How knowledge accumulation haschanged strategy consulting: strategicoptions for established strategyconsulting firmsFrans A. J. Van den Bosch, Marc G. Baaij* and Henk W. VolberdaErasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

� There is considerable research evidence to confirm that the accumulation of knowledgecontributes to the competitive advantage of firms. However, in strategy consulting, oneof the most knowledge-intensive professional services, established firms that exploitedtheir knowledge accumulation by adding exploitative consulting practices have foundtheir performance has deteriorated.

� The increasing share of exploitative practices in the strategy consulting industry hasattracted both established ICT-related consulting firms and new entrants.Moreover, it hasenabled clients to expand their problem-solving abilities. These developments, in termsof competitiveness and client competencies, have reduced the attractiveness of exploita-tive practices for established strategy consulting firms.

� To analyse this development and to provide strategic options for the established firms, aconceptual framework is proposed. Based on this framework three strategic options areidentified: ‘follow the herd’, ‘become ambidextrous’ and ‘back to the original focus’. Insummarizing our argument, we highlight the pros and cons of these options and theimplications for senior management.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005

edge-intensive professional services, accumu-lating knowledge has reduced the attractive-ness of the industry. Although establishedstrategy consulting firms were successful for along time, they now face serious problems.Previous research by Wright and Kitay (2002)in this journal found that the performance andlegitimacy of management consultants hadcome under some pressure. The establishedstrategy consulting firms are also threatenedby changing client demand and new competi-tors. According to Fortune Magazine (2003:50) ‘the pure-play strategy guys’are in trouble.

Strat. Change 14: 25–34 (2005)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jsc.705 Strategic Change

* Correspondence to : Marc G. Baaij, Department ofStrategic Management and Business Environment,Erasmus Strategic Renewal Centre, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, TheNetherlands.E-mail: mbaaij@fbk.eur.nl

Introduction

There is considerable evidence to suggest thatthe accumulation of knowledge contributes tothe success of firms (Grant, 1996; Van denBosch et al., 2003). Paradoxically, in strategyconsulting, which is one of the most knowl-

26 Frans A. J.Van den Bosch et al.

The performance andlegitimacy of management

consultants had comeunder some pressure

Similarly, The Economist (2002: 61) con-cluded that, ‘the strategy consulting industryis wasting away’.

What then has caused this parlous situationfor the established strategy consulting firms?This question is not only relevant to the con-sultancies concerned, but also for their clientsand for the practitioners and scholars engagedin the strategy field. As the core product ofstrategy consulting is knowledge, we use aknowledge-perspective in investigating thisquestion. By doing so, we hope to contributeto previous research on management consult-ing (e.g. Perren and Atkin, 2000; Kipping andEngwall, 2002; Armbrüster and Kipping,2003). We focus on the impact of knowledgeaccumulation on the strategy consulting indus-try in general and on the position of estab-lished strategy consulting firms in particular.We also discuss briefly the strategic renewaloptions of these firms (Volberda et al., 2001a).Our analysis is based on both public andcompany data. Interviews were also con-ducted with partners in strategy consultingfirms during the period 2003–2004.

The paper is structured as follows. First, wedescribe how knowledge accumulation byestablished strategy consulting firms hasinduced exploitative and hybrid consultingpractices and we suggest a conceptual frame-work to investigate this development. Second,in illustrating the framework we show howthese exploitative and hybrid consulting prac-tices attracted both established IT-related consulting firms and new entrants to strategyconsulting. Third, we examine how clientsbenefited from knowledge accumulation bystrategy consulting firms and subsequently,increased their ability (Sanchez et al., 1996) tosolve their own problems. Finally, in terms of

strategic change, we discuss the options forthe established strategy consulting firms andthe implications for top management.

Distinguishing between explorative,exploitative and hybrid consultingpractices

In strategy consulting, as in any professionalservice, a spectrum of key benefits that clientsseek can be identified. This spectrum rangesfrom creativity to improving efficiency,depending on the particular type of problemexperienced by the client (e.g. Maister, 1993).Clients’ problems range from those that arenew to the strategy consulting firm, to prob-lems that are familiar to them. This distinctionis relevant because different client problemsrequire different consulting practices. From aknowledge-perspective, we can distinguish aspectrum of consulting practices related to dif-ferent kinds of clients’ problems.

