Digital technologies are changing business, government and society worldwide. Clearly, they’re opening up new risks and opportunities for every sector of the world economy. Such “futurology” may offer you the big picture, but what does a digital world mean for you, personally? Will you be ready for an automated, AI-assisted, big-data-driven employment future? This course provides you an answer to these questions, and it does so from a unique perspective: by introducing you to the world of intelligence analysis. First, this course explains some of the skills that will command a premium in the digital age, and why. Then, it offers you mental models and practical frameworks developed by the US intelligence community to give you a cognitive edge understanding the digital world. This edge is not about spying or secrets. It’s about better thinking. This analytic toolkit has nothing to do with tired, static MBA-style strategy frameworks. Instead, these tools to help you come to grips with the volatility, uncertainty, ambiguity and deception of the digital age. Ultimately, this course makes the case that as the world becomes more digital, your future success depends most of all on asking better questions of both yourself and others. Therefore, it teaches you how to adopt an intelligence analyst’s question-asking mindset. In short, take this course to acquire a sustainable business advantage through clearer, more structured thinking.
Organizational Process Model: Finding the evidence
Loading...
來自 IE Business School 的課程
Intelligence Tools for the Digital Age
個評分
從本節課中
Intelligence Methods: Analysis, Part One (Macro Actors) The Case of Chinese Rare Earth Elements
與講師見面
Milo JonesProfessor at IE Business School
Geopolitics in the Digital Age
Now, that you've got your new theory.
Take a minute, look back through the stories and tell me,
do you find any evidence of
an organizational process explanation that fits some of these events?
In other words, do you see formal parts of
these rational actors playing a part of this game.
For example, story one,
page one, second paragraph.
Immediately, Chinese customs officials get mentioned.
Dropped two paragraphs down from that,
you've got the Chinese Commerce Ministry saying one thing and then, well,
one ministry spokesman saying one thing,
and then you've got a different ministry spokesman in
the same paragraph at the end, saying something else.
In other words, the newspaper is accounting for
this idea that China or the Chinese government has formal parts.
They haven't hidden it from you,
but have they figured into your explanation?
For example, model two or the organizational process model
allows you to look at that story on page one and say,
"Ha, that's funny, they're mixed messages going on here.
One person at the Ministry said one thing one person at the Ministry said another."
Maybe bureaucrats improvise badly,
but at least Model two allows you some freedom for understanding,
inconsistency is like that.
Go to story two on page seven.
It says, a few rare earth shipments to the West had been
delayed by customs officials in recent weeks said industry officials in China,
Japan, and the United States.
Well, that's strange, how do you explain these inconsistencies?
Under model one, you sort of can't account for them.
Model two allows you to say, "Well, hold on.
Maybe the standard operating procedures
of certain ministries in China are not specifically designed
to bear to ban rare earth element exports to one particular country or another."
Accidents happen, confusion happens,
bureaucracies aren't perfect they have
standard operating procedures that don't always work.
Meanwhile, the next paragraph admits,
that a few shipments are still being allowed out of the country.
Under model one with China as a unitary actor and Japan as a unitary actor,
you've got to explain these inconsistencies as sort of,
"Oh my gosh, a very subtle chess game is being played."
Model two allows you to say, "Okay,
not all the parts of the government are perfect."
This stuff sounds pretty obvious but it
is an important part of analysis that sometimes gets lost.
But wait a minute, let's
go back to what we thought was the origin of this whole incident.
It said, "If you'll remember,
Japan detained a Chinese fishing boat."
Under model one, you're having to assume that
the Japanese government took a decision and the Chinese government responded.
Model two says, well hold on,
maybe the Japanese government didn't decide anything.
Maybe the standard operating procedures of the Japanese coast guard said,
"Under certain circumstances, do this."
It sort of suddenly moves what created the incident from
master chess players to bureaucracies doing the stuff they're
designed to do and that having unintended consequences.
It's a very different type of analysis.
Meanwhile, you can see other signs of the organizational process model at work.
Maybe for example the standard operating procedure of the Chinese trade ministry,
is to use what's called issue linkage for one problem and apply it to another.
In other words, "Gosh,
as long as we're stopping rare earth element exports to Japan,
let's go ahead and stop them to the to the west too,
not because we're mad about a fishing boat captain,
but because it seems to work and our standard procedures
call for link issues there work."
You're getting away using model two,
from the idea that there's a central actor pulling
all the strings in a completely predictable and predicted way.
Industry and government insiders often fall back
on a model to explanation when describing events.
You might find in your business analysis when you
call up an insider and ask them to explain something they'll say,
"Oh well, that's just the way they do things over and such and such a ministry."
Without knowing it, they're falling back on this organizational process model.
Are you satisfied?
Is that how the world works?
Are those the only models we need?
Probably not because I told you this model has three parts.
