Split (1)

train · 25k rows

text stringlengths 13 991
The thought "John is tall" is clearly composed of two sub-parts, the concept of John and the concept of tallness, combined in a manner that may be expressed in first-order predicate calculus as a predicate 'T' ("is tall") that holds of the entity 'j' (John). A fully articulated proposal for what a LOT would have to take into account greater complexities such as quantification and propositional attitudes (the various attitudes people can have towards statements; for example I might "believe" or "see" or merely "suspect" that John is tall).
The language of thought hypothesis has been both controversial and groundbreaking. Some philosophers reject the LOTH, arguing that our public language "is" our mental language—a person who speaks English "thinks" in English. But others contend that complex thought is present even in those who do not possess a public language (e.g. babies, aphasics, and even higher-order primates), and therefore some form of mentalese must be innate.
The notion that mental states are causally efficacious diverges from behaviorists like Gilbert Ryle, who held that there is no break between the cause of mental state and effect of behavior. Rather, Ryle proposed that people act in some way because they are in a disposition to act in that way, that these causal mental states are representational. An objection to this point comes from John Searle in the form of biological naturalism, a non-representational theory of mind that accepts the causal efficacy of mental states. Searle divides intentional states into low-level brain activity and high-level mental activity. The lower-level, nonrepresentational neurophysiological processes have causal power in intention and behavior rather than some higher-level mental representation.
Daniel Dennett accepts that homunculi may be explained by other homunculi and denies that this would yield an infinite regress of homunculi. Each explanatory homunculus is “stupider” or more basic than the homunculus it explains, but this regress is not infinite but bottoms out at a basic level that is so simple that it does not need interpretation. John Searle points out that it still follows that the bottom-level homunculi are manipulating some sorts of symbols.
LOTH implies that the mind has some tacit knowledge of the logical rules of inference and the linguistic rules of syntax (sentence structure) and semantics (concept or word meaning). If LOTH cannot show that the mind knows that it is following the particular set of rules in question, then the mind is not computational because it is not governed by computational rules. Also, the apparent incompleteness of this set of rules in explaining behavior is pointed out. Many conscious beings behave in ways that are contrary to the rules of logic. Yet this irrational behavior is not accounted for by any rules, showing that there is at least some behavior that does not act by this set of rules.
Another objection within representational theory of mind has to do with the relationship between propositional attitudes and representation. Dennett points out that a chess program can have the attitude of “wanting to get its queen out early,” without having representation or rule that explicitly states this. A multiplication program on a computer computes in the computer language of 1’s and 0’s, yielding representations that do not correspond with any propositional attitude.
Susan Schneider has recently developed a version of LOT that departs from Fodor's approach in numerous ways. In her book, The Language of Thought: a New Philosophical Direction, Schneider argues that Fodor's pessimism about the success of cognitive science is misguided, and she outlines an approach to LOT that integrates LOT with neuroscience. She also stresses that LOT that is not wedded to the extreme view that all concepts are innate. She fashions a new theory of mental symbols, and a related two-tiered theory of concepts, in which a concept's nature is determined by its LOT symbol type and its meaning.
Since connectionist models can change over time, supporters of connectionism claim that it can solve the problems that LOTH brings to classical AI. These problems are those that show that machines with a LOT syntactical framework very often are much better at solving problems and storing data than human minds, yet much worse at things that the human mind is quite adept at such as recognizing facial expressions and objects in photographs and understanding nuanced gestures. Fodor defends LOTH by arguing that a connectionist model is just some realization or implementation of the classical computational theory of mind and therein necessarily employs a symbol-manipulating LOT.
Connectionists have responded to Fodor and Pylyshyn by denying that connectionism uses LOT, by denying that cognition is essentially a function that uses representational input and output or denying that systematicity is a law of nature that rests on representation. Some connectionists have developed implementational connectionist models that can generalize in a symbolic fashion by incorporating variables.
