Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine empirically the joint effect of innovation and strategic planning on organizational performance of Dubai Police.
Design/methodology/approach
To examine the hypothesized model of the study, a survey questionnaire was used. The data were collected from the general department of total quality of the Dubai Police. The total number of questionnaires distributed was 150, out of which only 95 usable questionnaires were returned and ready for analysis. The regression approach through SPSS was used to analyze the data and test the hypotheses.
Findings
The statistical results confirm the effect of strategic planning and innovation on the organizational performance of Dubai Police.
Research limitations/implications
Further details and valuable implications are discussed throughout the study. The results have many practical implications, in that it can help managers to make proper decisions when deciding to implement innovation and strategic planning in their organizations.
Originality/value
This study is a rare and unique empirical study that examines the effect of innovation and strategic planning on the organizational performance of Dubai Police.
Keywords
Citation
Alosani, M.S., Yusoff, R. and Al-Dhaafri, H. (2020), "The effect of innovation and strategic planning on enhancing organizational performance of Dubai Police", Innovation & Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-06-2018-0039
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019, Mohammed Saleh Alosani, Rushami Yusoff and Hassan Al-Dhaafri.
License
Published in Innovation and Management Review. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Organizations are facing many challenges in the current competitive world as a result of a rapid increase in new products, processes and technologies, as well as preferences of customers. Fluctuating environmental threats also compromise their survival. Success in such an environment would be more likely by enhancing organizational performance and paying greater attention to factors that can effectively improve it. Weak organizational performance can significantly reduce the potential to attract new customers whilst also destroying the trust of existing customers. The need to improve performance concerns not only the private sector but also includes the public sector. According to Goodman and Pennings (1977), performance is a necessary factor in organizational analysis and there is no theory on organizations that is void of this concept. In this rapidly evolving and dynamic environment, one of the effective factors for the success of organizations, enhanced organizational performance and surviving the competition, includes concentration on innovation and strategic planning. Many studies have underscored that innovation often leads to competitive advantage (Amarakoon, Weerawardena, & Verreynne, 2018; Aziz & Samad, 2016; Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez, & Sanz-Valle, 2016; Nishitani & Itoh, 2016; Salunke, Weerawardena, & McColl-Kennedy, 2019). An innovative culture in the organization is a key success factor for the development of new products, new services and improved processes. Many authors have considered innovation as a leading strategy to improve and create new products or services, develop new approaches to production, distribution and supply, modify management processes and deliver ideas that bring about the attainment of high performance and competitive advantage (Aziz & Samad, 2016; El-Kassar & Singh, 2019; Nishitani & Itoh, 2016; Porter, 1996; Salunke et al., 2019; Wang & Ahmed, 2004). Hence, innovative strategies have been considered as playing a vital role in boosting performance (Sandvik, Duhan, & Sandvik, 2014).
Given the growing importance of strategic planning and innovation toward high performance (Bryson, 2018), several empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between these two factors and organizational performance in various fields of business (Audenaert et al., 2019; Hilmi, Ramayah, Mustapha, & Pawanchik, 2010; Prajogo & Ahmed, 2006; Rhee, Park, & Lee, 2010; Rosli & Sidek, 2013). However, empirical investigations that have focused on the link between these variables are still limited in government agencies (De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2016), particularly in police departments.
Public organizations have adopted innovation to enhance and improve services delivered to their citizens and users to improve their quality of life. Public organizations are concerned with innovation to improve performance (Light, 1998; Pihl-Thingvad & Klausen, 2016; Walker, 2008). However, studies are inconclusive about the role of innovation in providing positive outcomes. Several studies have indicated a positive relationship between innovation and performance, but the findings of these studies are mixed, and no consensus has been reached (Light, 1998; Osborne, 1998; Walker & Damanpour, 2009). However, unlike investigations in the private sector, where the emphasis has been on the performance of product innovations, the focus of studies in the public sector has been on the influence of service innovations.
Strategic planning also is one of the most important factors that impact on performance. It is one of the modern managerial toolkits that can be used not only to deal with uncertain cases but also to stimulate performance. Hofer and Schendel (1978) state that strategic planning is a critical mechanism in an organizational setting. It is a process used to determine and achieve an organization’s goals and objectives and bridges the gaps between where we are and where we want to go (Adeleke, 2001). Nevertheless, planning is not an easy exercise; it needs skills and knowledge, as well as conscious decisions to determine the direction of business and the techniques and resources used to achieve the required results. According to Salkic (2014), ignoring strategic planning in organizations can lead to poor performance and reduced chances of survival in the market. Thus, strategic planning must focus on factors that have a considerable impact on the organization by identifying strengths and weaknesses and strategic goals, and plan how to maximize strengths, overcome weaknesses and accomplish the goals set.
Private organizations have successfully applied strategic planning for a long time. Similarly, strategic planning can be used in public organizations to improve public services, enhance customer satisfaction and manage limited resources in a more rational and equitable manner (Salkic, 2014). Public organizations, including police agencies, aim to deliver services that meet the needs and interests of people and businesses. However, police agencies have become a notable issue in many countries and have confronted rising criticisms by practitioners and scholars (De Maillard & Savage, 2018) due to weakly organized and ineffective serious plans for development (Bryson, 2018; Porumbescu, Neshkova, & Huntoon, 2019). This has led to inefficiency and ineffectiveness, which are reflected negatively in the quality of services delivered, which, in turn, has led to decreased satisfaction of stakeholders. The poorly performance of these organizations has had an impact on many parties, with negative long-term consequences for the economy and its development and growth (Porumbescu, Neshkova, & Huntoon, 2019). It cannot be denied that these organizations have a vital role and responsibility for the economic development of any country, and poor strategic planning only leads to poor performance (De Maillard & Savage, 2018).
The aim of this study is to investigate innovation and strategic planning and their effect on organizational performance in police agencies, as very few prior studies are available on this topic. By investigating innovation and strategic planning, it is expected that the results of this research will be to contribute by spreading the boundaries of the body of knowledge. Several similar investigations have offered somewhat contradictory conclusions; no study has really provided a synthesis of knowledge on this phenomenon. Hence, this study gathers critical relevant evidence from prior research to fulfil its key goal, i.e. the impact of innovation and strategic planning on the organizational performance of the Dubai Police, an impact that has often been ignored in empirical research.
2. Related literature
2.1 Innovation
Innovation is one of the vital issues in organizations. It is also a wide and loose topic that covers several disciplines, such as product and service development, organizational behavior, operational management, marketing, technology management and quality management (Hauser, Tellis, & Griffin, 2006).
According to Beaver (2002), innovation plays a critical role in the economic progress and competitiveness of organizations and also of countries. It is one of the most salient competitive weapons and a core value capability (Sandvik & Sandvik, 2003). Innovation is also an efficient approach to improve the productivity of organizations (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), exploit new opportunities (Bakar & Ahmad, 2010) and attain competitive advantage (Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2016).
