1. Strategic formulation or planning

The formulation of a strategy involves analyzing the ecosystem in which the organization operates, and then making a series of strategic decisions about how the organization will compete. It ends with a series of goals or objectives and measures that the organization follows.

Strategic planning is analytical in nature and refers to the formalized procedures for producing information and analyzes used for strategic thinking, which synthesizes information and results in a strategy. It also refers to the control mechanisms used to implement the strategy once it has been determined. In other words, strategic planning occurs around the process of strategy formation.[4]Some strategic plans sometimes become strategic purposes, which is a plan that unites the organization around an unalterable commitment—often obsessive—to do whatever is necessary in order to acquire resources and achieve goals.[11]​.

Porter wrote in 1980 that formulating a competitive strategy includes consideration of key elements:

The first two elements are related to internal factors of the company, while the last is related to external factors.[12]​.

There are many analytical schemes that attempt to organize the strategic planning process. Some examples are:

Some strategists use scenario planning techniques to manage changes. The way Peter Schwartz stated it in 1991 is that the results cannot be known and therefore the sources of competitive advantages cannot be predetermined.[13]​ The business ecosystem changes rapidly and is uncertain, that is what scenario planning is used for. In this technique, different scenarios with different results are developed, their implications and the possibility of their occurrence are evaluated. According to Pierre Wack, scenario planning is about perspective and not just formal analysis of numbers.[14]​.

Some business planners are beginning to use a complexity theory approach. Complexity can be seen as chaos with a pinch of order. Chaos theory analyzes turbulent systems that quickly tend to disorder. Complexity is not entirely unpredictable, it involves multiple agents interacting in such a way that a certain structure appears.

Strategic thinking involves the generation and application of unique business perspectives with the intention of creating competitive advantages for a company. It involves challenging the assumptions that underpin the company's current strategy and value proposition. Mintzberg wrote in 1994 that it is more about synthesis (connecting the dots) than analysis (finding the dots). It is about "capturing what the manager learns from various sources and synthesizing that information into a vision that sets the direction the business should follow." Mintzberg commented that strategic thinking is the critical part of formulating a strategy.[15]​.

General Andre Beaufre wrote in 1963 that strategic thinking "is a mental process, which must be able to synthesize both psychological and material information. The strategist must have a great capacity for analysis and synthesis; analysis is necessary to construct the information on which he will make his diagnosis using synthesis. - and the diagnosis itself is equivalent to a choice between alternatives of action."[16]

Will Multaster[17]​ argued that, although much research and creative thinking has been devoted to the generation of alternative strategies, very little work has been done on what influences the quality of strategic decision making and the effectiveness with which they are implemented. The management forces scheme identifies 11 forces that must be incorporated into the decision-making and strategic implementation processes. The 11 forces are: Time; Opposition forces; Policy; Perception; Holistic effects; Added value; Incentives; Learning capabilities; Opportunity cost; Risk and Style.

They are based on the ecosystem landscape and are answers to strategic questions about how the organization will compete, for example:

The answers to these and many other questions result in the organization's strategy and a series of short and long-term objectives.[4]​.

That is, here the strategic vision, mission, and essential values ​​of the organization will be developed.

Strategy is understood as "the determination of the basic long-term objectives of a company as well as the distribution of the resources necessary to achieve those objectives."[19]​ It functions to focus effort, define or clarify an organization, and provide consistency or guidance in response to the environment in which it works.[20]​.

That is, it provides direction to the company that involves organizational objectives, development policies and plans designed to achieve the objectives, and deals with the distribution of resources to implement the plans.

Michael Porter identifies three principles as part of the strategic game:

Dr. Vladimir Kvint defines strategy as "a system for finding, formulating and developing a doctrine that ensures long-term success."[22]​.

Corporate strategy involves answering a key question: "What business should we be in?" and business strategy involves the question "How should we compete in this business?"[23]​.

While strategies are established to set direction, focus efforts, define or clarify the organization, and provide consistency or guidance in response to the environment, there are also certain elements that are minimized or even excluded. Mintzberg wrote in 1987: "Strategy is a categorization scheme by which incoming stimuli can be ordered and delivered." A strategy guides the organization in a certain way or in a particular direction, that direction does not always coincide and fit into the business ecosystem. Mintzberg commented: "Strategy is a force that resists change, not encourages it."[24]

In 2000, Gary Hamel coined the term strategic convergence to explain the limited range of strategies used by rivals in different circumstances. He lamented that successful strategies are imitated by companies that do not understand how strategy works. Woodhouse and Collingridge suggested that the essence of being "strategic" lies in the ability to engage in intelligent "trial and error" rather than strictly adhering to strategic plans. The strategy should be seen as a general guide rather than a pattern with specific steps.[27]​ Means are just as likely to determine ends as ends are to determine means.[28]​ The objectives that an organization wishes to pursue are limited by the feasibility of their implementation and, in turn, the feasibility of implementation depends on the availability of resources.

The managerial purpose of setting objectives is to translate the vision and mission into specific performance objectives. Well-established objectives are specific, quantifiable or measurable, and contain a deadline for their achievement. Objectives are performance goals of an organization; That is, they are the results and products that the administration wishes to achieve. Two very different types of performance goals are required: those that refer to financial performance and those that refer to strategic performance. Financial objectives communicate management's financial goals (e.g. x percentage increase in annual revenue). Strategic objectives refer to the marketing position and competitive vitality of the company (e.g. Gain x percentage of market share).[11]​.

Policies are the mechanisms designed to achieve annual objectives. They consist of guidelines, standards and procedures that support efforts to achieve these goals. Its main function is to guide decision making and manage recurring situations within the organization.

Generally, policies are developed based on different areas, such as administration, marketing, finance and accounting, production and operations, research and development, as well as information systems management. They can be established at the corporate level, applying to all divisions of the company, or focus on a specific division. Likewise, they can adapt to different functional levels and regulate certain operational activities or specific departments.

Like annual objectives, policies play a fundamental role in the implementation of strategies, since they define the organization's expectations regarding its employees and managers. Its application promotes coherence and coordination both within and between departments.[1]​.

2. Implementation

Implementation is the second strategic management process which involves decisions regarding organizational resources designated to carry out the strategy. It results in the way resources are structured, leadership agreements, communication, incentives and monitoring mechanisms to record progress.[4]​.

Then, once the strategy is determined, various goals are established to chart the course of the organization, measure performance, and monitor the implementation of the strategy. Tools like the Balanced Scorecard and strategy maps help crystallize strategy. They relate key measures of success and performance in the strategy. These tools measure financial, organizational, marketing, production, and innovation development. Advances in information technologies and data availability allow more information to be collected about performance, thus allowing managers to have a much more analytical perspective of their businesses.

The strategy can also be organized as a series of initiatives or programs, each referring to one or more projects. Various monitoring and feedback mechanisms such as meetings between division managers can also be implemented.

Executing day-to-day operations in the company is known as operational management or specific terms for each department such as: logistics management or marketing management, which are carried out once the strategic management decisions have been implemented.[4]​.

3. Control and evaluation

A key component to strategic management is evaluation. There are different ways to evaluate whether strategic priorities and plans have been achieved. One method is Robert Stake's responsive evaluation.[29] Responsive evaluation provides a humanistic and naturalistic approach to program evaluation. Beyond objective evaluation, responsive evaluation considers the context and history of the program, as well as the conditions and transactions between participants.

Contenido

Varias cuestiones con implicancia estratégica han surgido en la industria a través de los años. Estos incluyen: el cambio del modelo enfocado en la producción al modelo enfocado en el cliente, el incremento en el uso del modelo de auto-servicio para reducir los costos, cambios en la cadena de valor o en la estructura corporativa debido a la globalización y el internet.

