• Commander’s intent and end state are given by leaders, so their team understands the purpose and outcome intended.

• Armed with this information, a team can make decisions in a dynamic environment without needing leadership involvement.

• Their decisions will be made with the knowledge of whether their original plan is out the window. They just need to work towards meeting the intent and end state that they received from their leader.

WAR

The commander’s intent and end state are important concepts in military leadership. Many objectives were lost because these concepts were not understood.

Let’s start with the definitions.

Commander’s intent:

• Commander - a person in authority

• Intention - an aim or plan.

When they are combined, it results in “a person of authority’s aim.” The commander’s intent is the leader’s desired outcome.

End state:

• End - come or bring to a final point; finish.

• State - the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.

When they are combined, the result is “the final condition of someone or something at a specific time.” The end state is the vision for the outcome.

The best official definition of these concepts can be found in an Army publication:

“The commander’s intent succinctly describes what constitutes success for the operation. It includes the operation’s purpose, key tasks, and the conditions that define the end state. It links the mission, concept of operations, and tasks to subordinate units. A clear commander’s intent facilitates a shared understanding and focuses on the overall conditions that represent mission accomplishment. During execution, the commander’s intent spurs disciplined initiative” (ADRP 5-0, pg 2-19)

A clear commander’s intent and end state will empower a team to make decisions. They will be confident in their decisions because they will understand the purpose and goal behind them. This will remove the need to confirm every decision with leadership.

Examples of Commander’s Intent

The best way to explain the impact of a commander’s intent is through examples.

Example 1:

• Friendly situation: You are a squad leader. You have three teams in your squad. Each team has four infantrymen, one corporal team leader, and three riflemen. Your squad totals 13, including yourself. You are currently located on Hill 11 (below reference).

• Enemy situation: There is a likely enemy fire team on Hill 22. The enemy fire team consists of one corporal team leader and three riflemen.

• Mission: Your mission is to destroy the enemy on Hill 22

• Commander’s Intent: None

• End State: None

Your squad approaches Hill 22. When you get within visible distance, you see that the enemy IS NOT on Hill 22.

You can see them on Hill 33.

As the leader, what do you do?

Do you:

• Attack Hill 22 hoping that taking the hill was the intent of the mission.

• Attack Hill 33 to destroy the enemy fire team that is there.

Without the commander’s intent or end state there is no correct answer.

The commander may have wanted you to attack Hill 22 because it is key terrain in the area. In this case, you should take Hill 22.

The commander may have wanted you to attack Hill 22 to destroy the enemy. In this case, you should change headings and attack Hill 33 to destroy the enemy.

Let’s add the commander’s intent and end state to our original mission.

• Mission: Destroy the enemy on Hill 22.

• Commander’s Intent: In order to clear all enemy presence in the area of operation.

• End State: No enemy is able to attack friendly installations in the area of operation.

Now, you are faced with the same situation. The enemy has moved to Hill 33.

What would you do?

With the intent of clearing the enemy and the end state of the enemy not being able to operate, you should attack Hill 33.

Example 2:

• Mission: Destroy the enemy on Hill 22

• Commander’s Intent: In order to control the observation post on Hill 22

• End State: Friendly forces are able to freely use the observation post on Hill 22 to observe the surrounding area

What would you do with this intent?

With the intent of taking the observation post, you should attack Hill 22, no matter what. This applies, even if the enemy has moved to Hill 33.

Hopefully, these examples made it clear how powerful these concepts are. Understanding the purpose and end goal of a task will change how people execute it.

Format for commander’s intent

In the Marine Corps, the commander’s intent is woven into the five-paragraph order. The five-paragraph order is the format that leaders use to communicate their plan.

In the five-paragraph order, there are a few ways that intent is given.

First, in the execution paragraph, there is a subparagraph designated specifically for the commander’s intent and end state. In their plan, the commander will literally say “my commander’s intent for this mission is to...” and then “the end state for this mission is...”

Example:

• Commander’s intent - My intent for this mission is to destroy the enemy on or near Hill 22 to allow for friendly movement on Highway 5.

  • Key tasks:

    • Destroy any enemy that can affect Highway 5.

    • Breach enemy obstacles on Hill 22.

    • Integrate fires within the attack.

• End state - The end state of this mission will be to consolidate Charlie Company Marines on Hill 22 monitoring and disrupting enemy activity around Highway 5.

The Marine Corps also expresses intent by using an “in order to” format in their mission and tasking statements.

Some examples of this format are:

• Destroy the enemy on Hill 22 in order to protect civilian movement on Highway 5.

• Suppress the enemy on Objective 1 in order to allow the 2nd squad to breach the obstacle.

