OODA Loops: How they work, why they matter

In 1976, military strategist John Boyd introduced a concept that would reshape how we think about competitive decision-making. The OODA Loop, (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act), was designed to help fighter pilots gain tactical advantage by cycling through decisions faster than their opponents. Nearly five decades later, this framework has found a new life in the corporate SOCs. If you’ve worked incident response for any length of time, you’ve felt the pressure of making critical decisions with incomplete information while the clock ticks. OODA provides a mental model for structuring that chaos, not by slowing things down, but by making your decision cycles deliberate and repeatable.

​

Why OODA Matters for Incident Response

Boyd’s core insight was simple: the entity that can cycle through observe-orient-decide-act loops faster than their adversary gains a compounding advantage. Each completed loop creates new information that feeds the next cycle. Fall behind, and you’re always reacting to outdated conditions. This maps directly to incident response. Threat actors operate on their own OODA loops, probing your defenses, adapting to your responses, and exploiting gaps in your visibility. Your job is to complete your loops faster and more accurately than they complete theirs. By the nature of corporate communications and workflows, adversary OODA loops will be faster/tighter than defensive OODA loops. So the answer is move faster right? Not really. Speed without structure creates chaos, and that’s not productive for anyone. Teams that rush through incidents without deliberate process make mistakes, miss critical context, and often extend the very incidents they’re trying to resolve. OODA gives you a framework for being both fast and methodical.

​

Mapping OODA to Incident Response

Let’s break down each phase and examine how it translates to practical IR activities.

​

Observe: Building Your Detection Surface

The Observe phase is about data collection, gathering the raw inputs that will feed your decision-making. In incident response, this means: Detection capabilities. Your SIEM, EDR, NDR, and cloud security tooling form your primary observation layer. The quality of your Observe phase is directly limited by your detection coverage. Gaps in visibility become blind spots that adversaries exploit. Log collection and retention. When an incident occurs, you need historical data to understand the full scope. If you’re only retaining logs for 30 days and the adversary has been in your environment for 60, you’ve already lost critical context. Threat intelligence. External feeds, industry ISACs, and government advisories provide context about active campaigns and TTPs. This intelligence shapes what you’re looking for during observation. Alert triage. Not every signal warrants a full incident response. Your Observe phase includes the initial triage that determines whether an alert represents a true positive requiring further investigation. The practical question for your team: when an incident kicks off, how quickly can you pull together a comprehensive picture of what’s happening? If the answer is “it depends on who’s on shift,” you have an Observe problem. Alert fatigue can impact your ability to Observe, if you have a lot of alerts to be traiged, and the noise overwhelms your team, that too is not productive for anyone.

​

Orient: Making Sense of What You See

Orient is where Boyd’s framework gets interesting, and where most IR teams have room to improve. This phase is about contextualizing your observations to understand what they mean. Situational analysis. What assets are affected? What’s the business criticality? Is this isolated or part of a broader campaign? The Orient phase transforms raw data into actionable intelligence. ( Scope assessment. Initial observations rarely capture the full extent of an incident. Orient involves deliberately expanding your view to understand lateral movement, persistence mechanisms, and potential data exposure. Historical context. Has your organization seen similar activity before? What do your threat models tell you about likely adversary objectives? This context shapes how you interpret current observations. Stakeholder impact mapping. Which business units are affected? What regulatory implications exist? What’s the potential customer impact? Orient includes understanding the organizational context, not just the technical details. Boyd emphasized that Orient is the most critical phase because it shapes how you interpret everything else. Two analysts can observe the same data and reach different conclusions based on their “orientation,” their training, experience, and mental models.

​

Decide: Committing to a Course of Action

The Decide phase is where you commit to specific response actions. This requires both technical judgment and organizational coordination. Response strategy selection. Will you contain immediately or continue monitoring to understand scope? Will you pursue full eradication or accept managed risk? These decisions have tradeoffs that must be weighed explicitly. Prioritization. With limited resources and potentially multiple response workstreams, what gets attention first? Decide includes resource allocation, not just strategy selection. Stakeholder communication. Who needs to know what, and when? Your communication decisions during an incident shape organizational response and can have legal and regulatory implications. Authorization and escalation. Some response actions require approval. Knowing when to escalate, and having pre-established escalation paths, prevents decision paralysis during critical moments. This is why table-top activities are critical for organizations to learn from. You quickly learn when structured communication flows aren’t properly set up, you also learn who the points of failure are. A common failure mode in the Decide phase is analysis paralysis. Teams get stuck in Orient, continuously gathering more data without committing to action. Boyd’s framework reminds us that a good decision now often beats a perfect decision later. Your next OODA loop will incorporate new information anyway.

