No description available.

策略一辭可說是管理學界最常被提及的字彙，然一般對於策略的認知大多是「想像一個可能的未來下，針對產業情境與自身條件下所擘畫的一系列作為與活動」，許多研究便是在此認知下去探討、驗證各種可能的競爭優勢來源，或者針對特定的產業情境歸納出應該採用的策略。本研究則試圖還給策略在組織上的客觀意義即「每ㄧ個組織無論其採用的管理方式為何，皆會有一個內嵌於組織的策略」，並將研究的重點著重在利用過往學者所建立的理論，建立一個更有效的架構與系統以便讓策略的思考與決策更為多元與容易。在本研究中我們提出了一個「策略思考架構」並透過簡易的資訊工具設計一「策略思考輔助系統」。在思考架構的設計上我們將策略的內涵以經營模式來表述，並將架構劃分為競爭優勢理論、企業主的經驗直覺以及外在環境等面向，並且透過策略思考輔助系統，來輔助企業主將如此複雜的面向作一統整的思考。透過個案的訪查整理與實務的個案演練可以發現一個簡單易用的思架構以及輔助資訊的提供，確實可以使得企業主延伸出較廣的思維以及更嚴謹的策略邏輯，並可以有效快速的對於外在的環境變動或者趨勢下整理出較為周詳的企業決策。

This study used a posttest only design to determine the effects of a strategic thinking program on the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT, Form 4) scores of seventh graders who received direct instruction in Strategic Thinking Skills (STS) with the scores of seventh graders who did not receive direct instruction in STS. The study was conducted in a large suburban middle school in north Texas.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Psychological Sciences / Satoris S. Culbertson / Developing effective strategic thinkers in an organization requires a dedication to early identification, selection, development, and practice, along with the conceptual understanding and measurement tools to make it happen. In support of this, the current research focused on three objectives: 1) establishing theoretical support across multiple disciplines for the concept of a strategic thinking mindset, 2) developing the Strategic Thinking Mindset Test (STMT) using situational judgment test methodology for the U.S. Army, and 3) evaluating the results of a pilot test of the STMT for reliability and construct validity. The STMT focuses on three characteristics of a strategic mindset: Flexibility, Humility, and Inclusiveness. These characteristics were derived from themes found common to strategic thinking literature across the disciplines of psychology, management, and military science. In all stages of this research, officers and non-commissioned officers of the U.S. Army served as participants. The first three stages involve the development and keying of content for the STMT. A sample of 125 participants provided scenarios in Stage 1. In Stage 2, 75 participants gave feedback on the scenarios and provided realistic response options. In Stage 3, 224 participants rated the response options according to expression of the characteristic and effectiveness. In Stage 4, the pilot version of the STMT was administered to 229 participants, along with several other measures used to establish construct validity evidence. The results of the pilot test revealed that, although there is some evidence supporting the construct validity of the STMT as a three-factor test of flexibility, humility, and inclusiveness, the overall profile of evidence suggests that the construct(s) being measured are unclear. Low inter-item correlations contribute to a low internal consistency in the measure, which further limits the STMT’s use as a predictor. The pilot test revealed interesting results related to cognitive ability, specifically a negative relationship between the mindset and cognitive ability under best/worst response instructions, rather than a positive relationship or no relationship, as was the case under most/least likely response instructions. Future research recommendations are discussed in the areas of SJT development, scoring, format, and the further refinement and measurement of the strategic thinking mindset.

Background: In the past few decades the world business map has shrunk considerably. Economic unions, tighter cooperation between different countries and across continents is nowadays setting the pace of current economy trends. Moreover, the rise of the internet and technology has interconnected people and markets more than ever. In this dynamic new setting, entrepreneurs and novel ideas have found the ideal ground to flourish. Startups are taking the business world by storm. Moreover, many of them are ambitious enough to engage in International markets right after their conception. It would be interesting to study the process they undergo and revisit it through the application of C-K Design Thinking Theory. Purpose: The purpose of this thesis dissertation is to apply Design Thinking C-K Theory in the Internationalization process of Startups and study how it can serve as model of reasoning for that process. Methodology: Primary data in the form of qualitative interviews were retrieved from three Startups concerning their Internationalization process. They were in turn analyzed by being revisited, with the application of Design Thinking Theory of C- K (Concept – Knowledge) and supported by relevant theory. The results were thought-provoking and will demonstrate how C-K can be used as a model of reasoning for this Process. Results: The study demonstrated that C-K Theory can be used as a model of reasoning for the Internationalization process by strengthening reasoning, improving management and organizing and working synergistically with other theories to generate creativity and problem solving.

