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 [].

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.

Finally, the book and its accompanying website cover strategy tools and link them to the five strategy approaches, creating five strategy toolboxes. This is a good development but one with insufficient coverage of the available strategy tools. In my research on strategy tools covering the same period (-), I identified over strategy tools. Some of these strategy tools include backcasting [], business wargaming [], assumption-based planning [], strategy under uncertainty [], the three horizons framework [], strategy diamond [], portfolio of initiatives [], strategy as active waiting [], the strategy tripod framework [], and capabilities-driven strategy []. BCG’s narrow coverage of strategy tools combined with fewer strategy approaches results in limited and incomplete strategy toolboxes and consequently, inadequate strategy guidance.

The shaping strategy approach emphasizes collaboration through the orchestration of activities with other players in the ecosystem. Shapers engage, orchestrate, and evolve. Shapers first engage other players in the ecosystem in the creation of a shared vision for the industry. Subsequently, they orchestrate the collaborative activities through a platform. Lastly, they evolve the platform by scaling it up. BCG research has identified five strategy tools which can be used with the shaping approach. These strategy tools include S-curve, ecosystem strategy, co-opetition, open innovation, and shared value framework.