Abstract: Strategic decision-making in business is increasingly challenged by volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environments. Military strategy offers frameworks for effective decision-making under maximum pressure. One of the most prominent models is John Boyd’s OODA loop. While widely applied in military and some civilian contexts, its transfer into business strategy remains underdeveloped. This paper shows a business framework of the OODA loop, the OODA Canvas, validated through senior military and consulting experts, ready for use in a management setting.
Problem statement: How can John Boyd’s OODA loop be adapted as a reflective and strategic decision-making tool in modern business environments?
So what?: Interdisciplinary research between the military and business domains creates practical benefits for both scholars and practitioners. For managers and consultants, the OODA Canvas offers a diagnostic tool to assess how effectively an organisation makes, executes, and uses organisational orientation as a source for competitive advantage. By adjusting the seven elements constituting organisational orientation, an organisation becomes more agile and effective.
Introduction
Strategic decision-making in warfare represents one of the most unforgiving high-stakes environments imaginable. Wrong strategies in war can cost lives or threaten national sovereignty. In contrast, business risks can lead to the firm losing money or reputation, negatively impacting stakeholders to varying degrees. As the stakes in war are more significant and more directly felt than in business, it is the perfect place to look for theories and methods of reasoning sensibly under pressure. Military strategists have developed some of the most robust frameworks for making decisions effectively under time pressure and resource constraints. Despite this significant value pool, many frameworks are not translated to other strategic contexts, such as business. One such framework remaining underrepresented in business is John Boyd’s OODA loop, a framework mapping decision-making and the stages involved in it: Observation, Orientation, Decisions, and Actions (OODA). This paper translates the OODA loop to business through a new framework: the OODA Canvas.
Military strategists have developed some of the most robust frameworks for making decisions effectively under time pressure and resource constraints.
A New Strategic Model: The OODA Canvas
The following presents a visual representation of John Boyd’s OODA loop, re-worked for implementation in business by managers and consultants. We built the model on academic research and validated it through interviews with senior military and consulting experts in a case-building approach.[1]
Overview
The model begins with an introductory slide outlining the purpose and intended use of the OODA Canvas. The OODA Canvas serves as an organisational analysis tool that assesses the organisational ability to make fast, informed, and aligned decisions. It focuses on organisational orientation as a capability and identifies misalignments or deficiencies across seven key elements that affect decision speed and accuracy. Organisational Orientation describes the set of structures, cultural norms, leadership, and systems in place that shape how an organisation makes decisions. The tool does not aim at executing a strategy and is not application-specific. It instead offers an assessment of the organisational capability to make decisions quickly, align them, and act effectively with informed decisions.
The Model in Context of Decision-Making
The following slide puts the different phases of OODA into the context of decision-making loops. After observing, the organisation makes a decision and takes an action. However, central to OODA is the orientation phase, for it influences all other phases. It impacts the speed and accuracy of decisions and is therefore the source of competitive advantage.
The Heart of the OODA Canvas: The Main Framework
The third slide is the heart of the OODA framework – the OODA Canvas. The final version includes seven key elements that constitute Organisational Orientation. Strategic Direction, Entrepreneurial Leadership, and Culture represent the highest level of an organisation – its purpose, its vision, and its mission. Learning Systems, Incentive Systems, and Structures & Processes cover the firm’s operative elements. Finally, Cognitive Diversity is the innovation and decision-accuracy factor. It covers the who, the teams making the decisions and delivering the strategic advantage. It is at the centre of the orientation phase because all elements influence it, and building the teams’ capabilities, making and executing decisions are crucial.
Information flows through the framework from left to right, in line with the decision-making loops shown before. Observation brings in information, but Organisational Orientation shapes how that information is filtered and used within the OODA loop. Observations can be inwardly focused or outwardly focused, covering each source from a high-level perspective. The Decisions and Actions phases collectively analyse how quickly decisions are reached, how clearly decisions are communicated, and how well and aligned the decisions are executed. Crucial elements include hierarchy, information flowing up and down the chain of command, the inclusion of relevant teams and employees in the process, and the reliable execution of decisions.
