More John Boyd for Biz Leaders

Waiting since March 2006... I bought this book and skimmed it for relevant insight over two years ago. It is another one of those books that you must take your time reading. It engages the human mind on most every page. So much so, that I am just now getting around to investing the time required to read AND comprehend its message. When I first skimmed it, it seemed too focused on war strategies. Today, I see it more as effectively using war time analogies to convey important (if not extremely important) business concepts. Chet Richards gives credit in the dedication, "To the late John Boyd, who encouraged me to start this project..." Richards was a close associate of Boyd, going back to the mid 1970s. He quotes another colleague of Boyd, Bill Lind, and the author of Maneuver Warfare Handbook:

"A maneuver warfare military believes it is better to have high levels of initiative among subordinate officers, with a resultant rapid Boyd Cycle, even if the price is some mistakes."

It could not be any less true for business enterprises Certain to Win is not for everyone. At least not right out of the gate. However, it is a great follow up to H. William Dettmer's book, Strategic Navigation. And of course, I am assuming that you own and consume my book on a regular basis. Another aspect that I failed to pay enough attention to during my first reading (skimming) was the concept of trust. For me, it is an absolute. I am learning each week that not everyone understands the value of trust. Eli Goldratt (and others, myself perhaps the most vocal) have preached that we must not think in terms of laying people off when the economy sours. Richards provides some great pearls of wisdom concerning the need (no the) requirement for trust in order to be effective. Trust is a component of the Boyd OODA Loop If you do not own this book, and your role is that of setting or implementing strategy in a business environment, you are working with at least one hand tied behind your back. Honest. -ski P.S. Chet also wrote a great review of Dettmer's The Logical Thinking Process ---- Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah Strategy, Tactics & Execution Dover, OH | Hilton Head Island, SC | Las Vegas, NV Cell: +1 330.432.3533 tag: Certain to Win by Chet Richards ©2008 Throughput.us LLC. All rights reserved.

More Col. John Boyd

Eject! Eject! Eject!

This post is a great tribute to "John Boyd – Pope John, The High Priest of the Fighter Mafia, the Mad Major, the Ghetto Colonel – Forty Second Boyd".

"... That is more than luck. That is more than skill. That is more than tactics. That level of supremacy is the result of the ability to see things in an entirely new way. It is the difference between escaping from a maze you are embedded in, versus finding the way out from one that you look down upon from above."

Eject! Eject! Eject!

-ski

P.S. Albert Einstein said that the mental abilities that created a given problem are not likely to be enough to solve same. Boyd preached the same message!

tag: Col John Boyd

Destruction and Creation

This is the third of a series of 12 articles by our guest blogger on systems thinking, a way of understanding complex organizations and society offering significant promise for improving the leadership and management of commercial companies, not-for-profit organizations, and government agencies.