O’Toole (1997) defined innovation as the adoption or generation of new ideas, objects or practices. It is a means for an organization to change, either as pre-emptive actions to affect the environment or in response to changes in the external environment. Therefore, the innovation here is generally defined as covering various components, including new organizational structures, new process technologies, new products or services or new programs or plans for an organization’s employees.
According to Avermaete, Viaene, Morgan, and Crawford (2003), there are four types of innovation: market, organizational, process and product innovation. Organizational innovation refers to the creation or adoption of new ideas or new behavior in the organization (Damanpour, 1996). According to Gunday, Ulusoy, Kilic, and Alpkan (2011), it is strongly connected to all administrative efforts to renew organizational procedures, routines, systems, mechanisms, etc. It is deemed a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Amarakoon et al., 2018; Aziz & Samad, 2016; Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2016; Nishitani & Itoh, 2016; Salunke et al., 2019) and a catalyst for growth in business and the economy. Organizational innovations have a tendency to improve organizational performance by decreasing transaction and administrative costs, enhancing the satisfaction of employees within the workplace, attaining access to non-tradable assets or decreasing the cost of supplies (Avermaete et al., 2003). It includes changes to organizational structures and administrative processes relating to the basic work activities of an organization and its management, which ultimately leads to generating new products and processes (Chang, Chang, Chi, Chen, & Deng, 2012).
Although innovation is of great interest to both private and public organizations (Aas, Jentoft, & Vasstrøm, 2016; Sucupira, Saab, Demo, & Bermejo, 2018), in the public sector it is viewed differently from innovation in the private sector. Aas et al. (2016), Borins (2002) and Audenaert et al. (2019) argued that innovation in the public sector is confronted with many obstacles due to monopolies and lack of competitive pressure to innovate. Bureaucratic measures and red tape by central agencies are further barriers to employees’ innovation.
Innovation in public organizations is receiving increasing academic interest. Case studies have focused on many fields, such as civic environmentalism (John, 1994), healthcare (Pillay & Morris, 2016), educational choice (Roberts & King, 1996) and policing (Bond & Gabriele, 2018; Menelau, Akutsu, Isidro-Filho, & Fernandes, 2019; Sparrow, 1994). The fundamental concentration of innovation in the public organization has been on methods and strategies to decrease or minimize the use of their resources and privatize government functions, not on the influence and effectiveness of innovation itself. Many researchers have pointed out the lack of attention to the effect of the set of innovations (Christensen & Lægreid, 2006). Thus, Damanpour (1991) recommended expanding the scope of innovation studies to include an evaluation of the consequences of innovation.
Regarding innovation in police agencies, several authors and practitioners have pointed out that improving performance through innovation is rarely straightforward. In these agencies, resistance to change is high and police officers often experience difficulty in implementing new programs (Capowich & Roehl, 1994; Sadd & Grinc, 1994; Sparrow, Moore, & Kennedy, 1990). The available clues to the main dimensions of police performance associated with eight innovations, including crime control effectiveness and community satisfaction with services provided, are also surprisingly limited (Braga & Weisburd, 2006). However, it has been demonstrated that innovation among the police can prevent crime and can improve their relationship with the communities they serve (Weisburd & Braga, 2006).
2.2 Strategic planning
Planning is the process of formulating an organization’s goals and objectives and determining how to fulfil them within a specific period of time. It is a proactive action for determining the required performance (Hofer & Schendel, 1978). The essential task of strategic planning is to see that everybody understands the organization’s purpose and objectives and the methods to attain them. If the organization’s efforts are to be effective, people must know what they are expected to do. Thus, planning aims to identify the mission, vision and goals of an organization, as well as to determine actions and resources to accomplish them (Oyedijo, 2004).
Wilkinson and Monkhouse (1994) defined strategic planning as, “a method used to position an organization, through prioritizing its use of resources according to identified goals, in an effort to guide its direction and development over a period of time.” Strategic planning is one of the most important tools of management (Aldehayyat, 2011) that helps organizations to deal with various changing aspects in the environment to confront competitors and gain a competitive advantage (Al-Shaikh, 2001). Oktafiga (2015) stated that strategic management is a process that involves a full set of top management commitment in setting firms’ long-term vision; it involves strategic decisions followed by the implementation of strategic actions to achieve strategic competitiveness and to earn an above-average return and sustained competitive advantage (Oktafiga, 2015).
Organizations can achieve many benefits through practicing strategic planning. Al-Shaikh (2001) and Posch and Garaus (2019) mentioned that strategic planning has a role in enhancing innovation, motivation, increasing internal communication, stimulating new ideas, generating information, evaluating the environment of the organization and ensuring comprehensive consideration of all suitable options. Long-term planning is essential for all small and large organizations. Therefore, failing to practice strategic planning loses organizations the advantages and opportunities that await them (Steiner, 1967).
The literature reports that strategic planning has a substantial effect on an organization’s financial success (Armstrong, 1982; Katz & Green, 2009; Kylaheiko, Puumalainen, Sjögrén, Syrjä, & Fellnhofer, 2016). A similar result is also concluded by Sexton and Van Auken (1985), who asserted that lower levels of strategic planning in organizations lead to a higher percentage of failure, and vice versa: high levels of strategic planning lead to a lower percentage of failure. This reveals that strategic planning can help organizations to survive. In addition, the value of strategic planning for organizations is proved by Singhvi (2000), who highlighted that the key to the success of organizations is having appropriate strategic planning.
In the public sector, strategic planning involves diverse activities, such as identifying goals and objectives, setting tasks and activities, identifying main issues, setting strategies and procedures for each specific issue, building teams, controlling results and evaluating alternatives (Bryson, 2018; Kemp, 2018; Salkic, 2014). According to Bryson (2018), there are five advantages of strategic planning in public organizations:
enhancing strategic thinking and actions within the organization;
improvement of the organization;
improvement of the decision-making process;
improvement in the results and work; and
employees getting benefits.
Kemp (2018) and Salkic (2014) added that strategic planning assists decision-makers in these organizations to address the challenges and significant issues. It also has a role in formulating goals and objectives and making decisions that meet the organization’s future vision. However, there is a shortage of studies that focus on strategic planning and its impact on police performance. Therefore, this study is an endeavor to bridge the gap by testing this relationship.
2.3 Organizational performance
Organizational performance has been defined as a set of achievements gained after implementing a set of practices. Measuring performance means assessing the achievements resulting from the implementation of a set of practices (Neely, Gregory, & Platts, 2005). In other words, performance measurement is a process of assessing progress toward achieving predetermined objectives. Through measurement, an organization evaluates and improves its production processes, and assessing the achievements appropriately is critical. Inappropriate performance measures may not only to undermine but also misrepresent the organization’s efforts (Upton, 1998).
