ITM Master 1. Sem.
4 SWS Course
Workload: 60 h classroom work / 120 h self-study
ECTS points: 6
Critical understanding of theories, applications and limits of Strategic Management in Tourism, Hospitality and Events.
First session: Lecture Arlt
Second session: 7 Case Studies presented by student groups based on Evans (2015):
- Presentation Case Studies (60 min. including discussion) + 30 min. group
exercise (with active part for
all participants, for instance: prepared role play or prepared debate etc.)
- Written Examination (70% of mark)
All information given in this lecture is available at www.arlt-lectures.com for download.
Please check the homepage of the website regularly for announcements about time changes etc.
GROUPS - FOR LATE ARRIVALS: PLEASE CHOOSE BETWEEN GROUP 1, 2, 5 and 6. Do not join group 3, 4 or 7!
Strategic Management in Tourism
For "new arrivals"
sinologue, expert in Chinese outbound tourism
Former owner of specialized tour operator companies
Since 1997 lecturer (Intercultural Management, Tourism) in Europe, East Asia,
Fellow of Royal Geographical Society (London) FRGS
Blog at www.forbes.com
2008-2013 member of Konvent FHW
- The way to the FHW
- Why ITM Master? Why Germany? Why FHW?
- Working experiences in tourism
- The way from FHW: Planned steps after successful finishing M.A.
- In 10 years: expectation, Dream job
What is Strategic management?
Sunzi - Macchiavelli - Von Clausewitz
relevance of topic - Ask Mama Google Image:
Processes, Models, Pyramids, Chess pieces
Issues in second decade of 21st c.:
Into the unknown - Singularity
Additional issues in Tourism:
Typical curriculum Strategic Management:
Ten major thinking schools
The Design School
The original view sees strategy formation as achieving the essential fit between internal strengths and weaknesses and external threats and opportunities (see SWOT analysis). Senior management formulates clear and simple strategies in a deliberate process of conscious thought - which is neither formally analytical nor informally intuitive - and communicates them to the staff so that everyone can implement the strategies. This was the dominant view of the strategy process at least into the 1970s given its implicit influence on most teaching and practice.
The Planning School
This school grew in parallel with the design school. But the planning school predominated by the mid-1970's and though it faltered in the 1980's it continues to be an important influence today. The planning school reflects most of the design school's assumptions except a rather significant one: that the process was not just cerebral but formal, decomposable into distinct steps, delineated by checklists, and supported by techniques (especially with regard to objectives, budgets, programs, and operating plans). This meant that staff planners replaced senior managers, de facto, as the key players in the process. Today, many companies get little value from their annual strategic-planning process. To meet the new challenges, this process should be redesigned to support real-time strategy making and to encourage 'creative accidents'.
The Positioning School
This prescriptive school was the dominant view of strategy formulation in the 1980's. It was given impetus especially by Harvard professor Michael Porter in 1980, following earlier work on strategic positioning in academe and in consulting, all preceded by a long literature on military strategy, dating back to 500 BC and that of Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War. In this view, strategy reduces to generic positions selected through formalized analysis of industry situations. Hence, planners became analysts. This proved especially lucrative to consultants and academics alike, who could sink their teeth into hard data and so promote their "scientific truths" to companies and journals alike. This literature grew in all directions to include strategic groups, value chains, game theories, and other ideas - but always with this analytical bent.
The Entrepreneurial School
Much like the design school, the entrepreneurial school centered the process on the chief executive, but unlike the design school, and in contrast to the planning school, it rooted that process in the mysteries of intuition. That shifted the strategies from precise designs, plans, or positions to vague visions, or perspectives, typically to be seen through metaphor. The idea was applied to particular contexts – start-ups, niche players, privately owned companies and "turnaround" situations, although the case was certainly put forward that every organization needs the discernment of a visionary leader,
The Cognitive School
On the academic front, there was interest in the origin of strategies. If strategies developed in people's mind as frames, models, or maps, what could be understood about those mental processes? Particularly in the 1980's, and continuing today, research has grown steadily on cognitive biases in strategy making and on cognition as information processing. Meanwhile, another, newer branch of this school adopted a more subjective interpretative or constructivist view of the strategy process: that cognition is used to construct strategies as creative interpretations, rather than simply to map reality in some more or less objective way.
