1. The Polygon
Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide
Napoleon Bonaparte
1. Twelve lessons to the heroes of action of our times
Twelve lessons, the "logical artillery" that people of action, the value creators of our times, need in order
to continue to act and create for the benefit of all of us
2. Planning to Execution
Execution to planning, as tip of the iceberg is to the iceberg as a whole: execution is not a printout of the
plan but its continuation aiming at success; success stands on its own, just like victory; question is not
whether execution complies with the plan but extent in which plan served right a successful execution.
We do not command reality to comply with your demands but instead invite reality to partner with us in a
joint venture. Planning has its start in the presence of a problem that calls for resolution and not with a
list of requirements that need to be satisfied. The planner is both a detective deciphering the inner logic
of a plot in progress and an artist who both creates and unravels the figure statue disclosed hidden in the
marble stone
3. The Standard
Instructions, rules, commands, instruments' readings, measures and etc are all in essence Standards,
e.g. pointer showing go forward, the standard of one meter, rules of engagements in war, protocols and
manuals, values, descriptive words in language, flight instruments
Is the Logical structure of a standard that of a well defined answer or a well phrased question, e.g. when
your watch reads 1PM is it an answer or a question? Answer: contrary to what we may think, standard is
a well phrased question!
This comes clear when standards contradict or collide as it were in midair, e.g. flight instruments'
readings that are at odd with each other; flight instrument's reading that contradicts flight control's
command; or the mundane scenario when your mechanical watch and your cellular show different times.
Reason is that our standards are synchronized with and against a frame of reference, shifting grounds
that determine the changing reference of standards and instructions, e.g. the shifting reference of a
simple "go forward" command; or location coordinates as they are registered say on a moving arctic
glacier, as in the story told in the "red tent", the story of the 1928 rescue of the crew of the crushed
Zeppelin "Italia" in the north pole
4. The Polygon: who dares wins
You combat risk with risk. Environment is saturated with risks; there is no toll free highway of risks; we
therefore must wisely and dynamically engage with risks; this where the polygon comes to play
The planner translates the problem the plan is tackling into a polygon; its segments represent standards
of action that stand in tradeoffs relationship to each other, risk here against risk there; same way we
measure one currency against another - but not same currency against itself - we contrast risk of one
type against risk of another type. Tradeoffs between the segments of the polygon are risks' transactions
that call in due time for resolution, e.g. do we prefer to secure quality of milk by setting a deadline for its
consumption which is near or later in time; tradeoff of price against availability of milk to poor segments
of society, will emerge as a dilemma that requires resolution
The purpose of execution is to successfully capture reality within the polygon; setting "higher standards"
mean higher securities taken with respect to the relevant segment, e.g. setting a near deadline rather a
later one for the a milk product; in turn this may create more pressure of reality emanating from center of
the polygon aiming to break through an unprotected segment
Dynamic optimization of the polygon is a strategy that works hand in hand with the emanating pressure
of reality to maximize prospect of successful execution. This is threatened by local optimizations of the
various players, e.g. the quality assurance guy in the milk factory secures his position by insisting on the
near deadline for the milk product irrespectively of the implications this has on other segments of the
polygon; when this failed logic reiterates itself outcome of collapse of joint project is unavoidable
In this scenario of collapse, "higher standards" do not any more function as genuine securities taken to
ensure success, but rather as personal insurance of individuals against personal failure; logic is that of
independently of success or failure for the joint project, I must make sure I am personally insured
These hidden "personal insurances" we label "internal spares" - they function like subsides in socialist
economies or goods traded in "black market" - they accumulate unnoticeable until reaching un-
maintainable threshold that forces a collapse
"Adam Smith was wrong", of "Beautiful Mind": Adam Smith's "best outcome for the group comes from
everyone trying to do what's best for himself", translates in polygon's logic to personal insurance forcing
in time an unavoidable collapse of joint project. Maxim's of modern economy must therefore change to
accord with logic of our polygon: "best outcome comes from everyone trying to do what's best for himself
and the group"
