The How and Who of Strategy Making: Models and Appropriateness for Firms in Hospitality and Tourism Industries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A strategy-making process typology of ideal types is proposed describing salient dimensions from previous research. Two main dimensions are described as deliberate-emergent and individualistic-collective approaches. These dimensions address research questions of “how” strategies are formulated or implemented and “who” is involved in the process. It is proposed that, in general, firms adapt these dimensions in the strategy-making process to the level of dynamism and complexity in the environment. Further discussion provides insight into appropriate choices of strategy-making process models for firms in the food-service industry and expresses the need for researchers and managers to consider the degree and type of dynamism and complexity, firm size, level of analysis, level of strategy or tactic, culture, and institutional factors. It is suggested that service firms have a potential need to utilize multiple models simultaneously to affect conflicting objectives of control and adaptability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it