Strategic Management a Dynamic Approach - Assignment Example

?Report on the Critique of the Literature Review of “Strategic Management a Dynamic Approach” Introduction This paper examines the various findings of the review of the paper titled “Strategic Management, a Dynamic Approach”. It is part of a peer review activity meant to undertake critical analysis of the paper. Most notably, the paper will cut across various areas including the structure, components and units of the paper. Summary of Findings Abstract The abstract states that the paper is a literature review of strategic management and analyzes strategy. It talks about how it discusses the development of the concepts and also states that the paper examines the basis for a dynamic approach to strategic management. An abstract is meant to provide an overview of the project at hand. The Abstract of the paper speaks about strategy and strategic management. It is too generic in nature and does not really address the actual work undertaken in the paper. It should give the scope of the areas of strategy that the paper focused on, which is the definition, evolution and essence of dynamic strategies should at least be mentioned. The abstract must also discuss briefly, actual methodology used for the completion of the project. The methodology is not mentioned at all in the abstract. As a minimum, the methodology should cut across how the findings were arrived at and the processes that were employed. Also, the abstract needs to disclose some information on the tools of strategic management that the paper focused on. It should include but not be limited to how it treated issues relating to the evolution of strategy, the sequence and other things. The paper talks extensively about the the forms of strategy and this must at least be mentioned in the abstract. Additionally, aside the issues touched on in the paper, the abstract needs to cover the major findings and conclusions drawn from the study. This is because the abstract gives an overview of the paper and the major ends that the paper attained. As the literature review stands now, it is deficient of disclosures on the main ends that the paper attained. This renders the abstract fundamentally limited in scope and in representing the findings. As an additional requirement, the Abstract should ideally link up the paper with real-life situations or other elements of the broader research at hand. The abstract fails to do that and thus any person who picks up the paper will not be able to read meanings into the abstract and connect it to the reality. The abstract needs to be re-structured. It must be specific, connect the paper to real-life situations, talk about the methodology and processes used, the areas of strategy handled and the conclusions drawn in the whole literature review must be summarized in the Abstract. Introduction The background should link the work at hand with dominant concepts and ideas in the area being researched. The paper rightfully begins by stating the broad nature of strategic management and also goes into some traditional approaches to strategy and some insight into the end of strategy. It also touches briefly on the need for dynamic approaches. Some issues were identified with the introduction. First of all, there is a problem of clarity. The description of ideas and concepts in relation to the basic elements of strategic management is not very convincing and it does not offer an individual without a background in strategic management to grasp the basis of what the writer is saying. It is quite ambiguous and there is the need for further analysis of the various descriptions of basic issues and matters. The expressions and sentences used are not very understandable and do not link up to communicate the main essence of the paper which is about how the concept of strategy evolved from the general approach to the dynamic approach. This raises the second point. Secondly, the contrast between traditionalist approaches and modern approaches which sets the stage for dynamic approaches does not sound very strong and convincing. It is not very clear and does not bring out a notion that gives a very clear picture of the different components of the approaches used in strategic management. It will be very much better to write a last paragraph that will summarize the introduction, and clearly outline the essence of the study which focuses on the evolution from traditional tools for strategy to a dynamic approach. Also, the introduction does not really group the various facades within which strategy can be viewed. It only talks about a broad classification of strategies. However, there are numerous facades and angles through which the concept can be identified. Typically, strategy can be viewed in the form of a long-term plan or philosophical framework for a business, it can be seen as a conscious effort to attain a certain target for a business, it can be seen as a tool of top-level management, it can also be seen as a plan in another unit of the business. The areas of strategy that this paper seeks to address should be clearly identified at this point. If the scope of strategy being discussed is defined, the average reader can easily comprehend the essence of the paper. The Introduction fails to practicalize the concept of strategy. It is too abstract and is very much theoretical in outlook. This therefore means that a reader can hardly understand what the writer is trying to put across and there is the need for the introduction to be adjusted to accommodate a wide array of stakeholders who might read the paper. This could be achieved if the major prompters of strategy: emergent, conscious and resource-based are clearly identified and defined. The last paragraph of the Introduction rightly examines the need for dynamic approaches to enhance the traditional approaches to strategy. This is a very good effort but the writer can resonate with the reader better if he could define the traditional approaches clearly and describe further, what makes them fail in the dynamic business environment. This can set the stage for a good discussion of the dynamic approach to strategic management. The current introduction does not really disclose much information relevant enough to create the crossroads for the research. Strategy Definitions The writer identifies the different views of strategy. This is very diverse and helps to bring some dynamism to the literature review. The different views touch upon important elements of strategy which are: 1. Long-term 2. Company-wide 3. Top-level Management oriented However, the writer did not spend time to go into these important and critical elements of strategy. The paper will be much more focused if it could discuss these three important elements of strategy to give it a more realistic definition. Also, the way in which the various definitions overlap should be further discussed. Finally, this section should also give an insight into why traditional definitions of strategy have become out-dated and outmoded. This is because the criticism of traditional methods of drawing up business strategy forms the background for the introduction of dynamic strategies. So it is expected that the weaknesses of traditional methods should be discussed at this point. Evolution of Strategy This part of the literature review attempts to identify the way strategy has developed until today. It looks at concepts in management like Taylor's model amongst others to explain how strategy has changed. The analysis of the evolution of strategy seems to be drawn more from management science rather than the evolution of strategy. This portion fails to identify the essence of strategy which is to increase returns and improve the organization holistically. Rather it talks about the basis of management and administration which seem to digress off