Since LOTH came to be it has been empirically tested. Not all experiments have confirmed the hypothesis;
Strategy (from Greek στρατηγία "stratēgia", "art of troop leader; office of general, command, generalship") is a general plan to achieve one or more long-term or overall goals under conditions of uncertainty. In the sense of the "art of the general", which included several subsets of skills including military tactics, siegecraft, logistics etc., the term came into use in the 6th century C.E. in Eastern Roman terminology, and was translated into Western vernacular languages only in the 18th century. From then until the 20th century, the word "strategy" came to denote "a comprehensive way to try to pursue political ends, including the threat or actual use of force, in a dialectic of wills" in a military conflict, in which both adversaries interact.
Strategy is important because the resources available to achieve goals are usually limited. Strategy generally involves, setting goals and priorities, determining actions to achieve the goals, and mobilizing resources to execute the actions. A strategy describes how the ends (goals) will be achieved by the means (resources). Strategy can be intended or can emerge as a pattern of activity as the organization adapts to its environment or competes. It involves activities such as strategic planning and strategic thinking.
Henry Mintzberg from McGill University defined strategy as a pattern in a stream of decisions to contrast with a view of strategy as planning, while Henrik von Scheel defines the essence of strategy as the activities to deliver a unique mix of value – choosing to perform activities differently or to perform different activities than rivals. while Max McKeown (2011) argues that "strategy is about shaping the future" and is the human attempt to get to "desirable ends with available means". Dr. Vladimir Kvint defines strategy as "a system of finding, formulating, and developing a doctrine that will ensure long-term success if followed faithfully." Complexity theorists define strategy as the unfolding of the internal and external aspects of the organization that results in actions in a socio-economic context.
Professor Richard P. Rumelt described strategy as a type of problem solving in 2011. He wrote that good strategy has an underlying structure he called a "kernel". The kernel has three parts: 1) A "diagnosis" that defines or explains the nature of the challenge; 2) A "guiding policy" for dealing with the challenge; and 3) Coherent "actions" designed to carry out the guiding policy.
President Kennedy illustrated these three elements of strategy in his Cuban Missile Crisis Address to the Nation of 22 October 1962:
Rumelt wrote in 2011 that three important aspects of strategy include "premeditation, the anticipation of others' behavior, and the purposeful design of coordinated actions." He described strategy as solving a design problem, with trade-offs among various elements that must be arranged, adjusted and coordinated, rather than a plan or choice.
Strategy typically involves two major processes: "formulation" and "implementation". "Formulation" involves analyzing the environment or situation, making a diagnosis, and developing guiding policies. It includes such activities as strategic planning and strategic thinking. "Implementation" refers to the action plans taken to achieve the goals established by the guiding policy.
Bruce Henderson wrote in 1981 that: "Strategy depends upon the ability to foresee future consequences of present initiatives." He wrote that the basic requirements for strategy development include, among other factors: 1) extensive knowledge about the environment, market and competitors;
2) ability to examine this knowledge as an interactive dynamic system; and
3) the imagination and logic to choose between specific alternatives. Henderson wrote that strategy was valuable because of: "finite resources, uncertainty about an adversary's capability and intentions; the irreversible commitment of resources; necessity of coordinating action over time and distance; uncertainty about control of the initiative; and the nature of adversaries' mutual perceptions of each other."
In military theory, strategy is "the utilization during both peace and war, of all of the nation's forces, through large scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security and victory" ("Random House Dictionary").
The father of Western modern strategic study, Carl von Clausewitz, defined military strategy as "the employment of battles to gain the end of war." B. H. Liddell Hart's definition put less emphasis on battles, defining strategy as "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy". Hence, both gave the pre-eminence to political aims over military goals. U.S. Naval War College instructor Andrew Wilson defined strategy as the "process by which political purpose is translated into military action." Lawrence Freedman defined strategy as the "art of creating power."