PART-3

Destruction and Creation: Analysis and Synthesis By H. William Dettmer "Let us not lose sight of the fact that the etymological root of the word analysis is 'anal.'" --Unknown The word “analysis” has been overused, to the point becoming a cliché. We have environmental analysis, business analysis, financial analysis, cost-benefit analysis, metallurgical analysis, spectrographic analysis, and systems analysis (which has come to refer too narrowly to information systems). Even these are only a partial list. We're virtually awash in analyses. The concept of analysis is deeply embedded in our lives, but where did this concept come from? And why should you care about it? Since the Renaissance, analysis has been the foundation of problem solving. But as we move from the 20th into the 21st century, it's becoming clearer that analysis alone is an incomplete, suboptimal way of understanding and functioning in our world. Worse, without the next step---synthesis---practicing analysis alone is a dangerous way of operating. Analysis Equals Reductionism What, exactly, is analysis? Simply put, it's a process of reducing a complex whole, or system, into its component parts---manageable “bites”, if you will---and dealing with those parts in isolation. Take an automobile, for example. The engine is a complex system made up of many components. If the engine runs roughly, the analysis approach is to mentally “deconstruct” the engine into carburetion (or fuel injection), fuel supply, fuel transport system, and combustion chamber (cylinders). The person repairing the engine “analyzes” the situation: he or she examines and “tweaks” each of these parts individually. Fuel injectors are checked, and perhaps cleaned. The fuel pump is checked for proper operation and the filter replaced. Spark plugs are cleaned or replaced, and timing may be adjusted. Then the components are rejoined again. Often the car is returned to the owner with all these things done (accompanied by a substantial bill!), and the owner finds that the engine doesn't run substantially more smoothly. The reason may be that the repair person failed to “synthesize” the system again---to ensure that all the adjusted components actually function well together. The assumption underlying the concept of analysis is reductionism, the idea that all the reality of our ultimate experience can be reduced to indivisible parts. [1:9] From the 15th through the 19th centuries, a reductionist philosophy predominated all scientific inquiry and the expansion of human knowledge. It was assumed that if a phenomenon was deconstructed sufficiently and the parts examined, understanding of the phenomenon was assured. In fact, this thinking is embodied in one of the basic axioms of analytic geometry: the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. But a funny thing happens with complex systems: interdependence among the parts rears its ugly head---what some have called synergy comes into play! The reductionist, or analytic approach reached its culmination with the concept of scientific management in the early 20th century. The father of scientific management, Frederick W. Taylor broke down (analyzed) complex industrial activities into component tasks, sought to make those tasks more efficient, and “glued” the more efficient components back together again. The expected result was a more efficient, effective system. Taylor's disciples, including Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and Henry Gantt, extended and refined Taylor's analytic approach to management well into the 1950s essentially unchanged. Deficiencies in Analysis Because early organizational (specifically, industrial) systems were simple, the analytic approach was much more effective than the alternative---which was more or less ad hoc. But as the complexity of organizational systems increased to the point where no one person could have complete visibility on all components simultaneously, the “cracks in the plaster” of the analytic approach began to show. Analysis could no longer explain the difference between the whole-equals-the-sum-of-the-parts and observed results that were disproportionately higher (or lower) than expected. In other words, the success of an analytical approach “topped out.” The problem is that parts of systems have properties that they lose when separated from the whole system, and the whole system has essential properties that none of its parts does. Ackoff provided an effective analogy: The eye detached from the body can't see, yet the human body as a whole can run, play piano, read, write, and do many other things that none of its parts can do by themselves. [1:16] What does all this mean? Basically, that the essential properties (and thus the ultimate performance) of a system derives from the interactions of its parts. And these essential properties are lost when the system is taken apart. In other words, a system is a whole that cannot be understood by analysis alone. Synthesis: The Second Half of the Equation What, then, is the key to resolving this deficiency? The answer is synthesis. Simply put, synthesis is amounts to putting things together. Sometimes these are pieces known to be part of a system, for example, the rebuilding of an automobile engine from its disassembled parts. In other cases, it may be the combination of things never thought of as “going together” before, to create new concepts, solutions, or realities. Synthesis is not a new idea; it's as old as analysis. As Ackoff has pointed out, Aristotle dealt with both. [1:17] But in our current world of complex systems, synthesis becomes more important than most people realize. Analysis and synthesis are complimentary processes; though they can be considered separately, they can't really be separated. Systems thinking doesn't deny the value of analysis, however. Rather, it emphasizes the fact that there is another side to the system equation that has, until recently, been ignored or overlooked. In 1976, John R. Boyd, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel whose chief claims to fame had been his development of the energy-maneuverability theory and the latest-generation fighters (the F-15 and F-16), tackled the issue of analysis versus synthesis in a paper entitled Destruction and Creation. [3] The core of Boyd's argument was that creativity was essentially the outcome of a process of analysis and synthesis, which he referred to as destruction and creation. Boyd suggested that new ideas and breakthrough solutions to particularly challenging problems resulted from mentally deconstructing multiple known existing concepts or processes, then selectively reassembling key elements to form a completely new concept---thus, the characterization as “destruction and creation.” Creativity and Synthesis: Building Snowmobiles In the mid-1980s, Boyd offered an analogy to illustrate this process of analysis (destruction) and synthesis (creation). [4] He challenged people to think of four seemingly unrelated mechanical systems: a set of snow skis, a boat with an outboard motor, a bicycle, and a military tank or tread-type earthmover. Each of these is a discrete device with its own purpose. Boyd suggested mentally deconstructing these into their component parts and selectively re-combining parts from each to for a new “whole” that would not otherwise exist. He discarded the bindings and poles from the snow-skis, retaining only the “boards.” From the outboard boat, he retained only the gasoline-powered motor; from the bicycle, the handlebars, and from the earthmover, a tread. He recombined these concepts (the functions of the different parts) to form…a snowmobile! The snowmobile concept became Boyd's short-hand analogy for characterizing the domain of competition. He separated people into two types: those who could conceive and build snowmobiles, and those who couldn't: [5:156] “A loser is someone (individual or group) who cannot build snowmobiles when facing uncertainty and unpredictable change; whereas a winner is someone who can build snowmobiles and employ them in appropriate fashion, when facing uncertainty and unpredictable change.” [5:182] Hand in hand with being able to build snowmobiles, Boyd suggested, is adaptability---the capability to respond to a situation with variety and rapidity. Variety is an outgrowth of analysis and synthesis. Rapidity implies the ability to analyze and synthesize quickly. Paradigms Let's briefly consider a concept seemingly unrelated to Boyd's destruction-and-creation process: the idea of paradigms. The term was coined by Thomas Kuhn in 1962, in his seminal book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. [6:x] Kuhn's original treatise dealt with the evolution of scientific theories, particularly the physical sciences. Through the later work of others, primarily Joel Barker [2], it has since come to be applied more widely (and broadly) to the realms of business management, societal development, and social interaction. Grossly oversimplified, a paradigm is a model, a set or rules, or a pattern of behavior that defines current, accepted (and acceptable) thinking about a domain or subject. For example, the game of baseball is a paradigm operating within the confines of a stadium and the organizational structures behind the competing teams. Behavior of those within this paradigm is largely prescribed within relatively well defined boundaries. Concepts associated with other paradigms (e.g., football, tennis, or aviation) are excluded from baseball “thinking.” Likewise, at the higher economic and political levels, capitalism and democracy are also paradigms. Thinking within these paradigms is somewhat constrained by the “traditional,” the accepted, or common practice. Kuhn introduced the notion that paradigms change over time, as more and newer information is discovered. In most cases, this change is evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. As Barker has pointed out, however, paradigm “shifts” can often be dramatic. The Internet and its many and varied uses is an example of such a rapid paradigm shift. A key characteristic of paradigms and their associated shifts is the idea that they naturally evolve or “happen”---they're not consciously directed. Summary: Our OWN Synthesis To summarize what we've seen so far, let's do a little “destruction-and-creation” of our own. Ackoff, Churchman, and other system thinkers maintain that the widespread current practice of analyzing systems and issues alone---that is, breaking them down into their component parts and maximizing performance of the discrete parts---is a flawed practice, because it ignores the central role of interdependencies. Kuhn and Barker suggest that the rules of the “meta-game” change over time, sometimes with dramatic shifts that must be discerned and accommodated. Failure to do so can leave one “behind the power curve.” That's an aviation term implying that the pilot has allowed the aircraft enter a condition where much more power is required just to maintain or arrest a deteriorating flight condition. Or, in management terms, “Have you seen them? Which way did they go? I must be after them, for I am their leader!” And finally, Boyd maintains that the kind of destruction-and-creation process (analysis and synthesis, in Ackoff's terms) he recommends produces the ability to dictate rules and results of an engagement. The people and organizations that become really good at doing this can achieve a much greater degree of influence over their environment. (Boyd referred to this as “improving their capacity for independent action.”) [3] So, what does our “snowmobile” look like? If paradigms govern conventional thinking about how things happen, or must be done, and if our organizations are arrangements of systems, sub-systems, and meta-systems that can't be effectively managed analytically, then the application of a conscious, pro-active method of destruction-and-creation (analysis and synthesis),systemically applied, can put practitioners of such methods at a tactical advantage over competitors. It can also keep them ahead of the environmental changes that evolve over time---and perhaps be in a position to drive or lead revolutionary paradigm shifts. Which position would you rather be in: chasing after a changing environment, or leading the change? In our next installment, we'll examine the O-O-D-A loop, a prescriptive approach to applying analysis and synthesis to secure the “high ground”---Boyd's improved capacity for independent action---in our chosen fields. ENDNOTES 1. Ackoff, Russell L. Ackoff's Best: His Classic Writings on Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999. 2. Barker, Joel. (http://www.joelbarker.com) 3. Boyd, John R. Destruction and Creation. An unpublished paper. (http://www.goalsys.com/id17.htm) 4. Boyd, John R. “Revelation,” part of the August 1987 version of the larger unpublished briefing, A Discourse on Winning and Losing. Cited in Hammond, Grant T., The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security, Washington, D.C.: The Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001, p.182. 5. Hammond, Grant T. The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security. Washington, D.C.:The Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001. 6. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. ---- (c)Copyright 2005,2006, H. William Dettmer. All rights reserved. Permission granted to Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey to reprint on SKI's Throughput on Command.

