Options
Epistemic Actions in Visual Strategy Ideation: : Exploring the (re)appropriation of visual artefacts for strategy making
Type
conference paper
Date Issued
2013-06-13
Author(s)
Comi, Alice
Editor(s)
Mitev, Nathalie
de Vaujany, François-Xavier
Giraudeau, Martin
Abstract
In a recent review of the strategy-as-practice literature, Vaara and Whittington (2012) called for a closer examination of the role of materiality in strategy making. In this article we approach this gap, by uncovering the dynamics whereby strategy tools – such as strategy maps, technology roadmaps, and strategy canvas – are (re-)appropriated in strategy making workshops. To this end, we build on previous studies on the “epistemic culture” of strategy making (Kaplan, 2011) – broadly defined as the arrangements and mechanisms by which strategy is produced in a situated context. In this perspective, the re-appropriation of strategy tools to accommodate for the here-and-now of strategy making should not be regarded as “incorrect”, but rather as a situated practice assisting both analytical and imaginative thinking. Adaptive uses include, among other things, integrating or combining multiple tools, revising the dimensions or labels of the tools, and changing the tempo and scope of their application (Jarratt & Stiles, 2010).
Whereas previous research has focused on the discursive practices whereby strategy is formulated in interaction with material artefacts (Kaplan, 2011), we recognize the inherently visual nature of strategy tools and suggest adopting a “visual turn”. We therefore approach materiality from a visual angle, and consider strategy tools as embedded in the visual practices of strategy makers (Eppler & Platts, 2009; Whyte, Ewenstein, Hales, & Tidd, 2008). In particular, we address the following questions: What visual practices do underlie the (re-)appropriation of strategy tools? How do strategy tools mediate and influence strategy decisions, by virtue of their visual structure? In order to address these questions, we rely on a large empirical base consisting of direct observations of practitioners engaging in strategy formation workshops with the aid of innovative – yet simple – strategy tools (examples in Figure 1). We have in fact conducted action research with strategy making teams from 12 European companies, with the aim to assist strategy formation and the creation of innovative strategic options for their businesses. The workshops (4-12 participants) were facilitated either by the researchers or by one of the participants, and involved the use of strategy templates – hand-sketched on large brown paper, or loaded as digital files on visualization software.
Building on this empirical base, we suggest that the (re-)appropriation of strategy tools occurs along the lines of four “epistemic actions” i.e., following, questioning, transcending and revising) – consisting of physical interactions with the visual material that stimulate thinking. At first, the engagement with the visual structure fosters new insights, leading participants to initiate a reflexive practice whereby the reality of the business context is reappraised in light of the tool dimensions (following). While formulating their strategy, practitioners may start questioning the very usefulness of the strategy tool, and its aptness to capture the complexity of reality (questioning). As they manipulate the visual structure, participants may transcend and eventually revise the strategy tool to suit the here-and-now of their strategizing activity (transcending and revising). Triggered by the visual structure of the tool, these epistemic actions promote a higher level of consciousness as to the basis on which the organization interpret its strategic objectives, context, and opportunities. We illustrate epistemic actions – and the corresponding shifts – with vignettes taken from our action research. In so doing, we shed light on the material transformations undergone by the strategy tools, and suggest how such transformations influence the strategizing activity.
To mention an example, in a workshop of a global insurance group, the participants used a method called “empathy map” Gray, Brown & Macanufo, 2010) to analyse the current needs and expectations of their corporate clients in the area of Internet insurance. Originally, the empathy map is used to achieve a deeper understanding of any stakeholders in the business environment, by identifying their current expectations, as well as mental and emotional status-quo. But after having worked in this mode for about 20 minutes, the team was somewhat disappointed that the exercise did not lead to any breakthrough ideas, and thought about other ways to use the empathy map. One member thus suggested extending the empathy map from a present to a future orientation in order to anticipate the future needs and expectations of Internet insurance customers. This retrospective exercise sparked many new ideas, enabling practitioners to project the customer’s state of mind as if the organization had already introduced a new insurance for the Internet age.
In another workshop, practitioners were introduced to the opportunity map (Muller & Valikangas, 2002) – a visual strategizing method used to assist the identification of synergy areas with a business partner, and to envision opportunities for collaboration. The matrix structure provides a perceptual affordance to systematically recombine organizational assets and competences for filling white-space opportunities. But in the example at hand, the opportunity map was reconfigured as a roadmap for the future development of the alliance, rather than being used for assessing the feasibility of the alliance itself. To some extent, the practitioners were cajoled by the visual depiction of collaboration opportunities, and started working out the details of the alliance, without first performing a due diligence analysis of the associated risks and downturns.
From a theoretical perspective, our visual approach to the study of strategy-as-practice sheds new light on the performative character of strategy tools, by suggesting that their visual structure may provide guidance, but also cajole or even trap practitioners. The visual structure in fact makes certain units of information more or less salient, and hence more or less likely to be considered in strategy making. Furthermore, the way that strategic tools are presented seems to have an impact on their use and hence on strategy practice. Practitioners have a higher propensity to question, transcend and revise a strategy tool if such a tool is presented as a hand-sketched framework rather than a software-based template. A low perceived finishedness in fact might help participants appropriate the tool and make it “their own” by adding, subtracting, or modifying elements. Questioning the epistemic validity of a strategy tool, however, is not a riskless approach, involving possible biases in strategy formulation, and even confrontation in strategy making workshops. We thus believe it is useful to inform practitioners about the epistemic actions and shifts outlined in this paper and hence provide an opportunity for metacognition in the use of strategy tools.
