What to do next? The case for non‐predictive strategy

Abstract

Two prescriptions dominate the topic of what firms should do next in uncertain situations: planning approaches and adaptive approaches. These differ primarily on the appropriate role of prediction in the decision process. Prediction is a central issue in strategy making owing to the presumption that what can be predicted can be controlled. In this paper we argue for the independence of prediction and control. This implies that the pursuit of successful outcomes can occur through control‐oriented approaches that may essentially be non‐predictive. We further develop and highlight control‐oriented approaches with particular emphasis on the question of what organizations should do next. We also explore how these approaches may impact the costs and risks of firm strategies as well as the firm's continual efforts to innovate. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entrepreneurial Judgment and Value Capture, the Case of the Nascent Offshore Renewable Industry

“…Their conceptualizations reflect an intersubjective epistemology of entrepreneurship. Wiltbank, Dew, Read, and Sarasvathy [27] extended these ideas to the strategy domain, and write convincingly about the nature of non-predictive strategy, wherein they pose the question: "How can a firm know what to do next?" (p. 981) This is rather straightforward when the situation is predictable (i.e., "try harder to forecast better").…”

“…However, decision making without likelihood judgment, or, put differently, decision making under conditions of Knightean uncertainty represents a serious challenge to most entrepreneurs and managers of new firms, especially in nascent industries. Based on the work of Brews and Hunt [28], Wiltbank, Dew, Read, and Sarasvathy [27] delineate two fundamental ways to address this question: entrepreneurs and managers should either "try harder to predict better" (the planning school of strategy), or they should "move faster to adapt better" (the learning school of strategy). However, these prescriptions merely seek to position the organization in a given environment.…”

“…However, these prescriptions merely seek to position the organization in a given environment. Wiltbank, Dew, Read, and Sarasvathy's [27] suggestion is that entrepreneurs and managers of new ventures (in unpredictive markets) should instead seek to co-create the future (that is, to amend or re-construct the environment), and the means of doing this is not through prediction, but through involving self-selected stakeholders into viable partnerships, and by doing this, they take control over, and co-create, the immediate future. Causation is conjectured to be the opposite of effectuation [29].…”

Tackling Uncertainty through Business Plan Analysis—A Case Study on Citrus Waste Valorisation in the South of Italy

“…In particular, two prominent schools of thought provide a distinct theoretical foundation that explain the outcomes of business planning on firm performance. These are the planning school and the learning school [19,20].…”

Effectuation and Causation as the Mediators of the Relationship between Cultural Value Orientations and New Venture Performance

“…Интерес к изучению эффектуации и каузации проявляется не только в области предпринимательства, но и в работах по маркетингу, инновациям, стратегическому менеджменту и финан сам (см., напр. : [Berglund, 2007;Fish er, 2012;Mort, Weerawardena, Liesch, 2012;Read, Sarasvathy, 2005;Wiltbank et al, 2006]). Несмотря на то что эмпирических под-тверждений связи эффектуации/каузации с результатами деятельности фирм пока немного, все они доказывают наличие по-ложительной связи между обеими логи-ками принятия решений и результатами деятельности новых фирм [Cai et al, 2017;Laskovaia, Shi ro kova, Morris, 2017;Read, Song, Smit, 2009;Smolka et al, 2016] и инновационных проектов [Brettel et al, 2012].…”