Book Review : Handbook of Research on Strategy

Handbook of Research on Strategy and Foresight
Page 1 of 2
Book Review : Handbook of Research on Strategy and
Foresight
The Reviewers
M. Atilla Öner, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
RR 2009/1
Review Subject: Handbook of Research on Strategy and ForesightEdited by L.A. Costanzo and R.B. MacKay
Publisher Name: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
Place of Publication: Cheltenham
Publication Year: 2009
Article type:Review
Pages: 548 pp.
Keywords:
Emerald Journal: foresight
Volume: 11
Number: 6
Year: 2009
pp. 94-95
Copyright: © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN: 1463-6689
Describing two elephants: strategy and foresight
Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the
elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels
the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree
branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly
says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid
pipe.
Costanzo and MacKay have edited an interesting “handbook” which adds to the continued discussion on
definitions of “foresight”. The “handbook” has four parts:I. Probing the Future: Cultivating Strategic Foresight
(eight chapters).II. Foresight and Organizational Becoming: Strategy Process, Practice and Change (seven
chapters).III. Shaping the Future: Strategizing and Innovation (seven chapters).IV. Responding to the Future:
Intuition, Inertia and Strategic Flexibility (seven chapters).The editors of the “handbook” and authors of the
chapters have cited over 2000[1] references (mostly books, chapter 1 cites 101 books out of 139 references)
covering 100 years of research. The number of references cited in individual chapters varies between 19 and
150, with the median being 62, and the average 68. One needs to think carefully about the goals of this variation.
According to the editors:
The objective of the Handbook is to catalyze new thinking and to suggest new directions for
cultivating and researching strategic foresight”. “To meet this objective, the Handbook draws
together a collection of research papers contributed by both established and emerging scholars in
the field of strategy and foresight.” “It seeks to highlight the latest developments in the field. This
Handbook hopes to make its contribution to theory and practice by stimulating disciplined, rigorous
and imaginative inquiry into the relationship between strategy and foresight.
Based on http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/Handbook[2], I would have used “Overview” in the title instead
of “Handbook”, since a “handbook” does not stimulate disciplined, rigorous and imaginative inquiry (p. 5), but
shares agreed-upon, well-established procedures with its readers. Hornby et al. (1971) defines handbook as
“small book giving useful facts; guide book” and fact as “sth that has happened or been done; sth known to be
true or accepted as true; (sing. Without indef. Art.) reality, what is true, what exists”.
My first impression has been that researchers active in the strategy field have attempted to combine “strategy
formulation process” with the individual foresight. The editors have brought together “four blind men” to do the job
of “six blind men” (a very difficult job, indeed) in describing “foresight”, but not “Foresight” (with a capital F). There
seems to be a need to distinguish these two. “foresight” may be used for the concept discussed by the authors of
the “handbook” chapters, which is “the property/quality of an individual”. “Foresight”, on the other hand, may be
used to define the research field (and a methodology) which is covered by academic journals such as Foresight,
Futures, International Journal of Innovation and Foresight among others.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=NonArticl...
16.12.2009
Handbook of Research on Strategy and Foresight
Page 2 of 2
I also want take issue with use of the word “strategic”. In many places in chapters, I would have preferred the use
of “competitive” in place of “strategic”. A discussion of the concepts “strategic foresight” and “strategy foresight”
would prove very useful for the field. In Hornby et al. (1971), strategic is defined as “adj. of, by, serving the
purpose of, strategy”. As anything can become “strategic”, this approach dilutes the meaning of “strategy”. The
integrated management model discussed by Alsan and Öner (2003, 2004) and Saritas and Öner (2004) would
contribute to this discussion.
In none of the chapters there is a discussion of time perspectives in quantified terms, i.e. < how long is “long
term”?> (Jacques, 1990). Integrated management model assumes different time horizons for different
management levels, e.g. operational 0-36 months, strategic 37-84 months, normative 85-360 months. A chapter
on time perspectives (Göl and Öner, 2009) and others on long waves and roadmapping (Sarıtaş and Öner, 2004)
would have improved on the completeness of the “handbook”.
In some papers, I have difficulty in agreeing with the use of certain words to describe certain concepts and
constructs. For example, in Ch 01 farsight is used. Far-seeing (adj.) is given in Hornby et al. (1971) as “seeing far
into the future”. On the other hand, far-sighted (adj.) has two meanings, “able to see distant objects more clearly
than near objects” and “(fig) prudent; having good judgement of future needs, etc.” If we were to agree with the
arguments of Wacker (2004), we should avoid using farsight in foresight research. In Ch10, repeatedly and
repetitively are used as if they do not have the same meaning (cf [2])[3]. In attempting to develop a theory, we
should not attempt to extend the already-existing meanings of terms.
Although the collection has brought together several contributions of considerable significance, papers (i.e.
chapters) appearing in this “handbook” do not represent a theoretical breakthrough in the concepts of strategy
and foresight. Readers should beware that they will not find vastly new insights into strategy and foresight in this
handbook, if they kept up with the literature of the fields. For graduate students and others who are just entering
the field, the “handbook” serves the admirable purpose of bringing them an extensive list of literature on a rather
diversified number of subjects.
Some works may be pioneering, making their appraisal difficult, future uncertain and the direction of this
endeavor of bringing together strategy and foresight unclear, although necessary and useful. I suggest the
purchase of the “handbook” and discussion of its contents to contribute to this difficult multi-disciplinary endeavor!
References:
Alsan, A. and Öner, M.A. (2003), “An integrated view of foresight: integrated foresight management model”,
Foresight, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 33-55.
Alsan, A. and Öner, M.A. (2004), “Comparison of national foresight studies by integrated foresight management
model”, Futures, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 889-902.
Göl, S. and Öner, M.A. (2009), “Operationalization of space/time perspectives of individuals – theory and
empirical results from Turkey”, Futures, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 301-12.
Hornby, A.S., Gatenby, E.V. and Wakefield, H. (1971), The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English,
2nd ed., Oxford University PressLondon.
Jacques, E. (1990), “In praise of hierarchy”, Harvard Business Review, January-February.
Sarıtaş, Ö. and Öner, M.A. (2004), “Systemic analysis of Uk technology foresight results - joint application of
integrated management model and roadmapping”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 71, pp.
27-65.
Wacker, J.G. (2004), “A theory of formal conceptual definitions: developing theory-building measurement
instruments”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, pp. 629-50.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=NonArticl...
16.12.2009