Eastern military philosophy dates back much further, with examples such as "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu dated around 500 B.C.
Modern business strategy emerged as a field of study and practice in the 1960s; prior to that time, the words "strategy" and "competition" rarely appeared in the most prominent management literature.
Alfred Chandler wrote in 1962 that: "Strategy is the determination of the basic long-term goals of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals." Michael Porter defined strategy in 1980 as the "...broad formula for how a business is going to compete, what its goals should be, and what policies will be needed to carry out those goals" and the "...combination of the "ends" (goals) for which the firm is striving and the "means" (policies) by which it is seeking to get there."
Henry Mintzberg described five definitions of strategy in 1998:
In game theory, a "strategy" refers to the rules that a player uses to choose between the available actionable options. Every player in a non-trivial game has a set of possible strategies to use when choosing what moves to make.
A strategy may recursively look ahead and consider what actions can happen in each contingent state of the game—e.g. if the player takes action 1, then that presents the opponent with a certain situation, which might be good or bad, whereas if the player takes action 2 then the opponents will be presented with a different situation, and in each case the choices they make will determine their own future situation.
Strategies in game theory may be random (mixed) or deterministic (pure). Pure strategies can be thought of as a special case of mixed strategies, in which only probabilities 0 or 1 are assigned to actions.
Strategy based games generally require a player to think through a sequence of solutions to determine the best way to defeat the opponent.
Divide and rule (), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy.
The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Niccolò Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of "The Art of War" (1521) ("L'arte della guerra"): a Captain should endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy. Machiavelli advises that this act should be achieved either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.
The maxim divide et impera has been attributed to Philip II of Macedon. It was utilised by the Roman ruler Julius Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon (together with the maxim "divide ut regnes)".
The strategy, but not the phrase, applies in many ancient cases: the example of Aulus Gabinius exists, parting the Jewish nation into five conventions, reported by Flavius Josephus in Book I, 169–170 of "The Jewish War" ("De bello Judaico"). Strabo also reports in "Geographica", 8.7.3 that the Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of Macedonia, owing to their not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.
by Immanuel Kant (1795), Appendix one, "Divide et impera" is the third of three political maxims, the others being "Fac et excusa" (Act now, and make excuses later) and "Si fecisti, nega" (If you commit a crime, deny it).
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories.
Immanuel Kant was an advocate of this tactic, noting that "the problem of setting up a state can be solved even by a nation of devils" so long as they possess an appropriate constitution which pits opposing factions against each other with a system of checks and balances.
The concept is also mentioned as a strategy for market action in economics to get the most out of the players in a competitive market.
Divide and rule can be used by states to weaken enemy military alliances. This usually happens when propaganda is disseminated within the enemy states in an attempt to raise doubts about the alliance. Once the alliance weakens or dissolves, a vacuum will allow the state to achieve military dominance.
In politics, the concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people to prevent a rebellion against the elites or the people implementing the strategy. The goal is either to pit the lower classes against themselves to prevent a revolution, or to provide a desired solution to the growing discord that strengthens the power of the elites.
The principle "divide et impera" is cited as a common in politics by Traiano Boccalini in "La bilancia politica".
Clive R. Boddy found that "divide and conquer" was a common strategy by corporate psychopaths used as a smokescreen to help consolidate and advance their grip on power in the corporate hierarchy.
Harry G. Broadman opined in Forbes regarding President Donald Trump: "[a]s in his campaign, the President has been successfully—at least to date—pursuing a divide and conquer strategy domestically and internationally to try to achieve his goals. The result is an absence of a robust set of checks and balances to ensure that the best economic interests of the U.S. and the world will be served."
Examples of this strategy are not entirely limited to deliberate efforts from U.S. Politicial Candidates. Political divide is a systemic problem with bipartisan politics itself, with numerous examples of divided interest among competing politicians adversely sowing divide among the populace they are meant to represent, across many countries. The effects of 'divide and rule' strategies are not always the result of a deliberate effort to control the population.
