OODA
Four letters, one of which is the whole thing — and it is not the fast one.
What is OODA?
OODA is four steps: Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. It is the only framework here that came out of air combat, it is the one most often quoted in business, and the version most people are quoting is a flattened copy that drops the part that made it worth having.
The popular reading of OODA is decide faster than the other side. That is not what it is for. Boyd's claim was about Orient — the step where you fit new observations into your existing model of the world — and his point was that the model is usually the thing that is wrong. A competitor's surprise move is not primarily a speed problem; it is evidence that one of your standing assumptions has stopped being true. An OODA prompt that gives the four steps equal weight has already lost the framework. Orient should be the longest section, and its job is to name which beliefs the new facts break — which is precisely the thing a model will skip unless you ask for it by name.
Where OODA Came From
Colonel John Boyd, and a set of briefings rather than a book
OODA comes from John Boyd, a US Air Force fighter pilot and strategist whose work ran from air-combat tactics through to a general theory of conflict. He never published a book. His ideas travelled as briefings delivered in person — sessions that ran for hours and were rewritten constantly — which is exactly why the version in circulation is a simplification: what spread was the diagram people could redraw from memory.
The only diagram he drew is not four boxes in a circle
Boyd's own rendering appeared in a 1995 briefing, The Essence of Winning and Losing, and it differs from the textbook loop in three ways that matter. It has feedback running in several directions, not one cycle. It allows steps to be bypassed — Orient can drive Act directly through what he called implicit guidance and control. And Orientation shapes everything else, including what you are capable of observing in the first place.
Orient is the schwerpunkt
Boyd borrowed the German term for the focal point of an attack to describe Orient's place in the loop. Orientation, in his account, is built from cultural traditions, inherited disposition, previous experience and new information, recombined by analysis and synthesis. The practical consequence is uncomfortable: two people can observe the same facts and orient incompatibly, and no amount of extra data settles it, because the data is being read through the thing in dispute.
"Getting inside the loop" was never just about speed
The phrase is usually quoted as go faster. Boyd's interest was in operating in a way that made an opponent's orientation break down — ambiguity and unpredictability, not merely pace. A fast decision from a broken orientation is worse than a slow one, because it commits you further in the wrong direction.
The 4 Slots, One at a Time
Each slot is a decision. Leave it out and the model still makes it — just without you.
The slot is worthless unless it is disciplined. Write only what has been measured, and write the unknowns as unknowns — we do not know their cost base is an observation, and a valuable one. Everything inferential belongs in Orient, and a model will happily blur the two unless told not to.
The longest section, and the reason to use OODA at all. List the beliefs your current plan rests on, test each against the new facts, and state what would have to be true for the plan to still be right. That last question is the one that stops an orientation step from becoming a restatement of the observation.
Name the rejected options, because a decision with no discarded alternatives is a preference. And bias the choice explicitly: under uncertainty the move that preserves the most options at the lowest cost usually beats the one that looks most decisive — which is the opposite of what a model produces when asked to be strategic.
The slot that makes OODA a loop rather than a list. Every move needs a stated signal — what you would see if it is working, and what you would see if it is failing — because that signal is the next Observe. Without it you have run the loop once and stopped, which is the commonest way OODA is misused.
One Task, Before and After
The task: How to respond to a competitor launching at a third of your price. Both prompts below are scored by our free prompt checker — paste either in and you will get the same number, because the scoring is deterministic.
How should we respond to our competitor?
Six words. You get a confident five-point plan built on invented facts about the competitor, recommending a price cut whose cost nobody has calculated.