Una definición de globalización hace referencia a la integración de las economías debido a la innovación tecnológica y en cadena de suministro. Las compañías ya no requieren estar integradas verticalmente (diseñar, producir, ensamblar y vender). En otras palabras, la cadena de valor de un producto puede no estar del todo dentro de una sola compañía. Muchas compañías eligen utilizar el método de subcontratación u outsourcing para los procesos de producción y mantienen únicamente los procesos de diseño y ventas dentro de la organización.[21]​.

Para una empresa, la competitividad se define como la capacidad de poder suministrar un bien (producto o servicio) de una cierta calidad a un precio menor que el de las empresas con las cuales compite.

El internet ha empoderado a los consumidores y ha conectado a compradores con vendedores reduciendo drásticamente los costos por transacción, creando plataformas mucho más robustas para comprar y vender bienes y servicios. Algunos ejemplos son las páginas de subastas en línea, servicios de citas por internet o vendedores de libros. En muchas industrias, el internet ha alterado el panorama competitivo. Los servicios que solían ser ofrecidos dentro de una misma organización ahora son cubiertos por terceros.[30]​.

El autor Phillip Evans dijo en 2013 que las redes están retando las jerarquías tradicionales. Las cadenas de valor también se están rompiendo. La información es libre o tiene un muy bajo costo y por lo tanto es muy difícil que compañías integradas de manera vertical se mantengan intactas. Evans dijo que la competencia está evolucionando de un modelo vertical a uno horizontal. Utilizó Wikipedia como un ejemplo de una red que ha desafiado el modelo de negocio tradicional de la enciclopedia.[31]​ Evans predijo la emergencia de una nueva forma de organización industrial llamada un "stack" o montón en la cual los competidores dependen de una plataforma común a partir de la cual construyen su propia cadena de valor.

La creatividad es la capacidad de crear nuevas ideas o conceptos, de nuevas asociaciones entre ideas y conceptos conocidos, que habitualmente producen soluciones originales. La creatividad es sinónimo del "pensamiento original", la "imaginación constructiva", el "pensamiento divergente" o el "pensamiento creativo".

La innovación es un proceso que introduce novedades y que se refiere a modificar elementos ya existentes con el fin de mejorarlos, aunque también es posible en la implementación de elementos totalmente nuevos. En el sentido estricto, por otro lado, se dice que de las ideas solo pueden resultar innovadoras luego de que ellas se implementen como nuevos productos, servicios, o procedimientos que realmente encuentren una aplicación exitosa, imponiéndose en el mercado a través de la difusión "Difusión (negocios)").

El conflicto es una situación en la cual dos o más personas con intereses distintos entran en confrontación, oposición o emprenden acciones mutuamente antagonistas, con el objetivo de dañar, eliminar a la parte rival o arrebatarle poder "Poder (social y político)") de algún tipo en favor de la propia persona o grupo.

La negociación es un proceso de discusión que se establece entre las partes, por medio de representantes si son grupos, y cuyo objetivo es el de llegar a un acuerdo aceptable para todos.

Un tema en la competencia estratégica ha sido la tendencia al autoservicio. Gracias a la tecnología el cliente toma un rol que previamente era desempeñado por un trabajador para reducir los costos.[21]​ Algunos ejemplos son:.

Characteristics of successful companies

James Collins and Jerry Porras spent years conducting empirical research into what makes a successful company. Six years of research resulted in a key principle behind 19 successful companies they studied: They all foster and preserve a core ideology that governs the company. Although strategies and tactics change daily, companies always maintained the same values. These core values ​​encourage employees to build an organization that lasts. In Built to Last (1994) they explain that the objectives of short-term profits, cost cutting and restructuring do not stimulate employees dedicated to building a company that lasts.[33] In 2000 Collins described the attitude of Silicon Valley companies, a culture where technological change inhibits long-term approaches.

Arie de Geus (1997) conducted a similar study and obtained similar results.[34]​ He identified 4 key characteristics that have thrived for 50 years or more:.

A company with these key characteristics is called a living company because it has the ability to sustain itself. If a company emphasizes knowledge rather than finance, and sees itself as a community of people, it has the potential to be large and last for decades. An organization is an organic entity capable of learning and creating its own processes and goals.[34]​.

Will Mulcaster[35]​ suggests that companies encourage dialogue around the following questions:

Structure of strategy studies

The definition of strategy in academic literature is addressed from three approaches: its historical development, theoretical debates and its analysis in empirical publications.

Historically, strategy has been understood as a set of actions or plans designed to achieve advantage for the actors involved.

The theoretical debate oscillates between strategy as structured planning and strategy as a dynamic process in constant evolution.

The study of strategy has been supported by numerous academic publications in prestigious journals, where real cases and empirical data are examined. These studies have allowed us to validate or refute various definitions and strategic approaches.

Empirical studies have addressed topics such as:

Empirical studies have made it possible to contrast strategic theories with real evidence, providing nuances and adjustments to existing models.[36]​.

Henry Mintzberg's classification: three perspectives and ten schools

Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (1998) structure strategic thinking in three paradigmatic perspectives, under which ten schools are deployed that range from rationalist models to adaptive perspectives:

Epistemological perspectives

According to Martinet (1996, 1997):

Emphasizes strategic intentionality, where objectives guide actions. Example: Kaplan and Norton's (1996) balanced scorecard, which translates vision into operational metrics.

Examines the interaction of actors (e.g., managers, employees, unions) in the formation of strategies. Use ethnographic methods to understand informal power dynamics.

Study how strategic discourse (e.g., missions, slogans) shapes identities and legitimizes decisions. Foucault (1975) influences this critical look at symbolic power.

Inspired by biology, it analyzes organizational symbioses (e.g., industrial clusters "Cluster (industry)") and competition for scarce resources. Related to the theory of complex systems.

Strategic dualism.

According to Carrance (1986) and Ramanantsoa (1997):.

Based on the optimization of resources, it assumes perfect information and absolute rationality. Quantitative models (e.g., portfolio analysis) dominate this school.

Recognizes cognitive and political limitations. Cyert and March (1963) introduce the concept of bounded rationality, where decisions are satisfactory, not optimal.

Sociological schools.

According to Whittington (2002):

Aligned with shareholder capitalism, it prioritizes maximizing value for shareholders. Example: cost reduction strategies to increase dividends.

Influenced by Darwin, she maintains that the market selects fittest organizations. Hamel and Prahalad (1994) criticize this passive approach, promoting proactive reinvention.

It combines logical incrementalism (Quinn, 1980) with political negotiation. Strategies emerge from gradual adjustments, not master plans.

Contextualize the strategy in cultural systems (e.g.: Asian vs. Western capitalisms). Success depends on aligning with social norms, not just financial metrics.

Pragmatic schools.

According to Van der Heijden (1998):

Use predictive models (e.g., Monte Carlo simulations) to reduce uncertainty. Dominant in stable sectors (e.g. utilities).

Embrace complexity and chaos, promoting rapid experimentation (e.g., tech startups). Related to the pivot effect in lean models.

Integrates creative thinking and action, through cycles of reflection-practice (e.g., agile methodologies). Nonaka (1995) exemplifies this with the SECI model (Socialization - Externalization - Combination - Internalization).[37]​[38]​[39]​.

Approaches

Strategy like:

In 1990, Peter Senge popularized the notion of a "learning organization."[40] The theory is that obtaining and analyzing information is an essential requirement for a business to be successful in the information age. To do this, Senge commented that an organization must be structured in such a way that:[41]​.

