The concept of “strategic intent” was propounded by Hamel and Prahalad in 1989, which produced rippled effect in the galleries of corporate and strategic management. The over ambition of companies to succeed in all departments of business made them obsessed with the concept of global leadership irrespective of their capabilities; Hamel and Prahalad had given a different name to this desire of corporations to lead worldwide as “strategic intent”. Different conglomerates phrased their strategic intent like Komatsu gave the title “Encircle Caterpillar”, Canon initiated “Beat Xerox”. All these titles show the strategic intent of the companies. Interesting thing perceived in the description of the term by Hamel and Prahalad is elaborating the concept through examples of such companies having a strategic intent.
Another important element of the concept is that it is a continuous active management process by corporations with the intention and focus straight on the winning spirit by inspiring employees for attaining targets by communicating with them; it is creating the stimulus for emotional and intellectual exercise to prepare for the future. A comparison between the strategic architecture that Prahalad and Hamel (1990) have discussed in ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation’ with the strategic intent by Hamel and Prahalad (1989) becomes natural. The strategic architecture on the one hand adds new functionalities, new competencies, transformation in current competencies and restructuring of communication with customers while strategic intent is symbolic of the heart of the components of strategic management of corporations. It enlarges to meet the challenges within limited available resources and capabilities.
For getting competitive advantage managers are trying different strategies and go to the extent of partnering with