MILITARY HISTORY OF TACTICS FOR JUNIOR OFFICERS I - SHORT HISTORY OF TACTICS

Introduction to This Series of History of Military Tactics

This a first part in series of articles reflecting some ideas on history of military tactics. The series will consider the following viewpoints to tactical history:

1. Introduction to military history at tactical level
2. Generations of warfare
3. Science of war and winning from historical perspective
4. Individual, society, culture and warfare in history
5. Tactical level Command and Control in military history
6. Contemporary warfare
7. Future of combat reflected from the history

The aim of this series is to analyse the history and reflect some lessons from it for the junior officers preparing for today's conflicts. 

1. Introduction to military history at the tactical level

“War is the father of all things”

- Heraclitus (Bradford, 2015)

The Three Levels of Warfare and one Political

Warfare has evolved to have three levels: strategic, operational, and tactical. These stages have accumulated over the time starting from force-on-force engagements at the tactical level, i.e., how to win a combat. As societies grow bigger and battles more costly, emerged the strategic level to analyse options to secure the society (e.g., village, tribe, city, region, nation) and ensure the protection of its interests. As the number of forces grew larger and areas of interest became more extensive, the operational level emerged to manage several troops and the battle at the same time. Furthermore, together with developing nation-states arise also a level of a grand strategy which was quickly integrated with the level of politics. (Fuller, 1992) 

As an outcome, there are four levels of security functions using centralised violence in the contemporary concept of warfare:

1. National Security Policy defines the ends for the security operations
2. Security Strategy defines how the available means and ways are arranged when facing the adversary
3. Military Operations defines more in detail how 
4. Military Tactics (including technical)

However, in contemporary war, one should not define a given level by the specific weapons used, on the targets attacked, or level of Command, but on the level of military objectives. An aircraft, dropping a warhead, could conduct a “tactical,” “operational,” or “strategic” mission, depending on the planned impact. Given the inherent flexibility, any tactical mission can deliver a mix of intended effects from tactical to strategic.

Short History of Tactics

The evolution of tactics through history has been trying to master the primary attributes of war: friction, uncertainty, fluidity, disorder, and complexity. 

1. Friction is a name for forces that prevent the troops from accomplishing their missions. These forces may arise from mental (indecision, fear, stress, lack of sleep, lack of training, unclear orders) or physical sources (enemy fire, terrain, weather, sophisticated technology). 
2. Uncertainty is ever-present since all actions in war will be based on incomplete, inaccurate, and contradicting information. The leader needs to be aware of the risk but also recognise the chance.
3. Fluidity means that battle is a constant flow of actions and counter-actions. Success requires troops to be ready to adapt to surprises.
4. The disorder is usual in battle. Own forces may be operating in the brink of the chaos, and only leadership keeps troops aiming after a common goal. Within adversary, one tries to generate disorder and demoralise their troops.
5. Complexity is the nature of war. All plans will become useless after the first clash of arms, but planning is essential to quickly capture what is crucial and take optimised decisions in the heat of battle.

The following table introduces the evolution of some tactical methods and principles in light of the previous attributes of war.

