Innovation & Management Review

ISSN: 2515-8961
[email protected]
Universidade de São Paulo
Brasil

Saleh Alosani, Mohammed; Yusoff, Rushami; Al-Dhaafri, Hassan

The effect of innovation and strategic planning on enhancing organizational performance of Dubai Police
Innovation & Management Review, vol. 17, no. 1, 2020, -March, pp. 2-24
Universidade de São Paulo
Brasil

Available in: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=537562599001

How to cite
Complete issue Scientific Information System Redalyc
More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and
Journal's webpage in redalyc.org Portugal
Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2515-8961.htm

INMR
17,1 The effect of innovation and
strategic planning on enhancing
organizational performance of
2 Dubai Police
Received 20 June 2018 Mohammed Saleh Alosani and Rushami Yusoff
Revised 7 July 2019
25 August 2019
School of Business Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia, and
Accepted 10 October 2019
Hassan Al-Dhaafri
University of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

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 Innovation, Public sector, Strategic planning, Organizational performance, Dubai police
Paper type Research paper

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

© Mohammed Saleh Alosani, Rushami Yusoff and Hassan Al-Dhaafri. Published in Innovation and
Innovation & Management
Management Review. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the
Review Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and
Vol. 17 No. 1, 2020
pp. 2-24 create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to
Emerald Publishing Limited full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at
2515-8961
DOI 10.1108/INMR-06-2018-0039 http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
only the private sector but also includes the public sector. According to Goodman and Organizational
Pennings (1977), performance is a necessary factor in organizational analysis and there is no performance of
theory on organizations that is void of this concept. In this rapidly evolving and dynamic
Dubai Police
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 & 3
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.
INMR Private organizations have successfully applied strategic planning for a long time.
17,1 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
4 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 Organizational
advantage (Amarakoon et al., 2018; Aziz & Samad, 2016; Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2016; performance of
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
Dubai Police
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 5
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
INMR organizations to deal with various changing aspects in the environment to confront
17,1 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).
6 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:
(1) enhancing strategic thinking and actions within the organization;
(2) improvement of the organization;
(3) improvement of the decision-making process;
(4) improvement in the results and work; and
(5) 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 Organizational
organization’s efforts (Upton, 1998). performance of
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
Dubai Police
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
7
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
INMR private and public organizations achieve excellent results in different ways; therefore, the
17,1 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
8 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 (Aragon-Correa, García-Morales, & Cordon-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 Organizational
performance. According to the above discussion, the following hypothesis is postulated: performance of
H1. There is a positive and significant effect of innovation on organizational Dubai Police
performance.

2.5 Relationship between strategic planning and organizational performance 9

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; Gica & 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:

H2. There is a positive and significant effect of strategic planning on organizational

performance.
INMR 3. Methodology
17,1 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
10 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 (a err prob, 0.05); power (1
b 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.
 Organizational
performance of
Dubai Police

11

Figure 1.
Screen of the software
G*Power 3.1.9.4 with
the calculation of the
minimum sample of
the study

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
INMR organizational performance. These relationships were hypothesized, as shown above, to test
17,1 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.
12
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

Innovation
Organizational Performance
Figure 2.
Study framework Strategic Planning

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
Table I. Graduate studies 25 26.4
Participants’ Experiences 0-5 years 21 22.1
demographic 6-9 years 19 20
information 10 years or more 55 57.9
organizational performance. The second highest mean is innovation (3.940) with the highest Organizational
standard deviation. Organizational performance has the lowest mean and standard performance of
deviation of all the variables, which indicates a comparative lack of awareness about its role.
Dubai Police
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 13
kurtosis. Webpower software, available online, was used for this. The results showed that
the data collected was not multivariate normal; Mardia’s multivariate skewness ( b = 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

Construct N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Organizational performance 95 1.00 5.00 3.653 0.608 Table II.

Strategic planning 95 1.00 5.00 4.003 0.664 Descriptive statistics
Innovation 95 1.00 5.00 3.940 0.821 of the constructs

Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability AVE

Innovation 0.886 0.929 0.814 Table III.

