The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Strategy-Process Research: What Have We Learned and What Is Still to Be Explored
Abstract
This article attempts to reflect the current state and progress of strategy-process research. Based on a literature review, an integrative framework is developed encompassing key antecedents, process and outcome factors, and the interrelationship among them. The review reveals that strategy-process research has made considerable progress in the past, shifting the focus from strategic planning to new areas, thereby emphasizing the exposed position of the individuals involved. The authors recommend that researchers conduct more studies that explore the effects of the individuals involved in strategy processes and the phases prior to and after the actual decision making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
The productivity paradox of information technology
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/163298.163309 · Cited by 2,604
Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments
Burgelman, R. A. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393493 · Cited by 1,018
The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.454 · Cited by 912 · cited 1×
“Relevant journals were identified based on a set of articles on journal quality and ranking (among others, Johnson & Podsakoff, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 2005; Tahai & Meyer, 1999).”
BackgroundAshmos, D. P., Duchon, D., & McDaniel, R. R. (1998) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01343.x · Cited by 112
Metadata
- Authors
- Hutzschenreuter, T., & Kleindienst, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 673-720
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2092997232
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 39.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Strategy-Process Research: What Have We Learned and What Is Still to Be Explored. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0149206306291485
- The paper
- Hutzschenreuter, T., & Kleindienst, I. (2006). Strategy-Process Research: What Have We Learned and What Is Still to Be Explored. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306291485
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