Using a cue, such as “in order to,” does a few things. First, it prompts leaders to remember to put intent in their tasks. Second, it forces the leader to pause and consider the purpose of the task.

I always stop and think for a few seconds after writing the “in order to” in my tasking statements. I must make sure that I’m writing or saying the right intent within this task.

I like the use of questions to prompt me to consider the correct things.

For commander’s intent and end state some good questions are:

• Commander’s intent

  • Why are we doing this?

  • How does it help the team reach its goals?

• End state

  • When it’s complete, what would it look like?

This is the commander’s intent and end state for the commander’s intent:

• The commander’s intent and end state allows your team to understand your reason for executing a task, in order to allow them to make accurate decisions when the environment changes.

• The end state of the commander’s intent and end state is for your team to successfully complete tasks, without leadership intervention or supervision.

BUSINESS

I understand that we’re not attacking hills in the civilian workplace. The business world is sufficiently complex to benefit from intent ( commanders are not used for business applications) and end state.

Decisions are constantly being made by everyone from the executive team to the hourly worker. These decisions are based on their understanding of their leaders’ intent and end state. Even if they have never heard of these terms, they still apply.

The senior procurement manager, merchandising managers and engineers are all making decisions based on their understanding of CEOs, vice presidents and directors’ intent and end state. The better they understand it, the more accurate their decisions will be. If they do not understand it, their decisions will be adversely affected.

If you asked ten different people what the intent and end state of the most important project in the company is, you would probably get ten different answers.

You should get one.

The best practice would be to provide your intent and end state for every task and meeting and ask for intent and end state from your associates.

Repetition is essential for retention.

Examples:

• Giving intent and end state on a project: The intent of this project is to produce the best pair of men’s running shoes between $100 - $150, with the end state of reaching a 30% market share in that segment by end of the year.

• Intent and end state of a meeting: “My intent of this meeting is to get input on the team structure for this project. The end state is to make a decision on the team, so we can move forward with the project”

• Intent and end state of a task: “Hey, Jess. I need some help processing this ticket. My intent is to get this ticket closed today or tomorrow, so I can start working on this platform again.”

• Asking for intent and end state: “Just to be clear, the intent of this spreadsheet is to compare Q1 and Q2 income statements, so our director can report it to the VP in next week’s meeting.”

Intent and end state can be used in almost any situation. They are an excellent framework for clarifying the purpose of almost any situation.

Summary:

The commander’s intent is to provide the reason for actions. Therefore, if their environment changes, they can make good decisions without further guidance. The end state is that everyone can make decisions on their own as effectively as possible.

If they receive a clear definition of the commander’s intent and end state, subordinate leaders and individual contributors will be able to make the correct decisions rapidly and without guidance in dynamic environments.

REFERENCES:

1. “ADRP 5-0 THE OPERATIONS PROCESS.” HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. May 2012. Link

2. Stouffer, Jeff and Farley, Dr. Kelly. “Command Intent: International Perspectives and Challenges”. 2008. Link

3. Dempsey, Maj. Richard Dempsey and Chavous, Maj. Jonathan M. “Commander’s Intent and Concept of Operations.” MILITARY REVIEW. November-December 2013. Link

• OODA Loop is a four step process that is constantly happening and driving all decision making

• Observe - intake information from your environment

• Orient - process information

• Decide - decide on what you need to do

• Act - take the action to make your changes in the environment

WAR

The OODA Loop is a decision-making process developed by a US Air Force fighter pilot named Colonel John Boyd.

OODA stands for (Boyd, 1):

• Observe

• Orient (Think)

• Decide (Hypothesis)

• Act (Test)

The four steps of the process are a sequential cycle that happens whether or not you’re conscious of it. You are constantly observing your environment, orienting on what you see, deciding on what to do and then acting on that decision.

The faster, more accurate, and bolder your OODA Loop is, the greater the advantage you will have on your opponent. The advantage comes from your actions causing a change in the environment. These changes will force your enemy to either reset their OODA Loop or take action without considering it. If they reset their OODA Loop, their decision-making is slowed. If they have to take action without considering it, their decision will be less accurate.

“Idea of fast transients suggests that, in order to win, we should operate at a faster tempo or rhythm than our adversaries—or, better yet, get inside the adversary’s observation-orientation-decision-action time cycle or loop. Why? Such activity will make us appear ambiguous (unpredictable) thereby generating confusion and disorder among our adversaries—since our adversaries will be unable to generate mental images or pictures that agree with the menacing as well as faster transient rhythm or patterns they are competing against.” (Boyd, 1)

If you are taking more action to change the competitive environment than your competition, you will have the initiative and a competitive advantage.

Observe

Observation is the first step. All current context and information is gathered during this step.

