This document summarizes and critiques the Design School model of strategic management. It outlines 7 premises underlying the Design School model, including that strategy formation should be a controlled, conscious process led by the CEO as the sole strategist. It then critiques several aspects of the Design School model. Specifically, it questions separating thinking from action, assuming structure follows strategy, making strategies too explicit which promotes inflexibility, and separating formulation from implementation which detaches thinking from acting. The overall goal is to better understand this influential school of thought and open up broader thinking in the field of strategic management.

1. THE DESIGN SCHOOL: RECONSIDERING THE BASIC
PREMISES OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
AUTHOR-HENRY MINTZBERG
Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada
Presented to
Kenyatta University PhD- Strat Mgt Class
by
Omuse Frankline Omuse
D86/CTY/38195/2017
June, 2018

2. AIM
• The purpose of the discussion paper was to
clarify some of the premises that underlie the
Design School model on Strategy formulation
and then critique this model.
• In doing so, it calls into question some of the
most deep-seated beliefs in the field of
strategic management.

3. SCOPE
• Aim
• Definitions- School of thought
- Premise
• Introduction
• Schools of thought in strategic Management
• The Design School- Foundations
- Basic Design School model
• Premises underlying the Design School
• Critique of the Design School
• Q & A
• Dr Anne’s Guidance

4. DEFINITIONS
School of thought
- Institutionalized paradigm/body of knowledge
- Range of knowledge of a specific group of
researchers which has crystallized within the field
of strategic management (Brown, 1993)
Premise
-An idea or theory upon which a statement is
based (Cambridge English Dictionary)
- A proposition supporting or helping to support a
conclusion (Businessdictionary.com)

5. INTRODUCTION
• Over the last few years, strategic mgt has
become established as a legitimate field of
research and managerial practice (Shrivastava,
1986).
• Providing an equivocal def would mean
ignoring the versatility of strategic mgt.
• The choice of definitions and application of
specific stat mgt techniques depends on the
school of thought that one prefers

6. SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN
STRATEGY MANAGEMENT
Design- Andrews,1965 (SWOT model, fit)
Planning- Ansoff, 1965 (Formalizing, programming)
Positioning- Porter, 1980 (Analysing generic strategy)
Entrepreneurial- Schumpeter,1934 (Vision, Innovation)
Cognitive- Simon, 1976 (Mental model reframe)
Learning- Lindblom,1959 (Incremental, learning)
Political- Allison, 1971 (Power, coalition dominant)
Cultural- Norman,1977 (Ideology, values)
Environmental- Hannan and Freeman, 1977 (Reaction,
selection, retention)

7. THE DESIGN SCHOOL:
FOUNDATIONS
• This school underlies almost all prescriptions in
the field
• Forms the basis of all other schools of thought in
Strat mgt
• Proposes a simple model that views the process as
one designed to achieve an essential fit btw
external threat and opportunity and internal
distinctive competence
• Clear, unique strategies are formulated in a
deliberate process

8. THE BASIC DESIGN SCHOOL
MODEL
• The model places primary emphasis on the
appraisal of the external and internal situations-
SWOT analysis
• Secondary emphasis is on understanding the
values of the mgt as well as its social
responsibilities
• The match between these elements leads to the
creation of strategies
• The strategies are evaluated and the chosen one is
implemented

10. • Other factors considered in strategy making;
Managerial values- the beliefs and
preferences of those who formally lead the
organization
Social responsibilities-specifically the ethics
of the society in which the organization is
embedded, at least as perceived by its
managers.

11. PREMISES UNDERLYING THE
DESIGN SCHOOL
Premise 1: Strategy formation should be a
controlled, conscious process of thought.
 Strategies formed through a tightly controlled
process of conscious human thought
 This process clear of intuition on one side
(nonconscious thought) and emergent strategy on
the other

12. Premise 2: Responsibility for that control and
consciousness must rest with the chief
executive officer: that person is THE
strategist
 To the design school, ultimately there is only one
strategist, and that is the manager who sits at the
apex of the organizational hierarchy.
 allocates all major decisions to top management,
which imposes them on the organization and
monitors them through elaborate planning,
budgeting, and control systems.
 relegates other members of the organization to
subordinate roles in strategy formation,

13. Premise 3: The model of strategy formation
must be kept simple and informal
 Elaboration and formalization will sap it of its essence.
 Simplicity ensure that strategy can be controlled in one
mind.
Premise 4:Strategies should be unique: the best
ones result from a process of creative design
 Specific situation-strategies have to be tailored to the
individual case.
 The way in which distinctive competence,
organizational resources, and organizational values are
combined is or should be unique.

14. Premise 5: Strategies emerge from this design
process fully formulated
 The school offers little room to incrementalist views or
emergent strategies.
 Strategy as perspective appears at a point in time, fully
formulated, ready to be implemented.
• Premise 6: These strategies should be explicit
and, if possible, articulated, which also favors
their being kept simple
 strategies should be explicit to those who make them.
 Should be articulated so that others in the organization
can understand them.
 The unstated strategy cannot be tested or contested and
is likely therefore to be weak

15. Premise 7: Finally, only after these unique,
full blown, explicit, and simple strategies are
fully formulated can they then be
implemented
 The design school clearly separates thinking from
acting.
 Central to this is the associated premise that structure
must follow strategy.
 Corporate strategy must dominate the design of
organizational structure and processes.
 Until the strategy is known, an org. cannot begin to
specify the appropriate structure.

16. CRITIQUE OF THE DESIGN
SCHOOL
Assessment of strengths and weaknesses:
thinking vs. learning
 The critique of the design school revolves around
one central theme: its promotion of thought
independent of action.
 The study seriously questions the value of formal
assessment approaches.
 Detached assessment of strengths and weaknesses
may be unreliable, all bound up with aspirations,
biases, and hopes.

17. Structure follows strategy . . . as the
left foot follows the right
 No ongoing organization ever wipes the slate
clean when it changes its strategy.
 The past counts, just as does the environment,
and the structure is a significant part of that
past.
 Structure may be malleable, but it cannot be
altered at will just because a leader has
conceived a new strategy.

18. Making strategy explicit: promoting
inflexibility
• Once strategies have been created, via the
conscious assessment of strengths and
weaknesses among other things, then the
model calls for their articulation.
• The design school implicitly assumes
conditions of stability or predictability.
• Organizations have to cope with conditions of
uncertainty too.

19. Separation of formulation from
implementation: detaching thinking from
acting
• Emphasizes on the distinction between top
management and the implementers of strategy.
 Assumes that data can be aggregated and
transmitted up the hierarchy without
significant loss or distortion.
• It is an assumption that fails often, destroying
carefully formulated strategies in the process.

20. CONCLUSION
• The intention of critique is not to discuss so
important a school of thought, but rather to
understand it better and so place it into its
natural context and thereby opening up
thinking in the field in general.

21. Q & A
Guidance