always subject to change. The MERIL-DE
manifestation in the real world (e.g. staff, structure, and systems) should therefore also be
subject to regular change.
Different public sector contexts

Although the model can be applied in all public sector contexts, a unique MERIL-DE model
(or Stratex Car) has to be designed for each situation or each PSO by considering the
differences in the public sector context. As the context determines strategy, context
similarly determines strategy execution.
Preparations before execution and improvements during execution

The MERIL-DE model should be well understood to enable each PSO to design and
build its own tailored MERIL-DE model or Stratex Car. This will require dedicated effort
and time. The time required will vary from PSO to PSO. The earlier the process starts
during strategic planning, the better. As with any journey about to be undertaken,
preparations have to be made. The preparations include getting the vehicle and all its
passengers prepared. It should also be noted that further building and improvements
will have to be made during the strategy execution journey. This car-and-journey analogy
is herewith further explained.
Getting the people prepared means leadership informs employees of the journey and its
importance in getting them together, equipping them, and getting them excited. Time is
required to prepare for the trip. This may include training, attaining the equipment, and
acquiring the funds. These actions represent the “drive,” “engagement,” and “alignment”
components of MERIL-DE, the people side of the model or vehicle.
Getting the vehicle prepared means building an aligned and supporting vehicle structure
(system, processes, and technology), aligned to the engine (people processes). The vehicle
needs to be tailor-made for the unique road conditions (public sector context). Appropriate The strategy
project management, performance management, and risk management systems should be execution gap
built into the vehicle. Time is also required for these preparations.
The question is whether the Stratex Car should be completely built before undertaking
the journey or whether it is possible to start the journey immediately, but to move slowly
while at the same time getting the right people on board and assembling the vehicle.
Can or should the car depart without all the right people on board and if the bus not yet
roadworthy or properly modified, or equipped for the specific journey? Can many gears,
hanging loosely in or around the car, each functioning or not, but not linked, move a car?
This is also a common question in strategic planning. All of these concerns can be
summarized in the following example question: “Should we wait for developing the perfect
strategic plan or get the 70 percent perfect plan approved to start implementation and at
the same time see where we can improve it?” The general answer is that the Stratex Car or
MERIL-DE model should be in place and put together before attempting the strategy
journey. Minor modifications and additions can be made during the journey. Important is
to move at a pace in accordance with institutional capacity. If the car is not yet fully
functional, go slowly. This has the implication that strategy execution in general will start
slowly and accelerate over time.
Model limitations
MERIL-DE is a conceptual model and, by nature, makes use of simplifications and
generalizations in the management discipline of strategy execution and within the public sector
context. Although the nine vital components are presented in an integrated fashion, using the
car or engine analogy, it remains a conceptual model to be used as guide in the tailoring of a
unique MERIL-DE model or Stratex Car for each PSO. Although all nine components should be
built into any PSO Stratex Car, no tailored model could be copied and used for another PSO.
Due to the various differences in the organizational and environmental contexts, a unique
Stratex Car has to be designed, built, tested, and improved for each PSO.
Benefits for using the MERIL-DE model

