> Thanks for that comment Thanks yourself :) > , but one small thing - in the military it's really not 'planning' so much as it is 'training' (or 'preparing')

> Thanks for that comment Thanks yourself :) > , but one small thing - in the military it's really not 'planning' so much as it is 'training' (or 'preparing'). I think this depends a lot of the rank as well as the type of conflict. At low ranks and in a strict C&C doctrine, I suppose drill, practice and discipline play a huge role At higher ranks or higher levels of autonomy, war becomes way more of a mind game, while motivation may be an ok replacement for discipline. When I used the term "Military Strategy", I meant primarily the operational level and above, or basically from a division commander (Mj.Gen.) and up, as well as the general staff. At the tactical level, war becomes more of a science or craft, governed by doctrine and training. Higher ranks, though, are more likely to encounter the novel and unexpected, especially if facing an enemy of approximately equal strength. > The #1 factor in terms of predicting project outcomes is the 'quality of the people', so 'training' speaks to that. Training is important, for sure, and if you are in a position to only hire the very best, so much the better. But technical leader will still need to figure a lot of stuff out about emerging trends and technologies as well as find litterature and other writings (or videos) for more established domains (that are new for their company). For these roles, there are a lot of ways to screw up, whether through stagnating or going all cargo cult based on a trend they don't fully understand.