6 ms·

For anyone interested in OODA, the Robert Coram biography of John Boyd, and "Certain to Win" by the Boyd disciple Chet Richards are good entry points. The valu

For anyone interested in OODA, the Robert Coram biography of John Boyd, and "Certain to Win" by the Boyd disciple Chet Richards are good entry points. The value of OODA isn't really in providing a model for individual-level decisionmaking. The value is as a model for intra-organizational conflict: that one obtains strategic advantage (i.e. tempo) by running through one's OODA loop faster than competitors or opponents. You can draw a very straight line from OODA to the Lean Startup.

WJW 6y ago
Indeed. The OODA loop model describes how you can win a competition by responding to a changing situation on the battlefield faster than your opponent. The Lean Startup describes basically the same thing but for civilian companies, and where the opponent is "the market" rather than a more well defined enemy. "The Art of Action" by Stephen Bungay is also a very good book on this subject.
- la6471 6y ago
  Unfortunately people bring this hyper competitive mentality in meetings and other situations where collaboration would be more beneficial than competition. I am specifically referring to the impulse some people have in making quick decisions without due diligence , just to stay in charge or for other ulterior motives. And when the majority acts like that more reasonable voices gets drowned in the din. While heathy competition is good we also need to be vigilant about not taking it too far to the point where we lose the way.
  - lb1lf 6y ago
    -At a former employer, we suddenly found ourselves with a fresh hire manager who subscribed wholeheartedly to the 'Move fast and break things' mindset. Additionally, he had a very strong urge to show everybody who had the last word. Only problem was, we built heavy machinery (Think low megawatt range) - so 'breaking a build' most often meant something blew up - in the quite literal sense. Took a little getting used to, that.
dheera 6y ago
I'm unclear as to what's novel about OODA. Can someone give me an alternative model for context? It seems like all other permutations, e.g. DOAO or ADOO or DOOA wouldn't make sense, so what is the "eureka" about OODA? Also, separately, it just sounds to me like perception (OO), planning (D), control (A) renamed so I'm still not seeing what's novel about it.
- ghgdynb1 6y ago
  I'm not sure, I'm not an expert in this and I've never been in the military. However, I bet there's little to nothing uniquely good about OODA over the alternatives you mention. My guess is that having a standardized rapid decision making framework is valuable compared to the frantic scramble that might take place otherwise.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    > My guess is that having a standardized rapid decision making framework is valuable compared to the frantic scramble that might take place otherwise. Having been in the military and received specific training on tactical decision making, I can say that this is a pretty good take on why OODA is taught. When you're in any situation where you need to maintain positive control on the outcome, the biggest problem you can run into is when the situation changes in an unexpected way (insert classic Napoleon paraphrase "Plans are the first casualties in contact with the enemy"). The reason why the OODA loop is specifically used, rather than other permutations of the same idea, is that it's very efficient. For the classic HN crowd, a good analogy or application of OODA would be a PID loop, or any other event-driven feedback system. Observe: has the situation changed? If not, continue with the current plan, else orient. Orient: how can we change to match the situation, given who we are and what we're doing? If there are no positive changes to make, keep observing, else make a decision. Decide: can we make a decision based on our new orientation? If not, return to observe, else act. Act: perform the decision, then return to observing, paying special attention to the outcome of the actions. Using this loop properly, at each stage you're still ready to go back to observing, and less likely to get mired in back and forth decision making without a solid reassessment. This thought pattern is especially helpful in small team leaders, as they often have the flexibility and direct observational abilities to make full use of the information at hand. It tends not to work as well for single individuals and large organizations (in my experience), for individuals because of the incomplete information, and for organizations because of the signal delays in information and enactment.
dingosity 6y ago
Yeah. I really liked Coram's biography. John Boyd was a family friend when I was growing up at Eglin and Andrews. I can confirm he was "a bit wild" -- even more-so than my dad, who was nicknamed "The Lesser Santini"
px43 6y ago
I feel like when I learned about the OODA loop, the big strategic advantage came from getting inside your opponent's OODA loop. It's less about being faster than them, and more about matching their tempo such that you're always one step ahead of them. In a fighter pilot context, this makes a lot of sense, and gives you a model for figuring out who is chasing who. One person controls the flow of battle, and one ends up simply responding to their opponent. OODA lets you quickly figure out where your opponent is at in their decision making process so you can shift your own reactions such that you dictate to the opponent how the next moves are made.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  Yes, precisely. Speed of execution of the OODA loop isn’t the goal in and of itself. The goal is to keep your opponent in a reactive state, and yourself in a proactive state.
  - mgarfias 6y ago
    I disagree, speed of execution _IS_ the thing - at least compared to your opponent. Boyd's way of thinking didn't have you doing the loop as A->B->C->D->E faster than your opponent, if dont properly, it has you in the orientation phase, recognize the outcome without having to think about it, that is, skipping the Decide phase. If you know how to act when presented with a visible picture you can work faster than someone who has to ponder it first. Think a baseball game. The kids are taught to recognize where the "play" is. That is, if they know that the "out" comes at 2nd base, they are prepared to throw the ball there if they get it. If, once they get the ball, they have to think about where to throw it, the runner can get 3-4 strides farther along and might beat the throw.