Observe - what we actually know, nothing more: a competitor launched a version of our product at 9 dollars against our 29, announced Tuesday. It is missing our audit log and our SSO. Three of our accounts have asked about it in two days; none has cancelled. Our own trial-to-paid rate has not moved yet. We do not know their funding, their cost base or whether 9 dollars is permanent. Orient - the important part, and the longest section. Say which of our standing assumptions this observation breaks. We have been assuming price is not how this market chooses, that our security features are the moat, and that a cheaper entrant would target the low end rather than our own accounts. Test each against the facts above, and say what would have to be true for our current plan to still be right. Decide - recommend one course of action, and name the two you are rejecting and why. Prefer the decision that keeps the most options open at the lowest cost, over the one that looks most decisive. Act - the first three moves, each with an owner, a date and the observation that would tell us it is working or failing. Reason through the orientation step before recommending anything; weigh what a price cut would signal against what it would cost, and do not present the conclusion as obvious. Write 700 to 800 words for a founder and two functional leads who will act on this within the week and who already know the product. Four headed sections, one per letter, with Orient the longest. For example, use this shape for the Act section: ``` Move 1 - Call the three accounts that asked. Owner: founder. By: Friday. Signal it is working: at least two say the missing audit log is disqualifying. Signal it is failing: any of them asks for a price match. ``` Ensure every line in Observe is something we measured rather than something we believe; anything else belongs in Orient. Prioritise reversibility - a move we can undo within a week outranks a more decisive one we cannot. Do not invent the competitor's funding, headcount or unit economics. Do not recommend matching the price without stating what it costs us at current volume, and do not describe this as an existential threat - nothing above supports that.
Ninety-one. Two instructions carry it: naming the three assumptions to be tested, and requiring a working-and-failing signal for every move. The first makes Orient real; the second makes it a loop.
Ninety-one, and no rubric can tell whether Orient did any work
One check is unreachable, and the two failures specific to this framework are both invisible to scoring:
No persona slot. Unlike the sales frameworks, a role here is neither harmful nor part of the acronym — it is eight points available for the asking. Worth noting that on our own scorer a generic role earns the same eight as a carefully drawn one, so the points measure the presence of a persona, not its quality.
The entire framework, and nothing sees it. An Orient section that restates the observation in more anxious language scores exactly as well as one that names three assumptions and kills two of them. The test is whether you finish it believing something different.
Moves with owners and dates look complete. Moves with owners, dates and a stated success-or-failure signal are what make the next Observe possible — and only the second is actually OODA.
The transferable question, whatever framework you are in: "what would have to be true for our current plan to still be right?" It forces the assumptions into the open, it is answerable, and it is the difference between orienting and merely reacting faster.
Copy-Paste Prompt Template
Replace the bracketed placeholders with your specific details.
Observe: [Only what has been measured. Write the unknowns as unknowns — they are observations too] Orient: [THE LONGEST SECTION. The standing assumptions your current plan rests on, each tested against the facts above] [And: what would have to be true for the current plan to still be right?] Decide: [One course of action, plus the options being rejected and why] [Prefer the move that keeps the most options open at the lowest cost] Act: [First moves, each with an owner and a date] [For each: the signal it is working, and the signal it is failing — this is the next Observe] [No invented funding, headcount, unit economics or intent]
When OODA Fits — and When It Does Not
- Competitive responses — a price move, a launch, a poached customer.
- Incidents and outages, where the facts arrive while you are still deciding.
- PR and reputation events that are unfolding rather than finished.
- Sudden metric changes with no obvious cause, where the first explanation is usually wrong.
- Any situation where your plan was built on assumptions that may have just expired.
- Stable, well-understood decisions. OODA is expensive ceremony when nothing is moving.
- Writing and copy. There is no audience, tone or format slot anywhere in it.
- Long-range planning — use SWOT and the 4Ps, which assume you can stop and survey.
- Situations with no real observations. With no facts, Orient becomes speculation with headings.
- Retrospectives. OODA is for deciding under uncertainty, not explaining what already happened.
10 Ready-Made OODA Prompts
Every prompt below was produced by the Frompting generator with OODA selected — not written by hand for this page. Each is scored by our prompt checker; the median is 88/100. Click one to open it, then copy.
