Demonstrably Good Decisions

Use a defined process to pick options that fulfill goals and satisfy stakeholders

Photo by Jens Lelie on Unsplash

Project management involves making decisions — big, small, and in between. A project is the cumulative result of hundreds or even thousands of decisions and its success depends on whether those decisions were the right ones. But how can you tell? Good judgment is a slippery trait to define and is usually developed through years of experience in making both good and bad decisions, and that’s not even introducing the question of which decisions must be made immediately and which can be deferred.

In the capital construction world some of these decisions can have massive consequences. They can be the difference between building new or renewing, or can involve big choices about where to build something, or how to build it. These choices can mean hundreds of millions of dollars and years of work. It’s important to get them right. It’s also important to be able to defend them if things go wrong.

How? Adopt a decision making framework for your projects.

The Triangle: Transparent, Justifiable, Reliable

There are three qualities of defensible decisions: (1) transparent, (2) justifiable, and (3) reliable.

Transparent means that all the information used to make a decision is captured and available for later review. The problem is described clearly, the alternatives have been detailed, the reasons for choosing one over the other are apparent, and the people involved (or at least their roles) are named. This is especially important for public or highly regulated environments that may have specific commitments around transparency and traceability.

Justifiable means that the decisions align with organizational priorities. The reasons for choosing one option over another are robust and reflect the organization’s values. Support for decisions is based on data, analysis, or expert judgment. The option chosen is in line with the organization’s risk tolerance and other constraints.

Reliable means that another team in the organization with similar expertise and experience would make a similar decision. This is ultimately about process but is also linked with transparency and justifiability; the more analytically a decision has been approached, and the more in line with the organization’s stated values and priorities, the more likely that another team would make the same choice.

Achieving It: A Generalized Structured Decision Framework

Decision-making is an entire field of study and multiple decision-making methodologies exist: consensus discussion, nominal group technique, various types of voting including plurality and rank order, multiple-criteria decision support frameworks, and methods like Choosing by Advantages and Triple Bottom Line. Some methods stress “wisdom of the crowds” approaches; some are more focused on criteria, with either scoring or ranking

For high-profile decisions, it’s best to choose a method that uses defined criteria for the final analysis. Development and use of the criteria makes transparency straightforward and allows demonstration of why the decision is justifiable. A structured method also helps make the process more reliable. Generally, the standard approach will work like this:

1. A team is selected for participation in the analysis. There can be one team for the entire exercise, or selected members can be involved in the development of criteria, the development of options, the final scoring, and/or the final decision.
2. The team develops a set of criteria, perhaps weighted, that will be used to make key decisions. The criteria set can be fairly detailed with definitions and scoring metrics for each criterion, or can be just a simple list. It’s helpful for the criteria to be approved by upper management, and for key stakeholders to be involved in their development, as this will build future support for the final decision.
3. A set of options is also developed. A “divergent/convergent” approach is useful here, where the team brainstorms multiple potential ideas and then filters to a final set. Voting or consensus is a good way to filter.
4. The options are then scored in some way, using the criteria. There are different ways to develop scores, which generally fall into two categories: ranking the options against each other (such as with the Analytic Hierarchy Process) or assigning points or a numeric score.
5. The option scores are compared and depending on the method, a favored option is selected.

This approach produces a clear decision trail which can be used to demonstrate which options were considered, how they were assessed, and why the final option was selected. The stakeholders and experts involved at every step can be documented as well. The decision will be easy to explain and defend.

Final Thoughts

It’s important to get up-front agreement from everyone involved as to how the decision will be made and what the framework will look like, at least in a general way; arguments over the decision framework can be a proxy for arguments over options, and getting agreement in advance helps defuse that situation. If it’s a contentious decision, you might want to actually describe the full framework and all steps up front. Using the decision framework in a context like Value Analysis/Value Engineering helps ensure high-quality options, gives even more structure, and involves a neutral facilitator who can guide the team through the analysis.

Within an organization, it can also be very helpful to adopt a typical decision framework, with flexibility to stop at different levels if the decision doesn’t warrant the full analysis. For example, if it’s immediately obvious at the “filter” stage which is the best approach, the team may choose to stop there, unless there is a specific need to go further. This can be combined with a set of typical criteria that can be used to make choices, such as public disruption, lifecycle cost, reliability of technology, aesthetics, and so on, for maximum value. These are valuable not just for making decisions but also for expressing organizational priorities.

Further topics related to this include how to develop good criteria, who to involve and when, and techniques for handling uncertainty.

And remember — if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.