The Methodology For Strategic Plan Implementation - SciELO
The Methodology for Strategic Plan ImplementationJ. Rojas-Arce*1, O. Gelman2, J. Suárez-Rocha31,3Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas, Posgrado de Ingeniería,Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,Circuito Escolar s/n, Ciudad Universitaria,Coyoacán, CP 04510, Mexico City, Mexico, CP 04510*jorge rojas 79@yahoo.com.mx2Grupo de Sistemas de Soporte Informático en Organizaciones,Departamento de Tecnologías de la Información,Centro de Ciencias Aplicadas y Desarrollo Tecnológico,Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCircuito Exterior, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, CP 04510, México City, D.F.ABSTRACTThe objective of this paper is to propose the methodology for the implementation of strategic plans in organizationsthrough the prevention and, in its case, the definition and solution of the problems that frequently affect theimplementation processes with many negative manifestations and harmful consequences. By elaborating the conceptof implementation under the systems approach and cybernetic paradigm, two types of these problems have beenidentified: the organizational and the functional ones. The consequent analysis of each kind of them has permitted thedevelopment of a methodology for their prevention, identification and solution to assure an effective and efficientimplementation process. This methodology consists in realizing five subsequent procedures, which were validatedwith positive results obtained through their virtual application to the different cases of manifestations with the negativeconsequences that had occurred during strategic plans implementations described in literature.Keywords: Implementation of strategic plans, systems approach, cybernetic paradigm, planning process,management process.RESUMENEl objetivo de este artículo es proponer la metodología para la implementación de planes estratégicos enorganizaciones, a través de la prevención y, en su caso, de la definición y solución de los problemas que afectanfrecuentemente los procesos de implementación con muchas manifestaciones y nocivas consecuencias. Dos tipos deestos problemas, organizacionales y funcionales, han sido identificados a través de la elaboración del concepto deimplementación bajo el enfoque sistémico y paradigma cibernético. El consecuente análisis de cada uno de ellos hapermitido desarrollar una metodología para su prevención, identificación y solución con el fin de asegurar el eficaz yeficiente proceso de la implementación. Esta metodología consiste en la realización de cinco procedimientosconsecuenciales que fueron validados con resultados positivos obtenidos a través de su aplicación virtual a losdiferentes casos de manifestaciones con sus consecuencias negativas ocurridas durante implementaciones deplanes estratégicos descritos en la bibliografía.1. IntroductionThe implementation of a strategic plan consists incarrying out one or more strategies established inthe plan [1]. Depending on the purposes of the planand time horizons, a strategic plan is implementedthrough the realization of tactical and operationalplans [2, 3], which include programs, projects andactions sequences.But frequently during the implementation process,certain (sometimes, very serious) problems occur248Vol. 10, April 2012that do not permit to obtain the planned results inprojected time, resulting as well in overrunning ofthe assigned resources and/or what is worst, inspite of all efforts and expenses, in not achievingthe planed objectives.Usually the problems are not presented directly, buttheir existence could be observed through themanifestations and the negative consequenceswhich they cause. The literature is full of
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐261descriptions of these manifestations and cases inwhich the strategic plan does not contain thespecific activities that are indispensable for itsimplementation [4], or in which the coordination ofthese activities is not effective enough to achievethe planned results [4,5]. Moreover, there aredescribed cases in which, during the planimplementation, there is the need to improviseactions [6], because these actions had not beenforeseen and, besides, the necessity of theirexecution had not been defined and/or scheduled.According to the authors’ opinions, that occurswhen the plan is conceived as a purely politicalinstrument or when its execution is considered as apost-strategic process with other requirements [7,8]. In other cases, some difficulties are presented inmaking adjustments during the implementation dueto insufficient flexibility of the plan [9] that had notforeseen the possible changes that produce newproblems [10].because frequently their capabilities are notsufficient to perform the necessary activities [5, 8]due to their inadequate training [4]. Additionally,when these capabilities are sufficient, thepersonnel frequently lose interest [7] due to atraditional consideration of the implementation asa process less glamorous than the planformulation. Also, very often there are displays ofdislike from the personnel involved in theimplementation, resulting in comments that theplan will not work based on their “bad pastexperiences” [15], due to the mandatory nature ofthe process, especially when it does not permit toconsider their proposals or interests.Moreover, in many occasions the plan isconsidered as