Search results

The purpose of this study is to revisit the conventional wisdom about a key contribution [i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis] in the field of strategic management. The societal context and the role of academics, consultants and executives is taken into account in the emergence of SWOT analysis during the 1960–1980 period as a pivotal development within the broader context of the satisfactory, opportunities, faults, threats (SOFT) approach. The authors report on both the content and the approach, so that other scholars seeking to invigorate indigenous theories and/or underreported strategy practices will thrive.

Applying a historiographic approach, the authors introduce an evidence-based methodology for interpreting historical sources. This methodology incorporates source criticism, triangulation and hermeneutical interpretation, drawing upon insights from robust evidence through three iterative stages.

The underreporting of the SOFT approach/SWOT analysis can be attributed to several factors, including strategy tools being integrated into planning frameworks rather than being published as standalone materials; restricted circulation of crucial long-range planning service/theory and practice of planning reports due to copyright limitations; restricted access to the Stanford Research Institute Planning Library in California; and the enduring popularity of SOFT and SWOT variations, driven in part by their memorable acronyms.

In the spirit of a renaissance in strategic planning research, the authors unveil novel theoretical and social connections in the emergence of SWOT analysis by combining evidence from both theory and practice and delving into previously unexplored areas.

Caution is advised for scholars who examine the discrete time frame of 1960–1980 through mere bibliometric techniques. This study underscores the risks associated with gathering incomplete and/or inaccurate data, emphasizing the importance of triangulating evidence beyond scholarly databases. The paradigm shift of strategic management research due to the advent of large language models poses new challenges and the risk of conserving and perpetuating academic urban legends, myths and lies if training data is not adequately curated.

The current landscape of management scholarship faces criticism for prioritising theoretical development over practical relevance, leading to a disconnect between academic research and industry practices or applications. By exploring Pavitt’s work, the authors aim to highlight the importance of contextual understanding in innovation processes and to advocate for recognising diverse scholarly contributions that challenge established norms. A pragmatic theorist and mentor to a whole generation of innovation science and policy scholars worldwide, especially in Europe, Keith Pavitt left a legacy that is insufficiently acknowledged. Ultimately, this paper seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice and to defend an innovation management that is responsive to contemporary organisational challenges.

The authors review the most relevant works by Keith Pavitt as a practitioner and as a “pragmatic theorist” and his network of author relationships, including all papers, special issues and reports published after his passing. Then, the authors discuss how those seminal papers or reports have been used and could be used in the future. This paper argues for a balanced approach that integrates rigorous academic inquiry with practical insights, emphasising the contributions of Keith Pavitt as a pioneering figure in Innovation-as-Practice.

The authors highlight that much of the current understanding of science and policy of innovation can be traced back to Pavitt’s work and that many future debates about technology could be enhanced by considering his findings. He has the stature of a parental figure, and his taxonomy, based on practice and empirical data, much like other management analysis tools, is widely used but not widely recognised yet, especially by industry managers or employees.

This paper sheds new light on an unacknowledged transdisciplinary pioneer, whose work is situated at the intersection of theory and praxis in Innovation Management: Keith Pavitt. It also advocates for a more transdisciplinary and circumstantial historical approach to management scholars.