The ratio of bad articles about the OODA Loop to good ones is about 1000:1 or higher, this is a good one.
From the article:
The OODA “loop” sketch is not a loop! It’s an illustrative abstraction.
It’s not a process to follow. It’s a window into how human judgment evolves under pressure. The sketch maps nonlinear, recursive flows of energy, information, and adaptation.
The article does have a conflict / adversarial approach which may not be relevant to all situations.
Some people have found the OODA Loop useful, YMMV.
For example I was reading about pragmatism and came across John Dewey, and he seemed to echo Boyd in some ways, so I googled it, didn’t really read it but I found this, Rethinking reflective practice: John Boyd’s OODA loop,
In response to these challenges, we propose a new ‘solution’: John Boyd’s OODA loop. We argue that OODA loops offer the chance to reshape reflective practice and work-based learning for a world in which individuals must cope with ‘an unfolding evolving reality that is uncertain, ever changing and unpredictable’ (Boyd, 1995, slide 1).
I suspect you’ve been executing the so-called OODA feedback loop all your working life, you’ve just not thought of it that way. For folks whose information processing and decision-making abilities aren’t measuring up might benefit from studying the process. Boyd was primarily interested in using knowledge of the process to improve response to others’ use of it, something that makes a lot of sense in a situation where people are the “enemy”, but less so when its mother nature.
The OODA loop has a good power to weight ratio. It’s a four letter acronym that wrong but useful. It’s meant to be descriptive not prescriptive.
Take the grounding of the Ever Forward in Chesapeake Bay, the one where the pilot was on his phone and missed a turn.
The OOW was comparing the ship’s position to the planned track-line using the ECDIS, that’s one loop. The pilot was on his phone and composing an email, a second, ineffective loop. The OOW and pilot could be though of as a third loop. That third loop is the domain of BRM.
I don’t know, maybe dualism being so deeply embedded culturally is why mariners have a such a difficult time with the idea of combining visual observations with use of the instruments.
Edit: Probably subjective (visual observations ) vs objective (instruments) is a more relevant way to frame it.
It’s true that Boyd’s main interest was in situations where adversaries have intent, but the OODA loop can be applied more broadly.
For example transiting Singapore Straits and a small coaster or fishing vessel unexpectedly cuts in front of the ship. The operator of the smaller vessel may not intend to be inside the bridge team’s loop but the OOW that can process unfolding events faster has better odds of making the right move.
You are, of course, correct - being able to detect when events (deliberate or otherwise) are “getting inside your loop” and adjusting your reaction time is an essential skill. We normally operate our “loop” at a speed that we feel is optimal for the situation - slower speed allows for more considered responses and reduced error and is less stressful overall - but quicker reactions are sometimes called for. You don’t have to understand the “OODA loop” to understand this, but knowing what it is can help an operator maintain control.
This post at Less Wrong is a good, basic explanation.
Let’s take the example of a driver who makes a turn or moves around a bend in the road and then sees something unknown in the middle of the road ahead. We might model the driver’s thoughts in such a scenario
