making-a-decision

name	making-a-decision
description	Use when picking between options - produces a recommendation with explicit alternative considered and reason rejected
kind	workflow
audience	anyone
ai-tools	any
complexity	simple
time	10-30 min
version	1.0.0
source	bundled

Making a Decision

What this does

Produces a written decision with the criteria, the options scored, the recommendation, the runner-up, and the reason the runner-up lost. Documents what would change your mind.

When to use

• Picking between two or more concrete options
• Documenting a decision so future-you (or your team) remembers why
• Closing out a comparison that's been dragging
• Any decision worth more than 30 minutes of consideration

What you bring (Inputs)

• The decision (one sentence: "should I X or Y")
• The criteria that matter (3-5)
• The options under consideration (2+)

What you get (Output)

A written decision document: criteria + scoring + recommendation + alternative + reversal trigger.

How it works (Steps)

This is a workflow.

Stages

Stage 1: State the decision

In one sentence. ("Should I X or Y.")

Stage 2: List the criteria

3-5 criteria, weighted (numeric or simple high/med/low).

Stage 3: Score each option

Score every option against every criterion. A 3-option, 4-criterion grid is enough.

Stage 4: Pick the winner

Based on the score, name the winner.

Stage 5: Name the strongest runner-up

Explicitly name the second-best option.

Stage 6: Reject the runner-up explicitly

State: "I considered [runner-up] and rejected it because [reason]." The reason must be specific (cite criteria, not "it wasn't as good").

Stage 7: State the reversal trigger

"I would change my mind if [concrete event or metric]." The trigger must be observable.

Checkpoints

• After Stage 2: at least 3 criteria
• After Stage 3: every option scored against every criterion
• After Stage 6: rejection reason cites specific criteria
• After Stage 7: reversal trigger is concrete (metric, date, or observation)

Loop-back conditions

• If Stage 3 reveals a missing criterion, return to Stage 2 and add it
• If Stage 6 cannot produce a real reason, the decision is not ready — the winner and runner-up may be too close; add a tiebreaker criterion in Stage 2

Quality bar

• At least 2 options, scored
• At least 3 criteria
• Step 6 names a real reason, not "the winner was better"
• Step 7 is concrete (a metric, a date, an observation)

Variations

• Reversible decision: shorter; only need 2 criteria and a trial period
• High-stakes decision: add a "kill criterion" — what makes you abandon the chosen option
• Hire / no-hire: replace criteria with "must-haves" + "nice-to-haves"
• Vendor selection: criteria include cost, lock-in, support quality, integration fit

Example

Input: Pick between two analytics vendors: Acme and Beta.

Output:

Decision: Pick Acme as our analytics vendor.

Criteria (weighted 1-3):

• Price (3): Acme $40k/yr, Beta $25k/yr
• Integration with our stack (3): Acme native, Beta needs adapter
• Time to first dashboard (2): Acme 1 day, Beta 1 week
• Support quality (2): both 8/10
• Future-proofing (1): Acme hot, Beta cooling

Scoring: Acme wins on integration, time-to-first-dashboard, future-proofing. Beta wins on price.

Recommendation: Acme.

Considered alternative: Beta. Rejected because integration cost would erase the price advantage in year 1, and the slower time-to-first-dashboard delays our Q3 reporting commitment.

Would change mind if: Acme raises price by >40% at renewal, OR Beta releases native integration before we sign.