Characterizing Strategic Design Processes in Relation to Definitions of Strategy from Military, Business and Management Studies

Abstract

This paper reviews existing characterizations of strategy from military, business and management studies and examines how these characterizations may help inform strategic design processes. The paper serves as an entry point for both design researchers and practitioners interested in understanding the rich and nuanced perspectives that such varied characterizations of strategy may provide.

Innovation intensity of military-connected firms

“…This stress management is also supported by other studies (Hartley et al , 2013; Ivie and Garland, 2011) that imply that a military experience in police officers makes them calmer in handling some stress compared to others. Uncertainties in the form of substantial influence of external and unpredictable factors also force military leaders to precisely adapt to and analyze the situation and formulate it into an appropriate strategy (Simeone, 2020). Military personnel will carefully examine each action's consequences as implementing the wrong tactic in a warzone could be fatal not only for themselves but also their team or even their state.…”

“…This behavior was built during their previous military career where every act if not well thought out could lead to a fatal outcome such as loss of comrades' lives in a warzone. This consistent demand for a careful thinking framework drives soldiers to comprehensively analyze and comprehend any and every potential threat from an innovation activity, even after they quit their military careers (Simeone, 2020). They are also known for their calmness (Hartley et al , 2013) in handling uncertainties, leading to their conservatism behavior.…”

Applying Theory of Change to strategy articulation cycles in design projects: Potentials and shortcomings through the Designscapes case study

“…In practice, re-articulating strategy means revising some of the core aspects of strategy along the way: goals, objectives, leverage points, allocation of resources. If strategy is characterized as finding a balance between ends, means and ways, while keeping an eye on risks as to achieve the impact needed to address a challenge (Simeone, 2019;Simeone, 2020), then the process of strategy articulation (and continuous re-articulation) has to do with finding the (possibly, ever-changing) sweet spot in which the core components of strategy are aligned. Now, because of the central role played by the negotiations among the various stakeholders and by their potentially conflicting agendas (Mirabeau et al, 2018), the processes of strategy articulation are not necessarily linear but rather might involve multidirectional moves in which, for example, different stakeholders might have different takes on what strategy to pursue and, therefore, multiple divergent strategy articulations can occur simultaneously and within the same organization or the same project.…”

Moving from products to services: Supporting strategic thinking through design workshops

“…While providing an overview of prominent conceptualizations of strategy in history, Freedman characterizes strategy as "[about] maintaining a balance between ends, ways, and means; about identifying objectives; and about the resources and methods available for meeting such objectives" (Freedman, 2013, xi). Core aspects of strategy relate to the resources and capabilities ('means') available (or that can be achieved and developed) and to defining goals and objectives ('ends') that can be realistically met by mobilizing these resources and capabilities in specific manners ('ways') (Simeone, 2020). Rumelt (2011) proposes a way to operationalize strategy and states that "the core of strategy work is always the same: discovering the critical factors in a situation and designing a way of coordinating and focusing actions to deal with those factors" (Rumelt, 2011, 3).…”