WJW 6y ago

Indeed. The OODA loop model describes how you can win a competition by responding to a changing situation on the battlefield faster than your opponent. The Lean Startup describes basically the same thing but for civilian companies, and where the opponent is "the market" rather than a more well defined enemy. "The Art of Action" by Stephen Bungay is also a very good book on this subject.

la6471 6y ago
Unfortunately people bring this hyper competitive mentality in meetings and other situations where collaboration would be more beneficial than competition. I am specifically referring to the impulse some people have in making quick decisions without due diligence , just to stay in charge or for other ulterior motives. And when the majority acts like that more reasonable voices gets drowned in the din. While heathy competition is good we also need to be vigilant about not taking it too far to the point where we lose the way.
- lb1lf 6y ago
  -At a former employer, we suddenly found ourselves with a fresh hire manager who subscribed wholeheartedly to the 'Move fast and break things' mindset. Additionally, he had a very strong urge to show everybody who had the last word. Only problem was, we built heavy machinery (Think low megawatt range) - so 'breaking a build' most often meant something blew up - in the quite literal sense. Took a little getting used to, that.

dheera 6y ago

I'm unclear as to what's novel about OODA. Can someone give me an alternative model for context? It seems like all other permutations, e.g. DOAO or ADOO or DOOA wouldn't make sense, so what is the "eureka" about OODA? Also, separately, it just sounds to me like perception (OO), planning (D), control (A) renamed so I'm still not seeing what's novel about it.

ghgdynb1 6y ago
I'm not sure, I'm not an expert in this and I've never been in the military. However, I bet there's little to nothing uniquely good about OODA over the alternatives you mention. My guess is that having a standardized rapid decision making framework is valuable compared to the frantic scramble that might take place otherwise.
- craftinator 6y ago
  > My guess is that having a standardized rapid decision making framework is valuable compared to the frantic scramble that might take place otherwise. Having been in the military and received specific training on tactical decision making, I can say that this is a pretty good take on why OODA is taught. When you're in any situation where you need to maintain positive control on the outcome, the biggest problem you can run into is when the situation changes in an unexpected way (insert classic Napoleon paraphrase "Plans are the first casualties in contact with the enemy"). The reason why the OODA loop is specifically used, rather than other permutations of the same idea, is that it's very efficient. For the classic HN crowd, a good analogy or application of OODA would be a PID loop, or any other event-driven feedback system. Observe: has the situation changed? If not, continue with the current plan, else orient. Orient: how can we change to match the situation, given who we are and what we're doing? If there are no positive changes to make, keep observing, else make a decision. Decide: can we make a decision based on our new orientation? If not, return to observe, else act. Act: perform the decision, then return to observing, paying special attention to the outcome of the actions. Using this loop properly, at each stage you're still ready to go back to observing, and less likely to get mired in back and forth decision making without a solid reassessment. This thought pattern is especially helpful in small team leaders, as they often have the flexibility and direct observational abilities to make full use of the information at hand. It tends not to work as well for single individuals and large organizations (in my experience), for individuals because of the incomplete information, and for organizations because of the signal delays in information and enactment.

dingosity 6y ago

Yeah. I really liked Coram's biography. John Boyd was a family friend when I was growing up at Eglin and Andrews. I can confirm he was "a bit wild" -- even more-so than my dad, who was nicknamed "The Lesser Santini"

px43 6y ago

I feel like when I learned about the OODA loop, the big strategic advantage came from getting inside your opponent's OODA loop. It's less about being faster than them, and more about matching their tempo such that you're always one step ahead of them. In a fighter pilot context, this makes a lot of sense, and gives you a model for figuring out who is chasing who. One person controls the flow of battle, and one ends up simply responding to their opponent. OODA lets you quickly figure out where your opponent is at in their decision making process so you can shift your own reactions such that you dictate to the opponent how the next moves are made.

enraged_camel 6y ago
Yes, precisely. Speed of execution of the OODA loop isn’t the goal in and of itself. The goal is to keep your opponent in a reactive state, and yourself in a proactive state.
- mgarfias 6y ago
  I disagree, speed of execution _IS_ the thing - at least compared to your opponent. Boyd's way of thinking didn't have you doing the loop as A->B->C->D->E faster than your opponent, if dont properly, it has you in the orientation phase, recognize the outcome without having to think about it, that is, skipping the Decide phase. If you know how to act when presented with a visible picture you can work faster than someone who has to ponder it first. Think a baseball game. The kids are taught to recognize where the "play" is. That is, if they know that the "out" comes at 2nd base, they are prepared to throw the ball there if they get it. If, once they get the ball, they have to think about where to throw it, the runner can get 3-4 strides farther along and might beat the throw.