3 ms·

Thanks for referencing that. Maybe it's semantics, but as someone coming at this from a game design perspective, 1 and 2 are clearly strategic, but I'd have sai

by m12k 5y ago

Thanks for referencing that. Maybe it's semantics, but as someone coming at this from a game design perspective, 1 and 2 are clearly strategic, but I'd have said 3 is tactical rather than strategic. Tactics are the mid-level actions/subgoals that are used to implement a strategy. You can have a strategy without tactics - though usually you will need them in order for the strategy to succeed.

ajb 5y ago
Rumelt is fairly keen on a strategy having actions because otherwise it doesn't get linked to what people actually do. I don't know what actions he would consider strategic, but I guess things like 'enter/exit the market for X', 'develop the capacity to do Y in house' would be fairly obviously not tactical.
petewailes 5y ago
Actions and tactics in this sense are different. An action at a strategy level might be "cull products not aligned with a focus on the athli-leisure market" or "create a new line of footwear positioned around the fashion tastes of the West Coast market", or "investigate new formulations to reduce reliance on lithium". They're not tactical - no-one has yet made a decision on how those things will be done, or what elements of the business will enact them, or what the management and operational implications will be and how they'll be dealt with. It's a level of abstraction above tactics.