1Masters Programmes Assignment Cover Sheet Submitted by: <1356301 > Date Sent: 31.03.2014 Module Title: Strategy In Practice Module Code: IB92U0 Date/Year of Module: 2013/2014 Submission Deadline: 31.03.2014 Word Count: 2989 words Number of Pages: 26 Question: What are the common tools and techniques of strategizing and organizing and how are these used in practice? “This is to certify that the work I am submitting is my own. All external references and sources are clearly acknowledged and identified within the contents. I am aware of the University of Warwick regulation concerning plagiarism and collusion. No substantial part(s) of the work submitted here has also been submitted by me in other assessments for accredited courses of study, and I acknowledge that if this has been done an appropriate reduction in the mark I might otherwise have received will be made.” 2 Content: 1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..5 2. CLASSIFICATION OF COMMON TOOLS BASED ON USE AND SATISFATION………………………………………………………………….7 3. COMMON TOOLS IN DIFFERENT SETTINGS……………………………..8 4. APPLICATION OF COMMON TOOLS IN PRACTICE……………………11 4.1 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK……………………12 4.2 GENERIC MODES OF TOOL APPLICATION…………………....14 4.3. CONTEXTUAL CONDITIONS AND BRICOLAGE………………19 5. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………….24 References…………………………………………………………………………25 3 List of Figures and Tables: Figure 1: Classification of tools based on use and satisfaction Figure 2: Organizational/Environmental/Individual Factors affecting tool usage Figure 3: Strategic Management Framework Figure 4: Dimensions of the Analytical mode Figure 5: Dimensions of the Dynamic mode Figure 6: Dimensions of the Metaphorical mode Figure 7: Dimensions of the Facilitative mode Figure 8: Dimensions of the Interventionist mode Figure 9: Applications of Strategy tools in Contextual conditions Figure 10: Dissociation of Strategy Theory in Practice 4 ‘What are the common tools and techniques of strategizing and organizing and how are these used in practice?’ 5 1: INTRODUCTION ―Strategy tools‖ refer to the full range of ideas, concepts, approaches and techniques that influence strategic activity (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). They form a critical part of the ‗3P‘ framework as they relate to the ‗practices‘ that tacticians utilize while strategizing for the organization (Paroutis and Heracleous et al., 2013). Currently, managers draw upon numerous strategic tools to support rational processes of decision–making in the organization (Kaplan and Jarzabkowski, 2006, pp. 9-12). It is very critical to recognize that ―Strategy activity‖ is different from other management activities in various aspects. It is not only more unique, creative, non-programmable and non- routine, but also more ambiguous, complex and uncertain than various management activities (Johnson and Scholes et al., 2011). Tools assist managers in undertaking ‗strategic activity‘ by provide structuring context and framework for action in uncertain conditions (Clark, 1997, pp. 417--427). From the practice viewpoint, it is crucial to not only recognize the common tools used by practitioners but also to understand how they are applied while undertaking strategy activity (Whittington, 1996, pp. 731—735). This approach will allow us to understand how various actors engage with different strategy tools to mediate organizing and strategizing processes. In the present business context, strategic tools and techniques form a key component of typical MBA programmes and continue to be adopted in practitioner-oriented strategy literature (Hill and Jones, 2013). They provide critical insights into strategy by presenting information in a systemized way (Hussey, 1997, pp. 97--115). According to Webster et al (1989) tools can raise the level of strategic thinking in organizations and make the strategic planning process more effective. Some authors like Vinzant and Vinzant (1996) have emphasized that strategic tools are the cornerstones of strategic management. In order to understand what are the common tools of strategizing and organizing and how they are used in practice, one must first analyze the effects of various environmental and organizational settings on tool usage, then adopt a practice-based approach to understand how strategic actors 6 engage with these ―knowledge artifacts‖ (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348--367) in practice, and finally understand the relevance of strategic tools to practitioners. 2: CLASSIFICATION OF COMMON TOOLS BASED ON USE AND SATISFACTION In order to understand which common strategic tools managers use for strategizing and organizing, one must divide all the strategic tools into four distinct categories based on usage and the satisfaction (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2007, pp. 9--16). Figure 1: Classification of tools based on use and satisfaction (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2007, pp. 9--16) As depicted by the above diagram, strategic tools can be categorized into Rudimentary, Specialty, Blunt and Power tools based on usage and satisfaction. Rudimentary tools like Consumer Ethnography are usually the underdeveloped and new tools. Strategists draw upon these tools to adapt to changing trends but they rank relatively low in satisfaction due to incorrect Rudimentary Tools Consumer Ethnography Low Satisfaction High L o w U s a g e H i g h Blunt Tools Knowledge Management Power Tools Strategic Planning CRM Specialty Tools Mergers and Acquisitions 7 usage. Specialty tools like Mergers and Acquisitions serve a functional niche and are highly effective when employed appropriately (Paroutis and Heracleous et al., 2013). On the other hand, blunt tools like knowledge management are used extensively by practitioners, but fail to be effective due to poor implementation (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2007, pp. 9--16). Power Tools like Customer Relationship Management and Strategic Planning are the most important tools for practitioners as they have a proven track record of use and satisfaction (Paroutis and Heracleous et al., 2013). These techniques form the most valuable components of every company‘s toolkit as the firm seeks grow profitably. It is vital for every company to recognize which tool is applicable for which situation. The failure to recognize the apt tool could lead to high dissatisfaction even if the tool is used extensively. (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2013, pp. 8-12). 8 3: COMMON TOOLS IN DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL/ INDIVIDUAL SETTING In order to establish a deeper understanding of the common tools used for strategizing and organizing, one must critically analyze the different organizational and environmental settings in which managers operate. The number and kind of strategy tools adopted by practitioners for strategizing and organizing depends on crucial factors such as environmental trends, industry type, individual background and geographical region. Figure 2: Organizational/Environmental/Individual Factors affecting tool usage Firstly, the environmental trends play a crucial role in determining the common tools and techniques applied by practitioners. The types of tools strategists use significantly change over time with the change in business environment (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2005, pp. 4--12). In 1993, the five most popular techniques were Customer satisfaction, Vision and mission statements, Total Quality Management, Competitor profiling and Pay-for- performance (Rigby, 2001). By 2007, there was a sharpened customer focus with companies understanding the value of acting on customer insights and managing customers to foster brand loyalty. To keep in line with the changing Factors affecting tool usage Environental Trends Industry Type Geographical region Education Backgroud 9 environmental trends, managers used tools like Customer relationship, Customer segmentation and Core Competency tools more extensively (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2007, pp. 9--16). Further, it is critical to understand that in the 20 th century, organizations considered innovation more important than cost cutting for long-term success. This shifting of priority led to an increase in use of tools such as Knowledge Management and Scenario planning, to help the companies prepare for both the opportunities and risks of globalization (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2007, pp. 9--16). It is critical for practitioners to apply tools, which are not only relevant in the present context but also help them adapt to the changing business environment. Another factor that significantly affects the quantity and type of tools practiced by managers is the ‗type of industry‘ in which the organizations operate. The technology, media, utilities and manufacturing companies use more tools than not for profit organizations (NFP) and financial services (Jarzabkowski and Oliveira et al., 2009). This trend can be justified by the difference in nature of competitive environment and the contrasting dynamics of the sectors. However, the reasons underpinning the higher level of tool use by companies in various sectors may be different. For instance, the highly regulated utilities firms use more strategy tools to create transparency by presenting strategic information appropriately to stakeholders. On the other hand, the high level of tool usage in technology firms can be attributed to the emergent nature of business models and dynamism in the sector (Jarzabkowski and Oliveira et al., 2009). It is vital to recognize that managers in different industries have distinctive needs and they would apply different tools to accomplish their goals. For instance, the NFP organizations use PESTLE analysis extensively as they are highly impacted by changes in policy/legislation and environmental issues. The lower use of Porters 5 forces in NFP‘s indicates their greater focus on internal resources rather than external resources, to provide services and gain advantage with funders. On the other hand the manufacturing sector extensively uses value chain analysis to evaluate inbound and outbound logistics for cost cutting purposes. (Jarzabkowski and Oliveira et al., 2009). 