Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the strategy development process through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

The development of strategy remains a debate for academics and a concern for practitioners. Published research has focused on producing models for strategy development and on studying how strategy is developed in organisations. The Operational Research literature has highlighted the importance of considering complexity within strategic decision making; but little has been done to link strategy development with complexity theories, despite organisations and organisational environments becoming increasingly more complex. We review the dominant streams of strategy development and complexity theories. Our theoretical investigation results in the first conceptual framework which links an established Strategic Operational Research model, the Strategy Development Process model, with complexity via Complex Adaptive Systems theory. We present preliminary findings from the use of this conceptual framework applied to a longitudinal, in-depth case study, to demonstrate the advantages of using this integrated conceptual model. Our research shows that the conceptual model proposed provides rich data and allows for a more holistic examination of the strategy development process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott A (1995). Sequence analysis: New methods for old ideas. Ann Rev Sociol 21: 93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attride-Stirling J (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qual Res 4: 385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi AL, Jeong H, Neda Z, Ravasz E, Schubert A and Viscek T (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Phys A: Stat Mech Appl 311: 590–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1984). The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. J Opl Res Soc 35: 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennet A and Bennet D (2004). Organizational Survival in the New World. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann: Burlington, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding KE (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Mngt Sci 2: 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM, Crosby BC and Bryson JK (2009). Understanding strategic planning and the formulation and implementation of strategic plans as a way of knowing: The contributions of actor-network theory. Int Publ Mngt J 12: 172–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley W (1968). Society as a complex adaptive system. In: Buckley W (ed). Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. 1st edn, Aldine Publishing Company: Chicago, IL, pp 490–513.

  • Burrell G and Morgan G (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of corporate Life. 1st edn, Ashgate Publishing Ltd: Aldershot, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttriss GJ and Wilkinson IF (2006). Using narrative sequence methods to advance international entrepreneurship theory. J Int Entrepreneur 4: 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldart AA and Ricart JE (2004). Corporate strategy revisited: A view from complexity theory. Eur Mngt Rev 1: 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camillus JC (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Bus Rev 86 (5): 98–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaffee EE (1985). Three models of strategy. Acad Mngt Rev 10: 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30 Year Retrospective. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P and Poulter J (2006). Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P and Scholes J (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action: Includes a 30 Year Retrospective. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers P (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge: London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson RG (2000). Strategy, performance and operational research. J Opl Res Soc 51: 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson RG (2004). Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick. Eur J Opl Res 152: 631–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson RG and Foster MJ (1980). Effectiveness in strategic planning. Eur J Opl Res 5: 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson RG and Foster MJ (1983). Effectiveness in strategic planning revisited. Eur J Opl Res 12: 146–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson RG, Bryant J, Morecroft J and O'Brien F (2007). The strategic development process. In: O’Brien F and Dyson RG (eds). Supporting Strategy: Frameworks, Methods and Models, 1st edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK, pp 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Making Strategy—The Journey of Strategic Management, 1st edn. Sage Publications Ltd: London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989a). Building theories from case study research. Acad Mngt Rev 14: 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Acad Mngt J 32: 543–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM and Sull DN (2001). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Bus Rev 79: 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eoyang GH (2001). Conditions for self-organisation in human systems. PhD Thesis, The Union Institute University, Cincinnati, OH.