Following March (1991), who introducedthe distinction between exploration andexploitation activities in organizational learn-ing, exploration includes activities such assearch, experimentation, discovery and inno-vation, while exploitation involves imitating,refining and adapting existing knowledge.Applied to consultancy practices, explorativeconsulting practices are about creating knowl-edge that is new for the consulting firm.Exploitative consulting practices are associ-ated with leveraging existing knowledgeknown to the consulting firm. Exploitativepractices focus on efficiency in knowledgeprocesses and may utilize ‘routine recipes’ asopposed to ‘deep strategic thinking’ in explo-rative practices (Franklin, 2001). Explorativeand exploitative consulting practices, there-fore, require different resources such as usingsenior consultants, a different number of(junior) consultants per partner (leverage), dif-ferent organizational structures and differentleadership styles. These differences are in linewith the literature on the organizational andmanagerial implications of performing explo-rative and exploitative knowledge activities infirms (Benner and Tushman, 2003). During

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005

one of our interviews, a partner in an explo-rative practice pointed out the difference inleverage between both practices:

We do not have any juniors workingaround here.We have principals and direc-tors. The experience base of a principalwould be around ten years . . . and forpartners let us say five years plus.There areno juniors. There are no graduates. So thebottom large two layers of the pyramidstructure of the exploitative practice arenot present in our company.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the spec-trum of consulting practices that range fromexplorative to exploitative types including theassociated main characteristics of the practiceand managerial and organizational require-ments.The requirements to deliver explorativeversus exploitative consulting practices arequite different. Hybrid practices consist of amixture of both explorative and exploitativepractices. To simplify Figure 1, these practicesare not included.

The impact of knowledgeaccumulation on the strategyconsulting industry and establishedstrategy consulting firms

In emerging professional service industries,most projects will be new for the service firmsas well as for their clients.This results in a sub-stantial demand for explorative practices.However, when the professional service firmsgain experience and accumulate knowledge,client problems will become increasinglyfamiliar. Client problems that previouslyrequired an explorative approach can now besolved through a hybrid or exploitative one.The accumulation of knowledge by the pro-fessional service firms through learning fromclient projects expands the range of problemsfamiliar to these firms at the expense of problems that are new to them. This develop-ment corresponds with Maister’s (1993: 28)observation:

In every profession, one can point to prac-tice areas that in only a few short years,have moved rapidly from being frontieractivities handled by only a handful ofinnovative firms to high-volume practices

Strategic options for strategy consulting firms 27

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005

Requirements: Spectrum of strategy consulting practices:

Explorative practice Exploitative practiceType of clientproblem

New for consultingfirm

Familiar toconsulting firm

Approach ofconsulting practice

Creating new knowledge

Leveraging the existing knowledge base of the consulting practice

Key benefits for clients

Creativity, “deepstrategic thinking”

Efficiency

Key resource ofconsulting practice

Senior consultants Collective base ofcommodifiedknowledge

Size of typical consulting practice

Small Large

Structure ofconsulting practice

Informal, collegial partnership of peers,low leverage

Formal, mechanistic,high leverage

Leadership ofconsulting practice

Informal, inspirational

Formal, authoritative

Figure 1. The spectrum of strategy consulting practices and the conflicting requirements.

28 Frans A. J.Van den Bosch et al.

offered by increasingly large numbers ofcompetent firms.

To illustrate the main argument of the paper,we introduce a conceptual frameworkinspired by Maister (1993). The framework(see Figure 2) depicts the development of theshare of explorative, exploitative and hybridpractices in the total number of client projectscompleted within the industry. Due to theongoing process of knowledge accumulationand other related drivers of change to be dis-cussed below, this development results in adeclining share of explorative practices and arise in the share of exploitative and hybridpractices. At the start (T1 in Figure 2) of a pro-fessional service industry such as strategy con-sultancy, almost all problems will be new tothe professional service firm. At time periodT1, therefore, the share of explorative prac-

tices will be around 100%. However, due toaccumulation of knowledge by the consultingfirms, the share of problems that are new tothem and hence the share of the explorativepractices will decline. At time period T2 theshare of the explorative practice has declinedfrom about 100% to A%, while the share of theexploitative practice has risen from about 0%to C%. The hybrid practice has increased toB%.

