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.

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. 

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 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.

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.