The disruptive solutions process (DSP) is a concept for innovation execution applied to the mishap prevention part of the combat operations process, often at the tactical or operational level, primarily in Air National Guard applications. However, it has been used successfully in other government agencies and the private sector. At its core is the notion of iterative, low-cost, first-to-market development. The term 'disruptive' was borrowed from the marketing term disruptive technologies. DSP was created in 2005 by fighter pilot and the United States Air Force/Air National Guard Colonel Edward Vaughan.
Typical defense industry bureaucratic approach to problem-solving involves exquisite enterprise solutions requiring long lead times, the establishment of large, standing teams, and relative inflexibility. The long development cycles and lead times associated with this approach sometimes result in fielding a solution that is no longer relevant. Recent attempts to resolve inefficiencies may include overwhelming with superior funding, resources, and manpower—for example, take any major weapon systems development such as a new fighter jet or IT system. Conversely, when resources are constrained, bureaucratic staff adopt a tactic of continuous process improvement, similar to that espoused in Kaizen, total quality management, and Lean Six Sigma. This further discourages innovation and perpetuates low-value programs and work teams that should be eliminated altogether rather than "improved".
Because most preventable "safety" mishaps are caused by human factors (83% of the Fiscal Year 2007 Air Force major mishap costs due to human factors per AF Safety Center) and can be traced to human cultural and behavioral issues, according to DSP, safety can and should uniquely apply a "disruptive" solution set to address the issues. Such a disruptive, iterative approach may not be appropriate in otherwise hardware-centric, large budget programs, such as aircraft procurement and production.
To address the safety cultural issues associated with mishap prevention in a large bureaucracy, Air National Guard safety directorate pursued a disruptive approach in requirement definition, problem identification, solution vetting, funding, and procurement. Using Boyd's Observe, Orient, Decide, Act OODA Loop to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the process, DSP was created. However, taking on a bureaucracy is not without its downside. Fiefdoms and stovepipes within the system attempt to protect their "turf" and "lanes" with rules, regulations, and non-stop administrative delays and paperwork. All this requires a commitment to a long-term solution set, while constantly changing the solution itself in order to work through the bureaucratic hurdles.
The DSP approach is both persistent and adaptive, which makes it entrepreneurial, according to Christopher Gergen and Gregg Vanourek in their article "Fending off the Recession with 'Adaptive Persistence'," published in Harvard Business Review, April 2009. They write... "Persistence is about refusing to give up even in the face of adversity. Adaptation is about shortening the time to success through ingenuity and flexibility. 'Adaptive persistence' entails alternating between anticipation, changing course, and sticking with it, deftly navigating that paradox with aplomb."
The "process" is executed similar to a venture capitalist's portfolio of projects in that the team invests small amounts of resources in many disruptive ideas. Steps in the process are not rigorous and may be eliminated, combined, or reordered appropriately to the desired outcome. Then the team assesses initial demonstrations and validations (DEM/VAL) of those solutions, choosing only to fully develop those that show success and return on the investment. Within the simplified OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) model, step 1 would be observed, steps 2 and 3 combine to form orient, steps 4 and 5 are decide, and step 6 is Act.
Essentially DSP is a six-step process that runs counter to the military mantra of "requirements-driven", which is backward-looking and focuses instead on projecting future market needs that will eventually become formal requirements but not currently identified as such. Accomplish this by looking at front-line problem solving activity and scaling these solutions up. These six steps, when applied rapidly, can get ahead of recognition, providing viable solutions at the point and time of need:
1. POLL FIELD—IDEA MINING: use network of professionals at the field unit level to identify best practice mishap prevention, education, mishap investigation, procurement, and other tools. Project unpublished requirements by including end-use customers in the idea mining process. Look for full and partial solutions.