Interpretation – The Positioning Matrix
Finally, the last slide is the OODA Positioning Matrix, which reveals where a firm or its teams and departments are placed in the context of agility types. If decisions are made hierarchically and information flows rigidly through structures, but goals and alignment are still made clear, we classify the firm as a “Traditionalist” – great at taking advantage of opportunities, but low on innovation. Suppose a firm is highly explorative with innovative ideas, R&D, and high energy, but lacks organisational cohesion and direction. In that case, we classify it as “Overactive” – a pattern that might seem familiar in early-stage start-ups. If an organisation is highly innovative with strong R&D while being able to capitalise on opportunities collectively, if decision-making is fast but aligned, and if the organisation is agile, then it is classified as “The Ambidextrous” with the highest orientation score. This quadrant reflects the ideal of organisational ambidexterity, the ability to simultaneously explore new opportunities and exploit existing capabilities. Fast, informed, and aligned decision-making enables this ability.
While no framework is ever perfect, this OODA Canvas clearly has a practical field of application in the assessment of organisational ability to make fast and accurate decisions. It delivers value to the structured evaluation, but analysis and execution depend on the user. The OODA Canvas highlights deficiencies and areas for improvement, and it offers clear suggestions for addressing them. Although high-level, with some understanding of its intent, it delivers both strategic and operational insights that improve agility.
Theoretical Foundations
John Boyd (1927-1997) was a U.S. Air Force (USAF) Colonel and military strategist who arguably ranks among the most important military strategists of the 20th century.[2] During his work as a strategist at the USAF, he performed a multitude of analyses about competition and winning on the battlefield, and created theories on engagement. His most influential contribution is the OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). Although initially intended to describe decision-making in air-to-air combat, it acts more broadly as a means of understanding one’s environment and the process of using information for action feedback.[3] Thereby, it is applicable far beyond aerial combat and even the military sphere.[4], [5]
The OODA loop includes four core activities: observing, orienting, deciding, and acting. On the most fundamental level, it describes how humans make decisions, what factors influence decisions, and how information leads to learning and improved decision-making. The OODA loop arguably offers “a far more nuanced view of learning”[6] than other learning cycles.[7]
Richards, one of the leading interpreters of Boyd’s work, warns against treating the loop as a simple, sequential cycle, as it undermines its effectiveness.[8] He notes that when the OODA concept is mentioned in popular literature or otherwise, it is usually simplified to such an extent that it misses the essential enlightenments that give it value. If it is depicted as a sequential loop (first, observe, then orient, followed by decision and action – just to start again), then gaining a competitive advantage would only depend on the speed at which one moves through the sequence.
However, this representation is deeply flawed and easily refuted. Richards shows that it is sometimes advantageous to take additional time to decide on acting. For example, when the decision does not need to be revisited in the future or when it fundamentally changes the game. A great example in business is how fast followers often outperform market first movers.[9]
Competitive advantage is gained through greater orientation,[10] the key activity in the OODA loop.[11] Orientation implicitly guides actions and acts as the filter shaped by mental models. Competitive advantage arises from greater environmental awareness that enables more effective action. To perform well, especially in uncertain environments, two elements are imperative: variety and rapidity. Variety, especially in thought, and rapidity in reaching decisions in a timely manner.
