flpbalada-making-product-decisions

name	flpbalada-making-product-decisions
description	Framework for structured product decision-making. Use when facing complex tradeoffs, aligning stakeholders, documenting decisions, or choosing between multiple valid approaches.

Making Product Decisions - Structured Decision Framework

A meta-framework for making and documenting product decisions. Combines decision science principles with practical product management needs to ensure better decisions, stakeholder alignment, and organizational learning.

When to Use This Skill

• Choosing between competing priorities or approaches
• Making irreversible or high-stakes decisions
• Aligning stakeholders with different perspectives
• Documenting decisions for future reference
• Evaluating past decisions for learning
• Delegating decision-making authority

Core Concepts

Decision Types (Bezos Framework)

+------------------+------------------+
|   Type 1         |   Type 2         |
|   (One-way door) |   (Two-way door) |
+------------------+------------------+
| Irreversible     | Reversible       |
| High stakes      | Lower stakes     |
| Slow, careful    | Fast, iterate    |
| Senior decision  | Delegate widely  |
+------------------+------------------+

Decision Quality vs. Outcome

	Good Outcome	Bad Outcome
Good Decision	Deserved success	Bad luck
Bad Decision	Good luck	Deserved failure

Judge decisions by process quality, not just outcomes.

Data-Informed vs. Data-Driven

Approach	When to Use
Data-driven	Clear metrics, sufficient data, understood system
Data-informed	Incomplete data, novel situations, judgment needed
Intuition-led	Time pressure, expert domain, pattern matching

Most product decisions should be data-informed, not purely data-driven.

Analysis Framework

Step 1: Frame the Decision

Element	Question
What	What exactly are we deciding?
Why	Why does this decision matter?
Who	Who should be involved?
When	When must we decide by?
Reversibility	Type 1 or Type 2 door?

Step 2: Generate Options

Always have at least 3 options:

1. Do nothing / status quo
2. Option A
3. Option B

Avoid binary framing - it limits thinking.

Step 3: Establish Criteria

Criterion	Weight	Why It Matters
[Criterion 1]	[1-5]	[Explanation]
[Criterion 2]	[1-5]	[Explanation]
[Criterion 3]	[1-5]	[Explanation]

Step 4: Evaluate Options

Option	Criterion 1	Criterion 2	Criterion 3	Total
Status quo	[Score]	[Score]	[Score]	[Sum]
Option A	[Score]	[Score]	[Score]	[Sum]
Option B	[Score]	[Score]	[Score]	[Sum]

Step 5: Document and Decide

Record:

• Decision made
• Rationale
• Dissenting views
• Success criteria
• Review date

Output Template

## Product Decision Record

**Decision:** [Clear statement of what was decided] **Date:** [Date] **Decision
maker:** [Name] **Status:** [Proposed/Approved/Implemented]

### Context

**Problem/Opportunity:** [What prompted this decision]

**Constraints:** [Time, resources, dependencies]

**Reversibility:** [Type 1 / Type 2]

### Options Considered

| Option     | Description | Pros | Cons |
| ---------- | ----------- | ---- | ---- |
| Status quo | [Desc]      | [+]  | [-]  |
| Option A   | [Desc]      | [+]  | [-]  |
| Option B   | [Desc]      | [+]  | [-]  |

### Decision Criteria

| Criterion | Weight | Rationale |
| --------- | ------ | --------- |
| [C1]      | [1-5]  | [Why]     |
| [C2]      | [1-5]  | [Why]     |

### Evaluation

| Option  | [C1]  | [C2]  | Weighted Total |
| ------- | ----- | ----- | -------------- |
| [Opt 1] | [x/5] | [x/5] | [Score]        |
| [Opt 2] | [x/5] | [x/5] | [Score]        |

### Decision

**Chosen option:** [Option name]

**Rationale:** [Why this option best meets criteria]

**Dissenting views:** [Captured disagreements and concerns]

### Success Criteria

| Metric | Current | Target  | Measure By |
| ------ | ------- | ------- | ---------- |
| [M1]   | [Value] | [Value] | [Date]     |

### Review

**Review date:** [Date] **What we'll evaluate:** [Criteria for success/failure]

Real-World Examples

Example 1: Build vs. Buy

Decision: Build custom analytics or use third-party tool?

Criterion	Weight	Build	Buy
Time to market	5	2	5
Customization	3	5	2
Long-term cost	4	3	4
Maintenance burden	4	2	5
Total		42	66

Decision: Buy, despite customization limitations.

Example 2: Feature Prioritization

Decision: Next quarter focus - mobile app or API improvements?

Applied decision criteria:

• Revenue impact (weight: 5)
• User retention (weight: 4)
• Strategic positioning (weight: 3)
• Engineering complexity (weight: 2)

Result: Mobile app scored higher on revenue and retention despite higher complexity.

Best Practices

Do

• Make decision criteria explicit before evaluating
• Include "do nothing" as an option
• Document dissenting opinions
• Set review dates for major decisions
• Separate decision quality from outcome

Avoid

• Analysis paralysis on Type 2 decisions
• HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion) decisions
• Retroactive justification
• Ignoring intuition entirely
• Forgetting to review past decisions

Decision Speed Guidelines

Type	Approach
Type 1, high stakes	Take time, involve stakeholders
Type 2, reversible	Decide quickly, iterate
Unclear type	Default to faster, can always slow down

Integration with Other Methods

Method	Combined Use
Hypothesis Tree	Structure analysis of options
Jobs-to-be-Done	Ground criteria in user needs
Five Whys	Understand decision root causes

Resources

• Thinking in Bets - Annie Duke
• Decisive - Chip & Dan Heath