The MERIL-DE model identifies and explains the vital components for strategy execution
as well as their integration in the public sector. With the addition of the SAF and TSEC,
the MERIL-DE model can be used as checklist and tool to assess strategy execution
capacity or strength. Specific expected benefits with the implementation of the MERIL-DE
model include:
• making the PSO a strategy-driven and high performance institution;
• providing a framework for systematic integrated strategy planning and execution;
• dynamically aligning projects with strategic objectives;
• helping to align the organization to its strategy and develop and institutionalize the
discipline of regular performance management;
• promoting learning from performance;
• promoting employee motivation through dialog and participation in performance
management; and
• calculating the capacity or strength of each of the nine vital strategy execution
components as well as the overall strength or capacity, determining the readiness or
capacity of a PSO for strategy execution, indicating strengths and weaknesses in its
ability to successfully execute strategy.
IJPL The MERIL-DE model can never guarantee success, but at least it will maximize the chances
of success (achieving the PSO objectives and arriving at the desired destination) within the
strategy limitations and resource restrictions.
Recommendations
The recommendations presented here are targeted on a practical solution to closing the
strategy execution gap by using the MERIL-DE model. These recommendations are presented
by using the car-and-journey analogy. The car represents the tailored vehicle built for the PSO
from the nine vital strategy execution components in MERIL-DE and the journey representing
the progress being made by moving from the current position to the preferred position as
detailed in the strategic plan. In turn, the road and environmental conditions represent the
public sector. The recommendations are addressed to the PSOs as well as academics and
consultants involved in promoting the successful execution of strategy.
(1) Develop a policy and procedures: to institutionalize strategy execution in the public
sector, each PSO needs to develop and adopt a policy and procedures based on the
MERIL-DE model. This will involve the development and integration of related
policies and procedures, such as strategic management, performance management,
stakeholder management, risk management, and project management.
(2) Improve strategic planning: to integrate strategy planning and execution, consider
the MERIL-DE model during strategic planning. Change the thinking of leaders not
to see the strategic plan as an achievement, but only as a means for achievement.
Ensure the strategic plan is focused, balanced, integrated, detailed, and realistic with
clear accountabilities and responsibilities. This is the road map for the journey,
explaining where to go and which route to take.
(3) Prepare for the journey – build the Stratex Car: on the one hand, do not wait for a
perfect strategic plan before executing a strategy because there is no perfect plan.
On the other hand, do not think that the PSO can simply start executing the
strategic plan the day after its approval. There are preparations to be made,
as with any journey, especially a five-year journey, i.e. one on which the whole
organization is embarking. A balance should be reached between taking time to
build the perfect Stratex Car and to get going with the initial design and then
improving it on the way. The car design should perhaps already start during
strategic planning.
(4) Go, but service the Stratex Car regularly: the journey has to start, even with the
initial design, without delaying for too long, but with consideration of all nine vital
components. The PSO should take a formal decision when to start executing the
strategy (to start the journey). Assess the strengths of each component by making
use of the SAF and calculating the TSEC. Identify strengths and weaknesses in
TSEC and take corrective actions. Assess the trend in capacity improvement over
time. Test the Stratex Car through regular servicing. Make upgrades and do repairs
and maintenance during the journey.
(5) Conduct formal research on the Stratex Car: it is recommended that research be
conducted in the application of the MERIL-DE model on the public sector,
specifically: to determine how the Stratex Car design could be improved for the
unique public sector road and environmental conditions; to determine the relative
importance or weightings to apply to the MERIL-DE components and
subcomponents in the SAF and TSEC calculations for different organizations,
different situations, and different countries; to determine how the SAF criteria
per component could be improved for the measuring or quantification of component The strategy
strength; and to investigate the relations or dependencies between the MERIL-DE execution gap
components or variables. Explore, for example, the following:
• Can a PSO claim its leadership is strong if other components are weak, for example,
project management, alignment, drive, and engagement, by using the SAF?
• To what extent do the weaker organizational units influence strategy execution?
• Is the organizational strategy execution as strong as the weakest component/link
or as strong as the average as calculated in TSEC?
• Can the gap widen again after it had been closed? How?
• What are the costs and benefits in monetary value to close the gap? How could
TSEC be related to monetary value?
Closing remarks
In conclusion, strategy execution is extremely critical, but there is a big gap. The MERIL-DE
model is presented as a benchmark for applying strategy execution successfully in the public
sector. However, in order to succeed, the model and its underlying management disciplines
have to be understood to apply it properly in a PSO. As conceptual model, it serves as a guide
to design and build the tailored Stratex Car for each PSO by considering the unique conditions
of the public sector. Through the wide implementation of the recommendations presented,
the author would like to see a significant improvement in the delivery of strategic promises in
the public sector, and not only in Southern Africa, but also worldwide.
Glossary
MERIL-DE Measure, evaluate, report, improve and learn – all through drive and
engagement
PAR Participatory action research
PM Project management
PMS Performance management system
PSO Public sector organization
SAF Stratex assessment framework
SMART Specific, Measureable, Agreed to, Realistic & Time-bound
Stratex Strategy execution
TSEC Total strategy execution capacity
References
Barrows, E. (2014), “What is strategy execution? American management association, e-newsletter
8/6/2014”, available at: www.amanet.org/training/articles/What-Is-Strategy-Execution.aspx
(accessed January 4, 2016).
Bossidy, L. and Charan, R. (2002), Execution – The Discipline of Getting Things Done, Crown Business,
New York, NY.
Calhoun, J. (2013), “The strategy-to-execution process: a critical component of transient competitive
advantage”, The European Business Review, November 7, Strategy & Management, Operation,
Special Features, Business Process, Strategic Spotlight, available at: www.europeanbusinessreview.
com/?p=701 (accessed January 4, 2016).
Childress, J.R. (2013), FASTBREAK: The CEO’s Guide to Strategy Execution, 2nd ed., The Principia Group,
London.
IJPL Cohen, D. (2011), “Changing behaviors: an insurmountable challenge in strategy execution?”,
BTS Blog, November 1, available at: www.bts.com/news-insights/strategy-execution-blog/
Changing_Behaviors_An_Insurmountable_Challenge_in_Strategy_Execution.aspx (accessed
November 1, 2011).
Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great – Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t,
HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York, NY.
Creswell, J.W. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage Publications Inc.,
Los Angeles, CA.
Cruz, E.S. (2013), “Readings in strategy execution”, Business World Online, March 25, available at:
www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Readingsinstrategyexecution&
id=67760 (accessed March 30, 2013).
De Flander, J. (2010), Strategy Execution Heroes – Business Strategy Implementation and Strategic
Management Demystified, The Performance Factory, Brussels.
Dinsmore, P.C. and Cabanis-Brewin, J. (2011), The AMA Handbook of Project Management – Third Edition,
Amacom, New York, NY.
Franken, A., Edwards, C. and Lambert, R. (2009), “Executing strategic change: understanding the
critical management elements that lead to success”, California Management Review, Vol. 51
No. 3, pp. 49-73.
Garbers-Strauss, J. and Roodt, G. (2001), “Foresight: the missing link of strategy?”, Management Today
Yearbook 2001, Management Today Magazine, Johannesburg, pp. 12-31.
Hamm, J. (2011), Unusually Excellent – The Necessary Nine Skills Required for the Practice of Great
Leadership, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY.
Harpst, G. (2008), Six Disciplines Execution Revolution: Solving the One Business Problem that Makes
Solving All Other Problems Easier, Six Disciplines Publishing, OH.
Hrebiniak, L.G. (2005), Making Strategy Work: Leading Effective Execution and Change, Pearson
Education, Inc., NJ.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001), The Strategy-Focussed Organization – How Balanced Scorecard
Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School
Publishing Corporation, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2008), The Execution Premium – Linking Strategy to Operations for
Completive Advantage, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
Leinwand, P. and Mainardi, C. (2016), Strategy That Works: How Winning Companies Close the
Strategy-to-Execution Gap, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
Lepsinger, R. (2010), Closing the Execution Gap: How Great Leaders and Their Companies Get Results,
John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
Mankins, M.C. and Steele, R. (2005), “Turning great strategy into great performance”, Harvard
Business Review, July-August 2006, available at: https://hbr.org/2005/07/turning-great-strategy-
into-great-performance (accessed August 24, 2014).
Marr, B. (2009), Managing and Delivering Performance – How Government, Public Sector and Not-For-
Profit Organizations Can Measure and Manage What Really Matters, Elsevier, Oxford.
McChesney, C., Covey, S. and Huling, J. (2012), The 4 Disciplines of Execution – Achieving Your Wildly
Important Goals, FranklinCovey Co., Free Press, New York, NY.
McKnight, R., Kaney, T. and Breuer, S. (2010), Leading Strategy Execution – How to Align the
Senior Team, Design a Strategy-Capable Organization and Get All Employees On-Board,
TrueNorth Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Morgan, M., Levitt, R.E. and Malek, W. (2007), Executing Your Strategy – How to Break it Down & Get it
Done, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston.
Mukherjee, A.S. (2009), The Spider’s Strategy – Creating Networks to Avert Crisis, Create Change, and
Really Get Ahead, FT Press, NJ.
Niven, P.R. (2003), Balanced Scorecard – Step-by-Step for Government and Non-Profit Agencies, The strategy
John Wiley & Sons, NJ. execution gap
OnPoint Consulting (2011), “Closing the gap between strategy and execution”, OnPoint Consulting Blog,
available at: http://onpointconsultingllc.com/closing_gap.html (accessed August 24, 2014).
Ostenwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. and Tucci, C.L. (2005), “Clarifying business models: origins, present
and future of the concept”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 15,
pp. 1-25.
Paladino, B. (2007), Five Key Principles of Corporate Performance Management, John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
Project Management Institute (PMI) (2013), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK Guide), 5th ed., Project Management Institute, PA.
Ring, P.S. and Perry, J.L. (1985), “Strategic management in public and private organizations:
implications of distinctive contexts and constraints”, The Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 276-286.
Robinson, S. (2011), “Choosing the right model: conceptual modelling for simulation”, Proceedings of the
2011 Winter Simulation Conference, Warwick Business School, NJ, pp. 1428-1440.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday/
Currency, New York, NY.
Spitzer, D.R. (2007), Transforming Performance Measurement – Rethinking the Way We Measure and
Drive Organizational Success, Amacom, New York, NY.
Starling, G. (2011), Managing the Public Sector, 9th ed., Wadsworth, Boston, MA.
Thompson, A.A. and Strickland, A.J. (1987), Strategic Management – Concepts and Cases, 4th ed.,
BPI Irwin, IL.
Welch, J. (2005), Winning – Everyone Wants to Win, Not Everyone Knows How, HarperCollins
Publishers, New York, NY.
Zook, C. and Allen, J. (2001), Profit from the Core – Growth Strategy in an Era of Turbulence, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Further reading
Covey, S.M.R. and Merrill, R. (2006), The Speed of Trust – The One Thing That Changes Everything,
Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Kaplan, R.S. (2005), “How the balanced scorecard complements the McKinsey 7-S model”, Strategy &
Leadership, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 41-46.
Strickland, L. (2010), Executing Strategy – Business Workshop at Safari Conference Centre, Windhoek,
November 30.
IJPL
Table AI.
vital components
Description of the nine
Vital
component Role in car analogy Position in MERIL-DE model Description Elements
Appendix
1. Leadership Driver At the top left – with vision and strategic The most important component; fully Eight leadership levers for strategy
planning, due to its important role committed leaders are required for strategy execution (author): envision – for direction;
execution, daily leading from the front and educate – for clarity (head); energize – for
top-down. Leaders who can take their commitment (heart); employ energy –
organizations on a successful journey through planning; empower – through
characterized by purpose, direction, people, processes and technology (PPT)
resources, progress, and cohesion capacity; engage – through participation;
execute – with integrity; and ensure –
through controls
2. Strategic Road map At the top, crafted by leadership, considering A good strategic plan obviously lays the Characteristics of good strategic plans
planning political direction foundation for good strategy execution, include: focus; balance; integration;
including cascading to unit scorecards and understood and accepted; SMART; clear and
performance agreements. A poor strategic single accountability for objectives; and
plan will lead to poor execution detailed initiatives with clear initiative
descriptions, responsibilities, timelines, and
cost estimates
3. Project Wheels The “execute” in the “plan-and-execute” Strategy is executed through projects. Project Five Process groups and ten knowledge areas
management mechanism linked to strategic planning management is the application of knowledge, (PMI, 2013): projects are initiated, planned,
skills, tools, and techniques to project activities executed, monitored and controlled, and
to meet the project requirements and strategic finally closed out; include the ten knowledge
objectives; together with strategic planning, areas which are scope, time, cost and quality,
project management forms the “plan-and- human resources, communications, risk,
execute” mechanism procurement, and stakeholder management;
everything is combined through integration
management through which the project plan
is being developed, executed, and controlled
4. Alignment Chassis and body Alignment is positioned in the blue part, Strategy can only succeed if the organization Structure: in terms of coordination,
representing the organizational context is aligned around the strategy and the communication, and decision making; people:
resources are appropriately allocated; staff and skills (internally or outsourced)
supporting and aligned organizational must be available and allocated for executing
resources have to be put in place, including strategy; culture: describing relations
the organizational structure, people, culture, amongst the identity/heart, thinking,
processes, technology, and funding attitude, behavior and outcomes – linking
culture to strategic outcomes; processes:
aligned to the strategy, for example,
(continued )
Vital
performance management and project

