This paper describes the results of a study that examines how formal analysis is actually used in practice in three different organizations. Four main groups of purposes for formal analysis – information, communication, direction and control, and symbolic purposes – are identified and related to the nature of the social and hierarchical relationships between those who initiate analysis, those who do it, and those who receive it. It is concluded that, far from being antithetical as often assumed, formal analysis and social interaction are inextricably linked in organizational decision making and that different structural configurations may generate different patterns of use of analysis. Editors' introduction This paper focuses on a key aspect of strategy practice: strategic analysis. It is therefore centrally about the concerns of the Strategy as Practice perspective. It also examines practice in relation to different organizational contexts and seeks to understand the relationship between the two. Further, it raises important issues of research design and methodology in relation to our field. It also raises other issues for consideration in comparison to other papers included in the book: the extent and nature of theorizing and appropriateness of levels of analysis for example. And, as with the Barley paper (chapter 4), it is interesting to ask just how much the quantitative analysis adds to the qualitative analysis. Paper summary The departure point for this paper is to point out that surprisingly little is known about the use of formal strategic analysis in organizations: ‘Is it in fact used at all? And, if so, when and why?’ (598).
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 181 citations exist upstream.