  • Eoyang GH (2004). The practitioner's landscape. Emerg: Complex Org 6 (1–2): 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA (2007). Assessing the impact of problem structuring methods in multi-organizational settings: An empirical investigation. J Opl Res Soc 58: 760–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, O'Brien F and Bell P (2011). Supporting strategy: Contributions from OR. J Opl Res Soc 62: 815–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (2003). Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: Evidence from the oil majors. Strat Mngt J 24: 491–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greener I (2002). Theorising path dependency: How does history come to matter in organisations? Mngt Decis 40: 614–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin G, Shaw P and Stacey R (1999). Knowing and acting in conditions of uncertainty: A complexity perspective. System Pract Action Res 12: 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy CB (1993). Understanding Organisations, 4th edn. Penguin Books Ltd: London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hock D (2005). One from Many: Visa and the Rise of the Chaordic Organisation. Berrett-Koeller: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson G, Johnson G, Whittington R and Scwarz M (2005). The role and importance of strategy workshops. AIM Res/CMI July: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff AS and Reger RK (1987). A review of strategic process research. J Mngt 13: 211–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff JO, Huff AS and Thomas H (1992). Strategic renewal and the interaction of cumulative stress and inertia. Strat Mngt J 13: 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutzschenreuter T and Kleindienst I (2006). Strategy process research: What we have learned and what we still have to learn. J Mngt 32: 673–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (2009). Fifty years of systems thinking for management. J Opl Res Soc 60: S24–S32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski PA and Wilson DC (2002). Top teams and strategy in a UK university. J Mngt Stud 39: 355–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson G, Scholes K and Whittington R (2005). Exploring Corporate Strategy, 7th edn. Pearson Education Ltd: Harlow, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1995). At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, 1st edn. Oxford University Press: New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly S (1999). What business can learn from the simple science of complexity. J Qual Participation 22 (5): 44–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettinger WJ, Teng JTC and Guha S (1997). Business process change: A study of methodologies, techniques and tools. MIS Quart 14 (1): 55–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knott P (2008). Strategy tools: Who really uses them? J Bus Strat 29 (5): 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotiadis K and Mingers J (2006). Combining PSMs with hard OR methods: The philosophical and practical challenges. J Opl Res Soc 57: 856–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz CF and Snowden DJ (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Syst J 32: 462–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale S (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications Ltd: London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G and Richardson KA (2007). Systems thinking for community involvement in policy analysis. Emerg: Complex Org 9: 167–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles RE and Snow CC (1986). Organizations: New concepts for new forms. California Mngt Rev 28 (3): 62–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller CC and Ireland RD (2005). Intuition in strategic decision making: Friend or foe in the fast-paced 21st century? Acad Mngt Exec 19 (1): 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2007). Operational research: The science of better? J Opl Res Soc 58: 683–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H and Lampel J (1999). Reflecting on the strategy process. Sloan Mngt Rev Spring: 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitleton-Kelly E (2003). Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organisations—The Application of Complexity Theory to Organisations. Pergamon/Elsevier Science Ltd: Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morecroft J and Robinson S (2005). Explaining puzzling dynamics: Comparing the use of system dynamics and discrete-event simulation. edn. systemdynamics.orgp, http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2005/proceed/papers/MOREC107.pdf.

  • Peters T and Waterman R (1982). In Search of Excellence. Harper & Row: New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew A, Thomas H and Whittington R (2006). Handbook of Strategy Management. Sage: London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (1990). Longitudinal field research on change theory and practice. Org Sci 1: 267–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (1992). The character and significance of strategy process research. Strat Mngt J 13: 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (2003). Tools for Thinking: Modelling Management Science. 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (2004). Systems Modelling; Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Bus Rev 74: 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson KA (2004). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Emerg: Complex Org 6: 127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (1998). Complexity theory and management practice. Human Nature Review http://www.human-nature.com/science-as-culture/rosenhead.html, accessed 18 November 2009.

  • Rosenhead J and Mingers J (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders M, Lewis P and Thornhill A (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. 3 edn, Pearson Education Ltd: Harlow, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge P (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. Doubleday: New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snowden DJ and Boone ME (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Bus Rev 85 (11): 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey RD (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strat Mngt J 6: 477–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey RD (2001). Complex Responsive Processes in Organisations: Learning and Knowledge Creation. Routledge: London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenfors S (2007). Strategy Tools and Strategy Toys: Management Tools in Strategy Work. Helsinki School of Economics: Helsinki, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (1989). Misconceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Org Behav Human Decis Process 43: 301–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modelling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill: New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • SubbaNarasimha PN (2001). Strategy in turbulent environments: The role of dynamic competence. Manage Decis Econ/Strat Market Process 22: 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapinos E, Dyson RG and Meadows M (2005a). The impact of performance measurement systems in setting the ‘direction’ in the University of Warwick. Prod Plann Control 16: 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapinos E, Dyson RG and Meadows M (2005b). The impact of performance measurement in strategic planning. Int J Prod Perform 54: 370–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapinos E, Dyson RG and Meadows M (2011). Does the balanced scorecard make a difference to the strategy development process? J Opl Res Soc 62: 888–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson R and Dyson RG (1983). Some systems aspects of strategic planning. J Opl Res Soc 34: 765–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven AH (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strat Mngt J 13: 169–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren K (2004). Why has feedback systems thinking struggled to influence strategy and policy formulation? Suggestive evidence, explanations and solutions. Syst Res Behav Sci 21: 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver W (1948). Science and complexity. Amer Scient 36: 536–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003). Case Study Research—Design and Methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the referees for their valuable comments, which have enabled us to substantially improve the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aston Business School, Aston University, UK

    R J Hammer, J S Edwards & E Tapinos

Authors
  1. R J Hammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J S Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E Tapinos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hammer, R., Edwards, J. & Tapinos, E. Examining the strategy development process through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory. J Oper Res Soc 63, 909–919 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2011.97

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2011.97

Keywords

Search

Navigation