Senge identified 5 disciplines of a learning organization:

Geoffrey Moore (1991) and R. Frank and P. Cook[42]​ also detected a change in the nature of competition. Markets driven by technical standards or "network effects" can give dominant companies near-monopoly status.[43] It is also true in industries where interoperability requires compatibility between users. Some examples are Internet Explorer and Amazon who were pioneers and leaders in their respective industries. The case of Internet Explorer's decline demonstrates how dominance may only be temporary.

In 1969, Peter Drucker coined the phrase Age of Discontinuity to describe the way change affects people's lives.[44]​ In an era of continuity, one can attempt to predict the future based on events in the past. But according to Drucker, we are now in an era of discontinuity and it is not effective to try to extrapolate. He identifies 4 sources of discontinuity: technologies, globalization, cultural pluralism and knowledge capital.

In 1970, Alvin Toffler in Future Shock described a trend toward accelerated rates of change.[45] He illustrated how social and technical phenomena are shorter in duration with each generation and questioned society's ability to handle the confusion and anxiety this can cause. In the past, periods of change were always followed by times of stability. This allowed society to assimilate the previous change before a new one occurred. But these periods of stability disappeared at the end of the century. In 1988 in The Third Wave, Toffler characterized this constant change as the third phase of civilization (the first two phases were the agricultural wave and the industrial wave).[46]​.

In 1978, Derek F. Abell (Abell, D. 1978) described "strategic windows" and highlighted the importance of timing any strategy well. This led some strategists to use planned obsolescence within their strategies.[47]​.

In 1983, Noel Tichy wrote that we are creatures of habit and tend to repeat what we feel comfortable with.[48]​ He wrote that it is a trap that limits our creativity and stops us from exploring new ideas. He developed a systematic method for managing change that involves looking at any new situation from 3 angles: technical and production, political and resource distribution, and corporate culture.

In 1989, Charles Handy identified two types of change.[49] "Strategic drift" is a gradual change that occurs so subtly that it is imperceptible until it is too late. On the other hand, "transformational change" is sudden and radical. It is typically caused by discontinuities in the business ecosystem. The point at which a new trend is created was called the "strategic inflection point" by Andy Grove. Turning points can be subtle or radical.

La disciplina de la gestión estratégica se originó en las décadas de 1950 y de 1960. Entre los numerosos contribuidores, los más influyentes fueron Peter Drucker, Philip Selznick, Alfred Chandler, Igor Ansoff, y Bruce Henderson.[5]​ La disciplina surge de pensamientos anteriores y textos sobre estrategia que datan a miles de años atrás. Previo a 1960, el término "estrategia" era usado principalmente con relación a la guerra o la política, pero no a los negocios.[95]​ Muchas compañías construyeron funciones de planeación estratégica para desarrollar y ejecutar los procesos de formulación e implementación durante la década de 1960.[101]​.

Peter Drucker fue un teórico de la gestión y autor de docenas de libros con una trayectoria de 5 décadas. Realizó preguntas estratégicas fundamentales en un libro de 1954 titulado The Practice of Management (La práctica de la Administración) escribiendo: "...la primera responsabilidad de la alta gerencia es realizar la pregunta '¿Qué es nuestro negocio?' y asegurarse de estudiarla cuidadosamente y responderla correctamente." Escribió que la respuesta era determinada por el cliente. Recomendó 8 áreas en las cuales se deben colocar objetivos; posicionamiento en el mercado, innovación, productividad, recursos físicos y financieros, desempeño y actitud de los trabajadores, rentabilidad, desempeño y desarrollo de la gerencia y responsabilidad pública.[102]​.

En 1957, Philip Selznick utilizó inicialmente el término "competencia distintiva" refiriéndose a como la Marina (Navy) se trataba de diferenciar de los otros servicios.[5]​ También formalizó la idea de combinar los factores internos de la organización con las circunstancias externas.[103]​ Esta idea fundamental fue desarrollada más a profundidad por Kenneth R. Andrews en 1963 en lo que conocemos como análisis FODA en el cual se evalúan las fortalezas y debilidades de la compañía así como las oportunidades y amenazas en el ecosistema de negocio.[5]​.

Alfred Chandler reconoció la importancia de coordinar la actividad gerencial bajo una sola estrategia. Las interacciones entre departamentos eran manejadas lipicamente por directivos que transmitían la información entre departamentos. Chandler resaltó la importancia de tomar una perspectiva a largo plazo cuando se mira hacia el futuro. En su obra de 1962 Strategy and Structure, o Estrategia y Estructura, Chandler mostró que una estrategia coordinada a largo plazo era necesaria para darle estructura, dirección y enfoque a una compañía. Lo dice de manera concisa “La estructura sigue a la estrategia.” Chandler escribió que:.

Igor Ansoff trabajó con base en las obras de Chandler, agregando conceptos e inventando vocabulario. Desarrolló una matriz que compara las estrategias para la penetración en el mercado, el desarrollo de los productos, el desarrollo del mercado así como la diversificación. (Matriz de Ansoff). En su obra de 1965 Corporate Strategy, o Estrategia Corporativa, desarrolló un análisis de brechas (Gap) para clarificar la brecha entre la realidad actual y los objetivos y para desarrollar lo que llamó “acciones de reducción de brecha”.[104]​ Ansoff escribió que le gestión estratégica tenía 3 partes: planeación estratégica; la habilidad de una empresa de convertir sus planes en realidad; y la habilidad de una empresa de manejar su propia resistencia interna al cambio.[105]​.

Bruce Henderson, fundador del Boston Consulting Group, escribió acerca del concepto de curva de experiencia en 1968. La curva de experiencia se refiere a una hipótesis de que los costos de producción por unidad se reducen entre 20-30% cada que la producción total se duplica. Esto apoyó al argumento de alcanzar mayor porción del mercado y economías de escala.[106]​.

Porter escribió en 1980 que las compañías debían tomar decisiones acerca de su alcance y del tipo de ventaja competitiva que deseaban tener; costo menor o diferenciación. La idea de la estrategia dirigida a ciertas industrias y clientes en particular con una oferta con diferenciación se desarrolló a partir de la estrategia influenciada por la curva de aprendizaje, el cual se enfocaba en mayor escala y menor costo.[12]​ Porter ajustó el paradigma de estrategia de nuevo en 1985, escribiendo que un desempeño superior de los procesos y actividades de una organización como parte de su cadena de valor es la base de la ventaja competitiva.[107]​.

En 1988, Henry Mintzberg describió definiciones y perspectivas del término estrategia reflejadas tanto en la investigación académica como en la práctica.[108]​[109]​ Examinó el proceso estratégico y concluyó que era mucho más fluido e impredecible de lo que pensaba la gente por esta razón concluyó que hay 5 tipos diferentes de estrategias:.

Michael Porter definió estrategia en 1980 como "... fórmula extensa de cómo un negocio va a competir, cuáles deberían ser sus objetivos, qué políticas serán necesarias para llegar a esos objetivos" y la "...combinación de los fines para los cuales trabaja la organización y los medios con los cuales llegará ahí." Comentó que "La esencia de formular una estrategia competitiva está en relacionar a una compañía con su ecosistema."[12]​.

Shift in focus from production to marketing

There was also a change in how companies competed, specifically a change from a production focus to a market focus. The concept of strategy that predominated until the 1950s was to create a product with high technical quality. If you created a product that worked well and lasted well, it was assumed that you would not have profitability difficulties. This was known as production orientation. Henry Ford famously said about the Model T car: "A customer can have his car any color he wants, as long as he wants it to be black."[110]

Management theorist Peter F Drucker wrote in 1954 that the customer was what defines the type of business an organization is in.[18] In 1960, Theodore Levitt argued that instead of making products and then trying to sell them to the customer, businesses should start with the customer, find out what they want, and then produce for them. The fallacy of production orientation was also referred to as marketing myopia in an article of the same name by Levitt.[111]​.

