Supporting Material is available for this work. For more information, follow the link from
the Table of Contents to "Accessing Supporting Material".
Table of Contents
Strategic Analysis Evolution:
scenario planning and simulation based on the
methodology of System Dynamics.
Andrea M. Bassi
Via Jean De Fernex, 5
21057 - Olgiate Olona (VA) - ITALY
Tel. +39033 1642382 — Mobile: +393392892586
E-mail: 4141 @stud.liuc.it
The present study is aimed at developing the optimal instruments for
dispelling the uncertainty factors during the formulation of strategies
for corporate development. The objective is the creation of a
complete model of strategic analysis, which encompasses both the
environment (internal and external) and the management rational
component. This model — built on the analysis of three corporate
cases - is concretized by a simulation for testing the strategy by the
means of software which enables the users to cope with a dynamic
and complex corporate environment. The research questions regard
the development of a complete strategic analysis, which covers the
entire decision-making process; the concrete assessment of the
business strategy on the basis of quantitative data; the identification
and enhancement of the critical variables of business administration,
in such a complex and dynamic reality as the corporate
environment.
Introduction
The present study originates from the consideration that strategic analysis tends to focus
on the internal corporate environment (Resource-Based View of the firm, Penrose,
1959; Rubin, 1973; Wernerfelt, 1984; Grant, 1988) and the external one -the market-
(Industry Analysis, framework developed by Industrial Organization scholars. e.g.,
Porter, 1985; traditional Scenario Planning), but partly it overlooks the investigation of
the human component and corresponding rationality, neglecting their introduction in a
complete analytical model (Simon, 1968, 1976, 1985; Tversky., Kahneman, 1988, 1992;
Hargreaves Heap et al., 1996).
In the business context, decisional power is handed by the company’s management. The
management, indeed, takes strategic decisions regarding uncertain and complicated
situations. Yet, despite a thorough environmental knowledge, it is very difficult to take
optimal decisions. As it happened in the last few years, market trends are very
unpredictable and this limits the validity of strategies based on the sole competitive
scene. Ever since, strategic analyses have been partially ignoring the study of the
manager’s emotions and rationality. These two are characterised by the presence of
mental models affecting the objectivity and rationality of the decisional process.
This research aims at identifying useful tools for dispelling those factors generating
uncertainty during the formulation of strategies for the corporate development. The
starting point is represented by the analysis carried out by Amit and Schoemaker
(Strategic Assets and Organizational Rents, 1999) which has only proposed a theoretical
approach to the problem. The objective, thereby, is to propose a joint model of strategic
analysis which accounts for both the environment -internal and external- and the
management’s rational component. This approach has been introduced by Warren
(2002) and Morecroft (1994) but it has not even been considered by Amit and
Schoemaker (1999), Mats Lindgren and Hans Bandhold (2003), Porter (1985) and Grant
(1988). In order to achieve a complete analysis, the proposed study will be accompanied
by a software-based strategy testing simulation for dealing with the complex and
dynamic corporate scene.
Complete information is necessary for the development of a successful strategy. The
deep knowledge of both the corporate world and the external environment is widely
discussed by the literature, which has particularly appreciated the Resource-Based View
and the Industry Analysis (Porter, 1985). The joint union of these two theoretical
framework on one hand provides for a clear and complete view of the environment and
market where the company is positioned, on the other, it sheds light on the company’s
strengths and weaknesses relative to competition and market demand. However, a
critical aspect that is frequently neglected by the traditional organizational studies is the
rationality of the management which has to take strategically relevant decisions. Such
rationality is used both in daily decisions and in meetings organised for the definition of
fundamental long-term development strategies (Simon, 1978, 1976, 1985; Tversky,
Kahneman, 1988, 1992; Hargreaves Heap et al., 1996).
Therefore, one of the questions that will be addressed is how to present a complete
strategic analysis which encompasses all the aspects of the decisional process -internal
and external environment, personality, emotiveness and management uncertainty.
