Search This Blog

Monday 3 March 2014

Obstacles to Successful Implementation of Strategic Decisions: The Saudi Case


Obstacles to Successful Implementation of Strategic Decisions: The Saudi Case

 By
  
DR. SALEM M. AL-GHAMDI*
Associate Professor of Management
Department of Management & Marketing
College of Industrial Management
Dhahran-31261
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia


Abstract

This paper builds on previous studies to determine the extent to which strategy implementation problems recurred in the Saudi Arabian Petrochemical Industry. Survey results showed that seven of twenty implementation problems identified from the literature were more frequently cited than the remaining ones. Two of the implementation problems were linked to human elements in the process of implementation. Research results indicate the need for effective management support systems for staff employees, strategy-structure alignment, effective compensation systems, and top management involvement in order to facilitate the process of implementation. These suggested managerial actions for improving strategy implementation revolve around 4 I’s: Identify, Inform, Involve, and Incentivize.

Keywords: Strategy implementation, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Petrochemicals Industry, SABIC

 * The author would like to acknowledge the financial support rendered by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals for the development and execution of this paper through SABIC grant. (SAB-2005/24).  Many thanks are extended to my colleague Professor Youssef for his valuable inputs in the research.


Obstacles to Successful Implementation of Strategic Decisions: The Saudi Case

Introduction

     Some twenty odd years ago, Alexander (1985) claimed that the overwhelming majority of the literature has been on the formulation side of the strategy and only “lip service has been given to the other side of the coin, namely strategy implementation”.  These studies, though increasing in numbers, are few and considered less “glamorous” than those on strategy formulation (Atkinson, 2006). On the other hand, problems with implementation continue unabated. This signals the need for balancing strategic planning with implementation based strategies and studies.   This paper is an extension of Alexander’s implementation study on the U.S. and Al-Ghamdi’s (1998) research work in U.K, but applied to a different context, namely Saudi Arabia.

Study Rationale

       The purpose of the study is to identify the recurring implementation problems in the Saudi Arabian petrochemical industry. There are several reasons for conducting this study: 1) Pinpointing recurrent problems in the Saudi petrochemical industry and their suggested solutions could help increase the effectiveness and efficiency of a key industry with obvious benefits to both oil producing and oil consumption countries. 2) Recurrent implementation problems may signal a need to formulate strategic plans that are more easily implementable. 3) The study could help in identifying facilitative mechanisms and solutions that reduce obstacles to recurrent implementation problems and 4) Provide guidelines on how to cope with implementation problems for developing countries, notably those that are resource-rich.

