The accumulative factors which serve to determine the content of a given management or business strategy have long been the main topic of concerted academic research. Above all, business and organizations rely closely on the presence of clearly defined strategy which is founded on a powerful content (Sadler & Craig, 2003). Therefore, not only is this content of proposed or effective strategy pivotal, ensuring that strategy content is shaped on the perfect foundations for the company in question is reliant on other factors which happen both in the formulation and implantation of strategy. The central debate which has taken place in recent years is whether it's strategy process or strategy content which ensures the best effects in terms of strategy content (Eden & Ackermann, 1998). With all this, the purpose of this work is to critically examine and evaluate the value of both strategy process and strategy context in deciding effective strategy content. It will be shown that both strategy process and strategy context have numerous benefits in terms of providing effective strategy content. However, both these practical understandings of strategy suffer from defects. Consequently, the essential finish of the work is that collaboration between process and framework is the best method through which to ensure effective strategy content. However, forging such collaboration remains a difficult undertaking.
Firstly, it is advisable to format some definitional variables so that later analysis is dependant on an effective analytical foundation. So, strategy process denotes the fundamental processes by which strategy happens, i. e. content (Chakravarthy, 2003). Strategy process thus carries a variety of different factors including, cognitive, politics and interpersonal factors (Chakravarthy, 2003). Therefore, the process through which a strategy is shaped and designed is argued to be central to the eventual content of the strategy itself. Additionally, where strategy process highlights the structural features of the process towards strategy, the idea of strategy framework centres on the environmental surroundings where the organization resides (Marx, 2004). Thus, strategy context is heavily reliant on the understanding of how environments impact the formation of strategy and exactly how different actors in proper planning impact upon that environment and the consequent formation of strategy, i. e. content.
Therefore, you'll be able to see the degree to which strategy process and framework differ in the methodology they adopt to the formation of strategy content. In offering effective conclusions about the need for each view in conditions of deciding strategy content, it is necessary to asses each singularly so the relative advantages of each strategy can be assessed.
Using strategy process as the theoretical and functional base for strategy content has lots of benefits. Thus, one can certainly proffer the assumption that effective strategy process is pivotal in making certain audio content occurs. Chakravarthy (2003) shows that an efficient structural process set up by the higher echelons of management in the company produces clarity along the way, which means that all actors in the company are dually aware of their own role along the way, whilst all together understanding the broader processes involved. However, it's important to note that a fair degree of academic divergence prevails as to whether strategy process can be related to leading management engender arranged. Chakravarthy (2003, p. 12) addresses this divergence by requesting, "is strategy emergent or prepared?" Quarrels can be made which suggest strategy can be both emergent and prepared and indeed, Chakravarthy (2003) highlights that the necessity to positively plan a strategic approach differs considerably depending on firm involved. However, if we are to conclude that strategy can be organized, then ensuring a highly effective structural process to strategy would seem to be a pretty effective way of deciding content. Thus, strategy process as a functional and structural phenomenon can be effective in determining the sort of content a particular firm wishes to determine in their tactical business management.
Nonetheless, it is plainly problematic to suggest that strategy content is solely dependant on a top-down process which eventually emanates from higher levels of management within a company (Sadler & Craig, 2003). As suggested above, you'll be able to account for diversity in the establishment of strategy process and thus effectively conceptualise the roles of different stars for the reason that process. However, one must question whether strategy process in a complex and diverse organization can be carried out on the basis of individual endeavour or that of a tiny group. Clearly much of this depends on the type of the company involved; however, it isn't difficult to dispute the benefits of a collaborative method of strategy within a firm. Thus, strategy process is important for identifying strategy content only when the procedure is founded on a broad and encompassing basis.
In addition, some commentators have advised that strategy process is so complicated and diverse that it is difficult to offer succinct and verifiable bottom line on how to place such process in place, along with ascertaining the potency of the process. Szulanski at al (2005) highlight this issue by emphasising the degree to which no effective contract has been come to in the academic fraternity in relation to strategy process. Thus, it is difficult to see exactly what strategy process is and what it is not. Indeed, at which point does indeed strategy process start and end? In addition, however the above advice hinted at a cultural, cognitive and political base for strategy process, one feels that environmentally friendly issues which invariably affect strategy formulation and execution in a firm can't be effectively ascertained with out a specific concentrate on such issues. Thus, this seems a advisable period to being the diagnosis of strategy framework and the value it includes for deciding content.
Whereas strategy process in a few form or another is definitely the sign of business management, strategy framework is a more recent happening (Marx, 2004). As advised above, the framework in which a firm's strategy is suggested, formulated and carried out is heavily reliant on ensuring an efficient understanding of environmentally friendly factors that are specific to the company in question. Therefore, strategy context is actually reliant on the measure of sociological understanding as to how different stars in the organization interact with one another. Given that effective human conversation is pivotal in all firms no matter size, it is good to conclude that an understanding of the context where strategy occurs would be beneficial for the firm. Moreover, the context in which strategy occurs and the impact such context has on the specific strategic approach implemented is hugely relevant in terms of evaluating and accounting for the eventual content which results (Marx, 2004). Thus, as Eden & Ackerman (1998) suggest, it is difficult to see how the actual content of a technique could be effectively identified without some way of measuring recourse to the framework where the strategy is taking place.
However, there is a strong way of measuring divergence in the sensible implementation of a strategy context method of strategy management within a huge and diverse firm. For instance, if someone who is very important to the context environment process within a firm decides to leave, then there is an inevitable vacuum which has to be filled. Thus, as Eden & Ackerman (1998, p. 156) point out, "some strategy framework setters will have vanished from the arena altogether. . . while others will have lost their salience and power". As such, you'll be able to see the level to which strategy context is a constantly changing phenomenon. This may well be beneficial for a firm in terms of adapting to modifications running a business environment; however, accurately making sure continuity in this content of a steady business strategy may be more problematic.
The various discussions and examinations above have outlined the essential distinctions between the approaches of strategy process and strategy context in determining strategy content. What is clear is a relative amount of divergence exists between your two methods, with each having relative benefits and pitfalls in conditions of effectively identifying the eventual content of strategy. However, considering that both positive and negative issues are present in both approaches, it is not difficult to start to see the potential benefits in implementing a dual method of strategic management. In particular, although ensuring a thorough and effective strategy process is plainly important for multiple reasons, it is difficult to see how such an activity could succeed without some measure of recourse to environmentally friendly factors which impact upon the firm involved. Thus, this work concludes that some measure of duality between process and framework acts the most effective way of determining proper content. Naturally, lots of potential problems emerge from such an approach, both in the theoretical and practical sense. For example, if a mixed approach is undertaken, which should become the starting point of strategy? Also, which procedure should assume increased preponderance and importance in conditions of identifying eventual content? Such matters evidently of matter to the dual strategy, however, this does indeed little to detract from the fact that numerous benefits can be produced from utilising both process and context in the formulation and implementation of strategy content in proper management.