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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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.
It seems like "perception, planning, control" is used for autonomous vehicles? That's all I see when I google it. Boyd outlined OODA in the 1970s, so it's "novel" in the sense that it came ~30 years earlier.
From a human perspective, I think the novelty is that that it focuses attention on hard-to-see aspects of decision-making. It's not about the quality of any given decision, but about your ability to keep the song going and evolving in the right direction.
If you read Boyd's original material, he doesn't reallllllly see it as a loop. Every "node" in the process can feed back into previous parts. The focus is more on rhythm, tempo, beats.
It's really worth reading Boyd directly. His picture is way more interesting and nuanced than "just go through the OODA loop faster". It's more like: you want to make it hard for your opponent to keep the beat.
Every source I find says sometime in the mid-1950s. (The vagueness seems to be because he published very little, and the OODA loop was presented predominantly in oral brieifings; most of his writings that have been published or mined by other writers weren't intended for publication, but are briefing notes.)
OODA was formalized in the 1960-70s with his destruction and creation briefing/seminar, and later EM theory work. However Boyd came up with the theory in the 1950s while he was a fighter instructor at Fighter Weapons School (TOP GUN for the Air Force).
The eureka was giving it a name in order to articulate its importance in tactical and strategic thinking. That's really it. Other people, throughout history, have operated in the same fashion but either not described what they did or described it in different terms.
Hmm interesting. Maybe I should give a name to shoveling dirt. Look, Align, Poke, Scoop. LAPS. The most efficient way to get the most dirt shoveled is the LAPS loop. It's revolutionary. Can I be famous?
Perhaps if it leads to a better way to discuss or perform the task itself. I mean, someone came up with PASS (pull, aim, squeeze, sweep) but I don't think they became famous for it.
Yes, his "patterns of conflict" slide deck goes through something like a dozen examples of historical battles which illustrate his principles. Some of the battles were thousands of years ago.
See here the original presentation on OODA Loop that has been given at Quantico Marine base dozens of times by John Boyd's associate of 20 years Chuck Spinney. It shows the thinking method behind the OODA Loop--Evolutionary Epistemology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdK4y6O-llE
Well, it's almost 70 years old, so, literally, nothing about it is novel.
> It seems like all other permutations, e.g. DOAO or ADOO or DOOA wouldn't make sense
But it didn't emerge in a context where the four stages were taken as given but people were just trying to figure out how to order them.
Nor did it emerge as a novel thing people should do. OODA, at the level of the acronym and it's expansion, is a description of a fairly simple observation of what people inherently do. It's also the organizational outline for a body of work on how they ought to do each part of it (delivered by its originator, John Boyd, in in-person briefings that apparently ran up to 5 hours, and in quite large written works by people downstream from Boyd.)
The novelty isn't in describing how people perceive the world/conflict. It was in codifying it, such that you could take preemptive action to make your opponent's world view change in mid decision phase, thus rendering them confused.
Clausewitz taught that the way to victory in war was to reduce your friction in operation, so things go smoothly for you. Boyd showed that a better way was to not worry so much about your own friction, but to cause the friction in your opponent.
These two lines show how this is a dynamic interactive activity--like there are tight and loose loops continuously updating the decision making processes. Sort of like agile vs waterfall.
> “Orientation isn’t just a state you’re in; it’s a process. You’re always orienting.” —John Boyd
> The second stage of the OODA Loop, orient, is less intuitive than the other steps. [...]
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.
> 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.
A couple of additional benefits of OODA loops, not editing my original because I'm on mobile:
It really helps prevent micromanaging, because it encourages the team leader to only change orders in response to a change in what they've observed.
It's very useful in after action debriefing ("debugging" for the HN crowd), because specific questions can be asked about where in the OODA loop a fault occured. Did you observe something incorrectly, or miss noticing a key detail? Did you incorrectly orient yourself because you didn't understand the purpose of what you were doing? Did you make a bad decision, or the wrong decision? Did you do everything else right, but your team failed in taking action correctly? Utilizing this framework gives granularity and introspection to you decision making process.
It prevents undermanagement, as you feel compelled (and justified) in responding to a changing situation, rather than fighting with yourself about taking action.
"after action debriefing" = retrospective. A critical part of agile processes that's often ignored. It permits not just the examination of the product under development, but the processes that are in use.