Throughout its history, performance measurement systems have undergone a revolution, as explained by Neely et al. (2005) and Ghalayini and Noble (1996), from a purely financial emphasis to comprising more comprehensive business characteristics. According to Ghalayini and Noble (1996), the development of performance measurement was divided into two phases. The first phase purely emphasized financial performance measures such as profit, return on investment, price variances, return on sales and sales per employee. This performance was formally reported as financial outcomes (Abdel-Maksoud, Dugdale, & Luther, 2005). However, Schonberger (1996) argued that financial data were not the best measures of a manufacturing company’s strength and prospects. Just as non-financial indicators (such as quality, flexibility, etc.) cannot be quantified accurately, so financial performance measures may produce misleading information that could undermine the achievement of a company’s strategic objectives (Bhasin, 2008). Thus, they are not suitable for making strategic decisions. In other words, financial performance may not be relevant to practice because it is attempted to quantify performance in financial terms, whereas most of the improvements on the shop floor are unsuitable to be quantified in dollars (Ghalayini & Noble, 1996). Hence, traditional performance measures may not support continuous improvement efforts in a plant.
In the second phase of its evolution various scholars, most notably Kaplan and Norton (1992), claimed that some shortcomings have been found in financial measures, such as imbalance, lack of precision and neutrality, focusing only on historical data and the short term, all of which fail to reflect organizational performance and strategic issues. Therefore, many academicians and practitioners tend to use indicators that focus on both financial and non-financial indicators to evaluate performance (Grawe, Chen, & Daugherty, 2009; Saunila, Pekkola, & Ukko, 2014; Wadongo, Odhuno, Kambona, & Othuon, 2010). For example, the balanced scorecard (BSC) method has been generated to provide a balanced measurement by which to evaluate organizational performance. Accordingly, the BSC has retained the financial measures and added three other perspectives (customer, internal process and learning and growth) to achieve a balanced measurement (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, 1996).
Although the majority of the studies on BSC have focused on the private sector, some have indicated that the public sector has adopted BSC successfully, even though performance depends on different their goals and core business (Northcott & Taulapapa, 2012; Wilson, Hagarty, & Gauthier, 2004). While the private sector intends to increase profit and enhance value for customers, the public sector intends to improve performance, customer satisfaction and quality (Serrano Cinca, Mar Molinero, & Bossi Queiroz, 2003). Governments are looking to improve their performance in terms of corruption prevention and accountability, strengthened integrity, transparency, client satisfaction, citizen participation, use of public resources and program outcomes (Ashour, 2004). Ashour further pointed out that these reforms are crucial for enhancing public sector performance, for development, protecting the public performance and strengthening the government’s role in providing basic services to citizens.
Measuring performance in the public sector is nevertheless an integral part of the management process, to evaluate whether strategic objectives are being met, if any major problems exist, and how to solve and improve them in the future (Kanji & Sa, 2007). In addition, public organizations at the present time consider the use of performance measurement as an important move toward service quality and providing value for money (Morgan & Murgatroyd, 1994). Eskildsen, Kristensen, and Jørn Juhl (2004) found that private and public organizations achieve excellent results in different ways; therefore, the results of studies on the private sector cannot be generalized to the public sector.
Some studies have indicated that BSC can be adopted as a model to measure organizational performance in police agencies (Najafi, Aryanegad, Lotfi, & Ebnerasould, 2009). BSC can cover and measure all of the aspects of police agencies, achieving strategic goals, enhancing the use of resources in creating preferred outputs, and obtaining balance and cause and effect from BSC perspectives (Najafi et al., 2009). Therefore, this study will apply BSC to evaluate the organizational performance of the Dubai Police.
2.4 Relationship between innovation and organizational performance
Many studies have asserted that innovation is the most critical factor in improving organizational performance (Wheelwright & Clark, 1992) and long-term success (Scott, Van Reenen, & Zachariadis, 2017). It has a significant role to play in improving productivity and increasing the efficiency of production (Baumann & Kritikos, 2016; Mansury & Love, 2008), enhancing revenue (Shefer & Frenkel, 2005) and increasing the firm’s value (Bowen, Rostami, & Steel, 2010). In addition, innovation enables organizations to provide a greater variety of differentiated products that can increase financial performance (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001).
Many scholars have pointed out that innovation has an impact on organizational performance (Bowen et al., 2010; Cai & Li, 2018; Cainelli, Evangelista, & Savona, 2006; Calantone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002; Damanpour, Walker, & Avellaneda, 2009; Davila, Varvakis, & North, 2019; Garcia-Morales, Matias-Reche, & Hurtado-Torres, 2008; Grawe et al., 2009; Gunday et al., 2011; Hilmi et al., 2010; Keskin, 2006; Khin & Ho, 2019; Liao & Rice, 2010; Li & Atuahene-Gima, 2001; Mansury & Love, 2008; Panuwatwanich, Stewart, & Mohamed, 2008; Rhee et al., 2010; Rosman, Suffian, Marha, Sakinah, & Mariam, 2018; Tajuddin, Iberahim, & Ismail, 2015). These studies have been carried out across different economic sectors around the globe. For instance, Bommer and Jalajas (2004) claimed that greater innovation assists organizations to attain sustainable competitive advantage, improve organizational performance and respond to changes and challenges. Further, speed of innovation gives organizations an opportunity to attain a greater market share, which can lead to high profitability and income (Garcia-Morales et al., 2008). McMillan (2010) denoted that innovation brings efficiency and effectiveness, i.e. the two main criteria influencing success and long-term survival. Adopting an innovative culture can establish “isolation mechanisms” as the knowledge generated from innovation becomes unavailable to competitors (Aragón-Correa, García-Morales, & Cordón-Pozo, 2007); this feature permits the organization to improve its performance, achieve more profits, and gain and maintain a competitive advantage. In addition, a study by Tajuddin et al. (2015) reported that innovation has a substantial role in improving organizational performance. Thus, greater innovation allows an organization to better respond to the environment, improve its capabilities and maintain a competitive advantage (Calantone et al., 2002; Salunke et al., 2019).
As for innovation in the public sector and its impacts on organizational performance, there are several limitations in studying this relationship, given the scarcity of available empirical studies (Audenaert et al., 2019; Damanpour et al., 2009; Walker & Damanpour, 2009). Nor have current studies specifically investigated the performance outcomes of innovation, which, therefore, provides clues to uphold the idea that innovation may have different effects on several aspects of organizational performance, findings that reinforce the studies of Walker (2005) on private and public sector innovation and their impact on organizational performance. Some evidence has been offered that even though success through innovation is not guaranteed and is risky, its adoption can promote organizational performance. According to the above discussion, the following hypothesis is postulated:
There is a positive and significant effect of innovation on organizational performance.
2.5 Relationship between strategic planning and organizational performance
Practising strategic planning in organizations has a role in improving performance. Studies have indicated that organizations, which adopt strategic planning record better performance and effectiveness than those that do not (Greenley, 1986; Hofer & Schendel, 1978; Miller & Cardinal, 1994). Strategic planning clarifies the direction of the organization, controls its activities, and enhances coordination between its departments and employees (McCarthy & Minichiello, 1996).