the main or single product of theplanning process, completely ready for itsimplementation. Thus, it does not foresee thedesign and the subsequent establishment of a unitresponsible for its implementation [2], capable ofmaking decisions for addressing the unanticipatedproblems [4, 5] as well as to assure theparticipation of the indispensable and qualifiedpersonnel in the implementation process, instead ofthe traditional involvement of all staff, reducing thussubstantially the costs that the implementationgenerates [3, 11].Moreover, this situation is aggravated by theabsence of formal communication among thepersonnel responsible for the implementation [16]that results in duplicated efforts [13], withconsequent increases in costs and waste ofresources[17]whichaltogethercausesachievements and performance to be below theexpected level and only 20 percent of the objectivesof a plan to be achieved on average [11].Also, there are external factors affecting theexecution of a plan such as changes in the political,economic and social environment [5, 6]. Manytimes, these factors deviate the priorities in theexecution of projects and resources allocation [12],which leads to cases in which only 24 percent ofinstitutions, on average, have begun theimplementation more than two years after the planwas formulated [13], and of this amount, only 28percent have achieved their goals in time and inaccordance with the budget, 18 percent of the planshave been canceled and the other 54 percent haveexceeded their time and budget projections [3, 14].This situation does not improve even if there is astaff responsible for the implementation of the plan,All of this causes low level of participation andabsences in meetings dedicated to reporting andassessing progress, as well as the lack ofcollaboration and communication between theorganization’s departments [5, 11].Finally, inadequate management and leadershipby managers responsible for the implementation[4, 16] and insufficient administrative support oftop management [17] cause many well-formulatedstrategies not to be implemented properly [7].According to [18], to resolve this kind ofmanifestations, which in this case affect theprocess of implementation of strategic plans, it isessential to define and solve the problems thatcause them by the conceptualization of theinvolved systems and the analysis of therelations among them, their subsystems andcomponents.Therefore, the next chapter is dedicated to thedetermination of the system responsible for theimplementation process, which according to thesystems approach [19], in this case means todefine the concept of implementation.Journal of Applied Research and Technology249
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐2612. Definition of the concept of implementationThe conceptualization of implementation as asystem was obtained by using the functionaldecomposition procedure of the system constructionmethod [20] based on the systems approach whichpermits to consider the implementation as acomponent of the management system and of theplanning subsystem, respectively [21], that isdescribed in the next subchapter (2.1).Consequently, to complete the conceptualizationprocess, the corresponding implementation controland implementation execution subsystems of theimplementation system are defined and described inthe subsequent Subchapters 2.2 and 2.3; next, theexisting information and execution relationships areidentified and characterized in Subchapter 2.4.2.1 Conceptualization of implementation as asystemAccording to [22], the management process couldbe considered as a system which manages theproduction system and consists of the followingfour subsystems: planning, which providespolicies, strategies and action programs in theshort, medium and long term; decision making,which is responsible for selecting one of the possiblecourses of action to ensure optimal performance anddevelopment of the organization through theachievement of the objectives, strategies and goals;execution, whose responsibility is to transform thedecisions in the implemented actions; andinformation support, which has to provide informationabout the current and desired state of theorganization as well as about its environment (Figure1). In this case the implementation of the decisionsrelated with the plan is performed through theexecution subsystem considered as a component ofthe management process.In turn, the planning process, considered as a system[22], consists of the following four subsystems:diagnosis, which determines the problems of theorganization as well as its management; prescription,which produces the solution of the problem;instrumentation, which determines the objectives,strategies, policies, programs and/or projects, as wellas other components of the plan; and control, whichis responsible for implementing the plan and itsadaptation to changing environmental conditions(Figure 1). In this case, implementation constitutes acomponent of the control subsystem of the planningsystem.Figure 1. The double role of the implementation in the planning and management processes.250Vol. 10, April 2012
