BUS 6150: CONTRIBUTORS TO STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

Group Presentation: Group 1

The Design School

By:

Joel P. Mwova 630170 Christine Kirimi 629637

Submitted to:

Joseph Kamaria
8th August, 2011

Table of Contents
1 2 3 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 ORIGINS OF THE DESIGN SCHOOL ................................................................................................... 1 THE BASIC DESIGN SCHOOL MODEL ................................................................................................ 2 PREMISES OF THE SCHOOL OF DESIGN ........................................................................................... 3 4.1 4.2 Strategy should be a deliberate process of conscious thought .............................................. 3 Responsibility for that control and consciousness must rest with the chief executive officer:

that person is the strategist ................................................................................................................ 3 4.3 4.4 The model of strategy formation must be kept simple and straight forward ........................ 3 Strategies should be one of a kind: the best ones evolve from a process of individualized

design 3 4.5 4.6 4.7 The design is complete when strategies appear fully formulated as perspective .................. 3 These strategies have to be explicit, so they have to be kept simple. .................................... 3 Finally, only after these unique, full blown, explicit and simple strategies are fully

formulated can they be implemented. ............................................................................................... 3 5 CRITIQUE OF THE DESIGN SCHOOL ................................................................................................. 4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 ASSESMENT OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES: BYPASSING LEARNING ............................... 4 STRUCTURE FOLLOWS STRATEGY ........................................................................................... 4 MAKING STRATEGY EXPLICIT; PROMOTING INFLEXIBILITY ..................................................... 4 SEPERATION OF FORMULATION FROM IMPLEMENTATION: DETACHING THINKIN FROM

ACTING ................................................................................................................................................ 4 6 7 8 THE DESIGN SCHOOL: CONTEXTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS ................................................................ 5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 5 REFERENCE ...................................................................................................................................... 5

ii

THE DESIGN SCHOOL 1 INTRODUCTION The damn guy just sits there waiting for a case study. Manager, about a Harvard MBA

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. Economic strategy will be seen as the match between qualifications and opportunity that positions a firm in its environment (Christensen, Andrews, Bower,

Hamermesh, and Porter in the Harvard policy textbook) Establish fit is the motto of the design school

ORIGINS OF THE DESIGN SCHOOL The origins of the design school can be traced to two influential books: Philip Selznicks Leadership In Administration (1957) Alfred D. Chandlers Strategy And Structure (1962)

Selznick introduced the notion of distinctive competence and also discussed the need to bring together the organizations internal state with its external expectations He also argued for building policy into the organizations social structure. This is what later came to be called Implementation

 Chandler, on the other hand, established the schools notion of business strategy and its relationship to structure Schools thinking was brought into the limelight by the General Management group at the Harvard Business School, beginning especially with the publication of its basic textbook, Business Policy: Text and cases (1965) by Learned, Christensen, Andrews and Guth.

THE BASIC DESIGN SCHOOL MODEL The model emphasizes appraisal of the internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external (opportunities and threats) environment. Internal appraisal gives awareness to distinctive competencies External appraisal realizes Key success factors

Two other factors that influence strategy formation are managerial values and other social responsibilities The actual generation of strategy is emphasized as a creative act Once alternative strategies have been created they are evaluated to determine the best alternative Evaluation is based on a series of tests Consistency: strategy must not represent mutually inconsistent goals Consonance: strategy must represent an adaptive response to the external environment and to the critical changes occurring within the environment Advantage: strategy must create and maintain a competitive advantage

4 4.1

PREMISES OF THE SCHOOL OF DESIGN Strategy should be a deliberate process of conscious thought Action must flow from reason: effective strategies derive from a tightly controlled process of human thinking

4.2

Responsibility for that control and consciousness must rest with the chief executive officer: that person is the strategist Ultimately there is only one strategist

4.3

The model of strategy formation must be kept simple and straight forward This goes with the last premise, i.e. to ensure that strategy is controlled in one mind, the strategy ought to be kept simple

4.4

Strategies should be one of a kind: the best ones evolve from a process of individualized design It follows that strategies have to be tailored to individual cases. There is no mention on the content of the strategy themselves but instead there is concentration is on the process by which strategy is to be developed.

4.5

The design is complete when strategies appear fully formulated as perspective This school offers little room for incrementalist views or emergent strategies, which allow formulation to continue during and after implementation. Strategy must appear as perspective, at some point in time, fully formulated, ready to be implemented.

4.6

These strategies have to be explicit, so they have to be kept simple. According to Andrews, a conception of strategy brings simplicity to complex organizations

4.7

Finally, only after these unique, full blown, explicit and simple strategies are fully formulated can they be implemented. This is consistent with notions of rationality diagnosis followed by prescription followed by action the design school clearly separates thinking from acting.

5 5.1

CRITIQUE OF THE DESIGN SCHOOL ASSESMENT OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES: BYPASSING LEARNING Question is: are competencies distinct even to an organization? Might they not also be distinct to the context, to time, even to application? In other words, can any organization really be sure of its strengths before it tests them

5.2

STRUCTURE FOLLOWS STRATEGY The past counts, just as does the environment, an organization structure is a significant part of that past. Claiming that strategy must take precedence over structure amounts to claiming that strategy must take precedence over established capabilities of the organization, which are embedded in its structure

5.3

MAKING STRATEGY EXPLICIT; PROMOTING INFLEXIBILITY How can a company come to grips with a changing environment when its strategy is already known? During periods of uncertainty, the danger is not lack of explicit strategy but the opposite premature closure

5.4

SEPERATION OF FORMULATION FROM IMPLEMENTATION: DETACHING THINKIN FROM ACTING The formulation-implementation dichotomy is central to the design school of thought This is considered to be a case study approach popular with management students and consultants but how can a student who has read a short resume of a company but has never seen the products, never met the customers, never visited the factories, possibly know these things? Is this the kind of data necessary to ask the critical questions?

THE DESIGN SCHOOL: CONTEXTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS Four contexts where an organization should tilt towards the design school: I. II. One brain can, in principle, handle all the information relevant for strategy formation That brain is able to have full, detailed, intimate knowledge of the situation in question.

III.

The relevant knowledge must be established before a new intended strategy has to be implemented in other words, the situation has to remain relatively stable or at least predictable. The world has no need to cooperate with a particular view of strategy making. So we can conclude, rather, that when the world so cooperates, the design school model may work

IV.

The organization in question must be prepared to cope with a centrally articulated strategy

CONCLUSION The design school model seems to apply best at the junction of a major shift for an organization, coming out of a period of changing circumstances and into one of operating stability. OR At a period of initial conception for a new organization, since it must have a clear sense of direction in order to compete with the more established rivals (or else position itself in a niche free of their direct influence).

REFERENCE STRATEGY SAFARI, Henry Mintzberg, Bruce Ahlstrand, Joseph Lampel (1998)
5