Modelling The Development Of Strategic Management
Authors: Nikolett Deutsch; T. Mészáros; L. Szabó
Year: 2017

Nowadays the are several research focusing on different approaches of strategic management. Because of the wide-ranging approaches and interpretations, it is very important to consider it from different perspectives. This paper provides a systematic view of Strategic Management developed by the Strategic Management Researh Group of the Department of Strategy and Project Management at the Corvinus University of Budapest. Using the Strategic Management Cube we are able to examine and model the the effects of environmental components, empirical experiences, and the development of other sciences and disciplines on the evolution of SM as well as the interplay among them. 1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUD Strategic management (further called “SM”) has been a quite popular scientific field. With its more than fivedecade history produced significant international journals and books that could fill up whole libraries. Therefore, it is indeed hard to achieve new or novel scientific results for scholars of SM. It is by no accident, that citations in journal articles often already make it difficult to actually grasp the main argument of the article, not to even mention ever growing lists of cited sources are close to one-fifth of article length. Besides a wealth of rich and comprehensive resources, professionals of this fields need to face further difficulties. First and foremost, taking note that the theory and practice of SM was formed in the second half of the last century, but considering its most flourishing period, it was rather the last third of the same century. The analysis of numerous textbooks and academic literature proved that the above mentioned period brought to life theories, paradigms, schools, models and methods that are considered determinative even today. It is not at all unexpected, that the creators of these theories and schools marched into scientific history as the “gurus” of SM, and that any publication dealing with SM cannot afford to ignore their works. As follows, the foregoing scholars of SM can present scientific results by partially enriching the existing theories, presenting arguments against them or their practical application or by doing research into the intersections of other scientific fields and SM, their influence and thus produce new or novel results. Not independently from the above, but deriving from the nature of this scientific field, empirical studies have an important role. Also, from the view of scientific acceptance, a central question is the relationship of strategy and achievement, but other types of surveys and case studies are also subject to these studies. It could be put that studying the development of this scientific field itself, and its five-decade long process is close to becoming a whole separate scientific branch. The framework within which this study is carried out, what analytical focus points does the process description utilize, could mean a unique and novel approach, scientific result in itself. 2. AIM OF THE RESEARCH The Strategic Management Research Group of the Department of Strategy and Project Management at the Corvinus University of Budapest started a research project last year. The goal of this research is not to enrich the basis of the above mentioned results, but it is aimed at providing a well-structured view of the halfcentury development of SM so far, systematically examining and modelling the effects of environmental components, empirical experiences, and the development of other sciences and disciplines on the evolution of SM as well as the interplay among them. The research group made a literature analysis based on which the first results can be introduced and a three dimensional model – the Strategic Management Cube – can be drawn. Systematisation is guaranteed by the simultaneous utilisation of two interrelated analytical viewpoints, i.e. the intersections between time reference and the alterations of SM’s content items form the subject of research. Besides temporality, it is advisable to include to more starting points: a) Strategy, as a tool of thinking about the future, is the “product” of market competition. Its basics date back to the ‘60s, when the conjuncturegenerating effects of the deferred demand of World War II started to fade. The fast development of capacities produced a demand driven economy built on the mechanism of market competition. A time intersection means the ‘60s, when it is a period strategic leadership based on process Proceedings 31st European Conference on Modelling and Simulation ©ECMS Zita Zoltay Paprika, Péter Horák, Kata Váradi, Péter Tamás Zwierczyk, Ágnes Vidovics-Dancs, János Péter Rádics (Editors) ISBN: 978-0-9932440-4-9/ ISBN: 978-0-9932440-5-6 (CD) (process based view). Its main representatives are Chandler (1962), Ansoff (1965) and the “founders” of Harvard school (Learned et al. 1965). b) The development of SM in itself can also be studied – what steps and what factors lead from short-term planning focusing on budget to SM, according to some, thus already exceeding the strategy of complex systems (activity based view). Factors of generating change, such as globalisation, technological advancement, sociopolitical changes can also be included in this thought line. Not independently from the above, the influence of other sciences also forms a weighty part in it (e.g. equilibrium theory in economics). This approach concentrates on the view of strategic thinking, strategic behaviour, the emphasis of strategy alignment and realisation, the relationship between strategy and achievement. However, there exists a more concrete, maybe not independent from the above, but detailed analysis intersection, which involves the study of SM content elements such as theories, paradigms “providing competitive advantage”, goal-setting points (foci of interest) and strategic management tools and techniques, as well as the mutual relationship of these elements and their self-development. Descriptive-prescriptive, processor content-oriented approaches and their scientific background can also be fit into this framework. Based on the aforementioned statements the main question of the research project is defined as follows: Is SM, as a widely used management approach applied both in theory and practice, in the ascending or descending stage of its “life cycle” – i.e. is there a need for a “new management paradigm”? In order to answer this question, the research project had been divided into four research stages:  development and refinement of the applicable research framework;  literature research and processing;  practical application, methodology and experiences in connection with the different research streams and paradigms of SM;  creation of the anthology of academic literature excerpts on strategy. Due to the fact that the results of the first research phase, i.e. the elaboration of the theoretical and cognitive analytical framework define the unique rules of sorting followed by the research group and form the basis of further steps and examinations, in the next Chapter our Holistic Model of the development of Strategic Management and the fundamental guiding principles, driving forces of its formation will be presented. 3. RESEARCH RESULTS During the examination of the term “strategy” and its relations to the evolution of planning and other fields of science, the different paradigms on strategic planning and management, and the dominant themes of strategic literature two main research hypothesis and additional questions had been emerged. Thesis 1: The essence of SM has been formed during the second half of the 20th century, however its most flourishing period is concerned to be the last third of it. How can the process of the evolution and selfdevelopment of SM be described (from short-term financial planning to strategic management and beyond)? McKinsey&Co. provides an internationally accepted presentment of the development process by differentiating four stages: budget planning, forecast based planning, strategic planning and strategic management (Figure 1). Scholars have established that the term “strategic management” was coined by Ansoff, who used it for the first time in 1972 at a conference (Tari 1996). When he realised that strategic planning is only successful in a minority of applications, Ansoff (1965) questioned if strategic planning was a wrong theory or something unfinished that was in need of further development? The answer is the latter, so the unfinished tool, which does not involve the management of change in itself (Bhatia 2014). Grant (2008/c) deals with the series of change that follow each other, obviously supporting the time horizon until the first decade of the third millennium. It is important to note, that this notable scholar of strategic thinking speaks of the evolution of SM and describes the process with the changes “dominant topics” within the system, however he does not establish a new stage that would exceed SM in the development process. The elaboration of studies, articles and their abstracts that were published on the occasion of notable anniversaries in the most renowned European journal of the discipline, Long Range Planning, also belongs to antecedents of this project. It must be mentioned, that the article of former editor-inchief Taylor (1986) published for the 20th anniversary can serve as a fundamental model for further research, as well as the works of Cummings and Daellenbach (2009) which draw conclusions on changes within SM by an analysis of the abstracts of the first 40 years. It is also worth to invoke a study of O’Shanassy (2001) summarising the results of the past century, and the recently published study of Bhatia (2014). Figure 1: The evolution of strategic management Source: Gardener et al (1986, p. 25) How can the most important driving forces, such as the change of environment and the impacts of the development of other sciences and disciplines, be revealed? In his 1986 artic