For both readings, the discussion should cover:
1. A summary of the main points raised in the article
2. A discussion of why the article is important
3. How the article relates to other articles in the field 4. Illustration of how the discussion relates to businesses and to businesses in Hong Kong 5. A discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.
In the article, Michael Goold had an argument about the merits of the design school of strategic management between Henry Mintzberg and Igor Ansoff. In Mintzberg's eventual score sheet, it was summed up Learning 1, Planning 0 and Michael Goold think that is hardly to represent a balance between or an intertwining of learning and planning under incremental learning and deliberate planning. The previous strategic management have been neglected aspects of strategic management. Then Michael Goold thinks Mintzberg’s article would recommend “try something, see if it works and learn from your experience”. Manager should try “probable nonstarters”; even advice would be unhelpful and irritating. But we have neither the time nor the money to experiment with endless probable nonstarters. Moreover, Michael Goold assumed that we can do better than starting with random experiments and we can use both planning and learning from others in selecting the strategies to try, and there is no conflict between planning and learning. Besides, score sheet must be drawn up, something like Planning 1; Learning 1 is surely a fairer reflection of the contribution of both sides.
This article discussed “The Honda Effect”, which approach is focuses on a new approach to strategy, the idea of emergent strategy. In this new approach, companies are encouraging to try new ideas and tactics. If or when they fail to go back and learn from the attempt and gather as much information from them as possible, try a new strategy based on correcting the mistakes of the last attempt until the company gets it right. Concerning “The...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document