When environmental change becomes extremely rapid and ongoing, however, the sequential approach to strategy and organization exemplified by BPX may no longer be viable. An extended process of adaptation is not going to work—by the time a new strategy is generated and the organization restructured, the environment will have changed many times again. In fact, many management scholars and practitioners have asserted in recent years that, in sufficiently turbulent environments, ex ante strategizing from the top becomes nearly pointless. The necessary information about markets and technologies is not directly available to top executives and it cannot be communicated to them and comprehended with sufficient speed and clarity to be used for top-down strategy formulation. This position tends to confuse detailed, short-term tactics and formalized strategic plans (of the sort that get bound in fancy covers and then set on shelves, never to be read) with strategic thinking of the sort embodied in a strategy statement. Still, to the extent that the argument has some validity, then the nature of the design problem is altered in another interesting fashion. In very turbulent environments, many of the specifics of the firm’s strategy are likely to emerge from a multitude of decisions taken at various levels within the organization. The most that can be done from the top is the setting of broad strategic direction or intent. The design of the organization then determines in large measure what decisions will get made. Thus, reversing Chandler, strategy follows organization.