Developing an Integrated Strategic Management Model for facilitation community development in South Africa

International journal of Innovative Research in Management ISSN 2319 – 6912
(June 2014, issue 3 volume 6)
60
DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT MODEL
FOR FACILITATING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH
AFRICA
Dr. Anthony Rippon Senior Lecturer: MANCOSA (1st
author and corresponding
author) and Prof. Adolf Lowies: Director Research: MANCOSA (2nd author)
ABSTRACT
To achieve the desired results this paper concentrates on the best Strategic Management
practices needed to assist community leaders with tools for facilitating community development
in South Africa. Many South African communities are not applying best practices for sourcing,
allocating and managing the variety of available resources efficiently in their respective
community environments and as a result, the desired sustainable community development
objectives are not being achieved. The research results of a survey conducted in 2005 providing
community leaders in Government, Business and Society with an integrated Strategic
Management model. The model has been developed to assist community leaders with a tool for
developing their future desired state and for the efficient management of sourced and allocated
community resources in the variety of South African ‘strategic communities’ (wards).
Key words: Community Development; Strategic Management; Sustainable Development;
Community Simulation Game
INTRODUCTION
In recent years Community Development Models have been applied in South African
communities for the uplifting of community systems that focus on poverty alleviation, inequality
and unemployment. These are currently in the implementation phase and have yet to prove
quantifiable long-term results as application of strategy in community development is practiced.
In this instance, Strategic Management has been amplified to develop community systems, as
application of strategy in community development, is practised. These are currently in the
implementation phase and of the models having yet to prove quantifiable in the long term for
results.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
Many South African communities are not applying best practices for sourcing, allocating and
managing the variety of available resources efficiently in their respective community
environments and as a result, the desired sustainable community development objectives are not
being achieved.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This paper illustrates how the application of principles of the Strategic Management can assist
community leaders and decision-makers in further developing South African communities.

61
OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A sample survey was conducted in part of preparation for postgraduate studies in strategic
management. The sample for the survey conducted included community leaders within the
boundaries of the City of Johannesburg through the administration of 320 questionnaires with 60
community organisations. The outcome of the research culminated in the development of a
strategic management model for community development.
The questionnaire comprised of biographical information and application of strategic
management principles and processes, if any, by community leaders and management of these
organisations in the variety of community organisations. Perceptions and attitudes of community
leaders towards community development in their respective community environments and the
management of their community‟s resources was a central point of the survey and discussion.
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The response rate yielded 21 % which informed the survey.
The following findings were captured amongst the community leaders in the environmental and
other industries which included the tourism industry within the demarcated boundaries of the
community system selected for testing: the City of Johannesburg with 11 regions and 109 wards.
Johannesburg was later re-divided into 7 regions with 109 wards (reduced the total regions from
11 to 7).
Referring to the questions responded to in Section A, the following were the findings with regard
to the biographical information. Table 1 indicates the type of organisations who responded.
Table 1: Type of Organisations
Frequency %
Valid
%
Valid
Governmental profit-making 22 33.3 34.9
Governmental not-for-profit 5 7.6 7.9
Non-governmental profit-making 24 36.4 38.1
Non-governmental not-for-profit 6 9.1 9.5
Governmental department 6 9.1 9.5
Total 63 95.5 100.0
Missing System 3 4.5
Total 66 100.0
Rippon (2005: 229)

62
From the above illustrated table, the random selection thus provided for the largest group
responding from the governmental sector of 52.3 %, and the balance from the non-governmental
sector of 46.7 %; profit-making constituted 73 % of the respondents and 27 % not-for-profit
community organisations. Only 3 respondents did not complete the question and the above
percentages were aligned to provide for a valid percentage after correction. Table 2 indicates the
number of staff employed by the organisations
Table 2: Number of staff employed
Frequency % Valid %
Cumulative
%
Valid
Start-up (less than one year old) 6 9.1 9.5 9.5
0-9 2 3.0 3.2 12.7
10 -19 3 4.5 4.8 17.5
20 -49 4 6.1 6.3 23.8
50 -99 4 6.1 6.3 30.2
200 – 299 1 1.5 1.6 31.7
300 – 499 2 3.0 3.2 34.9
500 – 999 1 1.5 1.6 36.5
1000 – 1999 3 4.5 4.8 41.3
2000 – 2999 4 6.1 6.3 47.6
3000 & more 33 50.0 52.4 100.0
Total 63 95.5 100.0
Total 66 100.0
Source: Rippon (2005:300)
Results from this question indicated that 47.6 % were respondents from large companies with a
staff size of 3000 and more, and 9.5 % from start-up businesses less than one year old. Only 3
respondents did not complete the question and the above percentages were aligned to provide for
a valid percentage. Table 3 indicates how long the organisations who responded to the survey
have been operating.
Table 3: Length of time organisations have been in operation
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Valid
1-4 years 31 47.0 48.4 48.4
5-9 years 19 28.8 29.7 78.1

63
10 -19 years 4 6.1 6.3 84.4
20 -29 years 1 1.5 1.6 85.9
30 & more 9 13.6 14.1 100.0
Total 64 97.0 100.0
Total 66 100.0
Source: Rippon (2005: 301)
From the above table , 48.4 % of the respondents were from organisations within the community
environment, that were in existence between 1 and 4 years; 29.7 % between 5 and 9 years; 6.3 %
between 10 to 19 years; 1.6 % between 20 and 29 years and 14.1 30 years and over. Only 2
respondents did not complete the question and the above percentages were aligned to provide for
a valid percentage. Table 4 indicated in which industry the community organisation who
responded operated.
Table 4: Respondent community organisations industry of operation
Frequency % Valid %
Valid
Environmental 40 60.6 66.7
Retail 2 3.0 3.3
Other 18 27.3 30.0
Total 60 90.9 100.0
Total 66 100.0
From the above table 8.4, 66.7 % indicated they were from the environmental industry; 3.3 % the
retail industry and the balance of 30 % from other industries which included tourism, hospitality,
manufacturing, exports/imports, entertainment, and clothing and textiles of which all have a
focus on providing services and products to international, national and local visitors visiting the
City of Johannesburg. Only 2 respondents did not complete the question and the above
percentages were aligned to provide for a valid percentage. Table 5 indicates from where the
community organisations who responded operated from and have branches, either locally,
nationally or internationally.

64
Table 5: Where do community organisations who responded operate from and have
branches
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Valid
The City's demarcated boundaries 50 75.8 78.1 78.1
In and around Gauteng province 8 12.1 12.5 90.6
Throughout South Africa 5 7.6 7.8 98.4
Throughout Africa 1 1.5 1.6 100.0
Total 64 97.0 100.0
Total 66 100.0
From the above table 8.5, 78.1 % operate only within the boundaries of the City of
Johannesburg; 12.5 % have indicated also having branches in and around Gauteng, 7.8 % also
operate throughout South Africa and 1.6 % throughout Africa.
Section B explored the application of Strategic Management principles and processes, if any, by
community leaders and management of these organisations, in the variety of community
organisations.
Section B additionally, included capturing perceptions and attitudes that these community
leaders have towards community development in their respective community environments, and
efficiently managing of a communities resources.
Other relevant to the environmental industry were questions relating to community development
training and development needs. Questions 7, 8 and 9 tested whether Strategic Management
principles and processes are being applied by the variety of community organisations, whereas
questions 10, 11 and 12 tested the perceptions and attitudes of community leaders regarding the
efficient managing of community resources. The findings are highlighted for the purposes of this
paper. With regards to accelerating community development by applying strategic management
principles and processes in community organisations through efficiently managing resources, the
results revealed follows.
On a scale from 1, not important, to 4, very important, for those marked very important in an
order of importance were, 81 % for sustainable development for future generations, 74 %
indicated the importance of service delivery excellence in the community, 62.9 % leadership and
management structure, 61.3 % indicated the importance of building trustworthy relationships in
the community environment, 57.1 % indicated sufficient environmental skills required, 54.8 %
indicated sufficient funding is made available and 51 % indicated the importance of the close
monitoring of resources allocated.
In question 8, respondents could answer either, strongly disagree, disagree, are neutral, agree or
strongly agree with regards to specifically formulated statements in support of the study. In

