1. The Design School (Strategy formation as a process of conception)
After understanding the 5Ps of strategy, I'm summarizing the methodology of the Design School in this post.
At its simplest, the design school proposes a model of strategy making that seeks to attain a match, or fit, between internal capabilities and external possibilities. The model places primary emphasis on the appraisals of the external and internal situations, the former uncovering threats and opportunities in the environment,the latter revealing strengths and weaknesses of the organizations (aka SWOT analysis)
The figure show two other factors believed important in strategy making.One in managerial values-the belief and preferences of those who formally lead the organization,and the other is social responsibilities-specifically the ethics of the society in which the organization function,at least as these are perceived by its managers. Once alternative strategies have been determined,the next step in the model is to evaluate them and choose the best one. Finally, virtually all of the writings of this school make a clear that once a strategy has been agreed upon, it is then implemented.
Premises of the Design School:
1. Strategy formation should be a deliberate process of conscious thought
2. Responsibility for the control and consciousness must rest with the CEO
3. The model of strategy formation must be kept simple and informal
4. Strategies should be one of a kind: the best ones result from a process of individualized design
5. The design process is complete when strategies appear fully formulated as perspective
6. The strategies should be explicit, so they have to be kept simple
7. Finally, only after these unique, full-blown, explicit, and simple strategies are fully formulated can they then be implemented.
Critique of the Design School:
1. How does an organization know its strengths and weaknesses? Can organizations be sure of its strengths before it tests them? The discovery of "what business are we in" cannot be undertaken merely on paper. More often than not, strengths turn out to be far narrower than expected, and weaknesses far broader.
2. Certainly strategies must often be made explicit, for purposes of investigation, coordination and support. The questions are when? and how? and when not?
3. The major assumption is that the data can be aggregated and transmitted up the hierarcy without any significant loss or distortion. This assumption often fails, destroying carefully formulated strategies in the process.
4. Other significant assumption in the Design School is that environments can always be understood, currently and for a period well into the future and that the environment itself is sufficiently stable or atleast predictable.
There is, however, no one best route to truth in strategy, indeed no route at all. In the next part, we will discover the Planning School.
Thank you very much,
RamP!
After understanding the 5Ps of strategy, I'm summarizing the methodology of the Design School in this post.
At its simplest, the design school proposes a model of strategy making that seeks to attain a match, or fit, between internal capabilities and external possibilities. The model places primary emphasis on the appraisals of the external and internal situations, the former uncovering threats and opportunities in the environment,the latter revealing strengths and weaknesses of the organizations (aka SWOT analysis)
The figure show two other factors believed important in strategy making.One in managerial values-the belief and preferences of those who formally lead the organization,and the other is social responsibilities-specifically the ethics of the society in which the organization function,at least as these are perceived by its managers. Once alternative strategies have been determined,the next step in the model is to evaluate them and choose the best one. Finally, virtually all of the writings of this school make a clear that once a strategy has been agreed upon, it is then implemented. Premises of the Design School:
1. Strategy formation should be a deliberate process of conscious thought
2. Responsibility for the control and consciousness must rest with the CEO
3. The model of strategy formation must be kept simple and informal
4. Strategies should be one of a kind: the best ones result from a process of individualized design
5. The design process is complete when strategies appear fully formulated as perspective
6. The strategies should be explicit, so they have to be kept simple
7. Finally, only after these unique, full-blown, explicit, and simple strategies are fully formulated can they then be implemented.
Critique of the Design School:
1. How does an organization know its strengths and weaknesses? Can organizations be sure of its strengths before it tests them? The discovery of "what business are we in" cannot be undertaken merely on paper. More often than not, strengths turn out to be far narrower than expected, and weaknesses far broader.
2. Certainly strategies must often be made explicit, for purposes of investigation, coordination and support. The questions are when? and how? and when not?
3. The major assumption is that the data can be aggregated and transmitted up the hierarcy without any significant loss or distortion. This assumption often fails, destroying carefully formulated strategies in the process.
4. Other significant assumption in the Design School is that environments can always be understood, currently and for a period well into the future and that the environment itself is sufficiently stable or atleast predictable.
There is, however, no one best route to truth in strategy, indeed no route at all. In the next part, we will discover the Planning School.
Thank you very much,
RamP!
1 comment:
Thank you! It was a great breafing of the main aspects of the school.
Post a Comment