As a matter of fact, despite the availability of all the information necessary for a correct
strategy formulation, the unpredictability of the results of its application and
implementation is still quite strong, since any immediate testing is missing. Given the
impossibility of having a real time match in the external environment when formulating
the strategy, it seems natural to concentrate the efforts on the analysis of potential
repercussions on the internal environment and, in case, on the external interlocutors. In
this respect, the ongoing debate within organizational studies raises the question of how
firm strategy can be actually assessed adopting “quantitative” data.
The possibility of testing the effects of the implementation of the strategy on the
corporate system before the strategy itself is actually implemented could represent an
enormous advantage for the management in charge of formulating it. Because of the
reality’s complexity and dynamism, the human brain cannot afford to consider all the
variables and relations behind the business (Senge, 1990; Sterman, 2000; Argyris,
1990). Thereby, it is interesting to understand how it is possible to identify and
highlight the critical factors of the future activity in such a complex and dynamic
context as the company environment.
A framework for strategic analysis
The methodology laying behind hereby presented analysis of business strategy and
competitiveness is the following:
Figure 1: Proposal for the analysis of business strategy.
Model of
Analysis = =
System Dynamics
Analysis of
aaa Boner
STRATEGIC orter’s
APPROACH, ANALYSIS
ie 5 Forces
\ Thee, et Strategic
RATIONALITY fy iyi] = Gemssestors inary
f Qa
a °
F / o
System Thinking /
RESOURCES: o0o0
Resource-Based BASED VIEW
View
The proposed model is made up of two different analytical methodologies, in order to
offer a unique study, which appropriately supports the company management. The
external analysis, carried out in a continuative way, is proposed through the Industry
Analysis study (Porter, 1985). By isolating the market component, which is completely
external to the company, it is possible to identify the Strategic Industry Factors, which
are “determined at the market level through complex interactions among the firm’s
competitors, customers, regulators, innovators external to the industry, and other
stakeholders” (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). The interlocutors are considered apart
from the external environment, since they represent part of the resources: a good
suppliers and customers portfolio, indeed, can be regarded as an internal resource.
Like the Strategic Industry Factors, resources and competences are considered as
Strategic Assets: “Strategic assets are the set of difficult to trade and imitate, scarce,
appropriable and specialized Resources and Capabilities that bestow the firm’s
competitive advantage” (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). This definition is similar to the
resource concept based on the “VRIN attributes”: valuable, rare, inimitable, non
substitutable. As a result, the identification of the distinctive competences automatically
generates potential performance objectives in the management’s thought. This is
possible thanks to the constantly updated corporate vision that the entrepreneur has
formulated. In order to study and analyse this step the introduction of System Thinking
is here proposed. This methodology examines the entrepreneur’s Mental Models, while
considering the reasons and the logical processes behind the formulation of the
objectives.
Scenarios are also introduced, so as to better understand the Mental Models and
improve the comprehension of the entrepreneur’s ideology and relevant information.
Consequently, Closed-Loop Thinking is introduced by the means of cause-effect
diagrams, so as to go along the manager’s logical processes. By so doing, rationality is
put under examination. Ultimately, after having defined the main targets, the System
Dynamics methodology is integrated at the point of strategic planning. Computer-based
simulation models are created by translating cause-effect diagrams into flow diagrams.
Such tool is rigorous and provides useful quantitative data, to be used against dynamic
complexity. Simulation can be utilised when both formulating the strategy and assessing
it, since it permits to play and test various scenarios. Furthermore, a Single Loop
Learning can be noticed, in case of short-term strategies, as well as a Double Loop
Learning in case of long-term initiatives requiring a complete re-examination of the
economic scene (Argyris, 1992).
The presented model for the analysis of business strategy can be interpreted in two
different ways. On one hand, as a form of business analysis (descriptive approach), the
entrepreneur’s rationality is examined through System Thinking before formulating the
strategic approach. On the other, as a form of theoretical proposal for the analysis
(normative approach), the recourse to System Thinking should be introduced before the
definition of the objectives.
Figure 2: Differences between the standard Manager analysis and the methodology
proposed.
