The renewal strategy approach seeks to ensure the company survives the harsh environment it has found itself in because of a misfit between its strategy and environment, or because it is being subjected to a major external or internal disturbance. Regardless of the factors which have caused the hardship, companies need to, in the short term, first ensure their viability by pursuing a defensive strategy which reduces costs, gets rid of unattractive businesses or products, conserves capital, and saves and frees up resources. Afterwards, they should pursue one of the four strategies mentioned above for the long-term. Therefore, this strategy approach is only temporary in nature.
The classical strategy approach is most suitable for stable environments which are predictable, where the rules of competition or conduct are well-established, making them non-malleable. These predictable and non-malleable environments are continuations of the past. Hence, the bases for achieving sustainable competitive advantage are known and can be achieved through competitive positioning using differentiation or cost leadership through scale.
The strategy palette has three dichotomous variables – predictability, malleability, and harshness. Predictability is defined as the extent to which the organization can predict the key strategy variables in its environment which impact the focal strategic issues for the organization. It also relates to how far into the future the organization can make such predictions. Malleability is defined as the extent to which the organization and its competitors could influence these key strategy variables. Harshness refers to the ability to survive a harsh environment.
The adaptive strategy approach is most suitable for environments that are unpredictable and difficult to change. In these environments, it is difficult for companies to achieve sustainable competitive advantage pursuing the classical approach. Instead, companies aim to achieve a series of transient or short-term advantages by continually monitoring their environments and adjusting their objectives, updating their strategies, modifying their resources, and reconfiguring their capabilities.
First, the use of dichotomous variables (predictability, malleability, and harshness) has resulted in the creation of a limited, coarse-grained strategy space. This is problematic because it means that fewer strategy approaches are identified to cover the strategy possibilities space, and these approaches are broad (i.e., umbrella approaches). This has resulted in a loss of precision in guiding the selection of the appropriate strategy. Take for example the umbrella strategy approach of adaptation, which has been operationalized primarily through continuous experimentation. Within this umbrella approach, there are several approaches such as static and dynamic robust strategy approaches [], which would only be revealed if the predictability dimension incorporated a greater number of states. This would help create a richer, more textured, and nuanced strategy space which differentiates between the varying levels of uncertainty [].