Tactics and Strategy in decision-making

In relation with a decision space and “selected criteria”, their quantity defines a formal or topological dimension. In some problems this quantity is predefined, being uncertain in others, even fully unknown.

Against this background difficulty the other aspect looks insignificant: a difference between the current (i.e ad hoc) assessment, tactical decisions and strategic decisions. At the conceptual level it is clear, what is it and which purpose it has. But the question “How long is that?” is quite generic and difficult to answer, since practice shows that a decision chain length (the number of nodes-points of actually involved decisions) is problem dependent, including a problem/substantial context also. That is, we can say beforehand that we will use from 1 to 3 nodes for current analysis (a kind of offhand estimation). But to differ between strategy and tactics in “absolute” numbers is difficult. Namely, if there exist a possibility to distinguish them, it must consider the total decision chain length (in percent, for example; we are accustomed to it now); at the same time an actual percentage definitely depends from a problem context. 

Hence, being quantitatively relative is not a solution. As a result, we must to think and understand, what does it actually mean — the notion tactics of actions as a step by step activity.

As a matter of fact, tactics is an ability to apply (to use) available resources and possibilities, i.e. a set of methods and skills to reach the settled goal.

Strategy essentially is the same, but with a complex goal; strategy is a generic, slightly detailed plan designed for a long period of time.

Or should I say that tactics is a short-term strategy, respecting really available possibilities.

Proceeding from this observation, we must look at the total supposed length, but it would be better to aim for plan's feasibility, counting on available resources and disponibility of specific "techniques" to use them. That is while our actions (some steps ahead) are really feasible [we can guarantee that one or several ways of actions could be implemented], we are talking about tactics. In scientific terms we were talking about a subset of a set of the options or a separate branches of the decision tree. Losing safeguards, we can proceed this strategic planning (decision-making) only to construct a possible decision chain. 

It does not mean that strategy=dream. We'll define actual steps to reach the main goal right at the moment when some specific things will be achieved in the future.

Regardless the use of a term complex goal or a similar one, it should not be confused with incomprehensible or challenging. Aspects like these mostly are related with an emotional sphere and are quality-driven.

I can already tell you that constant mentioning of decision trees in the article and in my posts does not require strict implementability. Hence the number of levels in this tree (its lengths) is not restricted and shouldn't be restricted by "guaranteed feasibility". Consequently, saying that tactics is everything within a tree crown, while the strategy are the things outside it - is totally incorrect.

Yes, it could be possible for some problems, but naturally is killing the idea of the long-range alternatives, perceived mostly as a strategy. How could we talk about strategic aspects being in the reach of a decision tree?