As the range of client problems familiar toestablished strategy consulting firms increasedover time, the shares of exploitative andhybrid practices increased accordingly (seeFigure 2). In this connection a partner withone of the established strategy consultingfirms pointed out in an interview:

For each client assignment we have analo-gies at our disposal . . . I’ll search our

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005

Share (%) ofexplorative,exploitative and hybrid practices inthe total numberof clients’ projectscompleted withinthe industry

100 %

0 %

Exploitative practices

Explorative practices

TimeT1 T2

A %

B %

C %

Hybridpractices

Drivers of change:

∑ Knowledge accumulation ∑ Commodification and leverage of knowledge by ICT enabled knowledge management∑ New entrants∑ Increased clients’ problem-solving abilities

Figure 2. A conceptual framework to investigate the impact of knowledge accumulation and related drivers ofchange on the share of explorative, exploitative and hybrid practices of strategy consulting as a knowledge-intensive professional service industry.

firm’s database and look up who hascarried out a similar assignment before.

A partner with another consulting firmreferred to explorative practices when he toldus:

Where-ever you look for inspiration, youhave to go beyond the normal bounds ofwhat everybody is studying normally inyour industry and you have to combinethat information to stimulate thinkingabout what happens.

These two quotations illustrate the principaldifference between both practices as depictedin Figure 1. Exploitative practices use, to alarge extent, ‘commodified’ knowledge baseswhile explorative practices are conducted bysenior consultants that do not rely extensivelyon these knowledge bases.

Entering the growing market segment ofexploitative practices was attractive for theestablished strategy consulting firms as itallowed these firms to leverage their knowl-edge bases accumulated during past projects.These consulting firms responded to the trans-formation of their industry by adopting a strat-egy of broadening their scope of practices.However, not all established firms adopted thisapproach. Some established top tier strategyconsulting firms retained a focus on their tra-ditional explorative practices.

To illustrate the conceptual framework (seeFigure 2) regarding knowledge accumulationby the established strategy consulting firms of a particular business problem, we use theexample of business process re-engineering(BPR). In the first half of the 1990s, the impor-tance of BPR was recognized and the requirednew knowledge was created to address theassociated problems for clients. In that periodBPR was to a large extent an explorative prac-tice. By the turn of the millennium, BPRbecame a familiar issue for strategy consultingfirms and hence evolved into a hybrid orexploitative practice. This development is supported by a study regarding establishedstrategy consulting firms indicating the use

of ‘strikingly similar’ methods and tools forbusiness process re-engineering (Werr et al.,1997). ICT-based knowledge management has enabled the development of exploitativeconsulting practices, the commodification ofknowledge and attracted new entrants.

The increasing use of exploitative andhybrid practices by established strategy consulting firms required Information andCommunication Technologies (ICT)-basedknowledge management. To benefit from theaccumulated knowledge, ICT increasingly pro-vides the ‘production technology’ that strategyconsulting firms rely upon for exploitativepractices (Sarvary, 1999). Consulting firmshave been among the first businesses duringthe 1990s to make heavy investments in ICT-based knowledge management (Hansen et al.,1999). These technologies facilitate the codifi-cation, storage, access and dissemination ofexplicit knowledge within the consulting firm.Explicit knowledge relates to knowledge thatcan be easily codified, i.e. written down indocuments and placed into databases. Con-trary to explicit knowledge, tacit knowledgeresides in the heads of individual consultantsand cannot be easily codified. Using this type of knowledge for explorative practices,networks of professionals who can beapproached for their tacit knowledge arerequired (Hansen et al., 1999).

In a further attempt to capture and leveragethe accumulated explicit knowledge, somestrategy consulting firms attempted ‘commod-ification’of this knowledge.‘Commodification’is the term used to describe the transformationof unstructured problems and solutions intostandardized problems and solutions (e.g.,Elkjaer et al., 1991). These firms have ‘pro-grammed’ knowledge in procedures, methodsand tools that could be stored in their ICT-basedknowledge management systems. The ‘com-modified’, or ‘packaged’, approach is typical ofthe exploitative practice (see Figure 1).