course. Also, I think that this section could have sounded much better if some mention had been made of military strategy. This is because prior to the 1950s, most management thinkers hardly mentioned strategy in relation to businesses. The commonest way strategy was used at that time was in the military. Notably, the Second World War focused on military strategy and superiority in wars. Thus no meaningful discussion of the evolution of strategy can go on without relating strategy with the world of military science. No mention is made of strategy in relation to its three major components: long-term planning, organization-wide planning and top-level management. The approach of examining the theoretical side of strategy is quite problematic since it lacks a practicality. The final aspect of this section of the literature review identifies various tools of management science for the improvement of efficiency and effectiveness. However, it lacks the ability to identify how the various tools comes together to enable businesses to match their resources with the external environment. The paper is about strategy and I believe that the introduction of the tools of management science is to elaborate on how traditional approaches to strategy operates. It will be much better if the writer makes a conscious effort to link this section on management science with traditional approaches to strategy. Again, the problem of the lack of clarity is a major problem at this point of the essay. The various components of management science are not convincingly linked with business strategy as defined in the paragraph above. Strategic Planning This portion discusses how strategy is carried out. It is very well done and it brings out the main components and processes in strategic planning. It is a very good effort to investigate how strategy is utilized in businesses. It identifies the various stages in strategic planning as by Lindgrin & Spanberg (1981) which clearly defines the stages in making strategies. It also discusses Porter's definition of SWOT analysis and how it aids strategic planning. Phase of Generalization This section of the literature review attempts to identify the ways in which strategic planning processes and systems are put to use to attain results for businesses. This is very well done. However, more re-reading and clarity of expression and linkage to the larger picture can improve this section tremendously. This portion touches briefly on popular tools for strategic formulation and implementation like the Growth/Share Matrix and ADL tools that can help in taking decisions in strategy. These tools must be connected strongly with traditional approaches and a hint on their limitations will be very helpful. Competitive Advantage The writer cleverly examines one of the important aspects of strategic management. This is quite well done. Porter's definitions of competitive advantage is explored in-depth and this comes with a lot of clarity. However, the writer introduces a criticism of structured strategic planning raised by Kay (1993). This criticism is not clearly explained by the writer. This leaves the reader confused about where the writer stands on the subject and it can affect the meaning it seeks to convey to the reader. This further explanation needs to be linked with how competitive advantage is derived and arranged and from there, the writer can identify why Kay's criticism makes sense or not. The writer also raises two forms of competitive advantage: long-term and short-term. However, little is done to explain them or link them with strategy. The writer then goes on to make a very good introduction of the resource-based strategy. It is a very good work because he summarizes the elements of the resource-based approach to strategy as it was put forward by Grant exhaustively. In closing this section though, the writer mentions the 7-S but he fails to define and relate them exhaustively with strategy. It will be much better if the 7-S were explained and each component described briefly. Strategy Processes This segment sought to explore strategy further. It is very well written because it brings a practical aspect of strategy to bear – competitive advantage, and this is done in addition to planning and implementation of strategy. Another limitation of strategy is examined in this section - uncertainty. However, there is the need to explain the role of uncertainties in affecting structured strategies. Although this segment brings the reader some awareness of the limitations of traditional strategic management, it does not clearly mention it. This section should emphasize more on traditional strategy and from there build on the need for dynamic strategies which is in the next section. Dynamic Strategy The writer does a lot of work identifying the challenges of strategic planning and implementation in today's world. The critique here is done very well and it is highly commendable. It touches on the practical difficulties businesses fail in planning and implementing strategies and brings out very realistic issues and situations. The writer brings to bear the criticisms and limitations of traditional strategy put forward by Mintzberg, Ansoff and other classical writers in the field of strategy exhaustively. Moving Towards Dynamic Strategic Management In addressing the need for a dynamic approach, the writer states the weaknesses of using centralized systems for strategic planning and limitations. The writer goes on to discuss 'individual responsibilities' as a preferred approach rather than a centralized approach to strategy. It will be more appropriate to include the concept of strategic business units in addition to individual responsibilities. This is because maintaining strategic business units seems to be the best option in the place of the centralized system. This is also superior to the individualistic approach which can lead to chaos. In practice, I realize that Strategic Business Units enables various components and departments of businesses to operate with some level of autonomy under a given manager who has subordinates who works with him or her. Using the word 'individualistic' without mentioning the conception of 'strategic business units' brings some level of ambiguity. Individualistic can be construed as having individuals operating alone with no supervision or connection with an overall sense of purpose. However, discussing this section in relation to strategic business units might be easier to connect with dynamism in strategic management. The writer goes on to give five cogent reasons from numerous strategy writers that justify the need to move from a corporate approach to strategy to an individual approach. This is an excellent work since it identifies very good reasons for the change to be made in organizations. The writer goes further to identify seven important points meant to be used for structured strategic management in a dynamic environment. This is accurately explained and reflects very practical steps for the handling of strategy. Conclusions The conclusion talks about the development of strategic management and it is very logical and reflects the realities on the ground, ie it focuses on how it began as management ideas and how it became processes and how it needs to be dynamic in today's world. It also mentions the practical weaknesses of using the traditional strategic management systems and its failure to forecast and accommodate emergent events. The main findings and conclusions will need to be presented in the abstract. Conclusion of Report The main findings relate to the abstract, introduction and the definition of the scope of certain components discussed like strategy and management, and the lapses in the discussion of the limitations of the description of the evolution of traditional approaches to a dynamic approach. Read More