Veskaisri, Chan, and Pollard (2007) indicated that a sustainable basis for generating and preserving competitive advantage depends on strategies that clearly define all of these aspects, which in turn, lead to reinforcing organizational performance. Dauda, Akingbade, and Akinlabi (2010) indicated that best practices of strategic management contribute to boosting both market share and profitability of the organization; for that they propose the adoption of the concept of strategic planning by organizations to gain these benefits.
Greenley (1994) said that strategic planning enhances the efficiency of management practices, which, in turn, are reflected positively in organizational performance. A good strategic planning system can help organizations to connect their long-term goals to their operational plans and short-term objectives (Falshaw, Glaister, & Tatoglu, 2006), coordinate and unify actions to attain efficiency and improve effectiveness, combine their business systems and evaluate strategic direction, all of which will reflect positively in organizational performance (Andersen & Nielsen, 2009). Strategic planning can also assist organizations to manage any instability of the environment (Boyd, 1991), which enables them to outperform competitors (Falshaw et al., 2006). In the same way, Capon, Farley, and Hulbert (1994) pointed out that adopting strategic planning can help organizations to enhance their performance by taking into account environmental adaptation and adopting systematic thinking to deal with strategic issues.
On the other hand, many studies have reported contradictory results (Elliott, 2016; Falshaw et al., 2006; Ghobadian, O’Regan, Thomas, & Liu, 2008; Gică & Negrusa, 2011; Miller & Cardinal, 1994; Yusuf & Saffu, 2005). Armstrong (1982) argued that these contradictory findings are to the result of serious research problems. He asserted that the description of the planning techniques is critical in strategic planning studies, to evaluate the value of the planning in a scientific manner. Other studies have indicated that the role of strategic planning to improve performance is contradictory and inconsistent (Pearce, Freeman, & Robinson, 1987). They have doubts about the ability of researchers to understand the impact of strategic planning on organizational performance as a result of limitations in the methodology adopted. Boyd (1991) indicated that the relationship between strategic planning and organizational performance is modestly positive. He argued that these results are due to measurement errors in the studies, which have led to an underestimation of this relationship. According to the above discussion, the following hypothesis is postulated:
There is a positive and significant effect of strategic planning on organizational performance.
3. Methodology
To test the hypothesized model, this study used a survey questionnaire research design and quantitative methodology approach. In total, 150 questionnaires were distributed by drop-off to the targeted respondents in the Dubai Police. Dubai Police is a large organization with more than 24,000 employees (Chu, 2017). Dubai Police was also the first department in the region that practiced these tools by establishing a total quality department that focuses and maintains quality and encourages innovation in all the Dubai Police departments and stations. Based on that Dubai Police were chosen as a scope for this study. Moreover, the SPSS software and the partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) were used to analyze the data collected.
3.1 Measure
Previous literature was the source of the techniques for measuring the variables. Organizational performance measures were based on the BSC developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992). Many studies were used BSC to measure organizational performance (Habidin, Yusof, & Fuzi, 2016; Mehralian, Nazari, Nooriparto, & Rasekh, 2017). The indicator items used in this study were adapted from the study by Mafini and Pooe (2013) in their study in government social services departments in South Africa. The questions on innovation were adapted from Pinar and Girard (2008) and strategic planning measurements from Samson and Terziovski (1999). Appendix includes a list of items used in this study. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure the responses, ranging from “1” (strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree).
3.2 Sampling design and data collection procedures
A drop-off questionnaire was distributed to sample 150 managers in the Dubai Police. The original language of the questionnaire, translated into Arabic language by a bilingual person. The Arabic version was re-translate into English by another bilingual person, to detect any modifications and changes by comparing the two English versions, and therefore, ensuring the validity and reliability of the instrument as recommended by Brislin (1986).
The sampling method used was a proportionate stratified random sampling. The reason for using this method is the nature and hierarchy of the Dubai Police, which has many general departments and police stations. This technique provides a sample that is highly representative of the population being studied and enables the researcher to generalize the results obtained for the total population. The selection of random samples was done using the Randomizer program available online and Microsoft Office Excel 2013.
To determine the minimum sample size, Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2014) recommended running a power analysis test. A priori power analysis was carried out using G*Power 3.1.9.4 software (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Based on some recommended statistical parameters (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009): medium effect size f2 (0.15), an alpha significance level (α err prob, 0.05); power (1 − β err prob; 0.95), two predictors (i.e. strategic planning and innovation) and three main numbers of predictors as total (i.e. strategic planning, innovation and organizational performance), a minimum sample of 107 would be required to test a regression-based model (Figure 1).[AQ3]
Although the result of a priori power analysis in Figure 1 indicates a minimum of 107 participants would be needed for this study, to avoid the issue of low response rate, it became necessary to contemplate other means to determine a larger sample size. Therefore, the sample size was determined using Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) method. As the population size was 243 managers, the sample size was deemed sufficient at 150.
The questionnaires were personally distributed to the respondents in the second week of January 2018. The respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire within ten days, during which follow-up phone calls were made as reminders. After ten days, the researcher collected the completed questionnaires; the remainder were considered as unreturned. A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed and 95 completed and returned, a 63 per cent response rate.
3.3 Research framework
The framework contains of indigenous variables (organizational performance) and two exogenous variables (innovation and strategic planning) as shown in Figure 2. In this framework, there are two relationships between the independent and dependent variables: between innovation and organizational performance, and between strategic planning and organizational performance. These relationships were hypothesized, as shown above, to test the conceptual framework of the study. The hypothesized relationship was based on the resource-based view (RBV) that suggests organizations are able to achieve better performance through the effective use of their organizational resources and capabilities than are their competitors. Innovation and strategic planning are capabilities that can affect organizational performance.
4. Data analysis
All data collected were coded in SPSS. A preliminary analysis was conducted for the second stage of data collection, to ensure the results obtained were valid. The preliminary analysis includes screening for missing values, outliers and normality. The data were then analyzed using SPSS and SmartPLS. A two-step approach was applied: the measurement model and the structural model.
4.1 Demographic analysis
Table I below shows the demographic information of respondents. Most of the respondents (80 per cent) are male. Qualification is classified into four categories. Most of the respondents have a college degree (66.3 per cent) or a postgraduate degree (26.4 per cent), which indicates good knowledge to test the proposed hypotheses; 6.3 per cent have only high school level and 1 per cent below this. Experience level is classified into three levels: 57.9 per cent of the respondents have experience of more than 10 years, the rest divided almost equally with 6-9 years (20 per cent) and 0-5 years (22.1 per cent). It is an advantage in this study to have received responses from such a high proportion of highly qualified and experienced employees.
4.2 Descriptive analysis
Table II shows the results of the descriptive analysis. Strategic planning has the highest mean (4.003) and the second lowest standard deviation (0.664), indicating a good level of awareness of employees about the importance of strategic planning for improving organizational performance. The second highest mean is innovation (3.940) with the highest standard deviation. Organizational performance has the lowest mean and standard deviation of all the variables, which indicates a comparative lack of awareness about its role.