Manager Approach
Continuous (daily)
external analysis
Continuous (daily)
internal analysis
Personal mental
models
Absence of an objective point of view,
no analysis of the personal mental
models and no decision testing.
X J \
Strategic Analyst Approach
Porter Five forces
(external environment)
Resource-Based View
(internal environment)
In order to
comprehend
the
management
rationality
u
Scenario Planning
au
Closed-loop diagrams
q.
Simulation )
a
vr
Up to date vision of present_and future
Figure 2 aims at identifying the differences between the manager’s and the analyst’s
(external) view of the company. In order to have an up to date vision of the environment
and the internal dynamics the two individuals adopt different approaches. The manager
is daily involved in company life, but his/her mental model affects his/her objectivity.
On the other hand, due to the nature of their work (external to the company’s reality),
consultants recur to different, more objective tools of analysis. The present model, in
order to clarify the reasoning of the managers, proposes the utilisation of CLD, Scenario
Planning and the use of the computer-based simulation (third arrow in figure 2). This
model of analysis could be useful also for the internal management because it excludes
any subjectivity of the thought, helping understanding personal mental models.
The awareness of such differences between internal and external approaches has
contributed to build the framework of analysis proposed in the present paper.
Particularly in companies characterised by strong personalities (like the Italian Small
Medium Enterprises here considered as case study), where the management’s word has
more decisional power than statistics and facts, this model could be extremely helpful
for avoiding negative subjectivity.
Theories and disciplines behind the proposed framework
The Industry Analysis framework (Porter, 1985) accounts for the external environment,
including market, suppliers, clients, potential entrants and substitutes. In 1980 Porter
himself developed the value chain theory, thus offering a strategic approach based on
the examination of three interrelated elements: the environment, the company’s attitude
and its own market results. Within this framework, the success achieved by the
company originates from the interaction of two elements: the attractiveness of the
industrial sector the company belongs to and the company’s position in the sector.
Thanks to the contribution of Porter and the identification of five competitive forces, the
company is given the chance to determine a personal strategic conduct and partly
contribute to the achievement of its own success. This model is excellent in assigning
the potential profit to the various companies in the market, while focusing on the
competitive forces and barriers that are prevailing in the environment. Yet, it is
incomplete, since it considers the company as a “black box”, whose attitude and
reactions are unknown.
The Resource-Based View, on the contrary, concentrates on the imperfections in the
market. Limited transfer of resources, their scarcity, complementarity and
appropriability might increase the opportunity of acquiring a long-lasting competitive
advantage stemming from the characteristics of uniqueness of both resources and
competences of every single company. These competences, generated by a conscious
and particular utilisation of resources, are affected by the Strategic Industry factors. As
the definition states (Grant 1988), competences originate from comparisons with the
competition. The company’s objects, thereby, are the result of an internal and external
analysis of the company as a whole, but they are not created by rationality; they are
shaped, instead, by ideas, convictions, ambitions and the entrepreneur’s personality
characteristics (in the specific case, since the present analysis has focused on a small
company, reference is voluntarily made to family-run small-midsized enterprises ). With
the Resource-Based Theory (Penrose, 1959; Rubin, 1973; Wenerfelt, 1984; Grant,
1988), the attention shifts to the company’s resources and competences. Hence, the
analysis perspective, which in the past was exclusively focused on the sectorial
variables, changes and concentrates on the sole corporate dimensions.
Today we assist to the gradual integration of various approaches, achieved through an
integrated research that unifies the tools for the sectorial analysis with the study of the
single company, so as to reach a wider view of the strategic analysis (Lindgren &
Bandhold, 2003; Warren, 2002). In this respect, following the principles proposed by
Amit and Schoemaker', and in order to have a complete analysis of the environment
and the opportunities for creating a competitive advantage, it is essential to integrate the
conjunct analysis of the enlarged sector and the corporate resources with the study of
the mental processes that guide the managers in their strategic decision-making.
Strategic decisions, quite often imperfect and discretional, are usually characterised by
unpredictability (the state of the economy and industry, regulations, society,
technological development, competitors strategies, fashion and sales trends), complexity
(dynamics affecting the company’s performance, different competitive strategies
emerging from the interpretation of the competitive scene) and internal conflicts (with
reference to those dealing with important decisions, their assistants and those who are
directly affected by such decisions), rarely governable and understandable.
