What is most important: Information, Knowledge, Experience, Strategy or Intuition?

REFERENCES

• This article has been used since 01.11.16 by Imane Charhaddine at Cadi Ayyad University (Marrakesh, Morocco) as part of the course “External Business Environment” (25,000 undergraduates).

• It is also mentioned in the bibliography of her thesis, “Influence of Local Culture on Cognitive Competence: The Case of Morocco” (Organizational Sociology).

Читать на русском • • Lire en français

When I came across this image on social media, I asked myself: “What is the most important?” So I posted the question on my page. Here’s what came out of this public reflection:

It’s intuition, because it’s the shortest path. But not everyone has intuition. That leaves strategy and experience—because without them, knowledge seems far from essential.

The main thing is experience. In fact, intuition is nothing more than a combination of experience, knowledge, and the ability to extrapolate. Knowledge alone doesn’t give you anything. The key to success is what you’re able to do with that knowledge. Basically, if you give the same information to two people—one of whom turns out to be an idiot—they’ll draw completely different conclusions, take different actions, and get different results.

As for me, I tend to think that Knowledge is the foundation of the five elements proposed—even if we may consider information as a synonym. After all, properly understood and processed information is nothing more than knowledge. At its core, without knowledge, it is impossible to make an adequate decision. It’s no coincidence that for the past thirty years or so, the very concept of competitive intelligence has been based on information and the means of managing or countering it. Strategy—at least in large companies—is built on information.

As for intuition, in this context, it cannot play a major role: capital and many positions are at stake, and the risk is too great. Intuition is better suited to individual or private decision-making. Strategy and intuition, as represented in the image, can indeed be built in the absence of information (at one’s own risk), and therefore without any guarantee of a desired result. Without information, there is no knowledge…

In fact, science too is built on already existing information (i.e., knowledge) and on experience. But once again, the empirical method leads us back to that same knowledge. This brings us to a point mentioned earlier: we need to understand the difference between the supposed “synonyms” Information and Knowledge.

Knowledge is not just isolated bits of information taken out of context (from which even an intelligent person might be unable to make the right decision), but rather a set of interconnected understandings (know-how, comprehension) that allows for better decision-making. Experience could be considered similar, but it refers to repeated or familiar decisions—“I’ve encountered this situation before, so I’ll rely on what I’ve already done.”

However, knowledge enables decision-making even without prior experience—that is, by modeling outcomes or strategies based on what is already known. For example, how was it possible to send a human into space for the first time? In the absence of experience, modeling was based on existing knowledge and calculations. Later, experience only served to enrich and refine that existing knowledge. For the same reasons, science is often seen in opposition to belief, which by nature is neither rational nor rooted in knowledge.

Later, the discussion shifted to strategy and tactics. Here’s one reflection that came out of it:

Strategy defines a direction, but not necessarily a concrete result. It is long-term planning, operating on a different time scale than intuition, which is used for short- or medium-term decision-making. Or, if I replace strategy with tactics, the comparison becomes more logical.

Another point of view: tactics are a component of strategy. In other words, in an organizational structure, strategy sits at the top of the pyramid, as it is composed of a series of links (tactics) that help achieve a targeted strategic goal. In fact, here is one definition: tactics are the instruments used to implement a strategy; they are subordinate to the primary objective of that strategy. Therefore, it is strategy that makes it possible to reach a result — that’s what it is designed for — while tactics help define the direction. This aligns with the earlier idea that strategy involves long-term planning, and operates on a different time scale than intuition.

As for luck, I believe it wasn’t included for two main reasons. First, how would one even represent it visually in the same style as the five other concepts in the image? Second, luck is a factor completely outside the individual’s control, unlike the five notions shown, which all depend (at least in part) on the person. Luck is the result of randomness — and under certain conditions, even a synonym for it. As Democritus (460–370 BC) said:

Chance has no cause preceding or defining it, even though everything that follows is determined.