In one line: Good decisions come from a good process. Define the right problem, gather facts, state objectives, generate real alternatives, weigh the trade-offs, and then rank the options together.
Core idea
Most groups don’t decide badly because they lack intelligence. They decide badly because they skip the structure. The course workbook, built on the decision framework of Hammond, Keeney and Raiffa [1], starts from the tendencies that derail a discussion:
- anchoring on the first idea or number
- settling for the first acceptable option, known as satisficing
- looking only for evidence that confirms what we already think
- treating opinions as facts
- opening with a conclusion and then defending it
- confusing a long, energetic discussion with actual analysis
- drifting from topic to topic
Structure matters most when a problem is complex, several solutions are possible, and the choice will matter to people.
How it works
-
Work on the right problem. Frame it so it doesn’t steer the answer in advance. Four common framing errors:
- too vague: no real focus
- too narrow: the wrong focus
- built on an untested assumption
- a solution in disguise: “how do we get approval for X?”
Asking why? repeatedly, and restating the problem each time, usually reveals the real one.
-
Gather the facts, and separate them from opinions.
-
Specify the objectives: what a good outcome must achieve.
-
Create imaginative alternatives. A decision can be no better than the best option on the table.
-
Understand the consequences and trade-offs of each alternative against all the objectives.
-
Decide and plan, using opportunity mapping.
Opportunity mapping is a paired-comparison ranking for teams:
- List up to ten candidate solutions, and make sure everyone understands each one the same way.
- Each person compares every pair and marks the more important one. Ten options means 45 comparisons.
- Count how often each option wins, then average across the team.
- Discuss wherever people’s scores diverge widely, because that usually signals different assumptions rather than different values.
- The top two or three options become the plan, with an owner, a method and a date for each.
In practice
A typical meeting about whether to buy one large test station or two smaller ones shows all the failure modes. The question is framed as a purchase before anyone has agreed on the problem, which is really a backlog. Forecasts are disputed as opinions. The loudest trade-off wins. Running the six steps, even informally, changes the conversation. Then the paired comparison lets quieter team members register their judgment without having to win the argument.
Questions to ask yourself
- In my last tough decision, was the problem statement actually a solution in disguise?
- How many genuinely different alternatives did we consider before choosing?
- Did we separate facts from opinions, or just count who argued hardest?
Connections
- Engineering cousins: Concept Selection, Trade-off Analysis. When the problem resists definition: Wicked Problems.
- Questioning that surfaces assumptions: Socratic Method. A costly example of a flawed process: Challenger Launch Decision.
- Applied at the company level: Business Strategy.
- Capabilities exercised: Decision Making, Inquiry, Negotiating and Compromise.
Sources
- Hammond, Keeney and Raiffa, Smart Choices [1], the framework the course workbook builds on.
- Course workbook on strategic problem solving and opportunity mapping; not publicly available.