The inputs that Col Boyd outlined for observation are:

• Unfolding circumstances

• Outside information

• Unfolding interaction within the environment

• Implicit Guidance and Control

There are an unlimited amount of things that you can observe. Choosing the right things is the main contributor to making good decisions. There are certain observations which do not help you make your next decision. There is also valuable observation which is closely monitoring the exact thing that will help to drive your next best decision.

There are constant changes in your environment. You, your opponent and other factors are contributing to the changes. Most of them are not within your control.

Actively monitoring the changes and seeking relevant information is the best way to increase the accuracy of your decision making. The only way you know what to look for, is through thorough analysis and previous experience.

Here is an example:

Imagine there are two fighter pilots in a dog fight. The communist fighter has an older, confusing control panel on his plane. This causes him to look down to flip switches, which breaks his observation of his enemy. The American F-22 fighter pilot has read War and Business blog posts and keeps constant observation on his opponent. Every time the communist jet makes a move, he counters immediately with a move of his joystick. The American slowly gains position, since his observation is laser-focused on the exact information he needs to make his next best decision. He eventually takes his six. He’s got a tone. The Hellfire missile is out and the enemy is destroyed.

The person who is more closely observing the more relevant information to make their next best directions, will speed up your OODA Loop. This gives them an advantage over their enemy driving accurate decisions and decisive action.

Key takeaway: Know exactly what information you need to make the next decision and actively observe for that information.

Orient (Thinking)

The orientation step is the least intuitive. Consider it the ‘thinking’ step.

Google defines orient as “ to adjust or tailor (something) to specified circumstances or needs.”

In this step, you will use your prior experience, intelligence and knowledge to process your observations to help you to generate a decision.

The inputs that Col. Boyd outlined for orient are:

• Cultural traditions

  • How have you and your enemy been socialized to approach this decision?

• Genetic heritage

  • How physically and mentally capable are you, compared to your enemy?

  • Are your pre-dispositions an advantage or disadvantage? (exp. risk taker vs. not a risk taker)

• Analysis and synthesis

  • How hard have you thought and processed the possible outcomes involved in this decision?

• New information

  • Have you analyzed and synthesized all new and relevant information or have you ignored or not paid attention to it?

• Previous experience

  • How much experience do you have with similar decisions?

The orient step is an aggregate of your capabilities, experience, disposition and level of analysis of the decision. All of these things will determine how well you can predict the outcome of your decision and following action. The more accurately you are able to predict the outcome of your actions, the more likely you are to make the best decision.

Another example:

If a pilot just finished Top Gun training, they would destroy a brand new pilot in a dog fight. This is because their orientation is going to be much more advanced. The action they decide to take will be more accurate and decisive than a beginner. Their experience and advanced training would have allowed them to analyze and synthesize the environment faster, while also constantly observing and processing new information.

There are a few key considerations about the orient step.

First, of the inputs that Col. Boyd outlined, only ‘analyses and synthesis’ and ‘new information’ can be immediately impacted. If you’ve done a deeper analysis of the situation, and have monitored all the new information more closely, you can have an advantage over a more experienced or more genetically gifted competitor.

Second, you can develop your orient step by building the correct type of experience and considering what types of cultural and genetic advantages you have. As you build experience in a field, your decision-making will become faster and more accurate.

Key takeaways: The orient step is an aggregation of how capable and knowledgeable you are at understanding the current situation. This is driven by information from the observation step and will feed what decision and action you take.

Decide (Hypothesis)

The thinking is done and it’s time to decide.

Col Boyd also referred to this step as a ‘hypothesis’. Google defines “hypothesis” as “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”

It defines “decide” as “to come to a resolution in the mind as a result of consideration.”

What are the implications of using decide vs. hypothesize?

Hypothesizing vs. deciding are on the opposite sides of a spectrum. The difference is the level of resource commitment during the action. On the hypothesized side of the spectrum, you can learn by making small decisions and assessing the impact. On the deciding side of the spectrum, are bold decisions in which large amounts of resources are committed that will cause more change in the environment.

When you are less experienced (your orientation step is less developed) taking an investigative approach to your decision-making is beneficial. This allows you to make smaller, faster decisions and increase the pace of your OODA Loop. The risk in making small decisions is they may not decisively impact your enemy’s OODA Loop. If the change is too small, then they may ignore your action and move forward causing them to get the upper hand.

If you’re more experienced, you can take bolder and more decisive action to gain an upper hand more quickly.

I put together the quadrant graph below with a horizontal axis of ‘decision accuracy’ and a vertical axis of ‘decision boldness’.

• Top Right: Where you want to be is in the top right - bold and accurate. This is where someone with considerable experience and a deep understanding of the situation can make a decisive decision and take bold action to get an upper hand.