2. CONSOLIDATE / RACK AND STACK: Heuristically sort list of ideas into groups based on resource requirements, proven record, technology leveraging, mission accomplishment, Department of Defense, Air Force Instruction, and National Guard Bureau identified needs. Based on chosen development cycles, monthly, quarterly, etc., rank order all projects based on overall value to the force using DSP assessment algorithm (citation forthcoming after public release of algorithm).
3. ELIMINATE BAD FITS: Scrub the list for those items requiring major hardware, Air Force Major Command level funding, or other special, difficult to acquire funding or processes. Enterprise-level and/or exquisite programs are anathema to this innovative process. Additionally remove from consideration solutions that duplicate or compete directly with future programmed or existing military programs unless the cost savings is significant. Eliminate those programs that are not scalable in scope.
4. SELECT AND DEM/VAL: Consider resource requirements and rapidly source field unit funding or headquarters seed monies in the sub-$50K range to perform a limited DEM/VAL of concept. Many technology solutions can be demonstrated with little or no initial funding. Air National Guard Safety office has a presentation on creative funding without a budget. Use rapid contracting mechanisms through government contracting office, primarily employing SBA set-asides, blanket purchase agreements, or previously procured assets that may be re-roled into current use. This requires expert contracting officers and staff who possess training in performing basic functions of government contracting officer representative, or contracting officer technical representative. The key is to remove barriers to execution that typically delay other military efforts.
5. ITERATE FOR RESULTS: Establish definition of success at the outset. Measurable and reportable. Demonstrate measurable results within six months and seek further external and scalable funding from sources such as DARPA, Defense Safety Oversight Council (DSOC), other services, other government agencies, etc. Match requirements to resources and solutions.
6. LEAD AND MARKET: lead the effort on behalf of the United States Department of Defense, Joint, Interagency, etc. and tighten the OODA loop down to nothing. Essentially creating an agile, continuous loop so tight, Boyd might describe it as an OODA Point. Market the solution intensely and seek buy in by returning the solution to same experts that initially proposed it. Identify capable project leaders to run with the project.
More recently, DSP has been used in the ANG and USAF to create and field mishap prevention programs. Safety programs created, executed, or developed using DSP:
SEE AND AVOID – Joint DOD and Interagency with AOPA, EAA, and FAA. It is a web based civilian-military midair collision avoidance program created by then-Lt Col Ed Vaughan and led by ANG Safety directorate from 2005 to 2009, considered a best practice. ACC is partner; AFCENT asked for Iraq, Afghanistan coverage, now under contract, currently led and funded by FAA and ANG.
WingmanDay.org: Originally fielded as RealBase across the Air National Guard...this Comprehensive Commander’s Toolkit identifies safety issues, resiliency subject matter, and provides tools for commanders, leaders, and care practitioners to address; created by ANG Safety directorate after 2007 Safety Stand Down Day to provide ONE STOP SHOPPING for commanders and leaders. The RealBase web portal ran through 2009, when IT officials at the National Guard Bureau suspended it. In 2011, the program was relaunched as Wingman Day. The Air Force Safety Center took the RealBase Toolkit concept and developed one-stop-shopping online tool kits hosted on the secure Air Force Portal.
Maintenance Resource Management (MRM): Joint DOD-wide. Originated by Lt Col Doug Slocum (AZ ANG) --see Maintenance Resource Management. ANG included it in DSP and took it DOD-wide with ANG and DOD funding...now Air Force program mandated by Air Force Instruction 21–101. Air Force Safety Center will propose way ahead on ORM revitalization & role of CRM / MRM.
FlyAwake: ANG-wide, soon to be DOD-wide Joint Service. 201 Airlift Squadron (DC ANG), under command of Col Woody Akins, originated the basic concept for a web-based fatigue risk management tool which returns quantitative fatigue analysis for given flight schedule. This tool was based on the algorithm contained within FAST. Under direction of program manager Captain Lynn Lee, the ANG integrated it into the DSP and took it ANG-wide, then DOD-wide.