Whereas previous research has focused on the discursive practices whereby strategy is formulated in interaction with material artefacts (Kaplan, 2011), we recognize the inherently visual nature of strategy tools and suggest adopting a “visual turn”. We therefore approach materiality from a visual angle, and consider strategy tools as embedded in the visual practices of strategy makers (Eppler & Platts, 2009; Whyte, Ewenstein, Hales, & Tidd, 2008). In particular, we address the following questions: What visual practices do underlie the (re-)appropriation of strategy tools? How do strategy tools mediate and influence strategy decisions, by virtue of their visual structure? In order to address these questions, we rely on a large empirical base consisting of direct observations of practitioners engaging in strategy formation workshops with the aid of innovative – yet simple – strategy tools (examples in Figure 1). We have in fact conducted action research with strategy making teams from 12 European companies, with the aim to assist strategy formation and the creation of innovative strategic options for their businesses. The workshops (4-12 participants) were facilitated either by the researchers or by one of the participants, and involved the use of strategy templates – hand-sketched on large brown paper, or loaded as digital files on visualization software.
Building on this empirical base, we suggest that the (re-)appropriation of strategy tools occurs along the lines of four “epistemic actions” i.e., following, questioning, transcending and revising) – consisting of physical interactions with the visual material that stimulate thinking. At first, the engagement with the visual structure fosters new insights, leading participants to initiate a reflexive practice whereby the reality of the business context is reappraised in light of the tool dimensions (following). While formulating their strategy, practitioners may start questioning the very usefulness of the strategy tool, and its aptness to capture the complexity of reality (questioning). As they manipulate the visual structure, participants may transcend and eventually revise the strategy tool to suit the here-and-now of their strategizing activity (transcending and revising). Triggered by the visual structure of the tool, these epistemic actions promote a higher level of consciousness as to the basis on which the organization interpret its strategic objectives, context, and opportunities. We illustrate epistemic actions – and the corresponding shifts – with vignettes taken from our action research. In so doing, we shed light on the material transformations undergone by the strategy tools, and suggest how such transformations influence the strategizing activity.
To mention an example, in a workshop of a global insurance group, the participants used a method called “empathy map” Gray, Brown & Macanufo, 2010) to analyse the current needs and expectations of their corporate clients in the area of Internet insurance. Originally, the empathy map is used to achieve a deeper understanding of any stakeholders in the business environment, by identifying their current expectations, as well as mental and emotional status-quo. But after having worked in this mode for about 20 minutes, the team was somewhat disappointed that the exercise did not lead to any breakthrough ideas, and thought about other ways to use the empathy map. One member thus suggested extending the empathy map from a present to a future orientation in order to anticipate the future needs and expectations of Internet insurance customers. This retrospective exercise sparked many new ideas, enabling practitioners to project the customer’s state of mind as if the organization had already introduced a new insurance for the Internet age.
In another workshop, practitioners were introduced to the opportunity map (Muller & Valikangas, 2002) – a visual strategizing method used to assist the identification of synergy areas with a business partner, and to envision opportunities for collaboration. The matrix structure provides a perceptual affordance to systematically recombine organizational assets and competences for filling white-space opportunities. But in the example at hand, the opportunity map was reconfigured as a roadmap for the future development of the alliance, rather than being used for assessing the feasibility of the alliance itself. To some extent, the practitioners were cajoled by the visual depiction of collaboration opportunities, and started working out the details of the alliance, without first performing a due diligence analysis of the associated risks and downturns.
From a theoretical perspective, our visual approach to the study of strategy-as-practice sheds new light on the performative character of strategy tools, by suggesting that their visual structure may provide guidance, but also cajole or even trap practitioners. The visual structure in fact makes certain units of information more or less salient, and hence more or less likely to be considered in strategy making. Furthermore, the way that strategic tools are presented seems to have an impact on their use and hence on strategy practice. Practitioners have a higher propensity to question, transcend and revise a strategy tool if such a tool is presented as a hand-sketched framework rather than a software-based template. A low perceived finishedness in fact might help participants appropriate the tool and make it “their own” by adding, subtracting, or modifying elements. Questioning the epistemic validity of a strategy tool, however, is not a riskless approach, involving possible biases in strategy formulation, and even confrontation in strategy making workshops. We thus believe it is useful to inform practitioners about the epistemic actions and shifts outlined in this paper and hence provide an opportunity for metacognition in the use of strategy tools.
Language
English
HSG Classification
contribution to scientific community
Refereed
No
Start page
49
End page
51
Event Title
3rd Organizations, Artifacts and Practices (OAP) Workshop on "Time, History and Materiality in Management and Organization Studies"
Event Location
London
Event Date
13.-14.06.2013
Subject(s)
Division(s)
Eprints ID
235449