Over time, the customer became the force behind strategic decisions in business. This marketing concept has been reformulated under different names such as marketing orientation, customer orientation, customer intimacy, customer focus, market focus, etc.

Jim Collins wrote in 1997 that the strategic framework expands by focusing on why a company exists rather than what the company does. In 2001, he recommended that organizations define themselves based on 3 key questions:

Nature of the strategy

In 1985, Professor Ellen Earle-Chaffee summarized what he thought were the main elements of strategic management theory, writing that strategic management:[23]​.

Chaffee wrote that there were 3 strategy models, which were not mutually exclusive:.

El progreso de la estrategia desde 1960 puede ser trazado desde una variedad de conceptos introducidos por académicos y consultores. Estos reflejan un enface en costos, competencia y clientes. Las industrias y organizaciones se analizaron en unidades de negocio, actividades, procesos e individuos en búsqueda de fuentes para generar una ventaja competitiva.[95]​.

SWOT Analysis

In the 1960s, the Harvard Business School business policy course included the concept of bringing together a company's internal strengths and weaknesses with its ecosystem (external opportunities and threats) in the context of its objectives. This scheme is known as SWOT. Kenneth R. Andrews helped popularize the scheme during a conference in 1963 and it continues to be used frequently today.[5]​.

Experience curve

The experience curve was developed by the Boston Consulting Group in 1966.[95] It is a hypothesis that the total number of costs per unit is reduced by 15-25% each time cumulative production doubles. It has been shaped empirically by some companies throughout various points in their history.[113] Cost reduction is due to a wide variety of factors such as the learning curve, the substitution of labor with automation, and technological sophistication. Author Walter Kiechel wrote:

Prior to 1960, the word competition rarely appeared in American literature; companies then faced considerably less competition. Later, the experience curve was a basis for the retailing of business ideas, helping to develop the business consulting industry.[95]​.

Corporate strategy and portfolio theory

The concept of a corporation as a portfolio of business units, with each expressed graphically based on its market share and industry growth, was summarized in the growth and share matrix developed by the Boston Consulting Group around 1970. By 1979, a study estimated that 45% of Fortune 500 companies (the 500 most capitalized American companies) used some variation of the matrix within their strategic planning. This scheme helped companies decide where to invest their resources and what businesses to give up.[95]​.

Porter wrote in 1987 that corporate strategy involves two questions: 1) What business should the corporation be in? and 2) How should business units be managed? He mentioned four concepts of corporate strategy:[114]​.

Other techniques were developed to analyze the relationships between portfolio elements. The growth and participation matrix as part of the B.C.G analysis was followed by the McKinsey Matrix developed by General Electric. Companies continued to diversify as conglomerates until the 1980s, where it began to be seen that a portfolio of divisions operating in different industries was more valuable as independent companies, leading to the breakup of the conglomerates.[95]​ The popularity of portfolio theory has waned, however the key dimensions considered remain a central part of strategy creation.[5]​.

Competitive advantage

In 1980, Porter defined the two types of competitive advantage that an organization can have: lower cost or differentiation. This advantage is derived from the attributes that allow a company to outperform its rivals, such as greater positioning, skills or resources. In Porter's perspective, strategic management should be concerned with the development of a competitive advantage.[107]​.

Industry structure and profitability

Porter developed a scheme to analyze the profitability of industries and how those profits are divided among the participants. In his 5 forces analysis he identified the forces that shape the industry and the business ecosystem in which the organization operates. The scheme involves the competitive behavior of rival organizations, the bargaining power of buyers and suppliers, the threats of new competitors to the industry, and the ability of buyers to substitute products. These forces affect the organization's ability to increase prices as well as the costs of raw materials.[12]​.

The 5 forces framework helps describe how a company can use those forces to gain a sustainable competitive advantage, whether that be lower cost or differentiation. Companies can maximize their profitability by competing in industries with favorable structures. Competitors may take actions to increase the overall profitability of the industry or reduce the profitability of certain parts of the industry. Porter modified Chandler's idea that structure follows strategy by introducing a second level of structure in addition to the organizational structure; the structure of the industry.[12]​.

Generic competitive strategies

Porter wrote in 1980 that strategy aims at cost leadership, differentiation or focus.[12] They are known as Porter's 3 generic strategies and can be applied to businesses of any size or shape. Porter said companies must choose only one of the three or risk the business wasting valuable resources. Porter's generic strategies detail the interaction between cost minimization, product differentiation, and market focus strategies.

Porter described an industry with many segments that can be targeted by a company. The width of your target refers to the competitive scope of a business. Acquiring a competitive advantage results from a company's ability to deal with the 5 forces better than its rivals. Porter wrote: "Acquiring a competitive advantage requires that the company make a decision...about the type of advantage it wants to obtain and the extent to which it wants to obtain it." He also wrote: "The two basic types of competitive advantage combined with the range of activities leads to 3 generic strategies to perform better than the average in an industry: cost leadership, differentiation and focus. The focus strategy has two variants: cost-focused and differentiation-focused."[107]

Value chain

Porter's description of the value chain refers to the chain of activities or processes that an organization performs to deliver a product or service with value to the market. This includes functions such as logistics, operations, marketing, sales and service, supported by systems and technological infrastructure. By aligning the value chain with the organization's strategy in a coherent manner, a company can achieve a competitive advantage. Porter also wrote that strategy is a configuration of activities that differentiate a company from its rivals. A robust competitive position is derived from a set of activities that are coherently aligned.[115]​.

Porter wrote in 1985: "Competitive advantage cannot be understood by viewing a company as a single entity. You must look at the activities the company performs in designing, producing, advertising, and delivering its product. Each of these activities can contribute to the company's cost position and create differentiation... the value chain separates the company into its most relevant strategic activities in order to understand cost behavior as well as existing and potential sources of differentiation."[5]

Essential competence

Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad described the idea of ​​core competency in 1990, the idea that every organization has some capability in which it excels and that the business should focus on opportunities in that area, letting others go or using a subcontracting model. The core competency is difficult to duplicate as it involves the skills and coordination of people across a wide variety of functional areas or processes used to deliver value to the customer. By using outsourcing, companies expand the concept of a value chain, with some elements inside the entity and others outside.[116]​ Core competency is part of a branch of strategy called the resource-based view, which postulates that if activities are strategic as indicated in the value chain, then the company's capabilities to learn or adapt are also strategic.[5]​.

Business theory

Peter Drucker wrote in 1994 about the "Theory of Business", which represents the key assumptions of a company's strategy. These assumptions are classified into 3 categories: a) the external ecosystem, including society, market, customers and technology. b) the mission of the organization and c) the core competencies necessary to fulfill the mission. He wrote that a valid business theory has four specifications: 1) Assumptions about the ecosystem, mission, and core competencies must fit reality. 2) Assumptions in all 3 areas must be compatible with each other. 3) The business theory must be understood and known throughout the organization and 4) the business theory must be constantly tested.

He wrote that organizations get into trouble when the assumptions representing theory no longer fit reality. He used an example of retail department stores, where his business theory assumed that people who could spend at department stores would do so. However, many shoppers abandoned department stores and preferred to go to specialty stores outside of shopping centers when time became the main factor.

Drucker described business theory as a hypothesis and a discipline. He recommended systematic diagnostics, monitoring and testing of assumptions to maintain competitiveness.[117][118]​.