Literature Review

       Notable literature on strategy implementation was examined in order to identify potential strategy implementation problems. Research by Alexander (1985) identified twenty-two major obstacles to strategy implementation, of which ten were cited by over 50% of firms sampled as major problems.  In a similar study, Salem Al-Ghamdi (1998) researched 15 implementation problems and found that six strategy implementation problems were experienced by over 70% of the sample group of firms.  Based on case studies, Hansen, Boyd and Kryder (1998) identified additional implementation problems as a) failing to periodically alter the plan or adapt it to changes in the business environment b) deviation from original objectives and c) lack of confidence about success. According to Rutan (1999), all implementation aspects during the planning phase are fundamental for execution as there is no time to do that during execution.  It is critical that everyone on the team understands and agrees upon the details of the plan.   Management must make the commitment to stay focused on the agreed upon plans and should only make significant changes to the plan after careful consideration on the overall implications and consequences of the change. The organization should maintain a balance between ongoing business activities and working on new strategic initiatives. That is, that problems with implementation often occur when companies concentrate on new strategy development and in the process forget their main line of business that underlie within previously formulated business strategies.  Nickols (2000) posits that strategy is execution. He discussed four cases of strategy execution: flawed strategy & flawed execution, sound strategy & flawed execution, flawed strategy & sound execution, and sound strategy & sound execution.  Only when the strategy and the execution are sound the organization has a pretty good chance for success, barring aside environmental and competitive influences.  Further, he contends that executing the wrong strategy is one of the major problems leading to unsuccessful implementation of strategies.
Downes (2001) states that the kinds of execution obstacles most companies run into fall into two categories: problems internal to the company and problems generated by outside forces in its industry. These internal and external issues are affected by the extent of flexibility companies have to launch strategic initiatives succesfully. DeLisi (2001) examined “the six strategy killers” of strategy execution, pinpointed by Bear and Eisenstat (2000).  He found that four of these factors particularly hamper or destroy strategy execution. These are: a) ineffective senior management b) top-down or laissez-faire senior management style c) Unclear strategies and conflicting priorities and d) Poor coordination across functional boundaries. Moreover, DeLisi  research also revealed several other potential reasons for the failures in strategy execution. These included: Lack of knowledge of strategy and the strategy process; no commitment to the plan; the plan was not communicated effectively; people are not measured or rewarded for executing the plan; the plan is too abstract, people can’t relate it to their work; people are not held accountable for execution; senior management does not pay attention to the plan; reinforcers, such as culture, structure, processes, IT systems, management systems and human resource systems, are not considered, and/or act as inhibitors; people are driven by short-term results.  Johnson (2002) in his survey found that the five top reasons why strategic plans fail are related to motivation and personal ownership, communications, no plan behind the idea, passive management, and leadership.  Ram Charan (2003) in his research on implementation problems notes that “ignoring to anticipate future problems” hinders successful strategy execution. 
Hrebiniak (2005) recognized the difficulty of strategy execution and the reward from doing that correctly. He discussed various factors that can lead to incorrect implementation of any strategy similar to those already discussed in the above literature discussion. Additionally, Hrebiniak’s research survey of 400 managers contributed to the identification of additional factors that may cause obstacles to successful strategy implementation included:
Lack feelings of "ownership" of a strategy or execution plans among key employees; not having guidelines or a model to guide strategy- execution efforts; lack of understanding of the role of organizational structure and design in the execution process; inability to generate "buy-in" or agreement on critical execution steps or actions; lack of incentives or inappropriate incentives to support execution objectives; insufficient financial resources to execute the strategy.
Brannen’s (2005) survey based study concluded that in order to improve execution certain issues have to be tackled. These include inadequate or unavailable resources, poor communication of the strategy to the organization, ill-defined action plans, ill-defined accountabilities, and organizational/cultural barriers. Brannen’s survey unearthed another significant obstacle to effective strategy implementation namely, “failing to Empower or give people more freedom and authority to execute.” Welbourne (2005) observations of items on “what’s getting in the way of execution” point to “habit and past experience reflects on new strategy” as another factor that could affect strategy implementation. 
            Overall, these literature research studies and writings indicate a total of twenty-nine obstacles that could hamper strategy implementation. After examining and checking for redundancy, a list of twenty implementation obstacles emerged (see table 1.)   Fifteen of these strategy implementation obstacles are similar to those identified by previous research conducted by Alexander (1985) and Al-Ghamdi (1998), whereas there are five additional obstacles to strategy implementation that need to be included.  Having identified these potential obstacles, the thrust of this research paper was to determine as to which of these are relevant to the Saudi context from the perspective of its petrochemical companies.
Table 1. List of Implementation Obstacles.
  1. Took more time than originally allocated
  2. Major problems surfaced which had not been identified earlier.
  3. Co-ordination was not sufficiently effective
  4. Competing activities distracted attention from implementing this decision
  5. Capabilities of employees involved were insufficient
  6. Training and instruction given to lower level employees were inadequate
  7. Uncontrollable factors in the external environment had an adverse impact on implementation
  8. Leadership and direction provided by departmental managers were inadequate
  9. Key implementation tasks and activities were not sufficiently defined
  10. Information systems used to monitor implementation were inadequate
  11. Advocates and supporters of the strategic decision left the organization during implementation.
  12. Overall goals were not sufficiently well understood by employees
  13. Changes in responsibilities of key employees were not clearly defined
  14. Key formulators of the strategic decision did not play an active role in implementation
  15. Problems requiring top management involvement were not communicated early enough.   
  16. Deviation from original plan objectives
  17. People are not measured or rewarded for executing the plan
  18. Lack of feelings of "ownership" of     a strategy or execution plans among key employees
  19. Lack of understanding of the role of organizational structure and design in the execution process
  20. Insufficient financial resources to execute the strategy.

