Strategy - my take on Porter

Porter with his 5 forces model made a lasting impact on the approach towards strategy formulation. His earlier writing regarding IO approach, competitive strategy and competitive advantage have also been well accepted across the academia and industry for quite many years now.

However, there is a significant extent of eclectism among the various theories propounded by Michael Porter, though the same can be said to be consistent with balanced pluralism in terms of drawing from basic economics.

Porter chooses to conceptualize the 'firm' in different ways depending on the actual purpose of its utilization. He conceptualizes 'firm' in the context of 'Production function' when trying to grapple with industry level phenomenon. He uses it as a 'Value chain' when trying to grapple with firm specific sources of competitive advantage and as a repository of knowledge and 'innovating entity while constructing his diamond framework.

Unfortunately, though the integration remains on the levels of loose framework and an absence of any attempt whether his above stated different theories are compatible at deeper levels.

Porter also fails to provide any agruments that the basic IO is consistent with industry evaluation nor does he draw on any basic research.

The underlying resource endowments that allows firms to carry out their strategic plans are not seriously analyzed, and an analysis of how and why the specific resource endowment should be there is missing from Porter writings.

Though there aren't as well accepted models in the field of strategy as that of Porter's, focussing only on what I may take the liberty to call ' a figment of Porter's imagination' underlines the need for a more balanced and integrated approach to the subject and practice of strategy.

someone listening....????

PS - Strategy is not an art. Neither is it a pure science. They say its an assortmenet of different streams, but I differ. It is still a concept, a figment of one's imagination. And accepting someone's imagination ( read Porter's) indicates lack of imagination on the part of strategist.