what-when-how
In Depth Tutorials and Information
his highlights another key task in developing a strategy for implementation,
which is the use of the CLIOS system representation to identify which actor is
going to implement, monitor, and enforce what strategic alternative (i.e., who will
be the champion for each strategic alternative), as well as who has the potential to
impede its implementation (Mostashari and Sussman, 2009). hese considerations
will inform the parallel Step 11.
2.2.3.5.3.2 CLIOS Step 11: Design and Implement Plan for Institutional
Sphere —
Strategic alternatives developed earlier in Step 9 include needed changes
to the structure of individual actors (e.g., organizations) and the relationships
among them. In Step 11, we design a plan for implementation of these actor-based
changes. Designing a plan for implementation requires a comprehensive under-
standing of the characteristics of the institutional sphere. We consider Step 11 to
be a parallel activity to Step 10, with a plan for implementing actor-based changes
explicitly being a central part of the overarching implementation plan (Mostashari
and Sussman, 2009).
When creating a plan for how the institutional architecture can be modified
along the lines drawn from the actor-based strategic alternatives of the chosen bun-
dle, due consideration should be given to the actors' individual and collective goals.
By studying actors on the institutional sphere to assess how each strategic alterna-
tive affects their interests, one can try to identify both the proponents and oppo-
nents of various strategic alternatives. his consideration is central to Step 11 by
returning to the issue of mitigation or compensation; one can consider the building
of coalitions that will overcome resistance created from the opponents (Mostashari
and Sussman, 2009).
A well-crafted implementation plan for the institutional sphere notwithstand-
ing, institutional changes may work against the goals of some organizations and
generate not only external conflict among organizations but also internal conflict
as organizations attempt to adapt to new institutional interactions. While organi-
zations must “change internally as well as in their institutional interactions with
other organizations,” it is also true that “organizations, by their very nature, change
slowly” (Sussman, 2000), and we need to be realistic in our time frames for improv-
ing our CLIOS system when changes to the institutional sphere are among our
strategic alternatives.
2.2.3.5.3.3 CLIOS Step 12: Evaluate, Monitor, and Adapt Strategic
Alternatives —
Finally, once bundles of strategic alternatives have been imple-
mented, the next step is to monitor and observe outcomes, both in the short and
long run. In particular, one should be careful to identify any unanticipated “side
effects” such as degradation in the performance of one subsystem due to strate-
gic alternatives targeted at improving a different subsystem. Indeed, creating the
capability to monitor key aspects of the CLIOS system, its subsystems, and their
