Kenneth r . Andrews的策略是提供一个“概念性的框架来考虑挑战经理的顾虑，将他的担忧分解为额外的可管理的单元，并为一个可能在逻辑上排名和评估的系列提供建议。”另外两个可管理的单元被称为SWOT分析。Kenneth Andrews模型的初始阶段是研究外部环境，以确定公司的机会和威胁(OT)。其次是组织的内部环境，以确定其优势和劣势(SW)。通过这些评估，经理似乎决定了在财务上引人注目的战略选择。然而，对他来说，经济上的吸引力是不够的，SWOT不是一个策略。
伊戈尔·安索夫的战略规划是一种形式化的战略管理工具，代表着规划学校战略的观点。规划学校把战略规划看作是一种办公室程序，在这种过程中，一套详细的过程被执行，从那获得一种情境评价强制制定适当的策略。批评人士认为，那些追求规划学校的公司可能会变得非常静态，因此，有一个管理“群体思维”的威胁(Ansoff,h . Igor,1991)。此外，外部环境和内部环境预测的问题是棘手的，它的动机来自于自上而下的，没有任何附属的投入到战略管理。规划学校侧重于那些抽象的可扩展的系统，包括对战略决策能力的补充，从而回应评论家关于环境可预测性和不变性的论点
Kenneth R. Andrews’s approach of strategy was to provide a “conceptual framework for thinking about the concerns that challenge the manager, splitting his concerns down into extra manageable units, and advising a series in which they might be logically ranked and assessed. Two of the additional manageable units are referred as SWOT analysis. The initial phase in the Kenneth Andrews model is the study of the external environment to determine a company’s opportunities and its threats (OT). Second is the internal environment of the organization to determine its strengths and weaknesses (SW). Via these evaluations, the manager looks to determine strategic choices that are financially striking. However, for him, being financially attractive is insufficient, SWOT isn’t a strategy.
Instead, the strategist should consider what an organization stands for and in fact what its management cares about since a succeeding strategy must boom with General Managers’ values, in part due to the fact that the accomplishment of the strategic management relies on their personal dedication. Finally, for Kenneth R. Andrews, comes to social liability. He thinks that before they could plan strategy, general managers must ask what society deserves from their companies.
Igor Ansoff’s Strategic Planning are formalized strategic management tools standing for the Planning School perspective of strategy. The Planning School assumes strategic planning as an office procedure where a detailed set of processes is pursued and from that acquires a situational evaluation mandatory to create the suitable strategy. Critics have argued that those companies who pursue the Planning School could come to be very static and as a result, there is a threat of managerial ‘groupthink’ (Ansoff, H. Igor, 1991). Furthermore, issues of the external environmental and internal environmental predictions are tricky and that it’s motivated from the top-down enable no subsidiary input into the strategic management. Planning School focuses on those systems that are abstractly scalable, include supplementary zing to the capability of strategic decision making, hence responding to the critic’s arguments of environmental predictability and invariability.