CREATING STRATEGIC INNOVATORS - Complex Inventive Problem Solvers !
CREATING STRATEGIC INNOVATORS - Complex Inventive Problem Solvers !
RE-DEFINING STRATEGY AS PROBLEM SOLVING
The recent article in US Army Military Review journal calls for Creating Strategic Problem Solvers. It calls for a shift to defining strategy as problem solving, well, complex problem solving, as described by Andrew Carr in his article in US Army Parameters 54(1) Spring 2024 Issue. Taking inspiration from the cold war US Strategist, Andrew Marshall, who single handedly created a new methodology that he called Net Assessment, Carr calls for strategy only for those problems that are complex.
IS STRATEGY COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING? NEW DEFINITION
Carr changes the Cold War years definition as a qualitative math equation of Strategy = Ends + Ways + Means, to Strategy as Problem Solving. He further qualifies that Strategy is needed and needed only for contexts, systems, or ennviornments that are Complex. To differentiate complex environments from other environments, he uses the Cynefin Framework proposed by Snowden. Snowden differentiates different systems, contexts, and enviroments as Clear, Complicated, Chaotic and Complex. Carr consider problem solving in and for complex systems as strategy in the new definition.
PROBLEMS NEEDING STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING - FROM OUR 2004 BOOK
In the preface to out 2004 book Strategic Decision Making - Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process, we state type of problems that are at the strategic level. I quote below two paragraphs from the preface of our book.
When the rules of the game are well laid out, when the environment in which one operates is predictable, when the opponents are known, when the actors behave in a deterministic manner, when variables vary within a small and narrow band, and, when linear relations are the norm, one can try to make decisions using the standard optimization techniques. However, when the benefits of actions are unpredictable, when relationships between variables may not only be non-linear and stochastic, but actually unknown, the principle of optimization for decision-making will not help much. This is exactly the world that we are facing today. Strategic, operational and tactical agility in quickly responding with maximum concentration of effort is the absolute requirement. At the tactical and operational level standard optimization techniques for decision making have helped to some extent. However, at the strategic levels these techniques have not been able to make a greater impact.
Continuing the preface, the next paragraph states,
"The problems in which stakes are extremely high, human perceptions and judg-ments are involved and whose solutions have long term repercussions, fall in thestrategic level decision-making category. At this level problems are ill defined and are usually in terms that are uncertain, fuzzy and confusing. However, the existing problem-solving techniques based on sound mathematical principles require systematic and well-formed problems. This mismatch between problems and their solution techniques leads to frustration and a lack of confidence by the top decisionmakers. To solve such problems with limited amounts of time and resources needs the balancing of many variables. This book focuses on applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for such strategic level decision-making problems."
We proposed the Analytic Hierarchy Process for decision making at strategic level in our book for diverse domains in business, governance and defence.
DIAGNOSIS - PRIMARY CONTRIBUTION OF STRATEGISTS
Andrew Carr, taking considerable inspiration from Andew Marshall and his Net Assessment philosophy, claims Strategists primary contribution is the diagnosis of complex problems.
He states, "diagnosis attempts to frame, map and probe a complex problem to identify the level of order, dispositions and pathways for potential resolution."
Diagnosis being a Greek word for "to distinguish" with a root word meaning, to recognize; to know.
He states, two common elements are used to diagnose - IDENTIFICATION and INTERROGATION.
Joseph Stalin, in 1944, the USSR CPSU Chairman, identified the problem was NOT to defeat Nazi Germany, but how to position the Soviet Union in the post-war environment.
DIAGNOSIS - THE IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS - NET ASSESSMENT
Andrew Marshall called it an Active Step - identification of problems. In fact, Diagnosis and active identification of problems - is the key element of Net Assessment, which is a Multi-disciplinary approach to defense analysis to explore the Dynamics of military strengths and weaknesses vis-à-vis potential adversaries over time. Net-Assessment is defined as - Diagnostic Analysis of comparative national security in an evolving competition. Focus is to diagnose problems and opportunities rather than recommending actions.
To Understand (the military balance) rather than (suggesting) prescriptions.
In my view, the genius of Andrew Marshall and his Net-Assessment lies not in creating a new model of strategy but in recognizing the part of strategy creation that has some been implict, hidden, more of art form or specific to experience and understanding of the strategy creators of the post.
Andrew Marshall clearly told - the role of the strategist is to identify the drivers in the form of questions that provide real problem statements. As Andrew Carr states, Marshall was focusing on exploring the problems presented by the environment and adversories (in this case Soviet Union, Revolution in Military Affairs, and Emerging China - for the USA). His second part of identification was to discover future problems that we like to pre-empt today. Finally, to identify opportunities that can be created as problems for the adversaries.