The behaviour of an individual, a team, and an organisation depends on their orientation, which shapes how to observe, decide, and act. It is a complex, dynamic cognitive process that involves interaction with the environment and is shaped and influenced by various factors, including natural instincts and inherited traits, beliefs and norms, prior experience, and new information gathered from unfolding situations. Other important capabilities influencing orientation are organisational culture and organisational learning, multiplying the effects personal experience has on the organisation.[12]
The OODA loop extends well beyond the military domain into civilian and business contexts. Criminals, for example, outmanoeuvre the police through better OODA loops, using decentralised and more agile decision-making.[13] Start-ups outperform larger corporations constrained by bureaucracy through agility. Tactical decentralisation, adaptability, and organisational learning are all sources of competitive advantage. This advantage lies in processing each stage of the OODA loop effectively within unfolding circumstances using situational awareness and adaptability.[14] Despite this clear value offer, a distinct gap remains in translating OODA into a practical, business-oriented framework.[15]
The OODA loop extends well beyond the military domain into civilian and business contexts.
Learning theories help situate OODA within broader discussions of how individuals and organisations adapt.[16] Kolb’s experiential learning cycle highlights how experience shapes perception and action, and his recognition that predispositions shape observations aligns directly with Boyd’s emphasis on orientation.[17] Schön likewise stresses reflective processes in practice and the tension between learning in research and learning in practice. [18]
However, both models remain essentially linear. [19] Boyd’s OODA loop goes further by embedding these principles into a continuous, iterative process of decision-making under uncertainty. Boyd offers a strategic framework that combines learning and action, with orientation as the central adaptive capability, enabling agility and responsiveness, especially important in volatile business environments.
Definitions
When aiming to analyse or add to a strategic framework such as the OODA loop, it is important to cover what is meant by strategy, as many definitions exist. This paper ultimately aims to develop an actionable framework based on OODA theory. For that reason, the definition of strategy by Chandler is the most useful: “Strategy can be defined as the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals.”[20] Chandler’s definition of strategy is focused on the implementation aspect of strategy and serves as the basis for its understanding in this paper.
“Strategy can be defined as the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals.”
Agility is also a widely used term in both management theory and practice, yet its meaning varies depending on the context. For this paper, the definition of organisational agility is used, which is defined as an interlinked bundle of dynamic capabilities with capabilities categorised into two groups: micro- and macro-agility. Macro-agility comprises strategic and partnering agility and focuses on the external environment and stakeholders. Micro-agility covers operational, innovation, and workforce agility and sets its focus on creating competitive advantage from internal optimisation of resources. This multi-dimensional view of agility enables a more precise assessment of how OODA can be operationalised and enables the creation of a practical framework.[21]
Navigating A Changing Environment – Barriers and Enablers
The business world is becoming increasingly complex. Globalisation, geopolitical shifts, recessions, pandemics, the changing world order, technological advancements, new frontiers, and demographic shifts in the workforce make it more difficult to operate a business today. Current businesses are facing a broader range of risks, including obsolescence, automation, cybersecurity, trade wars, sustainability pressures, social tensions, and black swan events such as the recent pandemic. Competitive advantage is not derived from exploiting certain abilities or resources but rather from a firm’s ability to adapt and be agile. One of the main elements of this advantage is flexible structures and decentralised decision-making, which is exactly what OODA aims to achieve. To put it in OODA terms, observation and orientation are paramount to responding to the increasing complexity of today’s business environment.[22]
One of the most critical elements to good decision-making is organisational culture. The famous quote attributed to Peter Drucker outlines this with “culture eats strategy for breakfast”. Tallman et al. find that this crucial consideration of strategy is often disregarded in management research.[23] Culture reflects the institutional biases and assumptions in an organisation, thereby feeding directly into the orientation phase of the OODA loop. A further barrier exists between military and business culture, which impacts the transferability of knowledge between the two. Research finds that hierarchy and formal authority structures are more prevalent in the US Department of Defence (DoD) than in tech firms. While both place value on innovation, Silicon Valley has a stronger and more consistent innovation culture. These findings are an insight into the cultural divide between rigid military structures and more adaptive business environments.[24] A comprehensive literature review of strategy implementation obstacles and success factors is offered by Vigfusson et al.[25]
One of the most crucial capabilities of any organisation is to manage both the capitalisation on current capabilities and the preparation for future opportunities – a capability known as organisational ambidexterity. Tushman & O’Reilly[26] describe it as “the ability to simultaneously pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovation and change results from hosting multiple contradictory structures, processes, and cultures within the same firm”.[27] This requires a restructuring of existing processes and structures–through evolutionary and revolutionary change. Multiple changes enable organisational ambidexterity, among which is a “massive decentralisation of decision making, but with consistency attained through individual accountability, information sharing, and strong financial control”.[28] Decentralised decision-making is at the core of this “delicate balance among size, autonomy, teamwork, and speed”,[29] which greatly supports the need for OODA in an organisation navigating the VUCA business environment. A further lever is a culture that “emphasises norms critical for innovation such as openness, autonomy, initiative, and risk taking”.[30] Managers with important leadership qualities are needed: innovative, encouraging, and conducting (instead of ordering people around).
