All approaches have their pros and cons. To critique, one must understand first. It took me a while to learn that basic lesson.
I've heard the terms complicated and complex used, but the distinction I preferred the best was LtGen Paul Van Riper's descriptions of interactive and structural complexity. Structural complexity is like a car engine - lots of moving parts, but the inputs and outputs are generally linear and predictable. Interactive complexity is where the outputs can be wildly nonlinear to their inputs (my usual example is "does this piece of clothing make me look fat?"). Attempts to map out interactively complex networks works only up to a point. If interactions are nonlinear, then predictive analysis is only so good and rapid adaption becomes essential.
Keep writing. Coming from this American observer, the CAF needs your insights.
The slides from "Patterns of Conflict", as well as videos of Colonel Boyd presenting the brief, can be found in many places on the internet. This is my favorite: https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2015/12/colonel-john-boyds-patterns-of-conflict-online
All approaches have their pros and cons. To critique, one must understand first. It took me a while to learn that basic lesson.
I've heard the terms complicated and complex used, but the distinction I preferred the best was LtGen Paul Van Riper's descriptions of interactive and structural complexity. Structural complexity is like a car engine - lots of moving parts, but the inputs and outputs are generally linear and predictable. Interactive complexity is where the outputs can be wildly nonlinear to their inputs (my usual example is "does this piece of clothing make me look fat?"). Attempts to map out interactively complex networks works only up to a point. If interactions are nonlinear, then predictive analysis is only so good and rapid adaption becomes essential.
Keep writing. Coming from this American observer, the CAF needs your insights.