10 The third factor that affects tool usage by managers is the educational and professional background of managers. To highlight the common tools used by managers, one must move away from a rational, normative approach to more humanistic approach. Academically trained managers, who have been educated in business schools are heavily reliant on theoretical frameworks such as McKinsey 7 ‗S‘, value chain and Porters 5 forces (Gunn and Williams, 2007, pp. 201--216). Even though tools like resource capability analysis and Scenario planning are applied by organizations in a very practical way, they are most widely used by actors who are drawn from academia or have a strong academic background. On the other hand, ‗Professionally or Apply Trained managers‘, who have years of professional experience tend to use practical and holistic tools such as benchmarking, SWOT and Balanced Scorecard (Gunn and Williams, 2007, pp. 201--216). In general, the greater the level of education and management training an individual has, the more strategy tools he will use for strategizing and organizing (Jarzabkowski and Oliveira et al., 2009). Lastly, the geographical region plays a vital role in establishing the kind of tool usage adopted by managers. European managers show their commitment towards customers and focus on the long-term picture by regularly applying tools such as Customer segmentation and Strategic planning (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2007, pp. 9--16). Unsurprisingly, Asian practitioners apply more of newer tools like Consumer Ethnography and Corporate blogs due to the strong economic growth and large number of early adopters in Asia (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2005, pp. 4--12). As a result of employee morale and productivity being crucial in North America, most firms widely use employee centric tools like Employee Engagement (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2013, pp. 8-12). Thus, the geographical region has a significant impact on the type of tools used by the managers for strategizing and organizing. 11 4: APPLICATION OF COMMON TOOLS IN PRACTICE Most of the existing studies on strategy tools focus on the portfolio of strategy tools and their classifications of usage based on different organizational settings (Paroutis and Heracleous et al., 2013). By adopting a more behavioral, humanistic and interpretivist approach to the study of strategy, one can focus on the micro-level analysis, which is grounded in the behavior and actions of individuals and groups. With the emergence of ‗Strategy-as- perspective‘ approach, it is critical to view the practice-inspired approaches to understand ‗how‘ various actors apply strategy tools in mediating organizing and strategizing processes (Kaplan and Jarzabkowski, 2006, pp. 9-12). This practice perspective will allow us to focus on micro-level activities and understand how strategists ‗strategize‘ or how managers ‗do strategy‘ with the help of tools and techniques, which are either learnt in high profile MBA programmes or created by the actors themselves (Whittington, 1996, pp. 731- -735). 12 4.1: STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK The Strategic management (SM) framework can provide an effective way to explore how tools and techniques are employed in practice (Clark, 1997, pp. 417--427). Through this framework, one can understand how in practice, managers apply large set of tools as a support role by linking them to specific strategic tasks. In order to analyze how practitioners apply various tools throughout the process, it is critical to understand the SM framework. Figure 3: Strategic Management Framework (Clark, 1997, pp. 417--427) In practice, managers use traditional common tools such as SWOT analysis, PESTLE analysis, focus groups and critical success factors to analyze both the operating environment and internal resources of the organization (Phase 1). For strategic analysis, managers extensively use spreadsheet modeling Phase 1 Situation assessment Phase 2 Strategic analysis Phase 3 Strategic Implementation Evaluation of current strategic position and identification of strategic issues through organizational and environmental analysis Involves identifying and selecting the best strategy for the future. To facilitate the implementation of chosen strategy 13 and cost-benefit analysis in addition to the traditional SWOT (Clark, 1997, pp. 417--427). The critical observation to make in the final phase is not the importance given to budgeting but the absence of SWOT analysis. One can conclude that in practice, the traditional tool SWOT plays a crucial role in formulating strategy rather than implementing strategy (Clark, 1997, pp. 417-- 427). Further it is critical to recognize, that in practice managers adopt an integrative approach by applying a wide variety of financial, behavioral, marketing, research and technological tools for each strategic task. Managers apply general tools like SWOT and Focus groups for a wide variety of tasks, while specific technical tools like spreadsheet modeling are applied only for a specific type of analysis (Clark, 1997, pp. 417--427). In general, practitioners prefer to adopt ‗basic common tools‘ like SWOT analysis rather than complex approaches like McKinsey 7 ‗S‘ framework (Gunn and Williams, 2007, pp. 201--216). 14 4.2: GENERIC MODES OF TOOL APPLICATION Knott (2006) argues that in practice, managers apply tools and techniques according to strategic problem needs. He believes that by analyzing various dimensions that represent the diversity of functions and characteristics involved in tool usage, one can understand how individuals and small groups apply strategy tools in practice. The dimensions that will help us view strategy-tools from a practice-based perspective are tool use, application, thinking and output (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). Based on the inherent relationship between the characteristics of these dimensions, managers use five generic application modes to mediate strategizing and organizing activities. These modes put an emphasis on the importance and centrality of user adaption of tools (Paroutis and Heracleous et al., 2013). Figure 4: Dimensions of the Analytical mode (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105) In the ‗Analytical mode‘, managers view tools as a ‗technique‘ to look into details of a specific aspect of a problem , and seek to generate a static output by using a defined method (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). The application is more tool-centered as the tool determines the scope and perspective, and 15 allows prescription for general guidance. This mode fosters focused thinking as the manager looks into specific aspects of the problem and uses multiple techniques of analysis, to look into different aspects of the same problem. Under this mode, managers employ tools such as real option analysis and 5- force analysis for a supportive role to back decision-making rather than specifying a particular action (Knott, 2008, pp. 26--31). Figure 5: Dimensions of the Dynamic mode (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105) In the dynamic mode, managers employ tools to align strategic decisions with future conditions by making assumptions about the future environment (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). The application of tools is more need-centered as the usage is heuristic in nature and involves significant interpretation by the practitioner. The managers look for explanatory output to provide a rational justification for expecting future events. Under this mode, tools like the industry life cycle and dynamic capabilities framework are used to act as an aid to decision –making rather than a substitute (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). 16 Figure 6: Dimensions of the Metaphorical mode (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105) In Metaphorical applications, tools like analogical reasoning in unusual conditions (radically innovative ventures or highly unstable environments) to generate fresh thinking about a situation when analytical understanding is not possible (Paroutis and Heracleous et al., 2013). The value of metaphorical applications lies in the dynamic output, which is facilitative in an environment of complexity, lack of data and uncertainty. Under this mode, managers draw upon tools to foster creative, out of the box and divergent thinking that helps attain experiential knowledge (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). 17 Figure 7: Dimensions of the Facilitative mode (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105) To encourage creativity, structure communication and adopt a future-oriented approach, managers use the facilitative mode of application (Paroutis and Heracleous et al., 2013). Techniques such as SWOT, TOWS and scenario planning are applied in a tool-centered approach, to inspire expansive thinking about future strategies (Knott, 2008, pp. 26--31). The value gained from such an application relates to the understanding gained by the strategist. Thus, the managers seek output in the form of explanations relating to clarifying ideas, issues and strategies (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). This will help them in subsequent analysis before the decision-making process. Thus, in this mode, tools are used in a facilitative role to collaborate and communicate rather than to perform analysis or make decisions. 18 Figure 8: Dimensions of the Interventionist mode (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105) In this mode, the practitioners use tools as a catalyst for change or a blueprint for action rather than an input to decision making (Paroutis and Heracleous et al., 2013). Common tools that lend themselves to interventionist application are total quality management, benchmarking and balanced scorecard (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). It is critical for managers to recognize the various institutional implications of this mode such as organization wide adoption and substantial commitment of resources. Here, the managers use tools more like an approach to apply a set of interconnected concepts and techniques for managing a particular aspect (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). 19 4.3: CONTEXTUAL CONDITIONS AND BRICOLAGE Theoretical strategic knowledge, derived from economic and organization theory, is simplified into ‗knowledge artifacts‘ such as tools, techniques and frameworks (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348--367). Practitioners use these artifacts to apply strategy knowledge in action and guide the decision- making process. The purpose of strategy knowledge is to provide a set of tools and techniques that assist managers to undertake well-considered strategic actions. In the present context, organizations operate in a knowledge economy, which is characterized by deregulation, globalization, increased rates of innovation and technological diffusion (Paroutis and Heracleous et al., 2013). Jarzabkowski and Wilson (2006) suggest that two contextual conditions affect the way in which managers apply tools and techniques in the knowledge economy. The first condition, Environmental Velocity, characterizes the industry structure and can be identified through the speed, dynamism, complexity and turbulence of the environment. The second condition, Knowledge Intensity, characterizes firm behavior and can be identified by input measures, such as Research and Development and output measures, such as patents and product innovations. 