OODA and the Development Entrepreneur

The late US Air Force Col John Boyd taught that, in conflict with an enemy, we respond by taking four actions: we Observe the situation, then we Orient ourselves towards potential responses; we Decide on a specific response; and then we take Action. Then we Observe the new situation, and go through the same actions again.  This iterative response pattern became known as the “OODA” loop.

Boyd says that if you are able to iterate through OODA cycles faster than your enemy, you will be able to take the initiative and dictate the fight’s tempo.  You will keep the enemy off-balance; when he is not able to Observe your own actions, he will not be able to Orient himself to the appropriate response; his Decisions will come too late and his Actions will no longer be relevant to the changing situation. Keep up the pressure by accelerating your own OODA loops, and eventually you will overwhelm the enemy.

Boyd came to this theory from his study of historical and more recent (to his lifetime) war experience.  In the Korean War, US and South Korean F-86s consistently outfought MIGs.  The differences in weaponry, speed, manueverability of aircraft - and pilot training - were considered insufficient to account for this outcome.  Boyd suggested that the reason was the F-86 cockpit design – it provided a wide field of view, as compared to the closed-in design of the MIG-15 cockpit.  The F-86 pilots could Observe a wider field of view and Orient themselves to better maneuver options.  Thus they could make better Decisions, and their subsequent Actions won their victories.

Boyd, himself an Air Force pilot, lived his theory. He would bet 40$ that, from a position of disadvantage, he could put himself on an attack position in 40 seconds. It is said that he never lost this bet; thus his nickname, “40-second Boyd”.

There’s a slew of literature translating the OODA dogma from the battlefield to business.  The elements seem to be similar: in business as in war, there are opponents engaged in conflict with each side doing its best to destroy the other.

In development work, the situation is not exactly the same. Development Entrepreneurs are not at war (although sometimes it sure feels like it).  While in the course of our work we might be in contention with certain groups, institutions or even classes, we are not fighting against them per se; what we are fighting against are adverse social conditions.  We do not work to destroy any one or any organization; we work to bring about conditions that promote human development.

This can be a useful reminder to any effort that applies the language of warfare to development challenges.  The “war against poverty” can’t be won by bombing any sector of society. Nor can the “war against drugs” be won by assassination – although that might result in a temporary setback for the narcotics cartels.

Still, for the Development Entrepreneur, OODA can be useful as a framework for planning and implementing our work.  How do we Observe a particular social situation? How do we Orient ourselves to several intervention options? How and when do we Decide on our contribution? And how do we Act decisively?

We can also use OODA to reflect on our pace. Are we taking too long to go through a cycle? Is our pace affected by the availability of data? If so, what is the minimum amount of data needed to go through one OODA iteration? Are we having decision paralysis? Are we capable of acting on our decisions?

I also find OODA a good mental framework for monitoring and reflecting on daily activities, simply by asking myself, “Is this activity part of the Observation phase, or the other phases?”

OODA can also be used as an assessment framework.  Did we Act on our Decisions? What was correct or wrong about our analyses? Did we miss out on an important piece of information or did we get something wrong? Most important, if the engagement turned out well, how do we use our accomplishment to promote our cause further? And if the engagement went badly, what can we do differently to achieve better results?

An organization undergoes OODA in several levels. The frontliners undergo OODA at the operational or technical level, in their daily work. For example, drug rehab counsellors monitor the progress of their wards (Observe), help them identify situations that trigger relapse, (Orient), Decide on appropriate interventions to stop addiction patterns, and implement these interventions (Action).

Middle managers go through OODA at the tactical level.  To continue the example, Supervisors review the effectiveness of drug rehabilitation counsellors (Observe) to discern good practices that might help other counsellors (Orient), Decide on replicating certain practices and then train other counsellors to enable them to implement those practices (Action).

At the highest level of the organization, managers do OODA at the strategic level.  They might Observe the impact of their clinic on the community (Observe), look for ways to achieve better results (Orient), Decide on preventive measures (rather than simply rehabilitation), and design Communication, Information and Education activities to prevent addiction in the first place (Action).

When the organization is able to inter-lock the way that it does OODA at the operational, tactical and strategic levels it can achieve higher productivity and impact. DEs who belong to an organization would do well to check whether all levels are sharing what they have Observed about their work, whether everyone is Orienting himself/ herself from a common set of values and towards a common set of goals; whether the Decisions taken at all levels are congruent; and whether appropriate and consistent Actions are being taken at all levels.

Like fighter pilots, Development Entrepreneurs can practice OODA to develop a mentality of flexibility – the willingness and ability to make adjustments when necessary, based on Observed conditions and Oriented towards a defined goal, to arrive at resolute Decisions and to Act decisively.