10 Reasons Why OODA Loop is Not Inclusive Foundational Innovation Language

Greetings Humantific readers. The end of summer has arrived too quickly here in adaptive and adapting New York City. In getting into the September groove I had not really planned on this post but since several people asked me this question below directly in follow-up to something I wrote a few weeks ago entitled Kicking it Up!: Understanding Deeper Creativity I have taken time to write this text below as a reply that could not fit in a LinkedIn response window.

Paraphrased Original Question to me: “Can you explain why in the Deeper Creativity post you wrote that OODA Loop is not suitable as a foundation innovation language?”

SHORT ANSWER: OODA is a decision-making tool. As such it contains strong advocacy for only one dimension of the innovation process. That one channel advocacy does not reflect the entire innovation cycle and thus is not aligned with Inclusive Foundation Innovation Language criteria. See: Ten OODA Loop Red Flags below.

DETAILED RESPONSE:?

There are many useful innovation related approaches and tools to be found in the marketplace and not all meet a simple three part Humantific criteria for foundational innovation language. That does not make them any less useful in certain situations but as foundational language they may or may not be a good fit. Every year as part of consulting with business innovation initiative leaders and as part of ongoing?Innovation Methods Mapping?we encounter and look closely at hundreds of innovation related process models.

What we mean by inclusive foundational innovation language is process that can be taught to everyone in the organization as a baseline set of adaptive innovation skills regardless of their background or role in the organization. In this context we want methods that have embedded in them signals of equal valuing towards two, most important root innovation behaviors as well as an adaptive orientation most often represented by an absence of presumption that the challenges facing us are preknown at the outset. Since foundational language is taught to everyone in the organization part of its purpose is to signal and clarify what the organization needs and values in the context of facing “VUCA” and activating sensemaking, changemaking, transformation, innovation, problem solving, complexity navigation or whatever your organization chooses to call your proactive response.?

Many situational tools that become widely popular in one tribe or another are in the context of inclusive foundational language considerations simply sending the wrong signals and those wrong signals are often in direct conflict with the organizations stated innovation goals. That conflict tends to create a lot of confusion in the organization. It's the job of the Complexity Navigation Leader to align the stated objectives with actual foundational language…not theory, not philosophy but actual methodology, actual behaviors. It's the methodology with its embedded emphasis, words, signals, behaviors and values that makes or breaks the foundational language.?

Once we clarify that inclusive foundational innovation languages contain recognition that both divergent and convergent thinking are needed in the innovation cycle and thus should be equally valued it becomes clear that numerous popular approaches do not, would not, meet that criteria. Once we recognize that some methods have challenge and outcomes assumptions embedded in them upfront we can better see those which fit the criteria. Once we clarify that the widely popular term of “decision-making” is another more palatable way to say convergent thinking a lot of fuzz becomes more clear. Once we comprehend that numerous educational institutions have been selling decision-making as the highest form of value for decades, then what we collectively face as innovation leaders today becomes more clear.

Combine that set of realizations and we are on the road to fulfilling the promise of inclusive foundational innovation language. Since some tribes are wildly enthusiastic, for one reason or another, about certain tools, it is often a heavy lift responsibility of the Inclusive Innovation Enabling Team to sort out and explain what fits with foundation language and what is just a handy tool for specific applications. Typically none of that is going to be a walk in the park, in part because there are often unspoken power dynamics embedded in many of these tools.?

A good way to look at OODA is to imagine yourself in a leadership role assessing whether or not this methodology is appropriate for foundational language in your organization facing continuous “VUCA”. You have to be able to explain to others why it is or is not appropriate for foundational considerations.?

I can share with you how we at Humantific, look and what we see in OODA. Of course in this context we want to look at any accompanying documents or descriptions, in addition to the process model itself that might give us some clues.

Perhaps a good place to begin is to reshare a key?sentence that I commented on in my Deeper Creativity post as it was written by the authors of the article entitled:?“Embedding Creativity in Professional Military Education: Understanding Creativity and its Implementation.?

“Perhaps most crucial to the creative mindset is the ability to engage in divergent thinking.”

Whether we agree with it or not let’s keep this sentence, coming from some thought leaders within the 2020 US military in mind as we look at 1976-1996 OODA Loop created by highly respected military strategist John Boyd (1927-1997). Let’s take a look at what there is, and is not strong advocacy for in the OODA Loop.

