Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [385]
Decision and Action
Completion of the orientation step implies that a mismatch or gap between reality and expectations has been identified. The next step would seem to be to decide what to do about it. The decision step in the OODA loop may be deliberate or intuitive. In complex situations, when the decision maker isn’t intimately familiar with the environment or the possible options, this step is likely to require deliberation: “We know that things are not the way they should be—now what should we do about it?” A more formal or structured decision process might ensue.
However, if one’s knowledge of the system and its environment is comprehensive (usually born of deep experience), it may be intuitively obvious what needs to be done. In this case, decision makers often proceed directly to action. This is reflected in the upper-right part of Fig. 19-2 (implicit guidance and control).
Even if decision making is more deliberate, available options are often logically tested—that is, compared to reality and their potential outcomes assessed—before proceeding to the action stage. This “hypothesis testing” is reflected in Fig. 19-2 in the feedback loop between “Decisions” and “Observations.” The purpose of this testing is to help reduce the impact of uncertainty on a decision among several options.
Inevitably, however, even with the hypothesis-testing feedback loop, the ultimate end of the OODA process is an action of some kind. And because action inevitably influences the environment in some way—after all, that was its purpose in the first place—the process begins all over again with observing to assess the action’s impact. This in turn begets a second iteration of the orientation step to determine how much impact the action had, whether it changed reality in the desired direction, and by how much. The size of the mismatch that results from this second orientation leads to another decision and subsequent action. And the process continues until the ultimate goal of the system is attained.
“Pro-Acting” Rather than Reacting
Superficially, it might seem that the OODA loop is reactive. However, Boyd’s contention was that controlling an emerging situation was far preferable than reacting. Consequently, his prescription for using the OODA loop was anything but passive. He was highly motivated to “stir the pot”—to use the OODA process to create mismatches, especially in the perception of adversaries. In this respect, he recommended being pro-active, rather than reactive.
However, rational decision making and action depends on a conscious awareness of these four steps: observe, orient, decide, and act. In reality, most people actually do something like this, but they do it unconsciously or intuitively. They’re usually unaware that they’re doing it, which means that they are less likely to “keep the pressure on.” Without consciousness about the OODA process, like the fabled hare they’re likely to take a nap alongside the road while the tortoise passes them by.
Fast OODA Loop Cycles
Boyd went even further with the pro-active OODA concept. He contended that if one could cycle through these four steps faster than one’s adversary could, a competitive advantage would begin to open up. The non-OODA practitioner would always be at least one cycle behind the OODA user. Moreover, if the OODA user could somehow complete two or more cycles in the time the adversary took to finish one, it would sow confusion in the opponent’s camp. In battle (the context for which Boyd created the OODA loop), this ultimately results in panic, knee-jerk (wrong) reactions, and eventual collapse of the opponent.
The effect is not materially different in business settings. Witness, for example, the introduction of high-technology innovations by the Japanese for nearly two decades. It was commonly recognized that while the world’s