<p>Many business schools teach the importance of using strategy tools when engaging in strategizing activities. Despite this fact there is an ongoing debate concerning what is taught in business schools and what is actually used in practice. In spite of this debate there has been little research done regarding how these strategy tools are used in practice. This study seeks to address this through the adoption of a strategy as practice perspective which helped to identify what is actually practiced by managers while engaging in strategizing activities. Managers use strategy to respond to complex forces (social, political, economic) in their business environments. However to develop and implement strategy encompasses a full range of strategizing activities such as strategic thinking, strategic analysis, strategic decision making and implementation. Many business schools teach strategy tools are techniques which managers use to structure and influence strategizing activities. Previous research on strategy tools played emphasis on the benefits that can be derived if tools are used in different context. Others have highlighted the frequency of tool usage. Nevertheless, there is a need to make a review what is taught and how strategy tools are used in practice.</p><p>A qualitative study was conducted in two universities through the use of semi structured interviews to gather data. The use of an inductive and interpretivism perspective through a case study helped the researcher identify the context in which events were taking place. The choice of a small yet deliberate sample size was done to focus in on the various levels of management within these universities and to review how strategy tools were used at these levels. After each interview the interviewees were given a list of 15 strategy tools (all of which were taught in the researcher’s masters programme) to identify whether they used any of the strategy tools on the list and if they did how did they use them. It was noted from the empirical data acquired that quite often strategy tools were not always being used for the purpose for which they were taught nevertheless managers were altering components of various tools to meet their individual business needs. Strategy tools were often used to assist in strategic thinking and strategic decision making. Managers’ perception of strategy tools affected the extent to which tools were used and the frequency of usage. While strategy tools were often used for growth and development, communication and persuasion and best practices it was its use in sense-making and evaluation which indicated that there is a need for a greater understanding into how managers make sense of strategy tools. The study answers how strategy tools are used in practice in a university context by giving illustrations and quotations from the various interviewees regarding strategy tools.</p>

Strategic management has long been viewed as the concept and process that link an organization and its environment together (Leibold, Probst &amp; Gibbert, 2002). It consists of the analysis, decisions and actions an organization undertakes in order to create and sustain competitive advantages (Dess, Lumpkin &amp; Taylor, 2005). Within the history of strategic management research there has been an unbalance between the internal and the external perspective. During the 1980s Michael Porter, one of the most prominent strategic management researchers, and his Five Forces model focused strictly on the external competitive environment (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand &amp; Lampel, 1998). Further, in the 1990s the focus shifted from external to internal along with Jay Barney’s development of the resource based theory in 1991 (Barney, 1991). The issue of excluding one or the other perspective has now started to be acknowledged and researchers today are striving for developing models integrating both perspectives. However, theoretical models existing today that combine the two perspectives are complex and hard to apply in practice for managers within the business world. In order to address the complexity of the strategic management concept we have chosen to develop a model with the purpose to connect and relate the external and internal perspectives by conducting an in-depth analysis of a chosen company. The model also strives to be easily communicated, applicable and understandable for managers and employees on different levels within the organization. This leads us to the purpose of this thesis: “to develop a simplified model that combines the external and internal perspective of strategic management and apply this to a chosen company”. The research was conducted through a case study based on the authors’ participation in a PBM (Project Based Module) - project. The model was tested on the company in question by analyzing the company’s internal and external environment with the means of analysis tools such as PEST-analysis, strategic group analysis, threshold analysis and the SWOTanalysis. To conclude it is important to balance an organization’s internal efforts with the external market conditions and avoid excluding one or the other from the strategic management process. Combining the two perspectives results in identifying the current capabilities and competences and the direction of how to use these in order to meet market demands and gain competitive advantage.

The Swedish TV production  is  facing great challenges  today and actors on  the market have  to  strategize  to cope with  these changes. This  thesis explores what  strategies are used,  how  they  are  formed,  and what  parameters  are  focused  on when  analyzing  the market  and  industry,  from  a  company  perspective. Consequently,  the  purpose  of  this thesis  is  to  investigate  how  Swedish  TV  production  companies  think  strategically  to cope with emerging market changes. The method used to collect data was semi-structured interviews. In order to retrieve ac-curate and reliable information we conducted four interviews. Three of these interviews were  done with  actors within  the market. To  ensure  an  accurate market  picture, with high  trustworthiness, we  interviewed one  large,  one medium  and one  small  company. Finally, we  interviewed an  independent market consultant, who provided an additional perspective. After having analyzed  the material  from each  interview we  later on com-pared the findings in a cross case analysis, in order to draw general conclusions. Our research and findings indicate that Swedish TV production companies mainly keep track of social trends, industry demand, the factors of the SWOT analysis, and the bar-gaining  power  of  buyers  in  order  to  plan  and  form  their  strategies. Additionally,  our findings  indicate  that Swedish TV production companies mainly use: a differentiation strategy and international strategic alliances. Moreover, we have also found that if Swe-dish TV production companies belong to an international conglomerate, they use this to their advantage.

