Strategy Review: IESM– AN APPROACH
1. Note-form, ‘texting’ mode. Reason:
2. Aim. To evolve a ‘conceptual construct’ for ‘smart- strat’ option.
Review of Sit
3. Present Goal /Strategy
6. Need to adapt/innovate- SMART STRAT.
Strat Re-orientation- A Perspective Change
7. Re-focus Goal and Objs. Expand ‘bandwidth’, as follows:
(a) Focus on Inclusive Goal of JUSTICE for VETERANS (covers OROP). Benefits:
(b) Intermediate Objs (IOs). To be derived from ‘Stakeholder Analysis’. These incl mil and non-mil domains like AFT/courts, media, civ society/NGOs, MOD etc. Each has distinct characteristics, power/ pay-off profiles- to be ‘exploited’, suitably.
(c) Plans. Will flow from the above. Need to be integrated into a ‘dynamic model’.
8. Emp suitable ‘soft skills’ e.g. lobby, negotiate, networks (blogging incl); more ‘Reason over Emotion’: CHANAKYA-neeti.
9. Institutionalise Structure and Systems, for the long haul.
10. Incls three main gps- Mil, Non-Mil & Veterans- as intersecting Power players/ Stakeholders:
11. Influence Potential. Each of the above has unique Power/ Pay-off and Resistance potential vis a vis IESM objs. Their Influence Potential (IP) is derived from various intrinsic and environmental factors e.g. statutory powers of AFT/ courts, hostile bureaucracy, vibrant NGOs/ silent majority etc. To assess, prioritise and leverage this ‘dynamic value’ is a ‘judgment call’ for IESM Ldrs.
12.Illustration. An illustrative rank- ordering of IPs, showing sample reasons only, is given below:
13. Implications. Strat implications of the above analysis are:
(a) Facilitates ‘Application of Effort’ and ‘Resource Allocation’ choices. In the above example, max effort/attn should obviously go to top end of IP Spectrum i.e. fire max cases of identifiable injustices in AFT/Courts. Also, suitably ‘neutralise’ (expose/pressure/coerce) lower end/hostile elements.
(b) Sample analysis, as in Coln 3 & 5 indicates the ‘direction’ of thrust/objs (IOs). For example to expose/ coerce bureaucracy in MOD/ Service HQ, load them with RTI applications to fix accountability for bad/unjust past decisions/policies (like Rank pay); Co-opt NGOs and Media. Specific objs and plans would be the logical sequel of this process.
(c) A litany of policy/ implementation ‘injustices’’ is available, on net/ record, to pursue this process. Systematically ‘data bank’ it, analyse and file RTI cases. For example, ‘who is accountable for denial of rank pay? Who/ why Service HQ delinked from pensioners problems (part of overall compensation package)/ Disability delays/ distortions- hold acct-able/ punish?
14. The ‘broad-front/ multi-thrust/ problem-solving’ concept- model, outlined above, aims to use the existing strs and tools, more coherently. The brand/ emotional value of OROP is not surrendered but made more inclusive.
15. Validation. It would be ‘vain’ of me to assume that the suggested conceptual ‘tweaking’ can lead to a SMART STRAT? This needs validation, and refinement, through brainstorming. The process/ SD ‘nuts and bolts’ can, thereafter, be pursued by more fertile minds. Till then, dig deep to find sense.
16. Strategizing is an ‘art’. Its ‘craft’ lies in working well the right ‘model’.
Lt Gen YN Sharma, Former Army Commander