Articles Published 10 December 2015

Government Transformation Programme (GTP): Effects of 4S Approach in Malaysian Government Departments

Herman Shah Anuar
School of Technology Management and Logistics, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Kamaruddin Radzuan
School of Technology Management and Logistics, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Mohamad Ghozali Hassan
School of Technology Management and Logistics, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Citations
0
No citations recorded yet
Reads
374 +1
Abstract + full text
Downloads
716 +1
PDF and XML

Article

The  Government  Transformation  Programme  has  become  the  central  issue  among  the public. For any government to retain its popularity, changes are needed to provide more vibrant,  dynamic,  and  progressive  services  to  its  client,  customer,  and  stakeholders. Therefore,   implementing   McKinsey   approach   is   one   mechanism   to   realise   the transformation  programme.  Implementing  McKinsey  approach  has  long  been  practised by  various  organisations  in  adding  value  to  delivery  and  improving  performance.  This article  demonstrates  findings  of  the  four  out  of  seven  McKinsey  approach  elements implemented  in  two  government  departments  in  Malaysia.  The  survey  method  was conducted  in  this  study  on  respondents  comprising  all  the  stakeholders  dealing  in  the everyday  transactions  with  the  government  departments,  including  suppliers,  vendors, and  many  more.  All  the  questionnaires  were  analysed  and  findings  explained  in  greater detail.  The  four  McKinsey  elements  included  strategy,  structure,  system,  and  shared values  (4S).A  comparison  was  made  between  the  results  of  the  4S  from  both  agencies. Interestingly,  the  results  illustrated  how  the  government  departments  transformed  their operational services by getting the whole organisation to put great efforts to undergo the overall process. The results also indicated that for a government department to undergo transformation, staff’s attitude toward changes, behaviour, and knowledge are crucial in making the process a successful one. Further elaboration on outcomes of each McKinsey elements is discussed in detail. The findings would become a guideline for future research dealing  with  elements  of  McKinsey  approach,  as  well  as  serve  as  a  reference  for  the betterment of any organisation that wants to apply the transformation agenda.

Government transformation programme (GTP) McKinsey approach government department

How to Cite

Government Transformation Programme (GTP): Effects of 4S Approach in Malaysian Government Departments. (2015). Journal of Business Management and Accounting, 5, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.32890/jbma2015.5.0.8858

Metrics & impact

Citations by source

Harvested 02-09-2026

Counts differ by index because each source crawls a different corpus. Crossref counts only registered reference lists; Google Scholar includes theses, preprints and grey literature.

OpenAlex
0
Open corpus, updated daily View →
OpenCitations
0
Open references only View →
Crossref
0
Deposited reference lists only View →
Scopus
0 Not indexed
Indexed titles only View →
Google Scholar
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes theses and preprints Search →
Dimensions
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes policy documents Search →

Reads & downloads

Abstract views 374
PDF downloads 716
XML downloads 0
Counted under COUNTER Release 5 rules; known robots excluded.

Attention beyond citation

Field-weighted citation impact 0.00
Works this article cites 12

From OpenAlex. A field-weighted impact of 1.00 is the world average for work of the same field, type and year. No Altmetric key is configured, so news, policy and social attention are not shown.

Identifiers

References

References 10
Deposited to Crossref with the article DOI
  1. Abernathy, W. J., and Clark, K. B., (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3-22.
  2. Afuah, A., (2000). How much do your competitors’ capabilities matter in the face of change? Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 387-404.
  3. Chandrasekar, K., (2011). Workplace environment and its impact on organisational performance in public sector organisations. International Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business Systems, 1(1), 1-19.
  4. Collins, J. C., and Porras, J. I., (1996). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. London: Century. http://www.pemandu. gov. my/gtp/upload/GTP2_ENG_Cp1.pdf
  5. Hanafizadeh, P., and Ravasan, A. Z., (2011). A McKinsey 7S model-based framework for ERP readiness assessment. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 7(4), 23-63.
  6. Martini, A., Pareto, L., and Bosch, J., (2014). Teams interactions hindering short-term and long-term business goals, Continuous Software Engineering, Springer International Publishing, 51-65, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-11283-1_
  7. Martins, E. C., and Terblanche, F., (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.
  8. Matzler, K., Bailom, F., von den Eichen, S. F., and Kohler, T., (2013). Business model innovation: Coffee triumphs for Nespresso. Journal of Business Strategy, 34(2), 30-37.
  9. Perrons, R. K., Richards, M. G., and Platts, K., (2005). What the hare can teach the tortoise about make-buy strategies for radical innovations. Management Decision, 43(5), 670-690.
  10. Utterback, J. M., (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press

Most read articles by the same author(s)