Wingman Project: The Wingman Project was created by Lt Col Edward Vaughan, chief of aviation safety at the Air National Guard in August 2007. Wingman Project is an ANG suicide intervention initiative that SHOWS, not tells, family and friends of distressed Airmen how to intervene to save a life, using a validated model known as ACE (Ask, Care, Escort). The Wingman Project provides training and awareness through media outreach in 54 U.S. states and territories.
dBird bird mortality model. Created and developed as interagency program combining partners from CDC, Smithsonian, NSF, USDA, DHS, and NOAA under ANG leadership to track, target, and predict movements of pathogen-infected bird flocks using BASH resources such as BAM/AHAS, NexRAD radar system, and others.
BASH: ANG has comprehensive full-service BASH assessments and plan writing program, with MIPR and contracts from ANG to USDA and the world’s leading expert in avian wildlife biology, Dr. Russ DeFusco.
Air Reserve Component Chief of Safety Course (ARCCOS) – created by the ANG safety directorate in 2005, ARCCOS is tailored to ANG/AFRC needs; syllabus designed and course taught by ANG, well represented at active duty mishap investigation courses.
Low Altitude Deconfliction Program – Deconflict.org is online scheduling function with FAA's MADE program to provide collision avoidance for military aircraft operating in low altitude environment.
Ready 54 – Ready54.org is online joint resiliency outreach and education tool with associated mobile apps. Ready 54 is a joint endeavor between the Air and Army National Guard.
On September 25, 2009, Dr. John Ohab of the American Forces Press Service, and host of Armed With Science interviewed Lt Col Edward Vaughan about the Disruptive Solutions Process. An article about that interview can be found here Defense News Service. A direct link to the interview here
Strategic planning is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy.
It may also extend to control mechanisms for guiding the implementation of the strategy. Strategic planning became prominent in corporations during the 1960s and remains an important aspect of strategic management. It is executed by strategic planners or strategists, who involve many parties and research sources in their analysis of the organization and its relationship to the environment in which it competes.
Strategy has many definitions, but generally involves setting strategic goals, determining actions to achieve the goals, and mobilizing resources to execute the actions. A strategy describes how the ends (goals) will be achieved by the means (resources). The senior leadership of an organization is generally tasked with determining strategy. Strategy can be planned (intended) or can be observed as a pattern of activity (emergent) as the organization adapts to its environment or competes.
Strategy includes processes of formulation and implementation; strategic planning helps coordinate both. However, strategic planning is analytical in nature (i.e., it involves "finding the dots"); strategy formation itself involves synthesis (i.e., "connecting the dots") via strategic thinking. As such, strategic planning occurs around the strategy formation activity.
Michael Porter wrote in 1980 that formulation of competitive strategy includes consideration of four key elements:
The first two elements relate to factors internal to the company (i.e., the internal environment), while the latter two relate to factors external to the company (i.e., the external environment). These elements are considered throughout the strategic planning process.
Data is gathered from a variety of sources, such as interviews with key executives, review of publicly available documents on the competition or market, primary research (e.g., visiting or observing competitor places of business or comparing prices), industry studies, etc. This may be part of a competitive intelligence program. Inputs are gathered to help support an understanding of the competitive environment and its opportunities and risks. Other inputs include an understanding of the values of key stakeholders, such as the board, shareholders, and senior management. These values may be captured in an organization's vision and mission statements.
Strategic planning activities include meetings and other communication among the organization's leaders and personnel to develop a common understanding regarding the competitive environment and what the organization's response to that environment (its strategy) should be. A variety of strategic planning tools (described in the section below) may be completed as part of strategic planning activities.
