Framework for better decision-making debates
Being a middle manager in the IT business, I often find myself being a part of some sort of discussion that has the purpose of making some sort of decision. Very often based on incomplete information and at a tight schedule.
My hypothesis is that this short text can serve as a framework for better structuring and clarifying decision making processes – and, ultimately, lead to better decisions. The original working title was "Facts versus Assumptions or Evidence versus Indications" which sounds somewhat enigmatic. Bear with me and join me on at little philosophical detour.
The difference between facts and assumptions lies, from a philosophical point of view, in that facts are assumptions so widely believed that (almost) nobody bothers to discuss the truthfulness of the assumption. Everything we know about the world is based on assumptions. Some assumptions are based on better evidence and indications than others.
Following from the above, we can say that pieces of evidence are just indications, so widely believed that (almost) nobody bothers to discuss whether the evidence is in fact evidence.
Most facts start life as assumptions (or in academic terms - as hypotheses) being upgraded to facts through a process of collecting and summing up evidence and indications. Most facts rule out alternative facts on the same topic. But sometimes contradicting evidence indicates the coexistence of more than one fact for the same topic, or that the fact does not exhaust the topic, or that the topic is in reality not one topic, thereby creating space for more facts. I think the best (least bad) word for the first complication is a paradox. Paradoxes are out of scope for this hypothesis.
The ability to differentiate between facts and assumptions, evidence and indication is not a binary game. To be or not to be, that is not the question. Sensing the probability of a piece of information being mostly one or mostly the other - that is the question. And the classification of each piece of information is by default a very personal and individual decision, based on all kind of Freudian stuff - which is also out of scope for this hypothesis.
Decision making is a very difficult process. The lack of information, lack of knowledge and the lack of ability to predict the future, makes it very difficult. Most of the time you add up "The sum of what you know" and take a chance of doing or run the risk of not doing.
"The sum of what you know" is heavily dependent on the classification of the information available. This is one of the reasons why equally intelligent people might reach very different conclusions, based on the same information.
All too often one observes decision making processes where the participant confuses the classification of information with the act of summing and concluding - making a mesh of a debate, where the outcome/decision is defined mostly by random factors like who is the most alfa, who has a pet interest in some of the information, who likes who and all other kind of random factors completely irrelevant for obtaining the best (or least bad) decision.
I would also argue that a meaningful decision-making process involves at least some common ground on classifying information. It is not possible to reach any kind of consensus if the involved parties do not agree on at least some facts. Extreme examples are unfortunately plentiful in the current era of fake news.
The above mentioned philosophical point of view is borrowed from phenomenology. This short text is in other words, an example of philosophy applied to the real world.
Is it helpful? – in the spirit of the arguments in the text – that is up to Your judgement.