Dynamic optimization requires transparency of resources shared by the group in order to ensure
success; in direct analogy to field-marshal in the battlefield timing the launching of his reserve forces into

2. the heat of battle to maximize impact and win victory. Securing each segment in advance with its own
personal insurance amounts to the folly of a field-marshal distributing all reserve forces in advance thus
making dynamic managing of the battle impossibility
The transparent pool of resources that must be dynamically optimized does not mean an exclusive
single decision mechanism or maker; but a true collaborative process and delegation of optimization
decisions involving all players of the polygon; as in Napoleon's famous dictum: every (French) soldier
carries a marshal's baton in his knapsack
Mission itself is represented both by the polygon as a whole and by a segment that stands for the
mission's definition; "dialogue with the mission" is thereby issued since it is measured on occasions
against other segments, e.g. unacceptable measure of casualties against a mission's definition too
narrowly and literally defined
"Who Dares win", "Dare, always dare", the guiding slogans of elite units such as the SAS and the "Unit"
of the IDF, must mean - reminds us the British military strategist Liddell Hart - the taking of calculated, in
advance, wise risks to combat uncontrollable future risks that would force collapse of our plans; we
engage in a calculated manner with risk rather than avoiding it, i.e. practicing our Polygon's dynamic
optimization strategy
5. Decisions
Right decision is the one taken in the right time. The polygon tradeoffs dilemmas translate into decisions
on the time line. The "buffer" of polygon constrains is being loaded in time until a threshold moment, not
too early, not too late, that calls for a resolution, e.g. tennis player and the singular decision point in time;
too early, player forces a solution on reality not yet ripe, e.g. a backhand decision response to a tennis
ball before circumstances of the ball's trajectory invite this; too late, reality is over ripe, we know what we
should have done, but reality is no longer there for us to channel its power along the right path, e.g. we
should have been hitting the tennis ball in this fashion, running a video playback makes clear what we
should have done, but there is no playback in real life..; historical military stories, too early in "a bridge
too far", too late in Waterloo
6. Simulation
In Simulation we mind the gap between two types of circumstances, that of the simulation and that of the
simulated, you against carton figures - simulating - you against flesh and blood enemy. This provides
safe environment to "repeat" against multitude proxies of the future reality, e.g. live ammunition against
cartoon figures, war games with no live ammunition against fellow colleagues. Each such "repeat" trains
toward the same thing, e.g. warfare, but each time with a different emphasis according to exercise setup.
The danger: the quest for the perfect 1:1 simulation – think of the folly of navigating with a 1:1
topographic map..
7. Moment of Truth
In crossing the border from simulation to real: no gap between two types of circumstances, that of the
simulation and that of the simulated, one challenging single circumstances, no second chance,
Eminem's: one shot, one opportunity. In analog to blue pill, red pill of the Matrix; moment of truth
challenges us: either (cowardly) to seek the protection of the protocol or (courageously) stand
responsibly before reality?! FDR: There are many ways to move forward but only one was to stand still
8. Failure
Repeated success is a failure; fighting yesterday's war, e.g. Israel's wars, from 67 to 73
9. 20th
century philosophy and the question of action
The logical underpinning of the legal model of action, from Gödel and Wittgenstein to current legal
culture and its threat to a true culture of action; from the failed attempt to capture the realm of numbers
and mathematics through a logical system of rules to a vision of human practice captured by a system of
a rigid (legally binding) set of rules
10. Strategy, Logic and Ethics
Emanuel Kant’s Do what’s right and leave the consequences to God – and the challenge of the moving
target; in contrary to a culture that sets a fixed target and derive backwards means to achieve it; in this
paradigm means taken to achieve the target may violate the very reason target was chosen for at first
place, e.g. rich but lonely, "Citizen Kane" type of a lesson; we always aim at a moving target, our mission
is being always redefined as we move forward
11. The meaning of success
Know thyself; "Maximize" on who you are not on a false self image of yourself; Dorian Gray syndrome;
CEO of Toyota, "We have turned from a company that produces cars to company that produces money"
12. Eternity
Zooming in and loosing the big picture; we must simultaneously work and operate within the picture as a
whole; reality would always rebel against the tyrant planner with dire consequences to us all, e.g. 2008
crisis; we on the other hand - as we teach in Logic in Action - invite reality to partner with us in planning
and shaping the future