management processes; technology: can be a
strong enabler for strategy execution.
However, if not well aligned, it could also be
an obstacle. It could, for example, support
performance management; however, it is
important to link technology with processes
and people, according to the sequence of
PPT; funding: aligned budgeting and
funding systems; without sufficient funds at
the right times, strategy cannot be
implemented; initiatives have to be clearly
prioritized and allocated to specific financial
years
5. MERIL Dashboard; Forming the five MERIL gears in the center An institutionalized regular cycle of MERIL (Author): Measure: the lens through
(performance discussions; steering of the model; these gears are interrelated in a performance management is required to offer which people “see” or “sense” what is
management) wheel general sequence the complementary “sense-and-response” happening with their organization and its
capability. The author proposes the following environment, creating the basis for effective
five key components of the performance management; performance measurement
management system or cycle, namely, done internally ( for objectives and
MERIL (measure, evaluate, report, improve initiatives) as well as externally ( for
and learn) determining environmental risks,
stakeholder influences and best practices
by competition)
Evaluate: follows measure and includes
analysis, synthesis, and interpretation of
performance data to generate information,
i.e. to interpret and make sense of the
information to enable proper decision
making and to decide on the best response;
mostly done through dialog and making use
of supporting technology
Report: the documentation and
communication of evidence-based
performance as analyzed, synthesized, and
(continued )
The strategy
execution gap
Table AI.
IJPL
Table AI.
Vital
interpreted as well as the decisions taken and