It's a crucial difference between most organizations and proper "learning organizations". Most organizations (here I mean from team on up to large corporations) do not sufficiently introspect and retrospect to discover their own flaws (and we all have flaws). Learning organizations incorporate those two activities into their culture and methods in order to properly react to their competition and satisfy their customers.
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"
OODA loop is often hyped, but really it is just a description of how humans (and animals) behave in almost any situation. "Look, Think, Decide, Act" in other words.
It's not valuable in the sense that you can "practice" or "apply" the loop and perform better. Your behavior already follows this model. Its real value probably came from presenting this common decision making process in a way that appealed to upper military management, which made it easier to develop processes and practices that help decision makers (like pilots) in critical situations.
While I agree that the OODA loop is most often presented as a (fairly obvious) decision model for individuals, the model itself is not the big idea. Rather, the primary value comes from the realization that in a competition (like war, or business, or sports, etc) between two or more individuals/groups the ones who can "cycle through" the OODA loop will be able to adapt faster and often gain the upper hand through superior decision making.
In the context of the military, there are ways of reorganizing your command structure to enable faster OODA loop cycling. For example, a major driver of the "slowness" of traditional armies is their centralization of command. Propagating new intel up the chain and orders down to the troops takes a lot of time, especially when intermediate nodes keep dropping out. If you can delegate your decision making to the lowest possible level, this will make the average decision slightly worse, but because you can make each decision much faster you can still come out ahead overall. This is one of the ways an organization can "practice" the loop. (And coincidentally, one that growing startups often struggle with since it is very difficult to transition from direct command to delegation based command)
I also don't agree with your claim that you can't "practice" the loop on an individual level. Anyone who suffers from indecision in the face of uncertainty and overwhelming options ("analysis paralysis") should know that it is something you get better at over time, especially when you need to be doing it under time pressure.
Source: Was a Navy officer for 14 years, we had tons of discussions of "how to get into the opponents loop" during briefings and trainings. Note that in the military it is sometimes possible to actively slow down the opponents OODA looping, something that is probably illegal for most civilian companies. (Though see https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ for a legal example)
>I also don't agree with your claim that you can't "practice" the loop on an individual level.
To further agree with what you are saying...
In many sports: people put work in to run their OODA loop faster even they don't call it that. People watch videos of their opponents to learn how to more quickly orient their opponents actions with the context of the sport.
In engineering: unittests, debuggers and IDEs are all designed to provide information that allows a faster OODA loop.
The idea of rapid iteration is based on the idea in exploratory settings with low information a faster OODA loop is often better than a smarter but slower OODA loop.
One of the best ways to slow down an opponents OODA loop in soccer is to choose inconsistent actions from play to play. As a forward receiving the ball from defense: dribble (with speed changes), pass back, pass across, etc.
It was pretty awesome hearing my son's team making this type of observation on the field as the opposition repeated the same offensive play, and adapt their response.
>If you can delegate your decision making to the lowest possible level, this will make the average decision slightly worse, but because you can make each decision much faster you can still come out ahead overall
This is insightful. Each node in the chain is a self-correcting loop. The trick is to make sure that information is sent up the chain more rapidly so that each node can use it to act on its own within the broader objective. Note that "information loss" is a function of both the number of nodes in the chain and time.
Great point and part of why I've increasingly developed a preference for Kanban and optimizing cycle time at organizations I've worked at. There's a great blog post [1] that popped up in my network which I think does an excellent job of describing this in a very visual, tangible manner.
> delegate your decision making to the lowest possible level [...] this will make the average decision slightly worse.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Information going up the chain of command will always be a bit outdated, distorted, and incomplete (unless you can just live-stream video with sound to your command center). So with properly trained soldiers decisions made at lower level can actually be better than those made by higher-ups.
The soldiers on the ground can make better decisions about their own situation, yes. On the other hand, they will never know whether they could be even more useful 100 km further down south unless HQ tells them. Whether that kind of information actually matters changes from operation to operation.
That's a bit underselling it, like saying "E = mc^2 is just a description of how light behaves" and sweeping it under the rug as if the explanatory model provides no additional benefit.
The value comes from the ability to consciously influence the various stages of the process instead of it simply being subconsciously driven. In fact, you can practice and apply the stages of the loop better - for example, making a list of questions you'd like to ask yourself during the observe phase in a given scenario. You practice consciously asking yourself observation questions enough and in time the brain integrates that into the subconscious processing loop.
