Minimum of 250 words in the body Minimum of 2 sources from the literature in addition to course texts 

Content must include: 

 Summary of the author’s Main Thread – no less than 125 words  What you agreed with, did not agree with and why – no less than 125 words

Internal Environment

This forum post intends to evaluate corporate internal resources, capabilities, and competitiveness as a process while discussing key strategic thinking sources as powers or weaknesses. After the evaluation and discussion, correlating decision models matching the results will be considered and determined whether the selected model aids or hinders the process or strategic thinking. This post will draw a conclusion based on the evaluation and discussion with the chosen decision model assigned to provide a summary of the findings. To validate the research, an annotated bibliography of two additional literary sources with a summary of key points, an evaluation of the quality of the publication, and an evaluation of the quality of the author(s) ending with a mention of where these sources fit into the discussion.

Process: Evaluating the Internal Environment

            Prajogo (2016) showed the effect of product innovation on business performance could be strengthened with dynamic environments while weakening the impact of product innovation on business performance. Competitive environments create a paradox by also strengthening the effect of process innovation on business performance. Prajogo (2016) demonstrated there is a strategic fit between dynamism and product innovation strategy while indicating there is also a fit between competitiveness and process innovation strategy with the contrast of competitiveness also shows a strategic mismatch with product innovation. Gamble, Peteraf, and Thompson (2019) posited the competitive power of a resource or capability as a competitive advantage could be measured by testing whether it is valuable, rare, inimitable, or nonsubstitutable, known as the VRIN tests.

To pursue future market opportunities, a company is required to have a dynamic, evolving portfolio of resources and capabilities to sustain its competitiveness and position (Gamble et al., 2019). Inertia, in a business sense, refers to an organizations unwillingness or inability to adapt to changing circumstances (Rumelt, 2011). Cuthbertson, Furseth, and Ezell (2015) compared Kodak to Xerox where Kodak introduced a copier business in 1976 that briefly competed with Xerox, they were not direct competitors, while offering a story of two product-centric companies where Xerox survived and proved able to adapt to the digital age by transitioning its business model to a more service-oriented one, while Kodak could not (Cuthbertson et al., 2015).

Strategic Thinking: Discussion of a Key Source of Power

            Leverage is a source of power used to establish advantage free of context without roots in the mechanics of business, industry, or situation by blending anticipation, situational insight, and concentration into a focused effort to create a competitive advantage (Rumelt, 2011). In management, complex nonlinear problems cannot be decomposed into several simpler problems and solved sequentially since that approach changes the nature of the problem (Senge, 1991). Senge (1991) created a metaphor to explain leverage by saying sometimes people will divide the preverbal elephant in half believing they will get two small elephants, when in fact, they create a mess. The mess is a complicated problem where there is no leverage to be found, as the leverage lies in interactions which cannot be seen from looking only at the piece of the two being held. The nonlinear thinking model should be a component of the strategic thinking spectrum (Senge, 1991).

Keller (2012) suggests thinking of the gospel as a pair of glasses in which to view everything else in the world, where Christian artists are not wholly beholden to either profit or naked self-expression when in faith, they tell their wide range of stories. As the new business environment becomes more turbulent with rapid and unpredictable changes, Brătianu (2015) suggests companies should develop a strategic management framework able to search into the future, while constructing a strategy for achieving a competitive advantage. He furthers, the suggestion observation operational management focuses only on present issues, and maximization of profit is not able to investigate the future to anticipate market dynamics. The core of achieving a competitive advantage is strategic thinking (Brătianu, 2015). “And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it” (Habakkuk 2:2, GNV).

Decision Models

With the subject of this post discussing internal evaluation and leverage as a power, the decision models considered to add value included the project portfolio matrix, the morphological box and scamper, the AI model, and the black box model (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2018). The project portfolio matrix helps to classify projects using cost and time, the morphological box and scamper model discusses the stages of innovation by making something new out of the existing resources, the AI model concentrates on the strength’s, potential, and positive attributes creating four character categories, while the black box model focuses on the complexity of the constructs people negotiate daily (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2018). These decision models could aid the internal evaluation subject by addressing the dynamism and product innovation strategies addressed in the previous sections.


            Evaluating a company’s internal environment requires the development of a dynamic and evolving portfolio of resources and capabilities to sustain competitiveness and position (Gamble et al., 2019). Concentrating on one area like weakness makes a company vulnerable by creating a narrow view of the situation which limits the alternative scenarios available to construct a competitive advantage or maintain one (Rumelt, 2011). Linear and logarithmic utility functions, a mathematical function which ranks alternatives according to their utility to an individual appear as transformations that generate ergodic observables for purely additive and purely multiplicative dynamics, respectively (Peters & Gell-Mann, 2016).