Time	Battle  (Chaliand, 2014)	Base for tactical advantage
1400 BCE	Megiddo, Palestine Egyptians are attacking Canaans.	Using the unexpected route, Thutmose supressed enemy scouting, gained bridgehead in the Megiddo valley and gained operational surprise. Using cavalry and chariots armed with composite bows, Thutmose was able to mass his more mobile force against an enemy weakness and create a breakthrough. The boldness of attack further demoralised enemy, which caused disorder, panic, and escape within the walls of the city.
1175 BCE	Battle of Delta, Nile Ramesses III repulsed a major sea invasion of the coalition of Sea Peoples	In the first documented maritime battle, Ramesses arranged a two-sided ambush in the mouth of the Nile having his fleet approaching from the sea and deploying archers on the shores of Nile. When the Sea People ships approached the coast, archers with volleys of fire pushed them back into the waiting Egyptian fleet, who were using the wind advantage.
535 BCE	Battle of Alalia A Greek force of 60 ships defeated a Punic-Etruscan fleet of 120 ships	First naval battle using ramming tactics. A “pentekonter” (ship with 48 oars and two rudders) with ram would push on the side of the enemy breaking their water line and sinking the crew.
338 BCE	Philip II of Macedon striking the allied Army of Athens and Thebes	Philip rearranged his hoplites by arming them with 4-6 m long spear (Sarissa), shield hanging from the neck and short sword.  He deployed them in 16x16 soldier companies. A battalion included 16 companies adding up to 256 men. Phalanx composed of several battalions. With increased training, the Phalanx formed very stable mid of his force and left the cavalry to attack the enemy flanks. With more controllable forces, Philip performed a wheeling manoeuvre where his right-wing retreat and left win struck, breaking the enemy line in two. After stretching the coalition left-wing, Macedonians stopped the withdrawal and attacked the overstretched enemy formation.
332 BCE	Siege of Tyre, Phoenicia, Macedonians besieging Persians	Alexander the Great besieged the town for seven months and attacked them by building a massive causeway to connect the island town and overcome their fortifications.
331 BCE	Battle of Gaugamela, near Dohuk in Iraqi Alexander the Great meets Darius III	Alexander surprised the defending Darius by taking the unsuspected route of approach. Therefore, Darius’s scorched-earth tactic did not affect Macedonians. In the battle, the Macedonian Phalanx took the brute mass of numerous Persians, while Alexander orders his cavalry to flank from right draw Darius’s troops in two parts. Seeing this opportunity, Alexander led his elite cavalry into the opening and threatened Darius himself. This caused Darius to flee, and his Army’s will of fighting broke without the supreme leader.
58 BCE	Battle of the Arar Roman legions led by Caesar won tribes of Helvetii.	Roman infantry was equipped with standard weapons (armour, sword, shield and two spears together 27 kg), organised in 8 men tent crews, which composed 80 men strong centuria. The cohort was composed of six centurias, together 480 fighters. Legion was made up of 10 cohorts. Legions mobility was dominant at the time. They marched 40 km a day, constructed a fortified camp within 2-5 hours, and carried 15 days rations. The Roman manipular formation included four layers of maniples: skirmishers, light infantry, junior heavy infantry, and senior heavy infantry.  While crossing the river Helvetii troops were caught by Romans who were able to attack the smallest part on the shore. Having being surprised, the Helvetii troops panicked and fled.
1066	Battle of Hastings, Normans conquering Britain	English infantry fighting from behind a shield wall was defeated by a Norman army consisting of archers, infantry, and mounted knights (cavalry). One of the tactics used by the Normans was to tempt the English to leave the shield wall to attack retreating Norman infantry only to destroy them in the open with cavalry
1838	The Battle of Veracruz, French fleet attacked Mexican citadel of San Juan De Ulua.	The shell guns were used by French squadron firing them in the bombardment of Vera Cruz, Mexico.  Naval engagement that pitted a French frigate squadron under Rear Admiral Charles Baudin against the Mexican citadel of San Juan de Ulúa, which defended the city of Veracruz.
1849	Austrians besieging Venice	The Austrians attached explosives to unmanned balloons and released them. After a specific interval, the bombs were to drop on the city. Their attempt failed: the bombs did little damage, with some even landing on friendly troops.
1853	The Crimean war between Russians, British, French and Ottomans. Use of the first armoured vessels	Heavy wrought-iron plates over a thick wooden backing gave these flat-bottomed vessels outstanding protection as they carried large-shell guns close inshore.
1914	During the I WW first air battle took place	On August 25, Roland Garros and Lt. de Bernis became the first flyers to damage an enemy aircraft. Flying a Morane Parasol, they shot at a German aeroplane, which escaped in a dive, although one of the two men on board was wounded. October 5 French pilot Sgt. Joseph Frantz and his mechanic/gunner, Louis Quénault, shot down a German biplane near Reims with their 8-millimetre Hotchkiss machine gun fixed to the front of the French Voison biplane and gained the first official aerial combat victory.
1916-1918	During the I WW first use of main battle tanks	British used tanks first during the Battle of the Somme on September 15, 1916. Nine of the 32 tanks managed to get across no man's land to the German trenches.  The French employed tanks for the first time on April 16, 1917, during the Nivelle Offensive.  The first tank versus tank battle did not occur until April 24, 1918, near the small town of Villers-Bretonneux
1940	During the II WW combined arms mechanised attack in Fall of France within 46 days	Guderian's corps of seven mechanised divisions spearheaded the drive through the Ardennes and over the Meuse River to France. Guderian led the attack that broke the French lines at the Battle of Sedan. Guderian's panzer group led the "race to the sea", ending with the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and French forces trapped at Dunkirk. The German Panzer divisions conducted combined arms operations with mobile offensive units, with balanced numbers of well-trained artillery, infantry, engineer, and tank formations. The various elements were united by wireless communication, which enabled them to work together at a quick tempo and exploit opportunities faster than the Allies could react. German units carried supplies for three to four days' operations.
1950	During the Korean War, the first jet fighter dog fight	November 8, 1950, a US Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star, America’s first operational jet fighter, flown by US Air Force Lieutenant Russell Brown, shot down a Soviet-built MiG-15 piloted by a North Korean pilot, in the first air-to-air combat between jet planes in aviation history.
1989	The US invasion of Panama	F-117 Nighthawk is the first operational aircraft 1983 designed explicitly around stealth technology. During US invasion to Panama, two F-117A Nighthawks dropped two bombs on Rio Hato airfield.
1991	Gulf War, US-led Alliance attacked Iraq and freed Kuwait.	A mix of strikes by fixed-wing aircraft including carpet bombing and precision bombing was used in combination with large numbers of strikes by attack helicopters. During the ground assault phase, tanks and other AFVs supported by attack aircraft swept over remaining forces. The front line moved forward at upwards of 40–50 km/h at the upper limit of the Army's tracked vehicles.
1996	French Navy, No significant engagements yet.	The French La Fayette class, FLF was 1996 known as "stealth frigates" due to their unique stealth design at the time. Their reduced radar cross-section is achieved by a clean superstructure compared to conventional designs, angled sides and radar-absorbent material, a composite material of wood and glass fibre as hard as steel, light, and resistant to fire.
2003	Invasion of Iraq	Alliance left by the US deployed the shock and awe doctrine advocating the use of overwhelming force, dominant battlefield manoeuvres and spectacular displays of brute force to paralyse the enemy’s understanding of the battlefield scenario and crushing its will to fight.
2014 -	Russo-Ukrainian War[1] [2] Russia invaded Donbass and Crimea parts of Ukrainian territory and tries to establish permanent governance.	A wake-up call to western military of the Russian renewed military capabilities. Russian renewed EW tactics (Kremenetskyi, 2019) aiming to jam all military communications and drive Ukrainians to use GSM, SATCOM, and Internet, where they are more vulnerable to cyber and man-in-the-middle attacks. Also, barrage jamming, and radiolocation were reintroduced. Both sides are using small UAVs to reconnoitre and locate artillery and command posts for indirect fire. In coordination of the infiltration 2014, Russia Cyber Teams (Park & Summers, 2017) were trying to suppress the Ukrainian social media sites using Cyber means, denied some IP-Addresses, breached the Ukrainian artillery application, shut down power grid, followed GSM discussions, and broadcasted TV and Radio content to the area. Russia deployed about 100 000 strong military force just outside of Ukrainian border to intimidate the Government. Meanwhile, Russia tried to promote a separatist rise in Eastern-Ukrainian, send proxy units to support the rise of pro-Russian movement. Unfortunately, these proxy units (motor-cycle gangs, private companies, militants, mercenaries, right-wing nationalists) caused more chaos than action towards political ends. Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs created units in both sides and were forcing their interests in the conflict.
2011 -	Syrian civil war[3] Extended the Arab Spring movement, divided Syria into different frictions and draw in ISIL, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and NATO engagement.	Turkey[4] started using drones in mass (Farooq, 2019) to avoid losses of pilots due Russian air defence supporting the forces of Syrian government and extended the use of drones in Libya 2019 onwards. ISIS demonstrated[5] (Watson, 2017) that they can manufacture surveillance and grenade-dropping drones from commercial components within occupied settlements and gain air dominance with 1000 m ceiling above the target area. U.S., Turkey and western military awoke from their assumed air superiority posture when Russia deployed S-400 SAM-systems[6] and Su-35 fighters to Syria and denied the free use of airspace (Bronk, 2017). The definition of “anti-access/areas-denial”, A2/AD, was created (Roblin, 2019).