Research Methodology
       The 20 strategy implementation obstacles were included as questionnaire items and pilot tested for face validity. A list of companies operating in the Saudi Arabian Petrochemical Industry was obtained. Because of the nature of the study that looks at strategic related problems in terms of implementation, only top and senior middle management positions at these companies were targeted to obtain response on the 20 obstacle items included in the questionnaire. The companies were drawn mainly from the two major industrial petroleum cities of Al-Jubail and Al-Yanbu. Other respondents were selected from the industries in Dammam, Riyadh and Jeddah. A total of 53 companies were identified in the sample. Approximately four hundred questionnaires were then sent to eligible managers. 135 questionnaires were returned out of which, barring aside some missing values, 125 questionnaires were usable for statistical analysis. The low response rate is attributed to the mail survey in general and to the nature of this survey in particular. In the questionnaire, each participating manager was asked to select a recent strategic decision that was executed by the company management and the activities that took place after the decision initiative. The managers were asked to evaluate the extent to which the 20 potential implementation problems actually were a problem in the activities that took place after the decision was initiated (see table 2).  Respondent choice ranged from 1-5 where 1= Never , 2 = Seldom, 3=Occasionally, 4=Frequently, 5= Always. The overall success of implementation was determined through a composite score derived from three questions measured on a five-point scale with 1=low success and 5=very successful. 
Table 2. Types of strategic decisions implemented.

        D e c i s i o n                                                             Member             Percentage
Introduce a new product or service                                        38                    30
Expand Operations to enter a new market                             27                    21
Open and start up a new plant or facility                               22                    17
Discontinue a product or withdraw from a market                05                    04
Acquire or merge with another company                                07                    05
Change the strategy in an operational department                 23                    18
Other                                                                                       07                    05
Introducing a new product or service, opening and starting a new plant or facility, and expanding operations to enter a new market were viewed as the top three strategic decisions.

Results and Discussion

       The demographic profile of the respondents is presented in Table 3. The largest organizational group that participated in the study was Joint Ventures (42.5 percent) with the smallest groups that participated in the study being single owners (20.5 percent).  Over 90 percent of the workforce had more than 500 employees.  In terms of experience, 52.3 percent of the participated organizations had more than 15 years of operations in Petrochemical Industry.  Sixty-four percent of respondents held either top or middle management positions. The sample mainly comprising of large organizational size, joint venture arrangements, well-established older organizations, and the high percentage of respondents holding high management positions seem to be representative of the main population of petrochemical companies engaged in strategic planning decisions and implementation.
Table 3.   Profile of Sample Respondents


Frequency
Percent
Cumulative %
Type of Organization
Joint Venture
54
42.5
42.50
Single Owner
26
20.5

Saudi Partnership
47
37.0
100.0

Number of employees in organizations
1-50
8
6.2
6.2
51-150
6
4.6
10.8
151-300
13
10.0
20.8
301-501
15
11.5
32.3
Over 500
88
67.7
100.0

Number of Years since establishment.
Less than one year
4
3.1
3.1
1-5 years
24
18.5
21.5
5-10 years
23
17.7
39.2
10-15 years
10
7.7
46.9
Over 15 years
69
53.1
100.0

Position in the Organizations
Top Management Level
35
27.3
27.3
Middle Management Level
50
39.1
66.4
Supervisory Level
43
33.6
100.0

   Most Frequent Obstacles

       Over thirty percent of the respondents identified seven problems that were frequently, if not always, occurring during implementation.  These problems are listed in descending order of frequency in table 4.
Table 4.  The Seven most commonly occurring implementation problems
______________________________________________________________________

Implementation Problems                                                                             Percentage

Training and instruction given to lower level employees                                39.4                
were inadequate.
People are not measured or rewarded for executing the plan.                        36.2    
Took more time than originally allocated.                                                      35.6                
Changes in responsibilities of key employees were not                                  33.3
clearly defined.
Competing activities distracted attention from implementing                       33.1
this decision.
Deviation from original plan objective                                                           31.6
Lack of understanding of the role or organizational structure                       30.3                
and design in the execution process.


