Strategic Chessboard

A recent article by AT Kearney (“Playing the New Strategy Chessboard”) makes an attempt at finding an overall framework for the various strategy theories that have been in fashion over the last fifty years or so. Did you ever wonder how Porter’s Five Forces, Slywotzky’s Profit Patterns, Prahalad and Hamel’s Competing for the Future, Kim and Mauborgne’s Blue Ocean Strategy and Moore’s Crossing the Chasm are related? This strategy chessboard is an attempt at bringing some order to these theories and fit them into an overall framework.

The fundamental dimensions of industry predictability on one side, and a company’s desire, need and ability to either shape the industry or adapt to whatever changes happen on the other side, make sense. My problem with the framework is that when you get past the basic 2×2 matrix, the listing of the various theories and approaches within each quadrant is quite random. Furthermore, the approach to strategy development outlined in the article (perform company analysis, perform industry analysis, perform competitor analysis, conclude an appropriate quadrant or “entry lens,” develop an enriched perspective and a set of options, evaluate options against company DNA, finalize recommendations), while pragmatic and appropriate, is not exactly revolutionary.

Nevertheless, I think the description of the broad landscape of theories may be helpful in many instances. I picture a company that initiates a strategic planning process, and three stakeholders arrive at the kick-off meeting with three different books, all convinced that their favourite author has the answer to all the problems…