One good thing about OODA

[William F. Owen]

As I've posted before, I still think OODA is perhaps most applicable in the realm it was first designed for: one on one air-to-air combat. As soon as you start adding people in, and bringing in new factors, it can easily degenerate into a series of poor decisions based on inadequate information and time pressure.

Well, as the chief Psychologist for the Swedish Armed Forces, famously asked, "How does explaining the OODA loop to a fighter pilot make him a better fighter pilot?" - and in Air to Air combat it is only applicable to one pilot looking at one other aircraft he is reacting to, or acting against.

That said, I think the concept can be expanded to areas other than air-to-air combat, but the framework needs to change. OODA in the wrong hands can (and I'm sure has) lead to badly-informed decisions made solely on the pretext of being "fast" and thus "first." To tie back to the original thread, technology can make this worse by creating an illusion of complete information and complete communications.

The problem is a nut shell, and one that would not exist if we didn't buy into OODA as accurately explaining the process in hand.
It does not accurately model how humans thing or make decisions (simple and idealised).
It's not a planning tool, and it's not even a good analysis tool.

[Entropy]

I had not heard before that OODA was originally designed for air combat. That surprises me. Air combat is too fast-paced and fluid for pilots to be going through such mental checklists.

The way to shorten the OODA loop is not through study of OODA or any other artificial construct, but through training and practice - something I believe is true for any military enterprise.

[Steve Blair]

I had not heard before that OODA was originally designed for air combat. That surprises me. Air combat is too fast-paced and fluid for pilots to be going through such mental checklists.

The way to shorten the OODA loop is not through study of OODA or any other artificial construct, but through training and practice - something I believe is true for any military enterprise.

The majority of Boyd's theories originated with his ideas regarding air-to-air combat. Where he (IMO) got into serious trouble is when he started expanding those ideas into a "one size fits all" theory for conflict in general. Boyd also wasn't much of a believer in missiles in air to air combat. He was a gun dogfighter pure and simple, and (again IMO) OODA reflects this.

Wilf, I think you might benefit from taking a step back and looking at OODA as more of an "after the fact" description of a thought process, which is where I feel it is most useful (that or breaking the AI of some computer games and possibly timed chess matches...anything where there is a finite time limit known to both participants). Note that I don't say it's perfect, or even much of a planning tool. To me it's more someone trying to explain something that can't necessarily be explained...but once the tools got their hands on it everything went south in a hurry. One could actually say the same thing about ol' Carl.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, I think you might benefit from taking a step back and looking at OODA as more of an "after the fact" description of a thought process, which is where I feel it is most useful (that or breaking the AI of some computer games and possibly timed chess matches...anything where there is a finite time limit known to both participants). Note that I don't say it's perfect, or even much of a planning tool. To me it's more someone trying to explain something that can't necessarily be explained...but once the tools got their hands on it everything went south in a hurry. One could actually say the same thing about ol' Carl.

Steve, you may be right. I have long been trying to work out why the OODA loop even exists, and why it is so loved.

I fully agree that the OODA explains how a Shepherd, using 2-3 dogs, herds a flock. This shows the OODA at work. It works because the Shepherd can see all his dogs and all the sheep.... totally unlike any form of warfare or conflict.

So, how does the OODA loop help us understand military activity against an enemy, or how does explaining the OODA loop to the Shepherd help him "flock" his sheep faster?

Here to learn!

[Ron Humphrey]

You know what you know and as such you can choose to act on or not act on such things, but much the same as any interactions between humans you can and do only control you so of course you can only plan for your actions or inactions.

This is not necessarily the same as having no control over others. Anyone whos seen crowds together for one purpose or another can see that there are ways in which to produce almost certain reactions to stimuli. This is the only way I can see that one can honestly plan for enemy actions but it still comes down to a better more informed SWAG then one might generally make intuitively. The "hard" decisions still have to be made but the tools can at least help to make them slightly more informed than might otherwise happen.

[Steve Blair]

So, how does the OODA loop help us understand military activity against an enemy, or how does explaining the OODA loop to the Shepherd help him "flock" his sheep faster?

Here to learn!

See...here's the rub. I'm not convinced that OODA necessarily helps the shepherd with his flock. Looking back, it might help him understand why something happened in the particular way that it did, and possibly plan for a similar circumstance in the future. But this also, to me, points out the finite nature of OODA. The shepherd has a limited window in which to act (direct his dogs), so understanding the sheep (and getting inside their OODA loop...not hard when one considers sheep) is important. Everything happens within his span of control, and his situational awareness is pretty good (he can see the flock and the dogs). It's when it gets out of that perfect awareness that things get flaky.

OODA might be useful for event triage (such as at what point did a unit's command and control break down and what factors contributed to that), but I'm not convinced that it can be predictive (not every unit will have the same strengths and weaknesses, and planning to exploit the wrong one can be a bad thing). In fact, I do think that the time-driven nature of OODA can lead to rash decisions, aggravated by the illusion of perfect intelligence and situational awareness.

I can understand why something like the OODA loop exists, and can see valid uses for it (mainly in post-hoc analysis). But I don't see it as useful as a predictive method or necessarily something one can master and practice consciously.

[wm]

I refer readers to an earlier Boyd/OODA debate that sort of started with my post here

[OODA.LOOP]

I unintentionally caused the discussion to digress from the subject.

W/ respect to the Boyd Cycle, all your points are duly noted. In fact, those that commented on the complexity of thinking and achieving a decision are absolutely correct and are not ignored, but few know this unless they are familiar with Boyd's work beyond the simple OODA Loop Description. The actual Boyd Cycle does not begin and end with the simple OODA Loop description due to the very reasons cited by some of you e.g. bad information in, bad out etc....all that is considered.

Here is a link for those interested in finding out more. http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/john-r-boyd

Appreciate the counter points...We'll talk more later.

Cheers Gents, Bob