Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
of codification of this new area, most obviously of a Michael Porter-based analysis of competi-
in the first key text by Abell and Hammond tion. Waterman (1988) argued that the Porter
(1979), which was based on a, by then, well- approach does not work because ‘people get
established second year MBA option at Har- stuck in trying to carry out his ideas’1 for three
vard. The book itself is clearly influenced by the reasons: the lack of a single competitor, the
work related to the Profit Impact of Market actual nature of interfirm co-operation as well
Strategy (PIMS) project, as well as work in as competition and, finally, the fact that com-
management consultancies such as McKinsey, petitors were neither ‘dumb nor superhuman’.
ADL and, perhaps most importantly, Boston This is a particular, and rather colourful, way of
Consulting Group, whose founder, Bruce Hen- representing the notion of ‘rational expecta-
derson, had close links with Derek Abell. The tions’ (Muth, 1961; Simon, 1979) in economics,
MBA course itself started in 1975 with a broad to which we will return later in this chapter.
notion of ‘filling the gap’ between what was Equally, the economists have not taken
seen then as the marketing domain and the such attacks lying down: somewhat more
much broader area of Business Policy, so recently, Kay (1993) attempted to wrest back the
encompassing issues relating to Research and intellectual dominance in matters of corporate
Development, Distribution and Competitive strategy and Porter (1990) extended his domain
Buy this file from http://www.download-it.org/learning-resources.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=1377
Costs. The course itself was a second year to the nation state itself.
elective and rapidly expanded to four sections The story, of course, has also become
with a major commitment on development and complicated in other ways, many of which are
case writing in 1976 and 1977. For a more outside the scope of this chapter. In terms of
historical analysis of the ways in which the case key perspectives, Tom Peters has become more
method has been used to incorporate new and more polemical about the nature of success
issues in management whilst avoiding some (indeed, to the extent of arguing in one inter-
central concerns about the nature of power and view that innovative behaviour now depends
influence, see Contardo and Wensley (2002). on ignoring rather than exploiting market
In retrospect, this period was the high evidence), C. K. Prahalad has refined his
point for the uncontested impact of competitive original notion of dominant logic to reflect in
market-related analysis on strategic manage- general terms the importance of transferable
ment practice. With the advantage of hindsight, capabilities and technological interdependen-
it is clear that a serious alternative perspective cies in the development of strategic advantage
was also developing, most obviously signalled (for instance, see Bettis and Prahalad, 1995;
by Peters and Waterman (1982), which was to Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Prahalad and Bettis,
have a very substantial impact on what was 1989), whist Gary Hamel, who started his work
taught in strategic management courses and with C. K. Prahalad on Strategic Intent (1989),
what was marketed by consultancies. It was has moved on to espousing radical and revolu-
also a significant book in the sense that, tionary change (2000) and, of course, Peter
although not widely recognized as so doing, it Senge (1992) reiterated the importance of infor-
also attempted to integrate, at least to some mation structures, and Hammer and Champy
degree, earlier work by other relevant aca- (1993) introduced a ‘new’ approach labelled
demics such as Mintzberg (1973), Pettigrew business process analysis.
(1973), and Weick (1976). In terms of the disciplinary debate, what
As the decade progressed, it was inevitable was originally broadly a debate between econ-
that, at least to some degree, each side recog- omists and sociologists now also involves
nized the other as a key protagonist. Perhaps 1
It is noteworthy that the very representation of the five-
one of the most noteworthy comments is that in forces diagram, for instance, is one which emphasizes that
which Robert Waterman challenged the value the firm is under pressure from all sides.
Production Advertising
Marketing
Development Market
research
psychologists, social anthropologists and, if Whilst his approach and indeed critique of
they are a distinct discipline, systems theorists. strategy analysis is itself rather polemical and
However, the key change in emphasis has overstated,2 there is little doubt that the general
been the one from analysis to process, from emphasis in strategic management has shifted
formulation to implementation. Perhaps the significantly towards implementation and
single most important contributor to this away from formulation and planning.
change has been Henry Mintzberg, who has
developed over the period an extensive critique
of what he calls the ‘Design School’ in Strategic
Management, culminating in his 1994 book. In
The nature of the competitive
this he even challenges the notion of planning market environment
in strategy:
As our analysis of marketing strategy has
Thus we arrive at the planning school’s grand developed over the last 30 years, so our
fallacy: because analysis is not synthesis, strate- representation of the marketing context has
gic planning is not strategy formation. Analysis also changed.
may precede and support synthesis, by defining
As an example, Figure 4.1 is an overhead
the parts that can be combined into wholes.
which the author used 30 years ago in describ-
Analysis may follow and elaborate synthesis,
by decomposing and formalising its conse- ing the nature of the marketing context. A
quences. But analysis cannot substitute for number of major omissions are clear. In partic-
synthesis. No amount of elaboration will ever ular, there is no recognition of competitors and
enable formal procedures to forecast disconti- 2
In fact, Mintzberg himself goes on to argue three roles
nuities, to inform managers who are detached
for ‘corporate planning’: (1) a more refined approach in
from their operations, to create novel strategies. traditional contexts; (2) a focus on techniques which
Ultimately the term ‘strategic planning’ has emphasize the uncertain and emergent nature of strategic
proved to be an oxymoron. phenomena; and/or (3) a more creative and intuitive form
(p. 321) of strategic planning (see Wensley, 1996a).
The publisher detailed in the title page holds the copyright for this document
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recorded or otherwise, without the written
permission of Spenford IT Ltd who are licensed to reproduce this document by the
publisher
rights@download-it.org
www.download-it.org