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. 

The Strategy Palette framework was first published in Harvard Business Review (HBR) in by the lead author, Martin Reeves, and two colleagues, Claire Love and Philipp Tillmanns []. It had two dimensions: predictability and malleability; as well as four strategy approaches. Subsequently in , the framework was updated, and a third dimension was added called harshness, resulting in five strategy approaches. This updated version was published in the book “Your Strategy Needs a Strategy: How to Choose and Execute the Right Approach”, which was written by the lead author, Martin Reeves, and two new co-authors, Knut Haanaes and Janmejaya Sinha [].

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.

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.