Many business schools teach the importance of using strategy tools when engaging in strategizing activities. Despite this fact there is an ongoing debate concerning what is taught in business schools and what is actually used in practice. In spite of this debate there has been little research done regarding how these strategy tools are used in practice. This study seeks to address this through the adoption of a strategy as practice perspective which helped to identify what is actually practiced by managers while engaging in strategizing activities. Managers use strategy to respond to complex forces (social, political, economic) in their business environments. However to develop and implement strategy encompasses a full range of strategizing activities such as strategic thinking, strategic analysis, strategic decision making and implementation. Many business schools teach strategy tools are techniques which managers use to structure and influence strategizing activities. Previous research on strategy tools played emphasis on the benefits that can be derived if tools are used in different context. Others have highlighted the frequency of tool usage. Nevertheless, there is a need to make a review what is taught and how strategy tools are used in practice. A qualitative study was conducted in two universities through the use of semi structured interviews to gather data. The use of an inductive and interpretivism perspective through a case study helped the researcher identify the context in which events were taking place. The choice of a small yet deliberate sample size was done to focus in on the various levels of management within these universities and to review how strategy tools were used at these levels. After each interview the interviewees were given a list of 15 strategy tools (all of which were taught in the researcher’s masters programme) to identify whether they used any of the strategy tools on the list and if they did how did they use them. It was noted from the empirical data acquired that quite often strategy tools were not always being used for the purpose for which they were taught nevertheless managers were altering components of various tools to meet their individual business needs. Strategy tools were often used to assist in strategic thinking and strategic decision making. Managers’ perception of strategy tools affected the extent to which tools were used and the frequency of usage. While strategy tools were often used for growth and development, communication and persuasion and best practices it was its use in sense-making and evaluation which indicated that there is a need for a greater understanding into how managers make sense of strategy tools. The study answers how strategy tools are used in practice in a university context by giving illustrations and quotations from the various interviewees regarding strategy tools.

<p>Strategic management has long been viewed as the concept and process that link an organization</p><p>and its environment together (Leibold, Probst & Gibbert, 2002). It consists of the</p><p>analysis, decisions and actions an organization undertakes in order to create and sustain</p><p>competitive advantages (Dess, Lumpkin & Taylor, 2005).</p><p>Within the history of strategic management research there has been an unbalance between</p><p>the internal and the external perspective. During the 1980s Michael Porter, one of the most</p><p>prominent strategic management researchers, and his Five Forces model focused strictly on</p><p>the external competitive environment (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998). Further, in</p><p>the 1990s the focus shifted from external to internal along with Jay Barney’s development</p><p>of the resource based theory in 1991 (Barney, 1991). The issue of excluding one or the</p><p>other perspective has now started to be acknowledged and researchers today are striving</p><p>for developing models integrating both perspectives. However, theoretical models existing</p><p>today that combine the two perspectives are complex and hard to apply in practice for</p><p>managers within the business world.</p><p>In order to address the complexity of the strategic management concept we have chosen to</p><p>develop a model with the purpose to connect and relate the external and internal perspectives</p><p>by conducting an in-depth analysis of a chosen company. The model also strives to be</p><p>easily communicated, applicable and understandable for managers and employees on different</p><p>levels within the organization. This leads us to the purpose of this thesis: “to develop</p><p>a simplified model that combines the external and internal perspective of strategic management</p><p>and apply this to a chosen company”.</p><p>The research was conducted through a case study based on the authors’ participation in a</p><p>PBM (Project Based Module) - project. The model was tested on the company in question</p><p>by analyzing the company’s internal and external environment with the means of analysis</p><p>tools such as PEST-analysis, strategic group analysis, threshold analysis and the SWOTanalysis.</p><p>To conclude it is important to balance an organization’s internal efforts with the external</p><p>market conditions and avoid excluding one or the other from the strategic management</p><p>process. Combining the two perspectives results in identifying the current capabilities and</p><p>competences and the direction of how to use these in order to meet market demands and</p><p>gain competitive advantage.</p>