Myths, Fallacies, Artifacts in Strategy Development

Shahab Sabahi
Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

This piece is a part of my discussion on "Creating  body of knowledge for strategy" in Society of Strategic Planning. It just reflects a pure view through the lens of Philosophy of Science. It should not be regarded as an educational expert view. (part of critical thinking development discourse)

To avoid ambiguity, I first make concept clearance and set the context in my discussion and then proceed to make my points which agree with Dr. Pierre's original thought (Myth, fallacies and irrelevant fact of strategies as a pure science).

From an international development perspective (not firm strategy) and the basic platform of philosophy of science, I initially state problems and explain in brief where the contradictories stem from.

1. It fails to draw a fine line between short and long term (cause objectivity). No solid guiding principle for defining short and long range. It causes a conflicting between the short term view (performance) and long term (value creation). If the concept of short/long borrowed from economics there would be a conceptual contrary. (i think that it must be valid even for corporation strategy as it is for state),

2. There is no evidence that strategic planning actually improves performance (only case studies) so it leads to inductive reasoning (probability).More than fifty casualty analysis articles have been published which proposed different methodologies to gauge the contribution of strategic plan in success of a company. Yet consensus has to be reached (Strategic Management Journal)....I agree this is not a fallacy and is progressive debates ....But as i mentioned in my earlier comment the result of debate whatever would be, just acceptable as inductive reasoning (nature of strategy),

3. Strategic planning attempts to control (deterministic) the future by employing forecasting techniques. Strategic planning requires quantitative data which limited in scope, aggregated, and uncertain to be useful in effective strategy formulation (limitation to develop theoretical bases). It stems from philosophical debate between dynamists and progressive advocates. I do not think it could be discussed without settling a common ground for what school of thoughts we would like to subscribe to. (just punching air),

4. Strategic planning frequently focuses exclusively on strategy formulation, the success for implementation rests upon people who had nothing to do with creating those plans (Subjectivity conflicts Objectivity). Strategy, strategic thinking, strategic planning and performance plan etc help to prioritize our actions (a wonderful approach to solve the long dilemma of value judgment) and support efficient resource allocations (through process which are known)However it contradicts Agent-base theory which is used in development of strategy (EU social science journal, if i my mind goes right),

5. To have a robust analysis, analysis should not be synthesis. However strategic planning analysis in its interaction with strategy is often synthesized (if we do not accept dialectic!!!),  

6. Strategic planning is rather a tool of formal analysis while strategy requires creative synthesis. It is another source of fallacies (a reality),

5 and 6 i have personally no problem with dialectic process as way to develop knowledge....But if one subscribes to intuitivist school of thought (philosophy of science) it would have a hard time to convince its research results

The Prime mover of Human progress – leave human alone

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

We always come down by surprise and ask ourselves why did this happen? Why did that technology fail? Should it not be utilized? Why did that nuclear plant (Fukushima for instance) break down? They were supposed to generate CLEAN electricity and have done so far? Surely the technology had not been developed for any other purpose. In panic, we label that technology devil and keep saying something else happened than what was intended and campaigning for shutting down them.  However the joy and benefit from the technology is still fresh in memory of us.

All technologies have developed in almost same pattern. Human experience and knowledge has long been the engine of change. The fruit of human ingenuity curiosity and experience over the course of history is our today relatively better standard of life. However developments make some part of our life insecure, as climate change, resource depletion and human security can be considered as our key challenges

I do not intend to talk about the impact of development on or the importance of technologies in human life transformation. Rather I aim to point out the chief driver of human experience. I would to briefly discuss whether this driver depends really on conformity to one central vision, or it comes from trial and error attempts taken place in an open-ended society where creativity operating under predictable rules, generate progress in unpredictable ways

In “the future and its enemies” Virginia Postrel’s book, she draws a line between people, mislabelled “progressive” who desire social stasis, and those paradoxically named conservatives, who open the perpetual change of society by dynamism.

Dynamists focus on complex evolutionary processes as scientific inquiry, market competition, artistic development, and technological invention. This world view, as well as a penetrating analysis of how our beliefs about personal knowledge, nature, virtue, and even the relation between work and play shape the way we run our businesses, make public policy, and search for truth.

In contrast, so-called wrongly progressive, think of a central planner tries to anticipate moves in future. He tries to set up a plan for achieving a better outcome, as he thinks. Imagine his static vision and plan cannot fit in the reality of future. The central planner insists on prescribing outcomes in advance, circumventing the process of competition and experiment in favour of its own preconceptions and prejudices. It just wastes resources without hitting the desire outcome and even achieving any experience.

We should welcome patterns created by millions of uncoordinated and independent decisions within determined rules. It may look like a chaotic situation but we remember that chaos is not really disorder but rather is an order that is unpredictable and necessary for our survival. (I. Prigogine)