A competitor undercutting on price 96
You are a strategic communications specialist tasked with crafting a rapid response to a rival’s introduction of a lower-priced version of our product. First, gather the essential facts: identify the competitor, the specific product they are releasing, the price point compared to ours, the key features that differ, and the primary market segment we both target. Next, interpret these facts: assess how the price change alters market dynamics, what strengths or vulnerabilities it reveals in our offering, and how it aligns with current customer expectations and our brand positioning. Then, develop three concise response options that each (a) protect our market share, (b) reinforce our value proposition, and (c) are feasible within our resources. For each option, include a brief rationale, the primary message tone, and the recommended communication channel (e.g., email blast, social media post, press release). Finally, select the most effective option and outline a step-by-step execution plan: key messages, timing, responsible team members, and any required supporting materials. Deliver the response in a structured markdown format with the following sections: 1. **Key Facts** - bullet list of the gathered information. 2. **Strategic Interpretation** - short paragraph summarizing the impact. 3. **Response Options** - table with columns: Option, Core Message, Tone, Channel, Rationale. 4. **Recommended Action Plan** - numbered steps, responsible role, and deadline for each step. The entire output should be approximately 640-850 words. Ensure the language is clear, persuasive, and aligned with our brand voice. If any of the required facts are unknown, indicate them with placeholders in the form **[PLACEHOLDER: description]** and proceed with assumptions clearly stated. Before finalizing, ask up to three clarifying questions to fill critical gaps. Quality criteria: factual accuracy, strategic relevance, and concise, actionable guidance. Do not include any content unrelated to the competitive response. Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader. Use this table shape, one row per item, filling values from your analysis: | Option | Core Message | Tone | Channel | Rationale | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
A PR crisis unfolding right now 87
You are a crisis communications specialist advising a brand facing an emerging public relations issue on social media. Your task is to guide the brand through a rapid assessment and response plan that moves from immediate observation of the situation, through contextual analysis, to clear decision options and concrete action steps. Produce a concise briefing (≈ 300 words) organized in three sequential sections: 1. **Situation snapshot** – Summarize the current social‑media activity, key messages circulating, and any stakeholder reactions. Identify the most urgent factual gaps that need verification. 2. **Contextual analysis** – Explain how the observed facts relate to the brand’s reputation, audience expectations, and any relevant industry standards or past incidents. Highlight potential risks and opportunities that shape the response. 3. **Response roadmap** – Offer two distinct response options, each with a brief rationale, expected outcomes, and a step‑by‑step action list (including messaging tone, channel selection, timing, and monitoring metrics). **Quality criteria**: - Accuracy: base all statements on verifiable information or clearly label assumptions. - Clarity: use plain language and bullet points where appropriate for quick readability. - Practicality: actions must be feasible for a social‑media team to implement within 24 hours. **Boundary**: Do not include long‑form press releases, legal disclaimer text, or detailed media‑buying plans. If any essential details are missing, state your assumptions and ask up to three clarifying questions (e.g., target audience, brand voice guidelines, or any legal constraints).
A sudden drop in signups 88
You are a rapid‑response analyst tasked with diagnosing and addressing an unexpected decline in user sign‑ups. First, gather all available data about the recent sign‑up trend, including dates, volumes, and any concurrent events or changes. Summarize what you can observe from this information. Next, interpret the observations: consider possible internal and external factors (e.g., product updates, marketing shifts, market conditions, competitor actions, technical issues). Identify which hypotheses are most plausible given the limited evidence. Then, select the most promising course(s) of action. For each option, outline the expected impact, required resources, and potential risks. Prioritize the options based on feasibility and urgency. Finally, produce a concise implementation plan for the top‑ranked option, specifying immediate steps, responsible parties, and a timeline for measuring results. Deliver your response in 300–400 words, using clear headings for each stage, bullet points for hypotheses and actions, and a short table summarizing the recommended plan. Quality criteria: (1) logical flow from data to recommendation, (2) actionable and measurable steps, (3) concise yet thorough analysis. Exclude speculation beyond the data you can reasonably infer; if critical information is missing, state the assumption and ask up to three clarifying questions (e.g., recent product changes, marketing campaigns, known technical incidents). Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.