_________________________________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iulAfPHB_bA

[3] https://www.britannica.com/event/Syrian-Civil-War/Civil-war

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzB5Vip5Wpc

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vY7i_eR06M

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN-AtPNl_IE

____________________________________________________________

Cultural Difference in Approach to War

War has coincided with the humankind from the very beginning. It has its foundations in pride, emotions, and instincts. By one estimate, in the last 5000 years, human beings have fought wars 94 years of every hundred. (Alexander, 2010) Human societies have had different cultural viewpoints to war: 

• The hunter-gatherer did not recognise the phenomena of war, but a violent action based on revenge, fear, or hatred towards the “others”. The survival of a tribe was based on ability wield weapons. (Machiavelli, 1965)
• To Vikings, Mongols, Arab nomads, and Cossacks fighting was a part of their culture. (Keegan, 1993)
• To Clausewitz and Lenin war was a continuation of political intercourse intermixing military power with other means. (Strachan, 2007)
• Napoleon, on the other hand, considered war a specific event. It starts with engagement and ends with the losing party signing a peace treaty. Henceforth, war has been understood as a legally controlled (in dimensions of military necessity, distinction, proportionality, humanity, and honour), finite event ending with lawfully binding treaties.  Therefore, for example, Soviet Union (1979)  and the US A (2001)  entered Afghanistan with finite operation expectations (months, blue-red, annihilation) whereas Afghans were fighting back with infinite (Carse, 1986) mindset (fight for existence, the honour of the family, and revenge). 

The major challenge in the recent engagements, for example, between the US or NATO-led coalitions and local insurgents with an international network of support is the different cultural mindset to war. 

Another cultural difference in approach to war is its totality. Total war is a military conflict in which the contenders are willing to make any sacrifice in lives and other resources to obtain a complete victory, as distinguished from limited war. Throughout history, limitations on the scope of warfare have been more economical and social than political. Pure territorial aggrandisement has not, for the most part, brought about total commitments to war. The deadliest conflicts have been fought on ideological grounds in revolutions and civil and religious wars. (Encyclopaedia of Britannica, n.d.) Here are some examples of limited and total wars with different sources of power:

• France and Spain occupied Portugal 1807 and France took over Spain and installed Joseph Bonaparte on the Spanish throne. Spaniards started uprising 1808 and Guerra de la Independencia which lasted until 1814. Quarrelling provincial Juntas deployed small groups of armed civilians to ambush, sabotage, and raid French rear echelons and their supplies, i.e. asymmetric warfare. "Wherever we arrived, they disappeared, whenever we left, they arrived — they were everywhere and nowhere, they had no tangible centre which could be attacked." (Talbot, 1978) The guerrilla tactics bind a large portion of French troop to secure routes of communication and supply. Therefore the Alliance storming from Portugal ware successfully attacking the main French forces.  Source of power for Juntas of Spain were terrain and spirit of the people.

• When Napoleon invaded Russian 1812 with 685 000 strong army, his strategy was to engage and defeat the Russian Army and end with peace agreement where Russia would stop supporting the UK. 

