|
|
|
06/19/2012 02:12 PM
|
|
|
Everyone is aware of a company's tactical need to satisfy its customers. Customers have needs, wants, desires, demands, requirements and expectations. Lean tools and techniques are often used as a suggested approach to providing this customer satisfaction. Companies however, have additional higher level strategic needs which include growth, an/or survival, and the achievement of company financial goals. The Shewart Cycle of Plan Do Check Act is often used at the tactical level for providing customer satisfaction but a different approach is often suggested for developing company strategic decisions. These decisions often include the need to develop and maintain sustainable competitive advantages.
The use of the OODA loop has been suggested. The OODA loop (for OBSERVE, ORIENT, DECIDE, and ACT) was developed by USAF Colonel John Boyd to describe a pilot's combat operational process. Pilots flying in combat situations were taught to OBSERVE what was happening around them, ORIENT themselves to the surrounding, especially to enemy aircraft, DECIDE what they need to do to gain a combat advantage, and then ACT on it. The process is continuous, OODA, OODA, OODA... since situations can and do change rapidly.
OODA has since been adapted for business and public sector operational continuity planning where, customer needs, wants, desires, demands, requirements and expectations, and also market, and competitive situations can and do change unexpectedly and frequently. In this situation companies must collect market information (OBSERVE), form hypothesis about their customer activities and the intentions of competitors (ORIENT), decide what to do to improve the situation (DECIDE), and then act on it (ACT). Unlike Plan Do Check Act, OODA performs a much higher level of market and competitive analysis before making strategic decisions. This aggressive application of the process repeatedly provides a business advantage over those competitors who are merely reacting to conditions as they appear, or have not being developing an awareness of changing situations.
To be successful in the use of the OODA loop however companies must be agile. This means changes must take place rapidly and frequently as market and competitive changes occur.
The question I have at this point is this. How compatible is the application of Lean tools and techniques for the purpose of providing continuous improvement when the use of OODA loops would suggest that product changes might occur more frequently than Lean's continuous improvements can keep up with.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
06/20/2012 04:09 PM
|
|
|
I see no difference between what you describe as "OODA" and what I think of as the PDCA loop of strategy deployment.
I have often heard the PDCA loop described in application at Toyota as Plan, Plan, Plan, Do, Check, Act. Your described Observation and Orientation is directly equatable to the steps of a strategic A3 (which is a visual representation of the PDCA cycle). First step of an A3 is to assess the business need. Second step is to understand your current condition. Then develop a target condition. All of these steps are part of the Plan section of PDCA.
You could say that you are doing a CAPD cycle in which you Check the status of the business, Adjust the hypothesis, develop a Plan, and then Do it. It doesn't matter where you start a cycle as long it turns in a circle...
About this quote:
Unlike Plan Do Check Act, OODA performs a much higher level of market and competitive analysis before making strategic decisions.
PDCA or OODA do not "perform" anything. People applying these systems perform high or low level market and competitive analysis. Someone effectively using PDCA will do whatever it takes to develop a good plan. The same will undoubtedly go for OODA. The difference you ascribe between Observation/Orientation and Planning is your perception of the two. I have seen plenty of strategic Planning that includes all of the market information you describe and attribute to OODA. In fact, it doesn't have anything to do with PDCA or OODA. It has everything to do with the people performing the loop. Experienced teams working on rapid and continuous PDCA loops are going to do a much better market analysis than inexperienced teams working in slow OODA loops. The inverse is undoubtedly true as well. The importance is in the effectiveness and energy of the team executing the system, not the improvement system itself.
How compatible is the application of Lean tools and techniques for the purpose of providing continuous improvement when the use of OODA loops would suggest that product changes might occur more frequently than Lean's continuous improvements can keep up with.