4.3 Test of normality
As suggested by Cain, Zhang, and Yuan (2017) and Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2017), normality should be assessed before testing the data, for multivariate skewness and kurtosis. Webpower software, available online, was used for this. The results showed that the data collected was not multivariate normal; Mardia’s multivariate skewness (β = 8.497, p < 0.01) and Mardia’s multivariate kurtosis (61.76, p < 0.01) confirmed the data was not normal. SmartPLS was, therefore, used to analyze the research model as it is a non-parametric analysis software.
4.4 The measurement evaluation
Convergent and discriminant validity were tested to evaluate the measurement model. Convergent validity is the degree to which a group of items converges to measure a specific construct (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2010). It can be examined by Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and the average variance extracted (AVE). The cut-off value for Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability should be at least 0.7, and AVE values at least 0.5. Table III illustrates that all three values are above the recommended threshold.
Discriminant validity is the measurement of which construct is totally distinct from other constructs. The high value of discriminant validity provides evidence that the construct is exclusive and captures some elements, which other measures do not display (Hair et al., 2010). It can be measured using AVE against the correlation square. The absence of multicollinearity occurs when AVE values are greater than the correlation square (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). However, any cross-loading between items is an indication that there is a problem of discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010).
Discriminant validity for this model was measured using Fornell–Larcker’s criterion, as suggested by Hair et al. (2017). This technique suggests that the variance extracted estimates should be greater than the squared correlation estimate indicated for any two constructs (when compared with the correlation values from the row and column) and needs to be larger than the square root of AVE. If the values represented by any result confirm these criteria, therefore, the framework developed to reach its discriminant validity, hence quality for further analysis. Table IV below exhibits the Fornell–Larcker criterion; the results show discriminant validity was achieved.
4.5 The structural model
To test the hypotheses, many techniques and approaches can be used. In this study, both hypotheses were tested to discover the direct effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable. Therefore, SmartPLS’s bootstrapping was used to test the proposed hypotheses.
Table V below depicts the results, showing that innovation has a positive and significant effect on organizational performance at the 0.05 level of significance (β = 0.239, t = 2.944, p < 0.005). Similarly, the relationship between strategic planning and organizational performance is positive and significant at the 0.001 level of significance (β = 0.545, t = 7.111, p < 0.001). Therefore, the results support both hypotheses, H1 and H2.
5. Discussion and conclusion
High-quality performance is the most important factor that organizations are looking for and striving to achieve. To achieve the best organizational performance, they need to implement innovative strategies and practices. Innovation and strategic planning are considered as the most important drivers in enhancing overall performance, and the effects of both were examined in this study, with various results. The effect of innovation on organizational performance is positive and significant (β = 0.239, t = 2.944, p < 0.005), and therefore, H1 is supported. This result is in line with many studies in the previous literature (Rosman et al., 2018; Tajuddin et al., 2015).
The study predicted a positive relationship between strategic planning and organizational innovation, and this received empirical confirmation (β = 0.545, t = 7.111, p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis H2. This result is consistent with many previous studies that have found a positive and significant effect of strategic planning on organizational performance (Aldehayyat & Twaissi, 2011; Arasa & K’Obonyo, 2012; Boyd, 1991; Gică & Negrusa, 2011; Glaister, Dincer, Tatoglu, Demirbag, & Zaim, 2008; Pollanen, Abdel-Maksoud, Elbanna, & Mahama, 2017; Suklev & Debarliev, 2012; Wolf & Floyd, 2017).
These findings strongly support the RBV theory that innovation and strategic planning provide valuable insight into managers’ role in applying these elements in their daily tasks, leading to competitive advantage, and hence, sustaining their business success. That is, the findings imply that innovation and strategic planning are an important driver of organizational performance as they can trigger the organization into innovative and proactive actions.
This study contributes to the literature, both theoretically and practically, by identifying multiple ways through which organizational resources and capabilities impact the organizational performance of police agencies. Generally, the theoretical value of this research is that it has established the relevance of the RBV theory in explaining the interaction between innovation, strategic planning and organizational performance in a single model. Indirectly, it provides a new direction in research on the predictors of organizational performance in the context of police agencies.
There are significant benefits for researchers who can better understand how innovation and strategic planning drive police performance. This is essential, as police agencies have too long been treated by researchers as organizations outside strategic planning or innovation; in fact, innovation and strategic planning are critical for police agencies. Fast transformation puts strong pressure on available resources and organizational systems, which, in turn, influences the actions of managers and employees. Thus, the close link between the two fields will bring new knowledge to spur police activities. Moreover, this study attempted to narrow the gap in previous studies, which have examined these relationships in the context of police organizations. In practice, the results can be used by managers, practitioners and decision-makers of other public and private organizations.
This study has implications for decision-makers in police agencies on how to deal with organizational resources and how to improve their organizational performance. As innovation is key in affecting organizational performance and an important source of competitive advantage, a special emphasis should be given to fostering an innovation culture in. The management must recognize the important role of strategic planning in police agencies, which can lead to improving organizational performance. This means that these practices should be in place for such a culture to develop. That is, the decision-makers in police agencies need to recognize the potential of innovation and strategic planning practices in adding value to their agencies. Therefore, it is expected that the new empirical findings of this study can serve as a stimulus to the management of police agencies, by taking them into consideration.
Finally, this study has focused on the effect of innovation and strategic planning on organizational performance in the Dubai Police. Hence, this study could be extended to other organizations in both the public and private sectors. Studying such model that combines these practices in other organizations particularly that manufacturers by nature could be concluded interesting results.
The cross-sectional approach was used to collect the data at a point of time. Because of the complicated joint impact of innovation and strategic planning on organizational performance, longitudinal research could be used to clarify and explain the complicated relationships over a long period. This approach can detect the changes in the association among the variables through over time. Another limitation of the study concerns the research design, which restricted the researcher to detect the dynamic associations between the variables over time.