Do you OODA

Following the 2008 Presidential Election? Then you must have heard references to Colonel John Boyd's OODA Loop. This article by Michael Barone is one of the best explanations on the net. Plus, it wins extra points for using a current news affair as the case study.

"Then they failed to Orient. Palin, as her convention and subsequent appearances have shown, powerfully reinforces two McCain themes: She is a maverick who has taken on the leaders of her own party (as Obama never has in Chicago), and she has a record on energy of favoring drilling and exploiting American resources." —Michael Barone

For those idiots not-so-well-informed persons that think that Boyd was "all about war" or that his tactics are only applicable to war, you MUST see this four part series on YouTube™ featuring actual footage of Colonel John Boyd. Talking about Shingo and Ohno, Lean Manufacturing (Toyota Production System), as well as "Just in Time" to name a few business concepts that Boyd was extremely familiar with, and quite knowledgeable. Caution, he does use some profanity: Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbb48uUOkqQ Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5c3yMy-llA Part III: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5TTeMCoRhM Part IV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbbh9bYOOok So, regardless your preference in the up coming election, this article on townhall dot com does a great job of explaining why I preach Boyd and his OODA Loop everywhere I speak. -ski P.S. Need a keynote speaker for your next biz function? Have OODA, will Travel! Give me a call. P.P.S. Sorry, USA only. ---- Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah www.linkedin.com/in/consultski Dover, OH | Hilton Head Island, SC | Las Vegas, NV Phone: (330) 432-3533 tag: Boyd OODA Loop ©2008 Throughput.us LLC. All rights reserved.

Key to Progress

Colonel John Boyd defines Progress:

"Do you know what I say progress is? Confusion at a higher level."

The four video clips of Boyd on YouTube™ are simply amazing. I converted them to MP3s for my iPod... so now, when I take a road trip, I can take Boyd along with me! -ski

Boyd Speakers Bureau

Throughput Press Launches Boyd Speakers Bureau

I am excited to report that a lot has been happening "back stage" at Throughput Press as Thayer and I ramp up for 2007: "The year of the BIG Payday" for our clients.

Soon, some internationally known speakers will appear, for hire, on the John Boyd-inspired speakers bureau web site. That Boyd OODA Loop makes so much sense on so many levels. But I digress...

If you use the brilliance of Boyd's work to produce amazing results, then you need to contact me. Let's see if you have what it takes to keynote a convention or workshop.

Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah
www.ThroughputPress.com

P.S. Obviously if your next event needs a results oriented, proven speaker, I would love to hear from you as well.

tag: Boyd Speakers Bureau

Sun Tzu meets Boyd's OODA Loop

This is the fourth of a series of 12 articles by our guest blogger on systems thinking, a way of understanding complex organizations and society offering significant promise for improving the leadership and management of commercial companies, not-for-profit organizations, and government agencies.

PART-4

Operationalizing Sun Tzu: The O-O-D-A Loop By H. William Dettmer

"Those who win every battle are not really skillful-those who render others' armies helpless without fighting are the best of all." -Sun Tzu, The Art of War [1:67]

By now most people have heard of the ancient Chinese general, Sun Tzu, and his writings about military strategy called The Art of War. Sun Tzu lived about 2,400 years ago. What many may not realize, however, is that The Art of War is a compendium of cogent military thought that has been amplified and expanded upon through the 12th century AD by other skillful Chinese generals---“the best of Chinese military genius”, one might say.

Somewhat fewer people (but still a significant number) are aware that principles articulated in The Art of War can be translated to the domain of business. Some business schools even require students to read The Art of War as part of their curriculum. However, though they may have done such required reading, very few business students of Sun Tzu are really adept at translating those precepts to practice. Some authors (McNeilly, for one) have done so and written about it. [2]

Clearly, there are parallels between military engagements and business, or, for that matter, with competitive sports, or other comparable activities where winning or losing (however one defines those) is possible. The principles in The Art of War can be effectively applied to such situations, whether the opponent is a specific adversary or even just an unforgiving environment itself.

The Art of War is replete with useful information, both strategic and tactical---too much to analyze at length here. That's not the purpose of this installment in any event. For our purpose---showing how to make that application leap that so many haven't been able to do---it's sufficient to select a few of Sun Tzu's key principles.

Here are the ones we'll address:

1. If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles…if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. [1:82] This principle addresses the importance of understanding your own system-its capabilities, needs, objectives, and values-as well as those of your opponents.
2. Unless you know the mountains and forests, the defiles and impasses, and the lay of the marshes and swamps, you cannot maneuver with an armed force. [1:116] This principle emphasizes the need to fully understand the external environment in which you---and your adversaries---operate in. In business, this is more than just the market conditions or the regulatory environment. It includes the political and cultural environment as well.
3. I have heard of military operations that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen one that was skillful and lasted a long time. It is never beneficial to have [an] operation continue for a long time. [1:58] In this observation, Sun Tzu points out the importance of speed in commencing and concluding operations and activities---of not allowing things to drag on.
4. Act after having made assessments. The one who first knows the measures of far and near wins. [1:119] The emphasis here is on making assessments. This is another way of saying “synthesize all your information into a clear picture of what is going on and where you stand in the situation; then act.” (presumably with the speed advised in 3, above!)
5. Generals who know all possible adaptations to take advantage of the ground know how to use military forces. If generals do not know how to adapt advantageously, even if they know the lay of the land they cannot take advantage of it. [1:126]
6. Adaptation means not clinging to fixed methods, but changing appropriately according to events, acting as is suitable. [Zhang Yu] [1:125]
7. A military force has no constant formation, water has no constant shape: the ability to gain victory by changing and adapting according to the opponent is called genius. [1:113] These three precepts are all about flexibility and the capability to adjust (or adapt) to new situations---again, quickly.
8. In battle, confrontation is done directly, victory is gained by surprise. [1:94] Here Sun Tzu makes the point that the most visible or obvious engagement is not where war is actually won. In other words, the direct engagement is no more than a way of fixing the adversary's attention while the decisive engagement is concluded at a point where the enemy is weak-and not as well prepared. In other words, “Hit `em where they ain't.”

The O-O-D-A Loop

John Boyd, a retired Air Force colonel whose concept of destruction and creation we examined in the last installment, conceived a four-step prescription to guide the prosecution of military operations to swift, ultimate victory. Boyd called this prescription the O-O-D-A loop. And in the same way that Sun Tzu's principles are applicable to business operations, so too is Boyd's O-O-D-A loop. Moreover, the O-O-D-A loop provides highly focused guidance for effectively applying the specific Art of War principles cited above. It can be considered a command-and-control loop. [3:165]

“O-O-D-A” is an acronym that stands for observe, orient, decide, and act. These are sequential activities that guide leaders to effective decisions. The act step that culminates this process ultimately produces changes in the environment that merit a new, subsequent round of observations, followed by a second cycle of orientation, decision, and action. Boyd suggested that individuals or groups that could cycle through these four steps faster than their adversaries had a tactical advantage. To the extent that they could execute the cycle two or more times faster than their opponents could complete one, they would actually increase the opposition's confusion about the competitive situation to such a degree that the opponent's efforts might totally collapse. The accompanying figure provides a detailed picture of the O-O-D-A loop.

It's worth examining these steps in somewhat more detail.

Observe

Observation, the first step in the O-O-D-A loop, is a search for information. The information that should be sought is, first and foremost, the nature of unfolding circumstances-the tactical situation. Only slightly less urgent is what Boyd called “outside information.” This could include the environment; the behavior and tendencies of oneself and one's opponents; the physical, mental, and moral situation; and potential allies and other opponents. [4:62] It must be emphasized that this is not a passive step-it requires a concerted, active effort to seek out all the information possible, by whatever means available.

Moreover, bad news is the only kind that will do you any good. [4:63] What you're looking for---what you can best capitalize on---are data that don't fit with your current orientation, or worldview (and especially the worldview of your opponent). It is these “mismatches” that offer the potential for learning something that your adversaries don't know, thereby creating a tactical advantage that you can exploit.

Orient

Orient is the “big O” in the O-O-D-A loop, as you can see from the complexity of that part of the illustration above. Notice that there are three arrows leading out of the orient block, but only one leading in, reinforcing the notion that our orientation to the world shapes the decisions we make, the actions we take, and what we choose to observe-what we look for-in the world around us.

Our orientation is a synthesis of multiple contributions, including cultural traditions, previous experiences, genetic heritage, and new information based on unfolding circumstances. These contributions are then analyzed and synthesized (remember the snowmobile analogy from the last installment?) into a new, updated picture of reality---a worldview. To the extent that a tactician or strategist is able to synthesize a more accurate picture of reality than his or her opponent, the quality of decisions and the effectiveness of actions improve, sometimes dramatically. To the extent that the tactician/strategist can deny that accurate picture to the adversary, the quality of the opponent's decisions and the effectiveness of his actions deteriorate. Boyd referred to this analysis-and-synthesis process as “many-sided, implicit cross-referencing.” [4:62]

It's orientation, however, that drives everything else. The faster we can orient ourselves, the greater the congruence with objective reality that we can make our orientation, the better and more effective our observations, decisions, and actions will be.

Decide

In concept, this is an explicit step, meaning a discrete, conscious activity following hard on orientation. However, Boyd also realized that intuitive understanding of the situation and one's own capabilities (the fingerspitzengefuhl discussed in our first installment) makes the decision step implicit, rather than explicit. This is a highly desirable situation, because it speeds the cycle time of the O-O-D-A loop. As early as the 17th century, the quintessential samurai, Musashi, emphasized the need to practice incessantly until this fingerspitzengefuhl (not Musashi's word, obviously!) made the sword an extension of the warrior's arm and action instinctive, without having to think about it. In other words, implicit decision and action.

Act

The act step is largely self-evident. Action is the whole reason for going through the O-O-D steps in the first place. But it's crucial to keep in mind that the very action we attempt to execute will, itself, influence the environment in which we act. The environment will change, possibly only slightly, but more likely dramatically. This change in the “playing field” renders our orientation, or worldview, invalid to some degree: it introduces a mismatch between reality and our perception of it. The quicker we realize that this mismatch is developing, the sooner we can adjust our orientation to more closely approximate the new reality and act again. And this is the cyclic nature of the O-O-D-A loop.

Speed

A final word about speed. The more factors there are to consider, the more difficult it is to analyze and synthesize them all quickly. Knowing what to focus on and what can be ignored is crucial. Speed comes from the implicit ability to do this, rather than from the explicit step. With experience and skill, an explicit decide step can be bypassed, and action becomes an implicit outcome of orientation, as Musashi intended. Moreover, the decision on what indicators to look for, or observe, in the external environment also becomes implicit (thus faster).

Conclusion

In the next installment, we'll see how the observe and orient steps constitute the heart of what Peter Senge has called learning organizations. And the following installment will introduce the concept of system constraints as a means of separating what's important to synthesize from what isn't in the mass of data that observation produces.

"The one who figures on victory at headquarters even before doing battle is the one who has the most strategic factors on his side…The one with many strategic factors in his favor wins, the one with few strategic factors in his favor loses-how much more so for one with no strategic factors in his favor. Observing the matter in this way, I can see who will win and who will lose." -Sun Tzu, The Art of War [1:56]

ENDNOTES 1. Sun Tzu. The Art of War (translated by Thomas Cleary). Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications, 1988. 2. McNeilly, Mark. Sun Tzu and the Art of Business: Six Strategic Principles for Managers. NY; Oxford University Press, 1996. 3. Hammond, Grant T. The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security. Washington, D.C.: The Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001. 4. Richards, Chet. Certain to Win. Xlibris Corporation. 2004.

(c)Copyright 2005,2006, H. William Dettmer. All rights reserved. Permission granted to Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey to reprint on SKI's Throughput on Command.

Learning Organization

This is the fifth of a series of 12 articles by guest blogger Bill Dettmer on systems thinking, a way of understanding complex organizations and society offering significant promise for improving the leadership and management of commercial companies, not-for-profit organizations, and government agencies. PART-5 The Learning Organization: Adapt or Die! By H. William Dettmer "How can a team of committed managers with individual IQs above 120 have a collective IQ of 63?" ---Peter Senge [7:9] An interesting question Peter Senge poses. I've seen the phenomenon myself, and other prominent instances abound. For example, consider an excerpt from a recent article in USA Today about Delta Airlines: On Monday [Delta] will launch an updated Delta.com [web]site that has streamlined features, including a focus on core consumer services such as booking trips, checking flight information, viewing itineraries, and monitoring frequent flier mileage..."This is our primary focus of our marketing for the second half of the year," chief marketing officer Paul Matsen said...The troubled airline hopes to cut costs by luring more travelers to its website---and away from its telephone reservations lines. [2] If Delta is fishing for more customers, they're not using very persuasive bait. The day before, Delta's chief executive officer, Gerald Grinstein, warned employees that cost-cutting efforts so far are not enough to keep Delta out of bankruptcy. Wall Street was so thrilled at this news that Delta's shares immediately plummeted 26 percent. [1] This isn't a unique situation. Delta has had hard times before. Other airlines (United comes to mind) have had worse. Still other airlines (Eastern, Braniff and Pan American) have even failed to survive. In other words, there is no shortage of lessons out there about how not to run an airline, and at least one example (Southwest) of how to do it right. As Yogi Berra once said, “You can observe a lot just by watching.” You'd think that airline executives would learn something. But apparently, you'd be wrong. As George Santayana once said, those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat it. (There's that word “learn” again!) The Learning Organization In The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Peter Senge defined a learning organization as one that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future. That's an intriguing definition, but one that says more about the outcome than the process. Senge suggests that organizations aspiring to create their futures need to be able to learn in ways that Delta and the other airlines in financial trouble obviously haven't. The airlines are trying to survive. But survival learning, also referred to as “adaptive learning,” while necessary, is reactive rather than proactive. Creating futures requires what Senge calls generative learning\a horse of a distinctly different color. According to Senge, a successful learning organization satisfies five indispensable criteria: [7:6-10]

