Produce a critique of the use of generic frameworks to guide strategic decision-making. Use appropriate examples to explore how this approach can be effective and where it poses challenges and difficulties. Discuss alternatives to the use of frameworks.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In our experience of teaching strategic management, students often struggle either to appreciate the
merits of generic strategy frameworks or to apply them constructively and imaginatively. It requires
an unfamiliar, systemic way of thinking. The ubiquity of Michael Porter’s ‘competition matrix’
strategy framework has marginalised most alternatives, for which we wanted to compensate in
chapter 7 of our text. The use of any generic framework obliges the strategist to examine a wider
range of alternatives than might otherwise be the case and to attempt to fit each possible strategy to
the particulars of the enterprise under scrutiny. Using multiple frameworks generates differing,
potentially valuable insights, whether complementary or conflicting. If the latter, further critical
scrutiny is needed to extract robust conclusions. One can show the value of this approach by asking
groups of students to apply different frameworks to a particular case and then comparing and
contrasting the findings in class.
The application of analytical, structured frameworks seems to link with a ‘rational planning’
paradigm or ‘frame of reference’ (chapter 1). Various drawbacks can be claimed to their practical
application: the construction of categorical oppositions (either/or not and/both) particularly troubles
some commentators, notably the low-cost/differentiation dichotomy posited by Porter. Some text
examples aim to nuance this polarity of thinking; arguably, few enterprises really have the intent or
commitment to implement a single-minded, purist low-cost strategy (in effect commoditization). To
that extent Mathur’s differentiation matrix becomes more relevant. Apple Computer and Dyson are
enterprises whose strategies have applied product and design-led differentiation to generate
comparatively high market shares in their respective sectors in the face of largely commoditised
competition. Although containing costs always matters to a degree, it is not the basis of their success.
Alternative approaches can draw on different ‘frames of reference’, specifically: selection from the
concepts of the most powerful stakeholders; dynamic, experimental adaptation; or incremental
systemic change through viable, generally modest steps. Archetype (gestalt) approaches appeal to
the intuitive or inspirational strategy thinker and can be very effective when they are internally
consistent and coherent. Contrarian strategies often take this form. They posit actions quite contrary
to popular assumptions about the critical factors for success. Students could be invited to discuss
Apple and Dyson in this context.