The organization's leaders may have a series of questions they want to be answered in formulating the strategy and gathering inputs, such as:
The output of strategic planning includes documentation and communication describing the organization's strategy and how it should be implemented, sometimes referred to as the strategic plan. The strategy may include a diagnosis of the competitive situation, a guiding policy for achieving the organization's goals, and specific action plans to be implemented. A strategic plan may cover multiple years and be updated periodically.
The organization may use a variety of methods of measuring and monitoring progress towards the strategic objectives and measures established, such as a balanced scorecard or strategy map. Companies may also plan their financial statements (i.e., balance sheets, income statements, and cash flows) for several years when developing their strategic plan, as part of the goal-setting activity. The term operational budget is often used to describe the expected financial performance of an organization for the upcoming year. Capital budgets very often form the backbone of a strategic plan, especially as it increasingly relates to Information and Communications Technology (ICT).
Whilst the planning process produces outputs, as described above, strategy implementation or execution of the strategic plan produces Outcomes. These outcomes will invariably differ from the strategic goals. How close they are to the strategic goals and vision will determine the success or failure of the strategic plan. There will also arise unintended Outcomes, which need to be attended to and understood for strategy development and execution to be a true learning process.
A variety of analytical tools and techniques are used in strategic planning. These were developed by companies and management consulting firms to help provide a framework for strategic planning. Such tools include:
Simply extending financial statement projections into the future without consideration of the competitive environment is a form of financial planning or budgeting, not strategic planning. In business, the term "financial plan" is often used to describe the expected financial performance of an organization for future periods. The term "budget" is used for a financial plan for the upcoming year. A "forecast" is typically a combination of actual performance year-to-date plus expected performance for the remainder of the year, so is generally compared against plan or budget and prior performance. The financial plans accompanying a strategic plan may include 3–5 years of projected performance.
McKinsey & Company developed a capability maturity model in the 1970s to describe the sophistication of planning processes, with strategic management ranked the highest. The four stages include:
Categories 3 and 4 are strategic planning, while the first two categories are non-strategic or essentially financial planning. Each stage builds on the previous stages; that is, a stage 4 organization completes activities in all four categories.
For Michael C. Sekora, Project Socrates founder in the Reagan White House, during the cold war the economically challenged Soviet Union was able to keep on western military capabilities by using technology-based planning while the U.S. was slowed by finance-based planning, until the Reagan administration launched the Socrates Project, which should be revived to keep up with China as an emerging superpower.
Strategic planning has been criticized for attempting to systematize strategic thinking and strategy formation, which Henry Mintzberg argues are inherently creative activities involving synthesis or "connecting the dots" which cannot be systematized. Mintzberg argues that strategic planning can help coordinate planning efforts and measure progress on strategic goals, but that it occurs "around" the strategy formation process rather than within it. Further, strategic planning functions remote from the "front lines" or contact with the competitive environment (i.e., in business, facing the customer where the effect of competition is most clearly evident) may not be effective at supporting strategy efforts.
The Campaign Between the Wars (Hebrew: המערכה בין המלחמות or מב"ם lit. the military campaign between wars) refers to the targeted covert inter-war campaign waged by the State of Israel. This is done through the IDF and the Israeli Intelligence Community, by preventing Israel's enemies, whomsoever they may be, from developing capabilities that will enable them to violate Israel's balance of deterrence through detecting and selectively destroying emerging threats to Israel's security.
Among the activities attributed to Israel: the 2007 strike on a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria (Operation Outside the Box), the assassination of Syrian General Muhammad Suleiman (although not publicly attributed to Israel, only that Israel was consulted on the assassination), Imad Mughniyah, the military commander of Hezbollah and his son, and Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. The Israeli attack in Sudan (2009) during Operation Cast Lead, the May 2013 attacks on Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah in Damascus, the January 2013 attack on the Syrian arms convoy in the Rif region of Damascus, the February 2014 attack on the Syrian arms convoy to Hezbollah in Baalbek, activities against the Iranian nuclear program, and the delivery of about 800 bombs against 200 targets across Syria in 2017–2018.