  
• His tactics was to use the combined arms of artillery, cavalry, and infantry columns to hit the weakest point of the enemy formation. His approach was limited to seek military defeat through battle. Russians, on the other hand, avoided the significant engagement, withdraw, and employed scorched-earth tactics, destroying villages, towns and crops, and forcing the invaders to rely on a supply system that was incapable of feeding their large Army in the field. Russian used the depth of their nation and finally, the hardness of their winter to suppress the invader's source of power. 

 

• Sherman’s March took place 1864 when he launched a raid from Atlanta for 480 km towards the port of Savannah. 
  
• His forces destroyed military and civilian assets disrupting the Confederacy’s economy and transportation. The Sherman commanded his troops: “should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.”  Shermans tactic of devastation was to strike to the Confederate source of power - economic production and freedom of movement.

• After the I WW, Erich Ludendorff defined the total war as total mobilisation of manpower and resources of the nation for war. 

  
• A supreme military commander would lead the country at war, and strategy would dictate policy. The concept of total war moved geography and economics into prominent positions when Nazi regime build and deployed of 3.2 million troops, over 2500 tanks and about 1500 attack aircraft  in the II WW from the core of Treaty of Versailles with 100 000 men, no tanks, or planes. (Encyclopaedia of Britannica, n.d.) German source of power was the mindset and ability of their nation.

• Before the first Gulf war against Saddam and Iraq, the US Air Force (John Warden) developed a strategy to suppress the adversary nation through bombing the targets within five rings: 

  
• 1. Leadership, 2. System essentials, 3. Infrastructure, 4. Population, and 5. Military forces. Warden's theory was based on the systems model of weaker nations; therefore, it may be feasible in attacking developing and weaker regimes, where leadership is concentrated, economy easily collapsible and spirit of population manipulative.

Nature of contemporary war

As societies, global power postures, technology, population and weaponry have evolved, the wars have also changed from the era of World Wars to more modern conflicts. (Kaldor, 2012) The change effects even at the tactical level:

	Old War	Contemporary War
Politics & Society	The warring parties were states or coalition of nations in a global context.	Political identity is both local and global; national and transnational at the same time. The character of the party at war spreads through diaspora, ideology, regional interests, kindship, etc. 20% of core fighters of ISIS were foreigners. (Gurcan)
	The political cohesion was founded and hold through state-controlled education, newsletters, radio, and television.	The speed of political mobilisation is increased with digital media. War-related memes and brands are created on mobile phones, the Internet, and social media.
	Distinctive home- and battlefronts, Coherently motivated troops.	Diverse troops with different training and organisation. No coherent motivation.
Military Force	The military goal is to capture territory or annihilate the military force of the adversary and hence forced to sign a peace treaty.	The military goal is to capture territory by controlling the population in the area either by capturing their “hearts and minds” (Tse-tung, 2007) or sowing “fear and hatred” (Gurcan) which is reflected to a broader audience over digital media.
	Hierarchically organised units mostly with the unity of Command and responsibility. Steep hierarchical line of Command at worst and mission command at best.	Highly decentralised and disparate range of different types of groups like paramilitary units, local warlords, criminal gangs, police forces, mercenary groups and regular armies.
	Tactics aim to dominate the situation with massed firepower (air, artillery, fighting vehicles) and, as a last resort, to engage with infantry.	Aim to surprise or ambush with advanced light weapons like undetectable land mines[1]; assault rifles light even for children to use[2]; multi-warhead[3], shoulder-launched weapons (anti-tank, fragmented, penetrating)[4]; small rocket launchers; and various ground/sea/air unmanned platforms.
	Responsible commands and trained troops are following a code of conduct.	Contradicting interests between units, irresponsible troops, varied behaviour.
Support	Centralised, totalising, and autarchic war economy with long lines of supply chain reaching out to coalition nations.	Decentralised, local plunder, hostage-taking, taxation, illegal trade, black-market, or external assistance. Clusters of war economy were created in support of Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia conflicts.[5]
	Global defence industry clusters benefit from the consumption of weaponry and investments to new defence systems.	Diverse parties gain from cooperation both military (insecurity and suspicion) and economic (assets) benefits.
	Units have political and military interests.	Units have mixed agendas between military, economic, every-day food, and power status.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mines_in_Cambodia

[2] https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-semi-automatic-rifle-for-beginners/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-propelled_grenade

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJYSM__PnO8

[5] https://www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Handbook/Dialogue_Chapters/dialogue3_ballentine_nitzschke.pdf

_________________________________________________________________

The series in history of tactics continues in next article

Ongoing Global Disruption

What is disruption in contemporary society and economy?

Disruption = the act or process of disrupting something - a break or interruption in the ordinary course or continuation of some activity, process, etc.  Also derangement, dislocation, disturbance, upset and related convulsion, revolution, unsettledness, unsettlement, upheaval.

Innovation is the opposite of complacency — and strategic innovation is, in fact, how disruption is delivered.

Disruptive technology is an innovation that significantly alters the way that consumers, industries, or businesses operate. A disruptive technology sweeps away the systems or habits it replaces because it has recognizably superior attributes. 

Creative destruction describes the way technological progress improves the lives of many, but only at the expense of a smaller few.  

