Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-27
Source: The Conversation – France (in French)– By Marie Roussie, Doctor in Management Science, specialized in foresight, Université Paris Dauphine – PSL
Faced with increasingly uncertain strategic environments, traditional tools struggle to turn analysis into action. The “Source” method, developed by the French armed forces, offers a six-dimensional approach to connect diagnosis, resources, and concrete decisions.
Uncertainty and complexitydominate our strategic environments. A conception now widely shared, across all sectors of activity. The world is changing, and its transformations seem increasingly difficult to anticipate and grasp amid technological innovations, geopolitical tensions, ecological threats, economic instabilities, and demographic upheavals.
In this chaotic context, the range of available strategic tools may seem outdated. Since the 1960s, corporate strategy has gradually equipped itself with numerous methods and matrices to analyze value creation. But most have favored analytical and compartmentalized approaches, to the detriment of a more systemic and relational reading (that is, considering the links between the different topics analyzed).
They often offer only a partial view of the strategic issues, and are limited to providing an assessment rather than keys to action.
Many analyses, few decisions
This is the case, for example, withPorter’s Five Forces Modelin 1980. A founding tool of strategy, it is limited to proposing an analysis of the structure of a market, describing the pressures at work without explaining how a company can transform these constraints into opportunities.
Similarly, in 1970, theBCG matrixfrom the Boston Consulting Group allows for guiding resource allocation, but the complexity of the strategic environment is reduced to two variables and assumes a mechanical link between market shares and profitability – ahypothesis often contradicted by practice.
In other words, analyses and reports are multiplying, without strategic decision-making following.
The French armies are confronted with this observation, with a particular intensity linked to the specificities of their professions. A poor strategy can imply endangering the nation’s interests, industrial, technological, and scientific downgrading, or even death. They have therefore worked on a method of strategic analysis that is their own and that responds to these challenges.
This is the “Source” method, developed in 2025 by the French Directorate General of Armaments. What is the scope of this approach scientifically, and what are the possibilities for managerial applications?
A change of focus
The core of the “Source” reactor lies in the strategic stance based on anticipation and action.
The French armies have, for example, applied it to the issue of energy. More specifically, to that of access to oil: how to ensure sufficient supplies for the armies? How to guarantee operational capabilities without incurring the wrath of civil society activists advocating for a drastic reduction in oil use? Questions that many experts have been tearing their hair out over for years.
“Source” has offered a new perspective: to grant oneself a sovereign capacity for biofuel production by attracting foreign players to French soil and leveraging their expertise. The military are reluctant to reveal all their strategic secrets here… but tomorrow, bio-oil could be an asset of strategic sovereignty.
Here lies the first lesson to be learned from this method. The culture inherent to the military always leads to considering action beyond reflection. For biofuel, the actors to approach have been identified as well as the different strategic steps to be implemented (from shelf purchasing to joint venture setups). Because a good analysis that only offers a mapping of stakes remains dead letter. The translation of this same mapping into actions holds attention and already triggers movement within the organization.
A six-dimensional method
This very active strategic approach is reflected in the thought process of “Source.” Each topic addressed is analyzed, problematized, and explored through six key dimensions:
SituationIn a classic but essential manner, everything starts with the analysis of a contextualized situation to understand the stakes.
OpportunitiesThis situation is translated into opportunities, identified from a singular point of view (of an actor, an institution, a country, etc.).
UtilityAn opportunity is only valuable if it is useful for the actor who must exploit it, which allows selecting the field of action with added value among the identified opportunities.
The sequence of these three dimensions makes it possible to qualify an external strategic situation. Subsequently, the “Source” method focuses on questioning internal response capabilities.
ResourcesAll tangible and intangible elements available and relevant in order to achieve the previously defined utility.
ConnectionsAll stakeholders to include and mobilize in order to exploit the identified resources and ensure their proper resonance.
OperationsLists of concrete actions to be implemented according to a given schedule, including the first easiest small steps to take.
Short and explicit strategic sheets
On a formal level, this method is spreadingviastrategic sheets. They are deliberately short (four pages maximum) and graphical (illustration, infographic, diagram). At a glance, any decision-maker should be able to understand the theme addressed and the resulting strategic recommendations. A strong ambition in an era where the decline in concentration coincides with an explosion in the number of pieces of information to which an individual is exposed each day. In the race for attention economy, the armed forces have bet on a very short format, far from traditional strategic reports.
Where the company multiplies theslidesfor presentation, “Source” opts for a synthesized and visual approach. And the method seems to offer much broader benefits…
It first sets up an integrative analysis tool, capable of combining external and internal analysis for the most holistic possible use. This tool does not merely describe positions or assets but helps understand how the armed forces can compose ecosystems, prototype cooperations, and develop evolving models. In other words, to move from strategy as the reading of a field of forces to strategy as the design of a living system.
An approach that can resonate strongly in strategic management across different companies and sectors. Placing resources (internal, external) at the heart of the strategic decision-making process is not unprecedented. But if one thinks simply, it involves considering them practically: seeing how to concretely use already available resources, defining the connections and relationships to be created or activated between these resources in order to achieve the desired effect in advance.
With “Source,” strategy becomes a system to be operated. The emphasis on connections also stimulates other reflections. It introduces cross-departmental, cross-directorate thinking that goes beyond mere professional expertise. It entails a strong strategic breaking down of silos.
Still in its early days
“Source” is however still in its infancy, with few feedbacks to date on its impact on strategic decision-making. While the method is explicit (with these six key dimensions), the question of its proper adoption outside defense issues remains open. Does such a short format allow convincing on the proposed recommendations? Or does it rather foster cognitive biases in the analysis?
Behind the desire for a concise presentation of “Source” lie in reality hours of research and interviews to be able to grasp a strategic issue in a few pages (or even words) and to decide on a cutting vision of its subject. This cutting vision is questioned, because it now mainly relies on intuition. While “Source” provides tools to convey this vision, it does not offer a method to build it.
This article was written with the assistance of Jean-Baptiste Colas, Directorate General of Armament.
Marie Roussie is a member of the Making Tomorrow Collective and the company Alt-a. She worked within the Defense Red Team of the French Ministry of the Armed Forces, which served as the research ground for her thesis. She continues strategic and prospective explorations of the future of conflicts with various stakeholders.
Nicolas Minvielle is a member of the steering committee of the Fabrique de la Cité. He was a facilitator of the Defense Red Team of the armed forces, and a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Future Combat Command of the French Army. He is also a member of the Making Tomorrow collective.
–ref. “Source”: the method of the French armies to turn uncertainty into an opportunity –https://theconversation.com/source-the-method-of-the-french-armies-to-turn-uncertainty-into-an-opportunity-276821