OODA or PDCA. Doesn't matter. People solve problems and people react to change. In practice, the acronym is irrelevant. When I am developing the strategy A3, I don't ever bring up the fact that we are going through a PDCA loop. I could just as easily describe it as an OODA loop. It doesn't matter. As long as the loop is a loop and it comes back on itself in order to evaluate it's own effectiveness, then it wil get better. The best PDCA and the best OODA will undoubtedly have the same common characteristic: the faster and more frequent, the loop, the better.
|
|
|
|
|
06/21/2012 10:27 AM
|
|
|
Kris, think of a fighter pilot flying in an area involving enemy aircraft. He has to first be totally aware of what's happening in his air space. He has to look up, down, right, left, front and back continuously to determine if there are any enemy aircraft in the area. He has to look out a short distance for fast approaching enemy aircraft and way out for enemy aircraft approaching in the distance. He has to be aware of how many are approaching as well as weather conditions such as clouds that he can hide in if he has to. He has to understand the type of aircraft the enemy is flying since that tells him what that plane's maneuverability capability is in terms of speed, turning radius distance, and most importantly how fast it can respond to flight controls, such as for yawing, pitching, rolling and turning., since being a second or two slower in any of these than his own aircraft's capability can give him an advantage. He also determines the armament it carries and what advantage it might have over the armament he carries. In other words he is constantly observing the situation since he will next have to orient himself relative to sky, ground, clouds, and the enemy aircraft, before he can decide what to do. It's much easier to know what to do when you have all the critical information about the enemy aircraft and the battlefield conditions.
While he is doing all this observing, he is also orienting himself to the situation he is in to determine what he and his aircraft's advantages and disadvantages are which will then tell him what he should then do, fight or flee. Using the OODA loop approach, which he has been trained to do, he will run through many-many OBSERVE and ORIENT cycles before he DECIDES what to do. Even then he may run through a number of OBSERVE, ORIENT, and DECIDE cycles before he finally decides he is ready to ACT. After ACTING, the total cycle repeats itself since conditions change rapidly. In one way, it's no different from a basketball player that has to constantly OOD and A while playing the game, which also rapidly changes.
As my last entry stated, OODA has found application in some business areas relative to thoroughly knowing your customers and your enemy's (competition's) capabilities before you act, and also to recognize that OODA is a rapid and continuous process due to constant customer and competitor changes. It also emphasizes the need to be able to respond rapidly before changes can occur. For some businesses, I suspect it's safe to say that OODA can be looked at as the same as PDCA as long as you understand what the true benefits of OODA are and what it was designed to do for fighter pilots, but don't tell a fighter pilot that.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 10:25 AM
|
|
|
I have to agree with Kris. I see no significant difference between OODA and PDCA.
Both are simply rephrasing of the scientific method, the endless loop of hypothesis, experiment and analysis. Yes, each has been tailored a bit to the enterprise in which each was coined. But they are essentially the same.
If using one over the other makes it easier for you, go with it. Whatever works for you. However you organize it, the important thing is to think and act rationally, based on real world data and clear logic.
Originally posted by: 22767
.... The Shewart Cycle of Plan Do Check Act is often used at the tactical level for providing customer satisfaction but a different approach is often suggested for developing company strategic decisions....
Par for the course, the business world has long been preoccupied with searching for the next big thing rather than using what's right in front of them.
I have to hand it to the military, though. They didn't cripple themselves with such narrow-mindedness as business. They saw the fundamental usefulness of their OODA paradigm and expanded on it from where it was created, the most essential form of one-on-one combat (ACM, the proverbial knife fight in a telephone booth), to the larger strategic doctrine of maneuver warfare.
That gives me great idea. Since business is always looking for a new flavor of the month to throw money at, we can start the next craze and make a bundle.
Businesses love these sorts of military references. A bunch of years back it was Musashi's The Book of Five Rings. A few years later, Sun Tzu's The Art of War was all the rage.
All we have to do is write a management book based on OODA loops and the Dicta Boelcke and hire ourselves out as motivational speakers. We'll make a killing.
pc2
|
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 03:20 PM
|
|
|
If you look at an Air Force Insitute of Technology report that studied the historical applications of Boyd's OODA Loops, you'll find the folowing statement:
Summary of OODA Loop Idea Evolution.