details of actions to be taken; providing an
audit trail of performance results, decisions,
improvement actions, and results; a valuable
source for learning; typically based on the
communication management plan; reporting
on corporate, unit, or individual levels for
internal and external stakeholders
Improve: the focus of strategy execution and
performance management in response to
issues and opportunities identified and
evaluated; corrective/improvement measures
could be any or more of the various
organizational development interventions
and could be targeted to enhance corporate,
unit, and/or individual performance; change
could be gradual, incremental, or
transformational
Learn: improvement and learning go
together, making organizations adaptive
rational systems that learn from experience,
from understanding performance (successes
and failures) and their relations to behavior,
attitudes, thinking, and dialog, with the
support of a knowledge management system
6. Drive Engine and fuel At the center of the model, as motivation lies Personal/internal, social, and structural Drive comes from the following six
at the center of a person, representing the influences (including monetary rewards) that PAAMAA elements or drivers (author):
driving force behind the model, the energy motivate/strengthen/reinforce the right Purpose: I have a clear understanding of the
that keeps all gears moving and the wheels behavior and correct the wrong behavior strategy – its priorities, and objectives and I
moving forward in the direction set by (with the focus on groups and not want to achieve these objectives, as they are
leadership in the strategic plan individuals); reward system not only worthwhile. By achieving these, I will benefit
appropriately responding to good personally
performance, but also taking action for poor Action plan: the action steps and action plans
performance are clear to me. I know what I have to do
every day to achieve these strategic
(continued )
Vital
objectives. We have detailed action plans/