• Creative destruction occurred during the industrial revolution when machinery and improvements to the manufacturing process, such as the assembly line pushed out craft and artisan production. While the economy as a whole benefited from such improvements, those craftsmen who were displaced saw their jobs destroyed, never to return.

In the last decade, digital transformation has been a critical driver for profitable growth, customer delight, and seamless operations. Today, we are well into the digital revolution, reaping its benefits, solving problems that lie in its wake, and trying to determine our next steps on the way forward. 

• Digital transformation is redefining education for the age of machines. What started as an attempt to close skills gaps in the workforce, has fast become a race against time to not only equip people with new, digital age skills but to also create an environment where creativity and innovation have free rein.
• Here again, it is the digitally mature organisations who have been most successful in embedding technology into learning and creating digital platforms that offer seamless, personalised learning. They are best poised to advise on how to create a new multidisciplinary, technologically savvy workforce that can draw on the prowess of technologies and work alongside it.
• Take the case of our new digital identities; they are the gateway to a range of services. Now, even those without traditional identities can obtain digital ones based on biometrics and access essential services such as healthcare, financial aid, education and, with that, the possibility of a better life, where none existed before.

In business theory, disruptive innovation is an innovation that creates a new market and value network and eventually disrupts an existing market and value network, displacing established market-leading firms, products, and alliances.  

• Not all innovations are disruptive, even if they are revolutionary. For example, the first automobiles in the late 19th century were not a disruptive innovation because early automobiles were expensive luxury items that did not disrupt the market for horse-drawn vehicles. The mass-produced automobile was a disruptive innovation, because it changed the transportation market, whereas the first thirty years of automobiles did not. 
• Disruptive innovations tend to be produced by outsiders and entrepreneurs in startups, rather than existing market-leading companies. The business environment of market leaders does not allow them to pursue disruptive innovations when they first arise, because they are not profitable enough at first and because their development can take scarce resources away from sustaining innovations (which are needed to compete against current competition).

New technologies and disruptive innovations are influencing not only international politics and the global economy but also the strategies and operational toolkits of state and nonstate actors alike. Above all, they create new threats, but also opportunities for peace operations and humanitarian missions and have complex implications for Austrian and European stability. 

Macro-level disruptors may be, for example :

• Innovations that enable recovery of precious materials or supplanting traditional materials
• The shift from disposability to restoration drives regenerative design and reduced consumption
• Closed-loop systems reduce the need for extraction and processing of new resources
• Worldwide adoption of the just-in-time vs just-in-case model of production reduces consumption
• The shift from subtractive manufacturing to additive manufacturing eliminates waste
• Resources substituted by alternatives enabled by technology (e.g. 3D Printing, Nano-technology)
• Decreased automobile demand due to urbanisation and the sharing economy 
• The shift in automobile material requirements as experience design replaces safety needs
• The shift to renewable energy drives a shift in the materials required to generate energy
• Sustainability demands drive a need to improve safety, increase productivity, and reduce costs
• Sustainability forces companies to radically re-think their business models
• Resource scarcity drives the need for alternative sources
• Resource scarcity and environmental impacts drive a reduced consumption agenda
• The price tag to extract scarce resources becomes prohibitively expensive
• Economic incentives drive metals consumers to look for alternatives
• The shared economy drives a reduction in manufacturing and consumption
• Increased demand from 3 billion people that join the consumer ranks by 2025
• Increased demand from 5 billion people that join the ranks of the middle class by 2030
• Spiralling prices and unparalleled volatility continue in the future.

International level disruption sees the below trends: 

Battle for technological supremacy. 

• The United States and China have emerged as the dominant players in the race for hegemony in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Divergent technology standards will persist while the competition continues. The winner will have outsized influence—with economic, political, and military implications for years to come. 

Rise of the Indo-Pacific. 

• The Indo-Pacific is the new megaregion at the heart of the global economy and geopolitical competition. As China steps up, the United States bows out, and a variety of middle powers move into the mix, the Indo-Pacific will simultaneously become more critical to the commercial success of multinational corporations and more challenging to navigate. 

Clean food revolution. 

• The global food industry is experiencing a profound disruption. More consumers prefer eating “clean foods” that are healthier and more environmentally sustainable. Furthermore, technological innovations in food production are enabling a new meat mix that will change how people around the world consume protein. 

Next-generation fake news. 

• Fake news has already proven costly to governments, businesses, and societies around the world. Get ready for more volatility. Falsified video and audio are becoming less expensive and more convincing—and have a wider global reach. This next generation of fake news could prove far more damaging as fabricated stories become much harder to disprove. 

Transformation of higher education. 

• Technological changes, policy shifts, and companies taking a more active role in addressing skills shortages are reshaping higher education for the 21st century. As education shifts toward more technical training, a more specialised global workforce will emerge, and education systems will become a more important determinant of national competitiveness.
• According to the OECD, 65% of today's children will have jobs that have not yet been invented. This means that the knowledge and skills required to enter the labour market will be very different from those provided by the current educational model. 

