How OR can contribute to strategy making

OR’s venture into strategy is relatively recent and on examination of the extant literature it appears to have emerged through two relatively independent directions— each adding to a potentially substantial contribution. These directions or roles emanate from (1) a desire to undertake good analysis (echoing Simon’s request for procedural rationality: Simon, 1976); and (2) a wish to manage the complexity that surrounds strategy making if systemically feasible and culturally desirable outcomes (see Checkland and Scholes, 1990) are to be generated. Furthermore, the nascent interest in mixing methods (Mingers and Brocklesby, 1997) additionally contributes to OR’s potential contribution to strategy making through providing frameworks that facilitate and articulate the effective integration of the two directions. It is also noted by those working in the mixing methods field (Mingers and Brocklesby, 1997), that mixing methods is apposite for those problems that are complex, and multi-dimensional— a good description for those contemplating developing strategy. It is interesting to consider that at the same time that OR was emerging as a field of study (post-World War II), so too was the field of strategy, strategic management, and strategic planning. Initially, as with OR, the research in strategy took a very rational/analytical form concentrating on the generation of detailed plans that once created would be put into operation. Succeeding decades saw this form of strategy challenged by those who saw it as more organic and emergent (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985) and/or more processual (Pettigrew, 1977). This parallel development closely mirrors that of OR, where the emphasis on mathematical/optimization models gave way to an unfolding interest in more processual approaches. Returning to the two directions, OR thus can be seen to contribute to strategy development both from the rational/ analytic view—through the roles of models and modelling—as well as the emergent/processual view—through a focus on the role of group negotiation and ensuring culturally desirable outcomes. This can be clearly seen when examining reference sources—for example O’Brien and Dyson’s recent book on Supporting Strategy (O’Brien and Dyson, 2007). These two directions will be further explored below followed by a brief discussion of two further contributions before the viewpoint concludes with some thoughts of ‘where next’.