In this biography by Phillip Freeman, he explains that most of the tactics were developed under Philip.

Philip was the one who came up with the 16x16 phalanx with extremely long spears, consisting of professional and highly-trained soldiers. The heavy cavalry that Alexander was famous for was also developed under Philip according to Freeman's account.

Strategy-wise, what Alexander brought to the table was incredible daring and willing to steadfastly confront seemingly insurmountable odds. By doing this, and winning, he was able to inspire fanatical loyalty in his troops. He also took a major personal role in the actual fighting, often participating in cavalry charges. Freeman doesn't mention Philip doing this, I would assume we don't have amazing sources.

All in all, Philip put all the pieces in place- a (relatively) unified Greece close to Macedonian hegemony, elite infantry and cavalry troops, innovative tactics, and utilizing the best resources/capabilities of every society he conquered. It is also worth noting that Philip accomplished all of this starting from very little. Alexander actually made the invasion of Persia happen, (mostly) never retreated, never backed down, and inspired his troops to continue all the way to India.

Alexander also came up with innovative solutions to sieges, such as those of Gaza (building a giant mound of dirt to act as a ramp), bridges to assault Tyre which was considered by many to be unconquerable by land assault, elite mountain climbers to assault mountainous strongholds in Bactria... Alexander ran into many situations that Philip did not, it's hard to know whether Philip would have had the same innovations, but I did get the impression from Freeman's account that Philip would have been far more cautious than Alexander.