O problema de usar o pensamento científico para resolver desafios estratégicos

Um texto sobre o problema de usar o pensamento científico para resolver desafios estratégicos. Recordo o exemplo da Viarco e o exemplo dos muggles:

• "Nós fazemos as contas ao contrário" (Setembro de 2014)
• Acerca do optimismo não documentado (Novembro de 2017)
• Em que lado do teste do lápis está a sua empresa? (Março de 2020)

"where do the key facts of strategic thinking reside? In the future.

Of course, solving strategic issues relies on facts from the past and the present too, but the most critical data you need for resolution does come from the future. And that’s why, the more strategic the issue we are trying to solve, the less likely the [Submarine of] Analytical Research is going to work. The more strategic the problem you are dealing with, the less applicable the Submarine route becomes.

The horizontal route relies heavily for its success on the availability of data, in both quantity and quality. And when you look to the future, which is where most of strategic thinking operates, data is going to be scarce and often highly unreliable. We’ll see shortly how the third route to Completion compensates for that.

...

So the horizontal, Submarine route is the preferred problem-solving method of smart, analytical people. And strategy and strategic thinking are commonly held to be some of the smartest problems around. Yet the horizontal route doesn’t work very well to solve such strategic issues. How ironic. The problem-solving method most beloved of eggheads doesn’t work for the most egghead of problems!

That’s because it’s impossible to solve the future using just hard facts, since there are no hard facts in the future, just hidden possibilities. The future can’t be analysed; it can only be created."

Trechos retirados de “How to be Strategic” de Fred Pelard.