Robust and easy to handle procedures,methods and tools increase the efficiency ofthe consulting practice and can be adminis-tered by junior (less expensive) consultants(Ernst and Kieser, 2002). Commodification

Strategic options for strategy consulting firms 29

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005

30 Frans A. J.Van den Bosch et al.

therefore enables the increase of leverage.Moreover, the commodified approach to strat-egy consulting knowledge offers the strategyconsulting firms advantages in the marketingof their services (Ernst and Kieser, 2002). Withregard to Figure 2, commodification inducesthe growth of the exploitative practicessegment at the expense of the hybrid practicesone. The increasing importance of ICT-basedknowledge management in strategy consult-ing, however, has changed the trend of com-petition within the industry. As Sarvary (1999:97) has observed:

Originally, the consulting firm’s proposi-tion was to provide a resource: smartpeople to solve the client’s problem . . . It is no longer enough . . . The firm mustdemonstrate the power of its collectiveknowledge base.

The growth of exploitative consulting practices and in particular the emergence of commodification of strategy consultingknowledge, has lowered entry barriers andmade the strategy consulting industry increas-ingly attractive to new exploitative players.Typically, these entrants used a strategy ofcommodifying knowledge to ‘colonize’ strat-egy consulting (Suddaby and Greenwood,2001). In terms of Figure 1, these firmsentered at the right side of the spectrumwhich corresponds to the exploitative prac-tices segment in Figure 2. Both focused spe-cialists and large (ICT-related) consulting firmshave entered strategy consulting during thepast decade. Compared to the establishedstrategy consulting firms, the large ICT-relatedconsulting firms have a number of competitiveadvantages in the exploitative practicesegment: (1) their larger scale, (2) their abilityto combine strategy and ICT, and (3) theirability to implement solutions.

Knowledge accumulation of strategyconsulting firms has increasedclients’ problem-solving abilities

Knowledge accumulation and commodifica-tion on the part of the established strategy

consulting firms has influenced the ability oftheir clients to improve problem-solving bythemselves (Sanchez et al., 1996). Instead of hiring strategy consulting firms as was customary in the past, clients increasinglyconduct their own consulting activities. Toinvestigate which consulting practices wereaffected, we have identified two approaches ofclients to absorb part of the accumulatedknowledge from established strategy consult-ing firms. In this connection, we propose todistinguish two basic strategies of clients: (1)those attempting to learn from previous con-sulting projects and (2) those hiring ex-consultants. Using the first approach, clientsuse the consulting firms’ solutions, proce-dures, methods and tools to address repeatedor similar problems. This client strategy nega-tively affects the demand for exploitative prac-tices of consulting firms.

Using the second approach, large clientfirms hire ex-consultants or alumni from thesame strategy consulting firms they used tohire for solving problems. Clients use theknowledge and problem-solving skills of thealumni to solve their problems instead ofhiring the consulting firms.The level of senior-ity of the alumni influences which consultingpractices will be affected. Due to the pyrami-dal structure and the ‘up or out’ career policyof most established strategy consulting firms,we may expect most alumni to be juniors. Thehiring of junior alumni by clients will thereforemostly affect the exploitative practices of strat-egy consulting firms. Regarding this secondclient strategy, a partner in a strategy consult-ing firm pointed out in an interview:

There are far more alumni consultants[from the established strategy consultingfirms] working at customers’ firms thanthere are working at the consulting firms. . . There are so many ex-consultants with clients that they can do that [the rela-tively low value-added consulting work]themselves.

Overall we expect that exploitative prac-tices of consulting firms will be most vulnera-

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005

ble to the spillover of accumulated knowledgefrom strategy consulting firms to clients. Inrelation to Figure 2, we expect that the knowl-edge spillover to clients inhibits the growth ofthe industry segment, particularly in respectof exploitative practices.

Strategic options for establishedstrategy consulting firms

Established strategy consulting firms thatbroadened the scope of their practice byadding exploitative and hybrid practices nowface a potentially threatening situation. Thesefirms have moved from a traditional focus on the segment of explorative practices to abroader scope that includes all three segments(see Figure 2). By expanding beyond their tra-ditional scope of explorative practices, theyhave entered into consulting practice seg-ments that have become less attractive.