OODA Loop Documents

In reference to OODA there seems to be three primary artifacts:

The 4000 word 1976?Destruction and Creation paper by John Boyd

The OODA Loop Process Diagram (circa 1996, numerous versions exist)

The?1996?Essence of Winning & Losing summary presentation

Aim / Purpose Defined

In his 1976?Destruction and Creation?paper Boyd states the “basic aim or goal as individuals” and the “struggle of individuals and groups” is to 1.?“comprehend and cope with our [changing] environment” 2.?”improve our capacity for independent action” and 3. to?“survive on our own terms.”

Boyd has a particular set of activities in mind for how to do that but these are the 3 central challenges or goals that he articulates in 1976, which are not so different from the everyday challenges that humanity faces today.

Of course it would not be surprising to see that Boyd probably evolved his perspective after his 1976 paper was written. Evidently later materials, somewhat vaguely sited on Wikipedia suggest that Boyd, refining his perspective ultimately believed “The key to survival and autonomy is the ability to adapt to change, not perfect adaptation to existing circumstances”.?Boyd believed?“that the decision cycle was the central mechanism of adaptation (in a social context)..”??

Such later references place OODA Loop more clearly, more directly in the arena of individual, team, organizational and societal adaptation.?

Ten OODA Loop Red Flags:

1.???Purpose Response Defined

On the face of it there is nothing there in the Purpose Defined to suggest a need to focus on decision-making but this is what Boyd does as the combat experienced, science influenced inventor/creator of OODA. Having described the objectives in his 1976 paper Boyd states:?“Against such a background, actions and decisions become critically important.”

If there had been an objective Red Team around at that time they might have pointed out that numerous other approaches would also fulfill those 3 stated objectives without just focusing on deciding, convergent thinking.?

In addition, there is nothing in the objectives that might suggest a need to position convergent thinking as the highest form of value or obscure the role of divergent thinking. These are choices that the OODA process designer made. Other process designers articulating similar challenges, prior to and during the same era, made very different emphasis choices. Some choices more so than others fit with foundational language.?

It appears that from the get-go John Boyd seems to have referred to his OODA process as the Boyd Decision Cycle. He himself was well aware of its orientation.?

In 2020 author Brian Rivera described OODA in his writings as “A decision-making process for dynamic situations.”?

Do we need any other proof that OODA is not suitable for inclusive foundational language than this? Simply stated, decision tools are generally not effective as foundational innovation language as they reflect a foreshortened, cognitively biased view of what the full cycle of innovation, changemaking is known to?be. OODA choices are very clear in the direction of “decision-making”, convergent thinking.

Score:?Purpose Response Defined: Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 1 out of 10.

2.???Happy Campers?

It is best to think of this foundational language assessment challenge in human terms rather than as abstractions. Imagine a scenario where half of your team has the cognitive orientation towards divergent thinking and the other half towards convergent thinking. Since we know that both are required continuously in innovation cycles would it make any sense to be bias towards one or the other? Would it make any sense to embrace strong advocacy for one and not the other? Would it make any sense to be privileging one over the other? It is not difficult to see in the context of OODA Loop that the convergent thinkers would find themselves advocated there, reflected there and be happy campers while the divergent thinkers would not. In practical terms that translates into 50% of your team being treated as secondary citizens with their much needed thinking style in direct conflict with the model. If we privilege one or the other we are not only creating a heat generating bias but we are literally leaving out a large part of our brainpower which is often the opposite of stated goals.?

As inclusive innovation enablers it is our job, not to be pushing our own cognitive preferences, but rather to ensure that 100% of the team is equally advocated and equally valued regardless of the privileging history in the organization. Consideration of this dynamic alone would disqualify OODA from inclusive foundational language consideration.?

Of course in civilian organizational contexts the result of unacknowledged privileging bias, (non-happy camper) situations is often high turn-over of employees. Folks express unhappiness with their feet in departure. In other environments without such choice the result of that privileging would be disconnect and frustration for half the team.

To be clear, it is not just OODA. Any process calling itself a decision-making instrument, any process that contains lots of decide words but few ideation words, any approach that contains one-sided advocacy, any method that describes problem solving, innovation, changemaking or transformation as a deciding process would not be suitable as inclusive foundational innovation language.?

Score: Happy Campers? Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 1 out of 10.

