Soft Systems Strategy: rationale, case study and theory development

摘要

The strategy field is complex, disparate and argumentative - in Whitley's phrase, 'a fragmented adhocracy.' Several contributors (including, amongst others, Mintzberg and Whittington) have surveyed the field and offered classification schemas which help to come to terms with this richness. Though classification is helpful, it might be more productive to think of the field as an orthodoxy under sustained challenge. The orthodoxy, it is argued, is underpinned by two related but unacknowledged sets of assumptions: the first ontological and epistemological, the second (dependant on the first) concerning particular models of organization and organizational governance. Both sets of assumptions are heavily challenged in the literature. Orthodox strategic theories were of little value in analyzing a major strategic initiative in the UK National Health Service, and soft systems models had to be employed. The result is here generalised to theory. Soft systems offer the opportunity to theorise strategy with different philosophical assumptions, and without limiting models of organization. The result may be a vein of strategy theory exhibiting more resonance with practitioners' experiences, and, in consequence, wider applicability.