Contrary to the study offered by Amit and Schoemaker, the present model aims at
analysing the mental processes, tracing their map, studying them and compare them by
the means of simulation models that highlight important discrepancies in the drawn
conclusions, even if starting form identical assumptions and available data.
Building a scenario allows for the definition of the objectives, determined by comparing
the internal performance and the possibilities of market growth (Kahn, Bown, Martel,
1976; Godet et al., 2000). This analytical tool permits to go along the management’s
reasoning and build a similar analytical reasoning process starting from the same
information. This analysis, which derives from a “picture” of the reality, is nonetheless
quite static. When building scenarios, it is necessary to select and define the information
collected in the economic scene. That is why the analysis of the management’s mental
models is essential, so as to better understand the decisional processes and the market
dynamics.
' “Strategic Assets and Organizational Rents”, Amit and Schoemaker (1993): the heterogeneity of the companies
in the market, both in equilibrium and disequilibrium, and the creation of new competitive advantages can be
considered as generated by the companies’ resources and competencies.
Figure 3: Scenario planning as part of System Thinking methodology.
Scenario Planning
Rather than a method or a group of — Global scenarios
methods, scenarios represent a vee ‘Targeted
mental approach to face the ras Sy
pions creation
problems traditionally arising in
Strategic vision Options pianification
the strategic analysis (scenarios as Strate (Obtons planificad
learning elements). 7-7
Competitive
positioning
Scenarios used for delving the management's thought and defining the specific
context.
System Thinking provides for a conceptual framework to better understand the
complexity of the reality: the links between all the elements are captured, rather than
taking them as single entities.
The third discipline utilized in the hereby presented analytical model is System
Thinking, which provides for a conceptual structure that helps improving the
understanding of the reality’s complexity by considering all the relationships among
elements rather than taking the single elements at such (Senge, 1990). Thanks to such
methodology, it is possible to study the management’s personal component and relative
decisional process. The analysis starts from the perception of events and environment,
identified and represented by scenarios; it follows the translation of the thought (logical
processes) into cause-effect diagrams related to the links existing among those variables
determining the company’s life as a whole. A further step for deepening the knowledge
of the management’s System Thinking is represented by the introduction of tools for the
contextualisation and testing of the environment and the mental processes, respectively.
The contextualisation can be carried out by recurring to descriptive scenarios, which
allow to forecast a potential future development of those variables affecting the
corporate system, together with providing a representation of reality.
Figure 4: An example of scenario building utilised for the study of the Mirage Spa
Case.
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
(worse) (neutral) (optimal)
International polities
Terrorism- USA~Traq Temporary Unique
war diplomatic stability in the | resolution for
relation worsens | Middle East and | avoiding
due to Afghan —_| in the USA~ uncertainty
terrorism, towards the
Divisions within future. ONU
the ONU alliance, | rapport. Constant,
increasing contacts between | on a unique
uncertainty, the two partners, | position,
spread, fright and_| but divisions agreements are
tension (war among the ONU_ | achieved by
threat always countries. The | the world’s,
present, but never | conflict future —_| leading
concrete). developments and | nations.
resolution still
uncertain,
Oil price
ep veora
Be! Mol gen? gO? gerd td
September 2002
In accordance with the System Thinking methodology, the analysis of the mental
processes is carried out also by introducing the System Dynamics methodology.
The testing method here adopted consists of the creation of closed-loop thinking, its
successive application to caused-effect diagrams (which check the consistency of the
management’s strategic reasoning) and the translation of the found bonds into flow
diagrams. Such diagrams give useful help in evaluating the reasoning correctness and
completing the study with the provision of quantitative output, while offering a
simulation model appropriately built for the company in question.
This final process, based on the System Dynamics methodology, makes even more
dynamic the reality, which appeared pretty static with Porter’s theory and the Resource-
Based View.