A key supplier failing without warning 95
You are a crisis‑response strategist. A key supplier has unexpectedly stopped delivering, creating an urgent disruption for your operation. First, gather the essential facts: identify the product or service the supplier provides, the volume and timing of the missed deliveries, any contractual terms, and the immediate impact on your customers or production line. Next, interpret these facts: assess how critical the supplier is to your core business, evaluate existing backup options, and consider the broader market conditions that might affect alternative sourcing. Then, determine the best course of action: choose between rapidly engaging a secondary supplier, negotiating an emergency arrangement with the current supplier, or implementing internal mitigation measures such as inventory rationing or temporary production adjustments. Finally, outline the concrete steps to execute the chosen option, including who must be contacted, what communications are required, timelines for each action, and metrics to monitor success. Deliver a concise response of 250–300 words, organized in four short paragraphs that follow the sequence above. Ensure the plan is realistic, prioritizes continuity of service, and includes at least two measurable checkpoints. If any critical details are missing—such as the industry sector, the contract’s notice period, or the availability of alternative suppliers—state your assumptions clearly and ask up to three targeted clarifying questions before finalizing the recommendation. Exclude speculative market forecasts and any legal advice beyond noting where contractual review may be needed. Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader. Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.
Running a production outage 92
You are an Incident Commander leading a production outage response. Gather real‑time data about the incident, including the affected service, error symptoms, timestamps, and any alerts or logs currently available. Summarize this information concisely and identify the most critical impact on users or business functions. Interpret the collected data to determine the root cause hypotheses, the current state of system health, and any constraints such as [RESOURCE AVAILABILITY: list personnel, tools, and access levels] or [STAKEHOLDER PRIORITY: indicate which customers or internal teams are most affected]. Highlight any gaps in information that need immediate clarification. Choose a clear response plan: select the highest‑priority hypothesis to test, define the immediate mitigation steps, assign responsibilities to team members, and set short‑term success criteria (e.g., restore core functionality within [TIME TARGET: specify minutes/hours]). Explain the rationale for each decision and note any trade‑offs. Execute the plan by providing step‑by‑step instructions for the assigned responders, including command‑and‑control communication channels, escalation paths, and verification checkpoints. Conclude with a brief handoff summary that outlines the next monitoring actions and post‑mortem data to collect. **Output requirements** - Length: 250–350 words total. - Format: plain text with three distinct paragraphs corresponding to the phases above; each paragraph may contain bullet points for clarity. - Quality criteria: (1) information is accurate and directly tied to the incident details provided, (2) decisions are justified with clear reasoning, (3) instructions are actionable and unambiguous. - Boundary: do not include any speculative long‑term remediation plans or unrelated system improvements. If any critical details are missing, state your assumptions explicitly and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the response. Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.
A competitor poaching your largest customer 74
You are a strategic communications specialist advising a company on how to counter a competitor’s attempt to poach its largest customer. First, gather the essential facts: identify the competitor, the customer at risk, your company’s name, the industry sector, and the communication channel you will use (e.g., email, letter, call script). Next, interpret these facts: consider the relationship history with the customer, the value of the account, any recent issues or successes, and the competitor’s likely motivations. Then, outline the possible response options, weighing factors such as speed, tone, and the message’s persuasive focus. Finally, craft a concise, professional response that (a) reaffirms your company’s commitment and unique value, (b) addresses any perceived gaps the competitor may be exploiting, and (c) invites the customer to discuss next steps. **Output:** a single draft suitable for the chosen channel, limited to 200 words. **Quality criteria:** (1) clear, confident tone; (2) specific reference to the customer’s needs and past successes; (3) a direct call‑to‑action for a follow‑up conversation. **Boundary:** do not disclose any confidential financial figures or proprietary strategies beyond the placeholders provided. If any of the required details are unknown, insert a placeholder in the format **[PLACEHOLDER: brief hint]** and proceed. If any bracketed detail above is left unfilled, choose a sensible value from the context, state that assumption in one line before you begin, and continue — do not ask for it and stop.
Reacting to a new regulation 94
You are a strategic analyst tasked with crafting a concise, actionable response to a newly announced regulation. First, gather the essential facts about the regulation: its jurisdiction, key provisions, effective date, and any immediate compliance requirements. Next, place those facts in context: identify how this regulation impacts the relevant industry or stakeholder group, note any comparable past regulations, and assess potential risks and opportunities it creates. Then, determine the most appropriate course of action: recommend a prioritized set of steps (e.g., internal briefings, policy updates, stakeholder communications) and justify why these steps best address the identified impacts. Finally, produce a clear, ready-to-use communication or plan that outlines the recommended steps, assigns responsibility, and includes a brief timeline. Deliverable: a structured response of 305-405 words, formatted with three sections-facts, context analysis, and recommended actions-each introduced by a concise heading. Quality criteria: 1. Accuracy of the regulatory summary based on the information provided. 2. Insightful linkage of the regulation to real-world implications for the target audience. 3. Practical, actionable recommendations that are feasible to implement quickly. Exclude any speculation beyond the supplied details; if critical information is missing, state the assumption made and pose up to three clarifying questions. [REGULATION DETAILS]: Provide the specific regulation text or summary. [TARGET AUDIENCE]: Identify who will receive this response (e.g., senior management, compliance team, public). [DESIRED TONE]: Specify the tone (e.g., formal, urgent, advisory).
A funding round falling through 88
You are a strategic crisis response consultant for early‑stage startups. Your task is to devise a comprehensive plan for a startup whose recent funding round has failed to close. First, gather all relevant facts about the company’s current situation, financial health, market position, and any immediate pressures it faces. Next, interpret those facts to identify the core challenges, risks, and opportunities that arise from the funding shortfall. Then, generate a short list of viable strategic options the startup could pursue, weighing trade‑offs such as speed, cost, dilution, and long‑term growth. Finally, outline a concrete, step‑by‑step action plan for the chosen option, specifying key milestones, responsible roles, and measurable outcomes. **Deliverable:** a structured response of 350–500 words, formatted as four concise sections (Observation, Analysis, Options, Action Plan). Use clear headings, bullet points where appropriate, and a brief executive summary at the top (no more than 50 words). **Quality criteria:** 1. Recommendations are realistic and grounded in the facts you collect. 2. The plan prioritizes speed and adaptability while minimizing unnecessary risk. 3. Each action includes a clear metric for success. **Assumptions & Clarifications:** - State any assumptions you make about unknown details. - Ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing your response. **Placeholders for missing information (please provide):** [STARTUP_STAGE]: e.g., seed, Series A, pre‑revenue, etc. [CURRENT_BURN_RATE]: monthly cash burn in USD. [ALTERNATIVE_FUNDING_SOURCES]: e.g., angel investors, venture debt, grants, revenue‑based financing. [TIMEFRAME_FOR_RESPONSE]: desired horizon for stabilizing cash flow (weeks or months). Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader. Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.
A negative post going viral 79
You are a crisis communications specialist tasked with crafting a concise, persuasive response to a negative social media post that has gone viral about your brand. First, gather the essential facts: the exact wording of the viral post, the primary concerns it raises, and any factual inaccuracies it contains. Next, consider the broader context: the brand’s core values, recent actions or statements that may be relevant, and the typical expectations of the audience most affected by this issue. Then, determine the strategic goal of your reply-whether to clarify misinformation, apologize, reaffirm commitment, or a combination of these-and decide on the most appropriate tone (e.g., empathetic, firm, reassuring). Finally, draft a response that (a) acknowledges the issue and the feelings of those commenting, (b) provides clear, factual clarification or a sincere apology as needed, (c) reinforces the brand’s commitment to its values and outlines any concrete steps being taken, and (d) invites further private dialogue for deeper concerns. The response should be under 405 words, written in a natural, human voice, and formatted as a single paragraph suitable for posting directly on the platform. Quality criteria: 1. Accurately reflects the brand’s voice and values. 2. Addresses the key points of the viral post without escalating tension. 3. Ends with a clear call to continue the conversation privately (e.g., “Please DM us…”). Exclude any mention of internal processes, legal jargon, or speculative future promises not yet confirmed. If any of the required details are unknown-brand name, specific post content, target audience, or preferred tone-please indicate the missing information in brackets (e.g., [BRAND_NAME: provide the official brand name]) and ask up to three clarifying questions before drafting the response.