Annotated Bibliography

Brătianu, C. (2015). Developing strategic thinking in business education. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 3(3), 409-429. Retrieved from

Key points made by Dr. Bratianu concern the turbulent new business environment with rapid and unpredictable changes along with the purpose of the research being to analyze and investigate the content of strategic thinking in relation to how it is developed in business education. Dr. Bratianu is a renowned professor of Strategic Management and Knowledge Management at the UNESCO Department for Business Administration at Bucharest University of Economic Studies in Romania. Dr. Bratianu is the founding Director of the Research Center for Intellectual Capital, and the founding co-editor of the international journals: Management & Marketing, and Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy. Dr. Bratianu professional affiliations include memberships in the American Academy of Management, USA; Southern Management Association, USA; Romanian Academy of Scientists, Romania; and the Society for Business Excellence, Romania (Constantin Bratianu, 2019).

Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy is an online open-access double-blind peer review academic publication charged with selecting the most innovative research by a multi-disciplinary reviewing team. The publication is indexed in BASE, Cabell’s, DOAJ, Index Copernicus, EBSCO, ERIH Plus, GIF, NewJour, ProQuest, RePEc, Ulrich’s and World Cat, essential academic databases (Home, 2019). Dr. Bratianu’s work contributes to the discussion of evaluating a company’s internal environment and leverage as a power with the insertion organizations should develop strategic management as an overarching framework able to search into the future and construct strategies for achieving a competitive advantage.

Prajogo, D. I. (2016). The strategic fit between innovation strategies and the business environment in delivering business performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 241-249. Retrieved from

A key point of Dr. Prajogo’s work is the demonstration of the strategic fit between dynamism and product innovation strategy as well as between competitiveness and process innovation strategy. Dr. Prajogo is a distinguished Professor in the Department of Management. He earned a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Indonesia, and a master’s degree in Quality Management from RMIT University, Australia, where he won Best Graduate Award. He completed his Ph.D. degree in Business Management from Monash University in 2003. 

Quality, operations, supply chain, and innovation management are Dr. Prajogo’s areas of research interest, and he has over 100 publications, including journal articles, conference papers, edited research books, and industry reports (Daniel Prajogo, 2019). Elsevier’s article output accounted for 18% of global research output while garnering a 25% share of citations, in 2018, demonstrating Elsevier’s commitment to delivering research quality significantly above the industry average. Ranked by bed count, 97% of the top 100 health systems use at least one of Elsevier’s Clinical Solutions with 9 of the top 10 pharmacies in the United States deploying Elsevier’s Clinical Solutions (Elsevier at a glance, 2019). Dr. Prajogo findings fit into the discussion by identifying gaps between strategic dynamism and process innovation.


Brătianu, C. (2015). Developing strategic thinking in business education. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 3(3), 409-429. Retrieved from

Constantin Bratianu. (2019). Retrieved from

Cuthbertson, R., Furseth, P. I., & Ezell, S. J. (2015). Kodak and Xerox: How high risk aversion kills companies. In Innovating in a Service-Driven Economy (pp. 166-179). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from

Daniel Prajogo. (2019). Pure, Scopus & Elsevier Fingerprint Engine. Elsevier B.V. Retrieved from

Elsevier at a glance. (2019). Elsevier. Retrieved from

Gamble, J., Peteraf, M., & Thompson, A. (2019). Essentials of Strategic Management (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw – Hill Higher Education.

Home (2019). Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy. Faculty of Management (SNSPA). Retrieved from

Keller, T. (2012). Every Good Endeavor. New York: NY. Riverhead Books, Penguin Group

Krogerus, M., & Tschäppeler, R. (2018). The decision book: 50 models for strategic thinking. New York, NY: W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Peters, O., & Gell-Mann, M. (2016). Evaluating gambles using dynamics. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 26(2), 023103. Retrieved from

Prajogo, D. I. (2016). The strategic fit between innovation strategies and business environment in delivering business performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 241-249. Retrieved from

Rumelt, R. (2011). Good strategy/bad strategy: The difference and why it matters. New York, NY: Crown Business.

Senge, P. M. (1991). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization. Performance + Instruction, 30(5), 37-37. Retrieved from