Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strategic management/archive1

Strategic management

 * This is an "umbrella article" covering many strategic management topics. It is comprehensive giving the 40 year history of the topic and describing current theory and practice. It is very accessible to the average reader, containing little specialized jargon or mathematics. Of all the areas of business, this is interesting enough to have a general appeal. It is well referenced, with over 100 citations to journal articles and books, everyone of which is cited in the body of the article. I know of no better source of information on this topic (but then, I am a little biased). The article has been under peer review at The Business and Economics Forum for a month, but there have been no substantive changes for a week so I feel it is time to list it here. mydogategodshat 20:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) (was archived, but should have been left here longer. Relisted. &rarr;Raul654 02:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC))
 * Good work. Did you seriously read and consult all of those sources?  If not, even if they are relevant, perhaps they should be moved into another article such as 'references and works about...'.  I know you agonized over who to include, but Ed Deming is listed as a reference, but not discussed and was arguably more important than some of the others that were included in the article.  Needs some kind of overal diagram or picture too. - Taxman 20:51, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have most but not all of these references on my bookshelves. Some of the articles are hard to find, but I included them because they are the primary reference or originator of the theory. Deming was infact mentioned in the article but I did not go into great detail. The reason is that his work more properly belongs in an article on production management. He was included because production management techniques (of which he was a leading authority) can have a bearing on strategic management, that is, some companies use product quality as a source of strategic competitive advantage. But many aspects of business can be used as a source of competitive advantage (eg: distribution, personnel, IT systems, ect.) My intention was not to list all of these. If I had, the article would be twice as long as it is now. But if you want to add to the part on Deming and product quality, you may certainly do so. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by putting the references into a separate article as you suggest. The whole purpose of citing references is to allow readers to go to the originator of the idea to verify the claim or find out more about it. To break this connection defeats the purpose of having the references there. I know that the extensive use of references is not very common on Wikipedia and there will be some people that react against them, but I see it as the inevitable next step in Wikipedia's growth and maturity. The common Wikipedia practice of attributing a statement or theory to nebulous phantoms such as "Many people feel..." or "It is sometimes claimed..." or "One critic said..." is why so much of Wikipedia consists of half truths, mere opinion, and outright rants. Until we start to give clear references for every major point in the article, we will not be taken seriously. As long as we retain the "junior high school" essay writing style of vague allegations and insinuations, we will be preventing the project from being what it could become. As for the picture, I included one that I thought gave a good representation of current strategic management theory. If you can think of a better picture, please add it. mydogategodshat 16:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I was certainly not asking you to move out references that have been used to support actual facts stated. I was thinking the ones that had not been used or cited in the article could be moved to an 'additional sources in...' or something like that.  Being in a separate list does not invalidate them, it just keep the references listed to those used in the article.  As for Deming, I was thinking more of his general work, not just production management.  His last book, The New Economics, focused on much broader topics and especially on systems thinking and how competition can fail to reach the goals of the organization by ignoring how the system works.  Though he may not be as influential on others I don't know that intimately.  The professor and businessman I learned about Deming and studied that book with was a friend of Deming's, so he was hardly unbiased now that I think of it.  Only add his work if there is some information that he influenced this topic significantly.  I didn't see any mention of him in the text, btw, but I'll check again. Support by the way. - Taxman 02:36, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * But every one of the references are cited in the text. I didn't add references to just fill up space. :) You will find Deming mentioned in the competitive advantage section, but only in passing. By all means add some more on Deming if you wish. I am not familiar with his lasted work. I am familiar with his early groundbreaking work in quality management, statistical process techniques, variances, run charts, and quality circles, but this is definitetly in the domain of production management. mydogategodshat 15:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Now that I look very carefully at the references, there are a couple that were not cited in the article. There are two Drucker, two Minzberg, and three Porter references that are not cited. I included them because they are seminal articles by the leaders in the discipline. You can move these to another article if you wish (but I still don't really understand what that will accomplish). mydogategodshat 20:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Support Worthy of addition to Britannica. Jrincayc 01:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Ambi 14:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. But could "Also See" be changed to "See Also" for intra-WP consistency? -- Mpolo 06:58, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)