Strategic Planning and Strategic Management
After the concept of strategy was brought up in management studies (Chandler, 1962), management theories underwent a big transformation. Management theory developed remarkably in the 1970s due to the strategic management theory, which was based on strategic planning and strategic management.
People who played an important role in the development of management theory were H. Igor Ansoff, George A. Steiner, Kenneth R. Andrews, P.F. Drucker, Charles W Hofer and Dan Schendel. Strategic management theory, as presented by Ansoff (1957, 1965), was initially in the limelight. Ansoff developed strategic planning as a systematic and comprehensive theory to be used on site by managers. Steiner (1963) and Andrews (1971) each presented their strategic planning theories and came to wield a strong influence in the private sector. Their strategic management theories were the first to elaborate on systematic and comprehensive strategic planning, and they continue to be consulted by managers even in the 2000s. With Hofer and Schendel’s strategic management theory (1978, 1979), the 1970s’ strategic management theory attained a certain level of completion. The following is an explanation of Hofer and Schendel’s strategic management theory, which is considered the culmination of strategic management.
Hofer and Schendel (1978, 1979) sorted out the strategic management theories that were prevalent until the 1970s and integrated the theories from the 1960s to the 1970s. This integration helped in the process of change from strategic planning to strategic management. In short, Hofer and Schendel further developed and presented the predominance of the plan demonstrated by Koontz and O’Donnell (1960). They integrated the strategic management theories developed in the 1970s and brought about a stage of completion not only for ‘strategic planning’ but also for ‘strategic management’.
Hofer and Schendel’s strategic management is comprised of the following steps: (1) separating the process of formulating objectives from that of formulating strategies; (2) dividing the strategy formulation process into two levels, corporate and business/division levels; (3) introducing a strategy formulation process for social and political analysis; (4) introducing contingency planning into the strategy formulation process; and (5) eliminat- ing/excluding budget formulation from the strategy formulation process and strategy implementation plan. In particular, the process of formulating strategic management was separated into three levels: (1) corporate level strategy; (2) business level strategies; and (3) function-based strategies, and it involved examining each level in detail. In doing so, Hofer and Schendel identified that the components that need to be included in each strategy were (1) scope; (2) distinctive competencies; (3) competitive advantages; and (4) synergy.
Hofer and Schendel’s strategic management, therefore, features a detailed construction of subdivisions of strategies. They divided strategic management into respective strategy levels, enumerated important points to be noted when analysing, and presented a complex flowchart showing strategic management theory at the company-wide level and the procedure for strategy formulation.
Fig. 3.5 shows that analysis of strategic planning in libraries began gradually in the 1970s, and began to be adopted by a large number of libraries from the 1990s to the 2000s. The actual number of references grew greatly in the 2000s (Fig. 3.5). With this in mind, it is not an exaggeration to say that if the first awakening in library management happened in the 1970s, the second happened in the beginning of the 2000s. Recently the impact has been decreasing, since strategies have become more common and a natural part of library management.
However, on observing the concept of strategic management, we realise that its influence was extremely weak. Strategic management is a
Figure 3.5 Impacts of strategic planning/strategic management.
concept that emphasises management execution as well as planning, but library management focused mostly on planning only; from this, it is possible to surmise that there was no smooth transition to execution.