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.
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.
This strategy approach is highly analytical and involves three key activities - analysis, planning, and executing. The emphasis here is on being efficient and optimal. The strategy methods, tools and techniques associated with it are well-known because this approach has and still enjoys wide adoption by organizations, business schools, and consulting firms. Out of the strategy tools that were surveyed, were identified as belonging to the classical approach. These strategy tools include SWOT, Cs, Porter’s five forces, BCG portfolio matrix, core competencies, resource-based view, value chain, and strategy maps.
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 shaping strategy approach is most suitable for environments which are unpredictable but malleable. These environments usually exist in new industries where there are no established leaders or rules of competition. Many companies can enter these low barrier industries and introduce innovative business models, products, and services. Mature markets may also be ready to be disrupted if they are overserving major customer segments or not serving customers. The disruption is usually through business model innovation.