1. It practices system thinking.
2. Individual employees and leaders strive for personal mastery in all their activities.
3. Employees and leaders alike have a shared mental model of the world---the organization, its markets and competitors, and environment.
4. Its leaders have a vision of where they want the organization to go.
5. Team learning is central to its activities and success.

Senge maintains that systems thinking and team learning are incomplete without shared vision, personal mastery, and mental models. I can't dispute that. But for the purposes of this discussion, we'll acknowledge the importance of the middle three and focus on the first and last. Team Learning: What is it? The concept of teams inherently assumes that the coordinated efforts of many are more effective than the isolated effort of any individual---or even a collection of individuals. Anyone who has listened to a good symphony orchestra or watched a world-championship sports team intuitively understands this. Organizations are composed of teams. In small companies, a single team may be the organization. Larger organizations may be comprised of many discrete teams. Either way, the concept of “team learning” is somewhat of a non sequitur. Since team is an abstract classification of a group of individuals, it's a little difficult to understand how learning can occur at an abstract level. Individuals can learn, and if a group of individuals that don't constitute a team learns the same lesson, it's difficult to justify that “team learning” has occurred. I submit that the concept of team is inherent in how its members operate and interact with one another, not in how they learn. Senge himself makes the following observation: "Team building" exercises sent colleagues whitewater rafting together, but when they returned home, they still disagreed fundamentally about business problems. Companies pulled together during crises, and then lost all their inspiration when business improved. [7:15] When individual faces on the team (or in the company) change, expertise---previous learning---is resident only in the remaining individuals, whether they are executives, managers, supervisors, or line employees, not in the team. Any learning subsequently transferred to new team members comes from individuals, not "the team." Collective learning occurs at multiple hierarchical levels: individual, group, organizational, societal. With each increasing level of complexity, the challenge of learning (and institutionalizing that learning) becomes more difficult. It requires more conscious, concerted effort, and sustainability at the organization level is uncertain at best. This kind of learning is usually driven by one person (or a few committed individuals). Individual learning becomes team or organizational learning only when leaders institute a conscious effort---either by personal example or by directed policy---to seek out new information that could potentially change the nature of the operating environment, or the interactions of those who operate within it. In other words, establishing effective organizational learning is a responsibility of leadership. Team Learning Versus Teamwork The point here is that the operative word is “learning,” not “team.” The important activities associated with learning are capture, retention, recall, and application---in other words, how the learning is used to enhance teamwork. The distinction is important, because in the final analysis, all that is important from the team perspective is that team members recognize the need to aspire to learn (individually), to share what they've learned with other members of the team, and to internalize themselves the learning of others that is shared with them. So, if learning occurs at the individual rather than at the team level, where does the “team” concept fit into the scheme of things? Effective teams are like well-oiled, finely-tuned machines. The various members work “seamlessly” with one another---virtually without friction. This doesn't happen naturally. It requires concerted effort and practice, practice, practice. In 1645 Miamoto Musashi, the prototypical samurai warrior, wrote A Book of Five Rings in which he described what it took to become a samurai: "Practice is the only way that you will ever come to understand what the Way of the warrior is about...Words can only bring you to the foot of the path."[5:94] The team learning that Senge refers to [7:9] is not functional expertise. It's composed of two distinctly different domains: teamwork and systems thinking. We've already touched on the idea of teamwork in this installment, and if you recall, we've seen it earlier, too, in the second installment, “Business and the Blitzkrieg.” Remember the essential tenets of the blitzkrieg: Einheit (mutual trust), fingerspitzengefuhl ("fingertip feel"), auftragstaktik (moral contract), and schwerpunkt (focus point)? [6:52-58] Trust and the moral contract are the bedrock upon which effective teamwork is built, and they must be learned. They may be introduced to individuals, but they can only be learned as a team. What about fingertip feel and the focus point? The former is equivalent to Senge's criterion of personal mastery. And the focus point---schwerpunkt---requires a systems thinking perspective, another key Senge criterion. Systems Thinking: The Key to Effective, Efficient Teamwork Systems thinking must also be learned on an individual basis, but it must be applied by teams to be effective. Whether that team is a small, cohesive unit or a large organization, or even society as a whole, systems thinking is a team function in successful organizations. (Refer to the first installment, “Systems Thinking” for a more detailed review of systems thinking.) How does one (or an organization) apply systems thinking? In the last installment, “Sun Tzu and the O-O-D-A Loop,” we examined the maneuver warfare philosophy of John Boyd and its elegantly simple expression, the O-O-D-A loop. [3:190] The O-O-D-A loop has direct impact on both individual and organizational learning. Observation and Orientation Recall that the first two O's in O-O-D-A stand for observe and orient. [3:163-164] Their relationship to organizational learning is crucial. According to Boyd, the observation step is a process of gathering information, from both within and without. This information can come from a variety of sources: the media, research, direct observation, experimentation, or clandestine intelligence activity, to name just a few. What are the potential targets of these activities? Generally, they fall into three classifications: our own operations, the actions and activities of others (e.g., competitors), and the external environment (e.g., politics, economics, international developments, technology advances, catastrophic events, etc.). Observation might be characterized as “situational awareness”---an aviation term that means paying attention to everything that's going on around you. But obviously at some point paying attention to everything indiscriminately can lead to sensory overload. Leaders and teams need a way of separating what's important from what isn't; otherwise, they can drown in data. This is where orientation comes in. The orient step can be described as a process of interpretation and synthesis. (Refer to the third installment, "Analysis and Synthesis.") By analysis and synthesis, the separation of the important from the trivial---and the integration of the important parts into a useful whole---takes place. Boyd described orientation as one's "world view," or how we visualize what's going on around us. In other words, our understanding of the world, how it affects us, and how we affect it. To the extent that our perception of the world actually matches reality, we're confident in our ability to function effectively in it. To the extent that reality diverges from our view of how things are, or ought to be, we experience difficulty and confusion, which normally show themselves as failures. How do we come to our orientation (world view)? Boyd suggests that it's the integration of many factors: cultural traditions, previous experiences, our own analysis and syntheses, new information, and even our genetic heritage, from which we derive our psychophysical skills. [3:189] The chief problem: people's world view becomes entrenched---static---while at the same time reality is anything but static. To the extent that there is a mismatch between an organization's orientation and reality, policies or practices based on that orientation become increasingly invalid or even irrelevant. Performance deteriorates and failures occur. Such failures are hard to miss, even by busy leaders and manages. And naturally, they try to correct these problems. In other words, they react to a deteriorating situation. But inevitably, without a systems thinking perspective, these reactions are based on the aforementioned invalid policies or procedures---the result of an entrenched world view---so those reactions are often not effective. They may even exacerbate an already unfavorable situation. As reality diverges further from the organization's orientation, reactions become progressively less effective. The Solution The solution should be obvious: make a concerted effort to seek out new information (observe), then try to fit it into our world view, adjusting (orient) the world view as required to logically accommodate the new information. Done properly, effective orientation reduces the mismatch between perception and reality, pointing leaders toward revising policies and procedures that are more effective in the real, competitive world. Richards points out that “since what you're looking for is mismatches, a general rule is that bad news is the only kind that will do you any good.” [5:63] What this means is that we must be actively gathering information, looking for mismatches between it and our orientation, and adjusting our world view, and the policies that spring from it---and do this faster than our competitors---in order to gain tactical or even strategic advantage. Thinking about all this "learning business," is it clear now how Delta, United, American, and the other airlines have failed to observe and orient properly? So, how is your organization doing at learning? "You live and learn. Or you don't live long." --Lazarus Long [4] "The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage." --Arie de Geus [7:4] ENDNOTES 1. “CEO's cost-cutting memo sends stock into dive,” USA TODAY, Thursday, July 28, 2005, p. 3B. 2. “Delta hopes fliers will flock to new web site,” USA TODAY, Friday, July 29, 2005, p. 6B. 3. Hammond, Grant T. The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security. Washington, D.C.:The Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001. 4. Heinlein, Robert A. The Notebooks of Lazarus Long (illustrated by D.F. Vassallo). San Francisco: Pomegranate Artbooks, 1995. 5. Musashi, Miamoto. A Book of Five Rings (Victor Harris translation). London: Allison and Busby, 1974. 6. Richards, Chet. Certain to Win:The Strategy of John Boyd Applied to Business. Xlibris Corporation, 2004. 7. Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. NY: Doubleday, 1990. (c)Copyright 2005,2006, H. William Dettmer. All rights reserved. Permission granted to Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey to reprint on SKI's Throughput on Command.

