I read your Getting it all to the Table post before, but I don’t think I fully appreciated it outside the context of this thread.
I’ve been talking all around it, but you’ve done a better job with the terminology – strategy and tactics. In “Getting it all to the Table”, you mention, “Decision processing modifications need to help us sort out tactical decisions (ones that need to be made right away and are less likely to have long range consequences) from strategic decisions (those that don’t have to be made right away and are more likely to have long range consequences).” That’s it!
In my Focus on Efficiency blog posts, I propose a new framework (a “decision processing modification” if you will) for breaking the momentum of tactical decision making (which involves “blinking”) in order to focus on strategic decision making (which involves “rigorous thinking”). Because that’s been on my mind, I’ve also been focused here mainly innovation in strategy, rather than innovation in tactics.
I believe I see what you mean now about the yin/yang of blinking/thinking and tactics/strategy. So here’s my yin/yang: Blinking can be, and probably should be, used for tactical decision making. Thinking (or what I call “Focusing”) can be, and probably should be, used for strategic decision making. When making tactical decisions, you should always keep the overall strategy in mind and make sure your decisions support, or at least don’t run counter to, the overall strategy. This is consistent with the yin yang philosophy of complementary opposites within a greater whole.
Regarding the manual and video, these spurred tactical innovation and as such the innovations were very time-and-place dependent. There were some clever dual-purposing of resources in a force bed down plan I developed, and making due with stock on-hand parts rather than ordering specific replacement parts, that kind of thing.