One of the most crucial capabilities of any organisation is to manage both the capitalisation on current capabilities and the preparation for future opportunities.
Lastly, Horwitz and Horwitz offer insights into the importance of team composition.[31] The authors find a “significantly positive relationship between task-related diversity and the quality of team performance”,[32] as well as the quantity of team performance. Task-related diversity refers to “acquired individual attributes (e.g., functional expertise, education, and organisational tenure)”,[33] which stands in contrast to bio-demographic diversity such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity. The latter was found to be neither influential on the quality of team performance nor the quantity.
The Development of the OODA Canvas
We implemented a qualitative exploratory design using semi-structured interviews to validate and co-create the OODA Canvas. We first interviewed three senior Austrian military academics to clarify Boyd’s theory and identify its critical elements using a thematic analysis.[34] We then interviewed four senior strategy consultants, who evaluated and refined the visual framework using an iterative case-building approach.[35] This section presents the empirical findings derived from the military experts.
OODA Phases
Observation
The experts diverge from the academic consensus that orientation is the most important OODA phase. Two interviewees instead emphasise the primary importance of observation, because it filters which information is important and therefore shapes all subsequent stages. They link observation to environmental scanning and continuous monitoring, capabilities they regard as decisive in volatile contexts. Their perspective highlights that effective observation shapes the entire loop and enables more informed and timely decisions.[36]
Orientation
The experts agree that orientation is crucial, but reframe it in organisational terms. Instead of looking at orientation as an abstract cognitive concept, they see it as a socialisation process, in which training, education, and experience shape perceptions and biases. They emphasise that leaders must actively challenge their assumptions and seek new information to evolve this capability and avoid cognitive stagnation. This positions orientation as both a developmental process and a lever for organisational adaptability.[37]
Decision
Several experts see the decision phase as the most important and the central task of leadership. They stressed two factors that drive decision quality: time and clarity. A decision made too late is of little value. What matters is that decisions are timely and communicate intent clearly. Subordinates must understand the “why” behind decisions, because alignment determines execution quality. The experts also noted that shorter time horizons demand simplicity, whereas more time enables deeper analysis and iteration. Therefore, a good decision depends not on speed alone but on the balance between timeliness, adaptability, and alignment.[38]
Action
All experts unanimously see action as essential, since only effective execution provides decisions with value. The experts consider disciplined execution, focus, and goal alignment to be one of the military’s greatest strengths, an ability that many civilian organisations struggle with. Successful action depends on clarity of intent, interoperability across departments, and trust throughout the hierarchy. Here, OODA provides a stabilising structure, but they caution that it should be applied flexibly rather than rigidly.[39]
A Model for Implementation in Business
The aim of this research was to translate Boyd’s OODA loop into a framework applicable to business. Specifically, it should enable an analysis into organisational capabilities to make decisions fast, accurate, and aligned with the strategy – in short, its organisational orientation capabilities. We refined the Canvas through an iterative process combining theory and expert interviews with military academics and senior strategy consultants. Senior military strategists enabled the foundational understanding while consultants iterated the visual representation in a case-building approach. Rather than presenting each iteration, this section summarises the essential insights that shaped the final OODA Canvas introduced earlier.
Senior military strategists enabled the foundational understanding while consultants iterated the visual representation in a case-building approach.
Organisational Orientation as Central Element
The framework design draws directly from Boyd’s theory, with special attention to his core element, orientation. [40] Orientation must be at the centre of the framework, and the common misrepresentation of a linear cycle must be avoided. [41] The framework, therefore, positions Orientation at the centre of the Canvas while the other parts, Observe, Decide, and Act, are treated as interconnected phases rather than steps in a cycle. This establishes the foundation for a framework that assesses organisational capabilities instead of depicting a chronological sequence. Competitive advantage is defined as stemming not from speed alone but from superior decision loops, which rely on information, time, and execution. The OODA Canvas strongly integrates agility concepts[42] and clearly distinguishes observation and decision-making dynamics, supporting its relevance for complex environments. Crucially, a distinction is made to the original orientation phase: since what is being analysed is an organisational capability rather than a decision phase, orientation is renamed “Organisational Orientation”. The need to clarify the definition of “organisational orientation” was highlighted as an important step for sharpening the framework’s conceptual foundation. It captures the key elements that constitute great orientation and information dissemination. Initially, 6 elements were chosen, but later expanded to a 7th element.
Key Elements of Organisational Orientation
The 6 key organisational orientation elements included employees, management, culture, strategic direction, learning systems, and cognitive diversity, each enabling an understanding of the firm capabilities feeding into organisational agility. Employees, management, and strategic direction build upon Mintzberg’s 5 Ps of strategy (plan, ploy, pattern, position, and perspective), which capture different ways organisations formulate and enact strategy.[43] Culture is very important to agility and change within an organisation and, therefore, was also introduced in the framework.[44] Lastly, cognitive diversity was introduced as a factor in innovation and creativity.[45] Most of these elements remain, but employees and management are not in the final version. Instead, incentive systems were added, which are a key implementation factor for strategy. A key tension point highlighted by the framework is between diversity and focus, or in other words, between creative exploration and exploitation of current opportunities. Based on Tushman & O’Reilly,[46] and to highlight this tension, diversity is renamed exploration. This tension is resolved through entrepreneurial leadership as a balancing force.[47] The seventh element added is that of structures and processes, broadening the scope of the assessment.[48]
Cognitive diversity was introduced as a factor in innovation and creativity.
Layout Evolution
The overall structure changed in the iterative process it underwent. Initially consisting of multiple boxes stacked against and on top of each other, the next version already placed a key element at the centre and the other elements around it, until its final form reached the symmetrical shape illustrated before. The elements are arranged such that unfocused elements (Cognitive Diversity and Learning Systems) are positioned closer to the source of information (left), and focused elements (Strategic Direction, Culture, and Incentive Systems) are positioned closer to decision-making and execution. The final version refines this structure and aligns the orientation elements with classic strategy frameworks.[49]
Multiple concepts were created, but some did not receive positive feedback. Dismissed concepts included an explanation of the source of competitive advantage and how the model fits into and delivers it, and a balanced scorecard aiming to quantify the OODA phases. The competitive advantage explanation was seen as confusing rather than value-adding. The scorecard was lacking empirical data and relevant quantifiers. An accurate and comprehensive assessment, using empirically valid metrics to measure the intended impact, exceeds the scope of this paper.
The model explaining the basis for competitive advantage is replaced with a representation of how OODA fits into the decision-making process, a cycle which progresses over time. The crucial phases that follow linearly are Observe, Decide, and Act. To avoid a misrepresentation of Boyd’s concept as linear, the Orientation phase is placed at the centre of each loop with arrows indicating its influence on the other phases.
Feedback highlighted weaknesses in communicating the model’s purpose and positioning, leading to misunderstandings about whether it assessed strategic choices or decision-making capabilities, and questioned its distinctiveness from other frameworks. This misunderstanding of first-time users underlined the need for clearer guidance through explanatory slides, examples, and positioning. An introduction was added, explaining the purpose, theory, assessment, and limitations of the model, which helps first-time users understand and apply the model.