project plans enabling us to do our work
properly
Autonomy – authority – accountability: I am
satisfied with my levels of autonomy and
related authority and accountability, and
these are in balance. I feel sufficient freedom
to do my work the way I believe is the best
way, i.e. how to do it, when to do it, and
where to do it
Mastery: I experience that I regularly master
or learn new skills at work and that I am
really growing as a person
Acknowledgment: I receive regular
acknowledgment, recognition, and
appreciation for my contributions. I feel I am
accepted in my organization
Achievement: I feel that we are a winning
team. I can see the progress we are making
and we regularly celebrate our achievements
7. Engage Gears engaging, In the center of the MERIL-DE model around “Engage” is one of the eight leadership levers Dialog: the core of culture and the basic unit
with lubricants “drive,” engaging all the surrounding vital and important leadership function; of work; how people talk to each other
components or gears successful strategy execution is impossible absolutely determines how well the
without engaging stakeholders, especially organization will function; a special kind of
employees and project team members; communication in an organization, based on
without engaging the “gears,” there cannot trust, respect, teamwork, openness, sincerity,
be any movement. Gears require lubrication a willingness to share and learn, and
(oil) to keep on moving for long periods; the accountability; requiring, however, time,
best way to engage stakeholders is through effort, and commitment
dialog
8. Risk 4 × 4 ability: the Mostly outside the organization, but also Causes of risks could be political cycles or Risk management plan: risk management
management nature of the public covers internal uncertainties linked to changes, economic or social changes, includes risk identification, qualitative and
sector road with “measure” to integrate risk management with stakeholder influences, or even internal to the quantitative risk analysis, risk response
more obstacles and the MERIL cycle organization, such as inadequate resources planning, and risk control. Responses to
uncertainties, and poor alignment of the strategy to the rest negative risk can be to avoid/prevent,
(continued )
The strategy
execution gap
Table AI.
IJPL
Table AI.
Vital
requiring higher of the organization. Due to the complex, mitigate, transfer, or accept the risk. Possible
ground clearance, dynamic, and uncertain nature of the public responses to positive risk are to exploit,
special bumpers and sector context, a formal risk management enhance, share, or accept the risk (PMI, 2013)
airbags, slower system is required to identify, analyze, and
speeds, and more respond to risks regularly. In risk
regular stops for management, efforts are made to make
inspections strategy execution more “bulletproof” to
prevent failure and maximize the chances for
success. Risk management aims to prevent or
minimize any attacks, distractions,
derailings, or breakdowns on the strategy
execution journey
9. Stakeholder People having a External and internal stakeholders; directly The public sector is more open, more visible, Stakeholder management plan
management stake in the car and linking with “report” to integrate stakeholder and more influenced by stakeholders, such as Communication management plan
the journey include management and collaboration with the the public, customers, special interest groups,
the public/citizens MERIL cycle, with a two-directional politicians, oversight or regulatory bodies,
(who actually own influence between stakeholder management partners, and employees. Stakeholder
the car), sponsors, and reporting management includes the management of
customers, and influences to and from stakeholders. A
partners critical aspect is private sector collaboration,
often through procurement/contract
management. Stakeholder management is
done according to the communication
management plan in “report,” but takes it
further in pro-active and reactive
management of relations toward successful
strategy execution
About the authors The strategy
Anton Jacobus Olivier, the CEO of Stratex Consulting, has 30 years of consulting execution gap
experience in management and engineering gained in eight countries in Africa and the
South Pacific. Specializing in strategy planning, strategy execution, and
project management, he has facilitated the development of more than 35 strategic
plans and trained more than 1,200 people in Project Management. Focusing on the
public sector (on all levels), state-owned enterprises, and NGOs, he has gained
experience in various disciplines, such as institutional development, water and
sanitation, electricity, road safety, civil registration, and vital statistics. Anton holds the following
qualifications and certifications: PhD in Public Leadership & Strategy Execution; Research topic:
“Closing the strategy execution gap in the public sector – a conceptual model,” School of Public
Leadership, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa; Project Management Professional (PMP), Project
Management Institute (PMI), USA; Master of Management (MMGT), University of Southern
Queensland, Australia; Master in Business Leadership (MBL), University of South Africa; B Eng
(Hons: Water Resources Engineering), University of Pretoria, South Africa; B Eng (Civil), University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa. His passion is to promote successful strategy execution in the public sector
for the creation of real value and service to the public and society at large. Anton Jacobus Olivier is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Erwin Schwella is the Professor of Public Leadership at the School of Public
Leadership at Stellenbosch University. He also serves as the Chairman and is a
member of the Boards of a number of socially entrepreneurial and civil society
organizations. He holds and has held many consultancy briefs on good governance as
consultant to international governance organizations, including briefs in the USA, the
UK, the Netherlands, Namibia, Kenya, and Malawi. He is a Visiting Professorial
Associate at Leiden University in the Netherlands and has spent time as an Academic
Fellow and Visitor at many prominent Universities and professional education institutes including
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Leuven University, Leeds University, and the
University of Malawi. He is a recognized Researcher with the National Research Foundation with a
rating spanning over more than 30 years. He co-chairs the Leadership Study Group of the International
Association of Administrative Sciences and is a past Chair of the Public Leadership Member Interest
Group of the International Leadership Association. His current research interests are in the areas of
leadership better governance, social innovation, and social entrepreneurship. He is a widely published
academic author and editor of academic books and scholarly articles.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
View publication stats

