Maybe I’m looking at the problem in an obtuse way. Well, firstly goals are necessary. The goal or set of goals defines the area in which the scenario should be planned. For example, if I want to rise in ranks, then the situation is, automatically, the office. If I want to ensure the safety of some X, then the situation in which X arises is the situation to consider. Hmm.. no, that’s wrong.


If I want X, then the situation is the set of circumstances which are to be manipulated/controlled to derive the desired result, i.e. X. If I want to win at chess, the situation is the game of chess, the board, the pieces and the opponent. If I want to gain promotion, then the situation is the work, the office colleagues and the managers. If I want to go to war with Russia, then the situation is the geopolitical situation, Russia’s relative strength against mine, the host of allies on each side, the socio-economic situation in both countries, perhaps.

In each instance are the sets of variables that need to be controlled/manipulated to derive the desired result, preceded by the goal/sets of goals.

But things aren’t as cut and dried as a predefined game. There are goals from the on-set, and there are goals that have been determined after studying the ‘lay of the land’. Furthermore, things tend to be more fluid. So we can’t use the model below:-

  • Situation
  • Event
  • Escalation/Consequences
  • Opportunities

Maybe there should be a separation of things we can know and things we can’t? Or rather, things we can control as opposed to things we can’t? Just going from the gut, I’m thinking like this: goals are controlled, and can arise from the situation we find ourselves in. But then again, situations can present themselves as opportunities. So the understanding of the term “situation” is too broad.

So we should distinguish between a situation and an opportunity. A situation is a set of variables that become foregrounded in response to a stated goal. That’s as far as I can think of it. So that presupposes a more general sense of the word “situation” preceding that “foregrounding”. Maybe what I mean is this: there is a general awareness of the state of things, from which opportunities arise, either giving rise to goals, or presenting more options for a previously stated goal.

In this instance, making the goal as the starting point might be a little arbitrary, since we can distinguish between the most general of goals (”I want to be successful” for example) and more tactical goals (like “I must acquire that book”). Bah, I’m thinking all over the place. Start with the skeletal framework, then elaborate.

An arbitrary assumption: goals come first. To strategize according to goals would require knowledge of the ’situation’. To distinguish between the latter general sense and the term ’situation’, I will call it ‘awareness’. So, goals < --> awareness, goals –> awareness or goals + awareness? It doesn’t matter yet, I’ll assume: goals –> awareness. Hmmm. I want to say:

goals –> awareness –> opportunity –> situation –> action –> consequence –> opportunity/risk –> revision of goals –> awareness –> situation… ad nauseum.

There’s something wrong with this. A prudent man would know the lay of the land before he can understand what goals will be realistic. If I were to go to war with armies on two fronts, I would realize, for example, that to engage all my forces against one front would leave me vulnerable on the other. If I’m under threat, I cannot toss away my pieces, or rather, I cannot toss away a threatened piece unless the sacrifice of such a piece allows me to develop my other pieces further, for example.

It feels as if goals and assessments of the situation, the general situation, must be on-going, must be fluid. Hmm. More idle thought required :p