Sting like a Bee

Chapter III "Sting like a Bee" Certain to Win by Chet Richards Colonel John Boyd is reported to have extracted four significant factors from his study of the Blitzkrieg, and called it creating "an organizational climate for operational success:"

1. Einheit: Mutual trust, unity, and cohesion
2. Fingerspitzengefuhl: Intuitive feel, especially for complex and potentially chaotic situations
3. Auftragstaktik: Mission, generally considered as a contract between superior and subordinate
4. Schwerpunkt: Any concept that provides focus and direction to the operation

Those that have studied the Toyota Production System (TPS also known as Lean Manufacturing) in any depth have reported the cultural aspect of Lean that is extremely difficult to duplicate. Especially in the West where we have more concern about the next quarter's numbers than building victory upon victory towards a long term vision of success. One of the reasons I have been so interested to see what Bob Nardelli is going to do at Chrysler LLC (now a privately held firm). But I digress... Chet Richards states that it is "no accident" that mutual trust heads this list. It is also the biggest reason that I and most other Constraints Management gurus are so oppossed to lay offs. For me, two reasons are core: first, lay offs send the wrong message. They say, "You are not worthy." At breakfast last week, the conversation at the next table was about the slow down in the local economy. One gentleman commented that he was gearing up for the "I can do my job and Fred's job, whereas Fred can only do his job." How sad. Competition not against other companies in the marketplace, but for one another's job! The concept of trust within the firm goes right out the window! Second, lay offs costs thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in waste. Anti-Lean to the max! As I have mentioned before, Jesse Jackson is right when he says that America cannot afford to throw people away! Several times in Certain to Win, Richards explains a concept that I had not given enough thought: there are people in your organization that do not belong. Even if your payroll is four people! Before studying this book at length, I would have made this statement to all the employees of any company that I might purchase or lead as interim CEO: "There will be no layoffs. Period." Today, I would state it differently. "There will be no layoffs. However, there are people on the payroll that do not belong here. During the next 30 days, I will identify who you are and out place you, or, your attitude will make a sharp 180 degree turn and you will become a positive force to advance the mission of this company." In order to create an agile force in the marketplace, trust is required. FYI: Our collective trust has been broken by Wall Street. Wanted: Leaders to restore that trust. -ski ---- Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah Strategy, Tactics & Execution Dover, OH | Hilton Head Island, SC | Las Vegas, NV Cell: +1 330.432.3533 tag: Chet Richards on John Boyd on Trust ©2008 Throughput.us LLC. All rights reserved.

Thinking out Loud

Boyd Speakers Bureau
was born while "thinking out loud"

In Purple Curve Effect, I talk about this approach to, as chapter 19 is labeled, "Involve Others." The tool is best used with a little discipline. In fact, here is the framework:

Tenets of “thinking out loud”

• Begin with the awareness that only one weakest link can be present at any one time
• Everyone should feel free to say anything and everything they think is relevant
• Even “stupid” ideas should be shared because they can trigger a productive solution
• The results of thinking out loud are not a plan, promise or contract
• End with the conviction that there is still only one weakest link

So there it is, the roots of the speakers bureau. A couple of conversations with some folks (each will be revealed over the next few days) about the influence of John Boyd, and a new business entity springs forth. For now, it is a component of Throughput Press. My virtual incubator of sorts.

Need help getting your business on the purple curve?

Call me: (330) 432-3533

Need a keynote speaker: Boyd Speakers Bureau

Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah
www.ThroughputPress.com

P.S. Event planners: Need world recognized talent? Lets talk.

tag: Boyd Speakers Bureau
(c)Copyright 2007, Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey
All rights reserved.