These more frequently occurring problems indicate that more emphasis is needed during the implementation phase. Previous studies indicate that human related elements play a major role in ensuring the successful implementation of any plan. It is noteworthy, that in this study the first two occurring implementation problems also relate to people. They suggest that managers fail to adequately anticipate the needed training and instructions for their staff employees in order to equip them with the necessary skills for execution. Moreover, the formulators of plans did not link employee’s performance during implementation with the overall reward system in the organizations. Results also indicate that there is generally a mismatch between anticipating the required time needed for executing the activities, which is often considered during strategy formulation and the actual time it takes to complete the execution of the strategy.  In all likelihood, the lack of thorough analysis, linked to such tools as SWOT, made them unaware of major problems that surfaced during the execution period. What makes things even worse is the inadequacy of coordination mechanisms in place. This continues despite the call by many researchers to strike a balance between the formulation and the implementation of a strategy. Also, it is apparent that managers fail to adequately define subordinate tasks for implementation, or assign new tasks before implementation is complete. Overall, these results imply that managers have the tendency to be less concerned about implementation.
   Degree of success in implementation
      The sample was divided into high (n=32), moderate (n=82) and low (n=11) success depending on the relative degree of success in implementing the strategic decision. One-way ANOVA was employed for each of the twenty implementation problems to determine whether there were significant overall differences between the high, moderate, and low success groups. Thirteen implementation problems were found to be statistically significant at the level of p= .05 or lower, shown in table 5.
Table 5. ANOVA overall success for high versus low and moderate success implementation  
Implementation Problems
F
Significance
Took more time than originally allocated
7.8
.001
Major Problems surfaced which had not been identified earlier.
3.6
.03
Co-ordination was not sufficiently effective
5.38
.006
Capabilities of employees involved were insufficient
3.15
.046
Training and instructions given to lower level employees were inadequate.
3.54
.032
Leadership and direction provided by departmental managers were inadequate
3.47
.034
Key implementation tasks and activities were not sufficiently defined.
3.02
.053
Information systems used to monitor implementation were inadequate.
4.37
.015
Advocates and supporters of the strategic
decision did not play an active role in implementation.
4.73
.011
Overall goals were not sufficiently well understood by employees.
3.6
.03
Key formulators of the strategic decision did not play active role in implementation.
5.69
.004
People are not measured or rewarded for executing the plan.
4.27
.016
Lack of understanding of the role of organizational structure and design in the execution process.
3.16
.046



Conclusions & Implications

       The thirteen implementation problems that were found to be statistically significant strongly suggest the need to adopt certain guidelines and mechanisms to reduce these obstacles in achieving successful implementation of formulated strategies. A suggestive list is provided for each of the implementation problems in Table 6.
Table 6. Implementation problems and Suggested Guidelines/Adoptive Mechanisms
Implementation Problems
Suggested Guidelines/Adoptive Mechanisms
Took more time than originally allocated
Develop and evaluate strategies that expedite implementation
Major Problems surfaced which had not been identified earlier.
Spend more time and analysis on identification of problems in implementation
Co-ordination was not sufficiently effective
Appoint cross-functional/supply chain teams for implementation purposes
Capabilities of employees involved were insufficient
Train employees in strategic implementation skills
Training and instructions given to lower level employees were inadequate.
Have higher involvement of lower level employees in strategic planning inputs and feedback
Leadership and direction provided by departmental managers were inadequate
Link departmental manager performance to implementation and effective feedback mechanisms
Key implementation tasks and activities were not sufficiently defined.
Clarify and prioritize information on key implementation tasks and activities
Information systems used to monitor implementation were inadequate.
Track and disseminate information on implementation of major tasks and activities
Advocates and supporters of the strategic decision did not play an active role in implementation.
Involve strategic influencers in recommendations/support of follow-through implementation tasks
Overall goals were not sufficiently well understood by employees.
Involve employees in the formulation of goals
Key formulators of the strategic decision did not play active role in implementation.
Involve key decision-makers in the developing implementation tasks
People are not measured or rewarded for executing the plan.
Tie incentive and reward systems to success in implementation of formulated strategies
Lack of understanding of the role of organizational structure and design in the execution process.
Clarify the role of organizational structure and positions in the implementation of strategies

