Decision making framework: Top 6 frameworks for decision-making LogRocket Blog

Decision making framework

Teams that make effective decisions and solve complex problems fast don’t have a superpower; they use decision making frameworks and tools to organize and guide their decision making process. The purpose of this review was to provide an overview of RTS decision frameworks and what constitutes high-quality decision-making. There is a lack of empirical knowledge in RTS decision-making and the potential adaptations within its process; most research focuses on biological and medical factors. One of the strengths of the review is to lay out the decision basis and hence the transparency of a decision. Understanding decision-making theories in the context of RTS and potential deviations from normative decisions may improve the work process and quality of decision-making. More research is required to understand how decisions are made and how to use computation tools to support and improve decision quality.

Then, with all the data and opinions at their disposal, the Approver makes the call, and the Informed are told the verdict. And if you need to not only create a new solution but also get an actionable plan for its implementation, then the BRIDGeS framework can be your best shot. The next step would be to estimate the dimensions using some quantitative indicators. In our case, we don’t have a metric system for our criteria so we used a five-mark grading system. We also need to set a limit for different criteria if we don’t necessarily need them to reach the upper bound. This tool was firstly introduced by Dave Snowden, an IBM Global Services management consultant, in 1999.

By identifying who fits into each of those categories before you make a decision you will eliminate some of the decision fatigue. People responsible are the ones who will work on implementing the decision. The ones accountable are their managers who will take on making project-related decisions later on.

Decision-making frameworks don’t replace hard work, research, discussion, and debate. Instead, they provide a common setting for decisions to be made and a process that should create speed and consistency while still covering all the bases. With this more nuanced input, the person or group can tally up the responses and make the final decision, weighting each opinion appropriately. This process moves beyond an up/downvote and lets you sense what kind of ongoing support a choice will really have if it’s selected.

This may sound confusing, but it’s extremely important to understand the decision you’re about to make. But you should understand that there’s more to each decision you come to. There’s two basic types of decisions – reversible and irreversible ones. You should know into which category your specific decision falls into. Keep in mind that there’s very few decisions that actually can’t be undone. Decisions that are actually irreversible should get more of your attention.

Also known as a cognitive short cut, a heuristic is a decision-making strategy to act more quickly or frugally by ignoring parts of the information [85]. Heuristics allow people to make a rapid, efficient judgement without consuming a substantial amount of time, processing capacity, or when information is incomplete. The first formal RTS decision-making guiding framework, a 3-step decision-based model, was proposed by Creighton et al. in 2010 [72]. The framework was designed to guide decisions on when to clear an athlete for full participation in sport without restriction. In 2015, minor revisions were made to the 3-step framework and it was renamed the Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance (StARRT) [20]. Responsiveness, or sensitivity, refers to how well a test can detect meaningful changes in skill and functional assessment [55].

The fifth—disorder—applies when it is unclear which of the other four contexts is predominant. Currently, there is limited evidence or expert knowledge on how clinical decisions in sports are made, especially for upper-limb injuries. While in principle, the decision-making process of other sports injuries would be similar, future research could also investigate upper-limb injuries, for example, a shoulder dislocation injury.

This is the realm of unknowables (the events of September 11, 2001, fall into this category). In this domain, a leader must first act to establish order, sense where stability is present, and then work to transform the situation from chaos to complexity. Understanding the decision-making theories may allow decision-makers to realise the normative approach and thus engage in a high-quality and rational discussion during deliberation. In scenario 1, the athlete achieved 90% on all the tests (indicated as “achieved 0.90”) and the sum of the weighted utility value is 270AU. In scenario 2, some of the tests have not passed the 90% threshold and the sum of the weighted utility value is 213AU. The weighted utility value has not reached the requirement set by the clinician, and the athlete was not cleared to RTS in scenario 2.

Part 3: Preferences of the Decision-Makers

The first step is to choose appropriate RTS tests and to synthesise the information in a meaningful way. The second step is to understand the decision-making theories and identify possible deviations from normative models. The third step is using shared decision-making to improve decision quality by eliminating the contextual ‘blind spots’, such as an individual’s expectation, preference and value. We propose a framework that clinicians could refer to when they decide on RTS in a sports organisation (Fig. 4). The most efficient teams make a ton of decisions quickly, but that’s easier said than done.

