Obstacles
to Successful Implementation of Strategic Decisions: The Saudi Case
By
DR. SALEM
Associate Professor of Management
Department of Management & Marketing
Dhahran-31261
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
* 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.
- Took more time than originally
allocated
- Major problems surfaced which had
not been identified earlier.
- Co-ordination was not
sufficiently effective
- Competing activities distracted
attention from implementing this decision
- Capabilities of employees
involved were insufficient
- Training and instruction given to
lower level employees were inadequate
- Uncontrollable factors in the
external environment had an adverse impact on implementation
- Leadership and direction provided
by departmental managers were inadequate
- Key implementation tasks and
activities were not sufficiently defined
- Information systems used to
monitor implementation were inadequate
- Advocates and supporters of the
strategic decision left the organization during implementation.
- Overall goals were not
sufficiently well understood by employees
- Changes in responsibilities of
key employees were not clearly defined
- Key formulators of the strategic
decision did not play an active role in implementation
- Problems requiring top management
involvement were not communicated early enough.
- Deviation from original plan
objectives
- People
are not measured or rewarded for executing the plan
- Lack of feelings of
"ownership" of a
strategy or execution plans among key employees
- Lack of understanding of the role
of organizational structure and design in the execution process
- 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
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 on: http://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
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
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
|
|
|
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