Jul 4, 2025 | AI, Leadership
Most marketers wouldn’t know John Boyd if he jumped out of a strategy deck and tackled them. However, his OODA loop brainchild leverages the power of AI to turbocharge tactical marketing effectiveness.
Boyd, a maverick US Air Force fighter pilot and strategist, understood that survival in combat came down to one thing: speed of decision-making. The OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, then rinse and repeat was his insight that gave him the nickname of ’40 second Boyd’ He was never beaten in flight simulator dogfight combat. He understood that whoever cycles through that loop faster reshapes the contest and forces the opponent into reactive mode. In air combat, this meant living. In business, it means winning.
OODA is a mindset. AI is changing the tempo of that mindset in ways even Boyd could not have imagined.
AI can Turbocharge tactical Tempo
Until recently, the bottleneck in decision-making wasn’t data, or insight, or even creativity. It was people. Our slow, deliberate committee meetings, our weekly WIPs, the reviews that drag on longer than a Sydney DA approval.
AI doesn’t suffer these constraints. It observes more, faster. It orients by processing billions of data points in real-time. It proposes decisions with options and probabilities baked in. And it acts immediately when allowed, not months.
What used to be a quarterly campaign development cycle can now happen in an afternoon. And that changes everything.
The limiting factor is the siloed org chart.
The challenge isn’t getting AI to do the work. It already can. The real challenge is getting organisations to leverage the power of speed AI can deliver.
Too many CMOs are caught in the headlights, stuck in outdated governance and fear of missteps. They’re playing the game like it’s 2012. Time as a constraint is rapidly being removed. AI can produce a full marketing program overnight. Then it is handed to the organisational approval processes, often as decisive as my Aunt Mimi.
Meanwhile, your competitor, the one who slashed the approval chain and taught their AI what “on-brand” means, has already launched, learned, and iterated.
Leadership Is the Bottleneck
The real AI revolution is not technical. It’s cultural, and it is leadership.
Speed has become the underrated competitive edge. Not speed for its own sake, but speed to consider, learn, adapt, execute, and then repeat the cycle. This means leaders must rethink their role. They are no longer approval gatekeepers; they act as tempo setters. The conductor of a real-time orchestra where instruments never sleep and tempo changes every hour.
Reclaim the OODA Loop
Every time a decision is delayed, it hands the advantage to the opposition.
In Boyd’s world, if you could stay inside your opponent’s OODA loop, responding to changes faster than they could comprehend, you won.
AI lets us do that not just to competitors, but to markets, media shifts, consumer moods, even cultural trends.
But only if we let it.
As AI becomes embedded in workflows, the question becomes: who trains the AI?
Who owns the “brand brain” that defines tone, style, and judgment?
Smart brands are reclaiming that brain. They are training AI on their own assets and experiences, not renting a brain from their agency. That brain learns, evolves, and becomes an unfair competitive advantage.
Marketing to succeed in this new world must become an adaptive system.
In a world moving at AI speed, Boyd’s old dictum is truer than ever:
Decide fast. Act faster. Or die slow.
If you are not already building your AI-accelerated OODA loop, your competitors are. By the time you notice, they’ll be on to the next loop, and you may be headed for oblivion.
Jun 30, 2025 | Leadership, Management
As a consultant, I am often faced with managing the fragmented attention of my clients. The grass is always greener, and the new shiny thing syndromes are hard at work, particularly in the minds of the stressed owners of an SME, looking hard for an easier way.
Somehow, they must manage their limited resources of time, money, capability, operational capacity, and expertise, insulating themselves against the pull of the siren song of the silver bullet.
There is no substitute for the focussed application of all available resources on a market niche of some sort where there is a competitive advantage that can be defended. The niche may be as local as the best plumber close to your home, or as broad as a revolutionary application of technology to the world market, the logic remains consistent.
The late Charlie Munger had as part of his wardrobe of mental models one he called ‘The circle of competence.’ He credits this idea with much of the success he and Warren Buffett have had in Berkshire Hathaway.
In summary, he assesses all opportunities presented by determining if Berkshire Hathaway has a greater level of competence in the domain within which the opportunity lives than anyone else. The closer to the edge of the circle of competence, the less interesting it is, simply because there are others who know more about the drivers of long-term profitability than he does, and therefore in the long run, he is unlikely to win.
Many years ago, while working for Cerebos, I launched a breakfast cereal into test market in South Australia. It was a bridge between muesli, where Cerebos was a major brand in a small segment with Cerola (now disappeared from shelves) and the standard breakfast cereals, Wheat Bix, corn flakes and rice bubbles. It was a genuinely different product, offering a ‘bridge’ between the ‘tree hugger’ image of muesli, and the sugar laden three products that at that time stood alone in the market.
The launch was extremely successful, at first. Three months after our launch Kelloggs countered with a look-a-like product, ‘Just right’ and blew us away with the weight of advertising, power of the Kelloggs brand, and in store merchandising resources.
While it seemed that our new product, ‘Light and Crunchy’ was a logical and consumer centric expression of the trends in the marketplace, it was a step outside the ‘circle of competence’ of Cerebos. We did not have any competitive advantage in the general cereal market that could be leveraged after Kelloggs rubbed out the modest first mover advantage. It fell right in the middle of the ‘what you think you know’ circle of competence.
We did everything right, the longevity of ‘Just Right’ is evidence of that, but we did not sufficiently understand the drivers of our new competitor, Kelloggs, and the determination they brought to wiping out an interloper in what they saw as ‘their’ market. We were not sufficiently competent to be successful.
