Leading to the obvious point is that everyone is not a John Boyd -- or a fighter pilot -- and what works for one guy in one place may not be best for everyone everywhere.

Boyd was an intuitive fighter jock. Military forces tend to have two types of people who fight, deliberate and intuitive. Intuitive fighters are born, not made. The good news is that very effective deliberate fighters at all levels can be made through decent education and / or training. The US Army for many reasons and the Marines to an only slightly lesser extent encourage a deliberate approach to combat, thus the deliberate guys far outnumber the intuitive guys. My personal belief is that intuitive is better but I understand and accept the need for the deliberate types (and admit they're beneficial in slowing the intuitive types down from time to time ).

The problem is that since most males are competitive, they'll opt to try anything that might give them an edge in any competition. This tacitly encourages the adoption of the latest fads -- and 'techniques' or methods -- and that engenders the use of said ideas. The intuitive guy will very quickly accept, modify and / or reject what doesn't work; it takes the deliberate type more time (and frequently, effort) to do that, sometimes far longer, individual dependent. Occasionally a mediocre idea will become so embedded in some minds that it cannot be dismissed...

The OODA syndrome is an example of this. Widely adapted and adopted because it makes sense. It's also popular because most people instinctively actually do that sort of assessment in any new situation, perhaps with different words in a different order -- if they even think of it that way. Boyd just codified and simplified it for popular consumption. It is of some value but it is emphatically not a panacea or the only way to operate. Everyone cannot apply the facets in that sequence in all circumstances and most people will vary on the speed at which they can apply the process. Thus, I submit it's a good theory, worth knowing and understanding but it is not and should not be a guiding principle. I think the OODA process and variations should be taught as A way to assess and operate but it should be emphasized that it is not a dictated methodology and alternatives should also be discussed.

Having advised elements in two Armies in the far east and mideast and having done the COIN thing on three continents, I can say that I've used variations on the theme countless times -- even before Boyd enunciated it. Thus to RTK's good question, in all seriousness and with absolutely no sarcasm, I come up with:

- It depends on the situation.

- It is up to the individual to develop a personal view or method of the application.

- Be careful what you codify, it may become dogma.