Closing The Strategy Execution Gap in The Public Sector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Closing The Strategy Execution Gap in The Public Sector

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Closing The Strategy Execution Gap in The Public Sector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Closing the strategy execution gap in the public sector

Article in International Journal of Public Leadership · January 2018

Anton Olivier Erwin Schwella

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Social Innovation from a Public Governance Perspective View project

PhD Thesis View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

To copy this document: [email protected]

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

research, stretching over ten case studies and eight years.

The nature of strategy execution

and held accountable to produce results from this “game.”

Significance of strategy execution

The size of the strategy execution gap

Research purpose and significance

Case studies in empirical research

Strategy execution: a literature-based analysis

Barriers to successful strategy execution

Strategy execution solutions

organizational structure; instituting strategy-supportive policies, processes, and systems;

Strategy execution in the public sector context

Significance of context in strategic management

Differences between public and private sectors

Toward a new model

situational/contextual analysis); and

The Stratex Car

7. Engagement 2. Strategic plan

Public sector road

Model applications, limitations, and benefits

Conceptual model development and verification

Different public sector contexts

Preparations before execution and improvements during execution

Benefits for using the MERIL-DE model

performance management and project

interpreted as well as the decisions taken and

objectives. We have detailed action plans/

corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

View publication stats

You might also like