These suggested managerial guidelines revolve around four I’s: Identify, Inform, Involve and Incentivize. This requires a) more sophisticated problem identification, delineation and role clarification b) development of better information and communication systems and feedback mechanisms c) employee and managerial involvement in both the formulation and implementation of strategies d) motivational reward incentives tied to implementation success.
       The research suggests that planners should place more emphasis on implementation issues while they are drafting their plans. Most of these obstacles are avoidable if they have been accounted for during the formulation stage. It is obvious that many strategic plans fail to realize the anticipated benefits due to problems & difficulties faced during implementation. Specifically, some of the implications for managers aiming to successfully implement strategies in the Saudi Petrochemical industry are as follows:
1.      Company management must ensure that the supportive structure is in place to provide staff employees with the needed training & instructions during implementation phase.

2.   Company management should link employee performance during implementation phase with the overall reward and compensation system in the organization.

3        Company management should develop a good information system. Employees need to be updated on implementation tasks.

4.   Company management has to align its own organizational structure to what the strategy is calling for in order to enhance effectiveness of communication and coordination during implementation processes.

5.  Company management has to be involved and maintain focus during the   implementation processes.

For more theory and case studies onhttp://expertresearchers.blogspot.com/

For Premium Academic and Professional Research:  jumachris85@gmail.com


References

1.            Alexander, L. (1985), “Successfully Implementing Strategic Decision:, Long Range Planning, 18 ( 3), pp. 91-97.

2.            Al-Ghamdi, S. (1998), “Obstacles to successful implementation of strategic decisions: The British experience”, European Business Review, 98 (6), pp. 322-327.

3.      Atkinson, H. (2006), “Strategy Implementation: A Role for the Balanced Card,”
Management Decision, 44 (10), pp. 1-17.

4.      Beer, M. & Eisenstat, R. (2000), “The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and
         Learning,” Sloan Management Review, 41 (4), pp. 29-40.

5.      Brannen, L. (2005), “Upfront: The 33 1/3 Percent Strategy Solution”, Business
Finance, (June).

6.     DeLisi, P. (2001), “Strategy Execution: An Oxymoron or a Powerful Formula for
Corporate Success”, Organizational Synergies, http://www.org-synergies.com.
        
7.     Downes, L. (2001), “Strategy Can Be Deadly - Industry Trend or Event”, The Industry
  Standard, (May 14).

8.       Goodwin, J & Elliot, C. (1995)"Exporting Strategies: Developing a Strategic 
Framework" SAM Advanced Management Journal, 60 (1), (winter), pp.21-28.

9.        Hansen, L. Boyd, M. & Kryder, A. (1998) “Implementing Strategic Plans”,

10.   Hrebiniak, Lawrence (2005) “Business Strategy: Execution is the Key”, Pearson 
        Education, Inc. InformIT, (Jan. 21).

 11.   Johnson, P. (2002). “The Top Five Reasons Why Strategic Plans Fail”

12.   Leffel T. (2003), “Execution: An Interview with Ram Charan”, Journal of Business
  Strategy, (August).

 13.   Nickols, F. (2000), “Strategy Is . . . A Lot of Things”, Distance Consulting.

 14.   Rutan, S. (1999), “Strategic Management: 3 Steps to the Cycle of Success”, Compass
         Points.

 15.    Speculand, R. (2006) “The Great big Strategy Challenge”, Strategic Direction, 22 (3)
          (March) pp. 3-6

 16.   Welbourne, T. (2205)“Leaders Talk about Executing Strategy”, Leadership Pulse,
   (March 20).


 Appendix 1 (Questionnaire)

2005 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY

Dear Respondent,

King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM) is conducting a research study on “Obstacles toward Successful Strategy Implementation in Saudi Petrochemicals Industry”. This research is being conducted by a member of the faculty of Management and Marketing at KFUPM. We would be grateful if you could spare a few minutes of your time to provide your input by answering the questions in this questionnaire.

This instrument consists of two parts. The first is a description of the person’s and company background. The second presents some questions about the types of strategic decisions and the different obstacles in the way of implementing these decisions. Your assistance in answering these questions will contribute significantly to the success of this research.

We would like to assure you that this research is purely for academic purposes. Your responses will be treated with extreme confidentiality. In fact all responses will be coded into numbers and no one will be individually identified. Only general, statistical and aggregate analyses will be performed on the data. Hence, there would be no way anyone can trace the results back to the responses of any individual respondent.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study. If you have any questions regarding the survey you can contact me at the information below.


Background Information:

Please tell us something about your organization. Circle the letter corresponding to your answer.

1.         What type of organization do you have?

            a.         Joint Venture

            b.         Single Owner (Proprietorship)

            c.         Saudi Partnership


2.         How many employees are there in your organization?

            a.         1 – 50

            b.         51 – 150

            c.         151 – 300

            d.         301  -  501

            e.         Over 500


3.         How many years since you have been established?

            a.         less than one year

            b.         1 – 5 years

            c.         5 – 10 years

            d.         10 – 15 years

            e.         Over 15 years


4.         What is your position in your organization?

            a.         Top Management Level

            b.         Middle Management Level

            c.         Supervisory Level


Please select a recent strategic decision which has been implemented in your organization about which you had a great deal of personal knowledge. Do not include the name of your organization unless you wish to receive a copy of the aggregate results which will be sent to participating companies.

(1)           Which one of the following decisions has been executed recently?

                1.             (               )               Introduce a new product or service
                2.             (               )               Open and start up a new plant or facility
                3.             (               )               Expand Operations to enter a new market
                4.             (               )               Discontinue a product or withdraw from a market
                5.             (               )               Acquire or merge with another company
                6.             (               )               Change the strategy in an operational department
                7.             (               )               Other ( please specify)_____________________


(2)           Please evaluate the extent to which the following problems influenced the implementation of the strategic
                decision. Please use the five-point scale as shown.

                                                                                                                                    Influence Caused Project

                                Potential strategy implementation problems                             Never       Seldom       Occasionally         Frequently                         Always

1.             Took more time than originally allocated      (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )
2.             Major problems surfaced which had not        (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )
                been identified earlier.
3.             Co-ordination was not sufficiently                  (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )            effective
4.             Competing activities distracted attention       (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )           
from implementing this decision
5.             Capabilities of employees involved were       (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )            insufficient
6.             Training and instruction given to lower           (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )           
level employees were inadequate
7.             Uncontrollable factors in the external             (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )
                environment had an adverse impact on
                implementation
8.             Leadership and direction provided by             (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )            departmental managers were inadequate
9.             Key implementation tasks and activities        (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )           
were not sufficiently defined
10.          Information systems used to monitor             (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )            implementation were inadequate
11.          Advocates and supporters of the strategic     (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )
                decision left the organization during
                implementation.
12.          Overall goals were not sufficiently well           (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )            understood by employees
13.          Changes in responsibilities of key                    (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )            employees were not clearly defined
14.          Key formulators of the strategic decision       (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )           
did not play an active role in implementation
15.          Problems requiring top management
                involvement were not communicated early   (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )
                enough. 
16.          Deviation from original plan objectives          (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )
17.          People are not measured or rewarded for       (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )            executing the plan
18.          Lack of feelings of "ownership" of                  (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )           
a strategy or execution plans among
key employees
19.          Lack of understanding of the role of               (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )            organizational structure and design in
                the execution process
20.          Insufficient financial resources to execute     (       )      (        )          (        )                  (       )              (       )
                the strategy.
               
(3)           Please evaluate the overall success of the strategy implementation process of the five-point scale where 1 is
                "low success", 5 is "very successful".

                1.             Achieved the initial goals of the decision        1              2              3              4              5

                2.             Achieved the financial results expected          1              2              3              4              5

                3.             Was carried out within the resources               1              2              3              4              5
                                initially budgeted.