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐261These considerations permit to conclude that theimplementation has two main roles (Table 1): One, as a component of the control subsystem ofthe planning system, the implementation isresponsible for the plan execution as well as forthe monitoring of the performed activities and theirconsequences in order to support the consequentevaluation of its efficacy and efficiency necessaryto ensure the following updating and adaptation ofthe plan to the changing state of the organizationand its environment.(IESb), constituting both the implementationsystem (IS) and, in turn, it is directed by themanagementsubsystem(MSb)ofthemanagement system (MS), as shown in Figure 2.Therefore, it is essential to distinguish and definethe various roles that the ICSb has in each ofthese systems. Second, as a component of the executionsubsystem of the management system, theimplementation has the task of turning thedecisions into actions in order to ensure theirproper and timely execution. It must also assurethe fulfillment of the internal and externalregulations of the organization.To assure the fulfillment of these two roles, twotypes of functions, presented in Table 1,corresponding to the planning and managementprocesses have to be accomplished, respectively.To complete the definition of implementationsystem it is important to identify and define twomain subsystems that form, according to thecybernetic paradigm [20], any system: the one thatgoverns, manages or controls the other, which isthe controlled or conducted one. The first one isnamed here as the implementation controlsubsystem and the second one as theimplementation execution subsystem.Figure 2. Conceptualization of theimplementation system.To accomplish the first role of the implementationcontrol subsystem (ICSb), as a conducted object ofthe management subsystem (MSb) in themanagement system (MS), it has to fulfill thefollowing basic objectives: To assure the timely execution of the decisionsby the MSb.Table 1. Implementation functions accordingto their two types of roles.control To generate information about the developmentof execution actions and their results as well as todeliver it to the MSb.The implementation control subsystem (ICSb)controls the implementation execution subsystem To watch for the accomplishment oforganizational norms and regulations as well asthe plan strategies and policies.2.2 DefinitionsubsystemoftheimplementationJournal of Applied Research and Technology251
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐261 To organize and perform the functions ofplanning and implementation of the ICSb activities,according to the organizational objectives. To coordinate the relations with othermanagement subsystems of the organization.At the same time, to accomplish the other role thathas the ICSb as part of theimplementationsystem; when it controls the IESb, it must meet thefollowing objectives: To execute programs and actions of strategicplans as well as the unforeseen activities whichsurge due to the needs to attend the changes inthe organization and its environment. To monitor the implementation of the planningprocess in each of its phases, providing as well theinformation for the development and consequentimplementation of the corrective actions. To support the evaluation sub-process throughthe identification of indicators for assessing theeffectiveness and efficiency of the performedimplementation actions according to the obtainedresults. To take advantage of knowledge, experience andskills related with the implementation process ofthe personnel working in the IESb.2.3 Definition of the implementation executionsubsystemThe conceptualization of the implementationexecution subsystem (IESb) starts with thedefinition of its objectives. It is important to takeinto account that, on one hand, the IESb is acomponent of the IS, being thus responsible for theexecution of activities necessary for theimplementation of the strategic plan. On the otherhand, it is a subsystem of the production system(PS), in which the main part of the plan has to beimplemented. To prepare the PS for the implementation of thestrategic plan. To perform effectively, efficiently and timely theforeseen strategic plan activities, ensuring theirrealization by the coordination with other systems,subsystems and their components. To carry out the legislation and standardsestablished by the organization and to abide itspolicies.These objectives are achieved through the IESbfunctioning, which in turn is assured, as in anysystem, by the performance of its correspondinginternal structure formed by certain functionalcomponents. These components, conceptualizedby the process of construction by composition[20], are constituted by a set of labor positions(LP), in which each one of them is defined bycertain responsibilities with assured attributionsand with a sequence of activities, determined bytheir place in the hierarchy of the organizationalstructure as well as by the process ofimplementation of the corresponding strategicplan. Each LP is occupied by one employeeresponsible to fulfill the corresponding obligationsdefined usually by the organization internalregulations [23] and the implementation of thestrategic plan.These components formed by the LP and aperson that occupies it as well as the hierarchicalinterrelations between them form the internalstructure of the IESb (Figure 3).To accomplish these two roles, the IESb must fulfillthe following basic objectives: To carry out, timely, the decisions of ICSb. To provide the ICSb with the relevant informationabout the current status of implementation activities.252Vol. 10, April 2012Figure 3. Conceptualization of the internalfunctional structure of the IESb.
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐261The next and very important step of theconceptualization process of the IS constitutes thedefinition of the internal and external informationand execution relationships.2.4 Definition of the information and executionrelationshipsThe IS as any system is characterized by itsrelationship with other systems and theircomponents as well as with the environment; theserelations take place among its subsystems andtheir components. Among these relations,information and execution relationships stand out,which are indispensable to assure the fulfillment ofthe objectives determined in the previoussubchapters.In the same manner, the IR and ER between theICSb and IESb have been also defined. Thus, forexample, the IR between them provides theknowledge about the IESb current state in order topermit the ICSb to make the decisions to obtain abetter performance of its personnel by changing thecurrent state of the IESb through the ER. Also, theIESb, based on information obtained through the IR,could ensure a healthy and productive workenvironment in the IESb, solving the disagreementsand conflicts when they arise by the ER.The obtained definitions of both implementationcontrol and implementation execution subsystemsas well as of the information and executionrelationships complete the conceptualization of theimplementation system’s functional structure(Figure 4).The information relationship (IR) provides therequired information about the state of the systemand its environment necessary for the efficientmanagement through decision making, planningand implementation processes. Particularly, in thecase of the IR between ICSb and MSb, it permitsthe ICSb to fulfill one of its objectives (“Togenerate information about the development ofexecution actions and their results as well as todeliver it to the MSb”). Besides, the IR provides, inthis case, the information required by MSb aboutthe actual state of the IS and its environment aswell as about the ICSb activities and their results.The execution relationship (ER) is used toimplement the decisions made. In case of the ERbetween the MSb and the ICSb, it should fulfill theneeds of the MSb to assure the efficient and timelyimplementation of the strategic plan by: Establishing or improving the organizationalstructure of the IS with the corresponding LP. Developing the objectives and policies of the ISas well as determining them in case of necessity. Implementing the unforeseen and correctivedecisions. Approving or correcting the revised IS activities,including the authorization of new actions orientedto improve the implementation process.Figure 4. The implementation system’sfunctional structure.This new vision has permitted to identify theproblems, which affect the functioning of theimplementation system and particularly damagethe implementation process of strategic plans. Theobtained results are presented in the next chapter.Journal of Applied Research and Technology253
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐2613. DeterminationproblemsoftheimplementationThe analysis of the manifestations with theirnegative consequences, whose effects on theimplementation process were described in theIntroduction, has permitted, according to the newconceptualization, to identify two kinds of problemsthat cause them [24]: One, named organizational problem (OP), is dueto the lack of the adequate organizational structurethat is necessary to assure the strategic planimplementation. It is characterized by the absenceof some components (units) and/or correspondingspecific labor positions (LPs) in the organizationalstructure as well as by the lack of certaininformation and execution relationships (IR andER) between them. As examples, it could bementioned the lack of: Appointment of LPs explicitly responsiblefor the implementation of the plan,whichfrequently results in the implicit involvementof the entire personnel of the organizationwith the consequential substantial increaseof the implementation costs [25] Explicitdeterminationofformalmechanisms for communication (IR andER) between the responsible LPs andorganization personnel in general, whichresults in occurrence of arbitrary decisions,not based on precise information andmoreover without the consideration of theplan guidelines, as well as with negativeconsequences due to the inefficient or evenincorrect implementation of the decisionsmade [26]. Thecoordinationofcorrespondingactivities during the implementation, whichleads to inefficient and ineffective results [4, 5]. The collaboration and onents, that results in difficulties to carryout the plan implementation activities [5, 25]. Meanwhile, the other one, named functionalproblem (FP), is caused by the absence of specificfunctions or their unsatisfactory fulfillment that254Vol. 10, April 2012could occur when the personnel, which occupy thecorresponding LPs, do not properly perform thecorresponding activities, no matter that theorganizational structure is completely adequate.Additionally, sometimes, the implementationactivities exceed the functions established for thisorganizational structure, resulting thus in anineffective and inefficient execution of theimplementation process. The following can bementioned as examples: A lack of adequate management andleadership by the Direction due to theincomplete or erroneous determination of theirresponsibilities and functions during theimplementation process [4, 26]. A lack of sufficient participation of thepersonnel in the information and assessmentmeetings of the implementation process [5, 25]. A lack of operational capacity of theresponsible staff, because the implementationactivities and specially the correspondingtraining of the personnel have not beenconsidered in the plan [5, 9]. A lack of pertinent decision making whennecessity to attend the unanticipated situationsarises [4, 5].Timely prevention of these problems, as well asadequately solving them when they arise,constitutes a very important task considering that itwould permit to assure the appropriate executionof the implementation process. The correspondingmethodology developed for this purpose [24] isdescribed in the next chapter.4. Methodology for the organization, planningand execution of the implementation processAs mentioned before, the prevention of both kindsof problems, identified and described in theprevious chapter, or their solution provided theyarise, permit to assure the correct, timely andefficient execution of the implementation process,constituting thus the main and substantial part ofthe developed methodology. As can be observedin Figure 5, which shows the sequence ofprocedures and actions, described in the followingsubchapters, this methodology is used to verify