Organizational performance 0.784 0.859 0.604 Construct reliability
Strategic planning 0.781 0.860 0.607 and validity
INMR quality for further analysis. Table IV below exhibits the Fornell–Larcker criterion; the
17,1 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
14 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 ( b = 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 ( b = 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 ( b = 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 ( b = 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; Gica &
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,

Innovation Organizational performance Strategic planning

Innovation 0.902
Organizational performance 0.591 0.777
Strategic planning 0.645 0.699 0.779
Table IV.
Discriminant validity Source: Fornell-Larcker Criterion

H Hypothesis b t-value p-value

Table V. H1 Innovation ! organizational performance 0.239 2.944 0.003
Hypothesis testing H2 Strategic planning ! organizational performance 0.545 7.111 0.000
leading to competitive advantage, and hence, sustaining their business success. That is, the Organizational
findings imply that innovation and strategic planning are an important driver of organizational performance of
performance as they can trigger the organization into innovative and proactive actions.
This study contributes to the literature, both theoretically and practically, by identifying
Dubai Police
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 15
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.

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. https://doi.org/
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bar.2005.03.003
INMR Adeleke, A. (2001). Management concepts and applications, Lagos, Portugal: Concept Publications.
17,1 Aldehayyat, J. S. (2011). Organisational characteristics and the practice of strategic planning in
Jordanian hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 192–199. https://doi.org/
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
16 Business and Management, 6, 255 https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1057/
emr.2009.7
Aragon-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordon-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organizational
learning’s role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial Marketing
Management, 36, 349–359. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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.
https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TEM.2003.822462
Bond, B. J., & Gabriele, K. R. (2018). Research and planning units: An innovation instrument in the 21st- Organizational
Century police organization. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29, 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0887403415624947
performance of
Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership & Organization
Dubai Police
Development Journal, 23, 467–476. https://doi.org/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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.014 17
Boyd, B. K. (1991). Strategic planning and financial performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Management Studies, 28, 353–374. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.5465/256406
Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple
contingency models. Management Science, 42, 693–716. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693
INMR 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
17,1 Management Studies, 46, 650–675. https://doi.org/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 https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n11p97
Davila, G., Varvakis, G., & North, K. (2019). Influence of strategic knowledge management on firm
18 innovativeness and performance. Brazilian Business Review, 16, 239–254. https://doi.org/
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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700803400201
Gica, 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. https://doi.
org/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. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810863843
Goodman, P. S., & Pennings, J. M. (1977). New perspectives on organizational effectiveness, San Organizational
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Incorporated Pub.
performance of
Grawe, S. J., Chen, H., & Daugherty, P. J. (2009). The relationship between strategic orientation, service
innovation, and performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Dubai Police
Management, 39, 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030910962249
Greenley, G. E. (1986). Does strategic planning improve company performance? Long Range Planning,
19, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(86)90226-8
Greenley, G. E. (1994). Strategic planning and company performance: An appraisal of the empirical
19
evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 10, 383–396. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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.
https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/
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. https://doi.org/
10.1108/14601060610707849
INMR 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.
17,1 https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Kylaheiko, K., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., Syrjä, P., & Fellnhofer, K. (2016). Strategic planning and
20 firm performance: A comparison across countries and sectors. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Venturing, 8, 280–295. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/
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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/
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. https://doi.org/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. Organizational
jclepro.2015.11.032
performance of
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
Dubai Police
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
21
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1203013
Porter, M. E. (1996). Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies, and regional policy.
International Regional Science Review, 19, 85–90. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/
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.
INMR 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
17,1 Small & Medium Enterprise, 2013, 1. https://doi.org/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
22 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. https://doi.org/
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. https://
doi.org/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. https://doi.
org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164086
Sucupira, G., Saab, F., Demo, G., & Bermejo, P. H. (2018). Innovation in public administration: Organizational
Itineraries of Brazilian scientific production and new research possibilities. Innovation &
Management Review, 16, 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-03-2018-0004 performance of
Suklev, B., & Debarliev, S. (2012). Strategic planning effectiveness comparative analysis of the Dubai Police
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 23
and Business Management, 3, 87–99. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujibm.2015.030402
Upton, D. (1998). Just-in-time and performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 18, 1101–1110. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-
6813(92)90036-9
Wilkinson, G., & Monkhouse, E. (1994). Strategic planning in public sector organizations. Executive
Development, 7, 16–19. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010410812234
Wolf, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2017). Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal of
Management, 43, 1754–1788. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00148.x
INMR Appendix
17,1

Organizational performance measure

OP1 Resources are managed efficiently in our department
OP2 Our department is always able to meet its financial goals
24 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
Table AI. IN1 Our department encourages employee innovation
List of total scale IN2 Our employees seldom provide new product ideas
items to measure IN3 Our employees often provide new operational ideas
variables of the study IN4 Our company believes in experimenting with new ideas

Corresponding author
Mohammed Saleh Alosani can be contacted at: [email protected]
Associate Editor: Rafael Morais Pereira

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]