Emergent OODA Loop idea themes have appeared frequently in the literature of
the last decade. Most emergent themes are of a technical nature. Within these technical
applications, it appears as if the OODA Loop is being used more, and independently, as
an "information processing model" rather than as a method to achieve "competitive
advantage".
Note that this Air Force report addresses technical applications of the OODA Loop. The business community however has extended the use of this "Information processing model" to help companies attain sustainable competitive advantages. The connection between the information processing model and competition is quite clear, the more information companies have on market conditions and competitors, the better they will be able to develop sustainable competitive advantages.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 03:20 PM
|
|
|
Sam,
Obviously OODA is something that resonates with you and is something you are energized about. :) I'm enthused about it just reading your analogies. Go out and use it and I guarantee you it will work for you if you are in a position of leverage. OODA meets a lot criteria for a culture driving system: it's simple, easy to remember, and it has a good story. It also lines up well with scientific thinking/methodology.
With your success and understanding of OODA you want to claim that OODA is better than PDCA. That's fine and it's kind of natural. When you have success with something you will be proud of it. Great. We can have a wonderful debate about how using the acronym OODA is a better engagement tool than the acronym PDCA. But taking the next step and asking a question about the compatibility of Lean tools to providing CI:
The question I have at this point is this. How compatible is the application of Lean tools and techniques for the purpose of providing continuous improvement when the use of OODA loops would suggest that product changes might occur more frequently than Lean's continuous improvements can keep up with.
That's sophistry. Because OODA is good, does not mean PDCA is bad. Neither does it mean that lean is incapable in some way. The use of OODA loops does not suggest anything about Lean's ability to "keep up". It has nothing to do with lean so it can't suggest anything about lean.
Also, don't ever forget that a fundamental facet of lean is the continuous improvement of your continuous improvement systems. So a company on a lean journey might have a loop that looks something like this:
Plan - I plan to use and teach PDCA as the fundamental problem solving system for strategy deployment.
Do - Execute the development of a Plan for strategy, Do the strategy, Check the success of that srategy, and Adjust.
Check - Observation has shown that PDCA does not effectively engage the company in aligning to a strategy.
Adjust - Change the strategy deployment methodology to OODA in order to better engage the company in aligning strategy
Observe - the ability of the company to align it's culture to a strategy
Orient - develop a hypothesis on the right way to deploy strategy
Decide -...
Act -...
And all of the sudden, OODA is lean. If it's a valid solution to a valid problem, it will be part of Lean in time. Lean is an ever evolving subject matter that is continuously improving. Because of this principle, arguing against lean is kind of like arguing against logic or arguing against science. You can argue that someone's logic is wrong, but you can't argue that logic itself is wrong without being illogical.
I remember someone posting something similar to this about 5 years ago. Instead of laying out all of the greatness of OODA they were laying out all of the great ideals of Job Instruction. They asked a similar question about the abilities of lean to be effective without JI. At the time, JI was relatively unknown and was just being dredged up from WWII documents. Now JI is almost universally a core tool in most lean companies toolboxes.
|
|
|
|
|
06/25/2012 12:38 PM
|
|
|
Chris I didn't really attempt to compare OODA with PDCA. in detail. It just seemed to me that PDCA was typically applied after a company figured out what it needed to do. I also didn't see PDCA as a tool for constantly enalyzing the environment for potential problems throughout the year. Maybe a better tool for that is the SWOT (Strength, Weakenesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis that companies use during their yearly company business plan preparation period. SWOT typically sets up improvement objectives once a year whereas OODA is constantly evaluaing its business environment for potential changes and determining what must be done to accomodate them, some changes to be considered mandatory and others to be considered important to implement if time and money are avalable. It usually is a matter of priorities.
OODA also forces companies to be very agile in order to counter any threat they find or take advantage of any opportunities that comes along as fast as possible. An OODA company is usually a leader in its field also because of the quick way it's able to not only keep up with changes in the business world, but also being able to anticipate changes and be ready to respond to them before competitors do.
Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 04:33 PM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: 22767
...OODA also forces companies to be very agile in order to counter any threat they find or take advantage of any opportunities that comes along as fast as possible. ...
I have to disagree with you (very strongly) on that.
OODA is a tool. Tools don't force anybody to be anything any more than a violin forces someone to be a musician.
If a company thinks quickly and seizes opportunities effectively it's because the people in the company behave that way.
They may use OODA, just as a sculptor uses a chisel. But it's their skill, dedication, creativity and resourcefulness that determine the outcome, not the tool.
pc2
|
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 05:23 PM
|
|
|
Mr. P, let me rephrase that statement to say this:
For companies to benefit from the use of OODA loops in developing sustaining competitive advantages, they should be able to respond to the threats or the opportunities they find before the threats harm them or before it becomes too late to take advantage of the opportunities because competition got there first.. In that regard, use of OODA loops forces companies to be agile, otherwise the effort is totally wasted.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
07/13/2012 03:07 PM
|
|
|
1. Compare a combat mission to manufacturing.
It would seem the combat mission would incorporate PDCA in that they have a Plan for such things as - where to go, what to bomb, when to bomb, type of planes, type of bomb, when to bomb, what to do in case of enemy fire, etc. They don't just take off in a jet over enemy territory on a casual flight without a plan and decide what looks good to bomb that day based off their observations, do they?
Once they begin executing their Plan, they would seem to make observations like, is there any potential enemy fire? or potential civilian casualties? These Decisions and Actions would then equate to the "C & A" in PDCA.
2. Comparing manufacturing to the combat mission.
The combat mission is a very dynamic situation requiring a lot of decisions to be made as you go along. Therefore the manufacturing environment most similar would be a make-to-order non-repetitive situation.
Hopefully it's safe to say that this presents some challenges for PDCA since there is a limited learning curve to work from, but manufacturing can create limited plans to guide them through the processing rather than throw it out on the floor and say, "go at it, observe, and make decisions as you see fit."
At the same time, it seems you could say ask them to implement "OODA", but at that point it seems that you could apply the principles of PDCA under the guise of OODA.
Even if you were to go over to Safety and Environmental, companies still attempt to Plan what to do in case an unplanned situation occurs, such as an explosion, leak, fire, accident, etc. But since it is difficult to Plan every detail, I would agree with you that an OODA loop could be used if that's what you want to call it.
3. Comparing higher level strategic decision, I'm a little puzzled as to why you feel that:
Originally posted by: 22767
Unlike Plan Do Check Act, OODA performs a much higher level of market and competitive analysis before making strategic decisions. This aggressive application of the process repeatedly provides a business advantage over those competitors who are merely reacting to conditions as they appear, or have not being developing an awareness of changing situations.
Why do you feel that organizations and people who apply PDCA are only reactive and not proactive even though they focus time on planning up front and then Studying the situation to see how things have changed.
You also seem to indicate that those who practice PDCA they are not aware of changing conditions? Isn't PDCA a core part of the Theory of Knowledge? (If I'm correct Deming called it PDSA with the S standing for Study) I'm assuming you're not saying, "Without a Plan, I can have a greater awareness of changing conditions".
I've been involved with higher level decisions and we feel that having a Plan is key before introducing a new product or implementing new technology. Part of this Planning process would involve Observations, but it would also include what might be considered other methods of gathering information to base this decision.
Once we have the Plan, we then begin implementing and use our Plan to guide our implementation to see if we are on track more see what modifications can be made. For example, sales communicates to us that our competition has a new design to their product which is causing our sales to fall below projections. We can then evaluate do we want to keep our product the same, or do we need to upgrade? Again, you might consider this OODA and someone else might consider it PDCA. I'll let you two argue who's correct.
I once heard that 50% of the cost of "unquality" is the result of poor planning, which I've seen happen numerous times. While it could be argued that PDCA and OODA are similar, my preference would probably be to talk in terms of PDCA because it highlights the emphasis that needs to be placed on Planning. But if someone else would rather talk in terms of OODA and they feel they can achieve superior results, that's fine with me.
