因此，创新可以在一个组织的战略中发挥关键作用，它通常可以通过遵循德鲁克的理论和苹果的实践而得到有效的提升。然而，值得注意的是，创新在战略中的作用是有限制的。首先，“战略漂移”毕竟不是一件坏事。这是约翰·凯(2009)在他的文章《历史》中概述的一种观点，证明了这一理论的正确性。他对比了美国政治学家查尔斯·林德布隆(1959年出版)和伊戈尔·安索夫博士的观点。Lindblom支持组织对环境变化进行渐进式适应的观点;安索夫提出了一种以设计为导向的、具有目的性的策略。然而，Kay指出，在组织案例研究中，用于支持每个观点的是圣戈班(saint – gobain for Lindbolm);美国联合企业集团(TRW)和利顿(Litton)的安索夫(Ansoff)——明显的赢家是圣戈班(saint – gobain)，一家采用准战略漂移策略的公司，在其他公司遭受灾难性失败的情况下，仍在强劲增长。因此，有时仅仅是“蒙混过关”是一种有效的策略——也许对创新的坚定承诺是不必要的。
Thus innovation can play a key role in an organisation’s strategy, and it can often be effectively promoted by following the theory of Drucker and the practices of Apple. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there are limitations on the role of innovation in strategy. First, ‘strategic drift’ may not be such a bad thing after all. This is a view outlined by John Kay (2009) in his article History vindicates the science of muddling through. He contrasts the views of the American political scientist Charles Lindblom (published in 1959) with those of Dr H. Igor Ansoff. Lindblom supported a view of incremental adaptation by organisations to changes in their environment; Ansoff proposed a design-orientated, purposive approach to strategy. However, Kay then points that in terms of the organisational case-studies used to support each view – Saint-Gobain for Lindbolm; the US conglomerates TRW and Litton for Ansoff – the clear winner emerges as Saint-Gobain, a company which adopted a quasi-strategic drift approach to their strategy, which is still going strong while the other companies have suffered catastrophic failure. Thus, it seems that sometimes simply ‘muddling through’ can constitute an effective strategy – perhaps a firm commitment to innovation is not necessary after all.