DIAGNOSIS - THE INTERROGATION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS -NET ASSESSMENT
The Interrogation was the ways in the diagnosis of Andrew Marshall's Net-Assessment. Interrogate the systems at play - the mindsets, dispositions and patterns behind the specific problems. As Andrew Carr states," We must probe, sense, and respond and try to clarify the inclination of the system to find our way".
Andrew Marshall, however, doesnt want to provide any "strategies" - the ways, means, or even ends (end goals) of the strategy equation. He wants to surface the problems that the decision-makers (Leaders of Defence ministry, Presidents etc) can understand, comprehend and get a feeling of what is going on.
The 2020 book Net Assessment and Military Strategy: Retrospective and Prospective Essays provides 7 characteristics of NET ASSESSMENT. What needs to be interrogated thereby leading to identification of problems.
Last point, number 7, is the critical outcome of a Net-Assessment Study.
Andrew Marshall states, prescriptive solutions with prioritization - what solutions to prioritize, is the responsibility of leaders, stake holders, or decision makers.
ARE DECISION MAKERS SOLUTION CREATORS OR CHOICE PRIORITIZERS?
Andrew Carr states in his strategy as problem solving, the prioritization and solutioning part of the strategy and its execution should be with the executors and decision makers. Strategists as problem solver - who diagnose the complex systems through interrogation should identify the problems. Present these to decision makers, as Andrew Marshall states as well, and let Decision makers solve, prioritize, and provide it to military or executive branch to discover courses of direction and potential solutions, prioritize them and then give to executives - say a military operational art teams to design campaigns, courses of actions and potential Politico-Diplomatic-Economic-Military responses, campiagns or actions.
领英推荐
This takes me to our proposed approach to Strategy and creating Strategic Innovators.
STRATEGIC INNOVATORS ARE COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVERS AND THEY INVENT NOVEL SOLUTIONS
INNOVATION Defined : We define Innovation as successful creation of preferred, imagined, needed, and desired change through thinking, ideas, design, learning, and evolution.
You can listen to our definition and framework for innovation at this YouTube Video. A slightly older version is described in these 9 slides
Few years back we proposed a new class of systems that we called Complex Intelligent Strategic Systems (CISS). This is outside the realm of Cynefin framework. In fact, we will be finding more and more such systems in the Sixth Wave of Innovation (2020-2045).
Please read the abstract from 2020 TRIZCON conference
Inventing Complex, Intelligent, Strategic Systems (CISS) - ALVIS-SCAN thinking for the Sixth Wave of Innovation
Abstract
We define a new class of systems and products named Complex Intelligent Strategic Systems (CISS). We propose that these systems are emerging in the Sixth Wave of Innovation (years 2015-2045). We evolve the formal definition of a system described in TRIZ and in Hubka’s Theory of Technical Systems, to include technical systems with a “mind” of their own. This also maps to the 10th Law of TRIZ proposed in 2012 – the Law of Increasing Intelligence of Technical Systems. The challenges of discovering, defining, describing, designing, developing, deploying, and deducing (7Ds) the CISS require a complete relook of their lifecycle. Besides the advent of cyber-physical systems, increasing intelligence of technical systems, the massive scale of these systems coupled with strategic nature of many of these systems leads to unprecedented challenges. Today the largest systems being conceived are what are called System of Systems (SoS) and Ultra Large-Scale Systems (ULSS). These cutting-edge systems are characterized by operational and managerial independence of elements, evolutionary development, emergent behavior and geographic distribution. Further their life cycle is exponentially impacted and the scale, inventiveness and strategic nature of these systems and products require completely new approaches.
These systems are characterized by substantial decentralization, higher embedded/ambient algorithmic intelligence, inherently conflicting, unknowable and diverse needs/requirements, continuous evolution/deployment/learning, heterogeneous, inconsistent, and changing elements, erosion of people/system boundary, regular failures and new paradigms regeneration of parts of the system. Key aspects for 7Ds of CISS lifecycle i.e., Value, Inventiveness, Human Interaction, Computational Emergence, multi-level Design, Computational Engineering, Adaptive System Infrastructure, Adaptable and Predictable System Quality, Policy, Acquisition and Management are explained. Nine thinking dimensions proposed for CISS are Analytical, Logical, Value, Inventive, and Systems thinking (ALVIS) and Scale, Computational, Algorithmic and Network (SCAN) thinking. These thinking dimensions need to play a much larger part in an integrated manner than the current mostly analytical, logical and analogical thinking. We describe few case studies in ALVIS-SCAN thinking and describe ALVIS-SCAN thinking framework for 7Ds of CISS.