Obviously since I'm not versed in OODA I'm not in a position to give a proper comparison of the two. I tried Googling a comparison of the two, but didn't come up with much. Since Colonel Boyd has passed away and not available to ask, it might be interesting to ask an OODA "expert" who is also versed in PDCA to give their interpretation of the differences and benefits of OODA vs PDCA.
Hope all's going well - Thanks for the insight on OODA. - Brian
|
|
|
|
|
08/24/2012 02:05 PM
|
|
|
Hi Sam
I think you struck onto to something rather unique your OODA is a much better way of looking at an enviroment that you have no direct control over just like polits in combat situations. Yes there was an overall plan created before their mission started yet during the mission if they hope to succeed and survive they have to be constantly ready to adjust and change the actual plan according to what they encounter during the mission.
I think you are also correct in that in business at the upper levels and in certain areas such as marketing you have to be in a different mindset than on the production floor. Business executives and marketers need to be constantly watching the marketplace and the economy (observing), understanding its current state (orienting), determining opportunities and weaknesses they face (deciding), and then implementing needed changes to their plan (acting). These upper level business systems can never go back to a previous state it will never exist again, thus they need to be spending a far greater percent of their time looking at how external factors are affecting them. This is unfortunately a rather rae case in business today, as most upper level executives seem to prefer trying to micro-manage day to day operations under them instead of observing the bigger picture.
PDCA mindset works better in a more controled environment like a production floor, or a service center of any type, where adjustments can be tested to see if they actually work better or not, and you repeat them as required.
Sam I have one question for you is there some place i coiuld get more information on OODA? If there is could you send me an email rdrescher@elseinc.com
Thanks
Robert Drescher
ELSE Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
08/30/2012 01:07 PM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Robert_ELSE_Inc
.... PDCA mindset works better in a more controled environment like a production floor, or a service center of any type, where adjustments can be tested to see if they actually work better or not, and you repeat them as required....
I completely disagree.
But it is a common misconception, probably because most people's introduction to PDCA is in the repetitive manufacturing environment and they tend to see it in the paradigm with which they are most familiar.
The reality is that it's a rewording of the scientific method, which was born of research and discovery, not repetition. Of course you can apply what you learn in research repetitively. But discovery is reborn with each cycle.
Originally posted by: Robert_ELSE_Inc
.... is there some place i coiuld get more information on OODA? ....
Wikipedia's entry on OODA is a reasonable start.
The diagram in that Wiki is taken from Boyd's presentation The Essence of Winning and Losing.
While it doesn't define OODA and assumes that you're already familiar with the basic concept, Boyd's briefing, Patterns of Conflict, describes how he viewed utilizing the idea.
These and other Boyd presentations can be found at: Defense and the National Interest
You can read up on Boyd in the books:
The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security, by Grant T. Hammond (Smithsonian Books)
Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, by Robert Coram (Back Bay Books)
I find a lot of overlap between lean and Boyd's ideas. I guess that's not surprising since both focus on finding the most efficient and effective ways for people to get the job done.
"People, Ideas, Things.
In that order!"
- John R. Boyd
pc2
|
|
|
|
|
08/31/2012 11:28 AM
|
|
|
PDCA Problem solving works in most any environment where there is a standard or expectation and there is a variance to the standard. Using the A3 for problem solving and the normal data collection and analysis tools it can be applied easily. The 7 Tools of quality are appropriate when lots of data are available or can be collected.
The hardest part of problem solving usually is writing a good problem statement. The root cause of many problems can be solved with he 5Whys (no the 5 Woos) and questioning like when did the problem occur and not occur, etc.
Ron Turkett
|
|
|
|
|
09/07/2012 12:14 PM
|
|
|
I would disagree with you about your statement.
