The incremental approach is identified with Quinn (1980) through the influence of Lindblom (1959). Logical incrementalism is a process approach that, in effect, fuses strategy formulation and implementation. Incremental approaches view strategy as a loosely linked group of decisions that are handled incrementally. Decisions are handled individually below the corporate level because such decentralization is politically expedient.
The strengths of the approach are its ability to handle complexity and change, its emphasis on minor as well major decisions, its attention to informal as well as formal processes, an its political realism.
The major weakness of the approach is that it does not guarantee that the various loosely linked decisions will add up to fulfilment of corporate purposes.
Strategic Planning As A Framework For Innovation
The systems can become ends in themselves and drive out creativity, innovation, and new product and market development, without which most business die (Schon 1971). Therefore, an important need for organizations is to design systems that promote creativity and prevent centralization and bureaucracy from stifling the wellsprings of business growth and change (Taylor 1984).
The framework-for-innovation approach to corporate strategic planning relies on many of the elements of the approaches discussed above, such as SWOT analysis and portfolio methods. However, this approach differs from earlier ones in that it emphasizes (1) innovation as a strategy, (2) specific management practices to support strategy (e.g., project teams; venture groups; diversification; new product; and a variety of organizational development techniques), (3) development of a vision of success that provides the decentralized and entrepreneurial parts of the organization with a common set of superordinate goals toward which to work, and (4) nurture of an entrepreneurial company culture (Pinchot 1985).
The strength of the approach is that it allows for innovation and entrepreneurship while maintaining central control.
The weaknesses of the approach are that typically are made as a part of the innovation process and that there is a certain loss of accountability in very decentralized systems (Peters and Waterman 1982).