1. Strategic formulation or planning

The formulation of a strategy involves analyzing the ecosystem in which the organization operates, and then making a series of strategic decisions about how the organization will compete. It ends with a series of goals or objectives and measures that the organization follows.

Strategic planning is analytical in nature and refers to the formalized procedures for producing information and analyzes used for strategic thinking, which synthesizes information and results in a strategy. It also refers to the control mechanisms used to implement the strategy once it has been determined. In other words, strategic planning occurs around the process of strategy formation.[4]Some strategic plans sometimes become strategic purposes, which is a plan that unites the organization around an unalterable commitment—often obsessive—to do whatever is necessary in order to acquire resources and achieve goals.[11]​.

Porter wrote in 1980 that formulating a competitive strategy includes consideration of key elements:

The first two elements are related to internal factors of the company, while the last is related to external factors.[12]​.

There are many analytical schemes that attempt to organize the strategic planning process. Some examples are:

Some strategists use scenario planning techniques to manage changes. The way Peter Schwartz stated it in 1991 is that the results cannot be known and therefore the sources of competitive advantages cannot be predetermined.[13]​ The business ecosystem changes rapidly and is uncertain, that is what scenario planning is used for. In this technique, different scenarios with different results are developed, their implications and the possibility of their occurrence are evaluated. According to Pierre Wack, scenario planning is about perspective and not just formal analysis of numbers.[14]​.

Some business planners are beginning to use a complexity theory approach. Complexity can be seen as chaos with a pinch of order. Chaos theory analyzes turbulent systems that quickly tend to disorder. Complexity is not entirely unpredictable, it involves multiple agents interacting in such a way that a certain structure appears.

Strategic thinking involves the generation and application of unique business perspectives with the intention of creating competitive advantages for a company. It involves challenging the assumptions that underpin the company's current strategy and value proposition. Mintzberg wrote in 1994 that it is more about synthesis (connecting the dots) than analysis (finding the dots). It is about "capturing what the manager learns from various sources and synthesizing that information into a vision that sets the direction the business should follow." Mintzberg commented that strategic thinking is the critical part of formulating a strategy.[15]​.

General Andre Beaufre wrote in 1963 that strategic thinking "is a mental process, which must be able to synthesize both psychological and material information. The strategist must have a great capacity for analysis and synthesis; analysis is necessary to construct the information on which he will make his diagnosis using synthesis. - and the diagnosis itself is equivalent to a choice between alternatives of action."[16]

Will Multaster[17]​ argued that, although much research and creative thinking has been devoted to the generation of alternative strategies, very little work has been done on what influences the quality of strategic decision making and the effectiveness with which they are implemented. The management forces scheme identifies 11 forces that must be incorporated into the decision-making and strategic implementation processes. The 11 forces are: Time; Opposition forces; Policy; Perception; Holistic effects; Added value; Incentives; Learning capabilities; Opportunity cost; Risk and Style.

They are based on the ecosystem landscape and are answers to strategic questions about how the organization will compete, for example:

The answers to these and many other questions result in the organization's strategy and a series of short and long-term objectives.[4]​.

That is, here the strategic vision, mission, and essential values ​​of the organization will be developed.

Strategy is understood as "the determination of the basic long-term objectives of a company as well as the distribution of the resources necessary to achieve those objectives."[19]​ It functions to focus effort, define or clarify an organization, and provide consistency or guidance in response to the environment in which it works.[20]​.

That is, it provides direction to the company that involves organizational objectives, development policies and plans designed to achieve the objectives, and deals with the distribution of resources to implement the plans.

Michael Porter identifies three principles as part of the strategic game:

Dr. Vladimir Kvint defines strategy as "a system for finding, formulating and developing a doctrine that ensures long-term success."[22]​.

Corporate strategy involves answering a key question: "What business should we be in?" and business strategy involves the question "How should we compete in this business?"[23]​.

While strategies are established to set direction, focus efforts, define or clarify the organization, and provide consistency or guidance in response to the environment, there are also certain elements that are minimized or even excluded. Mintzberg wrote in 1987: "Strategy is a categorization scheme by which incoming stimuli can be ordered and delivered." A strategy guides the organization in a certain way or in a particular direction, that direction does not always coincide and fit into the business ecosystem. Mintzberg commented: "Strategy is a force that resists change, not encourages it."[24]

In 2000, Gary Hamel coined the term strategic convergence to explain the limited range of strategies used by rivals in different circumstances. He lamented that successful strategies are imitated by companies that do not understand how strategy works. Woodhouse and Collingridge suggested that the essence of being "strategic" lies in the ability to engage in intelligent "trial and error" rather than strictly adhering to strategic plans. The strategy should be seen as a general guide rather than a pattern with specific steps.[27]​ Means are just as likely to determine ends as ends are to determine means.[28]​ The objectives that an organization wishes to pursue are limited by the feasibility of their implementation and, in turn, the feasibility of implementation depends on the availability of resources.

The managerial purpose of setting objectives is to translate the vision and mission into specific performance objectives. Well-established objectives are specific, quantifiable or measurable, and contain a deadline for their achievement. Objectives are performance goals of an organization; That is, they are the results and products that the administration wishes to achieve. Two very different types of performance goals are required: those that refer to financial performance and those that refer to strategic performance. Financial objectives communicate management's financial goals (e.g. x percentage increase in annual revenue). Strategic objectives refer to the marketing position and competitive vitality of the company (e.g. Gain x percentage of market share).[11]​.

Policies are the mechanisms designed to achieve annual objectives. They consist of guidelines, standards and procedures that support efforts to achieve these goals. Its main function is to guide decision making and manage recurring situations within the organization.

Generally, policies are developed based on different areas, such as administration, marketing, finance and accounting, production and operations, research and development, as well as information systems management. They can be established at the corporate level, applying to all divisions of the company, or focus on a specific division. Likewise, they can adapt to different functional levels and regulate certain operational activities or specific departments.

Like annual objectives, policies play a fundamental role in the implementation of strategies, since they define the organization's expectations regarding its employees and managers. Its application promotes coherence and coordination both within and between departments.[1]​.

2. Implementation

Implementation is the second strategic management process which involves decisions regarding organizational resources designated to carry out the strategy. It results in the way resources are structured, leadership agreements, communication, incentives and monitoring mechanisms to record progress.[4]​.

Then, once the strategy is determined, various goals are established to chart the course of the organization, measure performance, and monitor the implementation of the strategy. Tools like the Balanced Scorecard and strategy maps help crystallize strategy. They relate key measures of success and performance in the strategy. These tools measure financial, organizational, marketing, production, and innovation development. Advances in information technologies and data availability allow more information to be collected about performance, thus allowing managers to have a much more analytical perspective of their businesses.

The strategy can also be organized as a series of initiatives or programs, each referring to one or more projects. Various monitoring and feedback mechanisms such as meetings between division managers can also be implemented.

Executing day-to-day operations in the company is known as operational management or specific terms for each department such as: logistics management or marketing management, which are carried out once the strategic management decisions have been implemented.[4]​.

3. Control and evaluation

A key component to strategic management is evaluation. There are different ways to evaluate whether strategic priorities and plans have been achieved. One method is Robert Stake's responsive evaluation.[29] Responsive evaluation provides a humanistic and naturalistic approach to program evaluation. Beyond objective evaluation, responsive evaluation considers the context and history of the program, as well as the conditions and transactions between participants.

Contenido

Varias cuestiones con implicancia estratégica han surgido en la industria a través de los años. Estos incluyen: el cambio del modelo enfocado en la producción al modelo enfocado en el cliente, el incremento en el uso del modelo de auto-servicio para reducir los costos, cambios en la cadena de valor o en la estructura corporativa debido a la globalización y el internet.