• Bottom Right: The bottom right is a little more experimental - less bold but still accurate. This type of action allows you to invest fewer resources, while still learning and improving your position. If you’re less experienced or not as familiar with the situation, then it’s probably where you want to be with your decision making.

• Bottom Left: The bottom left is still generally positive - less bold and not accurate. In this case, you took less risk by making a less decisive decision and took smaller action. Even though you were wrong in your decision and lost your position, you didn’t invest as many resources. This allowed you to learn, without getting too far out of position.

• Top Left: The top left is where you don’t want to be - bold and not accurate. This means you swung for the fences and missed badly. You end up expending a lot of resources and getting way out of position. As a result, your competition gains a lot of ground on you. This is a place where overly confident and inexperienced people get themselves.

Someone with more experience will read the environment faster and more accurately. This allows them to make bold decisions and gain an advantage. Making rapid, accurate decisive decisions is heavily dependent on how developed your orientation is.

There will also be times that you will have come to the end of hypotheses and there is a clear path forward. Once it’s clear what is working, a heavy commitment to a decision is needed to make significant impacts.

Key takeaways: You want to make bold, accurate decisions. To do that, you need a highly developed orientation. If you don’t, you should make less decisive decisions to learn and expend fewer resources, until enough assumptions have been confirmed to set conditions for a bold decision.

Act (Test)

After the decision, there is a follow-on action to implement it.

Action is defined as “the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.”

The key concept of the OODA Loop is understanding that the more and faster your actions change the competitive environment, the more your enemy will have to reconsider their current decisions. This will cause them to cycle back through while you have moved on to the next action, which then causes more disturbance.

The intent of your action should always be to change the environment your enemy is observing.

If you are less experienced or less familiar with the situation (your orientation is less developed), taking the smallest action that you can that still has an impact on your enemy allowing you to learn is the action you should take. Once a clear pattern of advantage has been established, bold action should be taken to win the engagement.

If you are very experienced or have a deep understanding of the situation, then bold action should be taken to gain as much ground as possible. The key is to make accurate predictions of the future outcome.

A key concept of the OODA Loop is outpacing your enemy. If you’re consistently taking action ahead of their loop, you’ve got the initiative. To do this, you need to take action and keenly observe how your enemy responds, so you can take advantage of the initiative you created.

If you give them too much time to reset their OODA Loop, you’ve lost the initiative.

Key takeaways: Your actions are the only real things that happen. They need to impact the environment to force your enemy to observe and process new information, or ignore it and lose ground.

Even vs Uneven Loops

The following are some examples of even competitors and uneven competitors.

Below is a diagram that shows even OODA Loops.

• In this situation, the competitors are taking evenly paced action

• No distinct advantage has been established

• They are observing at the same level of keenness, their orientations are evenly developed, they are taking similarly accurate and decisive decisions, which causes their actions to be of a similar level of boldness.

The following is a diagram that shows uneven OODA Loops.

• In this situation, the competitor on the left has a smaller loop. Their Decide and Act are much larger, representing bolder decisions and actions. Their Observe and Orient is smaller, representing rapid observation and thinking

• The loop on the right is much larger. This is because they are behind in their action compared to their competitors. They have a long Observation and Orient step, causing them to take smaller and less bold actions.

• The loop on the left has a clear decision making initiative.

When someone is “one step ahead” of their competition, they are out pacing their OODA loop.

In a fairly even competition, who is ahead in decision making will alternate. One competitor may ignore the changes while they take a bold action. This bold action will then impact the other competitor, forcing them to reset their OODA Loop and lose the decision making initiative.

It is a constant struggle to gain and maintain the decision making initiative.

Key takeaways: If you are watching a competition closely, you can see when the competitors are trading decision making initiatives. As changes are being made to the environment, time has to be spent observing, orienting, deciding and acting. Being one step ahead is always the goal.

Boyd’s OODA Loop Diagram

John Boyd’s full OODA Loop diagram is shown below.. The previous images were created to clarify and simplify specific parts. Now that you have read through this entire article, the full image is helpful to read through and start analyzing on your own.

[caption id=”attachment_1049” align=”alignnone” width=”2560”] Full OODA Loop, Wikipedia (2)[/caption]

The next section will consider how the OODA Loop can be applied to the business world.

BUSINESS

In the business world, your OODA loop is always spinning.

It is spinning in your interactions with your boss, your colleagues, your subordinates and your customers. Some interactions will cause it to spin more because those interactions are important. If you’re trying to close a big sale or debug some code, your OODA Loop is spinning hard and fast on the current problem.

How do you improve it to make faster, more accurate, bolder decisions that lead to decisive action?