An additional slide not included anymore shows a theoretical use case, highlighting the analytical process: by analysing the orientation elements within a company, conflict points emerge, enabling change. For example, when culture and strategic direction are misaligned, execution fails, as discussed by Tallman et al. and Vigfusson et al.[50]
Phases Observation, Decision, and Action
Observation, as the source of information, was initially divided into two high-level categories: internal, with data collected from sources such as customers and internal reporting systems, and external, which involves data collected about the environment in which the firm operates. The internal section serves as a snapshot of the firm’s current capabilities, opportunities, weaknesses, and other key aspects. This phase remains unchanged in the final version of the framework. The subdivisions of Decisions and Actions were reconsidered, which were seen as incomplete.[51]
Conclusion
While OODA has entered the business domain, it hasn’t done so through academic research. This paper contributes to the research body through an investigation into the translation to business, a discipline that has yet to show high interest in OODA. It creates a better understanding of business adaptation potential and differences in translation capabilities, and uncovers the most interesting use cases. Thereby, it closes research gaps identified by Ryder and Downs in a useful model application to a business context.[52]
OODA not only transfers from the military to the business domain but also features advantages over other established strategy frameworks by focusing on agility and decentralised decision-making. A visual framework was created using interviews with both military experts and senior strategy consultants, having undergone multiple iterations until an organisational assessment tool was developed. The OODA Canvas enables firms to evaluate their capability to make timely and accurate decisions and improve their capacity to do so, their organisational orientation, through seven key elements. By adapting Boyd’s OODA loop for business, this paper contributes both theoretically and practically to understanding strategy as a dynamic process of continuous orientation and adaptation, a capability essential for success in today’s business environment.
OODA not only transfers from the military to the business domain but also features advantages over other established strategy frameworks by focusing on agility and decentralised decision-making.
OODA embeds adaptability, organisational learning, and clear decision-making at its core. The research shows that agility is not about speed alone but about balancing exploration and exploitation, diversity and focus, and entrepreneurial leadership. The source of competitive advantage stems from expanding the organisational orientation capabilities of a firm. By capturing these insights in the OODA Canvas, the framework provides managers with a way to diagnose organisational blind spots, align leadership and culture, and understand the seven elements constituting orientation. The study suggests that transferring strategy concepts from the military to business can deliver great value to firms.
This research captures the diverse opinions of expert military academics and strategy consultants of exceptionally high standing, but is nonetheless limited by the small sample size and subjectivity of assessment. The OODA Canvas was influenced by existing strategy models and preconcepts, and while conceptually validated, it remains to be tested in business practice. Further research should focus on practical validation, for example, in a case study setting, or on a quantification of the seven elements of organisational orientation in a balanced scorecard.
[1] Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and Melissa E. Graebner, “Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges,” Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 1 (2007): 25–32, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159839.
[2] Frans Osinga, Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd (UK: Routledge, 2005).
[3] John R. Boyd, “Patterns of Conflict,” (Unpublished briefing, 1986), https://www.coljohnboyd.com/static/documents/1986-12__Boyd_John_R__Patterns_of_Conflict__PDF.pdf; John R, Boyd, “The Essence of Winning and Losing,” (Unpublished briefing, 1995), https://www.coljohnboyd.com/static/documents/1995-06-28__Boyd_John_R__The_Essence_of_Winning_and_Losing__PPT-PDF.pdf.
[4] Osinga, “Science, Strategy and War”.
[5] Mike Ryder and Carolyn Downs. “Rethinking Reflective Practice: John Boyd’s OODA Loop as an Alternative to Kolb,” The International Journal of Management Education 20, no. 3 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100703.
[6] Ryder and Downs, “Rethinking Reflective Practice”, 5.