65
answering „Your organisation needs to be more flexible and sensitive to changing needs that
affect the community at large‟, 32.8 % responded to strongly agree, only 23.8 % to „You are
satisfied that your organisation‟s strategic plan incorporates environmental community
development objectives‟, only 21.7 % strongly agrees that their organisation actively participates
in ensuring that community services are being efficiently managed.
Only 9.5 % indicated with confidence that their organisations vision is clearly understood by
their staff and the community at large they serve. Finally, only 4.5 % indicated that they utilised
a selection process for selecting environmental community projects to be supported by the
organisation. Either these organisations were not involving their organisations in projects
contributing toward community development, or they selected such projects at random or based
on personal preferences.
Question 9 ranked in order of importance (1 being the most important and 7 the least), reasons
for managing the variety of resources in a community applying Strategic Management principles
and processes. Of the respondents 29 % felt sustainable community development the most
important, 27,4 % of the respondents felt the most important statement was ensuring for a clean,
cared for, attractive and further developing community, 22.6 % an improved quality of life. The
outcome of less poverty was selected by 19.4 % to ensure an outcome of less poverty evident in
the community and 17.7 % indicated the most important was a well managed community and its
resources. Only 16.1 % indicated greater job opportunities being created due to resources being
well managed. In summary, sustainable development was overall the most important reason for
managing resources by applying strategic management principles and processes in the
community environment.
With regard to the question 11 of how often the respondents organisation participate together
with other community stakeholders in formulating and implementing environmental projects and
programmes in the community? Here respondents in answering selected either never, rarely,
often or always. Only 34.4 % indicated that they always supported the local authorities with
basic service delivery. 34.4 % responded that they always participate collectively when required,
26.2 % participate in projects that ensure the enhancing of the attractiveness of the community,
21.7 % participated in clean-up campaigns, 25.8 % in educational projects for developing the
community, 20 % of community watches include programs to combat illegal dumping, only 4.8
% for job creation projects and only 1.6 % in crime prevention programmes.
Regarding the type of infrastructure that should be available, 76 % of the respondents ranked
affordable basic services as the most important, then policing and other crime prevention
services and industrial, manufacturing and retail shopping facilities followed with 8 % each,
public recreational facilities and sufficient open spaces, such as parks and nature areas, followed
with 4 % each.
Information regarding the sources of revenue received by each respondent‟s organisation
revealed sensitivity to those answering the yes or no to types of revenue received, 39.9 %
responded to government grants, 33.3 % responded no, and 28.8 % did not respond at all.
For subsidies received 48.5 % responded „yes‟, 30.5 % to „no‟ and again 21.2 % did not respond.
To membership fees being a source, 13.6 % responded „yes‟, 48.55 responded „no‟, and again the
trend that 37.9 % did not respond. From rates and taxes, 51.5 % responded „yes‟, 27.3 %
responded „no‟, and again 21.2 % did not respond at all. Revenue from services provided

66
indicated that 78.8 % responded „yes‟, 9.1 % „no‟ and 12.1 % did not respond at all. Revenue
from products offered reflected 54.5 % of respondents indicated „yes‟, 21.2 % „no‟, and again
24.2 % did not respond at all to the question. Sources of revenue from donations indicated that
9.1 % „yes‟, 51.5 % „no‟ and 39.4 % again did not respond. From other not mentioned as an
option. 7.6 % indicated a „yes‟, 33.3 % a „no‟ and 59.1 % did not respond to the option.
RECOMMENDATIONS
With regards to training and development, participation in a community development context
applying strategic management principles and processes was a significant factor to be
considered. A 68.6 % of respondents indicated that they would participate in an integrated
individual and group community development training programme series, whilst 25.7 %
indicated no interest and 5.7 % did not show any interest in the survey. Furthermore, reference to
an organisations need for environmental education at either a specialised academy or the variety
of institutions offering environmental education courses as part of their curriculum demonstrated
a positive response. Here 94.2 % indicated a wiliness to send their managers or staff on courses
focusing on the environment with, regard to community development.
Figure 1: The ‘Diamond Deal’ for community development in SA
Source: Rippon (2005:109)