That insight came at considerable cost.
Jun 25, 2025 | AI, Customers, Lean, Operations
The idea of the OODA loop is to get inside the decision cycle of your opposition. Once inside, you control the outcome in the absence of some externality.
Toyota used this idea to destroy Detroit.
The Andon cord placed the power of tactical decision making about quality right at the point where it was needed, with the workers on the production line.
By this means, quality problems were identified and fixed before they moved a further step towards the customer.
It also did something else.
By identifying and fixing problems at the source, the cycle of problem fixing was accelerated greatly. Not every problem can be fixed immediately at the line, but there are processes for escalation, from the front lines to the lowest level that is empowered to address the problem. That escalation involved suppliers when the problem was caused by a supplied part that was substandard.
By contrast, Detroit was driven from the top down, being run by spreadsheets (handwritten until the 90’s) by executives who may never have seen the inside of the factory.
A problem as it escalates up a chain of command has many opportunities to be buried, forgotten, miscommunicated, all of which will happen, driven by all sorts of human frailties and power games. The end result, the little problem in the factory compounds and becomes a big problem with customers, which costs a lot to address, and ruins reputations.
Toyota got well inside the time it took Detroit to respond to problems. While Detroit was escalating or hiding quality problems, Toyota was fixing them and moving on the next improvement.
They were inside the OODA loop of Detroit, and it destroyed the American car industry.
AI is now giving users an easy tool to get inside the decision cycle of their competition, while seeing the productivity benefits drop to their bottom line.
How are you going to deal with that?
Jun 20, 2025 | Change, Governance, Innovation
Australia’s governments over time have, rightly, believed that the commercialisation of innovation is the key to long term prosperity.
As a result, governments of all persuasions and at all levels dole out billions each year in all sorts of grants, subsidies, and parallel programs.
Then, on a regular basis we have enquiries by well meaning and usually highly qualified people that come up with similar conclusions that the previous few and often very expensive enquiries have delivered: we are crap at it.
In successive weeks, the PM and Treasurer presented their view of the challenges facing us at the National Press Club. Both were very impressive performances, and in particular the treasurer hooked his agenda firmly onto the ‘Productivity’ challenge.
The Treasurer outlined the principles of his agenda. However, he did not get into the weeds of the sources of the failure to date that see us struggling with productivity in the economy, the problem to be solved. He did however acknowledge that hard to measure services are increasingly dominating, and we are all getting older, making the productivity challenge that much greater.
Sensibly after repeating the same mistake numerous times, and ending up where we are now, we should be asking ourselves ‘Why’.
My take on ‘Why’.
Bureaucracies have two conflicting, irreconcilable imperatives:
- On the one hand, they want to be fair and treat everyone the same. This makes commercial in confidence often challenging. (perhaps I overemphasise this as a result of a very nasty incident in my commercial past that will never be forgotten)
- On the other hand, they want to exercise discretion and take account of individual circumstances and technical advances made by program participants engaged in the various programs.
There’s no way to easily optimise these conflicting objectives at the same time.
On top of those two drivers of bureaucratic fossilisation, you have two further impediments in the Australian context:
- The impact of personal ambition, turf protection, and management of public sector KPI’s that have nothing to do with outputs, but everything to do with inputs that hobbles public sector engagement.
- Our federated system drives fragmentation.
Published today is an excellent analysis of the way forward by John Howard (not that one) from the Action Institute that I hope is widely read and deeply considered by those who will be involved in the treasurers productivity roundtable in August.
Jun 17, 2025 | Change, Leadership
“They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.”
That phrase echoes around footy grounds when a team, cruising to a win, suddenly collapses. The hunger fades. The cohesion cracks. The urgency evaporates.
Winners who stay winners do so because they never switch off. They stomp on a throat when they have the chance. And when they’re behind, they still believe they can come back.
Sporting analogies make great business metaphors. They’re colourful, visceral, and most of all, familiar.
Skype is a prime example of dropping the ball over the line.
Microsoft has been a cash machine for decades. Dominant, deep-pocketed, and ruthless when it suits. In short, they know how to win. But last month, they quietly walked off the field and took their former champion with them.
Skype was officially euthanised on May 5, 2025.
The original disruptor. The upstart that reinvented digital voice communication. The king of the mountain. Gone.
Skype began in 2003, the brainchild of two Estonians who wanted to reduce the cost of voice calls by using peer-to-peer protocols. The product exploded. eBay snapped it up in 2005 for $2.6 billion. Then in 2011, Microsoft bought it for $8.5 billion. It should have been a match made in heaven.
But inexplicably to me at the time, Microsoft launched Teams in 2017, and from then on, Skype looked like yesterday’s hero. Despite a global user base, a household brand, and a treasure trove of usage data, Skype was left to wither.
Why? Only insiders can say for sure, but from the outside, it looks like the classic case of a team where the halfback and five-eighth couldn’t agree on the game plan. Maybe one group wanted to modernise Skype. Another pushed all-in on Teams. The result? Strategic paralysis.
Then came COVID, and video conferencing exploded. Zoom turned from a quirky tool into a verb, others rushed to grab a piece of the expanding pie, and Skype appeared to be disinterested in even playing.
Microsoft had every advantage: distribution, brand, cash, data, development talent and loyal users by the millions, but they didn’t press the advantage. They coasted, and the game moved on.
So the final whistle has blown. Skype, once the dominant player, was taken off the field not by a better team, but by its own coach.
Small business owners: don’t assume past success guarantees future wins. Stay hungry. Stay alert. Don’t let a lazy midfield cost you the match.
