teaching methods remain rooted in lectures, case studies, and group projects that often result in task-splitting

rather than genuine collaboration. As a result, students may leave the course familiar with analytical tools. Yet,

they remain less prepared for the messy, adaptive nature of real strategic work. This paper proposes the War-

Room Pedagogical Framework (WRPF) as an alternative approach to teaching Strategic Management at the

classroom as a dynamic space where students formulate strategies, respond to shifting scenarios, and engage in

structured debates with peers. Four guiding principles underpin the design: immersion, adaptation, debate, and

reflection. By moving beyond static group work, WRPF encourages students to think collectively, challenge

assumptions, and refine strategies in real time. The paper argues that this approach not only deepens

engagement but also cultivates higher-order skills such as strategic agility, critical analysis, and collaborative

The Strategic Management Course is often regarded as the capstone course in business schools, serving as the

culmination of students’ learning across various disciplines such as management, marketing, finance,

operations, etc. The primary objective of this course is to equip students with the holistic understanding and

integrative skills necessary to formulate, implement, and evaluate organizational strategies (David et al., 2021).

This involves not only an understanding of theoretical frameworks but also the practical application of these

concepts to real-world business challenges and opportunities (Costigan & Hennessy, 2024).

However, traditional pedagogical approaches, often reliant on static case studies and individual assignments,

frequently fall short in fostering the dynamic, collaborative, and adaptive thinking essential for navigating

complex strategic landscapes (Samaras et al., 2021). While group work is widely employed to encourage

The gap between theory and practice, particularly concerning the development of genuine collaborative

strategic thinking, necessitates a re-evaluation of current pedagogical models in business education (Lim,

2020). The professional reality is particularly demanding, requiring graduates who can not only analyze

complex situations but also synthesize diverse perspectives and negotiate solutions within a team environment.

This often involves intense, high-stakes discussions where participants must collectively identify problems,

generate solutions, and adapt strategies in real-time.

Hence, the practice of the War-Room Pedagogical Framework (WRPF) offers a promising alternative, aiming

to bridge this gap by simulating the dynamic, high-pressure environments where strategic decisions are

framework transforms the classroom into a dynamic, simulation-driven environment where students

The strategic management course is widely recognized as a capstone course that integrates knowledge across

functional areas of business to develop students’ ability to think holistically and make informed decisions

under uncertainty (David et al., 2021). Traditionally, the pedagogy of Strategic Management has relied heavily

on lectures, textbook-driven learning, and the use of static case studies. These approaches allow students to

fostering higher-order skills such as adaptability, judgment, and collaborative problem-solving. The over-

reliance on individual assignments and simplified group work in these traditional models frequently fails to

simulate the complexity and interpersonal dynamics inherent in real-world strategic decision-making processes

nature of real-world strategy formulation. This has prompted calls for more innovative, experiential approaches

that emphasize active participation, problem-based learning, and collaboration under simulated conditions of

uncertainty. This shift is particularly salient given the evolving demands of the global business environment,

which increasingly values agile thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the capacity to adapt strategies in

rapidly changing markets (Neubert et al., 2020).

collaboratively analyze information, debate alternatives, and make strategic decisions under conditions of

pressure and uncertainty (Chussil, 1996). War rooms are characterized by high levels of interaction, rapid

adaptation to new information, and collective ownership of outcomes (Werro et al., 2025). Translating this idea

framework: immersion (situating students in realistic, high-stakes contexts) (Alzate et al., 2024), adaptation

(responding to evolving scenarios) (Ober et al., 2023), debate (engaging in structured argumentation with

peers) (Åge & Eklinder-Frick, 2025), and reflection (examining both decisions and group dynamics) (Lin et

al., 2022).