Management and disruption

The following characteristics are critical for leading through disruption: 

• A leader must think of themselves as akin to a Chief Communications Officer. They must develop and articulate clear messaging, so the vision is easily and widely understood.
• Leaders must drive execution. The key is to make decisions that are “nearly right, but now”, then pivot if necessary when new information becomes available.
• Success rests on the ability to engage the entire leadership team and other key stakeholders around a shared vision and shared goals. Focus on own team, championing others and calling out their achievements, while inspiring, motivating and leading by example. “Never on your own”.
• Credibility is an essential leadership attribute for any situation, but when leading through change it becomes even more critical. Furthermore, leader is expected to act with consistency and reliability, be a moral compass, have integrity and remain calm.
• In times of disruption, the leader must be brave enough to make tough decisions. Moreover, leader must also be bold and confident enough to remain optimistic, even as one navigates difficult times.
• Good leaders through disruptive times can see the big picture and understand the steps needed to achieve the desired outcome. However, great leaders also have the grit to recognise what is realistic and achievable at a tactical level, as well as the timelines needed to execute effectively.
• No one is immune to the fact that change is difficult. Even the most enlightened among us have moments of struggle. When leading through disruption, one must never lose sight of this fact.

Investments, innovation and disruption

With the importance placed on technology as the platform for innovation in an organisational context, a common pitfall is focusing investments on the latest and greatest technology, without a clear vision as to what this is going to do for the organisation.  Innovation cannot be rushed in response to sector disruption or competitor moves. The forward-looking and future-ready organisation is every stakeholder’s dream, whether customer, investor or employee.

History shows that at the dawn of each major IT innovation, ex-ante predictions about its adoption and impact have invariably been proven wrong. They overestimated the adoption pace and underestimated the magnitude of the impact. The pace turned out to be slower but its eventual impact much more substantial.  KPMG survey 2018 showed that:

• Only 2 per cent of our respondents anticipate a ‘business as usual’ scenario. The rest see it as a treadmill to oblivion since digitisation is now a necessity as much as a choice.
• Thirty-five per cent anticipate ‘incremental changes’. This, in the belief that the pace of adoption will remain moderate over this period, due to the persistence of various technology and legacy issues.
• More importantly, among the remaining majority of respondents, 53 per cent anticipate ‘partial disruption’ and 10 per cent‘ full disruption’.

Where does the disruption emerge in the financial sector: 

• Thirty-four per cent expect internal disruption, as alternative investment managers themselves get on the front foot and digitise their businesses
• Forty-four per cent expect joint disruption, as incumbents collaborate with potential external rivals. This group includes many medium and small-sized managers who want to stay in the driving seat.
• Twenty-two per cent expects external disruption, as current internet titans and FinTech start-ups venture into alternative investments, especially into areas where they have a dominant digital advantage and brand presence. This group included many medium-sized managers.

Disruptive research and development will source its financial capital from different sources:

- Innovation oriented hedge funds  

- Private equities like angel investors, venture investors 

• Although our data set revealed that builder-led startups were nearly ten times more common than disrupter-led ones, “disrupter” startups received 1.7 times more funding, on average, than “builder” startups. 

- Government R&D or Academic budget 

• The decline in U.S. federal spending on R&D from 1.2% GDP 1976 to 0.7% in 2018 is even more apparent in comparison to China, which increased its R&D expenditure thirtyfold between 1991 and 2015. 

- Crowdfunding

• Digital bank Monzo proved that crowdfunding is not always a slow burner. In two days, two hours and 42 minutes, the bank hit its £20m target in the biggest crowdfunding round ever completed by a UK FinTech company. 

- Traditional bank loans for entrepreneurs

- Corporate R&D budget 

• Technology companies represent 9 of the top 20 global spenders on research & development 

- Cost and resource sharing practices among multiple healthcare stakeholders to lower R&D costs 

- Equity partnerships between clinical research organisations and industry players to ease the R&D financial burden and drive innovation and cost-effectiveness 

Disruptive enterprises source their knowledge capital from sources like:

- Research institutes both public and private funded

- Clinical research organisations (CRO) 

• Equity partnerships between CROs and industry players will ease the R&D financial burden and drive innovation and cost-effectiveness.
• Owning platforms and offering a broad portfolio of services across the R&D value chain, beyond outsourced clinical trials. 

- Universities

• Compared to North America, the average university in Europe generates far fewer inventions and patents. This is mainly due to less systematic and professional management of knowledge and intellectual property by European universities. Moreover, efficient knowledge transfer in European research institutions is hindered by a range of factors, including cultural differences between the business and science communities; lack of incentives; legal barriers; and fragmented markets for knowledge and technology. All these factors adversely affect European growth and jobs creation. 

- Open innovation channels

• Many companies are developing open innovation approaches to R&D, combining in-house and external resources, and aiming to maximise economic value from their intellectual property, even when it is not directly linked to their core business. In particular, they have begun to treat public research as a strategic resource.

- Innovation cooperation

• “Marie Curie Industry-Academia Strategic Partnership” scheme which supports the development of such long-lasting collaborations via the exchange of researchers. 
• State aid framework has also introduced a measure on aid for the loan of highly qualified personnel from research institutions (or large companies) to SMEs.
• Solo scientists like Einstein, or small teams, appear to come up with novel ideas that change the course of a field. Those are becoming rarer, though: authorship lists on scientific papers have grown in the last century, from about one author per paper in 1913 to an average of 5.4 authors per paper in 2013. 