The following are some general thoughts about how each step that can lead to improvement:

1. Observe

   • We need to know exactly what information is needed to make the next decision and pay very close attention to the environment to gather it.

     • That may mean watching your competitors very closely to see what new products or services they are introducing into the market. It also may mean watching how your boss or colleagues respond to the proposal you gave them.

     • The key concept is that you need to keenly observe, so that you can then orient on any new information.

2. Orient

   • Think as hard as time allows, before taking action. It is important to get input from as many experienced people as possible.

     • The three inputs over which we have most control in the orient step are:

       • Analysis and synthesis - How hard have you thought and processed the possible outcomes involved in this decision? Have you considered all of the different ways this could go? Do you have contingency plans for all of the possibilities? Have you talked to anyone who has dealt with a similar situation?

         • The deep analysis will help to develop your orientation for this situation. Even if none of the worst case scenarios develop, the effort you put into the analysis is important.

       • New information - Have you analyzed and synthesized all new and relevant information or have you ignored or not paid attention to it? This is linked very closely with ‘observe’. First, are you actually paying attention? Second, are you actually thinking about what that new information is telling you?

         • The person who is paying the closest attention and putting that information to the best use will have the edge.

       • Previous experience - how much experience do you have with situations like this? If you don’t have very much, then you need to seek advice from a mentor or advisor. You also need to be taking deliberate action to get the experience. You can do that through reading, courses or from taking on small or similar projects. None of us have too much experience or education.

3. Decide

   • How well you’ve oriented should drive how accurate you think your decision is, along with how bold of action you take.

     • If you’re very experienced, have thought deeply about this situation and have considered all new information, then you’re probably in a position to make an accurate decision, which should be supported by bold action.

     • If you’re less experienced and haven’t had time to consider this situation as thoroughly as you’d like, then your decision making may be less accurate. If this is the case, less bold decisions should be made to test and learn from.

4. Act

   • The more accurately you think your decision is weighed against the risk of expending resources, will determine the boldness of your action.

     • The bigger, more accurate punch you take, the more impact it has. The risk with a big punch, is if you miss it will leave you off balance and more tired than with a jab.

     • In the end, however, the only real thing in this world is the action. It’s how you will impact your environment and cause people around you to reset their OODA Loops.

     • You can observe, orient and decide all day long. However, if you don’t take action, no advantage will be gained.

This applies at all levels, whether you are the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or a new manager straight out of graduate school.

Whatever problem you’re dealing with, your OODA Loop is spinning on it. The harder you observe, the deeper you orient, the more accurately you decide, and the bolder action you take, the more successful you will be. This applies to combat and boxing matches, as well as to an engineering manager at Google, or the CEO of Coca-Cola.

The formula to succeed is the same, just the type and size of the problem changes.

References:

1. Boyd, John. “Pattern of Conflict.” ausairpower.net, December 1986, link

2. “John Boyd (military strategist)” wikipedia.com, link

3. Boyd, John. “The Strategic Game.” ausairpower.net, June 1987, link

4. Boyd, John. “A Discourse On Winning and Losing.” coljohnboyd.com, Air University Press, March 2018, link

5. Boyd, John. “Destruction and Creation.” goalseys.com, 3 Sept, 1976, link

6. Boyd, John. “Organic Design.” ausairpower.net, May 1987, link

• The infantry uses condition-set timelines to execute complex attacks and maneuvers.

• Instead of relying on fixed times or direct commands, condition-set timelines specify the criteria that must be met before the next phase begins.

• This allows subordinate leaders to use judgment and initiative when executing.

WAR

Imagine commanding thousands of Marines in a loud, stressful, and complex battle. To win, large groups of infantry must perfectly sequence their movement. If one group moves too fast or too slow, it puts everyone at risk.

So what is the best way to coordinate large groups of people?

This problem exists at every level of leadership, in both military and civilian organizations. In war, bad timing gets people killed. In the civilian world, bad timing can cause entire projects to fail.

The military addresses this problem by using conditions to drive timelines instead of phrases like “at this time” or “on my command.”

“At This Time” and “On My Command” Timelines

Two common ways leaders coordinate action are by setting a specific time or by directly commanding execution. Both methods introduce significant risk.

Time-Based Coordination

Using time is simple: the leader assigns specific start times.

Example:

• First Squad attacks at 0800.

• Second Squad attacks at 0830.

If First Squad takes 45 minutes instead of 30, they are now 15 minutes late. That delay can cascade into chaos when Second Squad attacks as scheduled.

Predicting how long something will take is extremely difficult. Thousands of variables influence execution. When these uncertainties are aggregated across a large project, the risk of timeline failure increases dramatically.

