Reflexive Capital, Boyd’s OODA Loop & the Systems Engineer
From my previous post, I discussed this new idea around “Systems Entrepreneur” from Doug Balfour and Geneva Global. It received quite a bit…
From my previous post, I discussed this new idea around “Systems Entrepreneur” from Doug Balfour and Geneva Global. It received quite a bit of response and so I thought I would attempt to continue the dialogue. The theme also reminded me of an old business philosophy developed by a former military officer.
COL John Boyd (January 23, 1927 — March 9, 1997) had studied the fighter patterns of aircraft in World War II and developed what has become famously known as “Boyd’s OODA Loop.” It’s essentially an iterative, decision-making process that identifies who will “win” and who will “lose” in business (obviously subjective to industry/goal/etc as to what defines “winning/losing”) and modeled after COL Boyd’s experiences in observing who ultimately won a dogfight between fighter pilots. Decision-making is never a linear process but multi-dimensional and a more appropriate solution is often a nested response. (*As an aside, it is interesting to me that things like the “Business Model Canvas” and “lean startup methodologies” are communicated as “new” and “novel” when clearly they have been around in practice and in other forms for a very long time…but I digress :)
Much like an actual battlefield, the situation that communities and citizens face is ever changing. And so, if we continue our historic and entrenched methods of responding to community’s needs — without remaining flexible and situationally aware — the solutions (and problems themselves) will pass us by.
In fact, if our solutions today address the problems of today…ideally, they won’t be the same problems of tomorrow.
So then, how do we apply principles of the OODA loop to adequately adjust to the fluid environment around us and ACT in ways that deliver the right solutions at the right time? This should be an iterative, inclusive, and open process of adaptive learning, with dynamic capabilities and defined outcomes. What is likely to happen if we lose sight of this important process? How does this impact our efforts in communities if we take our “eyes off the ball” and ignore the need (and our responsibility) to constantly adjust?
A prime example today is Detroit, MI. Many of the things Detroit of the 1950s faced at the height of it’s prosperity as the car city, have changed. With the recession of 2008, Detroit was decimated and now entire city blocks sit vacant and ready for demolition. If the same community assets addressing the needs of citizens within Detroit were established and unable to adjust with the changing needs, a huge gap is left.
What is needed is reflexive capital and a process of constant testing, verification, and adjustment to provide the most capital efficient and targeted solution. One of the principle goals for philanthropy should be a high tolerance for experimentation — it should be the “riskiest” capital; always seeking the most innovative, effective, and efficient methods for combating community deterioration and pursuing lasting change. The Systems Entrepreneur then is vital to that goal of integration, adaptability, and a reflexive capital strategy.
Additionally, as my friend Ross Baird pointed out from the last post as well,
“The “ecosystem quarterback/system entrepreneur” fills a role that the private sector doesn’t need in a fully functioning/liquid ecosystem but does need in most scenarios. I think this is a very specific and necessary 21st century practice (like “economic development officer” or “chamber of commerce” are very 20th-century practices).”
How might we continue to better support iterative, integrated and experimental approaches to community problem-solving?
How might we better support and encourage those that are willing to lead the way?
As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts!