The OODA Loop, developed by U.S. Air Force Colonel John Boyd, stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. While often discussed as a tactical framework, its real value lies at the organizational level. The OODA Loop describes how companies perceive reality, interpret information, make decisions, and execute under pressure.
Few industries need this discipline more today than roof truss and wall panel component manufacturing (CM).
The market is no longer slow or predictable, and it is no longer forgiving of flawed assumptions. Conditions change faster, customer expectations continue to rise, and capital decisions now carry consequences that compound over decades rather than years. In this environment, competitive advantage increasingly comes down to decision quality.
A Market That No Longer Tolerates Drift
For decades, construction—and by extension CM—operated in relatively stable local markets. Relationships mattered, and inefficiencies were often tolerated because the environment allowed them to persist.
That environment no longer exists.
Today’s market is shaped by consolidation, private equity ownership, regional and national builders, labor volatility, compressed schedules, and rising expectations. At the same time, commodification is accelerating as differentiation erodes, placing sustained pressure on margins. CM operators are now forced into shorter decision cycles, whether they are prepared or not.
This shift has also pulled LBM suppliers deeper into CM. Many are entering manufacturing with strong balance sheets and operational confidence, but often with a distribution-oriented mindset. Tools and assumptions that work well in retail and supply chains do not always translate cleanly into production environments.
Component manufacturing can be a genuine cash-generation engine for an LBM when it is structured and managed correctly. Outcomes, however, tend to fall into one of two extremes. CM becomes either one of the most profitable and strategically valuable parts of the organization—or a barely tolerated operational anchor. The difference is rarely market demand. More often, it stems from attempting to run a manufacturing business with a retail LBM mindset, without fully understanding manufacturing constraints, labor dynamics, capital intensity, and system design requirements. Once executed, these outcomes are difficult to reverse.
Manufacturing is not simply material flow. It is a system of constraints, variability, sequencing, and recovery. Early decisions around buildings, equipment, and layout—when based on incomplete system understanding—can lock organizations into congestion, waste, and constrained throughput for decades.
TDC has seen many facilities where what appeared clean and efficient during planning later revealed chronic bottlenecks, unnecessary handling, and limited flexibility. In many cases, vendors operated within the scope defined by the customer, limiting their ability to challenge assumptions even when foreseeable risks existed. The result is rarely intent, but a decision process that allows long-term consequences to go unchallenged.
Observe: Where Reality Is Commonly Missed
The first step in the OODA Loop is Observe, and it is where many organizations fall behind.
Observation is not reviewing financials or reacting to yesterday’s problems. It is understanding how the entire operation functions as a system. In CM, sales, design, manufacturing, and administrative functions must work in alignment to produce consistent outcomes.
Too often, performance challenges are addressed almost exclusively within manufacturing, even when their root causes originate elsewhere. Design variability, incomplete sales information, poor handoffs, scheduling instability, and administrative delays all place strain on production when they are not addressed holistically.
Manufacturing output is frequently a reflection of upstream decisions. When alignment breaks down, manufacturing is forced into constant recovery mode, degrading throughput, quality, and morale.
Another common blind spot appears in workforce stability and skill development. Weak employee management systems—unclear expectations, inconsistent supervision, limited training pathways, and reactive hiring—often lead to frequent vacancies and a workforce dominated by underprepared labor. From an administrative perspective, these challenges are frequently misunderstood due to cognitive bias. Turnover is treated as a labor market issue rather than a system design problem, despite its predictable downstream impact on throughput and quality.
In response, organizations often turn to automation—particularly robotics—to stabilize output or reduce reliance on people. Automation is frequently used to compensate for unresolved management and workforce design issues rather than addressing root causes.
During the discovery and decision process, CM leadership teams often place significant weight on vendor recommendations. These recommendations are familiar, well-documented, and easy to justify internally. Vendors themselves often walk a delicate line between meeting customer expectations and pushing back on decisions that may create long-term constraints. The result is a decision process that can unintentionally narrow the range of options considered and overlook broader system-level alternatives.
Rather than correcting upstream contributors, organizations frequently search for downstream remedies. Most often, that remedy is automation.
The Automation Mirage
Automation—particularly advanced robotic automation—has been positioned as a response to labor challenges and margin pressure in CM. Results, however, have been mixed.
In many operations, advanced robotics introduce rigidity, complexity, and recovery risk that conflict with the inherent variability of CM. Shifts in product mix, design requirements, material consistency, and demand quickly expose limitations that were not apparent during evaluation.