67
The types of training preferred by community leaders directing the variety of community profit-
making and not-for-profit making organisations, indicated that interactive workshops, group
team building sessions and strategic breakaways were the most popular training methods
amongst the respondents. Thereafter, support for one-one-one coaching, „edutainment‟
(education through entertainment) and strategy simulation games was a key suggestion. To
summerise, the research highlighted the importance of strategic management for facilitating
community development in South Africa. The sample can be seen as representative with regard
to other typical South African community environment.
CONCLUSION
Cutting a new „diamond‟ (Figure 1 above) ensuring a top-down approach for linking with civil
society bottom-up with community stakeholders forums representative at „grass roots‟ level and
collectively co-creating community development projects and programmes together in synergy
has been emphasised.
The outcome of the empirical research lead to the development of a model adapted from various
other models combined which provides for a tool that can assist community leaders with the
facilitating of community development in their respective communities.
The model developed can assist community leaders with a tool to assess a specific community‟s
need which is often unique to each community environment. Furthermore, provide for direction
whilst diagnosing (scanning a community environment) before formulating vision, mission,
objectives and strategies for combating community development issues of concern and for
managing community resources for the betterment of the greater good. Ultimately leaders
instilling a paradigm shift from being totally reliant or dependent through independence to
finally interdependence.
REFERENCES
AICC. 2005. Competitiveness & innovation. [URL:http://www.aiccafrica.com/competi-
tiveness_innovation.htm. Accessed 22/10/2005].
Alagh, YK,. 2002. Managing natural resources for society: welfare and health implications.
[URL:http://www.teriin.org/dsds2002/papers/alagh.htm. Accessed 22/10/2005].
Balle, M & Jones, T. 1995. Putting systems thinking to work. An examination of how systems
thinking was used to help pull a decision support agency through the recession. Executive
Development, 8 (4):15-22.
Bannatyne, C. 2005. Addressing environmental issues. CEO, (4)5:66-68.
Bateman, M. 2002. The long walk to sustainability: a South African perspective. Cape Town:
ILS.
Bennett, A. 2002. making better use of existing resources.
[url:http://www.teriin.org/dsds2002/papers/bennett.htm. Accessed 22/10/2005].

68
Cassels, A & von Schirnding, Y. 2002. Managing natural resources for society: welfare and
health implications: “sustainable development and the role of health”.
[url:http://www.teriin.org/dsds2002/papers/schirnding.htm. Accessed 22/10/2005].
Covey, SR. 2014. The seven habits of highly effective people. Sydney: Simon & Schuster.
Cummings, S & Wilson, D., 2003. Images of strategy. Oxford: Blackwell.
De Beer, FC & Swanepoel, HJ. 2000. Introduction to development studies. Oxford: Oxford
University.
Fuggle, R.F. & Rabie, M.A. 1992. environmental management in South Africa. Cape Town:
Juta.
Lambert, A. 2002. Financing global sustainability: a proposal for multilateral environment
agreements. [url:http://www.teriin.org/dsds2002/papers/lambert.htm. Accessed 22/10/2005].
Mashabila, P. 2002. Business and sustainable development: taking up the challenge. Timbila:
spirit of Africa, 3 (5):85.
Nöffke, C. 2005. South Africa: The best kept secret finally out. Professional Management
Review, (16)10:11
Rippon, AE. 2005. A strategic approach for facilitating community development in South Africa.
(doctoral thesis). Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.
SADC. 2005. The Southern African Development Community analysis briefs.
[url:http//www.eia.doe.ov/emeu/cabs/sadc.hmtl. Accessed 22/10/2005]
Sobhan, F. 2002. Governance structures and sustainable development: moving from a
Bangladesh approach. [url:http://www.teriin.org/dsds2002/papers/sobhan. htm. Accessed
22/10/2005].
South African Government Information. 2002. Gauteng development planning and local
government annual report.[http://www.info.gov.za./speeches/2002/02091214461003.htm.
Accessed 22/10/2005]
Swilling, M & Russell, B. 2002. The size and scope of the non-profit sector in South Africa.
Johannesburg: Knoxville.
Wood, B. 2005a. Climate Change, A global and development issue. Professional Management
Review, (16)8:3.
Wood, B. 2005b. Sustainable development. Professional Management Review, (16)10:3

Developing an Integrated Strategic Management Model for facilitation community development in South Africa

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Developing an Integrated Strategic Management Model for facilitation community development in South Africa

Similar to Developing an Integrated Strategic Management Model for facilitation community development in South Africa (20)

More from Anthony Rippon

More from Anthony Rippon (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Developing an Integrated Strategic Management Model for facilitation community development in South Africa