“On My Command”

Another option is on my command, where a leader directly signals execution—by voice, radio, message, signal, email, or any other method.

Example:

• First Squad attacks when I tell them to attack.

• Second Squad attacks when I tell them to attack via radio.

The problem is that leaders communicate less effectively than they expect. Messages may be unclear, delayed, or not received at all. Subordinate leaders often hesitate, waiting for the command.

This approach creates a single point of failure and drastically reduces initiative, making it a risky way to drive timelines.

Condition-Set Timelines

The third option—and the focus of this article—is the condition-set timeline.

A simple definition: a condition-set timeline defines the criteria that must be met before the next phase can begin successfully.

Everyday example (driving a car):

1. Open the door and sit in the driver’s seat

2. Start the car

3. Press the brake

4. Put the car in drive

Once those conditions are met, you can drive.

Military Example

First Squad attacks Hill 22

• Condition 1: First Squad is set in an assault position near Hill 22

• Condition 2: Effective mortar suppression is observed on Hill 22

Once both conditions are met, First Squad attacks.

Second Squad attacks Hill 33

• Condition 1: Second Squad is set in an assault position near Hill 33

• Condition 2: First Squad has secured Hill 22

• Condition 3: Mortars have shifted to Hill 33 and are suppressing the enemy

Once these conditions are met, Second Squad attacks.

These timelines rely on observation and initiative. Any leader who understands the conditions knows when to execute—no radio calls required.

In this example, Second Squad can observe Hill 22. Once it is secured, they begin preparing for the mortar shift that enables their attack. This keeps leaders engaged and proactive.

The biggest advantage of condition-set timelines is increased initiative. When leaders see conditions met, they are cleared to act. Decision-making accelerates across the organization.

The tradeoff is upfront effort. Defining and communicating conditions requires more planning than simply assigning a time or issuing a command. It takes deliberate discussion and shared understanding, especially under time pressure. However, teams trained to think in conditions can execute this rapidly.

Time, Command, and Conditions

Best practice incorporates time, command, and conditions together. They are not mutually exclusive. Conditions should ideally drive the timeline, with time and command nested within them.

BUSINESS

Every company operates on timelines that require work from multiple teams in sequence. If execution falls out of order, the timeline slips.

Most organizations coordinate using time. Teams want deadlines so they know when they can begin. In reality, what they are waiting on is the conditions that allow them to execute.

A more effective approach is to define those conditions explicitly and track progress against them.

How to Plan Conditions Into a Timeline

At a high level, using condition-set timelines involves three steps:

1. Define the major phases of execution

2. Outline the start and end conditions for each phase

3. Communicate the conditions teams are waiting on before executing

To define phases, identify the three to five major pieces of work.

Example: launching a denim jean line

• Design the jeans

• Build a prototype

• Secure financing

• Manufacture the first run

Next, define the conditions required to move between phases.

Helpful questions:

• What must be in place to start this phase?

• What does success look like at the end of this phase?

• What are ideal conditions for execution?

• What are acceptable but sub-optimal conditions?

Example Conditions

Design the jeans

• Start: Demographic and product vision defined

• End: Final design ready for prototype manufacturing

Build a prototype

• Start: Designs sent to manufacturer and quote agreed

• End: Prototype delivered and approved

Secure financing

• Start: Prototypes presented to investors

• End: Funds deposited into business account

Manufacture first run

• Start: Initial production run approved

• End: Finished inventory in warehouse, ready to ship

Thinking in start and end conditions focuses attention on what truly enables progress.

Once defined, the team has two responsibilities:

1. Update stakeholders on when conditions will be met so the next team can prepare

2. Concentrate resources to remove obstacles and accelerate completion

Communication becomes critical as conditions near completion. Leaders should alert the next team early so they can prepare to execute.

If a condition slips, the entire project slips. All effort should be focused on setting the next condition.

Soft and Hard Timelines

There are two types of timelines: soft and hard.

Soft Timelines

Soft timelines are largely under your control. Anxiety often comes from arbitrary deadlines set early in the project that don’t actually matter. What matters is whether the conditions are met.

Executing with condition-based timelines requires a mindset shift.

General recommendations:

• Set a vague overall timeline with generous margin

• Plan around major conditions, not tasks

• Communicate the sequence so teams know what they’re waiting on

• Mass resources on completing the current condition

Time and command still have a role. Communication should be layered: define the conditions, announce when they are met, confirm in writing—and then celebrate success.

Hard Timelines

Hard timelines occur whether you are ready or not.

Example: A Black Friday marketing campaign. You cannot move the date. The customers are coming regardless.

Conditions still apply. They are either met in time or not. You pay upfront through preparation or pay later through lost business.

