Mar 2026

Economic Statecraft Analysis

Structured analysis of economic instruments deployed as tools of geopolitical power: sanctions, export controls, trade restrictions, financial leverage, investment screening, technology denial regimes, and economic inducements. Rooted in the work of Baldwin (1985) on economic statecraft, Drezner (1999) on sanctions effectiveness, Farrell & Newman (2019) on weaponized interdependence, and Blackwill & Harris (2016) on geo-economics. The method examines how states and blocs use economic relationships as instruments of coercion, compellence, or reward — and how target actors respond through adaptation, circumvention, or counter-leverage. In the space sector, economic statecraft is pervasive: ITAR and EAR export controls shape technology flows, launch service restrictions constrain market access, investment screening (CFIUS) blocks foreign participation, and procurement preferences (Buy American, European Preference) structure industrial competition.

Mar 2026

Efficient Dimension Analysis

Analysis of the efficient cause — Operators and Stakeholders — of a space domain entity. Rooted in Aristotle's efficient cause and adapted through the 4dimensions© framework, this method examines who acts: the human agents, teams, organizations, agencies, and governments that decide, authorize, design, initiate, execute, and accept. It operates across four system levels (Foundational, Subsystem, System, Supersystem) to reveal how agency scales from individual specialists to ecosystem coordinators and sovereign governments.

Mar 2026

Final Dimension Analysis

Analysis of the final cause — Mission and Purposes — of a space domain entity. Rooted in Aristotle's final cause and adapted through the 4dimensions© framework, this method examines why an entity exists: the goals, objectives, and motivations that drive it, from operational performance targets to civilizational aspirations. It operates across four system levels (Foundational, Subsystem, System, Supersystem) to reveal how purpose scales from component reliability to humanity's long-term presence in space.

Mar 2026

Formal Dimension Analysis

Analysis of the formal cause — Architecture and Frameworks — of a space domain entity. Rooted in Aristotle's formal cause and adapted through the 4dimensions© framework, this method examines how an entity is organized: the standards, architectures, procedures, regulations, software, data models, and governance structures that give it form. It operates across four system levels (Foundational, Subsystem, System, Supersystem) to reveal how organizing principles scale from universal physical laws to international treaties and strategic doctrines.

Mar 2026

Futures Wheel & Impact Analysis

Cascading impact mapping of an event, decision, or trend: direct effects (first order), secondary effects (second order), tertiary effects (third order), and beyond. Invented by Jerome Glenn in 1971, the Futures Wheel is a radial visualization technique where the central event radiates outward through layers of consequences. Combines structured brainstorming with systems thinking to reveal non-obvious, indirect, and cross-domain implications that linear analysis misses. Particularly effective for tracing how a single development propagates through interconnected systems.

Mar 2026

Game Theory

Modeling of strategic decisions among rational actors using formal and informal game-theoretic frameworks: Prisoner's Dilemma, coordination games, chicken games, assurance games, Nash equilibria, first-mover advantage, repeated games, and mechanism design. Rooted in the work of von Neumann, Nash, Schelling, and Axelrod, this method reveals the strategic logic underlying competitive and cooperative interactions by making payoff structures, information conditions, and decision sequences explicit.

Mar 2026

Geopolitical Risk Framework

Systematic framework for identifying, assessing, and quantifying geopolitical risks — political instability, interstate escalation, regime transitions, institutional collapse, and sovereignty disputes — and their cascading impact on strategic domains. Grounded in Ian Bremmer's J-curve thesis (2006) on the relationship between state openness and stability, the Eurasia Group's Global Political Risk Index (GPRI) methodology, Rice & Zegart's political risk taxonomy (2018) distinguishing geopolitical, security, and governance risks, and RAND Corporation's instability assessment frameworks. Unlike economic statecraft analysis (which examines economic instruments wielded as power tools), this method focuses on the risk itself: the probability of destabilizing events, the pathways through which they propagate, and the exposure of strategic assets and programs. In the space sector, geopolitical risk is pervasive: launch state instability can strand programs, orbital governance vacuums invite contested claims, regime transitions rewrite cooperation agreements overnight, and great power escalation directly threatens on-orbit assets.

Mar 2026

Historical Analogy Method

Systematic use of historical precedents to illuminate current strategic situations. Rather than casual comparison ("X is like Y"), this method applies structured analogical reasoning: identifying the source case, mapping structural similarities and differences, extracting transferable lessons, and explicitly flagging where the analogy breaks down. Rooted in the work of Neustadt and May ("Thinking in Time"), Khong ("Analogies at War"), and Jervis ("Perception and Misperception in International Politics"), the method treats historical analogy as a disciplined analytical tool rather than rhetorical decoration.

Mar 2026

Horizon Scanning

Systematic identification of weak signals, emerging trends, wild cards, and discontinuities across a broad environmental landscape. Originated in military intelligence and defense planning, later adopted by foresight institutions (UK Government Office for Science, Finnish Parliament Committee for the Future). The method scans widely rather than deeply, prioritizing breadth and early detection over precision. It serves as the radar system for foresight work — detecting what is coming before it arrives.

Mar 2026

Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework

Framework developed by Elinor Ostrom and colleagues at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (Indiana University) for analyzing how institutional rules shape the behavior of actors in situations involving shared resources. The IAD framework centers on the "action arena" — the space where participants interact under a set of rules — and systematically unpacks the rules-in-use (as opposed to rules-on-paper) that govern positions, boundaries, authority, aggregation, information, payoffs, and scope. Ostrom received the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics partly for demonstrating that commons governance need not follow the "tragedy of the commons" narrative, and the IAD framework was her primary analytical tool.