Chapter 9 - Strategy Review, Evaluation, and Control
UPDATED ACTUAL Questions and CORRECT Answers
Most strategists believe that an organization's well-being True
depends on evaluation of the strategic-management
process.
Adequate and timely feedback is important to effective true
strategy evaluation.
Too much emphasis on evaluating strategies may be True
expensive and counterproductive.
Strategy evaluation should have a long-run focus and False
avoid a short-run focus.
According to Richard Rumelt, consonance and False
consistency are mostly based on a firm's external
assessment.
According to Rumelt, consistency and feasibility are True
largely based on a firm's internal assessment.
Consistency, distinctiveness, advantage, and feasibility False
are Richard Rumelt's four criteria for evaluating a strategy.
Strategy evaluation is becoming increasingly easier with False
the passage of time, given technological advances.
The decreasing time span for which planning can be True
done with any degree of certainty is a reason strategy
evaluation is more difficult today.
Strategies may be inconsistent if policy problems and True
issues continue to be brought to the top for resolution.
Competitive advantages normally are the result of False
superiority in one of three areas: feasibility, consistency,
or consonance.
Regardless of the size of the organization, a certain True
amount of "management by wandering around" at all
levels is essential to effective strategy evaluation.
, Evaluating strategies on a continuous rather than on a true
periodic basis allows benchmarks of progress to be
established and more effectively monitored.
It is most effective to conduct strategy evaluation False
annually, at the end of the fiscal year.
Changes in the organization's management, marketing, False
finance and accounting, production and operations,
research and development (R&D), and management
information systems (MIS) strengths and weaknesses
should all be the focus of a revised EFE matrix in strategy
evaluation.
In strategy evaluation, a revised IFE matrix should False
indicate how effective a firm's strategies have been in
response to key opportunities and threats.
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, cost and threats True
should continually be monitored for change because it is
not really a question of whether these factors will
change, but rather when they will change and in what
ways.
When measuring organizational performance, you need True
to compare expected results to actual results.
Criteria for evaluating strategies should be measurable True
and easily verifiable.
Financial ratios are rarely used as criteria to evaluate False
strategies.
Measuring organizational performance includes True
comparing expected results to actual results,
investigating deviations from plans, evaluating individual
performance, and examining progress being made
toward meeting stated objectives.
Intuitive judgments are almost always involved in deriving True
quantitative criteria.
Most quantitative evaluation criteria are geared to long- False
term objectives rather than annual objectives.
Measuring organizational performance requires making False
changes to reposition a firm competitively for the future.
UPDATED ACTUAL Questions and CORRECT Answers
Most strategists believe that an organization's well-being True
depends on evaluation of the strategic-management
process.
Adequate and timely feedback is important to effective true
strategy evaluation.
Too much emphasis on evaluating strategies may be True
expensive and counterproductive.
Strategy evaluation should have a long-run focus and False
avoid a short-run focus.
According to Richard Rumelt, consonance and False
consistency are mostly based on a firm's external
assessment.
According to Rumelt, consistency and feasibility are True
largely based on a firm's internal assessment.
Consistency, distinctiveness, advantage, and feasibility False
are Richard Rumelt's four criteria for evaluating a strategy.
Strategy evaluation is becoming increasingly easier with False
the passage of time, given technological advances.
The decreasing time span for which planning can be True
done with any degree of certainty is a reason strategy
evaluation is more difficult today.
Strategies may be inconsistent if policy problems and True
issues continue to be brought to the top for resolution.
Competitive advantages normally are the result of False
superiority in one of three areas: feasibility, consistency,
or consonance.
Regardless of the size of the organization, a certain True
amount of "management by wandering around" at all
levels is essential to effective strategy evaluation.
, Evaluating strategies on a continuous rather than on a true
periodic basis allows benchmarks of progress to be
established and more effectively monitored.
It is most effective to conduct strategy evaluation False
annually, at the end of the fiscal year.
Changes in the organization's management, marketing, False
finance and accounting, production and operations,
research and development (R&D), and management
information systems (MIS) strengths and weaknesses
should all be the focus of a revised EFE matrix in strategy
evaluation.
In strategy evaluation, a revised IFE matrix should False
indicate how effective a firm's strategies have been in
response to key opportunities and threats.
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, cost and threats True
should continually be monitored for change because it is
not really a question of whether these factors will
change, but rather when they will change and in what
ways.
When measuring organizational performance, you need True
to compare expected results to actual results.
Criteria for evaluating strategies should be measurable True
and easily verifiable.
Financial ratios are rarely used as criteria to evaluate False
strategies.
Measuring organizational performance includes True
comparing expected results to actual results,
investigating deviations from plans, evaluating individual
performance, and examining progress being made
toward meeting stated objectives.
Intuitive judgments are almost always involved in deriving True
quantitative criteria.
Most quantitative evaluation criteria are geared to long- False
term objectives rather than annual objectives.
Measuring organizational performance requires making False
changes to reposition a firm competitively for the future.