The Learning School
Of all the described schools, the learning school became a veritable wave and challenged the omnipresent prescriptive schools. Dating back to early work on "incrementalism", as well as conceptions like "venturing", "emerging strategy", (or the growing out of individual decisions rather than being immaculately conceived) and "retrospective sense making", (that we act in order to think as much as we think in order to act), a model of strategy making as a learning developed that different from the earlier schools. In this view, strategies are emergent, strategists can be found throughout the organization, and so-called formulation and implementation intertwine.
The Power School
This comparatively small, but quite different school has focused on strategy making rooted in power, in two senses. Micro power sees the development of strategies within the organization as essentially political, a process involving bargaining, persuasion, and confrontation among inside actors. Macro power takes the organization as an entity that uses its power over others and among its partners in alliances, joint ventures, and other network relationships to negotiate "collective" strategies in its interests.
The Cultural School
As opposite to the power school that focuses on self-interest and fragmentation, the cultural school focuses on common interest and integration. Strategy formation is viewed as a social process rooted in culture. The theory concentrates on the influence of culture in discouraging significant strategic change. Culture became a big issue in the United States and Europe after the impact of Japanese management (see Kaizen and Competitive Advantage: US versus Japan) was fully realized in the 1980's and it became clear that strategic advantage can be the product of unique and difficult-to-imitate cultural factors.
The Environmental School
Perhaps not strictly strategic management, if one takes that term as concerned with how organizations use their degrees of freedom to create strategy, the environmental school nevertheless deserves attention for the light it throws on the demands of the environment. Among its most noticeable theories is the "contingency theory", that considers what responses are expected of organizations that face particular environmental conditions, and "population ecology", writings that claim severe limits to strategic choice.
The Configuration School
This school enjoys the most extensive and integrative literature and practice at present. One side of this school, more academic and descriptive, sees organization as configuration - coherent clusters of characteristics and behaviors - and so serves as one way to integrate the claims of the other schools: each configuration, in effect, in its own place, planning for example, in machine-type organizations under conditions of relative stability, entrepreneurship under more dynamic configurations of start-up and turnaround. But if organizations can be described by such states, then change must be described as rather dramatic transformation - the leap from one state to another. And so, a literature and practice of transformation - more prescriptive and practitioner oriented (and consultant promoted) – developed as the other side of the coin. These two very different literatures and practices nevertheless complement one another and so belong to the same school.
Think of growing your business as growing a perfect human being – in all his or her complexity and integrity. Think of this human being as a multi-skilled sportsman who is to win various competitions, both individually - a 100 m sprint run, a tennis tournament, and a chess match – and as a team player – a relay-race, safari rally, and football. He is also to live a harmonious family, social and cultural life, grow his children and support his elders... Clearly, narrow strategies aimed at perfecting different functions of this person – body-building, thinking-building, or personality-building – would not create a perfect man. The same is also correct for the business strategy development in the new era of systemic innovation where good in parts is no good at all. The old linear and static approaches might work well for the old era of slow, linear and incremental change. The emerging era of rapid, systemic and radical change requires more flexible, systemic and dynamic approaches to strategy formulation.
Thus today, corporate strategy formulation should be a combination of different currently practiced approaches described above – judgmental designing, intuitive visioning, and emergent learning; it should be about transformation as well as perpetuation; it has to involve individual cognition and social interaction, co-operative as well as conflictive; it must include analyzing before and programming after as well as negotiating during; and all of this must be in response to what can be a demanding environment.
Certain positive moves in this direction have been seen recently. Some of the more recent approaches to strategy formulation take a wider perspective and cut across the above ten schools in eclectic and interesting ways, for example Learning and Design in the "Dynamic Capabilities" approach, or the "Dynamic Strategy" one based on knowledge working.
How to get bankrupt:
Five facets of Strategic Management
Strategic management comprises five key facets: goal-setting, analysis, strategy formation, strategy implementation, and strategy monitoring. These are the integral elements that, when applied together, distinguish strategic management from less comprehensive approaches, such as operational management or long-term planning. Strategic management is an iterative, continuous process that involves important interactions and feedback among the five key facets.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Georg Arlt FRGS