H William Dettmer

H. William Dettmer
Joins Boyd Speakers Bureau

The man that introduced me to the work of John Boyd, has joined our Boyd Speakers Bureau. Bill and I met in 2001, and the next year I completed (learning never is, or should be, complete!) training in the Logical Thinking Process under his watchful and diligent instruction.

I branded his amazing 8 day instructional approach Jonah3+3™ and started the marketing machine to alert the world. As I have mentioned before, we have a number of graduates helping to make the world a better place.

If you are involved in event planning on most any level, lets chat about having Bill keynote your next event.

Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah
www.ThroughputPress.com

P.S. Dettmer's Strategic Navigation is a "must own" for business leaders, and a great way to learn about the Logical Thinking Process and Constraints Management Model (CMM).

tag: H William Dettmer
(c)Copyright 2007, Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey.
All rights reserved.

Dr. Lisa Lang on Boyd

I am pleased to report that Dr. Lisa Lang,
President of Science of Business, is
available to give your keynote speech!

I met Dr. Lisa in person in the fall of 2001. But she contributed to TOCreview magazine earlier in the year. Disclaimer: Dr. Lisa is a client of Throughput Press. I have always had nice things to say about her abilitites. And will continue to do so.

In April 2004, I picked up several boxes of books, my book Purple Curve Effect, hot off the press and drove them to Dr. Lisa's Vision Vision Offer event in Denver. From Ohio. I agreed to give a number of copies of the book away to the first so many registered attendees. As a premium.

Later, she recruited me to help on some of the marketing efforts for other Viable Vision Offer events... like Dallas, San Diego, Raleigh and Toronto. I have seen Lisa take charge, and at other times, sit back. A natural leader. Comfortable in most any circumstance or situation.

I have also witnessed numerous first hand reports of the successes that Science of Business is producing for its clients. When she shared the concept of her Mafia Offer Boot Camps, I actually got chills! So the other day while talking of John Boyd's contributions to business, it made sense to ask her to allow me the privilege of offering her speaking services to the world.

Hear now, the fruit of my labor:

www.BoydSpeakers.info

Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah
www.ThroughputPress.com

P.S. FYI: Boyd Speakers Bureau is a Throughput Press offering.

tag: Dr. Lisa Lang
(c)Copyright 2007, Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey.
All rights reserved.

Great Review by Chet Richards

A Great Review for a Great Book

This most excellent review comes from one of the most knowledgeable experts on the late Col. John Boyd's work.

I knew the combination of Boyd and Constraints Management was profound. But what do I know? I am just a guy that loves to solve problems. In ninety days (or less). It helps to have smart friends.

Thanks Chet.

-ski

tag: H. William Dettmer

Quality Expo Detroit :: June 11-12 2008

Catch SKI in Novi, Michigan...

I am pleased to offer my unique brand of focus at the 2008 Quality Expo Detroit Conference next month. Sponsored by Quality Magazine.

Session 202: Lean Six Sigma for Quality Manufacturing:

Leading Lean Six Sigma Projects for Quality Manufacturing

Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Partner and Senior Consultant,
Throughput.us LLC

Leveraging Lean with Six Sigma is the "Best Practices" of quality manufacturing for our present times. However, there is more required for successful projects than simply "the will to succeed".

Leadership requires passion in addition to great tools. Leadership also requires action: the proper action at exactly the perfect time. Every time, Faster than circumstances can deteriorate!

Cycle through your Lean Six Sigma toolbox turbocharged by Colonel John Boyd's OODA Loop (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) to ensure mission critical successes for each and every project on your plate. Learn of real life applications of the OODA Loop.

• Observe: unfolding circumstances; internal and external data; implicit guidance & control
• Orient: cultural traditions; Analysis & synthesis; previous experiences; heritage; new data
• Decide: Decision
• Act: Take action; test

Leaders produce. Effective leaders produce the desired results. Lean Six Sigma leaders empowered by Boyd's OODA Loop exceed expectations by mastering the four criteria for accuracy inherit in projects: accuracy relative to duration, to logistics, to costs and to the deliverables.

If results are an important part of your job, I look forward to seeing you in Novi. This event might just be the "kick in the pants" you need... better yet, bring your COO too.

-ski

----
Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah
www.throughput.us
+1 330 432-3533

tag: Quality Expo Detroit
©2008 Throughput.us LLC. All rights reserved.

more OODA loops

Scott Sonnon on Col John Boyd and the OODA Loop

What could a coach for cage fighting teach the MBA about business?

A lot.

Scott gives a great example of applying common sense to the world of competitive cage matches, when he explains,

"The opponent who cycles more slowly through the OODA Loop begins to feel farther and farther behind, like being sucked down a vortex: his options seem fewer, his reactions slower and less effective, his concentration scattered and his focus dim, his energy drains away and his success less likely (he feels more hopeless.)"

www.rmaxinternational.com/blog/?p=25

Good stuff.

Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah
www.sales101.info

P.S. Need to make it real for your business?
www.boydspeakers.info

tag: Boyd OODA Loop

People Power

I finished the ROWE book... Why Work Sucks and How to Fix it by Cali Ressler & Jody Thompson The conclusion of the book about making change happen will take some additional study (as well as the core of the book, as I mentioned the other day). In other words, this is hard work! But what is the alternative? Status Quo? I hope not... More of the same is hardly ever the key to success. Colonel John Boyd talked of, "People, ideas, and hardware. In that order!" I started re-reading the book, Big Change at Best Buy, to get a better handle on change. But I digress... Every successful business turn around that I have studied could be oversimplified to this elementary statement: People Power Think of Apple when Steve Jobs returned as iCEO... It is Jim Collins' "The right people are your greatest asset" argument all over. Stuck? Ideas are a dime a dozen. Actually, Seth Godin points out a web site that will email you a new idea each and every day. Hardware is a generic term that means tools to implement ideas are necessary. But again, the key is people power. Why do companies send key people to workshops around the country? For the tax write off? Hardly. To spark them to greatness! Or so I tell myself every time I speak. Ask anyone that has attended one of my sessions, "What was the message?" You can make a difference And only you! If your mind is stuck in "wrong headed thinking" mode, give it a shake! Get to my session in Chicago on the 23rd (yes, this month: September!). You are going to hear about Boyd. And ROWE. And Lean Six Sigma as well as the Constraints Management Model. But mostly, you will hear about results Driven by People Power See you then. -ski P.S. There is still time to register. ---- Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah www.linkedin.com/in/consultski Dover, OH | Hilton Head Island, SC | Las Vegas, NV Phone: (330) 432-3533 tag: Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson are People! ©2008 Throughput.us LLC. All rights reserved.