Una definición de globalización hace referencia a la integración de las economías debido a la innovación tecnológica y en cadena de suministro. Las compañías ya no requieren estar integradas verticalmente (diseñar, producir, ensamblar y vender). En otras palabras, la cadena de valor de un producto puede no estar del todo dentro de una sola compañía. Muchas compañías eligen utilizar el método de subcontratación u outsourcing para los procesos de producción y mantienen únicamente los procesos de diseño y ventas dentro de la organización.[21]​.

Para una empresa, la competitividad se define como la capacidad de poder suministrar un bien (producto o servicio) de una cierta calidad a un precio menor que el de las empresas con las cuales compite.

El internet ha empoderado a los consumidores y ha conectado a compradores con vendedores reduciendo drásticamente los costos por transacción, creando plataformas mucho más robustas para comprar y vender bienes y servicios. Algunos ejemplos son las páginas de subastas en línea, servicios de citas por internet o vendedores de libros. En muchas industrias, el internet ha alterado el panorama competitivo. Los servicios que solían ser ofrecidos dentro de una misma organización ahora son cubiertos por terceros.[30]​.

El autor Phillip Evans dijo en 2013 que las redes están retando las jerarquías tradicionales. Las cadenas de valor también se están rompiendo. La información es libre o tiene un muy bajo costo y por lo tanto es muy difícil que compañías integradas de manera vertical se mantengan intactas. Evans dijo que la competencia está evolucionando de un modelo vertical a uno horizontal. Utilizó Wikipedia como un ejemplo de una red que ha desafiado el modelo de negocio tradicional de la enciclopedia.[31]​ Evans predijo la emergencia de una nueva forma de organización industrial llamada un "stack" o montón en la cual los competidores dependen de una plataforma común a partir de la cual construyen su propia cadena de valor.

La creatividad es la capacidad de crear nuevas ideas o conceptos, de nuevas asociaciones entre ideas y conceptos conocidos, que habitualmente producen soluciones originales. La creatividad es sinónimo del "pensamiento original", la "imaginación constructiva", el "pensamiento divergente" o el "pensamiento creativo".

La innovación es un proceso que introduce novedades y que se refiere a modificar elementos ya existentes con el fin de mejorarlos, aunque también es posible en la implementación de elementos totalmente nuevos. En el sentido estricto, por otro lado, se dice que de las ideas solo pueden resultar innovadoras luego de que ellas se implementen como nuevos productos, servicios, o procedimientos que realmente encuentren una aplicación exitosa, imponiéndose en el mercado a través de la difusión "Difusión (negocios)").

El conflicto es una situación en la cual dos o más personas con intereses distintos entran en confrontación, oposición o emprenden acciones mutuamente antagonistas, con el objetivo de dañar, eliminar a la parte rival o arrebatarle poder "Poder (social y político)") de algún tipo en favor de la propia persona o grupo.

La negociación es un proceso de discusión que se establece entre las partes, por medio de representantes si son grupos, y cuyo objetivo es el de llegar a un acuerdo aceptable para todos.

Un tema en la competencia estratégica ha sido la tendencia al autoservicio. Gracias a la tecnología el cliente toma un rol que previamente era desempeñado por un trabajador para reducir los costos.[21]​ Algunos ejemplos son:.

Characteristics of successful companies

James Collins and Jerry Porras spent years conducting empirical research into what makes a successful company. Six years of research resulted in a key principle behind 19 successful companies they studied: They all foster and preserve a core ideology that governs the company. Although strategies and tactics change daily, companies always maintained the same values. These core values ​​encourage employees to build an organization that lasts. In Built to Last (1994) they explain that the objectives of short-term profits, cost cutting and restructuring do not stimulate employees dedicated to building a company that lasts.[33] In 2000 Collins described the attitude of Silicon Valley companies, a culture where technological change inhibits long-term approaches.

Arie de Geus (1997) conducted a similar study and obtained similar results.[34]​ He identified 4 key characteristics that have thrived for 50 years or more:.

A company with these key characteristics is called a living company because it has the ability to sustain itself. If a company emphasizes knowledge rather than finance, and sees itself as a community of people, it has the potential to be large and last for decades. An organization is an organic entity capable of learning and creating its own processes and goals.[34]​.

Will Mulcaster[35]​ suggests that companies encourage dialogue around the following questions:

Structure of strategy studies

The definition of strategy in academic literature is addressed from three approaches: its historical development, theoretical debates and its analysis in empirical publications.

Historically, strategy has been understood as a set of actions or plans designed to achieve advantage for the actors involved.

The theoretical debate oscillates between strategy as structured planning and strategy as a dynamic process in constant evolution.

The study of strategy has been supported by numerous academic publications in prestigious journals, where real cases and empirical data are examined. These studies have allowed us to validate or refute various definitions and strategic approaches.

Empirical studies have addressed topics such as:

Empirical studies have made it possible to contrast strategic theories with real evidence, providing nuances and adjustments to existing models.[36]​.

Henry Mintzberg's classification: three perspectives and ten schools

Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (1998) structure strategic thinking in three paradigmatic perspectives, under which ten schools are deployed that range from rationalist models to adaptive perspectives:

Epistemological perspectives

According to Martinet (1996, 1997):

Emphasizes strategic intentionality, where objectives guide actions. Example: Kaplan and Norton's (1996) balanced scorecard, which translates vision into operational metrics.

Examines the interaction of actors (e.g., managers, employees, unions) in the formation of strategies. Use ethnographic methods to understand informal power dynamics.

Study how strategic discourse (e.g., missions, slogans) shapes identities and legitimizes decisions. Foucault (1975) influences this critical look at symbolic power.

Inspired by biology, it analyzes organizational symbioses (e.g., industrial clusters "Cluster (industry)") and competition for scarce resources. Related to the theory of complex systems.

Strategic dualism.

According to Carrance (1986) and Ramanantsoa (1997):.

Based on the optimization of resources, it assumes perfect information and absolute rationality. Quantitative models (e.g., portfolio analysis) dominate this school.

Recognizes cognitive and political limitations. Cyert and March (1963) introduce the concept of bounded rationality, where decisions are satisfactory, not optimal.

Sociological schools.

According to Whittington (2002):

Aligned with shareholder capitalism, it prioritizes maximizing value for shareholders. Example: cost reduction strategies to increase dividends.

Influenced by Darwin, she maintains that the market selects fittest organizations. Hamel and Prahalad (1994) criticize this passive approach, promoting proactive reinvention.

It combines logical incrementalism (Quinn, 1980) with political negotiation. Strategies emerge from gradual adjustments, not master plans.

Contextualize the strategy in cultural systems (e.g.: Asian vs. Western capitalisms). Success depends on aligning with social norms, not just financial metrics.

Pragmatic schools.

According to Van der Heijden (1998):

Use predictive models (e.g., Monte Carlo simulations) to reduce uncertainty. Dominant in stable sectors (e.g. utilities).

Embrace complexity and chaos, promoting rapid experimentation (e.g., tech startups). Related to the pivot effect in lean models.

Integrates creative thinking and action, through cycles of reflection-practice (e.g., agile methodologies). Nonaka (1995) exemplifies this with the SECI model (Socialization - Externalization - Combination - Internalization).[37]​[38]​[39]​.

Approaches

Strategy like:

In 1990, Peter Senge popularized the notion of a "learning organization."[40] The theory is that obtaining and analyzing information is an essential requirement for a business to be successful in the information age. To do this, Senge commented that an organization must be structured in such a way that:[41]​.

