Among the schools of thought on strategy formation, one in particular underlies almost all prescription in the field. Referred to as the ‘design school’, it proposes a simple model that views the process as one of design to achieve an essential fit between external threat and opportunity and internal distinctive competence. A number of premises underlie this model: that the process should be one of consciously controlled thought, specifically by the chief executive; that the model must be kept simple and informal; that the strategies produced should be unique, explicit, and simple; and that these strategies should appear fully formulated before they are implemented. This paper discusses and then critiques this model, focusing in particular on the problems of the conscious assessment of strengths and weaknesses, of the need to make strategies explicit, and of the separation between formulation and implementation. In so doing, it calls into question some of the most deep-seated beliefs in the field of strategic management, including its favorite method of pedagogy.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/smj.4250110302

The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management

An elaboration of the concepts of strategy and environment can be achieved by categorizing environment into its objective and perceived states, and by subdividing strategy according to content (outcomes) or process. The objective environment can be further categorized into “task” and “general.” An alternative subdivision of strategy is primary (domain selection) and secondary (competitive approach). The concepts of strategy and environment are integrated in that primary strategy concerns opportunities in the general environment and secondary strategy involves navigating within a task environment.

Strategy and Environment: A Conceptual Integration

This study examined how small firms differ in their competitive behaviors from their large rivals in an industry and explored the implications of differences for performance. Data on competitive mo...

Speed, Stealth, and Selective Attack: How Small Firms Differ From Large Firms in Competitive Behavior

In the past two decades the concept of organizational strategy has emerged as one of the cornerstones of both management theory and practice. During the period, numerous papers, articles, and books have explored this concept and its myriad characteristics and nuances. Nevertheless, some aspects of the subject have received far more attention than others. For example, much greater emphasis has been placed on the organizational processes by which strategies are developed than on the content of the strategies themselves. Also, more attention has been focused on strategy formulation at the corporate level than at the business level. [The term business level refers to that level in an organization at which responsibility for the formulation of a multifunctional strategy for a single industry or product-market arena is determined; the term corporate level refers to the top level of the organization regardless of the number of industries in which it competes. Thus, for a multi-industry company, the business level normally would correspond to the divisional level. In a single product line company, however, the business and corporate levels would be the same.] Likewise, more emphasis has been placed on the analytical and informational aspects of the strategic planning process than on its behavioral and political dimensions. Finally, nearly all of the research studies and many of the papers and articles have been descriptive rather than prescriptive in their orientation, especially with respect to the content of the strategies involved.

Robert Lee Katz

Papers

Cases and concepts in corporate strategy

Management of the total enterprise