Huh?

I feel like something like this should be right up my alley: Product Aikido

I have been working on a first draft of a exemplar of a doctrine for Product Development, which I have named “Product Aikido” (presently, a document of some seventy-seven A5 pages). My motive for this has been the belief that there is much value in (product) organisations having a shared, common understanding of what product development is, and how it is conducted.

I mean, the document even mentions the sort of product development that I care about:

Examples of product development ... include the original Thompson, Ritchie and Kernighan UNIX; Linus Torvald’s Linux; and Twitter.

But the document is (indeed, 77 pages) full of mush like this:

The operational context of product development links the strategic and tactical contexts. It is the use of tactical results to attain strategic objectives. The operational context includes deciding when, where, and under what conditions to commit resources to getting things done—and when, where, and under what conditions to refuse to so commit, in support of higher aims. Actions in this context imply a broader dimension of time and space than actions in the tactical context.

I've had my interactions with people who claim to be Experts in Product Strategy of late.

I wonder if reading stuff like this is how they were trained, how they became experts?

It might explain some of the results I've seen recently.