Senge identified 5 disciplines of a learning organization:

Geoffrey Moore (1991) and R. Frank and P. Cook[42]​ also detected a change in the nature of competition. Markets driven by technical standards or "network effects" can give dominant companies near-monopoly status.[43] It is also true in industries where interoperability requires compatibility between users. Some examples are Internet Explorer and Amazon who were pioneers and leaders in their respective industries. The case of Internet Explorer's decline demonstrates how dominance may only be temporary.

In 1969, Peter Drucker coined the phrase Age of Discontinuity to describe the way change affects people's lives.[44]​ In an era of continuity, one can attempt to predict the future based on events in the past. But according to Drucker, we are now in an era of discontinuity and it is not effective to try to extrapolate. He identifies 4 sources of discontinuity: technologies, globalization, cultural pluralism and knowledge capital.

In 1970, Alvin Toffler in Future Shock described a trend toward accelerated rates of change.[45] He illustrated how social and technical phenomena are shorter in duration with each generation and questioned society's ability to handle the confusion and anxiety this can cause. In the past, periods of change were always followed by times of stability. This allowed society to assimilate the previous change before a new one occurred. But these periods of stability disappeared at the end of the century. In 1988 in The Third Wave, Toffler characterized this constant change as the third phase of civilization (the first two phases were the agricultural wave and the industrial wave).[46]​.

In 1978, Derek F. Abell (Abell, D. 1978) described "strategic windows" and highlighted the importance of timing any strategy well. This led some strategists to use planned obsolescence within their strategies.[47]​.

In 1983, Noel Tichy wrote that we are creatures of habit and tend to repeat what we feel comfortable with.[48]​ He wrote that it is a trap that limits our creativity and stops us from exploring new ideas. He developed a systematic method for managing change that involves looking at any new situation from 3 angles: technical and production, political and resource distribution, and corporate culture.

In 1989, Charles Handy identified two types of change.[49] "Strategic drift" is a gradual change that occurs so subtly that it is imperceptible until it is too late. On the other hand, "transformational change" is sudden and radical. It is typically caused by discontinuities in the business ecosystem. The point at which a new trend is created was called the "strategic inflection point" by Andy Grove. Turning points can be subtle or radical.

La disciplina de la gestión estratégica se originó en las décadas de 1950 y de 1960. Entre los numerosos contribuidores, los más influyentes fueron Peter Drucker, Philip Selznick, Alfred Chandler, Igor Ansoff, y Bruce Henderson.[5]​ La disciplina surge de pensamientos anteriores y textos sobre estrategia que datan a miles de años atrás. Previo a 1960, el término "estrategia" era usado principalmente con relación a la guerra o la política, pero no a los negocios.[95]​ Muchas compañías construyeron funciones de planeación estratégica para desarrollar y ejecutar los procesos de formulación e implementación durante la década de 1960.[101]​.

Peter Drucker fue un teórico de la gestión y autor de docenas de libros con una trayectoria de 5 décadas. Realizó preguntas estratégicas fundamentales en un libro de 1954 titulado The Practice of Management (La práctica de la Administración) escribiendo: "...la primera responsabilidad de la alta gerencia es realizar la pregunta '¿Qué es nuestro negocio?' y asegurarse de estudiarla cuidadosamente y responderla correctamente." Escribió que la respuesta era determinada por el cliente. Recomendó 8 áreas en las cuales se deben colocar objetivos; posicionamiento en el mercado, innovación, productividad, recursos físicos y financieros, desempeño y actitud de los trabajadores, rentabilidad, desempeño y desarrollo de la gerencia y responsabilidad pública.[102]​.

En 1957, Philip Selznick utilizó inicialmente el término "competencia distintiva" refiriéndose a como la Marina (Navy) se trataba de diferenciar de los otros servicios.[5]​ También formalizó la idea de combinar los factores internos de la organización con las circunstancias externas.[103]​ Esta idea fundamental fue desarrollada más a profundidad por Kenneth R. Andrews en 1963 en lo que conocemos como análisis FODA en el cual se evalúan las fortalezas y debilidades de la compañía así como las oportunidades y amenazas en el ecosistema de negocio.[5]​.

Alfred Chandler reconoció la importancia de coordinar la actividad gerencial bajo una sola estrategia. Las interacciones entre departamentos eran manejadas lipicamente por directivos que transmitían la información entre departamentos. Chandler resaltó la importancia de tomar una perspectiva a largo plazo cuando se mira hacia el futuro. En su obra de 1962 Strategy and Structure, o Estrategia y Estructura, Chandler mostró que una estrategia coordinada a largo plazo era necesaria para darle estructura, dirección y enfoque a una compañía. Lo dice de manera concisa “La estructura sigue a la estrategia.” Chandler escribió que:.

Igor Ansoff trabajó con base en las obras de Chandler, agregando conceptos e inventando vocabulario. Desarrolló una matriz que compara las estrategias para la penetración en el mercado, el desarrollo de los productos, el desarrollo del mercado así como la diversificación. (Matriz de Ansoff). En su obra de 1965 Corporate Strategy, o Estrategia Corporativa, desarrolló un análisis de brechas (Gap) para clarificar la brecha entre la realidad actual y los objetivos y para desarrollar lo que llamó “acciones de reducción de brecha”.[104]​ Ansoff escribió que le gestión estratégica tenía 3 partes: planeación estratégica; la habilidad de una empresa de convertir sus planes en realidad; y la habilidad de una empresa de manejar su propia resistencia interna al cambio.[105]​.

Bruce Henderson, fundador del Boston Consulting Group, escribió acerca del concepto de curva de experiencia en 1968. La curva de experiencia se refiere a una hipótesis de que los costos de producción por unidad se reducen entre 20-30% cada que la producción total se duplica. Esto apoyó al argumento de alcanzar mayor porción del mercado y economías de escala.[106]​.

Porter escribió en 1980 que las compañías debían tomar decisiones acerca de su alcance y del tipo de ventaja competitiva que deseaban tener; costo menor o diferenciación. La idea de la estrategia dirigida a ciertas industrias y clientes en particular con una oferta con diferenciación se desarrolló a partir de la estrategia influenciada por la curva de aprendizaje, el cual se enfocaba en mayor escala y menor costo.[12]​ Porter ajustó el paradigma de estrategia de nuevo en 1985, escribiendo que un desempeño superior de los procesos y actividades de una organización como parte de su cadena de valor es la base de la ventaja competitiva.[107]​.

En 1988, Henry Mintzberg describió definiciones y perspectivas del término estrategia reflejadas tanto en la investigación académica como en la práctica.[108]​[109]​ Examinó el proceso estratégico y concluyó que era mucho más fluido e impredecible de lo que pensaba la gente por esta razón concluyó que hay 5 tipos diferentes de estrategias:.

Michael Porter definió estrategia en 1980 como "... fórmula extensa de cómo un negocio va a competir, cuáles deberían ser sus objetivos, qué políticas serán necesarias para llegar a esos objetivos" y la "...combinación de los fines para los cuales trabaja la organización y los medios con los cuales llegará ahí." Comentó que "La esencia de formular una estrategia competitiva está en relacionar a una compañía con su ecosistema."[12]​.

Shift in focus from production to marketing

There was also a change in how companies competed, specifically a change from a production focus to a market focus. The concept of strategy that predominated until the 1950s was to create a product with high technical quality. If you created a product that worked well and lasted well, it was assumed that you would not have profitability difficulties. This was known as production orientation. Henry Ford famously said about the Model T car: "A customer can have his car any color he wants, as long as he wants it to be black."[110]

Management theorist Peter F Drucker wrote in 1954 that the customer was what defines the type of business an organization is in.[18] In 1960, Theodore Levitt argued that instead of making products and then trying to sell them to the customer, businesses should start with the customer, find out what they want, and then produce for them. The fallacy of production orientation was also referred to as marketing myopia in an article of the same name by Levitt.[111]​.

