Re: Back and Forward Planning LO3378

kent_myers@smtplink.sra.com
Mon, 23 Oct 95 11:05:55 EST

Replying to LO3317 --

responding to O'Neil 3306 and Rich 3317.

The character of the goal state, and one's assumption about what a proper
goal state is, can kick back on one's choice of a forward or backward
orientation. If the goal is easily described, it is probably more natural
to backward plan. If the goal is uncertain, there is a tendency to move
instead from what is better known -- the current state. The more
uncertain the goal state, the greater tendency to not move at all but to
luxuriate in descriptions of the current system.

(I'm sure we all agree that moving both back and forward to find a
strategy is best. My beef is with people who will only move forward as a
matter of principle, or those who will not move at all as a matter of
practice, indirectly encouraged by the principle of forward motion.)

Behind all this is a mental model that says that all goals are certain,
and thus if the situation is uncertain, it is irrational to set goals.
This is correct reasoning from a false premise. From what I know of the
Emerys, _Searching_ probably has a lot to say about finding strategy in
uncertain situations without reducing that uncertainty in an illegitimate
way. Hard core students of this problem might also want to check Aron
Katsenelinboigen, _Indeterministic Economics_. He develops the notion of
an aesthetic method. One of his best examples is chess and the invention
of positional play. Before 1920, everyone used 'combinatorial' play,
where you take initiative and drive a particular development. Positional
play is where the player, at midgame, doesn't commit to combinatorial
developments, but instead builds a stronger position from which such
combinations can be launched and resisted. Aron calls this
'potentiatiating'. In chess, there is a way to evaluate your position,
generally in terms of control of center squares. Now, that's a goal, but
it has no specific end state, the building of a position cannot be
rigorously linked with a win, and the way the position is evaluated varies
depending on the skills and preferences of the player. A similar
'positional parameter' is market share. Japanese businessmen, compared to
Americans, place higher value on the ratio of market share to current
profit. Who has better planning? It depends on whether you are skilled
enough to use a potentiating strategy.

The US military is struggling with potential. All the speech-makers talk
about the new uncertainty and the need for flexibility, robustness, and a
dozen other words that add up to potential. Yet when anybody acts, the
only information that is ever used is 'readiness', which simply keeps
everything in place, resting on whatever potential is inadvertently left
over from having too much of everything. Reengineering tends to strip
away flexibility, so I suppose there is strategic advantage in its
failure!

--
kent_myers@smtplink.sra.com