[7] John Dewey, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process (Boston: D.C. Heath, 1933); Donald A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (New York: Basic Books, 1984); David A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd ed. (Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2014); Melanie Jasper, Beginning Reflective Practice (Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes, 2003).
[8] Chet Richards, “Boyd’s OODA Loop,” Necesse 5, no. 1 (2020): 142–165, https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2683228.
[9] Peter N. Golder and Gerard J. Tellis, “Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend?” Journal of Marketing Research 30, no. 2 (1993): 158–170, https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000203.
[10] Osinga, “Science, Strategy and War”.
[11] Richards, “Boyd’s OODA Loop”.
[12] Jen-Te Yang, “The Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Organizational Learning and Effectiveness,” Journal of Knowledge Management 11, no. 2 (2007): 83–90, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738933.
[13] Kevin J. Walsh and Vincent E. Henry, “Compstat, OODA Loops and Police Performance Management,” Policing 2, no. 3 (2008): 349–358, https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pan046.
[14] Ryder and Downs, “Rethinking Reflective Practice”.
[15] Dag K.J.E. Von Lubitz, James E. Beakley, and Frederic Patricelli, “‘All Hazards Approach’ to Disaster Management: The Role of Information and Knowledge Management, Boyd’s OODA Loop, and Network-Centricity,” Disasters 32, no. 4 (2008): 561–585, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01055.x; Omar Kammouh and Gian P. Cimellaro, “Cyber Threat on Critical Infrastructure: A Growing Concern for Decision Makers,” in Routledge Handbook of Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, (London: Routledge, 2018), 359–374.
[16] Ryder and Downs, “Rethinking Reflective Practice”.
[17] Kolb, “Experiential Learning”.
[18] Schön, “The Reflective Practitioner”; Edgar Schein, Professional Education: Some New Directions, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972); Nathan Glazer, “The Schools of the Minor Professions,” Minerva 12, no. 1 (1974): 346–364, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01102529; Herbert A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970).
[19] Ryder and Downs, “Rethinking Reflective Practice”.
[20] Aldred D. Chandler, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1962): 13.
[21] Jawad Asghar, Dominik K. Kanbach, and Sascha Kraus, “Toward a Multidimensional Concept of Organizational Agility: A Systematic Literature Review,” Management Review Quarterly, (2025), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-025-00497-6.
[22] S. Tamer Cavusgil, Sebastian Van der Vegt, Mourad Dakhli, Salomao De Farias, Evaristo Doria, Sevgin Eroglu, and Edward Y. Wang, “International Business in an Accelerated VUCA World: Trends, Disruptions, and Coping Strategies,” Rutgers Business Review 6, no. 3 (2022): 219–243, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4167237.
[23] Stephen Tallman, Oded Shenkar, and Jie Wu, “‘Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast’: Use and Abuse of Culture in International Strategy Research,” Strategic Management Review 4, no. 2 (2023): 193–229, http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/111.00000057.
[24] Nathan Voss and James Ryseff, “Comparing the Organizational Cultures of the Department of Defense and Silicon Valley,” Rand Corporation Research Report, (Jun 9, 2022), https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1498-2.html.
[25] Kristjan Vigfusson, Lara Johannsdottir, and Snjolfur Olafsson, “Obstacles to Strategy Implementation and Success Factors: A Review of Empirical Literature,” Strategic Management 26, no. 2 (2021): 12–30, http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/StraMan2102012V.
[26] Michael Tushman and C. O’Reilly, “Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change,” California Management Review 38, no. 4 (1996): 8–30, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=2045.
[27] Tushman and O’Reilly, “Ambidextrous Organisations,“ 24.
[28] Tushman and O’Reilly, “Ambidextrous Organisations,“ 26.
[29] Tushman and O’Reilly, “Ambidextrous Organisations,“ 26.
[30] Tushman and O’Reilly, “Ambidextrous Organisations,“ 26.
[31] Sujin K. Horwitz and Irwin B. Horwitz, “The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography,” Journal of Management 33, no. 6 (2007): 987–1015, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308587.
