Playing on the Strategy Chessboard

Hiring a consulting firm often means access to the hottest and most innovative strategies in the marketplace. Improving a company's performance, however, means using approaches targeted to the company's situation rather than applying the strategy theory du jour. The Strategy Chessboard gives structure to the different schools of thought on strategy, by providing a toolbox of approaches.

Since the 1970s, we've witnessed a bewildering array of strategic schools of thought and frameworks. The 1980s were dominated by Michael Porter's positioning for competitive advantage. The 1990s had multiple contributors, with Prahalad and Hamel's Competing for the Future standing out. Kim and Mauborgne's Blue Ocean Strategy and Deans, Kroger and Zeisel's Winning the Merger Endgame were noteworthy contributions in the early 2000s. Throughout these decades, the Santa Fe Institute has painted the economy as an Evolving Complex System, which has significant strategic implications as the institute suggests that managers often assume certainty where there is none.

Dozens of schools of thought claim to have the most widely applicable and useful framework for strategy development, yet most strategists are biased toward the theories and frameworks with which they are most comfortable. At A.T. Kearney, we believe that a single strategy school is not universally applicable; strategies and their frameworks are complementary. Based on our research and work in this area, we've developed a Strategy Chessboard that enables us to articulate clear choices in strategic approaches and pick the right starting point for developing and applying a particular strategy.

"Playing on the New Strategy Chessboard", was developed in our Stockholm office by our European Strategy Practice leader Thomas Kratzert together with Michael Broquist. The article discusses the need to use the right strategy at the right time in the right situation rather than simply applying the strategy du jour.

Strategy Chessboard