Established strategyconsulting firms now facea potentially threatening

situation

Besides competing in increasingly lessattractive practice segments, the competitive-ness of established strategy consulting firms ishindered by the issue of managing multipleconsulting practices within one firm with conflicting requirements (see Figure 1). Theconflicting requirements of explorative andexploitative practices in terms of resources,organizational structures, incentives and lead-ership, frequently create severe internal ten-sions (Maister, 1993; Benner and Tushman,2003). Broadening their scope, these firms areneither focused explorative nor exploitativeplayers, but become ‘stuck in the middle’. Thechallenge of these firms is to try to combineboth practices in a way to improve their com-petitive advantage, that is by adapting anambidextrous organizational form. Ambidex-

trous firms try to reconcile the tensionbetween the conflicting managerial and organizational requirements of performingboth exploitation and exploration activities(Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004). The ‘stuck inthe middle’ firms are therefore threatened bythe existence of focused competitors. In theexplorative segment they face establishedstrategy consulting firms that restrict them-selves to the original focus (that is explorativepractice), and in the exploitative segment theyare confronted by ICT-related consulting firmsand other new entrants that focus on exploita-tive practices.

These competitive threats suggest variousoptions. Based on Figures 1 and 2, we identifythree strategic options for established strategyconsulting firms: (1) the ‘follow the herd’option; (2) the ‘become ambidextrous’ option,and (3) the ‘back to the original focus’option.

In the ‘follow the herd’ option, the estab-lished strategy consulting firms continue tofollow the industry through its life cycle byadding exploitative practices to an increasingextent. This option implies that establishedfirms participate in each of the three practicesegments. ‘Following the herd’ behaviour bylarge established firms can be observed inother industries as well (e.g., Volberda et al.,2001b; Stienstra et al., 2004). This option,however, does not seem to be viable in thelong run. Competing successfully in theexploitative and hybrid practice segments willbe especially difficult because of the develop-ments in terms of client self-consulting capa-bilities and new entrants. If the establishedfirms want to compete in the exploitativesegment with these newcomers, they need toovercome their competitive disadvantages.Developing scale and building the capabilitiesfor implementation and for combining strat-egy and ICT will require major investments by the established firms, and this takes time.Furthermore, the conflicting organizationalrequirements of the three practices will undermine the competitive advantage of theestablished strategy consulting firms in all segments.

Strategic options for strategy consulting firms 31

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005

32 Frans A. J.Van den Bosch et al.

The ‘become ambidextrous’ option meansthe established strategy consulting firmscombine both explorative and exploitativepractices to enhance their competitive advan-tage and performance. To this end, top man-agement has to create the right framework forresolving issues of conflicting organizationaland managerial requirements (Volberda,1998). Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) haveidentified two distinct, but complementary,organizational forms of ambidextrous organi-zations. First there is structural ambidexterity,which is the creation of separate organiza-tional structures within a firm. For example, abusiness unit focusing on exploratory andanother business unit on exploitative prac-tices. Top management decides about the necessary organizational structure and the relative importance of both practices anddefines the management roles. This form ofambidexterity is characterized by top-downdecision-making.

The second is contextual ambidexterity,which allows systems and organizational struc-tures to be more flexible and is characterizedby less top-down and more decentralized decision-making. Such an organizational con-text allows knowledge workers ‘to use theirown judgement as to how they divide theirtime’ between exploratory and exploitativepractices (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004:49). According to these authors, contextual

ambidexterity requires knowledge workersthat are multi-taskers, brokers of informationand knowledge, and have a cooperative atti-tude. Creating an organizational contextenabling contextual ambidexterity is difficultand therefore hard to imitate. Table 1 illus-trates both forms of ambidexterity. In examin-ing both forms of ambidexterity from theknowledge perspective outlined in this paper,we believe the contextual ambidexterity formappears to be the most promising in terms ofcreating and sustaining a competitive advan-tage for strategy consulting firms.

The ‘back to the original focus’ optionimplies that established strategy consultingfirms with a broad scope attempt to reducetheir activities to their original focus on explo-rative practices. With reference to Figure 2,this option implies that these firms withdrawfrom the exploitative practice segments in par-ticular. This option will result in a significantdownsizing of current businesses of the estab-lished strategy consulting firms and in a reduc-tion of their leverage. Such a reduction oftenhas a substantial impact on both the firm’srevenue as well as income per partner.

