Originally Posted by
ericmwalters
Before we had the OODA Loop, we might have been grappling with these kinds of issues, but the mental model wasn't there, wasn't widely understood and agreed upon, and certainly wasn't something that people tried to design equipment, processes, procedures, and techniques to. When we talk about saving time in these kinds of discussions, we move along relatively quickly because we use common terms, a common understanding, and be comfortable that we know what we're really talking about. Typical intelligence issue before Boyd Loop: Combat information vs. intelligence. Pick a process. How much of one? How much of the other? Now, we look at problems differently with the Boyd Cycle. Regarding the question of whether 'tis better for a particular process to be supported with combat information or with intelligence, we now mount our enquiries with a bit more saavy. How much "orientation" is needed with the information? Is it minimal? Are the "decisions" easy to make/relatively simple (e.g., shoot or don't shoot)? If the answer is that the supported OODA loop doesn't require much context/understanding supplied with the information to aid orientation and decsion, then combat information may be enough. But if a good bit of context is necessary or the intuitive answer will get you the WRONG answer--and thus you need a good bit of analysis to steer you the right way, despite what your tummy is telling you--then you need more intelligence, not so much combat information.
Bookmarks