ated, orders that radically change every aspect of human life and human
society. No existing system is exempt. And, as in all previous epochal
shifts, the only way any system can guarantee its future is to create for
itself completely new realities. That means, simply, a return to the orig-
inal concept of strategy--from methodology and technique to a funda-
mental assumption about the world, human beings, and the way things
work.

The conceptualization that best recognizes and appropriates all the
possibilities of strategy may be termed strategics. Each of the three aspects
is essential in the others: Strategic Thinking, Strategic Planning, and Stra-
tegic Action. While all of these subjects have been variously acknowl-
edged and explained by both practitioners and theorists, strategic
planning has of course commanded most of the attention and is in fact
typically undertaken without the benefit of either thinking or action.

Although much has been written about strategic Thinking, little has
actually dealt with current strategic issues. Specifically, in the late 1940's,
1950's, and 1960's, strategic planning usually was utilized in de novo sit-
uations--start-up enterprises, without precedent, based on assumptions
about the potential market or actual demand. But by the 1970's, owing
to the sterility of financial analysts, this kind of planning had degener-
ated into the development of formulaic "business plans."

During that same decade, strategic planning was properly applied to
change issues--specifically Level I change issues, which means changing
within a system only through "improvement," "restructuring," or "re-
forming"; however, it still remained the same system. It is regrettable to
note that most of today's so-called strategic planning still uses the vo-
cabulary and concepts of Level I change.

Since 1986, strategic issues have been redefined in terms of Level II
change, and that demands planning that creates something other than
the original system. The questions of "who," "why," and "what" are
still valid, but the results are in a new language and constitute a complete
metamorphosis.

It is probably an indication of the seriousness with which strategic
planning is taken that virtually nothing has been written or said about
strategic Action. Perhaps that is the reason most so-called "strategic
plans" are never realized. The offices of chief executives are commonly
filled with strategic plans whose only effect is occupying otherwise use-
able shelf space. In fact, most planning methodologies seem to assume
that the strategic plan itself is the result, so typically there is nothing in
the plan that can be taken to action. For example, the Minister of Health
for a British Commonwealth country recently lamented that his agency
had invested an inordinate amount of money in a voluminous planning
document prepared by a consulting firm, yet he could not find anything
that actually could be "implemented." But it is not enough that a plan

-2-