The strategy outcomes are, thus, determined by the internal and external analysis of the
company, by the managers’ personality component and rationality, as well as by those
events that will occur during the strategy application.
Figure 5: An example of the closed-loop diagram utilised for the study of the Mirage
Spa Case.
Moulds requited
Bynes,
a
Gap 1
Reinforcing
Loop
Rie Onders
iy ¥ Moulds cost
sae ‘moulds Batancing Loop Ammeortaento
: Otter production SMPi
)
Production new _sel |
mous
et \ costs
Reinforcing
Loop : Balancing Loop
_ Rejected models
ae
as ee
5 Walue added
desired
The model utilised for the business analysis consists of two sections: production and
planning. Here are presented two figures representing the planning section.
Figure 6: An example of the flow diagram (first simulation model) utilised for the study
of the Mirage Spa Case.
tempo pation) stanpi
otopicatorestrpbes
Stanpidesderaioaclet ont rtd ost jens
Simulation allows the necessary testing for further improving the strategy by reducing
uncertainty, due to the possibility of setting the model with real data and a structure
faithfully representing the corporate one (Senge, 1990, 1994; Sterman, 2000). The same
strategy is then reproduced through cause-effect diagrams and subsequently translated
into flow diagrams, which help share knowledge and favour the growth of a managerial
group collectively working in a /earning organisation context (collegiality).
Thanks to the structure and flexibility of this tool -which permits the isolation and
separate simulation of sectors and single variables- it is possible to identify the
company’s critical elements, that is those variables subjected to high levels of stress due
to the strategy implementation. A further development is represented by the opportunity
of avoiding a non-equilibrated business growth, thanks to the identification and
probable enhancement of the departments/sectors/variables that are having more
problems (Sterman, 2000).
A multidisciplinary view for strategic analysis
The effectiveness of the proposed business analysis is subordinated to the presence of
rich information, necessary to delve, understand and explain the managerial decisional
process and the organisational routine entrenched in daily events. Specifically, such
information affects the simulation model building process. Moreover, each single
analytical theory contributes to the creation of a reliable model, which is thouroghly
representing the reality in question.
The Resource-Based View defines the simulation model structure, also reflecting the
presence of the corporate resources, and affects the choice of the variables to be
analysed for planning scenarios. Industry Analysis helps identify the environmental
variables that, linked to the internal factors, are crucial for simulation modeling and
scenario planning. Scenarios offer an assessment of the possible developments of key
external variables. System Thinking methodology encompasses both System Dynamics
and scenario building: the relevant variables are selected through the perception of
reality, and consequently examined and translated into causal loop diagrams and flow
diagrams.
10
Figure 7: Matrix representing the bonds between classical static theory (Porter, RBV)
and dynamic analysis (System Thinking, System Dynamics), in the internal and external
environment under analysis.
ENVIRONMENT ANALYSED
INTERNAL EXTERNAL
STATIC Resource-Based View Industry Analysis
RESEARCH
TYPOLOGY
v x ‘« v
DYNAMIC System Dynamics + Scenario building
' System Thinking '
The advantages stemming from an accurate creation of the simulation model regard the
possibility of identifying contradictions within the strategy (Future learning), the
identification and development of potential hidden strategic opportunities (Spotting
hidden strategic opportunities) and the discovery of possible unexploited levers. It
should not be underestimated the fact that an accurate model building implies the deep
knowledge of the complex dynamics regulating the functioning of the company
business, as well as it favours knowledge sharing using a simple and clear exposition of
the desired outputs.
The functioning mechanisms of simulation make this instrument very useful in every
moment of a company’s life, since it permits to test one’s own ideas and persuasions by
the means of a simulated objective and immediate reality, where the constraints
generated by the strategy execution time span are avoided.
It is, however, difficult to distinguish the corporate skills and outcomes from the market
trend, especially in positive periods and throughout long-term temporal horizons, when
there is no lack of orders and the production process goes smooth. Yet, business
inefficiencies tend to emerge in critical instances, an aspect which several managers
tend to overlook during positive times. The simulation model, thanks to the dynamism
of the reproduced environment, might enlighten the internal business management, by
11
separating the product demand and the external events from corporate results. As a
result, the management effectiveness appears the only aspect to be analysed and on
which basing the company’s strategy.
