Systems Engineering - Decision Rules

We take decisions all the time.

We live in a rapidly changing world, with an expectation of high adaptability and fluid navigation of the choices with which we are confronted. Most of the time we carry out difficult decision making, either as individuals or as groups, without giving the process too much thought.

However, in designing and constructing complex systems, there are still many occasions where the criticality of the decision, or the impact of the decisions, results in this process needing to be brought out into the open.

One of the key insights is that we don’t “just make a choice.” Rather, we follow a process by which we make our decisions.

As individuals, this process is often implicit. However, we still follow a process. We may “weigh up the options” in our minds as we mull over potential consequences. Other times we may explicitly draw up a list for ourselves, and rank our choices in some way.

As groups, this process can also be implicit. We may simply defer to the implicitly or explicitly appointed group leaders. We may simply rely on our existing common ground and unspoken “meeting of minds.”

However, when these implicit processes are not available or break down for some reason, the group still needs to arrive at a decision for some critical point. The friction and tensions that then often arise can actually be largely attributed to the fact that there has not been an explicit agreement on how a decision will be made. As a result, different stakeholders may have very different expectations around what “halting conditions” are going to be applied in order to be able to finally say that “we have reached a decision.” This can result in much deeper misunderstandings in the short term, or it can result in different interpretations and levels of commitment to the decision in the longer run.

In these more difficult cases, it is actually important for the group to first identify both, a:

• decision rule: the chosen process by which a decision will be derived and finalised.
• decision leader: the chosen person, or collective, that will be responsible for finalising the decision process according to the above mentioned decision rule.

Understanding that we first need to identify how we are going to decide is a key insight for groups to be aware of. This key detail can dramatically improve the fluidity and quality of decisions being reached by groups.

Decision Rules

To summarise the common decision rules, see the list below, which is ordered by increasing degrees of collaboration, and which is based on the article: “Decide How to Decide” by Ellen Gottesdiener:

	
flowchart TB
	r0[[Decision Rules]]

	r1([Arbitrary])
	r2([Decision Leader Decides Without Discussion])
	r3([Delegation])
	r4([Decision Leader Decides After Discussion])
	r5([Spontaneous Agreement])
	r6([Majority Vote])
	r7([Negotiation])
	r8([Consensus])

	r0 --> r1
	r0 --> r2
	r0 --> r3
	r0 --> r4
	r0 --> r5
	r0 --> r6
	r0 --> r7
	r0 --> r8


	

It is also possible to create compound decision rules. For example, a pragmatic approach to time sensitive but important decisions is to follow the consensus decision rule, but to apply a deadline. If the deadline is reached, then fallback to following the decision leader decides after discussion decision rule.

Decision Rule: Arbitrary

• Description: Decisions are made via an arbitrary means (e.g. flipping a coin).
• Pros:
  • Fast
  • Efficient for low stakes decisions.
• Cons:
  • Devalues the importance of the decision.
• Applicabilty: Useful if:
  • the decision is of low importance,
  • the decision must be made quickly,
  • the decision is reversible,
  • the decision has low long term consequences.

Decision Rule: Decision Leader Decides Without Discussion

• Description: The leader makes a decision without consulting any other stakeholders.
• Pros:
  • Fast
  • Clarifies who is in charge of decisions and orders.
• Cons:
  • Decision quality is compromised if the decision leader lacks knowledge regarding the consequences of the decision.
  • The decision leader misses an opportunity to learn more about the context surrounding the decision.
  • There tends to be insufficient buy-in and commitment by the stakeholders affected by the decision.
• Applicabilty: Useful if:
  • the decision must be made during a crisis, or
  • the stakes involved are low,
  • the decision leader is knowledgeable and trusted by the people who will be affected by the decision.

Decision Rule: Delegation

• Description: One person is appointed to make the decision.
• Pros:
  • Fast
  • Accountability is clear.
• Cons:
  • The appointed delegate may lack sufficient expertise in the domain.
  • There tends to be insufficient buy-in and commitment by the stakeholders affected by the decision.
  • Can undermine the authority of the person who is actually in charge.
  • Can result in a lower quality choice if the delegate doesn’t consult stakeholders.
• Applicabilty: Useful if:
  • the decision must be made quickly,
  • the delegate has the authority to support the results of the decision,
  • the delegate has, or can obtain, the expertise needed for the decision,
  • the decision is of low importance.

Decision Rule: Decision Leader Decides After Discussion

• Description: The decision leader arrives at a decision after consulting with the stakeholders related to the decision.
• Pros:
  • Clarifies who is in charge.
  • Enables stakeholders to provide their input.
  • Promotes commitment by the stakeholders to the outcome.
• Cons:
  • Responsibility for the decision in not shared by all stakeholders.
• Applicabilty: Useful if:
  • the decision leader has knowledge and expertise in the related decision domain,
  • the decision needs to draw collaboratively on the input from all stakeholders,
  • the decision quality needs to be balanced with speed.

Decision Rule: Spontaneous Agreement

• Description: Participants rapidly converge on and arrive at a decision without explicit consideration of the decision factors.
• Pros:
  • Fast
  • Easy
• Cons:
  • Lacks engagement with potential consequences and risk factors.
  • Risks resulting in group-think because the participants believe that agreement is more important than deriving the right decision.
• Applicabilty: Useful if:
  • the decision has minimal consequences,
  • the decision needs to be made quickly,
  • the decision quality does not rely on or depend on the deeper knowledge sharing and preferences.

Decision Rule: Majority Vote

• Description: Decisions are taken by counting the number of votes for two or options. The majority “wins.”
• Pros:
  • Fast
  • Efficient for very large groups.
• Cons:
  • Win-Lose; some people will always lose, which creates an adversarial atmostphere.
  • Choices may be based on invalid information.
  • Decision quality tends to be low.
• Applicabilty: Useful if:
  • the decision is trivial,
  • the stakes involved are low,
  • the resultant divisions in the group are acceptable to all stakeholders.

Decision Rule: Negotiation

• Description: The group works to compromise to a middle position that incorporates the most important positions from all sides, but relies on all sides retracting some of their desired choices.
• Pros:
  • All sides have an opportunity to present their views through the required discussion.
  • Each party gets something.
• Cons:
  • Lose-Lose; everyone looses something in the process.
  • Can inadvertently increase the adversarial nature of an group that may already be polarised.
  • Decision quality tends to be low.
• Applicabilty: Useful if:
  • the group is already polarised and there is no other viable alternative.

Decision Rule: Consensus

• Description: A state of mutual agreement is reached amongst members of a group, whereby all legitimate concerns that have been raised are addressed to the satisfaction of the group members.
• Pros:
  • Builds trust.
  • Creates a high level of support and commitment.
  • Considers the impact and consequences of the decision.
  • Resultant decisions are more sustainable.
  • Promotes learning as a result of the concomitantly required deep listening and inquiry.
• Cons:
  • Slow.
  • Requires that the stakeholders also have expertise and knowledge regarding the problem domain.
  • Decision quality can still be compromised if the participants do not have all the relevant information at hand.
• Applicabilty: Useful if:
  • the decision is important and the consequences of a poor decision are high,
  • the decision is non-reversible.