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐261and assure the correct organization andfunctioning of the implementation process of thestrategic plan.4.1 Diagnosis of the organizational structure andits operationThe first methodological procedure, whichcorresponds to the initial Prevention Phase, aimsto diagnose the organizational structure and thestate of its operation. This implies the need toobtain, collect and analyze, mainly through theorganization manual as well as by surveys andinterviews,theinformationabouttheorganizational structure with its labor positions(LP), their functions and interactions as well asthe procedures and activities that have to beperformed and are currently being performed.Of course, due the large amounts of LPs and theirinteractions, it is indispensable to focus thisinvestigation on the organizational preparednessand abilities to consider only the needs of the taskof the strategic plan implementationThat is why it is important to identify the existenceof entities in the organizational structure with theirLPs that fulfill the role and functions of any of thetwo main subsystems of the implementationsystem (IS), namely: The implementation control subsystem (ICSb),described in Section 2.2. The implementation execution subsystem (IESb),described in Section 2.3.Figure 5. The sequence of the methodological procedures for a strategic plan implementation.Journal of Applied Research and Technology255
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐261Even if it occurs, to find out and confirm that thereare no problems with the organizational structure,it is indispensable to verify as well its correctfunctioning and operation.In the case when the diagnosis results arecompletely positive, the procedure dedicated to thestrategic plan analysis, described in Subchapter4.3 (Figure 5), can be performed.In the contrary case, when any discrepancies inthe organizational structure and/or any possiblefaults in its operation are detected that could affectthe future implementation of the strategic plan, theprocedure has to be carried out, described in thenext Subchapter 4.2, dedicated to theimprovement of the organizational structure and itsfunctioning to make them comply with thenecessities of the implementation process.4.2 Achievement of adequacy and functioning ofthe organizational structure necessaries for theplan implementationThe decisive factor to ensure an adequateimplementation process is to have a special entity,responsible for coordinating and directing theprocess for the execution of the strategic plan,positioned on the highest level of theorganizational structure and preferably headed bythe organization director who is in charge ofmaking the important decisions.Moreover, in case of occurrence of situations notcontemplated by the plan and in order to ensure theaccomplishment of the objectives planed, this entity,named as the Consultative Council or the OperatingCouncil, has to determine and make decisionsabout the unforeseen activities and to verify theirexecutions. Besides, it must make the appropriatedecisions to update the strategic plan in advance,according to the assessment of the effectivenessand efficiency of the implementation process doneby another special entity named as theImplementation Committee (to be described later).The main function of the Consultative Council is tomake the corresponding suggestions related withthe development and execution of the strategicplan as well as to propose them to the Direction fortheir approval. Other alternative is to make it partof a mightier Operating Council who can make thenecessary decisions (Figure 6)Figure 6. Special components of the organizational structurerecommended for the strategic plan implementation.256Vol. 10, April 2012
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐261To have the necessary information andprofessional support, any of these Councils has toestablish and supervise an ImplementationCommittee (Figure 6) composed by the managersof the organization entities, who are in charge ofthe plan elaboration, its revision and tion Committee with the application ofProcedure 2 (Figure 5) in order to assure theadequacy and functioning of the organizationalstructure, which is necessary for the planimplementation, through the redesign and/orreorganization of the organizational structure and,moreover, through the revision and enhancementof the personnel in order to improve the fulfillmentof responsibilities, functions and attributions ofunits and their labor positions, as well as ofinformation and execution relationshipsFurthermore, this committee has to be responsiblefor the revision of the plan and the preparation ofthe necessary conditions for its implementationsuch as its preliminary dissemination andpromotion among the personnel of theorganization, by emphasizing the benefits that itwould provide them; also, is responsible for theiradequate preparation and training to assure therequired abilities.The next procedure, described in the ttee to analyze the feasibility of thesuccessful implementation of the plan and todevelop, if necessary, the required changes, aswell as to deliver the corresponding propositions tothe Consultative Council or Operating Council fortheir endorsement to assure the timely andefficient execution of the strategic plan.4.3 Analyzing the strategic plan and ensuring itsadequacy of implementationThe analysis of the strategic plan starts with theexecution of Subprocedure 3a (Figure 5) whichpermits to verify the existence of the specialimplementation plan or program and the viability ofits execution. Besides, it is important to verify theexistence of basic components of the strategicplan and the consistency among them, such asvision, mission, objectives, performance goals, keyassumptions, policies, strategies, planning horizon,plans and operational programs, duties of theresponsible staff, coordination with third parties,budget assignments, and so on.The next step, according to Sub-procedure 3b,consists in elaboration of the possible scenarios ofthe implementation process to correctly identify inadvance probable errors in the strategic plan and,especially, those related to its implementation plan,which might arise and cause damage during theimplementation process. It is advisable to simulatethis process, through the use of informationtechnology means, to verify its feasibility.4.4 Making the decisionsunforeseen activities in the planandperformingIn spite of the achievement using Procedure 3 of as
The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation, J. Rojas‐Arce et al. / 248‐261 Journal of Applied Research and Technology 249 descriptions of these manifestations and cases in which the strategic plan does not contain the specific activities that are indispensable for its implementation [4], or in which the coordination of
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
