Huw, thanks for a thought-provoking post. I agree with you that Playing to Win and Kernel/Crux are the two leading practitioner frameworks for developing strategy. I’ve been a consultant and executive strategist now for over 25 years and I can testify that these approaches are the most effective in terms of the strategic thinking and engagement required for strategy development.

It’s interesting that the two approaches are so ‘reductive’ - strategy as a set of simple choices (Martin) and strategy as a set of proximate objectives (Rumelt). It seems that’s where practical mastery of the subject ends up!

I believe there are three components in the strategy process: (1) a concept and framework for what strategy is (like PTW or Crux); (2) strategic thinking skills, to populate and apply the framework; (3) domain knowledge. (These might correspond with or supplement your ‘form/function/properties’ model). Roger Martin’s ‘integrative thinking approach’ and the techniques that form Rumelt’s ‘Strategy Foundry’ ™ suggest that they also see the need for strategic thinking and content to complete the use of their frameworks.

Where I may disagree with you is the search for a “holistic definition of strategy”. I think a pluralistic definition of strategy is much better [apologies if this is what you mean]. Searching for the definitive ‘meaning’ of ‘strategy’ is just semantic confusion about an abstract noun. My advice is don’t get hung up on it and get on with the much more interesting and valuable pursuit of strategy practice.

Many thanks again and looking forward to your future posts about strategy.