20 Figure 9: Applications of Strategy tools in Contextual conditions (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348--367) The above diagram provides a design of how ‗practitioners‘ employ various ‗strategy knowledge artifacts‘, derived from different strategy theories, consistently with the contextual conditions of the firms. This helps them to simplify complex situations and provide organizations with stability. For instance, in a hypercompetitive industry, which is characterized by high environmental velocity and knowledge intensity, managers will adopt tools like 7S Disruption, simple rules fast decisions and various other tools that drive flexibility, speed and innovation (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348-- 367). Thus, in practice, strategists adopt tools in accordance with the contextual conditions of the firm to help build sustainable competitive advantage in the knowledge economy. One cannot invalidate managers, who consider contextual conditions while applying the knowledge artifacts. However, at the same time, by adopting a more practice-oriented approach one can greater insight into the role of tools in negotiating the contextual conditions. The contextual conditions act as an objective reality and provide the mangers a prescription to act in that reality, 21 but a change in these conditions could cause the knowledge artifacts to fail to deliver their desired objective (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348--367). It is important to investigate whether the use of tools by practitioners is consistent with the theoretical purpose of the tools. The practice epistemology helps us understand how in practice, the knowledge artifacts are dissociated from their theoretical bases (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348--367). Figure 10: Dissociation of Strategy theory in Practice (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348--367) It is critical to understand that in practice, the use of tools and frameworks, derived from strategy theory, is more complex than a direct application. Figure 10 depicts the dissociation process that occurs when practitioners in their everyday practice of strategy adapt ‗artifacts‘ differently from what the academics perceive them in theory. From the practice perspective, the practitioners move away from the unidirectional application of tools and fashion them according to situational demands, in order to make real-time Knowledge Artifacts Tools, Techniques and frameworks arising from theory Use by practitioners Bricolage: Adaptive, creative, everyday practice of strategy DISSOCIATION Adaption of artifacts through use in practice 22 judgments (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348--367). In the process of strategizing and organizing, the managers have little concern for theoretical origins and make innovative use of knowledge by adapting existing ‗artifacts‘ to their own use. This practical adaption of tools to satisfy manager‘s own ends without any particular regard for the theoretical purpose of the tool is defined as ‗Bricolage‘ (Certeau, 1984). It is critical to understand that ‗Bricolage‘ does not constitute deviance from or ignorance about the ‗proper‘ application of the tool. On the contrary, it is a more pragmatic approach that involves a high level of practitioner skill and helps the strategists deal with uncertainty and ambiguity about future strategy. It is vital to recognize ‗Bricolage‘ as a part of everyday reflexivity and creativity of practice rather than an unusual or rare behavior. Chesley and Wenger (1999) give an appropriate example of ‗Bricolage‘ by depicting how the balanced scorecard was implemented in the public agency National Reconnaissance Office. The model was adapted to fit the organizational context as ‗innovation and learning‘ was changed to ‗customer satisfaction‘, indicating that the customers were the most important stakeholders for the public organization. The concept of ‗financial management‘ was expanded to include budgeting as the organization had to meet a budget rather than make a profit. The managers tactfully applied the theoretical tool to provide a language to discuss strategy and drive organizational change. It is critical to understand that the adaption of a tool to foster strategic conversation and drive change, rather than to serve a methodical diagnostic purpose does not make it less actionable (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348--367). Academics focus on the theory behind each tool, while the strategists are more concerned with the application of these artifacts in the practical world. This does not imply that prescriptive and direct uses of tools do not or should not occur in practice. Some practitioners‘ do sought the contextual and theoretical use of tools to guide decision-making, but most of them creatively modify them to meet their desired purpose. Even though many authors have questioned the use of traditional tools in the knowledge economy, strategists continue to use established artifacts, such as Porters 5 forces, as they have linguistic, technical and cultural legitimacy 23 (Campbell, 1997). Since traditional tools are robust, its technical legitimacy cannot be questioned before use. Further, these tools get cultural acceptance as are widely disseminated in strategy textbooks, MBA courses and media. Linguistically, these tools are easily recognizable and understandable, which makes it easier for purposes of mutual intelligibility. Thus, the ‗old‘ strategy tools, which are theoretically presumed to be less useful in dynamic contextual conditions, continue to be regularly applied in practice (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006, pp. 348--367). 24 5: CONCLUSION Various environmental, organizational and individual settings affect the common tools adopted by practitioners for strategizing and organizing. There is no set of common tools that can be applied by a strategist, as relevant tools must be adopted in accordance with the strategic need, business context and intent of use. In practice, the application of strategy tools goes way beyond direct application and is more of a complicated, dynamic phenomenon. The use of strategy tools cannot be pinned down to one purpose, as strategists employ tools for facilitative, supportive, communicative, analytical and decision-making purposes. A practice-oriented approach emphasizes that less attention should be paid to the kind of tools used and more to the actual use of tools, and the adaptions made to the tools by the strategic actors when dealing with strategic issues. Such an approach has implications for tool originators, communicators and managers. For tool originators, such as authors, it is important to specify how managers could modify tools without comprising on the underlying theoretical concepts. The tool communicators (teachers of MBA programs) must encourage students to reflect on creative adaption of tools. Lastly, the managers must be flexible and focus on reinventing tools to fit specific purposes (Knott, 2008, pp. 26--31). It is important for strategists to understand that ‗Tool is a means to an end, not an end itself‖ (Knott, 2006, pp. 1090--1105). They must recognize the strengths and weaknesses of every tool to combine it with the right tools in the right way at the right time. The organizations must support this by putting in place a rational system for integrating, selecting and implementing tools. To successfully implement a strategic tool, an organization must ensure a strong top-down support and make the tool implementation a major initiative rather than a limited effort. A strategy tool will only assist strategic activity rather than providing a substitute for capabilities or experience of the manager. It is not correct for theoretical tools to dictate management actions but it is time for result-oriented managers to control their business by creatively and actively managing strategic tools. 25 References Campbell, J. 1997. Mechanisms of evolutionary change in economic governance. Evolutionary Economics and Path dependence, 10 (32). Certeau, M. D. 1984. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chesley, J. A. and Wenger, M. S. 1999. Transforming an Organization: Using Models to Foster a Strategic Conversation. California Management Review, 41 (3). Clark, D. N. 1997. Strategic management tool usage: a comparative study. Strategic Change, 6 (7), pp. 417--427. Clark, D. N. 1997. Strategic management tool usage: a comparative study. Strategic Change, 6 (7), pp. 417--427. Gunn, R. and Williams, W. 2007. Strategic tools: an empirical investigation into strategy in practice in the UK. Strategic Change, 16 (5), pp. 201--216. Hill, C. W. L. and Jones, G. R. 2013. Strategic management. Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning. Hussey, D. 1997. Glossary of techniques for strategic analysis. Strategic Change, 6 (2), pp. 97--115. Jarzabkowski, P. and Wilson, D. C. 2006. Actionable Strategy Knowledge:: A Practice Perspective. European Management Journal, 24 (5), pp. 348-- 367. Jarzabkowski, P., Oliveira, B. and Giulietti, M. 2009. Building a strategy toolkit: lessons from business: executive briefings. Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM). Johnson, G., Scholes, K., Johnson, G. and Whittington, R. 2011. Exploring strategy. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. 26 Kaplan, S. and Jarzabkowski, P. 2006. Using strategy tools in practice-How tools mediate strategizing and organizing. ESRC, 47 pp. 9-12. Knott, P. 2008. Strategy tools: who really uses them?. Journal of Business Strategy, 29 (5), pp. 26--31. Knott, P. 2006. A typology of strategy tool applications. Management Decision, 44 (8), pp. 1090--1105. Paroutis, S., Heracleous, L. T. and Angwin, D. 2013. Practicing strategy. London: SAGE. Rigby, D. 2001. Management Tools and Techniques: A SURVEY. California Management Review, 43 (2). Rigby, D. and Bilodeau, B. 2007. Bain's global 2007 management tools and trends survey. Strategy & Leadership, 35 (5), pp. 9--16. Rigby, D. and Bilodeau, B. 2013. Management Tools and Trends. pp. 8-12. Rigby, D. and Bilodeau, B. 2005. The Bain 2005 management tool survey. Strategy & Leadership, 33 (4), pp. 4--12. Webster, J. L., Reif, W. E. and Bracker, J. S. 1989. The manager's guide to strategic planning tools and techniques. Strategy & Leadership, 17 (6), pp. 4--48. Whittington, R. 1996. Strategy as practice. Long range planning, 29 (5), pp. 731--735.