The adaptive strategy approach is evolutionary, necessitating the creation of solution hypotheses and testing them through experiments, then selecting promising options and scaling them up. The emphasis here lies in creating strategic flexibility. BCG research has identified strategy tools that can be used with the adaptive approach. These strategy tools include time-based competition, first mover advantage, dynamic capabilities, strategy as simple rules, adaptive advantage, and transient competitive advantage.

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.

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.

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.

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 [].