Despite its connotations of non-compliance, illegality, social exploitation and marginality, the informal sector is a substantial contributor to economic life in developing countries and, increasingly, in more technologically advanced activities. Its prevalence in developed economies has also become more widely recognized. In light of its significance, this paper reviews research on the informal sector from a management and organization scholarship perspective, rather than from an entrepreneurship view, as has been the focus until now. It sets out the atypical management practices that are inherent in the sector, explores the under-researched relationship between formal and informal firms, and highlights definitional, conceptual and other limitations in extant research. As a step in resolving these issues, the authors present a conceptual model of formality and informality in a three-dimensional framework that highlights an organizational infrastructure dimension, a view of firms operating along a continuum, and a multi-level analytical context. Building on this, the authors detail opportunities for enhanced appreciation of in situ management and organizational practices in the informal sector and outline tools for pursuing a management and organization scholarship agenda. Overall, the authors argue that management scholarship has great potential to improve understanding of the informal sector, and that the informal sector provides opportunities to advance management theory, research and practice.

Purpose: To improve the success rate and quality of outcome when strategy tools are used in practical situations. Methodology/approach: Draws on post-experience teaching and uses conceptual reasoning to propose a typology of tool applications. Findings: The paper finds that strategy tools need to be used differently according to the problem needs, and hence proposes five generic modes of tool application. These draw on seven dimensions to codify the functions and cognitive characteristics in a given tool application. Research limitations/implications:The modes of application are conceptually rather than empirically derived. The paper provides conceptual background that could be used in muchneeded empirical work on tool use in the strategy activity. Practical implications: The typology could be used in teaching or facilitation to encourage and help with the design of tool adaptations that are coherent and well adapted to the situation. It provides a means for prior reflection on tool choice and application that could help reduce detrimental framing effects. Originality/value: The paper highlights the centrality of user adaptation of tools and begins to codify the effects of tool enactment. It moves debate from the tools themselves to the application of tools, which has seldom been addressed in a systematic fashion. For practitioners it provides explicit guidance on the tool adaptation process. Paper type: Research paper Keywords: Strategy tool, strategy activity, strategy as practice, typology, framing, cognitive bias. IntroductionThis paper addresses the application of tools that guide strategic thinking, strategic decisionmaking and strategy implementation. Taking a strategy-as-practice perspective (Whittington 1996; Johnson, Melin and Whittington 2003), it is concerned with how managers use these tools as they undertake strategy activity. The term 'strategy tool' is used here to encompass the full range of concepts, ideas, techniques and approaches that structure or influence this activity. It centres on achieving constructive outcomes from tool use rather than on the validity of tool content. Examples of strategy tools within the scope of the paper are portfolio analysis models, core competence and resource-based approaches, hypercompetition, business process re-engineering, competitive analysis, the balanced scorecard, and lean manufacturing. These are defined here as 'strategy tools' because of their potential to influence the practice of strategy; they do not necessarily feature in conventional strategy textbooks. Where a term refers to a problem area, need or trend, it is not a tool and lies outside the scope of the paper.

Purpose -This paper aims to address the limited development of techniques to analyze firms' internal sources of competitive performance. It seeks to enhance the contribution of the widely diffused value-rarity-imitability-organisation (VRIO) model to practical strategy making. Design/methodology/approach -The paper draws on the resource-based literature to assemble an integrated set of steps that evaluate a firm's resources and competence. Findings -The paper proposes an expanded version of the VRIO model that represents resource and competence as a conditional outcome from attributes and asymmetries present in the firm. It shows how the conditions convert asymmetries between weaknesses, missed opportunities, rigidities and resources.Research limitations/implications -By synthesising resource-based theory in a practice-relevant form, the paper delineates a concrete set of practices that relate to firms' dynamic capability to manage resources and competence. Practical implications -The paper details an approach to resource and competence analysis that leads directly to decisions about how a firm can manage the resources in question. The model gives a central role to the conditions under which a firm's attributes give rise to a resource or competence, and hence suggests active management of these conditions. Originality/value -The paper presents resource-based theory in a form that focuses on the doing of strategy, in contrast to the traditional focus of this literature.

his paper reports on an investigation into how managers use tools as they undertake strategic thinking, strategic decision making and strategy implementation. Surveys such as the series undertaken by Bain & Co. suggest that business uses strategy tools extensively. Tools are also a key component in typical MBA teaching and continue to be discussed in literature aimed at practicing managers. At the same time the existence of management fads, and tool skepticism by some managers, suggests ongoing problems with tool use. This paper sheds light on the issue by painting a fuller picture than prior survey-based work of how managers are using strategy tools in context. The paper uses the term ''strategy tool'' to encompass the full range of approaches, concepts, ideas and techniques that structure or influence strategy activity. Examples of strategy tools within the scope of the paper are portfolio analysis models, scenario planning, core competence and resource-based approaches, hyper-competition, business process re-engineering, competitive analysis, the balanced scorecard, and lean manufacturing. These tools do not necessarily appear in strategy textbooks, but they do exist in a developed form in strategy-related literature and discourse. Existing studies of tool use The most prominent work on strategy tool use is the series of surveys conducted since 1993 by Bain & Co. (Rigby, 2005). These surveys focus on the trends in managers' choices and ratings of tools but do not explore what kind of use lies behind the questionnaire responses. Some of the uses reported are probably superficial. It is also likely that these results do not represent the population surveyed, given reported response rates as low as 1.8 percent. Nevertheless, the analysis in these papers is illuminating, as it begins to shift the focus from tool choice and quality to implementation quality. The surveys show that managers at successful companies were more satisfied with management tools, and some managers reported good outcomes even with tools that others rated poorly. Academic studies paint a mixed picture of tool use by managers. Analysis tools do seem to be in widespread use, but some users think they inhibit communication. Others would like better information about using tools effectively. In strategy workshops, managers deploy tools for facilitative purposes and not for analysis (Hodgkinson et al., 2006). It is clear that organizations corrupt, or at least reconstruct, the tools they use (Lozeau et al., 2002). What is less clear is when this causes the associated initiative to fail and when it enables the business to develop a new tool that better meets its needs. These findings collectively lead to many questions as answers. Are tools the solution, and managers the problem, or vice versa? Are managers using tools substantially or superficially and which of these is good or bad? Are businesses corrupting tools or intelligently reconstructing them? This paper addresses these questions by studying how managers are using tools in the full context...

No abstract