We have so far assumed that establishedstrategy consulting firms remain independent.If this is the case, the first strategic option inparticular will require substantial investmentsand time consideration to match the scale andabilities for implementation, and also for com-

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005

Table 1. Exploitation, exploration and ambidextrous organizations

• To survive in dynamic and competitive environments, ambidextrous organizations need to reconcileexploitation and exploration activities as two contradictory organizational processes by implementing particularmanagerial and organizational requirements (March, 1991; Adler et al., 1999; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004).

• Two complementary forms of ambidexterity:

Structural ambidexterity: Contextual ambidexterity:

How achieved? By separating exploration and Individual employees divide their time between exploitation in different units exploration and exploitation activities

Locus of decision about At the top of the organization At front-line levelexploitation/exploration

Role of top-management Define structure, roles, Developing organizational context that enables responsibilities employees to exhibit initiatives, cooperation,

brokering skills and multi-tasking abilitiesSkills of employees More specialists More generalists

Source: Adapted from Benner and Tushman (2003) and Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004).

bining strategy and ICT advice. However,established strategy consulting firms may alsoconsider alliances and mergers with newentrants that already possess such abilities.

Conclusion

Considerable evidence suggests that knowl-edge accumulation contributes to the com-petitive advantage of firms. However, instrategy consulting, established firms thatexploited their accumulated knowledge nowface some major challenges. An explanationfor this paradox is that many strategy consult-ing firms have adopted a strategy of addingexploitative and hybrid consulting practices totheir traditional scope of explorative practices.By broadening their scope these firms havebecome ‘stuck in the middle’ as they havefailed to address the conflicting requirementsof explorative and exploitative practices. Fur-thermore, the exploitative practices sectorappears to have lost its potential attractivenessbecause both clients and new competitorshave exploited the results of knowledge accu-mulation by strategy consultancy firms.

As the conceptual framework depicted inFigure 2 shows, knowledge accumulation, theemergence of ICT-based knowledge manage-ment and the commodification of knowledge,the increasing tendency of clients to solvetheir own problems and the arrival of newentrants, constitute major drivers of change.Confronted with such changes, top manage-ment of those firms that are ‘stuck in themiddle’ face the choice of at least three strate-gic options: (1) ‘follow the herd’, (2) ‘becomeambidextrous’, and (3) ‘back to the originalfocus’.

From the knowledge perspective taken inthis paper, we suggest that firms seeking tobecome ambidextrous offer the best hope ofattaining sustainable competitive advantage.This is the most demanding, difficult to imitateand therefore potentially the most rewardingof the three options. This option enables theestablished strategy consulting firm that arecurrently ‘stuck in the middle’ to reconcile theconflicting requirements of explorative and

exploitative practices and develop the poten-tial synergy between these two practices. It isalso an option that offers opportunities tocreate new knowledge and services.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the partnersin established strategy consulting firms andlarge ICT-related consulting firms who werewilling to share their time with us. We wouldalso like to thank Graham Beaver, the Editor ofthis journal, for his constructive suggestionsand Alfred Kieser and Arie Lewin for their com-ments on earlier versions of this paper. We areindebted to Sander Molman for his researchsupport.

Biographical notes

Marc G. Baaij is an Associate Professor ofStrategic Management at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus UniversityRotterdam, and previously worked for aleading strategy consulting firm.

Frans A. J. Van den Bosch is Professor ofManagement of Organization–EnvironmentInterfaces and Henk W. Volberda is Professor of Strategic Management and Business Policyat the Rotterdam School of Management,Erasmus University Rotterdam. Both Frans andHenk are directors of the Erasmus Strate-gic Renewal Centre and program leaders ofthe Erasmus Research Institute of Manage-ment (ERIM) research program on StrategicRenewal in Large European Corporations.See www.strategyaterasmus.nl and www.erasmusstrategicrenewal.nl

References

Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine, DI. 1999. Flexibilityversus efficiency? A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system.Organization Science 10: 43–68.

Armbrüster Th, Kipping M. 2003. Strategy consult-ing at the crossroads. Technical change and shifting market conditions for top-level advice.International Studies of Management andOrganization 4: 19–42.

