From Fighter Pilots to General Counsel: Using The OODA LOOP

I had the good fortune to attend a session at Alternative Events’ Tech Summit where Andrew Cooke, General Counsel at TravelPerk, was speaking. While the content of all the sessions at the Summit was excellent, Andrew surprised me by referencing John Boyd’s OODA loop. This isn’t something you hear most lawyers reference so easily and appropriately.

Part of our mission here is to help corporate legal work suck less by building the best evidence-based operating practices into our software, and OODA is a framework that has been successfully used for many years and that we support in mot-r.

The OODA Loop (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) is a decision-making process developed by military strategist Colonel John Boyd (a former fighter pilot). It's designed to be used in high-stakes, rapidly changing environments.

Here's a breakdown of each phase:

1. Observe: Gather data from the environment.
2. Orient: Analyze the data and understand the situation. This step includes cultural, genetic, and previous experience factors.
3. Decide: Choose a course of action based on the analysis.
4. Act: Implement the chosen action.

OODA is a great tool when you know you don’t know the right answer but still have to take action. It is meant to be used iteratively to continuously take in new information and quickly adapt your actions to a changing environment.

Does this apply to corporate legal? Yes. Even if the pace of decision making might be slightly slower than making decisions in an aerial dog fight, this loop applies.

You could argue in a team setting that Act could be labelled Orchestrate, making it an OODO loop, because OODA was developed for a highly skilled individual make personal decisions rather than engaging a team to make the best decisions. But that’s a discussion for another day.

Let’s consider a topical example. What if the GC is asked by the company to review the legal implications of using ChatGPT throughout the organization?

What an initial OODA loop might look like:

1. Observe:
   • Gather data on current processes and tasks that could benefit from ChatGPT, including customer service response times, internal communication bottlenecks, and legal research efficiency.
   • Research the capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT in these areas.
   • Monitor legal trends and regulations related to AI use in business operations.
2. Orient:
   • Analyze potential legal risks, such as data privacy issues, liability for incorrect advice, and compliance with relevant regulations.
   • Evaluate ethical considerations, including fairness, transparency, and avoiding biases.
   • Assess the impact on current workflows, employee roles, and customer interactions.
3. Decide:
   • Decide to pilot ChatGPT in customer service and legal research to evaluate its effectiveness and compliance with legal and ethical standards.
4. Act:
   • Implement the pilot program, providing necessary training to customer service representatives and legal staff, and establishing legal safeguards.
   • Monitor ChatGPT’s performance, ensuring compliance with legal standards and collecting feedback.
   • Based on pilot results, decide whether to expand ChatGPT’s use across other departments, refine its application, or discontinue its use.

By applying the OODA Loop with a focus on legal considerations, the General Counsel can make a better-informed, compliant, and ethical decisions on integrating ChatGPT organization-wide, ensuring the legal implications are addressed.

Of course, since new versions of ChatGPT (let alone all the other alternatives) are being released quickly, you’ll want to make another loop each time there are significant new capabilities which present new opportunities and risks.

Should you be using OODA for all your decision-making? Absolutely not. OODA is a tool that can be effectively applied in the right situations. But it’s not right for every decision-making situation.

Where can OODA fail to be an effective tool? In the following circumstances:

1. Overwhelming Complexity

• When dealing with extremely complex systems with a multitude of variables and unpredictable interactions, the simplicity of the OODA Loop might not capture the intricacies required for effective decision-making.

2. Incomplete or Inaccurate Observations

• If the initial observation phase is compromised by incomplete, biased, or inaccurate data, the entire loop can be undermined.

3. Cognitive Biases

• Decision-makers are susceptible to cognitive biases that can distort their orientation phase, leading to poor decisions.

4. Organizational Inertia

• In organizations with rigid structures and resistance to change, the agility required by the OODA Loop may be stifled by bureaucratic processes.

5. Lack of Expertise

• When decision-makers lack the necessary expertise to properly orient themselves based on the observations, the decisions and actions may be ineffective.

6. High-Stakes, One-Time Decisions

• In situations where decisions are high-stakes and cannot afford the iterative nature of the OODA Loop, a more thorough, deliberative process might be necessary.

7. Lack of Feedback Mechanisms

• If there are inadequate mechanisms to provide feedback on the actions taken, the ability to iterate effectively through the OODA Loop is compromised.

8. Overemphasis on Speed Over Quality

• In scenarios where the emphasis on rapid decision-making leads to a compromise in the thoroughness and quality of decisions, the OODA Loop can be counterproductive.

9. Cultural Misalignment

• In organizations or environments where the cultural norms and values do not support the rapid decision-making and adaptability inherent in the OODA Loop.

By understanding both the benefits and the limitations, legal decision-makers can better assess when the OODA Loop is appropriate, and when other decision-making frameworks might be more effective.