Figures
Participants’ demographic information
Demographic variable | Category | Frequency (N = 95) | (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 76 | 80 |
Female | 19 | 20 | |
Qualifications | Under high school | 1 | 1 |
High school | 6 | 6.3 | |
College degree | 63 | 66.3 | |
Graduate studies | 25 | 26.4 | |
Experiences | 0-5 years | 21 | 22.1 |
6-9 years | 19 | 20 | |
10 years or more | 55 | 57.9 |
Descriptive statistics of the constructs
Construct | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organizational performance | 95 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.653 | 0.608 |
Strategic planning | 95 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 4.003 | 0.664 |
Innovation | 95 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.940 | 0.821 |
Construct reliability and validity
Cronbach’s alpha | Composite reliability | AVE | |
---|---|---|---|
Innovation | 0.886 | 0.929 | 0.814 |
Organizational performance | 0.784 | 0.859 | 0.604 |
Strategic planning | 0.781 | 0.860 | 0.607 |
Discriminant validity
Innovation | Organizational performance | Strategic planning | |
---|---|---|---|
Innovation | 0.902 | ||
Organizational performance | 0.591 | 0.777 | |
Strategic planning | 0.645 | 0.699 | 0.779 |
Source: Fornell-Larcker Criterion
Hypothesis testing
H | Hypothesis | β | t-value | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Innovation → organizational performance | 0.239 | 2.944 | 0.003 |
H2 | Strategic planning → organizational performance | 0.545 | 7.111 | 0.000 |
List of total scale items to measure variables of the study
Organizational performance measure | |
OP1 | Resources are managed efficiently in our department |
OP2 | Our department is always able to meet its financial goals |
OP3 | Our section is able to meet our client demands |
OP4 | Most of our department’s clients are satisfied |
OP5 | Programs are implemented speedily |
OP6 | The level of wastage in our department is low |
OP7 | Our department has successfully developed the procedure to improve the quality of service offered |
OP8 | We have ample opportunities to make independent decisions |
Strategic planning measure | |
SP1 | In our department, we have a mission statement, which has been effectively communicated to all the employees and gained their support |
SP2 | In our department, we have comprehensive planning process, which sets and reviews short and long-term goals |
SP3 | Our plans focus on the achievement of the best practice in the other police departments |
SP4 | When we develop our plans, policies and objectives, we always incorporate customer requirements and the needs of all stakeholders, including the community |
Innovation measure | |
IN1 | Our department encourages employee innovation |
IN2 | Our employees seldom provide new product ideas |
IN3 | Our employees often provide new operational ideas |
IN4 | Our company believes in experimenting with new ideas |
Appendix
References
Aas, T. H., Jentoft, N., & Vasstrøm, M. (2016). Managing innovation of care services: An exploration of Norwegian municipalities. Cogent Business and Management, 3, 1215762. 10.1080/23311975.2016.1215762
Abdel-Maksoud, A., Dugdale, D., & Luther, R. (2005). Non-financial performance measurement in manufacturing companies. The British Accounting Review, 37, 261–297. 10.1016/j.bar.2005.03.003
Adeleke, A. (2001). Management concepts and applications, Lagos, Portugal: Concept Publications.
Aldehayyat, J. S. (2011). Organisational characteristics and the practice of strategic planning in Jordanian hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 192–199. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.05.001
Aldehayyat, J. S., & Twaissi, N. (2011). Strategic planning and corporate performance relationship in small business firms: Evidence from a Middle East country context. International Journal of Business and Management, 6, 255 10.5539/ijbm.v6n8p255
Al-Shaikh, F. N. (2001). Strategic planning process in developing countries: The case of United Arab Emirates business firms. Management Research News, 24, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170110782432
Amarakoon, U., Weerawardena, J., & Verreynne, M. L. (2018). Learning capabilities, human resource management innovation and competitive advantage. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 1736–1766, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1209228
Andersen, T. J., & Nielsen, B. B. (2009). Adaptive strategy making: The effects of emergent and intended strategy modes. European Management Review, 6, 94–106. 10.1057/emr.2009.7
Aragón-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organizational learning's role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 349–359. 10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.09.006
Arasa, R., & K'Obonyo, P. (2012). The relationship between strategic planning and firm performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2, 201–213. Retrieved from http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_22_Special_Issue_November_2012/24.pdf
Armstrong, J. S. (1982). The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Review of empirical research. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 197–211. 10.1002/smj.4250030303
Ashour, A. S. (2004). Transparency and accountability in the public sector in the Arab region. UNDESA RAB/01/006
Audenaert, M., Decramer, A., George, B., Verschuere, B., & Van Waeyenberg, T. (2019). When employee performance management affects individual innovation in public organizations: The role of consistency and LMX. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30, 815–834. 10.1080/09585192.2016.1239220
Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E. J., & Crawford, N. (2003). Determinants of innovation in small food firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 8–17. 10.1108/14601060310459163
Aziz, N. N. A., & Samad, S. (2016). Innovation and competitive advantage: Moderating effects of firm age in foods manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 256–266. 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00032-0
Bakar, L. J. A., & Ahmad, H. (2010). Assessing the relationship between firm resources and product innovation performance: A resource-based view. Business Process Management Journal, 16, 420–435. 10.1108/14637151011049430
Baumann, J., & Kritikos, A. S. (2016). The link between R&D, innovation and productivity: Are micro firms different? Research Policy, 45, 1263–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.008
Beaver, G. (2002). Small business, entrepreneurship and enterprise development, London, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
Bhasin, S. (2008). Lean and performance measurement. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19, 670–684. 10.1108/17410380810877311
Bommer, M., & Jalajas, D. S. (2004). Innovation sources of large and small technology-based firms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51, 13–18. 10.1109/TEM.2003.822462
Bond, B. J., & Gabriele, K. R. (2018). Research and planning units: An innovation instrument in the 21st-Century police organization. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29, 67–88. 10.1177/0887403415624947
Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 467–476. 10.1108/01437730210449357
Bowen, F. E., Rostami, M., & Steel, P. (2010). Timing is everything: A meta-analysis of the relationships between organizational performance and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1179–1185. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.014
Boyd, B. K. (1991). Strategic planning and financial performance: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Management Studies, 28, 353–374. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00286.x
Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2006). Police innovation and crime prevention: Lessons learned from police research over the past 20 years. This review draws upon material available in D. L. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), 2006. Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press; Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2633381
Brislin, R. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. in W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cross-cultural research and methodology series, Vol. 8. Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: a guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Cai, W., & Li, G. (2018). The drivers of eco-innovation and its impact on performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.109
Cain, M. K., Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K. H. (2017). Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1716–1735. 10.3758/s13428-016-0814-1
Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R., & Savona, M. (2006). Innovation and economic performance in services: A firm-level analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30, 435–458. 10.1093/cje/bei067
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515–524. 10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6
Capon, N., Farley, J. U., & Hulbert, J. M. (1994). Strategic planning and financial performance: more evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 105–110. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00335.x
Capowich, G. E., & Roehl, J. A. (1994). Problem-oriented policing: Actions and effectiveness in San Diego. The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises, pp. 127–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483327006.n7
Chang, Y. C., Chang, H. T., Chi, H. R., Chen, M. H., & Deng, L. L. (2012). How do established firms improve radical innovation performance? The organizational capabilities view. Technovation, 32, 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.03.001
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2006). Agencification and regulatory reforms. Autonomy and Regulation. Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, 8–49. Retrieved from https://soc.kuleuven.be/io/cost/pub/paper/AgencificationRegulatioryReforms_Final21021.pdf
Chu, D. C. (2017). Employment motivation and job-related satisfaction: a comparison of police women’s perceptions in Dubai and Taipei. Policing and Society, 28, 1–15. 10.1080/10439463.2017.1329306
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590. 10.5465/256406
Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42, 693–716. 10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 650–675. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00814.x
Dauda, Y. A., Akingbade, W. A., & Akinlabi, H. B. (2010). Strategic management practice and corporate performance of selected small business enterprises in Lagos metropolis. International Journal of Business and Management, 5, 97 10.5539/ijbm.v5n11p97
Davila, G., Varvakis, G., & North, K. (2019). Influence of strategic knowledge management on firm innovativeness and performance. Brazilian Business Review, 16, 239–254. 10.15728/bbr.2019.16.3.3
De Maillard, J., & Savage, S. P. (2018). Policing as a performing art? The contradictory nature of contemporary police performance management. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18, 314–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817718589
De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94, 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
El-Kassar, A. N., & Singh, S. K. (2019). Green innovation and organizational performance: The influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.016
Elliott, G. (2016). The impact of middle manager divergent activity and stakeholder salience in organisations using formal strategic planning: a case study of England and Wales police forces (Doctoral dissertation), University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.
Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., & Jørn Juhl, H. (2004). Private versus public sector excellence. The TQM Magazine, 16, 50–56. 10.1108/09544780410511489
Falshaw, J. R., Glaister, K. W., & Tatoglu, E. (2006). Evidence on formal strategic planning and company performance. Management Decision, 44, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610641436
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Garcia-Morales, V. J., Matias-Reche, F., & Hurtado-Torres, N. (2008). Influence of transformational leadership on organizational innovation and performance depending on the level of organizational learning in the pharmaceutical sector. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810810856435
Ghalayini, A. M., & Noble, J. S. (1996). The changing basis of performance measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16, 63–80. 10.1108/01443579610125787
Ghobadian, A., O'Regan, N., Thomas, H., & Liu, J. (2008). Formal strategic planning, operating environment, size, sector and performance: Evidence from the UK's manufacturing SMEs. Journal of General Management, 34, 1–20. 10.1177/030630700803400201
Gică, O. A., & Negrusa, A. L. (2011). The impact of strategic planning activities on Transylvanian SMEs–An empirical research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 643–648. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.084
Glaister, K. W., Dincer, O., Tatoglu, E., Demirbag, M., & Zaim, S. (2008). A causal analysis of formal strategic planning and firm performance: Evidence from an emerging country. Management Decision, 46, 365–391. 10.1108/00251740810863843
Goodman, P. S., & Pennings, J. M. (1977). New perspectives on organizational effectiveness, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Incorporated Pub.
Grawe, S. J., Chen, H., & Daugherty, P. J. (2009). The relationship between strategic orientation, service innovation, and performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39, 282–300. 10.1108/09600030910962249
Greenley, G. E. (1986). Does strategic planning improve company performance? Long Range Planning, 19, 101–109. 10.1016/0024-6301(86)90226-8
Greenley, G. E. (1994). Strategic planning and company performance: An appraisal of the empirical evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 10, 383–396. 10.1016/0956-5221(94)90025-6
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133, 662–676. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.014
Habidin, N. F., Yusof, S. M., & Fuzi, N. M. (2016). Lean six sigma, strategic control systems, and organizational performance for automotive suppliers. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 7, 110–135. 10.1108/IJLSS-04-2015-0013
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hauser, J., Tellis, G. J., & Griffin, A. (2006). Research on innovation: a review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science, 25, 687–717. 10.1287/mksc.1050.0144
Hilmi, M. F., Ramayah, T., Mustapha, Y., & Pawanchik, S. (2010). Product and process innovativeness: Evidence from Malaysian SMEs. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review, 16, 556–565. 10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v05i08/51845
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 479–491. 10.1002/smj.196
Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. E. (1978). Strategy formation: Analytical concepts, Eagan, MN: West Pubishing Co.
John, D. (1994). Civic environmentalism. Issues in Science and Technology, 10, 30–34. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43312705
Kanji, G., & Sa, P. (2007). Performance measurement and business excellence: The reinforcing link for the public sector. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18, 49–56. 10.1080/14783360601043096
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70, 71–79. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10119714
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action, Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Katz, J. A., & Green, R. P. (2009). Entrepreneurial small business, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Kemp, R. L. (2018). Strategic planning in local government, Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Keskin, H. (2006). Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs: An extended model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9, 396–417. 10.1108/14601060610707849
Khin, S., & Ho, T. C. (2019). Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11, 177–195. 10.1108/IJIS-08-2018-0083
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610. 10.1177/001316447003000308
Kylaheiko, K., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., Syrjä, P., & Fellnhofer, K. (2016). Strategic planning and firm performance: A comparison across countries and sectors. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 8, 280–295. 10.1504/IJEV.2016.10000295
Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1123–1134. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069392
Liao, T. S., & Rice, J. (2010). Innovation investments, market engagement and financial performance: A study among Australian manufacturing SMEs. Research Policy, 39, 117–125. 10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.002
Light, P. C. (1998). Sustaining innovation: Creating nonprofit and government organizations that innovate naturally, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–172. 10.2307/258632
Mafini, C., & Pooe, D. R. I. (2013). Performance measurement in a South African government social services department: A balanced scorecard approach. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 23. 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p23
Mansury, M. A., & Love, J. H. (2008). Innovation, productivity and growth in US business services: a firm-level analysis. Technovation, 28, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.06.002.
McCarthy, D. J., & Minichiello, R. J. (1996). Business policy and strategy, concepts and readings. 4th ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
McMillan, C. (2010). Five competitive forces of effective leadership and innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 31, 11–22. 10.1108/02756661011012741
Mehralian, G., Nazari, J. A., Nooriparto, G., & Rasekh, H. R. (2017). TQM and organizational performance using the balanced scorecard approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66, 111–125. 10.1108/IJPPM-08-2015-0114
Menelau, S., Akutsu, L., Isidro-Filho, A., & Fernandes, A. S. A. (2019). Strategic resonance and innovation in public security services in Brazil. Organizações & Sociedade, 26, 50–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-9260883
Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (1994). Strategic planning and firm performance: A synthesis of more than two decades of research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1649–1665. 10.2307/256804
Morgan, C., & Murgatroyd, S. (1994). Total quality management in the public sector: An international perspective, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Najafi, E., Aryanegad, M. B., Lotfi, F. H., & Ebnerasould, A. (2009). Efficiency and effectiveness rating of organization with combined DEA and BSC. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 3, 1249–1264.
Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2016). Studying the links between organizational culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish companies. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 48, 30–41. 10.1016/j.rlp.2015.09.009
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25, 1228–1263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570510633639
Nishitani, K., & Itoh, M. (2016). Product innovation in response to environmental standards and competitive advantage: A hedonic analysis of refrigerators in the Japanese retail market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 873–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.032
Northcott, D., & Taulapapa, M. T. (2012). Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector organizations: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25, 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551211224234
Oktafiga, D. (2015). Effects of leadership roles and management information system on strategic planning formulation. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2687392
Osborne, S. P. (1998). Organizational structure and innovation in UK voluntary social welfare organizations: Applying the Aston measures. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9, 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022145831027
O'Toole, L. J. (1997). Implementing public innovations in network settings. Administration & Society, 29, 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979702900201
Oyedijo, A. (2004). Strategic management: An introductory text, Lagos, Nigeria: Strategic International Press Ltd.
Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R. A., & Mohamed, S. (2008). The role of climate for innovation in enhancing business performance: The case of design firms. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980810902712
Pearce, J. A., Freeman, E. B., & Robinson, R. B. (1987). The tenuous link between formal strategic planning and financial performance. Academy of Management Review, 12, 658–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/258071
Pihl-Thingvad, S., & Klausen, K. K. (2016). Innovative work behavior. How managers ensure the implementation of innovation in public service organizations. In IRSPM Conference, 2016, Hong Kong.
Pillay, R., & Morris, M. H. (2016). Changing healthcare by changing the education of its leaders: An innovation competence model. Journal of Health Administration Education, 33, 393–410.
Pinar, M., & Girard, T. (2008). Investigating the impact of organizational excellence and leadership on business performance: An exploratory study of Turkish firms. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 73, 29–45.
Pollanen, R., Abdel-Maksoud, A., Elbanna, S., & Mahama, H. (2017). Relationships between strategic performance measures, strategic decision-making, and organizational performance: Empirical evidence from Canadian public organizations. Public Management Review, 19, 725–746. 10.1080/14719037.2016.1203013
Porter, M. E. (1996). Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies, and regional policy. International Regional Science Review, 19, 85–90. 10.1177/016001769601900208
Porumbescu, G. A., Neshkova, M. I., & Huntoon, M. (2019). The effects of police performance on agency trustworthiness and citizen participation. Public Management Review, 21, 212–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473473
Posch, A., & Garaus, C. (2019). Boon or curse? A contingent view on the relationship between strategic planning and organizational ambidexterity. Long Range Planning. 10.1016/j.lrp.2019.03.004
Prajogo, D. I., & Ahmed, P. K. (2006). Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity, and innovation performance. R&D Management, 36, 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00450.x
Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation, 30, 65–75. 10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.008
Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1996). Transforming public policy: Dynamics of policy entrepreneurship and innovation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Incorporated Pub.
Rosli, M. M., & Sidek, S. (2013). The impact of innovation on the performance of small and medium manufacturing enterprises: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Innovation Management in Small & Medium Enterprise, 2013, 1. 10.5171/2013.885666
Rosman, M., Suffian, M. A., Marha, Y. N., Sakinah, M. Z., & Mariam, R. R. (2018). Moderating effect of innovation on human capital and small firm performance in construction industry: The Malaysia case. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 10, 772–792. https://doi.org/10.4314/jfas.v10i1s.57
Sadd, S., & Grinc, R. (1994). Innovative neighborhood oriented policing: An evaluation of community policing programs in eight cities. The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises, pp. 27–52. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Salkic, I. (2014). Impact of strategic planning on management of public organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 12, 61–77. 10.7906/indecs.12.1.4
Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2019). The Central role of knowledge integration capability in service innovation-based competitive strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.004
Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17, 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00046-1
Sandvik, I. L., Duhan, D. F., & Sandvik, K. (2014). Innovativeness and profitability an empirical investigation in the Norwegian hotel industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55, 165–185. 10.1177/1938965514520963
Sandvik, I. L., & Sandvik, K. (2003). The impact of market orientation on product innovativeness and business performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 355–376. 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.02.002
Saunila, M., Pekkola, S., & Ukko, J. (2014). The relationship between innovation capability and performance: The moderating effect of measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63, 234–249. 10.1108/IJPPM-04-2013-0065
Schonberger, R. J. (1996). World class manufacturing: the next decade, New York, NY: The Free Press.
Scott, S. V., Van Reenen, J., & Zachariadis, M. (2017). The long-term effect of digital innovation on bank performance: An empirical study of SWIFT adoption in financial services. Research Policy, 46, 984–1004. 10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.010
Serrano Cinca, C., Mar Molinero, C., & Bossi Queiroz, A. (2003). The measurement of intangible assets in public sector using scaling techniques. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4, 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310472857
Sexton, D. L., & Van Auken, P. (1985). A longitudinal study of small business strategic planning. Journal of Small Business Management, 23, 7–15. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/e9bad9e469f90f7f62c5d13b5a27df88/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=49243
Shefer, D., & Frenkel, A. (2005). R&D, firm size and innovation: An empirical analysis. Technovation, 25, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00152-4
Singhvi, S. S. (2000). Business planning practices in small size companies: Survey results. Journal of Business Forecasting Methods and Systems, 19, 3–9. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/8e6d48339e7c06be17ce8716c66550ab/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=28144
Sparrow, M. K. (1994). Measuring AFIS matcher accuracy. Police Chief, 61, 147–147. Retrieved from www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=148185
Sparrow, M. K., Moore, M. H., & Kennedy, D. M. (1990). Beyond 911: A new era for policing. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Steiner, G. A. (1967). Approaches to long-range planning for small business. California Management Review, 10, 3–16. 10.2307/41164086
Sucupira, G., Saab, F., Demo, G., & Bermejo, P. H. (2018). Innovation in public administration: Itineraries of Brazilian scientific production and new research possibilities. Innovation & Management Review, 16, 72–90. 10.1108/INMR-03-2018-0004
Suklev, B., & Debarliev, S. (2012). Strategic planning effectiveness comparative analysis of the Macedonian context. Economic and Business Review for Central and South-Eastern Europe, 14, 63.
Tajuddin, M. Z. M., Iberahim, H., & Ismail, N. (2015). Relationship between innovation and organizational performance in construction industry in Malaysia. Universal Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3, 87–99. 10.13189/ujibm.2015.030402
Upton, D. (1998). Just-in-time and performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18, 1101–1110. 10.1108/01443579810231688
Veskaisri, K., Chan, P., & Pollard, D. (2007). Relationship between strategic planning and SME success: Empirical evidence from Thailand. Brisbane, Australia: Asia and Pacific DSI.
Wadongo, B., Odhuno, E., Kambona, O., & Othuon, L. (2010). Key performance indicators in the Kenyan hospitality industry: A managerial perspective. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17, 858–875. 10.1108/14635771011089764
Walker, R. M. (2005). Innovation and organizational performance: A critical review of the evidence and a research agenda. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005, B1–B6. 10.5465/ambpp.2005.18783338
Walker, R. M. (2008). An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 591–615. 10.1093/jopart/mum026
Walker, R. M., & Damanpour, F. (2009). Innovation type and organizational performance: An empirical exploration. Managing to improve public services. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 303–313. 10.1108/14601060410565056
Weisburd, D., & Braga, A. A. (Eds.) (2006). Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Competing through development capability in a manufacturing-based organization. Business Horizons, 35, 29–43. 10.1016/0007-6813(92)90036-9
Wilkinson, G., & Monkhouse, E. (1994). Strategic planning in public sector organizations. Executive Development, 7, 16–19. 10.1108/09533239410071878
Wilson, C., Hagarty, D., & Gauthier, J. (2004). Results using the balanced scorecard in the public sector. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6, 53–64. 10.1108/14630010410812234
Wolf, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2017). Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal of Management, 43, 1754–1788. 10.1177/0149206313478185
Yusuf, A., & Saffu, K. (2005). Planning and performance of small and medium enterprise operators in a country in transition. Journal of Small Business Management, 43, 480–497. 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00148.x