3.???Cognitive Balance Advocacy / Historical Omissions

Although it appears from the brief literature generated by John Boyd that he studied and was aware?in 1976?of both Alex Osborn and Edward de Bono, among many?others, when he wrote his most famous paper?Destruction and Creation?there is no evidence in that document or in the OODA tool itself that he embraced the long held historical orientation of both Osborn and de Bono that divergent and convergent thinking are equal in value. By 1976 not only did numerous visual models of CPS (Creative Problem Solving) exist clearly indicating need for both, but they were already inside the US military.?

Granted Mr. Boyd has a lot of complex theorizing piled into his?Destruction and Creation?paper presumably intended to explain the foundations of OODA including reference to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (humans have limited observation ability), Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (models of reality are imperfect and must be continuously updated) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (systems are in continuous state of change) however Boyd himself nevertheless does not seem to be able to clearly articulate the need, not only for divergent thinking, but also for its equal valuing.?

Here a Red Team would have taken a deep breath and pointed out a close to home oddity, that simultaneously with suggesting the possibility of human bias, what Boyd referred to as Orientation Asymmetry, the OODA loop itself exemplifies a lack of awareness that something important is missing. Amidst all the theorizing there are no cognitive balance descriptions inside?Destruction and Creation?or in the OODA Loop itself.?

Score:?Cognitive Balance Advocacy: Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 1 out of 10.

4.???Phase Signals / No Shortage of Clues

Boyd seems to have described science or scientific method as?“a self-correcting process of observations, synthesis/analysis, hypothesis and test.”?It is not a giant leap from there to OODA.

Let’s note how the science influenced OODA phrase: “Orientation shapes observation, shapes decision, shapes action” contains no reference to divergence…nor do the phase headers in the OODA process itself as seen in the diagram: Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action. There is no designated presence of divergent thinking signaled anywhere there.?

Stepping outside of Boyd’s?Destruction and Creation?paper: In a recent 2020 article by?Stokes McIntyre?entitled?“Using the Military’s OODA Loop to Improve Construction Safety”, the author describes in his own words use of OODA this way:?“Orientation is the most influential of the loop’s four phases. The OODA Loop itself will not keep you safe, rather how you orient to your environment will keep you safe. From there, the observer?must formulate options?and?finally choose?what they deem to be the correct course of action.”

A Red Team might ask: Where is the “formulate options” part in the OODA process diagram? OODA is positioned entirely around the “finally choose” part. Finally choose (convergent thinking) is being privileged. The “formulate options”, part ie: divergent thinking is missing from the process itself and is deeply buried and obscured in the accompanying?Destruction and Creation?text.

A Red Team could point out that the OODA Loop “Observe/Orient” is simply a curated foreshortened, fact-finding checklist and as an activity fact-finding typically contains divergence and convergence. This is well known and well signaled in the context of CPS…evidently not well understood, or embraced or signaled in OODA.

Score:?Phase Signals:?Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 1 out of 10

5.???Framing & Solution Ideation / Missing In Action

The OODA loop is basically a specialized, truncated version of problem solving edited, redesigned and repositioned to emphasize convergent thinking. The submergence of divergent thinking takes several different forms including omission.

Humantific readers will know the famous Albert Einstein quote often used to point out the relative importance of problem framing to solutioning. Folklore has it that someone once asked Einstein: If he had one hour to save the world how would he spend that hour? Einstein’s reply: “I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and 5 minutes solving it.”?

Evidently John Boyd did not get that Einstein memo as Challenge Framing, a divergent & convergent activity is completely missing from OODA. Typically occurring after fact-finding (Observation/Orient) there is in OODA Loop only a designation of “Feed Forward”. Any enlightened Red Team could have pointed out that surfacing observations and various facts, even on a continuous basis, is not the equivalent to framing what the diverse challenges actually are.?

Red Team would likely have pointed out that in CPS logic, without that systemic framing there is strong likelihood that the real issues will not be clearly understood and thus solution ideas, decisions and actions have a high possibility of being off target and misplaced.?

An enlightened Red Team could also point out there is in OODA no solution ideation signaled (typically occurring) after Framing, another divergent and convergent activity. While in his essay?Destruction and Creation?Boyd describes “Creating Concepts” this is not a designation that we see in the OODA process itself. Where solution ideas/options come from is less than clear in OODA as the diagram indicates moving directly from fact-finding (Observe/Orient) to “Decision” which is in scientific lingo described as a “Hypothesis”.?