[32] Horwitz and Horwitz, “The Effects of Team Diversity,” 1000.
[33] Horwitz and Horwitz, “The Effects of Team Diversity,” 990.
[34] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke, “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, no. 2 (2006): 77–101, https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
[35] Eisenhardt and Graebner, “Theory Building from Cases”.
[36] Georg Kunovjanek, “I think the key is the Observe phase. So this screening of the global situation, i.e. the situation on a large scale, is actually decisive for which area I then concentrate on in the orientation. So I actually see the OODA loop as a filter process,” Interview 1, (June 6, 2025), (Interviews available on request).
[37] Alexander Treiblmaier, “Students often find it difficult to think outside the box because they only look at what they know, and I think that is also something that is so crucial here in this orientation. Namely, consciously accepting the known, but looking for the unknown,” Interview 2, (June 10, 2025).
[38] Josef Greiner, “I think the most important phase is the decision. It’s every manager’s job to decide. In the time allotted. So a decision that is too late is useless […] And that is the essential thing, that with every order you make the sub-commander understand the meaning of the order […] You have to be able to think on two levels. What makes my environment tick, what makes my superiors and the superiors of my superiors tick” Interview 3, (June 16, 2025).
[39] Georg Kunovjanek, “this cycle […] is nothing more than an aid. It’s a rope that I can hang on to, so to speak, in order to work through the process properly. But it doesn’t release me from taking a step back or perhaps even a step forward in a process step, for example, in order to consolidate information and simply make the process smoother. […] And that is actually the smallest common denominator of a management process. These three letters, address, evaluate, follow or ABF, as we always abbreviate it, I can’t reduce it any further,” Interview 1, (June 6, 2025)
[40] Osinga, “Science, Strategy and War”; Richards, “Boyd’s OODA Loop”.
[41] Richards, “Boyd’s OODA Loop”.
[42] Werner Hoffmann, “What I like is that you anchor it in this whole concept of agility. I believe that organisational and strategic agility are really relevant concepts in times like these,” Interview 4, (July 2, 2025).
[43] Vigfusson, Johannsdottir, and Olafsson, “Obstacles to Strategy Implementation”.
[44] Tallman, Shenkar, and Wu, “Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast”.
[45] Horwitz and Horwitz, “The Effects of Team Diversity”.
[46] Tushman and O’Reilly, “Ambidextrous Organisations”.
[47] Werner Hoffmann, “Of course, in this orientation, I feel that the tension between diversity and focus is missing. Diversity is about balance versus focus, because you naturally need focus for orientation, but you also have to be careful not to focus too early and in the wrong place, as this can lead to a lack of diversity. That’s why I find this tension between diversity and focus interesting,” Interview 4, (July 2, 2025).
[48] Klaus Haberfehlner, “What I always find interesting is the question of how consistent they are, because a decision and an action are two different things. And decision types can vary. They can be top-down, bottom-up, collective, or hierarchical. You name it. Hierarchical doesn’t necessarily mean top-down,” Interview 7, (July 8, 2025).
[49] Klaus Haberfehlner, “So you certainly have the topic of leadership and culture, and also the purpose element. If you look at the classic strategy framework, you usually have ‘mission, vision, purpose’ at the top. Then you go to ‘where to play’, and then you go to ‘how to win’. And that’s the most classic strategy framework there is,” Interview 7, (July 8, 2025).
[50] Tallman, Shenkar, and Wu, “Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast”; Vigfusson, Johannsdottir, and Olafsson, “Obstacles to Strategy Implementation”.
[51] Klaus Haberfehlner, “What I always find interesting is the question of how consistent they are, because a decision and an action are two different things. And decision types can vary. They can be top-down, bottom-up, collective, or hierarchical. You name it. Hierarchical doesn’t necessarily mean top-down,” Interview 7, (July 8, 2025).
[52] Ryder and Downs, “Rethinking Reflective Practice”.