Strategic options for strategy consulting firms 33

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005

34 Frans A. J.Van den Bosch et al.

Benner MJ, Tushman ML. 2003. Exploitation,exploration, and process management: the pro-ductivity dilemma revisited. The Academy ofManagement Review 2: 238–256.

Birkinshaw J, Gibson C. 2004. Building ambidex-terity into an organization. MIT Sloan Manage-ment Review Summer: 47–55.

Business Week. 2002. Inside McKinsey. July 8:54–62.

Economist, The. 2002. Management consulting.Consultant, heal thyself. November 2: 61–62.

Elkjaer B, Flensburg P, Mouritsen J, Willmot H.1991. The commodification of expertise: thecase of system development consulting.Accounting Management and InformationTechnology 1: 139–156.

Ernst B, Kieser A. 2002. In search of explanationsfor the consulting explosion. In The Expansionof Management Knowledge. Carriers, Flows,and Sources, Sahlin-Andersson K, Engwall L(eds). Stanford Business Books: Stanford, CA;47–73.

Fortune Magazine. 2003. The incredible shrinkingconsultant. To survive, the Big Three strategyfirms — McKinsey, Bain and BCG — need tomake changes. May 26: 49–51.

Franklin PJ. 2001. Guest Editorial. From routinerecipes to deep strategic thinking: strategymaking as an intellectual challenge. StrategicChange 10: 359–365.

Grant RM. 1996.Toward a knowledge-based theoryof the firm. Strategic Management Journal,Winter (Special Issue): 109–122.

Hansen MT, Nohria N, Tierney Th. 1999. What’syour strategy for managing knowledge? HarvardBusiness Review March/April: 106–116.

Kipping M. 2002. Trapped in their wave: the evo-lution of management consultancies. In CriticalConsulting. New Perspectives on the Manage-ment Advice Industry, Clark T, Fincham R. (eds).Blackwell Business: Malden, MA.

Kipping M, Engwall L (eds). 2002. ManagementConsulting: Emergence and Dynamics of aKnowledge Industry. Oxford University Press:Oxford.

Maister DH. 1993. Managing the ProfessionalService Firm. The Free Press: New York.

March JG. 1991. Competence building and com-petence transfer in organizational learning.Organization Science 1: 71–87.

O’Reilly III C, Tushman ML. 2004. The ambidex-trous organization. Harvard Business ReviewApril: 74–81.

Perren L, Atkin R. 2000. The role of metaphors inthe strategic change consultancy process: thecase of Sir John Harvey-Jones. Strategic Change9: 275–285.

Sanchez R, Heene A, Thomas H (eds). 1996.Dynamics of Competence-Based Competition.Elsevier Pergamon: Oxford.

Sarvary M. 1999. Knowledge management andcompetition in the consulting industry. Califor-nia Management Review 2: 95–107.

Stienstra M, Baaij MG, Van den Bosch FAJ, VolberdaHW. 2004. Strategic renewal of Europe’s largesttelecom operators (1992–2001): from herdbehaviour towards strategic choice. EuropeanManagement Journal 3: 273–280.

Suddaby R, Greenwood R. 2001. Colonizing knowl-edge: commodification as a dynamic of jurisdic-tional expansion in professional service Firms.Human Relations 7: 933–953.

Van den Bosch FAJ, Van Wijk R, Volberda HW. 2003.Absorptive capacity: antecedents, models andoutcomes. In The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (eds).Blackwell: Oxford; 278–301.

Volberda HW. 1998. Building the Flexible Firm.How to Remain Competitive. Oxford UniversityPress: New York.

Volberda HW, Baden-Fuller Ch, Van Den Bosch FAJ.2001a. Mastering strategic renewal. Long RangePlanning 34: 159–178.

Volberda HW, Van den Bosch FAJ, Flier B,Gedajlovic E. 2001b. Following the herd or not?Patterns of renewal in the Netherlands and theUK. Long Range Planning 34: 209–229.

Werr A, Stjernberg T. 2003. Exploring managementconsulting firms as knowledge systems. Organi-zation Studies 6: 881–908.

Werr A, Stjernberg T, Docherty P. 1997. The func-tions of methods of change in management con-sulting. Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement 4: 288–307.

Wright C, Kitay J. 2002. ‘But does it work?’ Per-ceptions of the impact of management consult-ing. Strategic Change 11: 271–278.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Jan–Feb 2005