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 [].

BCG’s Strategy Palette is based on three key contingent variables: unpredictability, malleability, and harshness, resulting in five strategy approaches: classical, adaptive, shaping, visionary, and renewal. It serves as a good introduction to strategy approaches and provides guidance on the relevant strategy tools that can be utilized for each approach. However, using only dichotomous variables makes this a more reductionist framework which does not lend itself towards capturing the different degrees of variation and complexity within the variables. Therefore, it does not allow for a more extensive and pertinent set of strategy approaches to be considered. 

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.

Second, the mapping logic of the strategy approaches to the strategy space is questionable, as it assumes that the different states of the strategy space can only be served by one strategy approach. Mapping exercises are different from typology constructions which require mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive (MECE) categories []. Strategy approaches do not have to be mutually exclusive (ME) in their coverage of the strategy space, but they should be comprehensively exhaustive (CE). For instance, the visionary strategy approach and most of the related tools associated with it, which are prescribed to predictable and malleable environments, can also be used in environments characterized by unpredictability and malleability.

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.