Conclusions
Some interesting advantages may result from the proposed model.
First, the possibility of implementing and testing strategies based on the theory, as well
as combining the knowledge derived from the simulation to the direct experience. The
presence of theories for the analysis of both the external-internal environment and
rationality guarantees a solid foundation for identifying and classifying the main pillars
of the on-going or completed strategy. The possibility of combining such research
methodology with the direct experience and with computer-based simulation tools
allows for a complete vision of the corporate system, based on precise precepts, as well
as for relevant data availability. It also offer the chance of relying on a software
program capable of simulating the forecast scenarios. The conjunction of method,
knowledge and testing permits the formation of a shared vision and the introduction of
learning organisation elements.
A second advantage is represented by the possibility of making dynamic a reality that,
when analysed, appears static. Similarly, the peculiarities of the corporate scene and the
bias of the economic situation are highlighted. Porter’s analysis and the Resource-Based
View make the reality static, producing a sort of still picture. Both System Thinking and
System Dynamics allow the dynamic transformation of the reality under question, thus
enabling the simulation of developments and attitudes over time. Furthermore, thanks to
the chance of obtaining quantitative data in output, the employed strategy acquires a
concrete value before being implemented. This way, it is possible to make comparisons,
formulate statistics and assessments of the impact on the company’s business - in the
areas of productive capacity and financial equilibrium, for instance.
A third advantage comes from the model flexibility, which gives the opportunity of
experimenting new ways of development and interrupting the simulation for assessing
the results - the taken decisions are thus memorised and catalogued. Once obtained all
the necessary information, the strategy may be formulating. The simulation tool not
only tests the effectiveness of the corporate projects, but also plans the future strategic
operations at best. This is possible due to the utilisation of a computer-based software
program capable of memorising the entered data and, hence, simulating multiple
scenarios and potential business strategies. Simulation could also be useful when
formulating and planning the strategy, for example in case it is necessary to estimate the
economic consequence of a choice or the exploitation of the productive capacity and
workforce. All these scenarios can be simulated and compared -thus choosing the best
one for the company- by modifying the input figures or the figures assigned to the
crucial variables of the company business. Also, simulation is certainly important when
optimising the strategy: in this case, in fact, the extent of those interventions considered
optimal and necessary is assessed and refined.
The level of openness achieved after having implemented this analytical framework is
very high (Senge & Sterman, 1994). By following such scheme, it is possible to detect
one’s own assumptions and mental models, as well as the whole reality. The ability of
self-questioning and capturing the ensemble from a different perspective can provide
12
essential hints for discussion. Thereby, the complete view emerging from combining the
details together becomes a useful tool for formulating the strategy. As a matter of fact,
the perspective enlargement results into a better comprehension of actions, and relative
consequences, done by other actors within the market. The ability of reasoning without
Mental Models and mental restrictions can, therefore, represent a fundamental benefit.
By so doing, everyone is able to identify his/her own position and plan the strategy,
accounting not only for the single events, but for their evolution. The company is
interpreted as a dynamic systemic element, which is constantly under control and
continuously affecting —and affected by- the other elements of the system, according to
the taken choices and respective repercussions.
Naturally, the model of formulation and analysis of business strategy here presented
shows some holes. Firstly, the great quantity of information necessary for scenario
building and model simulation will never exactly replicate the company’s situation,
even if the information at hands are pretty numerous. The System Dynamics main
purpose is to make a complex reality simpler and understandable. Thereby, the creation
of a simulation model should be finalised to the resolution of a problem by rationalising
and simplifying the real complexity. Secondly, it is necessary to say that this model has
been tested only in three cases of Small-Midsized Italian companies: a sunglasses
manufacturer (with the purpose of testing the internationalisation process), a start-up
company in the furniture sector and a small family business handling important
investments. Unfortunately it is not possible to say if the advantages of this method of
analysis are strong yet, because it takes time to clarify the evolution of the company’s
environment. Lastly, in order to get the best out of this methodology of analysis it is
necessary the help of specialists, especially in scenario building and simulation
modelling.