Keywords: Ultra Large-Scale Systems, Value Thinking, Systems Thinking, Inventive Thinking, Product Life Cycle, Modeling, TRIZ, AHP, Design Structure Matrix, Set-Based Concurrent Engineering, ALVIS thinking, ALVIS-SCAN Thinking, Complex Intelligent Strategic Systems (CISS). Hubka’s Theory of Technical Systems.
TRIZCON 2020 Presentation on the above is at this YouTube Video.
ANTI-FRAGILE CRITICALITY - A NEW GOAL
We further proposed that CISS as defined above need to identify specific critical parts that need to be anti-fragile. Please see our paper titled AntiFragile Criticality of Complex Intelligent Strategic Systems - A Fraemwork for thinking. We have defined Anti-Fragile Criticality as Robust Evolvability.
Critical Systems are highly reliable systems that are evolvable yet retain their robustness as they evolve with the least cost. In the environment of large-scale changes, evolution with robustness is the natural design principle. It requires a diversity of components combined together in more or less loose coupling with well-defined operational principles combined with continuous learning and adaptation. A robust system doesn’t imply an unchanging system. In fact, robustness implies an ability to change in a manner that maintains the system function, sometimes evolve through creation of new functions by changing its components and mode of operation in a flexible manner. An adaptable structure is the key to responding to such perturbations. Robustness is a fundamental feature of living systems. Evolution requires robustness; natural systems if they have to evolve need to be robust.
Antifragile Criticality – Robust Evolvability - goal of system development
We define antifragile criticality as robust evolvability as described above as the goal of system development.
We propose that antifragile criticality of systems is enabled by following mechanisms - Runtime configurability of system components (re-configurability); Autonomous (re -) Configurability based on sensory inputs and assessment; Multi-(OP) Systems ( OP - operating principles); Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) and The CISS should be Scalable for them to pass the antifragile criticality threshold.
STRATEGIC INNOVATORS AS INNOVATION CRAFTERS AND INNOVATION CO-CRAFTERS
Given the above analysis and proposals, we suggest that strategy as problem solving in complex systems should be formulated as Complex Inventive problem solving in the emerging and evolving Complex Intelligent Strategic Systems rather than complex systems per se.
What do you need to become Innovation Crafters and Innovation Co-Crafters who are solving Complex Inventive Strategic problems in the complex intelligent strategic systems?
We define Innovation Crafter as a simpleton, scientist and saint.
A Co-Crafter is a Simpleton, Scientist and Saint - who starts along with others in a system (experienced domain experts) to reach to the SOUL of the system. He starts every time as a simpleton (IDIOT if you may - in Chetan Bhagat's articulation in his book 3 Idiots) - then he becomes a scientist and finally achieves sainthood - reaching and delivering a wisdom of the system to effect change that is needed - making the system as close to Ideal as is possible.
In this journey - he creates systemic change along with people in the system.
WHAT WE WANT TO SAY - AND WHAT YOU CAN START TO DO
As can be seen, SIMPLETON part is analogous to NET ASSESSOR who is diagnosing using identification and interrogation, SCIENTIST part is the INVENTOR as a novel solution creator - which is missing in the articulation of strategist as problem solver, and SAINT is the EXECUTOR who designs, evolves, and constructs solutions by orchestrating and adapting the inventions with novelty and non-obviousness , to changing dynamics along with continuous probing, sensing and responding.
BOTTOM LINE :
STRATEGY AS COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING should be expanded to COMPLEX INVENTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING and Strategists need to be Strategic Innovators through Innovation Crafting - JOIN THE JOURNEY - BE AN INNOVATION CRAFTER TODAY !
.........
Author: Navneet Bhushan
Navneet Bhushan (Navneet) worked as a Scientist in DRDO from 1990-2000. He is founder director of CRAFITTI CONSULTING (www.crafitti.com) – an Innovation and Intellectual Property Consulting firm focused on co-crafting solutions for global problems. He regularly writes on defence, security technology and innovation. He is the principal author of Strategic Decision Making- Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process published by Springer-Verlag, UK, as part of the Decision Engineering Series. Navneet Blogs at https://innovationcrafting.blogspot.com.He can be contacted at navneet(dot)bhushan(at) crafitti(dot)com