A platform algorithm change 80
You are a rapid‑response strategist advising a content creator who must adjust to an overnight algorithm change on a major platform. First, gather all relevant facts: describe the recent algorithm shift, the specific content formats affected, the creator’s primary audience, and any performance metrics that have already changed. Next, interpret these facts: identify the underlying reasons for the platform’s change, assess how it aligns with broader industry trends, and determine which aspects of the creator’s current strategy are most vulnerable. Then, formulate a concise recommendation: choose the most effective short‑term tactic and a longer‑term strategic adjustment, explaining the trade‑offs between maintaining existing workflows and adopting new approaches. Finally, outline a clear implementation plan: list immediate actions to take within the next 24 hours, assign responsibilities, and specify measurable checkpoints for the first week. Deliver the response in four short paragraphs corresponding to the steps above, using no more than 300 words in total. Ensure the advice is actionable, evidence‑based (cite well‑known industry observations rather than invented data), and tailored to a creator who values audience engagement and brand consistency. Exclude any mention of the OODA framework or its components. Quality criteria: (1) factual accuracy based on known platform behaviors, (2) practical feasibility for a solo or small‑team creator, (3) clarity of the action steps with explicit metrics. Boundary: do not propose paid advertising or platform‑specific technical hacks that require proprietary tools. If any critical detail is missing, state the assumption and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the plan.
Scores range from 74 to 96. They are shown as generated rather than cherry-picked — a library where every entry scores in the nineties tells you it was curated, not measured.
OODA vs the Alternatives
The same situation at a different tempo. SWOT assumes you can pause and survey; OODA assumes the other side is still moving while you do. Use SWOT quarterly, OODA on Tuesday.
A complete Observe step and nothing more. Run 5W1H to establish the facts, then OODA to decide what they mean and what to do.
What to use when the decision is made and now has to be explained. SCQA is the write-up; OODA is the thinking.
The deliberate cousin. SCOPE plans against known constraints; OODA assumes the constraints are part of what just changed.
The framework OODA rescues. SMART assumes a stable quarter; OODA is what you run when the quarter stops behaving.
Five Ways People Get OODA Wrong
The defining OODA failure. Boyd called Orient the schwerpunkt; a prompt that treats the four letters as four paragraphs of similar length has produced a status update. Say explicitly that Orient is the longest.
The most common way the section goes hollow: the same facts, in more worried language. Force it to name specific standing assumptions and rule on each one.
"They are clearly going after our enterprise accounts" is an inference wearing the clothes of an observation, and once it sits in the facts section nothing downstream questions it.
A move with an owner and a date but no stated success-or-failure signal cannot feed the next Observe. That is a plan, not a loop, and it is why most business OODA runs exactly once.
Deciding quickly from a broken orientation commits you further in the wrong direction. Boyd's interest was in disrupting the opponent's orientation, not in shortening your own clock.
Funding, headcount, unit economics, intent — all of it will be supplied on request, and all of it lands in Observe where it is treated as fact. Ban the categories by name.
OODA Questions
What does OODA stand for?
Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. It is a decision cycle for acting under uncertainty, developed by US Air Force colonel John Boyd.
Why is Orient the most important step?
Because it is where new information meets your existing model of the world, and the model is usually what is wrong. Boyd called it the schwerpunkt — the focal point — and in his own diagram orientation shapes what you are able to observe, decide and do.
Is the OODA loop really a circle?
No. Boyd's own diagram, from his 1995 briefing The Essence of Winning and Losing, has feedback running in several directions and allows Orient to drive Act directly. The four-boxes-in-a-circle version is a simplification that dropped the mechanism.
Does OODA just mean deciding faster?
That is the popular reading and it is thin. A fast decision from a wrong orientation is worse than a slow one. Boyd was interested in operating so that an opponent's orientation breaks down — ambiguity, not merely pace.
How do I use OODA in a prompt?
Give Observe only measured facts, make Orient the longest section and require it to name which assumptions the facts break, ask Decide to name rejected options, and give every action in Act a signal that says whether it is working. The last one is what makes it a loop.
When should I use SWOT instead?
When the situation is not moving. SWOT is a survey of a stable position; OODA is for when the position is changing while you analyse it.
Generate a OODA Prompt Instantly
Skip the manual template — Frompting applies OODA to your topic in one click.
Try it FreeFramework Details
| Name | OODA |
| Stands for | Observe-Orient-Decide-Act |
| Domain | Strategy & Planning |
| Steps | 4 |
| Access | Pro |