A fundamental question that still needs answering concerns the starting point of the
present study. Scenario building -subjective and immediate- does not affect the validity
of the methodology and simulation model presented here, but it could be fundamental
when entering external variables: this way, a “closed” reality (such as the modelled one)
is transformed into an “open” reality, dependent on the external events (such as the real
one). In this situation, the forecasting skills and the management experience will play a
crucial role, thus making more interesting the analysis of the personality and
rationalisation of the decisional process.
To conclude, the validity of the simulation model and methodology here presented
persists. By avoiding the relevant uncertainty factors, such tool provides the
management with a helpful instrument for formulating and testing the strategy.
13
Bibliography:
Airoldi G., Brunetti G. e Coda V. (1994), Economia Aziendale, Bologna, II
mulino.
Amit R., Schoemaker P. J. H. (1993), Strategic Assets and Organizational Rents,
Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.
Argyris C., Schén D. A. (1998), Apprendimento organizzativo: teoria, metodo e
pratiche, Milano, Guerini.
Argyris C. (1992), On Organizational Learning, Cambridge, Blackwell
Publishers.
Argyris C. (1990), Overcoming Organizational Defenses, New York - Prentice
Hall.
De Geus A. P. (1988), Planning as Learning (at Royal Dutch-Shell Group),
Harvard Business Review, 66(2), 70-75.
Godet M., Monti R., Meunier F., Roubelat F. (2000), Scenarios and strategies: a
toolbox for scenario planning, Paris, LIPS.
Grant R. M. (1988), Contemporary strategy analy:
applications, Cambridge, Blackwell Publishers.
Hargreaves Heap S. et al. (1996), La teoria della scelta, Bari, Laterza.
Kan H., Brown W., Martel L. (1976), The Next 200 Years: a scenario for
America and the world, New York.
Legasto A. A., Forrester J. W. e Lyneis J. M., (1980), System dynamics,
Amsterdam, North-Holland.
Lindgren M., Bandhold H. (2003), Scenario planning: the link between future
and strategy, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Morecroft J.D.W. (1994), Modeling for learning organizations, Portland,
Productivity Press.
Penrose E.T. (1959), The Theory of The Growth of The Firm, New York, John
Wiley & Sons.
Peteraf M. A. (1993), Strategic Management Journal, The Cornerstone of
Competitive Advantage: a resource-based view, 14(3), 179-191.
Porter M. E. (1985), Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance, New York, The Free Press.
Porter M. E. (1991), Strategic Management Journal, Towards a dynamic theory
of strategy, 12(Special Issue: Fundamental Research Issues in Strategy and
Economics), 95-117.
Porter M. E. (1996), Harvard Business Review, What is Strategy, 74(6), 61-79.
Scifo G. (1988), Gli Scenari come Strumento di Previsione, Torino, Isedi.
Senge P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline — The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization, London, Century Business.
Senge P. M., Sterman J. D. (1994), Systems Thinking and Organizational
Learning: Acting Locally and Thinking Globally in the Organization of the
Future, in: John D.W. Morecroft and John D. Sterman, Modeling for Learning
Organizations, Portland (OR), Productivity Press.
Simon H.A. (1968), Direzione d’impresa e automazione, Milano, Etas Kompass.
Simon H.A. (1976), From Substanive to Procedural Rationality, in Method and
Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
concepts, techniques,
14
Simon H.A. (1985), Causalita, Razionalita, Organizzazione, Bologna, II
Mulino.
Sinatra A. editor (2002), Strategia e Politica Aziendale, Torino, Utet Libreria.
Sterman J. D. (2000), Business Dynamics, Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World, New York, Irwin/ McGraw-Hill.
Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1988), Rational Choice and the Framing of
Decisions, Decision Making, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992), Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. Advances in
Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.
Warren K. (2002), Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Chichester, John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Wernerfelt B. (1984), Strategic Management Journal, A Resource Based View
of The Firm, 5, 171 — 180.
15
Back to the
