Decisions are supposed to represent the conclusion of a process involving the following steps:
- Research of the problem
- Decide on the scope
- Discover the requirements
- Determine viable alternatives
- Evaluate costs, benefits, and risks
- Do some soul-searching
- And then resolve and commit on a way-ahead
While these steps are typically formalized in a work-setting, they may be done informally in our personal lives.
But even after all this, we need to remain adaptive to changes in the environment that would cause us to reevaluate the decision and alter course.
So a decision is a decision until we revisit the decision.
The problem is that in some highly complex, unstable/turbulent environments, or ones where there are a lot of disagreements among stakeholders (such that there was perhaps not a consensus on the original decision to begin with) then "decisions" may be short-lived.
In this case, decisions may be half-baked, not even last until the ink is dried, and certainly not have a chance in hell to be executed on or seen through to determine whether they actually would've worked.
In a way a decision that is so temporal is not even really a decision, but sticking your toe out to feel the temperature of the water, and any commitment of resources can and probably will be a complete throw-away.
We've got to do the investment in the upfront work, really make a good data-driven (and inspired) decision, and give it an opportunity to blossom.
Yes, we need to remain agile and change as we sincerely need to, but too much change and for the wrong reasons leads to going nowhere fast. ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