- Technology players: playing a pivotal role in the R&D value chain 

• Leveraging new technologies such as AI, cloud-based platforms, machine learning, cognitive technology and wearables.

- Project-focused players: managing the R&D value chain end-to-end 

• Teams of stakeholders including pharma and biotech players, academia and healthcare startups

- Open-source

• Value has shifted from product to data encouraging software vendors to make software open source.  

The creative destruction in the economy is evident in S&P 500 list: 

• The 33-year average tenure of companies on the S&P 500 in 1964 narrowed to 24 years by 2016 and is forecast to shrink to just 12 years by 2027.
• Record private equity activity, a robust M&A market, and the growth of startups with billion-dollar valuations are leading indicators of future turbulence.
• At the current churn rate, about half of the S&P 500 companies will be replaced over the next ten years. 
• Retailers were especially struck by creative destruction, and there are definite signs of restructuring in financial services, healthcare, energy, travel, and real estate.
• The turbulence points to the need for companies to embrace a dual transformation, to focus on changing customer needs, and other strategic interventions.

Where is the economy currently with its digitalization?

Currently, enterprises are using digital technologies across a variety of areas in their core IT management (79 per cent), business process management (60 per cent) and customer relationship management (62 per cent).  The research also found that respondents’ organisations are looking to utilise digital technologies (if they have not already) across knowledge management (33 per cent), operational intelligence (31 per cent) and product development (28 per cent). 

• Almost 64 per cent of respondents’ organisations have implemented cybersecurity to improve existing business operations, 53 per cent to solve new business problems, whereas just 28 per cent implemented cybersecurity to create new opportunities.
• Forty-one per cent of respondents in the banking industry believe that data analytics for deep personalisation of products is the top trend that will have the most positive impact on their organisation within the next three years.
• Modernisation of processes is seen as a key trend within the automotive industry to invest in digital supply chains, with 45 per cent respondents ranking it among the top three trends, and 25 per cent ranking it first. Of those that see investments in digital supply chain as a key trend, respondents estimate over 16 per cent increase, in their organisation’s global annual revenue as a result of improving this.
• Digital technologies can be used with insurance products to update risk calculations immediately and provide more accurate underwriting outcomes. This may be a contributing factor for intelligent automation of underwriting being identified (by 38 per cent) as a top trend in the insurance sector.

Few industries that are prone to disruption as follows: 

• Travel websites such as Expedia (EXPE), Kayak, and Travelocity have eliminated the need for human travel agents.
• Tax software such as TurboTax has eliminated tens of thousands of jobs for tax accountants.
• Newspapers have seen their circulation numbers decline steadily, replaced by online media and blogs. Increasingly, computer software is writing news stories, especially local news and sporting event results.
• Language translation is becoming more and more accurate, reducing the need for human translators. The same goes for dictation and proof-reading.
• Secretaries, phone operators, and executive assistants are being replaced by enterprise software, automated telephone systems, and mobile apps.
• Online bookstores such as Amazon (AMZN) have forced brick-and-mortar booksellers to close their doors permanently. Additionally, the ability to self-publish and to distribute e-books is negatively affecting publishers and printers.
• Financial professionals such as stockbrokers and advisors have lost some of their business to online trading websites like E*TRADE and Robo-advisors like Betterment. Robinhood is a free online brokerage service that is subsequently stealing market share from traditional online brokers. Many banks are giving customers the ability to deposit checks via mobile apps or directly at ATMs, reducing the need for human bank tellers. Payment systems like Apple Pay and PayPal make even obtaining physical cash unnecessarily. Ant Financial has already disrupted the Chinese financial industry and - via its investment in Paytm - is well on the way to repeating this in India. The thought of 2.5 billion people accessing financial services via their smartphones, disintermediating physical banks, is a frightening prospect. 
• Job recruiters have been displaced by websites like LinkedIn Indeed.com, and Monster. Print classified ads have also been replaced by these sites, while sites like Craigslist have replaced other kinds of classifieds.
• Uber, Lyft, and other car-sharing apps are giving traditional taxi and livery companies a run for their money.
• Airbnb and HomeAway are doing the same for the hotel and motel industry.
• Driverless cars, such as those being developed by Google (GOOG), may prove to replace all sorts of driving jobs, including bus and truck drivers, taxi drivers, and chauffeurs.
• Drone technology may revolutionise the way products are delivered, and Amazon is trying to make that a reality. Drones may also replace pilots in several specialisations including those pilots in the film, crop-dusting, traffic monitoring, and law enforcement sectors. For years, fighter pilots have been replaced by drones on numerous military missions.
• 3D printing is proliferating, and technology is becoming better and faster. In a few years, it may be possible to manufacture a wide variety of goods on-demand and at home. This will disrupt the manufacturing industry and diminish the importance of logistics and inventory management. Goods will no longer have to be transported overseas. Assembly line workers have already been primarily displaced by industrial robots.
• Postal workers first saw terrible news with the widespread use of email reducing the volume of the daily mail. High-tech mail sorting machines will eliminate even more jobs in the postal service.
• Fast-food workers recently protested to raise the minimum wage. Fast food companies responded by investing in computerised kiosks which can take orders without the need for humans. Retail cashiers have also been displaced at supermarkets and big-box stores with self-checkout lines. Toll-booth attendants have been replaced by systems like E-ZPass.
• Radio DJs are mostly a thing of the past. Software now chooses most of the music played, inserts ads, and even reads the news.
• Educational sites such as Khan Academy and Udemy, as well as Massively Open Online Courses offered by leading universities for free, will significantly reduce the need for teachers and college professors over time. It is plausible that today's children will receive their undergraduate education mostly online and at a minimal cost.
• Traditional television distribution is being upended by digital distribution outlets such as NetFlix (NFLX) and Hulu. People are dropping their cable or satellite TV services opting to stream online instead. Spotify and iTunes have done the same for the recording industry: people now choose to download or stream on-demand rather than buy records.
• Libraries and librarians are moving online. References like Wikipedia have replaced the multi-volume encyclopedia. Librarians used to help people find information and conduct research, but much of that can be done individually over the internet nowadays.
• Farmers and ranchers used to make up over 50% of the U.S. workforce. Today less than 2.5% are employed in this sector. However, more food than ever is being produced in America due to the automation in agriculture and food production.

