The alternative to decision making is transparency.
Transparency is to do away with assuming and thinking
What is transparent to one may still be confusing to another. Transparency may be said to be achieved when the one who is providing transparency (“the expert”) is able to communicate in such a way that nobody has to think, and nobody has to make assumptions.
Transparency with respect to a certain topic can only be created by an expert in this topic. For example, it is the obligation of the one who wants to achieve a desired outcome to provide transparency with respect to the various aspects of this desired outcome. Likewise, it is the obligation of the one who will contribute to achieve this desired outcome to provide transparency as to how this will be achieved.
As long as someone is still thinking or has to make assumptions the communication is still too complex. The communication is to be so simple that nobody is thinking anymore.
Transparency is not objective and has to be actively ensured
Transparency is not objective and can not be presumed. Even in absence of thinking wrong assumptions may still be made. A description of context (‘event conditions’), avoidance of technical terminology and jargon, but especially the use of non-ambiguous metrics contribute to transparent communication. Actively ensuring that transparency has been achieved, however, remains pivotal in avoiding decision making. This is the responsibility of the expert in the topic being communicated.
Metrics is the language of transparency
The use of metrics may transform communication into a simple, non-technical and very efficient language requiring no interpretation and resulting in immediate understanding by all involved. Examples of metrics are ‘number of times’, ‘number of defects’, ‘% of cost deviation’, ‘customer satisfaction’.
Transparency allows for approvals instead of decisions
Oftentimes managers are not “willing” to make decisions but simply forced to. They don’t have the time — and it is not their responsibility — to go through the details of every proposal or activity put in front of them. In such circumstances managers have to go by their gut feeling, or rely on their own relevant professional experience. They have to make decisions.
The alternative is to “enforce transparency”. Instead of making decisions managers are to approve or disapprove. If a proposal is made transparent to the manager, so he/she no longer has to think, it is approved. If it is not transparent the manager has to disapprove as there are still risks attached. The proposal may not be bad, but if the one who is proposing is an expert in his field he/she must be able to make it transparent why the proposal was made in the first place.
The approach of Decision Free Solutions uses four steps (DICE), five principles (TONNNO) and the role of the Decision Free Leader (DFL) to achieve this. An introduction to the approach of Decision Free Solutions is provided in a short article you will find here.Back to all explanations Message me about this explanation
To stay ahead, freeing up resources beats cutting cost.
To stay ahead relying on quality alone is not enough. But the approach of "cutting cost" results in reduced quality and margins. Utilise expertise to free up resources instead. Cost reduces, and margins increase.Read more
Het vrijmaken van resources is efficiënter dan kosten besparen
Om de concurrentie voor te blijven is het leveren van kwaliteit niet voldoende. Simpelweg “kosten besparen” leidt tot kleinere marges. Inzet van expertise doet het tegenovergestelde.Read more
Everybody can manage risk, only few can minimise it.
In every organisation there are both identified and unidentified risks. To manage identified risks is straightforward. Everybody can manage identified risks. Which leaves the unidentified risks. Who will minimise these? Not everybody can.Read more
That decisions increase risk is not semantics, it is logic.
That decisions increase risk follows from the dictionary definition and use of logic. Few experience decisions in this way, for various obvious reasons. These reasons don't take anything away from decisions increasing risk. The risk is for real.Read more