The combination of these two significant omissions Challenge Framing and Solution Ideation adds to the significant undermining and missing advocacy of divergent thinking. It is rather like no one was there to speak up on behalf of this group and this important activity which is being overpowered by focusing on convergence. None of that aligns with inclusive foundation innovation language.?

Score:?Framing & Solution Ideation: Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 1 out of 10

6.????Visualization SenseMaking / Huh?

Although an enlightened Red Team would know that divergence and convergence would be occurring in each of the four OODA phases the visual process design itself does nothing to make that clear. In engineering style there is an arbitrary bare-bones oval, a triangle, a square and a circle with other ovals inside but these shapes have no real meaning in relation to divergence or convergence. In OODA the opportunity is missed to convey that both are present.

Score:?Visual SenseMaking: Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 1 out of 10.

7.???Psychological Safety / Missing in Action

As pointed out in the Deeper Creativity post once we get the ducks lined up regarding awareness of foundational language it becomes clear that the now popular notion of creating “psychological safety” and “cognitive inclusion” cannot be fulfilled in contexts where convergent thinking or divergent thinking is being privileged and considered the highest form of value.?

Teams cannot get to “psychological safety” simply by encouraging managers to be accessible and approachable, use direct language, display fallibility or invite participation any more that it can be reached by stating “This is a safe environment”. Today effective Innovation Enabling Leaders have to have much more skill and knowledge in the direction of how “psychological safety” connects to process and what constitutes “psychological safety” in the context of cognitive diversity and innovation.?In its present form placing OODA Loop in the role of foundational language is a formula for forfeiture of “psychological safety” and “cognitive inclusion.”

Score:?Psychological Safety: Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 1 out of 10

8.???Where New “Repertoires” Come From / Huh?

Perhaps the most complex and convoluted articulation in?Destruction and Creation?is around the notion of conceptualization. I think it is fair to say that what John Boyd seemed to have in mind, in his 1976 essay?outlined?under the header of “Creating Concepts” might best be described as a science influenced engineering view regarding where new paths, new patterns, new concepts come from.?

When I read?Destruction and Creation?I have the feeling readers are being prescribed two trips in that essay. Trip 1 is within walking distance. One block and we are there. That trip called; explaining the importance of decision-making is direct and clear. Trip 2 is a plane ride to New Jersey via Denmark and Australia. That trip called; creativity/conceptualization is anything but direct and clear, sending readers down long side routes that have little to do with where we are going. Trip 2 will tire out even the most seasoned travelers so it’s a bit of a puzzle why such a route is being taken. Readers should not be surprised if they get lost on that route to New Jersey! It’s not a route that we would recommend.

Attempting to explain “creativity” via the lens of deductive/inductive logic Boyd describes deduction as starting with a whole and taking things apart (general to specific) and induction as starting with bits and pieces and assembling a whole (specific to general). He coined the phrase “destructive deduction” for the former and “creative or constructive induction” for the latter.

To “destructive deduction” Boyd attaches analysis and differentiation and to “creative induction” he attaches synthesis and integration.?

Oddly fixated on whether or not the teams observations and their mental constructs match up with reality, the closest Boyd gets to articulating divergent thinking is this rather painful passage:?

John Boyd 1976:?“creativity is related to induction, synthesis and integration since we proceed from unstructured bits and pieces to a new general pattern or concept. We call such action a creative or constructive induction.”…We can forge a new concept by applying the destructive deduction and creative induction mental operations.”

“A new domain or concept can be formed if we can find some common qualities, attributes, or operations among some or many of these constituents swimming around in this sea of anarchy…Linking, particulars together in this manner we can form a new domain or concept— providing, of course, we do not inadvertently use only those "bits and pieces" in the same arrangement that we associated with one of the domains purged from our imagination. Clearly, such a synthesis would indicate we have generated something new and different from what previously existed.?

“Recalling that we use concepts or mental patterns to represent reality, it follows that the unstructuring and restructuring just shown reveals a way of changing our perception of reality. Naturally such a notion implies that the emerging pattern of ideas and interactions must be internally consistent and match up with reality….To check or verify internal consistency we try to see if we can trace our way back to the original constituents that were used in the creative or constructive induction.”