As long as you keep the "act" small in scale (and you continue to loop through the steps), this is probably the best approach in most circumstances. If for no other reason than is break you out of the initial tendency many people have to freeze when confronted with crisis.
I'm sure I've been told by someone who had been trained as an officer in the British army that they were very much trained to have a "Bias for Action" - i.e. the worst thing you could in most situations would be to get caught in their version of "analysis paralysis". Of course, he told me this with impeccable self deprecating humour (presumably also part of their training) - so difficult to tell how serious he was being.
Yeah, my take also comes from prior training (as a firefighter/paramedic). Start moving towards/away from the problem (which direction depends on your own personal defaults and risk tolerance). You don't need to figure everything out before you start moving.
The reason the OODA loop was useful, though, is because it took a decision-making process that was normally used by individuals and brought it into organizations. It seeks to answer the question: how do we minimize the overhead cost of making decisions in large organizations without compromising on effectiveness? Given that it originated in the military, the lack of a "wait for orders" step is what's notable.
I've never been in an organization that needs this sort of model, but my assumption was it was more about what not to do. Don't second guess yourself endlessly, don't panic, don't reminisce about what could have been, don't blindly repeat your last action, don't freeze, etc. In high stress situations people tend to do dumb things, this sounds to me like an attempt to say "don't do that" without saying the word "don't" or specifying the "that".
Sufficiently large organizations easily panic, second guess themselves, etc.
Formalizing the decision making process helps get to the point where you can make a decision. In risk averse organizations, this is extremely valuable.
The loop is not (usually) executed sequentially, in nature or in human tactical training.
Boyd’s thinking was useful in the military bureaucracy to make the right types of aircraft that would support high maneuverability and rapid decision making. Training to excel in use of new aircraft only came naturally to the pilots to a certain point, and this is still true today.
However, it’s true that OODA skills like rapid re-orientation are often best taught to humans by putting the right kind of pressure on them so that their instincts will be honed in a useful way, although mastery requires thinking about and tuning those instincts as well.
I agree that the OODA theory is in line with what any behaviour is. I think the real value of it is with its implementation : "Fail fast, fail often" and agile mentality is born from this original theory, and I think these tactics are invaluable for rapid progress.
I think this also makes OODA an effective strategy: being able to conceptualise the whole system/problem in a holistic manner, and being able to quickly ascertain what are the important variables/factors, and therefore what you need do to to achieve the greatest impact/effect in line with your goal. This is, in my view, the whole point of OODA, and this takes a shrewd intellect and a lot of practice to get good at!
This kind of goes beyond the basic OODA acronym, but consideration of approach through each of the OODA stages is where the value of this theory resides. Indeed I try to implement this approach in my work as a scientist each day!
People were doing manoeuvre warfare for thousands of years before Boyd, as well. People think nobody had any idea what they were doing before OODA. And don't get me started on people who think manoeuvre warfare was invented by Ender...
It might be overhyped but that doesn't mean there's nothing valuable in the model. While it might describe how the world works, it is also intended to bring your attention to specifics. For instance, maybe you don't do a great job of actually looking (observing as it's called in the model). If you have this model in your head to refer to, you can stop and think "Wait, I need to make sure that I'm considering all the relevant evidence before acting".
Boyd's famous OODA loop (observe-orient-decide-act) is probably the most misunderstood and misused diagram of practical significance in decision making. It is to decision-making what the five elements (earth/fire/water/wind/ether) model from alchemy is to modern chemistry. Or what Freud's id-ego-superego model is to neuroscience ... Though the terms and concepts of the OODA loop are intuitive and coherent at least at a first pass, there is fundamentally no way to use them entirely safely without making gross errors. Just as there is no way to do modern chemistry using alchemical concepts without making gross errors. Or trying to do neurosurgery based on an id-ego-superego map of the brain without making gross errors.
I've been enjoying this video series with interviews of Boyd's surviving collaborators as a way to separate out what he meant from what folks often misunderstand:
"Gödel’s theorems, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics"
Bah. It drives me crazy when people use scientific or mathematical principles as psychological metaphors, without understanding what the principles actually mean. They usually get it wrong.
When you apply the Uncertainty Principle to a flying airplane, it implies the exact opposite of what the author thinks it does. A fighter jet is a macroscopic object. Assuming I recall my college physics correctly, if the velocity of the plane is "only" known to within a quintillionth of a m/s, then the position is "only" knowable within a few hundredths of a quintillionth of a meter.