.Originally posted by: pc2
The reality is that it's a rewording of the scientific method, which was born of research and discovery, not repetition. Of course you can apply what you learn in research repetitively. But discovery is reborn with each cycle.
pc2
First of all I was not exposed to PDCA in manufacturing first, my first exposure to it was from research staff doing explorative research work. In fact in my life I have been consulted on hundreds of research projects and have been exposed to even more reports on research. But almost all these projects began from a point of knowledge and were conducted based on past knowledge with the goal to achieve a breakthrough that was understood at the time. It is rare in the science community to start without an assumption and just run experiments blindly. In science controlling the enviroment is fundamental to their being able to achieve a result that can be reproduced. In fact it would be highly dangerous in many fields to just blindly run experiments (you could get yourself killed that way).
The few research endeavors that began without an assumption were the result of something unexpected happening in the environment (people started dying for no know explanation) that required researchers to first determine what happened and than to find a solution. It those cases work started not by proposing an assumption and hypothesis to prove or disprove, but rather just trying to find what had actually happened. And not one of those researchers liked being in that position it was highly uncomfortable and highly unordinary for them.
Having been in involved with both types of work it is easier to see the small differences between the thought patterns each system evokes from those working with them. Internal systems in an organization have control over many things they do and PDCA is just that more controlled thought based on what you know and where you want to get. OODA on the otherhand is about knowing yourself or organization, seeing what the state of the environment around you is, and than making a decision as to which option is best and taking action on it now before the enivronment changes again which it will. OODA promotes constant attention to the changes you have no control over and taking proper action to survive those changes and possibly grow from them.
Though business planning is a wonderful thing to do the plan it develops is worthless as soon as it is complete, something you did not know about, always happens shortly after so you better be ready to make changes something too many businesses fail to do today. Just watch how most businesses react to problems that occur with products they sold.
Robert Drescher
ELSE Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
09/07/2012 12:27 PM
|
|
|
There is one other thing I would like to point out.
Anyone that has been around a great deal of research work knows just how repetitive it really is. Often hundreds of attempts take place until you get a success, you create a hypothesis, you run an expweriment to test it most times it fails, you go back and try again with a minor change, and when you finally succeed you go back and repeat it several more times just to make sure it wasn't a fluke occurence. In fact often times failed research efforts can actually become major successes, the reality is still that the original science experiement failed.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
09/10/2012 10:51 AM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Robert_ELSE_Inc
.... But almost all these projects began from a point of knowledge and were conducted based on past knowledge with the goal to achieve a breakthrough that was understood at the time. It is rare in the science community to start without an assumption and just run experiments blindly. In science controlling the enviroment is fundamental to their being able to achieve a result that can be reproduced. In fact it would be highly dangerous in many fields to just blindly run experiments (you could get yourself killed that way).....
I never suggested that scientific experiments are run "blindly" or without past knowledge.
Indeed, all great scientific discovery comes "on the shoulders of giants."
I'm saying that each new experiment is intended to bring its own new discovery.
Even replicate experiments are "new," with changes in time, space and other minute variables, with the object of discovering whether those or other, unknown variables affect the outcome.
The only difference between PDCA for research and PDCA for production is that the Act for research is to generate new questions for more learning, while for production the Act is to build a stable repetitive process based on what has been learned.
Originally posted by: Robert_ELSE_Inc
.... OODA on the otherhand is about knowing yourself or organization, seeing what the state of the environment around you is, and than making a decision as to which option is best and taking action on it now before the enivronment changes again which it will. OODA promotes constant attention to the changes you have no control over and taking proper action to survive those changes and possibly grow from them....
A scientific experiment planned without knowledge of one's organization, environment or schedule constraints is no more likely to succeed than a battle plan without them.
They're merely variables to consider, not fundamental conceptual differences. OODA is a case of the scientific method, not something different.
If one perspective works better for you than another, great. Use it.
The Eifel tower looks different from its third level observation deck than it does from the ground. Both views are inspirational in their own ways. It's the same structure in either case.
pc2
|
|
|
|
>
Community >
Forums
Send to a Friend