​

Act: Executing Your Response

The Act phase is where decisions become reality. This is the domain of traditional IR playbooks and runbooks. Containment. Isolating affected systems, blocking malicious IPs, disabling compromised accounts. Containment actions stop the bleeding and prevent further adversary progress. Eradication. Removing malware, closing vulnerabilities, eliminating persistence mechanisms. Eradication ensures the adversary can’t simply resume operations after containment. Recovery. Restoring systems from clean backups, rebuilding compromised infrastructure, returning to normal operations. Recovery must be verified—rushing this phase invites reinfection. Documentation. Recording what happened, what you did, and what you learned. This documentation feeds future OODA loops, improving your team’s Orient capability for similar incidents. The Act phase loops back to Observe. Every action you take generates new information. Did containment work? Has the adversary adapted? What new indicators appeared after eradication? This is the “loop” in OODA, each cycle informs the next.

​

Improving IR Workflows Through OODA

Understanding OODA conceptually is the easy part. Operationalizing it requires deliberate process design. Build explicit phase transitions. Your incident response procedures should clearly mark when you’re moving from Observe to Orient to Decide to Act. This prevents teams from getting stuck in one phase or skipping phases entirely. Time-box each phase. (Notionally) Set maximum durations for each phase based on incident severity. A critical incident might allow 15 minutes for initial Observe, 30 minutes for Orient, and require a Decide checkpoint within an hour. These constraints prevent loops from stalling, these are just suggested numbers, discuss with your teams and management how you want to structure this. Designate phase ownership. In complex incidents, different team members can own different phases. One analyst focuses on continuous Observe (monitoring for new activity), another leads Orient (building the situational picture), while the incident commander owns Decide. Create Orient artifacts. Build templates that capture your Orient thinking, scope assessments, impact matrices, and threat actor profiles. These artifacts make your orientation explicit and reviewable, improving consistency across incidents and analysts. Conduct loop retrospectives. After major incidents, review how your OODA loops performed. Where did you get stuck? What information was missing during Orient? What decisions took too long? This meta-analysis improves your loop performance over time.

​

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Skipping Orient. Under pressure, teams often jump from Observe directly to Act. They see an indicator, recognize it from past experience, and immediately execute containment. This works until it doesn’t, until the indicator means something different this time, and your response makes things worse. Orient paralysis. The opposite failure: endless analysis without commitment. Set decision points and stick to them. You can always loop back with new information. Single-loop thinking. Treating OODA as a linear process rather than a continuous cycle. Your first loop rarely resolves an incident. Design your process for iteration. Ignoring the adversary’s loop. You’re not operating in isolation. Sophisticated adversaries adapt to your responses. Your Orient phase should include modeling how the adversary might react to your actions. Adversaries are smart, even the most basic crime gang evolves with new TTPs. Inconsistent loop speed. Different incidents require different loop speeds. A ransomware detonation needs rapid loops measured in minutes. A subtle data exfiltration campaign might warrant slower, more deliberate loops. Match your tempo to the threat.

​

Operationalizing OODA Thinking

OODA isn’t a replacement for your existing IR framework, it’s a mental model that can improve how you execute within any framework. Start by mapping your current procedures to OODA phases. Identify where your team naturally excels and where loops tend to stall. Use tabletop exercises, I made a tool for one, or other activities to work through this decision making flow. Ultimately this can prove to be just as important as your tooling. Build explicit checkpoints and time constraints. Train your team to recognize which phase they’re in and when to transition. Most importantly, embrace the loop. Incident response isn’t about getting everything right on the first pass. It’s about cycling through observe-orient-decide-act faster and more accurately than your adversary, learning with each iteration, and compounding that advantage over time. Lessons learned meetings are crucial to see where the team can improve and how to detect earlier and react faster. The teams that master deliberate, rapid OODA cycling don’t just respond to incidents better. They create organizational learning that prevents future incidents entirely. That’s the real promise of OODA in incident response: not just faster reactions, but continuous improvement in how your organization understands and responds to threats.