ENCG CASABLANCA

Synthesis
Strategic Management

Supervised by : Mr GASSEMI Karim

This is a document that contains a concentrate synthesis of Strategic concepts, Difference between
Design School and Planning School, Strategic Thinking and an analysis of the definition of strategy
given by Michael Porter
Design school and planning
school
It is well known that managers have always looked for the perfect recipient to
add to their structure so it can react effectively to all the environment threats and that
can push the managers to take the right decision at the right moment. In the 6 th
decade of the 20th century theorists were subdivided into a group of thinking torrents.
Those who thinks that the best solution is to trust their manager’s minds and skills to
react and take decisions only by explaining the finality of the company so these
formers can be issued from the ideology of the firm, which is called Design school,
and others who sees that all people on the structure of the company should act under
frames and schemes that comes from the top direction, it is called planning school.
Firstly, it is well known that these two kinds of orientations aim principally the
idealism of the strategy established, which means that the differences are hardly
found on the background, obviously we should try to reach it in the way of applying
each one of these two orientations.
When we analyze grammatically the word planning, it leads us to a frame of
instructions that guides to achieve a certain goal where the only skill that is required
by the manager is how to apply a certain instruction, while when we talk about design
school it leads us to activate creativity and trust between managers on skills of each
others, this is for the first kind of difference.
As a second point of difference, Design school is principally based on SWOT
analysis, so managers can act and react by using this former. However concerning
the planning school, it is principally based on translating the strategy adopted and
chosen by the top direction into objectives that may lead the daily actions of the
managers depending on how deep the planning is, the referential frame can be as
specific as showing managers what to do in every hour of their daily work which
makes them agents that only applies what they have been told to do.
The former point leads us to analyze another aspect, which has been criticized
by many theorists, which is the amount of difference between the theory and the
implementation. The principle reason why a company will aim to follow the planning
orientation is that it tries to minimize the gap between implementation and theory,
while when we’re talking about design school it is based on the capability of
managers on translating the ideology of the company into a way of living and acting
against external threats.
To conclude the former differentiation that have been made, we can say that
each school have its advantages and inconvenient, concerning Design School when
company have managers with necessary skills and brains with high flexibility, they
can insure a huge rate of development due to their high capability to face all kinds of
threats and taking advantages of their environment on their daily actions, Meanwhile
when company don’t want to take risks, it simply relay on Hard data and planning

1
actions so at least, they can insure a minimum rate of development, even though this
predefined process cannot cover all the environmental threats.

Strategic thinking
The two authors define strategic thinking as the principle mechanism that
connects the efforts to set a direction and a way of thinking, creating flexibility and
providing meaning. In another way it can be this ideology that makes each person
capable to take a decision without having learned it before, but only by understanding
the perspective of the company.
Certainly, strategic thinking is way far from being only a state of mind. It is at
the same time a process that leads us through daily problems and helps us facing the
external impact, and market necessities. Because at the end when we get to
understand the ideology of the company, we certainly finish as managers that can act
in a way that respond to the company’s finality, by taking necessaries actions that, by
combining them, we can have a process.
After a deep analysis of the benefits of strategic thinking, finally managers can
reach the ideal strategy, that was, not long ago, a myth that can never be realized,
simply due to the huge gap between strategy formulation, and its implementation.
Sometimes only small details can cause a big difference between theory and
application. But thanks to strategic thinking, companies can face the diversity of
conditions only by simplifying the adopted strategy to all managers.
The author was able to regroup strategic thinking in a frame of reference,
containing 4 columns:
Drifted frame of reference:
it is related with personal beliefs and values and especially accumulated experience,
this have nothing to do with personal skills but it is majorly related to learning from
confrontations with external environment. This kind of frame is weak when it comes
to facing situations for the first time.
Reflected frame of reference:
Or logical frame, it is principally based on finding solutions starting from your logical
analysis. This kind of people autocorrects themselves and insure their own personal
growth.
Enduring organizational mindset:
These people have a personal perspective that is based on their leader’s beliefs;
they are rarely creative and always afraid to lose their jobs if they act in a way that is
against their boss.

2
 Strategic thinking:
It’s a kind of frame that is known to incorporate all of the actors on the process of
taking decisions, by teaching people the company’s strategy in order to guide their
daily activities and making them understand the way of thinking of all the company.

Definition of strategy (Michael

Porter)
When we take a deep analysis on the sayings of Michael Porter, the theorist is
trying to correct a certain vision that most of companies and CEOs have on their
brains. There is a difference between strategy and making goals, objectives and
steps.These formers are more principle components of the strategy itself, which is
more a way of doing and a purpose that guides daily actions taken by managers.
These issues should be chosen depending on the adopted strategy, this
former should be selected by CEOs in order to achieve remarkable advantages as
long as company is realizing goals and objectives that were predefined in a certain
way that is related to the strategy itself.
To relate with what has been said in the former part of analysis, we can say
that the theorist is adopting a point of view that polymerized between Design school
and planning school by introducing the ideology of the company on the minds of
managers which can be done by simplifying the strategy to the whole structure so
people can know why they are doing each part of their daily actions, but this needs a
little glimpse of the planning school by defining a certain process of execution based
on the finality of the company, this is how Michael Porter sees strategy.