ch 11 Flashcards
T/F: Adequate, timely feedback is important to effective strategy evaluation
T
T/F: Most strategists believe that an organization’s wellbeing depends on evaluation of the
strategic-management process
T
T/F: Too much emphasis on evaluating strategies may be expensive and counterproductive
T
T/F: Strategy evaluation should have a long-run focus and avoid a short-run focus
F
T/F: According to Richard Rumelt, consonance and consistency are based on a firm’s external
assessment.
F
T/F: According to Rumelt, consistency and feasibility are largely based on a firm’s internal
assessment.
T
T/F: Consistency, distinctiveness, advantage and feasibility are Richard Rumelt’s four criteria for
evaluating a strategy
F
T/F: Strategy evaluation is becoming increasingly easier with the passage of time, given the
technological advances.
F
T/F: The decreasing time span for which planning can be done with any degree of certainty is a
reason why strategy evaluation is more difficult today.
T
T/F: Strategies may be inconsistent if policy problems and issues continue to be brought to the top for
resolution.
T
T/F: Competitive advantages are normally the result of superiority in one of three areas: feasibility,
consistency, or consonance.
F
T/F: Regardless of the size of the organization, a certain amount of management by wandering
around at all levels is essential to effective strategy evaluation.
T
T/F: Because large companies have more at stake, it is more important for them to conduct strategy
evaluation than it is for small companies
F
T/F: The end of the fiscal year is the best time to do a strategy evaluation.
F
T/F: Changes in the organization’s management, marketing, finance, R&D and CIS strengths and
weaknesses should all be the focus of a revised EFE matrix in strategy evaluation.
F
T/F: In strategy evaluation, a revised IFE matrix should indicate how effective a firm’s strategies have
been in response to key opportunities and threats
F
T/F: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats should continually be monitored for change,
because it is less a question of whether these factors will change but rather when they will
change and in what ways.
T
T/F: When taking corrective action, you need to compare expected results to actual results
F
T/F: Criteria for evaluating strategies should be measurable and easily verifiable.
T
T/F: Specific financial ratios are rarely used criteria to evaluate strategies.
F
T/F: Measuring organizational performance includes comparing expected results to actual results,
investigating deviations from plans, evaluating individual performance and examining progress
being made toward meeting stated objectives.
T
T/F: Intuitive judgments are almost always involved in deriving quantitative criteria.
T
T/F: Most quantitative evaluation criteria are geared to long-term objectives rather than annual
objectives.
F
T/F: Measuring organizational performance requires making changes to reposition a firm
competitively for the future.
F
T/F: Taking corrective action does not necessarily mean that existing strategies will be abandoned, or
even that new strategies must be formulated
T
T/F: Corrective action in strategy evaluation is necessary to keep an organization on track toward
achieving stated objectives.
T
T/F: In his books entitled Future Shock and The Third Wave, Alvin Toffler argued that environments
are becoming so dynamic and complex that they threaten people and organizations with future
shock.
T
T/F: Future shock occurs when the type and speed of changes overpower an individual or
organization’s ability and capacity to adapt.
T
T/F: According to research, participation in strategy-evaluation activities is one of the best ways to
overcome individuals’ resistance to change.
T
T/F: The basic form of a Balanced Scorecard is the same for all organizations and industries.
F
T/F: The Balanced Scorecard approach deals with the question, “How satisfied are the firm’s
customers.”
T
T/F: Strategy-evaluation activities must be meaningful, that is, they should specifically relate to a
firm’s objectives
T
T/F: Timely approximate information is generally more desirable as a basis for strategy evaluation
than accurate information that does not depict the present.
T
T/F: The test of an effective evaluation system is its usefulness and complexity.
F
T/F: Small organizations require a more elaborate and detailed strategy-evaluation system because
they are still evolving.
F
T/F: There is no one ideal strategy-evaluation system for all organizations.
T
T/F: Contingency plans are alternative plans that can be put into effect if certain key events do not
occur as expected.
T
T/F: Organizations should prepare contingency plans only for unfavorable events
F
T/F: Strategies should try to cover all bases by planning for all possible contingencies
F
T/F: Contingency plans should be as simple as possible
T