# A surprisingly simple way to make good decisions

- Link: https://www.andreidraganescu.info/2018/01/19/a-surprisingly-simple-way-to-make-good-decisions/
- Published: 2018-01-19T17:19:43+03:00
- Author: Andrei Draganescu

![](https://draganescu.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/19b2e-1eb8ugotelddthaqd8x2nlq@2x.
png)

#### A decision framework.

To generate work is no challenge. Finding which work matters, and the right order
of execution, is the real challenge. That is: deciding.

It makes a lot of sense to think of a decision like a weight measuring of arguments
and pick the side that is heavier or lighter. This is easy.

#### The problem is:

**which side arguments fall on, why and how hard?**

That is what a decision framework is for, to classify between arguments from three
perspectives:

 1. On what side should the argument be put
 2. If the argument should be placed on the scales at all
 3. How much weight does the argument have

The usual sides of the decision scales are right and wrong, correct and incorrect
and good or bad. Good or bad are moral scales, while right and wrong are the long
term version of correct and incorrect.

Generally if you need to take a subjective decision via subjective consensus on 
a subjective problem, you’ll be weighing goodness. Also if your objective problem
is immediate, you’ll weigh correctness. If you need to decide on long term objective
problems, you’ll be weighing righteousness.

One important distinction is between decision and choice. Choosing is a property
strength sorting problem, deciding is an argument consequence classification problem.
Choice will pick one of a sorted list’s ends. Decision will pick the winning side.

![](https://draganescu.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/f0572-1bntoafxn9xvzd6qr3w_rnw@2x.
png)

#### Deciding the side

So everyone is going somewhere amirite? I mean it is clearly a very well accepted
dogma that there has to be a destination for all human effort.

But who is driving us there?

To have a clear and easy to replicate process of placing arguments on either sides
of the scales, you need to identify who is at the wheel, who is steering, who is
driving the process.

When you say we are a “data driven company” it means that data is steering all decisions
regarding the company. That is dangerous because data does not incorporate interpretation.
That is why the old idea of mission still makes sense. A mission is an interpretation,
it conveys meaning by default, it creates predictability, so a “mission driven company”
is a lot more trustworthy that a data driven one.

The driver will be driving arguments on one side or the other of any decision process.

In business, drivers are easy to pick:

 * _Mission driven company._
 *  _Vision driven goals_.
 * _Customer driven projects._
 * _Story driven product._
 *  _Data driven choice_.

This makes for a future proof direction.

> The mission steers the company. That keeps a company healthy.

> Vision steers goals. That keeps goals aligned.

> Customers steer projects. That keeps projects efficient.

> Stories steer the products. That keeps products agile.

> Data steers choice. That keeps choice objective.

With this system failure is not an option. It doesn’t guarantee success, it just
protects against failure. Pivoting, selling, quitting at the right time are not 
failures, and the visibility of such options is clearest in a system like this. 
Failure is unrecoverable debt, uncontrollable side effects, waste, withered opportunity
and spoiled resources.

But that is only part one of a decision framework, picking the side of any argument
with a system of drivers.

![](https://draganescu.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/4b999-1jfexanqgjhlucif_7s4zgg@2x.
png)

#### Deciding on consideration

This is where things get boring. Hello social responsibility and sustainability.
You have the drivers that steer arguments on sides, but why would they drive this
argument?

This is the reason to not mix business with pleasure, so you can be objective when
objectivity is required. Not mixing business with pleasure has nothing to do with
enjoyment. Good business is always enjoyable. Joy is emotional, pleasure is visceral.
However, the viscera is too far removed from reason, and its grasp is unforgiving.
Yet, emotions allow for objectivity, contrary to popular wisdom, they actually enhance
objectivity with things like respect, patience, and insight.

Back to drivers, imagine you have the best pilots in the world and you can pick 
any cars you want for them to drive, what do you do? Do you pick anything other 
than the best?

That is exactly the basis for the process of consideration, optimizing for the best
possible arguments. Hello, again, social responsibility and sustainability. These
are the polish, the handcrafted details, the tuning which make an argument best 
in class. Companies that don’t consider these will never even be in the presence
of any **best** arguments.

There are two properties of arguments that sort them for consideration:

 1. Strength
 2. Side effects

Strength is the combined level of high specificity, low speculation, high accuracy
and the degrees of separation from axiomatic affirmation, that means the argument
must contain its own proof.

Side effects should be regarded as the measure of the safety of the drivers: e.g.
does this strong argument in favor of this goal puts our vision at risk? Essentially
no sane racing team will make their pilots drive bombs on wheels, and neither should
you.

![](https://draganescu.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/ace01-1fn3m8sfwtctnixxqtuhytg@2x.
png)

#### Deciding the weight

By now you have placed each argument on the right side with the help of the proper
driver, you have on your scales only the best arguments based on their strength 
and side effects, but how low should each side of the scale go, what is that which
makes for the imaginary gravitational pull?

> How much does each argument weigh?

> The amount of profit it generates.

Any kind of profit, measured in any kind of unit.

> Does it free time?

> Does it free money?

> Does it produce money?

> Does it free people?

> Does it improve productivity?

> Does it accelerate growth?

Any **“yes”**, adds up.

The more options we have, the more peculiar the certain qualia of what we want becomes.

That is why, consideration of each argument in a decision process is a cornerstone,
because indifferent of quality, too many things on either side of the decision will
make the weighing exponentially more difficult.

Only this is the decisional stage where profit counts 100%.

With the arguments on the right sides.

With the best arguments considered.

Now, measure profits, then decide.

---

### Common pitfalls

Don’t do it upside down, because profit is visceral and you will be biased on choosing
sides.

Don’t cut out steps; ignore profits and you’re left with good intentions, ignore
argument selection and you’ll design a camel when you want a horse, ignore driver
selection and you’ll be left with no direction.

Don’t mix up drivers. A plane pilot, most likely, won’t do a great job in an off-
road race. For example: data driven projects are setting cash on fire; vision driven
choice is useless risk; customer driven goals are never gonna work in a capitalist
game. You get the gist.

People confuse ideas with guesses. Ideas are rare, therefore ideas are expensive.
Good ideas are priceless. Good execution seldom saves a bad idea, but good ideas
often save poor executions.

To generate work is no challenge. That is why the bad reasoning that ideas are a
dime a dozen is so common.

So yeah, maybe this helps :), indeed, endings are not my strong point.

![](https://draganescu.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/20f26-16gfnvvkmrftjvswf7vkcla.
png)

#### This story is published in 󠀁[The Startup](https://medium.com/swlh)󠁿, Medium’s largest entrepreneurship publication followed by 287,184+ people.

#### Subscribe to receive 󠀁[our top stories here](http://growthsupply.com/the-startup-newsletter/)󠁿.

![](https://draganescu.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/20f26-16gfnvvkmrftjvswf7vkcla.
png)