Changing your core business model then isn't really a smart thing to do for any sort of business. It's like having Ryanair to decide to go from a budget airline to a "quality" airline, which is the most stupid thing they could do. Of course, change is an essential part of business (hence the vast amount of literature on it), but that only in very extreme cases applies to the entire business model. It would completely discard a firm's knowledge base and FSA's (Firm Specific Advantages) which make up the business as it is.
Well, sure, if we were talking about overnight changes. But businesses change models over long periods of time, years, even decades, all of the time. The span of AWS presently runs 2-3 decades and there are certainly players that want it to run a lot further than that. And it would actually be fun if the world and the players (via the airlinse) was dynamic.
Southwest went from going so far as telling the US government it only wanted to be an intra-state carrier and therefore they had no standing to regulate it -- to being the largest airline in in the nation. It just took 30 years is all.
Airlines migrating from point-to-point to a hub-and-spoke system applied to every single major airline in the world, hardly an extreme case. And now some of the most successful newcomer airlines are moving back
to point-to-point and then finding their sheer size at some point sometimes necessitates a hybrid operation of sorts.
Outside of the airline business, Hyundai went from making cheap econoboxes that sold for about the price of a high-end television to now making $50,000+ luxury sedans that compete with BMW and Lexus. And that's just the most obvious, widespread example. There's countless examples in the automotive industry of particular models changing in extremely significant ways -- i.e. why a Taurus, once the proverbial apple pie of American midsize sedans for the masses, is now a near-luxury $45,000 full-size car.
Outside of large dynasty companies, usually mired in labor contracts preventing any appreciable changes or simply their gargantuan size making mobility difficult, a dynamic business plan is pretty much the norm. Google certainly didn't start out with any visions of taking over the software world from top to bottom -- but it has, and now is constantly faced with difficulties of remaining as nimble as it once was due to its size. 10 years ago nearly on the brink of bankruptcy Apple certainly didn't plan on being the largest tech company in the world within a decade on the bank of a simple MP3 player -- but it did.
Most companies have a 'business model' vague enough to allow them a great deal of flexibility without the need to start over again. No one would ever start a business saying "I'm gonna fly turboprops and ONLY turboprops for the entirety of my existence else I'll just bankrupt my business". What if excessive short-range competition forces them to have to look further away? What if new jet engine technology brings the operating costs down so much that ignoring them is a shortsighted move?
The way I envisioned it, and I didn't expound on every thing in my original post so perhaps this wasn't clear, was that, of the "dozens or hundreds" of "strategic decisions" that there was to choose from, you got to pick X of them every year (depending on the number coded in) and maybe a few to start with to establish a baseline model. But the important thing is that, as I described, every one of these has a potential negative to go along with it as part of the cost of this 'revolution'. So you're a few years in and you get a single choice -- this year you negotiated your pilot salary on small planes down at the expense of a higher salary on large planes. So you've begun the process of moving your airline towards focusing on smaller planes and the 'cost' was a concession to your pilots of larger planes (so you've either increased some costs immediately, or hindered your ability to move in that direction in the future). The next year you make a new "strategic decision" that gives you a large maintenance penalty for jet engines in exchange for superior mechanical efficiency at turboprops -- so you're furthering your path down the regional turboprop 'core competency'. And so on and so forth.
And if someone comes in to compete against you, they are hindered by their previous choices and you are hindered by yours. Or maybe they've been planning this for a long time, and they're ready to compete with you head-to-head after a series of decisions they made over the past 5 years.