The recent failure of House of Design’s robotic system illustrates this reality. It was more than a financial shortcoming; the system did not perform anywhere near the level implied by its marketing. TDC was surprised by how poorly it performed relative to expectations. While some robotic systems do work in narrowly defined applications, their effective use cases are far more limited than most organizations assume.
This does not mean that robotics lack value. In certain situations, robotics can enhance specific processes. In many others, simpler solutions—such as properly designed conveyors or flexible carts—provide greater adaptability with less long-term risk.
When automation underperforms, the causes are often visible early but discounted while projected labor savings dominate the discussion. Broader system impacts—throughput stability, recovery time, and management burden—tend to receive less attention.
What consistently delivers results are fundamentals: material flow discipline, layout optimization, constraint management, labor balance, and process standardization. These approaches may lack the appeal of advanced robotics, but they offer greater flexibility, scale more effectively as needs change, and deliver more stable throughput with more predictable margins.
Automation is not inherently valuable. Appropriate automation is.
Orient, Decide, Act: Completing the Loop
Orientation is the most critical—and most misunderstood—element of the OODA Loop. It determines how organizations interpret what they observe and which options are considered viable. Orientation is shaped by experience, incentives, organizational history, and risk tolerance. When orientation is incomplete, even accurate observations can lead to flawed decisions.
In CM, orientation is often influenced by what feels familiar or defensible rather than what reflects operational reality. Prior investments, legacy processes, and vendor narratives shape how problems are framed. Over time, this creates blind spots. Leaders may see the data clearly but still interpret it through assumptions that no longer hold.
When orientation is weak, organizations address symptoms rather than constraints. Labor shortages, schedule pressure, or margin erosion trigger actions that feel decisive but fail to resolve underlying system issues. The result is motion without progress.
When orientation is disciplined, fewer decisions are required. Problems are defined more accurately, and leaders gain clarity about what to pursue—and what to avoid. Decision speed improves not by bypassing governance, but by reducing ambiguity.
Decision-making then becomes a matter of alignment rather than debate. Strong decisions separate operational reality from assumptions and consider how choices in sales, design, workforce practices, and capital investments interact across the system. Most organizations are not short on data; they are constrained by decision processes designed to reduce perceived risk rather than maximize long-term performance.
Execution reveals whether orientation and decisions were sound. When execution struggles, attention often shifts to labor or supervision. While those factors matter, recurring execution challenges usually trace back to system design—unclear expectations, misaligned incentives, or decisions made without full operational context.
In CM, execution is unforgiving. Poorly aligned decisions surface quickly as missed schedules, rework, congestion, and unstable throughput. When systems are well designed, average teams perform well. When systems are poorly designed, even strong teams struggle.
If execution is consistently difficult, motivation is rarely the issue. System design is.
This is why disciplined operators outperform over time. They invest effort upstream—clarifying orientation and aligning decisions—so execution becomes repeatable rather than heroic. In an increasingly commoditized market, this discipline is a primary source of advantage.
Why Disciplined Operators Win—and How TDC Helps
Consolidation does not eliminate opportunity. It raises expectations. Independent CM operators that apply disciplined decision-making gain real advantages: faster response times, better capital allocation, stronger pricing discipline, and higher throughput with less complexity.
TDC helps leadership teams improve how they observe, orient, decide, and act—without vendor bias or internal politics. By working across sales, design, manufacturing, and administrative processes, TDC identifies where decision frameworks constrain performance and provides practical, system-level corrections.
TDC has repeatedly seen substantial capital deployed in ways that introduced avoidable constraints. In most cases, the issues were evident early in the process. Had options been evaluated more broadly before commitments were made, outcomes would have been materially different.
The objective is simple: slow decisions just enough to improve judgment, then execute with confidence.
The Bottom Line
CM is changing faster than many are willing to admit. Those who succeed will not necessarily be the largest or the most automated, but the most disciplined decision-makers.
The OODA Loop is not theory. It is a practical framework for competing—and winning—in a consolidating market. Working with TDC, you will achieve honest insight and real results.
There is no better value than TDC for getting the best ROI for professional consulting services. TDC is your best source for learning about proven and practical lean manufacturing best practices combined with industrial engineering principles to keep your company at the leading edge of competitiveness. Cost savings and net profit gains that usually take months or years can be accomplished in weeks or months with TDC. No one is better at providing your team with proven results for good employee practices, pricing, truss labor estimation, and so many other best-in-class practices. All areas are addressed, not just manufacturing. Please do not take my word about TDC’s services, though. Read the public testimonials from many current and past clients with decades of expertise and experience.
Website: www.todd-drummond.com • Phone (USA): 603-748-1051
E-mail: todd@todd-drummond.com • Copyrights © 2026