Project Management

Everything I Know About Strategic Management I Learned From James T. Kirk

From the Game Theory in Management Blog
by
Modelling Business Decisions and their Consequences

About this Blog

RSS

Recent Posts

George Jetson, Bring Me A Rock!

How To Obstruct A PMO

Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of The Project

Think You Have A Culture Problem? Think Again.

Finally! A GAAP Concept PMs Can Get Behind!

Categories

Game Theory, PMO, Politics, Risk Management, Strategic Management

Date

linkedin twitter facebook Request to reuse this  


As my regular readers know, I regularly tear into the risk management types for the multitude of foibles that lace their approach to project management. I think they overstate their ability to provide relevant business information, their data is far, far more subjective than they are willing to admit, and that Nasim Taleb (in The Black Swan, the Impact of the Highly Improbable) was right when he asserted that overuse of the Gaussian Curve is the greatest intellectual fraud of the 20th century. But, from a strategic management point of view, their error lies in the assumption that, given enough quantitative analysis, the best strategy can be discovered for most business situations. My take is that the best strategy is one of providing for a robust response to the unforeseeable events that will inevitably transpire on a given project, rather than attempting to calculate the likelihood and impact of such events unfolding. Is there an example out there that illustrates these rival positions?

Of course there is! (Why else would I have posed the question?) Many senior managers today had their view on the world influenced by the television series Star Trek. The original version of the series (nicknamed “the original series,” or TOS) had an iconic episode entitled “The Doomsday Machine.” In it, the starship Enterprise comes across her wrecked sister ship Constellation, which has evidently been in a horrific battle. As Captain Kirk and a boarding party investigate, they come across the  Constellation’s lone survivor, her captain, Commodore Decker (played brilliantly, I might add, by William Windom). Decker tells of what happened to his ship and crew, how they were attacked by an automated weapon of immense size and power. Just as Decker and Doctor McCoy beam back to the Enterprise, the “planet killer” reappears and attacks Enterprise.

With their Captains on board each other’s vessels, we now see played out how their competing strategies are enacted. Commodore Decker takes command of  Enterprise in order to continue with the strategy of “hitting it (the planet killer) with full phasers, at point-blank range!” Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a slight derivative of the strategy that ended up wrecking Constellation, and killing her crew, a fact that Enterprise’s first officer, Spock, points out. Spock also provides the reason that that strategy didn’t work – “The object’s hull is solid neutronium. There is no known way of blasting through it.” I would imagine not – neutronium is the almost incomprehensibly dense metal at the core of white dwarf stars, as they continue their path towards supernova and , eventually, black holes (how the creators of the planet killer extinguished the white dwarf star, mined and shaped its nuetronium into a funnel-like shape, and integrated its propulsion and defensive systems is not addressed). Decker’s strategy did not represent a very robust response the first time, and his modifications to that strategy won’t fare any better.

Kirk, on the other hand, accepts Spock’s analysis that his ship’s traditional weapons will be of no use in their current situation, and immediately abandons the strategy of attacking with those weapons. When Decker is relieved of command of Enterprise, he steals a shuttlecraft and commits suicide by flying it into the maw of the planet killer. Enterprise detects a minute reduction in the planet killer’s power emanations, and Kirk devises a new strategy. He will rig the Constellation’s impulse engines to detonate as she similarly flies into the planet killer’s interior. Naturally, there are some tense moments as Enterprise’s transporter system goes on and off-line, but, at the last possible moment, Kirk is beamed off of Constellation as she flies into the planet killer and detonates, permanently disabling the automated antagonist.

Note that Kirk had no pre-conceived strategy; or, if he did, he abandoned it immediately. He adapted to the situation, and developed a robust response to events as they unfolded. Conversely, Decker had a set strategy, and refused to significantly modify it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it didn’t work, and wouldn’t work in the future with nothing more than changing the range with which he confronted his foe. Don’t get me wrong – strategizing is great. But the truly insightful manager will be willing to abandon any strategy when the situation on-the-ground (or in deep space) calls for it.

And for those critics who might be tempted to assert that few real-life management situations are sufficiently similar to 50-year-old Star Trek episodes to provide insight, I have one question:

Are you really a Klingon infiltrator?


Posted on: March 10, 2013 07:09 PM | Permalink

Comments (6)

Please login or join to subscribe to this item
avatar
Kenneth Katz Release Train Engineer/IT Project Manager| UnitedHealth Group Enfield, Ct, United States
Excellent example! I'll remember that next time my project is faced with a planet killer made out of solid neutronium.

More seriously, most project risks that I see are rather more predictable, and can be successfully managed with conventional approaches

avatar
Mark Price Perry Business Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT International Orlando, Fl, United States
Michael, excellent post and enjoyable read. All the more reason, if given a binary choice and ultimatum between plan-driven scientific management or the principles of complex adaptive systems, I would opt for the latter. Naturally, there is ample room for both, which our project management industry associations would be well served to contemplate.

avatar
Mark Price Perry Business Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT International Orlando, Fl, United States
Okay, Michael, I have so enjoyed all of your blog posts that I have just subscribed to your RSS feed so that your pearls of wisdom will immediately find their way to my Outlook RSS inbox. I so hope that you continue with your musings. Cheers - mpp

avatar
Harlan Bridges Consultant, Coach, Trainer, Speaker, Program Manager, Project Manager| Entrepreneur Seguin, Tx, United States
Great article that illustrates the critical need of adapting to the situation.

I think of strategy more this way:

an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success.

When you approach strategy in this way, it is not a restricting activity. When we develop strategy with this in mind, we expect change and we strategize for change. Flexibility and adaptability are key in successful strategies. This is critical to working with complex adaptive systems. *nods to Mark while saying this*

Eisenhower said something along these lines (don't remember the exact quote):

"Plans are useless, but planning is essential."

avatar
Wayne Mack Retired| Retired South Riding, Va, United States
For some reason it is often hard to accept that risks that are not well understood are not well understood. Without understanding, a mitigation cannot be prepared ahead of time. Related to that is that if a risk is well understood, why let it occur in the first place?


The challenge is that when unforeseen risks arise, the mitigation cost is often an signficant percentage of the original project cost. There is usually litle rationale for including very large risk buffers during the planning phase, so one must evaluate these risks as they arise and decide whether to increase budget and schedule or end the project. Unless the risk is realized very early in the project, scope reduction is not a viable solution.


Planning for the unknown is simly not possible. One must simply be prepared to adapt and adjust as the situation warrants.


avatar
Kevin Coleman Subject Matter Expert, Author, Speaker and Strategic Advisor| - Insights Pa, United States
Interesting - thanks for sharing

Please Login/Register to leave a comment.

ADVERTISEMENTS

A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines.

- Frank Lloyd Wright

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors