Minimum strategies


Unicist Strategy: Believing to see or seeing to believe?

Believing to see or seeing to believe is a dilemma in human behavior but not in the field of strategies. Strategies begin to exist in the mind of the strategist having nothing to be seen.

Believing to seeThe driver of strategies is growth, which implies that strategies are expansive.

The development of a strategy is based on envisioning the unified field of the solution that will exist and is inexistent at the moment it is being designed.

That is why a high level of consciousness is needed to manage strategies, which implies believing before things can be seen.

Maximal Strategies are by definition expansive. Expansive actions require providing additional added value to the environment and thus they are implicitly innovative. The innovation is implicit in the additional added value.

Maximal Strategies require “believing to see”

Believing to see is necessary for conceptual thinking. Concepts are essential. Therefore they need to be approached based on abstract beliefs that need to be confirmed in their manifested operational actions.

Conceptual thinking implies reflection that goes beyond the sensory experiences of individuals. Homological experiences are the benchmarks to be used to apprehend new action fields.

Believing to see is an approach to the nature of a reality in order to influence the future evolution and develop present actions.

Backward-chaining thinking is necessary to approach any activity that deals with adaptive systems and complexity. The oneness can only be approached with backward-chaining thinking processes which are integrated in the unicist reflection process.

2 = Infinite Solutions is an arithmetic metaphor of backward-chaining thinking.

It requires the use of a high level of inner freedom, because there are no sensory parameters to confirm the validity of a process. That is why a “believing to see” approach needs to be sustained by destructive and non-destructive pilot tests.

Maximal strategies which allow expansion beyond the present boundaries of an activity require the use of backward-chaining thinking and using individuals’ beliefs that need to be validated with sensory experiences.

Minimum Strategies require “seeing to believe”

Minimum strategies work within the boundaries of an activity. That is why they do not deal with the unknown and there is no need to envision things that do not exist. That is why a medium level of consciousness suffices to manage them. They provide the security and safety of maximal strategies. They are conservative to sustain the boundaries of an activity in order to survive.

Seeing to BelieveConservative thinking requires seeing to believe. That is why when a new concept is being discussed and an individual asks for an analogical benchmark, it is because s/he is avoiding entering a new field.

Seeing to believe is necessary to deal with operational thinking.

When operation has to be done it is necessary to deal with a credibility based on seeing. Seeing is used in a wide sense considering all the aspects that deal with sensory experiences to apprehend reality.

Seeing to believe is based on the past experiences of individuals to generate the credibility of present actions.

Forward-chaining thinking is the secure approach to reality which avoids having a high level of inner freedom because the external reality is apprehended through sensory experiences.

The use of sensory information avoids the need to make decisions based on internal freedom.

1 + 1 = 2 is an arithmetic metaphor of forward-chaining thinking.

Minimum strategies, which need to ensure survival, require forward-chaining thinking and using the sensory experiences to believe.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. http://www.unicist.org

Share

Unicist Strategy Building: an Emulation of Nature

The unicist strategy building process, using the double dialectical logic allows emulating the organization of nature in order to optimize processes, maximizing the possible results and minimizing the energy consumed. This approach is necessarily preceded by diagnoses and followed by designing the necessary architectures to make the strategies become business processes.

Specific strategies are based on the input provided by the wide context scenarios and the restricted context scenarios.

Specific Strategy Building

These scenarios have to provide the information of the gravitational forces that influence the specific activity, the possibilities for developing them, the catalyst that may exist and the inhibitors that need to be avoided or accepted as limits for the strategy building.

A business is equilibrated when maximal strategies are being developed while minimum strategies are built to ensure the survival.

Maximal strategies are designed to expand the boundaries of an individual or organization, while minimum strategies happen within the boundaries of an organization.

That is why maximal strategies require dealing with uncertainty and risks and only a conscious knowledge of the unified field that integrates the wide context, the restricted context, the specific strategy and the architecture of the solution allows managing it.

To deal with maximal strategies it is necessary to have a high level of consciousness that allows dealing with backward-chaining thinking that allows envisioning the solution.

Backward-chaining thinking implies approaching a strategy with a hypothetical solution and beginning a falsification and validation process that allows building a final solution.

Minimum strategies are those that happen within the known boundaries of an individual’s or organization’s activity working in a context of certainty.

Therefore, in these types of strategies, only a medium level of consciousness is required. Minimum strategies are based on forward-chaining thinking that allows working step by step based on the known methods of a known field.

Ontogenetic Map of Specific Strategy Building Processes

When an individual or organization has only minimum strategies, it tends to disappear. Minimum strategies are necessary either to ensure growth once the maximal strategy has been achieved, or for marginal survival.

The influence an individual or organization has on the environment functions as a catalyst for the development of a minimum strategy. The lack of influence acts as an inhibitor and endangers survival.

Growth as a trend of the environment and as a need of the individual or organization is the driver of the minimum strategy.

Minimum strategies are driven by the need to grow and are catalyzed by the influence the organization or the individual has in the environment.

When there is neither a driver nor a catalyst, the minimum strategies become desperate survival efforts to permit an organization or individual to be alive the next day.

In that case there are no strategies, but there are just intuitive and common sense driven actions to ensure survival.

Segmentation of Strategies

The four structural operational segments of strategies will be defined considering them as static. Each one of them develops a different type of strategy:

  1. Surviving Strategies
  2. Defensive Strategies
  3. Dominant Strategies
  4. Influential Strategies

These segments can be described in unicist standard language as follows:

1) Surviving Strategies

Strategy BuildingThese are the strategies that aim to survive within the boundaries of an activity.

They are based on a win-win approach that has to be managed as a zero sum strategy in order to avoid appropriating value from the environment.

These strategies are natural for marginal activities developed by people who work at the “border” of their environment. The price they pay is that surviving activities have no critical mass that sustains them. Therefore they need to be continuously active in order to ensure survival. They need to work 24/7.

2) Defensive Strategies

They aim to defend the boundaries of their activity against true threats. They are based on establishing the necessary operational and control systems to defend the “borders” of their activity.

They are power driven because they need to exert power in order to defend their activity. They are focused on paying the necessary prices to sustain their business. The prices they pay sustain their survival and at the same time hinder their expansion.

They work necessarily with strict zero-sum low cost, self-sufficient activities because they cannot trust others to defend their business.

3) Dominant Strategies

Dominant strategies are based on the influence the individual or the organization has in an environment.

They are focused on developing the necessary value propositions that can be sustained with their influence. They tend to impose functional monopolies that allow them to establish the standard for their activities in the environment.

They need to invest a high level of energy in developing their influence through image building and the exclusion of the individual or organizational competitors that do not accept their standards.

They work with value adding strategies in order to legitimate their dominance.

4) Influential Strategies

They are based on exerting influence by improving the value proposition of their competitors.

They are based on having the necessary speed to be “faster” than the competitors which allows them winning in their environment.

Their value propositions are innovative and they are successful when they have the necessary critical mass to influence the environment. They are innovation driven in order to exert the influence of a higher value proposal.

They naturally build alliances in order to obtain the necessary influence for their value propositions.

Synthesis

Maximal strategies are based on adding value to the environment while winning in the specific environment they work in and are sustained by the power they have to influence the context.

Maximal strategies define two positions in the environment:

  1. On the one hand, maximal strategies are natural to leaders that exert a dominant position in the environment.
  2. On the other hand, they are natural to influential individuals or organizations.

Minimum strategies are based on developing win-win strategies and paying the prices necessary to survive.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. http://www.unicist.org

 

Share