Brief review of the Global Innovation Index 2019

The Global Innovation Index (GII) 2019 is an annual metrics assessing national investments and benefits in innovation. The index combines measures in several areas like institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication, knowledge and technology outputs and creative outputs. 
https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2019-report

The 2019 GII top ten countries were 

1. Switzerland 
2. Sweden 
3. The United States of America 
4. The Netherlands 
5. The United Kingdom 
6. Finland 
7. Denmark 
8. Singapore as only Asian country
9. Germany and 
10. Israel.

The UAE came to 36 improving two ranks from 2018. The UAE keeps the position of the highest innovative Arabic nation.

General Findings:

1. Public R&D funding is growing very slowly whereas business R&D is in steep rise. This means that there will be hype commercial applications of existing technology, but less new knowledge created in base research for future opportunities. The rising protectionism will slow down the global innovation networks and knowledge flows.
2. The top 10 innovative nations have remained almost the same. Switzerland being at the top, Nordic countries, Netherlands, UK, Germany and USA persisting. Singapore being the only Asian country. Israel rising to 10th position. At the low GDP category, some Southern African countries stand up like Burundi, Malawi, Mozambique and Rwanda. Somewhat the small nations with high education and knowledge infrastructure keep up with competition.
3. Some nations get more out from the innovations than the others. China stands out as a good utiliser of its innovation investments. The best beneficiaries may have more balanced support over the life-cycle of innovation: idea-design-investment-production-marketing-consumption.
4. Science and Technology (S&T) clusters accelerate innovation. Clusters create knowledge, patents and products. US (26) and China (18) are leading countries in numbers of clusters. Iran ranks 46 with Teheran cluster.

Conclusions:

• Science and Technology clusters correlate well to high innovation index. It is essential to bring different sciences together and provide platforms for design, manufacturing, finance and market. Combination of ideas and ability to build and deliver create the best foundation to innovation.
• New knowledge needs to build on previous knowledge. New knowledge needs to foster new designs and models particularly in digital economy. 
• The GII ranking is based on quantitative data rather than qualitative therefore may give a biased view to global innovation i.e. higher the GDP the better in innovation.
• Besides the generation of Wikipages, there is no reference in indicators to innovation activity that happens in open societies, digital services or products in video game industry, mobile applications etc. It may be that GII is counting only the 3rd generation of industrial and economic value creation and misses the emerging 4th generation value production and consumption.

Are we considering Artificial Intelligence from a biased viewpoint?

We assume that human intelligence is the highest form of intelligence and compare Artificial Intelligence to the human way of logical behaviour - Touring test, Asimov rules, the way that a child learns abstract things, namely the Artificial General Intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence

Taking a look back to human evolution, we survived because we were doing better in larger social groups than any other primate when the environment changed. The adaptation was enabled by our ancestor’s larger frontal cortex that supported abstract language and social cooperation. Because of this evolution, our brains mostly deal with motor control, sensory and regulation. Secondly, they are busy with emotions, social relationships and language, and time to time with actual cognition.

AI intelligence is said to be at a level of a simple animal. However, currently, AI is far better at playing chess and Go than any human being. In games with uncertainty like Texas Hold’em poker and DOTA2, AI is at the level of best human players or teams.

What if thousands of AI entities (IoT) connected (Internet, Bots, 5G) and they are much better in communication and cooperation than human society (team of teams, swarming bees, a colony of ants). Will they outperform us as a network even with less individual intelligence than in a human entity? 

After all, there are organisms like Herpes-virus and parasites like Schistosomiasis in humans that adapt their behaviour according to the host body. Furthermore, some parasites may manipulate the functioning of the host organism like protozoan which cycles between mice and cats. For transaction from mouse to cat the parasite makes mice not afraid of cats, therefore increase the change to get the host mouse captured by a cat. https://www.seeker.com/parasite-brainwashes-mice-to-not-fear-cats-1767894670.html

We have created smart viruses that change their appearance to avoid defence measures in the cyber environment, what prevents us from developing an intelligent micro-organism in physiological/chemical environment and change human behaviour?

Figure from Westefhoff et al (2014):  Macromolecular networks and intelligence in micro-organisms