“If we cannot reverse directions, the ideas and interactions do not go together in this way without contradiction. Hence, they are not internally consistent. However, this does not necessarily mean we reject and throw away the entire structure. Instead, we should attempt to identify those ideas (particulars) and interactions that seem to hold together in a coherent pattern of activity as distinguished from those ideas that do not seem to fit in. In performing this task, we check for reversibility as well as check to see which ideas and interactions match up with our observations of those ideas and interactions that pass this test, together with any new ideas (from new destructive deductions) or other promising ideas that popped out of the original destructive deduction, we again attempt to find some common qualities, attributes, or operations to re-create the concept—or create a new concept.”?

“Also, once again, we perform the check for reversibility and match-up with reality. Over and over again, this cycle of Destruction and Creation is repeated until we?demonstrate internal consistency and match-up with reality.”

Without making this post into a 10,000 word PhD thesis, suffice it to say that outside of OODA nobody that I know considers synthesis/integration, putting things back together to be equivalent to conceptualization. Certainly no person educated in a design academy would agree with such a limited and convoluted depiction. Conceptualization typically involves heavy divergence. It is perhaps the most divergent of all innovation phases and here in OODA it is barely recognizable.

A savvy Red Team would also point out that although “Creating Concepts” is painfully described at great length in his essay, oddly it does not appear in the actual OODA process which adds to the layers of confusion.?

Overlaying pattern creating intention on top of science validation logic tends to get rather convoluted and Boyd’s?Destruction and Creation?essay?is a good example of that awkward, force-fit, juxta positioning. In that essay Boyd is intermixing procedural notions from science with ambitions towards creativity, conceptualization and changemaking. The result is considerably less than crystal clear.

Frankly speaking, in the wild-west of the marketplace, it’s not unusual to see process models being designed and described by convergent, engineering oriented creators that compress, reshape and in some cases decapitate conceptualization. Combined with a rush towards action this decapitation often results in conceptualization being thrown overboard or compressed to the point of being unrecognizable. (This is a bigger marketplace issue that exists beyond OODA. Topic for another day.)

The odd truncation of conceptualization within OODA contributes to the foreshortening and lack of clear advocacy for divergent thinking.?

Score:?Where New “Repertoires” Come From: Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 2 out of 10

9.???Challenging Operational Environment

Of course Boyd’s process development work on OODA took place in the context of a military organizational setting that he knew already was privileging decision making as the highest form of value as a deeply rooted tradition of that culture. Rather than challenging that cognitive bias, his OODA tool reinforces that privileging as natural in that context as breathing.

Score:?Challenging Operational Environment: Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 0 out of 10

10.????????Beyond Preference Projection

Humantific’s Preference Projection Theory which was tabled in our first book, Innovation Methods Mapping speculates that most process models are literal projections of the creator(s) own cognitive/thinking style preferences which are in turn often heavily influenced by the preferences most valued in their operational environment. Acknowledging that we have no precise way of knowing Boyd’s cognitive/thinking preferences, the OODA artifacts certainly give us a few clues. Considering the stated adaptability objectives and the choices that Boyd made I think it is pretty clear what we are looking at in OODA. It's a procedural picture of Boyd’s own thinking style preferences delivered with considerable skill into an aligned operational context that holds the same values.?

To move process design beyond that kind of picture takes not only considerable skill, courage and a meta approach to advocacy and process design but also a different set of goals that are broader than making a deciding tool.?

Such meta orientation, meta advocacy is not seen in the OODA Loop. I do not see any evidence in the Boyd literature that his intention was to create an approach to foundation innovation language but rather to remain focused on what Boyd considered to be accelerated decision-making.

It seems to be in the later OODA adaptation efforts, by adventuresome others, that we see this broader goal emerging. From the Humantific perspective, without significant redesign of OODA, with a robust Divergent Red Team involved, that goal cannot be realistically achieved in its current state.

Score:?Beyond Preference Projection: Inclusive Foundation Language Score: OODA Loop 1 out of 10

Hypothetical Comparison

For those who might be interested, a hypothetical comparison to CPS as Inclusive Foundational Innovation Language is as follows:

Purpose Response Defined: CPS Score: 9 out of 10

Happy Campers?: CPS Score: 9 out of 10

Cognitive Balance Advocacy:?CPS Score: 9 out of 10

Phase Signals:?CPS Score: 9 out of 10

Framing & Solution Ideation:?CPS Score: 9 out of 10

Visual SenseMaking: CPS Score: 5 out of 10

Psychological Safety:?CPS Score: 9 out of 10

Where New “Repertoires” Come From:?CPS Score: 9 out of 10

Challenging Operational Environment:?CPS Score: 9 out of 10

Beyond Preference Projection:?CPS Score: 9 out of 10

CLOSING

If we return now to the sentence referred to at the beginning of this post, seen in the military article, and commented on in my Deeper Creativity post we can better appreciate the ironic juxta positioning of the two military perspectives….1976 versus 2020.