Over time, the customer became the force behind strategic decisions in business. This marketing concept has been reformulated under different names such as marketing orientation, customer orientation, customer intimacy, customer focus, market focus, etc.

Jim Collins wrote in 1997 that the strategic framework expands by focusing on why a company exists rather than what the company does. In 2001, he recommended that organizations define themselves based on 3 key questions:

Nature of the strategy

In 1985, Professor Ellen Earle-Chaffee summarized what he thought were the main elements of strategic management theory, writing that strategic management:[23]​.

Chaffee wrote that there were 3 strategy models, which were not mutually exclusive:.

El progreso de la estrategia desde 1960 puede ser trazado desde una variedad de conceptos introducidos por académicos y consultores. Estos reflejan un enface en costos, competencia y clientes. Las industrias y organizaciones se analizaron en unidades de negocio, actividades, procesos e individuos en búsqueda de fuentes para generar una ventaja competitiva.[95]​.

SWOT Analysis

In the 1960s, the Harvard Business School business policy course included the concept of bringing together a company's internal strengths and weaknesses with its ecosystem (external opportunities and threats) in the context of its objectives. This scheme is known as SWOT. Kenneth R. Andrews helped popularize the scheme during a conference in 1963 and it continues to be used frequently today.[5]​.

Experience curve

The experience curve was developed by the Boston Consulting Group in 1966.[95] It is a hypothesis that the total number of costs per unit is reduced by 15-25% each time cumulative production doubles. It has been shaped empirically by some companies throughout various points in their history.[113] Cost reduction is due to a wide variety of factors such as the learning curve, the substitution of labor with automation, and technological sophistication. Author Walter Kiechel wrote:

Prior to 1960, the word competition rarely appeared in American literature; companies then faced considerably less competition. Later, the experience curve was a basis for the retailing of business ideas, helping to develop the business consulting industry.[95]​.

Corporate strategy and portfolio theory

The concept of a corporation as a portfolio of business units, with each expressed graphically based on its market share and industry growth, was summarized in the growth and share matrix developed by the Boston Consulting Group around 1970. By 1979, a study estimated that 45% of Fortune 500 companies (the 500 most capitalized American companies) used some variation of the matrix within their strategic planning. This scheme helped companies decide where to invest their resources and what businesses to give up.[95]​.

Porter wrote in 1987 that corporate strategy involves two questions: 1) What business should the corporation be in? and 2) How should business units be managed? He mentioned four concepts of corporate strategy:[114]​.

Other techniques were developed to analyze the relationships between portfolio elements. The growth and participation matrix as part of the B.C.G analysis was followed by the McKinsey Matrix developed by General Electric. Companies continued to diversify as conglomerates until the 1980s, where it began to be seen that a portfolio of divisions operating in different industries was more valuable as independent companies, leading to the breakup of the conglomerates.[95]​ The popularity of portfolio theory has waned, however the key dimensions considered remain a central part of strategy creation.[5]​.

Competitive advantage

In 1980, Porter defined the two types of competitive advantage that an organization can have: lower cost or differentiation. This advantage is derived from the attributes that allow a company to outperform its rivals, such as greater positioning, skills or resources. In Porter's perspective, strategic management should be concerned with the development of a competitive advantage.[107]​.

Industry structure and profitability

Porter developed a scheme to analyze the profitability of industries and how those profits are divided among the participants. In his 5 forces analysis he identified the forces that shape the industry and the business ecosystem in which the organization operates. The scheme involves the competitive behavior of rival organizations, the bargaining power of buyers and suppliers, the threats of new competitors to the industry, and the ability of buyers to substitute products. These forces affect the organization's ability to increase prices as well as the costs of raw materials.[12]​.

The 5 forces framework helps describe how a company can use those forces to gain a sustainable competitive advantage, whether that be lower cost or differentiation. Companies can maximize their profitability by competing in industries with favorable structures. Competitors may take actions to increase the overall profitability of the industry or reduce the profitability of certain parts of the industry. Porter modified Chandler's idea that structure follows strategy by introducing a second level of structure in addition to the organizational structure; the structure of the industry.[12]​.

Generic competitive strategies

Porter wrote in 1980 that strategy aims at cost leadership, differentiation or focus.[12] They are known as Porter's 3 generic strategies and can be applied to businesses of any size or shape. Porter said companies must choose only one of the three or risk the business wasting valuable resources. Porter's generic strategies detail the interaction between cost minimization, product differentiation, and market focus strategies.

Porter described an industry with many segments that can be targeted by a company. The width of your target refers to the competitive scope of a business. Acquiring a competitive advantage results from a company's ability to deal with the 5 forces better than its rivals. Porter wrote: "Acquiring a competitive advantage requires that the company make a decision...about the type of advantage it wants to obtain and the extent to which it wants to obtain it." He also wrote: "The two basic types of competitive advantage combined with the range of activities leads to 3 generic strategies to perform better than the average in an industry: cost leadership, differentiation and focus. The focus strategy has two variants: cost-focused and differentiation-focused."[107]

Value chain

Porter's description of the value chain refers to the chain of activities or processes that an organization performs to deliver a product or service with value to the market. This includes functions such as logistics, operations, marketing, sales and service, supported by systems and technological infrastructure. By aligning the value chain with the organization's strategy in a coherent manner, a company can achieve a competitive advantage. Porter also wrote that strategy is a configuration of activities that differentiate a company from its rivals. A robust competitive position is derived from a set of activities that are coherently aligned.[115]​.

Porter wrote in 1985: "Competitive advantage cannot be understood by viewing a company as a single entity. You must look at the activities the company performs in designing, producing, advertising, and delivering its product. Each of these activities can contribute to the company's cost position and create differentiation... the value chain separates the company into its most relevant strategic activities in order to understand cost behavior as well as existing and potential sources of differentiation."[5]

Essential competence

Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad described the idea of ​​core competency in 1990, the idea that every organization has some capability in which it excels and that the business should focus on opportunities in that area, letting others go or using a subcontracting model. The core competency is difficult to duplicate as it involves the skills and coordination of people across a wide variety of functional areas or processes used to deliver value to the customer. By using outsourcing, companies expand the concept of a value chain, with some elements inside the entity and others outside.[116]​ Core competency is part of a branch of strategy called the resource-based view, which postulates that if activities are strategic as indicated in the value chain, then the company's capabilities to learn or adapt are also strategic.[5]​.

Business theory

Peter Drucker wrote in 1994 about the "Theory of Business", which represents the key assumptions of a company's strategy. These assumptions are classified into 3 categories: a) the external ecosystem, including society, market, customers and technology. b) the mission of the organization and c) the core competencies necessary to fulfill the mission. He wrote that a valid business theory has four specifications: 1) Assumptions about the ecosystem, mission, and core competencies must fit reality. 2) Assumptions in all 3 areas must be compatible with each other. 3) The business theory must be understood and known throughout the organization and 4) the business theory must be constantly tested.

He wrote that organizations get into trouble when the assumptions representing theory no longer fit reality. He used an example of retail department stores, where his business theory assumed that people who could spend at department stores would do so. However, many shoppers abandoned department stores and preferred to go to specialty stores outside of shopping centers when time became the main factor.

Drucker described business theory as a hypothesis and a discipline. He recommended systematic diagnostics, monitoring and testing of assumptions to maintain competitiveness.[117][118]​.