Adjusted recommendations:

• Define a hard end state with absolute clarity

• Plan in detail around key conditions

• Communicate dependencies aggressively to avoid idle time

• Ruthlessly mass resources on setting conditions

In war, lives may be sacrificed to set conditions. In business, other priorities may need to be sacrificed. Hard timelines demand disciplined planning and execution.

Final Thought

The key to hitting any timeline is understanding and setting the conditions required to move to the next phase. The clearer those conditions are to everyone involved, the more likely they are to be achieved.

Resources: None

• Any dollar or hour spent on efforts that do not advance your biggest opportunity should be reallocated until that opportunity is fully funded and staffed.

• This will require saying no to good teams with good ideas.

• It is the leader’s responsibility to ensure the entire organization understands why funding and personnel shifts are being made.

  Thanks for reading the War and Business Substack. Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

A few summary of this article:

WAR

Economy of force is one of the nine principles of war.

MCWP 3-10 MAGTF Ground Operations defines it as:

Economy of force is the expenditure of minimum essential combat power on secondary efforts in order to allocate the maximum possible combat power on primary efforts. It is the judicious employment and distribution of forces. It is the measured allocation of available combat power to such tasks as limited attacks, defense, delays, deception, or even retrograde operations to achieve mass elsewhere at the decisive point and time.

Economy of force is the consequence of mass. To mass is to apply overwhelming combat power at a specific place and time to gain a decisive advantage over the enemy. Achieving mass requires directing all necessary resources to ensure success at that decisive point.

Minimum combat power is deliberately left in less important areas—just enough to prevent failure. Teams that have their resources reduced are experiencing economy of force.

Graphic: minimum power held in secondary efforts

Removing resources from a team to allocate them elsewhere is one of the most difficult decisions a leader can make—especially when those resources are directly tied to survival in combat.

Consider the following example.

You are an infantry battalion commander with three infantry companies. All three are heavily engaged and requesting additional artillery support.

Your artillery is currently distributed evenly among the companies. The result is a stalemate—no company has enough fire support to maneuver or gain ground.

You determine that victory depends on seizing key terrain: a large hill on the left flank. The only way to do this is to mass all available artillery in support of that attack.

This decision means stripping artillery support from the other two companies. Those units will almost certainly take increased casualties. You accept this risk because concentrating fires on the decisive terrain dramatically increases the probability of success for the entire battalion.

Members of the team must sometimes sacrifice for the success of the whole.

Everything has tradeoffs. Every organization operates with limited assets. The principle of economy of force demands that you apply the most resources to what matters most, and the fewest resources to what matters less.

The challenge is that everything matters—especially in combat. Some things simply matter more right now to achieve overall victory. What matters most is also fluid. Once an objective is achieved, priorities can shift rapidly based on the situation and the enemy’s actions.

Applying economy of force involves risk. Leaders must determine the minimum level of resources required for secondary efforts to survive without collapsing, while directing as much as possible to the main effort.

Overwhelming Force

Organizations with overwhelming advantages have an easier time allocating resources.

If 100 infantry Marines face 10 untrained opponents, resource allocation is simple. If 100 infantry Marines face 100 Army Rangers, assets must be applied with precision—and even then, significant losses are likely.

In even fights—or when operating as the underdog—economy of force becomes critical. Simply put: when you have weaker cards, you must play them perfectly to win.

Key Takeaways

• Economy of force requires a deliberate and ruthless assessment of the minimum resources secondary teams need to survive.

• Resources freed from secondary efforts should be reallocated to the primary effort to maximize its probability of success.

BUSINESS

Economy of force is just as critical in business.

It is easy to find good opportunities and start allocating money and time toward them. It is far harder to do the opposite—to remove funding and personnel from good opportunities.

Saying yes is exciting. Saying no is not.

“Every unnecessary expenditure of time, every unnecessary detour, is a waste of power, and therefore contrary to the principles of strategy.”
— Carl von Clausewitz
Graphic

Every team is trying to justify its existence by expanding headcount and budget. Most will present compelling arguments for why they need more resources.

The principle of economy of force says this: unless a team is working on the company’s most important opportunity, it should be asking how it can reduce its resource requirements—not increase them.

Teams responsible for the most critical initiatives should be so well-funded and staffed that they possess slack—idle time, excess budget, and margin for error.

Teams not working on the main effort should have only what they need to avoid failure.

Graphic: fully funded main effort cascading down to minimally resourced secondary teams

Applying Economy of Force

To apply economy of force, leaders must answer four questions:

1. What is the most important opportunity for success?

2. Is that opportunity funded and staffed at a level that ensures success?

3. If not, where can people and money be pulled to reinforce it?

4. What are the consequences of removing those resources from other teams?

The intent of economy of force is to minimize wasted time and money on lower-priority efforts. Any resources spent away from the main effort deliver a lower return on investment.