Decision making framework

RICE and ICE are usually seen as prioritization frameworks, but let’s not forget that prioritization is an exercise of decision-making on its own. It’s perfectly acceptable to broaden both frameworks’ applicability beyond your roadmap. Group decision-making is a must when dealing with sensitive topics or subjects that a lot of people have an interest in. A substantial part of what stakeholder management means is the need to share accountability. Frameworks help a great deal in organizing people and giving clarity on objectives. The Golden Circle was introduced by leadership specialist Simon Sinek back in 2009 in his book Start with why.

frameworks for lone decision making

If you want to ensure that the choices made by your employees are the right ones according to the company’s policy – come up with a set of specific guidelines. Simple contexts, properly assessed, require straightforward management and monitoring. That is, they assess the facts of the situation, categorize them, and then base their response on established practice. Heavily process-oriented situations, such as loan payment processing, are often simple contexts. Since both managers and employees have access to the information necessary for dealing with the situation in this domain, a command-and-control style for setting parameters works best.

  • They’ll be responsible for making sure all stakeholders are aware of what’s happening, gathering information, getting questions answered and action items completed.
  • Clinicians also have an overriding duty of care to patients and a legal and ethical obligation to act in a manner that is necessary and appropriate to protect the health of an athlete.
  • Gil Shklarski’s tool focuses on reversible decisions and the fact that almost all decisions can be reversible.
  • Employees feel safe to express their ideas in a constructive environment.
  • The actual decision may occur in a ‘black box’, where one combines the available information in their own way without transparency or accountability [99].

When we deal with a situation enough times, we become experts at figuring out how to most effectively manage it. The rational decision making model is ideal for solving complex problems that require a make-or-break decision. This model involves a lot of research and discussion and requires you to work in sequence. This model only works if you have the time to sit down as a team and methodically work through the best course of action.

Assess your results and review your processes

Directives are straightforward, decisions can be easily delegated, and functions are automated. Exhaustive communication among managers and employees is not usually required because disagreement about what needs to be done is rare. However, with the addition of trainers, rehabilitation coaches and performance coaches, clinicians are no longer the only staff contributing to rehabilitation and RTS decisions. It is questionable whether clinicians should still be the main advisor for RTS decisions, given the numerous non-medical factors to consider [97, 100, 103, 108, 110,111,112,113].

But I’ve found that people are enormously relieved when they hear that you’re grabbing the baton and accepting responsibility for a decision. Using the “CEO prerogative” — to make the final call — isn’t something you ought to need every day. As long as you do it sparingly, you can actually make your employees more comfortable, and engender more trust by pulling the trigger, logically explaining your choice and sticking with it. They should also be defined in a way that acknowledges potential tensions.

Because humans are unlikely to be perfectly rational at all times, decisions made could deviate from a normative model. By applying normative models to the decisions made, decision-makers could look for possible biases and understand the nature of those biases with descriptive models. Examples of descriptive models include prospect theory, heuristics and bounded rationality [74]. With a better understanding of the biases, decision-makers could develop approaches to correct them (de-bias) and improve the quality of the decisions. The following section describes the common descriptive theories and how a decision may stray from the previous normative models.

The matrix, nicknamed the “Xanax for decision-making” among his team members at Flatiron, has enabled his increasingly autonomous and fragmented team to keep moving fast and smart through tough choices. It’s like the difference between, say, a Ferrari and the Brazilian rainforest. Ferraris are complicated machines, but an expert mechanic can take one apart and reassemble it without changing a thing. The rainforest, on the other hand, is in constant flux—a species becomes extinct, weather patterns change, an agricultural project reroutes a water source—and the whole is far more than the sum of its parts. This is the realm of “unknown unknowns,” and it is the domain to which much of contemporary business has shifted.

First Principles Thinking: The Most Powerful Way To Think

They include strategies for distilling the information needed to make a decision, testing potential solutions and reconciling clashing perspectives. We hope they’ll help take the dread out of decision-making and lend you clarity on choices that can drive your startup forward. In the face of greater complexity today, however, intuition, intellect, and charisma are no longer enough.

Decision graphs

Content validity refers to how well a test protocol reflects what it intends to measure [55, 56]. Selecting measurement tools is important as unnecessary noise may dampen the accuracy of the decision model. If the tests selected are prone to false positives, clinicians may be unnecessarily delaying the rehabilitation process of the athlete [47]. The ideal number of tests to use for this purpose may vary between cases. There are concerns that an insufficient number of tests may jeopardise the clinician’s ability to see the complete profile of an injured athlete. However, too many tests may increase the inherent error (e.g., athlete exhibiting reduced performance due to fatigue or reduced motivation) and exhaust more resources (e.g., staff, time, equipment).