(4)                 Any other comments?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Appendix 2 (sample company list and contacts)

#
COMPANY
CONTACT
POSITION
1
SABIC - E&PM
Mazyad S. Al-Khaldi
GM
2
SABIC Terminal Services Company (SABTANK)
Yousef A. Al-Mubarrazi
President
3
Saudi Methanol Company (AR-RAZI)
Nabil A. Mansouri
President
Khalil I. Al-Doukhil
GM
Mohammed A. Al-Khashan
GM
4
Saudi Petrochemical Company (SADAF)
Fahad M. Al-Sharef
GM
Thamer S. Al-Sharhan
President
Abdulaziz N. Al-Majed
GM
Saud A. Al-Sanea
GM
5
Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company (KEMYA)
Abdulaziz S. Al-Humaid
President
Taleb F. Al-Fares
GM
6
Saudi Yanpet Petrochemical Company (YANPET)
Ghazi Bamefleh
GM
Abdulla Barasheed
GM
7
Arabian Industrial Fiber Company (IBN RUSHD)

GM
8
Arabian Petrochemical Company (PETROKEMYA)
Abdullah S. Al-Rabeeah
President
9
Eastern Petrochemical Company (SHARQ)
Tariq Bakhsh
GM
Mohammad M. Jabri
President
10
Saudi European Petrochemical Company (IBN ZAHR)
Sami A. Al-Suwaigh
President
11
National Industrial Gases Company (GAS)

GM
12
Saudi Arabian Fertilizer Company (SAFCO)
Abdulla S. Al-Humaid
GM
13
Al-Jubail Fertilizer Company (ALBAYRONI)
Ali Al-Garni
GM
Abdullah Ali Al-Bakr
President
14
National Chemical Fertilizer Company (IBN AL-BAYTAR)

GM
15
Saudi Iron & Steel Company (HADEED)
Mohammed S. Al-Jabr
President
16
Ibn Hayyan Plastic Product Company (TAYF)
Samir A-Abdrabbuh
GM
17
National Methanol Company (IBN SINA)
Ali J. Al-Kulaib
GM
Abdulrahman A. Al-Garawi
President
18
Jubail United Petrochemical Company (UNITED)
Abdullah M. Al-Garawi
President
19
Saudi International Petrochemical Company
Ahmed Al-Ohali
GM
20
National Petrochemical Manufacturing Company
Moaayad Al-Qertas
GM
21
Saudi Industrial Development Company
Mohammed bin Saddiq
President
22
Saudi Industrial Services Company

GM
23
Arabian Petrochemicals Trade Company

GM
24
Saudi Petrolem Lubricants Company

GM
25
Arabian Industrial Development Company

GM
26
Saudi Advanced Industries Company

GM
27
National Petrochemicals Industries Company
Ahmed Bukhari
GM
28
Jubail Chemical Industries Company
Alex Denzler
GM
29
Al-Zamil Industrial Investment Company

GM
30
Sahraa Petrochemical Company
Essam Hamdi
GM
31
Lujain Company
Marwan Naseer
President
32
Saudi Industrial Investment Group Company

GM
33
Al-Madina Industrial Investment Company

GM
34
Saudi Refinary Company
Ahmed M. Al-Ghamdi
GM
35
Jeddah Petroleum Refinary Company

GM
36
مصنع المركبات الامينية للقولبة

GM
37
Arabian Chemical Ltd Company
Suhail El-Farouki
GM
38
Jubail Gas Factory Ltd Company

GM
39
Bilad Catalist Ltd Company

GM
40
الشركة العربية لتصنيع المبيدات مبيد

GM
41
National Agricultural and Industrial Sulfur Est.
Khaled Kurdi
GM
42
Alaa Petrochemicals Company
Ibrahim Al-Rushoodi
GM
43
Arabian Petrolem Lubricants Company

GM
44
Saudi Chemical Materials Company
Tariq Al-Hamad
GM
45
International Chemicals Ltd Company
Muhammed Ali
GM
46
Omni Chemical Industries Company
Abdulla Al-Owaid
GM
47
Arabian Formuculite Industries Company
Husain Fawaz
GM
48
Saudi Oilfields Chemicals Company

GM
49
الشركة العربية للقلويات(صودا)

GM
50
Saudi Urithene Chemicals Company

GM
51
National Chemical Catalists Company

GM
52
Saudi Formaldhide Chemicals Company
Mazen Al-Laheq
GM
53
Saudi Chevron Petrochemicals Company

GM


No comments:

Post a Comment