An organizing principle is a core assumption from which everything else by proximity can derive a classification or a value. It is like a central reference point that allows all other objects to be located, often used in a conceptual framework. Having an organizing principle might help one simplify and get a handle on a particularly complicated domain or phenomenon. On the other hand, it might create a deceptive prism that colors one's judgment.
Geostrategy, a subfield of geopolitics, is a type of foreign policy guided principally by geographical factors as they inform, constrain, or affect political and military planning. As with all strategies, geostrategy is concerned with matching means to ends—in this case, a country's resources (whether they are limited or extensive) with its geopolitical objectives (which can be local, regional, or global). Strategy is as intertwined with geography as geography is with nationhood, or as Colin S. Gray and Geoffrey Sloan state it, "[geography is] the mother of strategy."
Geostrategists, as distinct from geopoliticians, approach geopolitics from a nationalist point of view. Geostrategies are relevant principally to the context in which they were devised: the strategist's nation, the historically rooted national impulses, the strength of the country's resources, the scope of the country's goals, the political geography of the time period, and the technological factors that affect military, political, economic, and cultural engagement. Geostrategy can function prescriptively, advocating foreign policy based on geographic and historical factors, analytically, describing how foreign policy is shaped by geography and history, or predictively, projecting a country's future foreign policy decisions and outcomes.
Many geostrategists are also geographers, specializing in subfields of geography, such as human geography, political geography, economic geography, cultural geography, military geography, and strategic geography. Geostrategy is most closely related to strategic geography.
Especially following World War II, some scholars divide geostrategy into two schools: the uniquely German organic state theory; and, the broader Anglo-American geostrategies.
Most definitions of geostategy below emphasize the merger of strategic considerations with geopolitical factors. While geopolitics is ostensibly neutral — examining the geographic and political features of different regions, especially the impact of geography on politics — geostrategy involves comprehensive planning, assigning means for achieving national goals or securing assets of military or political significance.
The term "geo-strategy" was first used by Frederick L. Schuman in his 1942 article "Let Us Learn Our Geopolitics." It was a translation of the German term "Wehrgeopolitik" as used by German geostrategist Karl Haushofer. Previous translations had been attempted, such as "defense-geopolitics". Robert Strausz-Hupé had coined and popularized "war geopolitics" as another alternate translation.
As a science or science based political practice geostrategy uses factual and empirical analysis, thus theoretical formulations in geostrategy usually heavily rely on empirical base although facts-values relations or conclusions are differently observed by different and/or competitive geostrategic approaches. Geostrategic conceptions that stems from the theory become base for the countries foreign and international policies. Geostrategic conceptions are also historically acquired or even inherited from one country to another due to common history, relations between the countries, culture and even propaganda.
The geostrategy of location include river valleys, inland sea, world ocean, world island, and so on. For instance, the start of Western civilization was located in the river valleys of the Nile in Egypt and the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia. The Nile and Tigris and Euphrates not only provided the fertile soil for crop production, but also allowed for the floods that taxed the ingenuity of the inhabitants. The climate of the area was conducive to an existence based primarily upon agriculture. The rivers also provided the avenues of trade in a period when muscles of man and the winds of the sky were the motive power of ships. The river valleys became a unifying factor in the political development of the people.
As early as Herodotus, observers saw strategy as heavily influenced by the geographic setting of the actors. In "History", Herodotus describes a clash of civilizations between the Egyptians, Persians, Scythians, and Greeks—all of which he believed were heavily influenced by the physical geographic setting.
Dietrich Heinrich von Bülow proposed a geometrical science of strategy in the 1799 "The Spirit of the Modern System of War." His system predicted that the larger states would swallow the smaller ones, resulting in eleven large states. Mackubin Thomas Owens notes the similarity between von Bülow's predictions and the map of Europe after the unification of Germany and of Italy.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.