Success is as Success does

HOW DO YOU SPELL SUCCESS?

In Purple Curve Effect, I offer seven tips for generating throughput. My working definition of throughput is simply, "more money in your pocket."

Too often, folks get hung up on window dressing. One advantage of cruising the country side on a motorcycle is people do not have very high expectations of the rider. Back in the late 1980's (man, that seems like eons ago!) I preferred a white dresss shirt and blue jeans. Today, it is jeans and my Turismo Cycles 'golf' shirt complete with a pocket. But I digress...

I worded these seven points differently in the book. And well, even I have trouble remembering them in order (although order is not all that important). So for the last couple of weeks, over my morning coffee at Starbucks, I have been working on phrases that help drive the message home.

So, what do you think?

Is this version helpful? Let me explain them at some length. For those whom strengths lie elsewhere...

Number One: "Dreaming" is the most important step. Period. Always. For ever. But it is not sufficient. How can you have a dream come true without a dream. In the book I called it, "Write down your Goal." Kind of sterile. Sam Walton was a dreamer. Steve Jobs is a dreamer. I have been all my life. Sure, "stuff happens" and the birds come to pick over your bones, but we have a choice! Dream bigger dreams. Ask. You have not, because you ask not. Oh yea, be careful what you ask for...

Number Two: "Make a List." Of everything. Think stuff up! Pretend you work for NASA. Think about the challenges to be solved in launching that new product line. Make lists of issues to resolve. Possible markets to enter. Or exit! Lists of people to involve. Or not involve! Make a list of questions that you need answers for, in order to proceed. You will be amazed how people just happen to pop into your life when you are on a mission.

Number Three: "Visualize the End Results." See them complete. Making money, or generating goodwill, or whatever makes sense in terms of throughput for your dream. See that ribbon cutting. Who was there? Add them to your list of invitees! Imagine your bank's staff knowing AND calling you by name as you come in for yet another deposit!

Number Four: "Develop a Project Plan for Success." I now prefer "reverse engineer" by far! See the end result and plan backwards (thanks again to Tony Rizzo for this insight). It is easier to build something (almost anything) if you have a copy to steal from! You can see the process. And as you dissect your vision, you will see shortcuts that the competion may have missed.

Number Five: "Involve Others." Still my favorite. But the "shop it around" phrase seems more timely. Why climb that mountain or swim that raging river alone? The view is almost always sweeter when you enjoy it with others. No one to share the challenge with? Call me. I only charge 10% (you get the other 90%!). Remember Jim Collins: "it is the RIGHT people that are your greatest asset."

Number Six: "Find a Working Model and Steal it." The magazine that I used as a model for TOCreview was not profitable. My bad using it as a model. Who do you know that is making a lot of throughput (money!)? Study them. Their business model(s). Can you apply those concepts in a slightly different manor or marketplace? Experiment. Test. Refine.

Number Seven: "Create a Feedback Loop" became "POOGI - Process of On-Going Improvement." That now gives way to the late Col. John Boyd's OODA Loop. He invented the maneuver you heard about in the movie "Top Gun." Remember when they all are in the tac trailer reviewing film of maneuvers and Maverick gets chewed out for a stunt that actually works? And the guy behind him lends over and whispers, "Gutsiest move I ever saw!" Thanks to H. William Dettmer for sharing his discovery of Boyd with me.

Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Publisher
www.ThroughputPress.com

P.S. How have you adopted the seven tips?

P.P.S. You do know about the MP3s that are now available, right?

P.P.P.S. This blog entry as an MP3 is available now.

tag: Throughput Tips
(c)Copyright 2007, Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey.
All rights reserved.

to be or to do

Don Vandergriff invokes Col. John Boyd

Great post. The answer (the question was "how to"): H. William Dettmer's book on Strategic Navigation, as practiced by yours truly. It requires a dynamic yet determined focus on results. Your remark is "spot on":

"The first thing any organization has to do is define its endstate (a good commander’s intent, long term contract)."

Check out my Dynamic 4^3 Process™ — then lets talk.

-ski

P.S. You might want to check out the Boyd Speakers Bureau.

----
Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah
www.linkedin.com/in/consultski
Hilton Head Island, SC | Las Vegas, NV
Phone: (330) 432-3533

tag: Don Vandergriff
©2008 Throughput.us LLC. All rights reserved.

Batch Size

James La Trobe-Bateman asks:
When Should You Live with Your Batch Size?

Having just discovered James and his writings today, I am not sure what to think. But I will investigate further. He credits Eli Goldratt and the Theory of Constraints (TOC). That is refreshing. And very welcome.

This article covers a lot of the thought process that one should undertake when approaching the concept of batch sizing. Allow me to add two more trains of thought:

• Systems Thinking
• Marketing Think

Systems Thinking

It is important to start any evaluation with the end in mind. In business, that requires a closer look at the goals and/or mission statement for the entity in question. James touches on this fact. I however, stand up and shout about it. Often (too often) someone will post a query to a newsgroup or blog seeking wisdom from the elders or "keepers of the faith" on a particular subject matter. Most often, members of the group will respond. That is great, but rarely helpful.

Until one understands the goals for which the entity strives to meet, there are no answers. Good or bad. Just random (well meaning) advice. Maybe that is why we oft hear the expression, "you get what you pay for." Systems Thinking starts with an appreciation for the goal.

Marketing Think

As good as TOC is, and it provides the "missing link" for most business analysis, as it provides a series of tools to determine the leverage point (or, as I like to say, the weakest link) in a system where effort must be applied in order to produce breakthroughs. I recall in TQM how we empowered teams to set about improving everything, hence valuable resources were wasted and often, few tangible bottom line results could be documented. But I digress...

Enter stage right: Col. John Boyd and his OODA Loop. Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. Faster than the competition. Repeat. Get inside your competitor's loop. Bounce between the four pillars as needed. As Chet Richards points out, there is no need to cycle through the loop "in order." Business seldom offers order. Marketing plans drafted in a vacuum rarely change the rules... but it is he that makes the rules, that wins.

In conclusion

Take Goldratt's three pillars of "What to change; What to change to; How to cause the change" and add Boyd's OODA Loop to execute your strategy and tactics faster than anyone else to arrive at what some might call, "and unfair advantage!"

That would be my additional thoughts on determining the proper batch size.

Knowing that conditions will change. Quickly.

Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey, Jonah
www.ThroughputPress.com

P.S. To fully appreciate the Logical Thinking Processes, consider this Jonah link.

tag: Batch size
(c)Copyright 2007, Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey.
All rights reserved.