Once the primary opportunity is fully resourced, leaders can begin reinforcing secondary efforts. The goal is success everywhere—but decisive success somewhere first.

Graphic: trickle-down consequences

Communicating Resource Reductions

Eventually, leaders will hit a hard resource constraint. At that point, teams must be told they will receive no additional support—or that resources will be taken away.

These conversations are never easy.

Non-priority teams should be told clearly that they are expected to accomplish their mission with fewer resources. At the same time, leaders should publicly recognize and reward teams that succeed despite limited support.

The balance lies in giving the main effort every chance to succeed without neglecting secondary efforts to the point of failure.

CONCLUSION

Economy of force is the principle that resources not allocated to the main effort are being wasted.

Leaders must think critically about what matters most, ensure it is fully staffed and funded, and accept that many good ideas will need to be sacrificed to concentrate resources where they have the greatest impact.

Final Key Takeaways

• Identify your team’s or company’s most important opportunity and resource it for success.

• Expect to pull people and money from other areas—or reject good ideas—to avoid wasting limited resources.

REFERENCES

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps. (2018, April). MCWP 3-10 MAGTF Ground Operations.

• The principle of massing is to concentrate as much of your resources as possible at a decisive point in order to gain an overall advantage over your competition.

• This means limiting resources allocated to other areas that could also use them.

• If you had to win in one area, which one would give you the biggest advantage over your competition? That is where you should mass as much as you can.

The video version of this article:

WAR

MCWP 3-10, MAGTF Ground Operations defines massing as:

The purpose of mass is to concentrate the effects of combat power at the most advantageous place and time to produce decisive results. In order to achieve mass, appropriate joint force capabilities are integrated and synchronized where they may have a decisive effect quickly. Mass must be sustained to have the desired effect.

In simple terms, massing means putting everything you have into the advantage that matters most at that moment.

In war, massing generally refers to concentrating artillery, mortars, and airpower in a single location to break through an enemy infantry unit. Once that point is breached, it can be exploited.

Consider the following example.

Imagine you are an infantry battalion commander with three infantry companies. All three are heavily engaged with the enemy. Each is in trouble, and each is requesting artillery support.

You have a choice.

You can spread your artillery across all three companies so that each receives a small amount of support, or you can concentrate your fires on one company and help them decisively win their fight.

The principle of massing makes the decision clear. The company whose breakthrough would give the entire battalion the greatest advantage should receive as much artillery support as necessary to win. The other companies will have to accept little or no support, depending on how much the priority company requires.

The priority company is usually the one closest to key terrain or a critical objective. If artillery support enables that company to seize it, the balance of the entire fight can shift, giving the battalion a chance to win.

This is a painful choice.

The analysis will not be easy.

What if the commander chooses the wrong company and massing fires fails to achieve a breakthrough, wasting the effort?
What if the fires are massed too heavily and the other companies are overrun, creating a serious disadvantage elsewhere?

Massing will always be a difficult decision that requires boldness and courage. The commander is deliberately diverting resources away from units that may suffer or die without support. However, the principle dictates that more people will die if the priority effort fails.

It is rarely an absolute choice. Often, there is enough artillery to give one company decisive support while still providing limited assistance to others. A leader’s job is to maximize the effectiveness of available resources.

BUSINESS

The principle of massing applies directly to business.

If you are a business leader, ask yourself:

If we had to win in one area, which one would give us the biggest advantage over our competition?

That answer is where you should mass as much money and talent as possible.

Prioritizing and allocating scarce resources is difficult. Every team has a legitimate reason for needing more people and more funding. However, leadership requires making hard choices.

As a leader, you must clearly communicate which team is the highest priority and mass resources there. Once that team is appropriately resourced, you can begin diverting resources to other parts of the business.

I define appropriately resourced as the point at which adding more people or money produces diminishing returns, or when you are confident the team will succeed.

All non-priority teams must operate lean. This expectation must be communicated clearly. They need to understand why they are not receiving the funding or personnel they are requesting.

When people know they are not getting additional help, they tend to get scrappy and resourceful. If they believe help might be coming, they often slow down and wait for it. Make sure they understand they must make do with what they have while the priority team works to break through.

Massing on the correct opportunity is the key to success. Leaders must make the best decision they can with the information available at the time. Better analysis and better inputs lead to better decisions.

Key Takeaways

• Give your priority team everything they need to succeed.

• Clearly inform non-priority teams that they will not receive additional resources and must operate lean.

Reference

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps. (2018, April). MCWP 3-10: MAGTF Ground Operations.