“Perhaps most crucial to the creative mindset is the ability to engage in divergent thinking.”

As methodology OODA Loop is about as far away from that realization as you could possibly get. On a continuum OODA is focused in the opposite direction.

To be fair to John Boyd it is worth mentioning that OODA had/has several good things going for it. It's a relatively early example of advocacy for what we now call sensemaking to be continuous for organizations as well as early advocacy for acceleration and repetitious/iterative testing. These attributes can be found in other process models today. The difference would be today it is not just about speed of deciding but rather speed of fact-finding, sensemaking, and the entire changemaking cycle.

At the end of the day, TODAY, a robust Red Team might point out that the 1976 notion suggesting that “the decision cycle is the central mechanism of adaptation” would itself be considered a red flag in that it sounds like something, not so unusual, coming from a determined convergent thinker and does not reflect what is known about the innovation cycle and adaptation today.?

To their considerable credit, it has been known in the CPS community since the 1950s that mastering and improving the process of narrowing (judging/deciding) is not in itself going to make an organization more innovative, more adaptive. Adaptation requires significant capacity to continuously make sense of external factors while continuously generating new patterns. Convergent thinking remains one part of that equation and not the central mechanism.?

Today we already know that attaching OODA to other tools and frameworks also focused on convergent thinking (decision-making) not only does not add to the missing representation and presence of divergent thinking, but such combos do not begin to make a dent in the cultural bias of convergent oriented organizations.

Anything packaged up as decision-making will feel as comfy as an extra pair of slippers for those accustomed to that cultural orientation. That judging might, very likely, be the sharpest tool in your present toolbox. Of course feeling all comfy in slippers is the opposite of what your organization probably needs to be doing in the era of constant change and adaptation.?

We would agree with John Boyd that proactive adaptation is key in this continuous change VUCA era but today there are very different, and more cognitively inclusive ways to get there.?

In closing I will add that as Inclusive Innovation Enablers it is necessary to clearly understand from the get-go that this Inclusive Foundation Innovation Language criteria might fly in the face of what your organization has been, often without articulating it, or being aware of it, privileging in plain sight for decades, without really understanding the implications in the shifting context of today’s high complexity and continuous change era. If your intention is to take on that sensemaking, orchestrating leadership job, get ready for a challenging and a bumpy adventure!

Big thanks to John Boyd for his significant contribution to the subjects of adaptation and changemaking.

Let’s kick-it-up and good luck to all.

Notes:?

* Let’s note that apparently Boyd never actually drew a visualization of the OODA model. It was created afterwards, circa 1996, extrapolated from his notes. (I will let some adventuresome graduate student go dig up that complete history.):

* A review of the timeline referenced in my Deeper Creativity post suggests that CPS was already inside the US military ten or so years before Boyd wrote?Destruction and Creation?in 1976.

* In this post focused on Foundational Language I am not here to comment on the OODA logic of assuming a binary competitor/enemy also using OODA to navigate complexity and adapt to change. Topic for another day.?

* As a Sensemaker I could not help but notice that the muddle that exists around OODA is a result of a confusion storm with at least these 5 dimensions: 1. The 1976 essay is loaded with complex theory, most of which is tangential to the process itself, 2. Numerous aspects of the essay do not actually appear in the process, 3. Confusing visualization of the process itself, 4. Absence of several phases known to exist within the process, 5. A predisposition of the OODA author towards advocacy of science and convergent thinking while talking up creativity. Combined that is quite a dense storm that would turn away many readers. A bit of a black box it’s possible that not everyone wants OODA clearly explained.?

* The decapitation of conceptualization described in this post is not something that remains historical but rather can be seen in the marketplace today in several popular engineering driven approaches including “Agile.” Suffice it to say that in its current form Agile is not cognitively inclusive and would score very similarly to OODA in terms of consideration for foundational innovation language. This seems to be recognized in some of the recent suggestions by others calling for a redesign of “Agile.”

See: HUMANTIFIC: Agile Admissions:?Stephen Denning Reveals Agile’s “Dark Secret”