Second this. I first heard about this book in a comment on HN a few years ago (can't find it at the moment to link), and happily pay it forward whenever I can.
I recently listened to a podcast that talked about the strengths of this model, but then also talked about the kinds of problems where OODA loops are a poor fit:
Seconded - I particularly enjoyed the references to how OODA was applied by Dominic Cummings in the Brexit vote campaign - but also how that same thinking is flawed when faced with everyday running of government.
On a longer timeframe, PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) / PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) models[0] are common, and I run into them frequently in non-profit social/community work. The "Do" part of the cycle is frequently misunderstood, it's more of a test.
I've found PDSA to be challenging with developers, with a tendency to want to short-circuit the process and leap intuitively to the "solution" at the end of the cycle. Talented, experienced, and ignorant all end up looking like P-A-P-A (or just AAAA with a spectacular thud at the end when things finally hit the fan).
The author "recommended a process of “deductive destruction”: paying attention to your own assumptions and biases, then finding fundamental mental models to replace them." -- going to borrow a few ideas from the article and try a different approach for a few of our Mavericks...
PDCA sounds to me like it would fit with the agile scrum cycle of plan, sprint, review and retro? I would not be surprised if scrum is just repackaging
I'm not sure Scrum is a repackaging, but it frustrates me that more people aren't familiar with the Deming-Shewart cycle (PDCA) which leads neatly into the Toyota Production System and Lean.
Before stating *how* fighter pilots make fast and accurate decisions, surely we need to study *if* fighter pilots make fast and accurate decisions? I mean, do they really? What evidence is there that pilots are great, or even above average, decision makers?
What we can say is that, in the engagement scenarios we believe are likely, certain pilots are better than others. And by better I mean that the opponent dies.
It is true that a computer will sometimes come up with stronger responses, even against strong human players, but it usually does this by choosing certain death for some of the pilots. While human pilots do accept certain death directions in combat (for example, to defend a high value asset like a trip transport), that still likely means that the planner failed. It's going to be interesting when we have robot planes; not only can they pull 10Gs for >10s, they can do it very quickly, and you can commit them to high risk engagements.
This thread is cargo culting hard. This is just a tool for making decisions in stressful situations buy forcing a separation of planning and acting so you don't flop around frantically. It's not a tool for organizations or your startup. Maybe it works for that but its applicability to you're startup should be proven independently.
OODA is related to other feedback-loop ideas like PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act, Deming/Shewart Cycle) which works at both a tactical and strategic level (but at obviously different tempos, if that's not obvious I don't know what to say). It should be seen primarily in contrast to two other options: Haphazard ad hoc, primarily reactive, approaches; long term commitments to plans that turn out to produce the wrong thing (because they lacked feedback, aka classic Waterfall).
A lot of the discussion here is assuming that the US military is good at what it does, but we've been losing for twenty years to people who live without electricity, so either the Taliban has a lightning fast OODA loop or the concept is basically useless as applied.
Guerrilla Warfare IS OODA/RPDM/Naturalistic Decision making/<insert any decision making acronym here> in action. All we are doing is emphasize on different stages and coming up with new acronyms. Decision Making is as old as mankind and the only constituents are flexibility in thinking, timing, delegation and action.
I always thought pilots were taught “aviate navigate then communicate.” Don’t fly into the ground. If safe then figure out where you are in relation to your destination. If safe then talk.
My issue with OODA and other decision frameworks is that in complex situations a lot information we get is noise, misunderstandings, or lies. Separating the wheat from the chaff takes a very long time. During the meantime, the best thing to do is to minimize risk in case the info is true. Only if we are certain the info is real, should we perform a complete course correction.
The context here is in adversarial fights. The more important insight is that both you and your opponent are executing the same loop, so there may be an advantage to be had by completing it faster (or multiple times) before your opponent can act.
Naming the process is just letting you think about decision making explicitly. I can't see it being a complete general framework for decision making.
>Although Boyd is regarded as a military strategist, he didn’t confine himself to any particular discipline. His theories encompass ideas drawn from various disciplines, including mathematical logic, biology, psychology, thermodynamics, game theory, anthropology, and physics.
This guy is really setting off my bs radar. Godel's theorem, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, entropy, this is like gpt-reddit.
I agree with the points made here that OODA is just as good as any other mental technique acronym.
The mental frameworks for decisionmaking under time constraint and information overload are inevitably too rational. Their main objective is to be able to act in progressively efficient manner. However simply relying on these frameworks as prescribed under the real constraints will lead to even higher information overload and thus loss of time.
In fast-flowing situations human actions tend to follow the emotional reaction route, bypassing the the slower rational reasoning. Emotional route is faster, but success of such reaction depends heavily on the learned behavior. Closing your eyes to "hide" is obviously not going to help one to flee a danger.
So, using any kind of mental framework is the most valuable in training. This helps transform the reasoned actions into learned behavior to be [hopefully] triggered as a reaction under the constraints.
As it turns out, John Boyd went to flight school w/ my dad and we saw quite a bit of him when they were both working on the F-15 program. I still literally have the scars.
OODA by itself is simplistic, but it was part of a larger presentation called "Patterns of Conflict," and you should probably look at that presentation before deciding what OODA means.
I found a printed copy from my dad's records that's not quite as long as the one I found online (and heck, maybe there are later versions available as well.)
Anyway... it might be useful to read this to get an idea of the original context of the "OODA Loop."
There are a lot of "applying OODA to business" type blog posts and presentations. I'm not sure I'm qualified to evaluate their value, but for me, getting the extra context of what was going on in the Air Force in the early 70s into the 80s was useful in understanding the meaning and intent of what Boyd wrote about "OODA."
"Because they’re developed and tested in the relentless laboratory of conflict, military mental models have practical applications far beyond their original context."
Really? How does that follow? Just because a process has been optimized for effectiveness in one area doesn't make it easily generalizable. It's probably more likely to be less effective, or even worse, outside the specific realm.
For martial arts practitioners (or just those interested in the subject or self defence etc), Rory Miller uses the OODA loop for framing some of his advice in his Meditations on Violence:
The OODA loop is just entry-level cybernetics; it describes a single (negative/balancing/homeostatic) feedback loop. Knowing OODA is a good start for learning about the mechanics of self correcting systems but for some reason cybernetics doesn't come up often in association with it. It's like learning how to code a todo list but not knowing that more advanced programs are possible because you're not aware that what you're doing is a small part of a whole field called "programming".
There's source material the FS blog isn't giving you. You probably want to read that before saying "OODA is just Cybernetics." Having read both Norbert Weiner and John Boyd, I can assure you there's more to it than what's presented by the fs.blog link. Though... yes... Cybernetics cut a swath through Systems Command in the 60s and 70s, but if you slog through dissertations at the Air War College, you'll find several critiques of Cybernetics for it's lack of descriptive power in an environment with incomplete information.
See Lind's Manouver Warfare Handbook for more details.
Thanks, I'll check it out. For what it's worth I agree that cybernetics alone isn't as useful for describing complex systems as it is for designing adaptive processes like OODA. That's more the realm of systems dynamics and causal analysis.
Will do. I know that my biggest deficiency is using what little information I have at any time to make big, risky decisions without ever thinking to verify (i.e. Orient) that hypothesis. It will come down to an effective playing style that suits my abilities (which are also malleable).
OODA by itself is not useful unless a fighter pilot can do it quickly. Acquiring yomi (getting into the mind of the opponent) is far more useful for winning dogfights.
Dr. Mica Endsley created a model of Situational Awareness that expands on the OODA loop [1]. There are critics, but I've found her model and papers to be outstanding when I've worked on Intelligent Software Agent projects.
Another related topic is the adaption of the OODA loop to military command decisions, what the US military calls the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) [2][3]. I would recommend reading about the MDMP to anyone running a business, or being a technical lead. I'd also recommend the the better known books The Art of War [4] by Sun Tzu and The Book of Five Rings [5] by Miyamoto Musashi.
I've had some chuckle at the idea of a book ostensibly on sword fighting being useful in business, until I mention the 9 basic principles Musashi lays out in the first section:
* "Do not think dishonestly."
* "The Way is in training."
* "Become acquainted with every art."
* "Know the Ways of all professions"
* "Distinguish between gain and loss in worldly matters."
* "Develop an intuitive judgement and understanding for everything."
* "Perceive those things which cannot be seen."
* "Pay attention even to trifles."
* "Do nothing which is of no use."
The analogy to business is also in the MDMP, as seen from the the 7 top level steps of the MDMP, from Wikipedia:
* Receipt of Mission
* Mission Analysis
* Course of action (COA) Development
* COA Analysis (aka Wargaming)
* COA Comparison
* COA Approval
* Orders Production, Dissemination, and Transition
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.