Conceptually, WRPF extends the tradition of experiential learning by embedding conditions of uncertainty and

requiring iterative strategic responses (Werro et al., 2025). It also draws on collaborative learning theory,

which emphasizes knowledge co-construction and interdependence among learners (Berri, 2025). By

combining these elements, WRPF aims to bridge the gap between classroom pedagogy and professional

strategic practice, offering a structured yet flexible approach to cultivating strategic agility, critical analysis,

and collaborative leadership in undergraduate business students.

The proposed War-Room Pedagogical Framework (WRPF) builds on the metaphor of the organizational “war

adaptation, and structured debate. This approach is designed to better reflect the realities of strategic decision-

making, where managers must work collaboratively, interpret evolving information, and make timely

judgments under conditions of uncertainty.

time strategic adjustments. The process culminates in a Debate phase, encouraging a public defense of

strategies, and a final Reflection phase, where students consolidate their understanding of strategic thinking

At the heart of WRPF is a process model that unfolds in four interconnected phases. First, students engage in

stage provides a foundation for structured thinking but it is only the starting point. Subsequently, teams are

presented with dynamic, unfolding scenarios that introduce unforeseen challenges or opportunities,

necessitating real-time strategic adaptation and iterative refinement of their initial plans (Lewis et al., 2023).

The second phase introduces dynamic data updates, in which the instructor delivers new information such as

competitor actions, regulatory changes, or sudden market shifts. These disruptions require students to revisit

and adjust their strategies, simulating the unpredictability of the business environment. This will foster agile

The third phase involves a strategic debate arena, where groups present their revised strategies and respond to

Finally, the fourth stage, students participate in a reflective debrief, analyzing both the quality of their strategic

decisions and the dynamics of their group interactions. Reflection ensures that students internalize lessons not

only about strategy tools but also about leadership, teamwork, and cognitive biases. Additionally, the relfective

debrief process will help the students to consolidate their learning by linking theoretical concepts to their

practical application within the simulated war-room environment, thereby reinforcing the development of

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of WRPF in Strategic Management Course

Through these phases, WRPF shifts the focus of learning from the application of frameworks to the

development of higher-order capabilities. This framework encourages students to move beyond rote

memorization, promoting a deeper understanding of complex strategic challenges and cultivating their capacity

for adaptive problem-solving (Daff et al., 2024). Through these phases, the WRPF shifts learning from simply

applying strategy tools to building the kinds of higher-order skills that students will need when they step into

the workplace. Instead of memorizing frameworks or producing neatly divided group reports, students are

asked to grapple with the uncertainty, disagreement, and constant change that define real strategic work. The

lead when the answer is not obvious.

anchored in live business contexts. The exercise runs from Week 1 to Week 5 during Tutorials, corresponding

students gauge the clarity, creativity, and completeness of their work while encouraging healthy competition

and continuous improvement.

Phase 4 draws together learning from Topics 1 to 5. Students critically reflect on the entire WRPF cycle from

defining vision and mission, to analyzing external and internal environments, to formulating and defending

strategies. By linking practical experiences back to theory, such as the risks of misalignment between vision

and strategy or the importance of environmental scanning, students consolidate their understanding of strategic

Phase 3, which serve as feedback and a benchmark for improvement. Teams use these ratings, alongside peer

critiques, to refine their insights and identify areas where their strategic reasoning can be sharpened. The

outcome of WRPF is captured in a group report (50% of the course assessment), where each team conducts a

comprehensive company review and formulates a strategic plan. A central feature of this report is the

refinement of the three proposed strategies from the debate phase, integrating feedback and reflection to justify

why these strategies represent the best path forward for the selected company. This ensures that WRPF

The outcome assessment is made through observation of the students' Pre-Work (Week 1 -5) and of the

students' Post-Work (Week 12). The effectiveness of WRPF is assessed through a summative evaluation in

Week 12, when students deliver their final group presentations and strategic reports. Although the framework

is implemented during Weeks 1–5, its outcomes are best demonstrated later in the semester, once students have

been exposed to the full syllabus (Topics 1–10). This allows instructors to observe how the early foundations

For instance, categories such as market penetration, product development, and market development were