Decision methods · 6/6

Decision workbench: preserve the reasons

Create a reviewable record and distinguish process quality from luck.

About 15–20 minutes. The following cases are fictional.

Record your first judgment

You choose an indoor venue after a careful comparison, but the day is sunny. A friend calls the choice wrong. Is an unprepared outdoor event automatically a good decision if it happens to stay dry?

My initial judgment, confidence and reasons

Understand the judgment process

Assess the process using information available at the time, not only the outcome. Good preparation can meet bad luck; ignored risks can go unpunished. Preserve the initial reasoning to limit hindsight reconstruction.

The workbench compares three options on three criteria. Define a goal and constraints first, then eligibility, evidence and weights. Unknown conditions remain unresolved and outside the ranking; failed constraints cannot be offset by a high score.

Sensitivity checks change each raw weight by plus or minus twenty points and renormalize. They report whether the leading set changes. This finite check does not cover score error, omitted criteria or dependencies between criteria.

Record the provisional choice, key unknowns, next action and review conditions. Export retains inputs and sensitivity results. After outcomes arrive, compare a new record with the original export rather than overwriting it.

Your decision workbench

The workbench requires JavaScript. Without it, use the exercise fields below to record goals, constraints, options, evidence, weights, action and review conditions. A weighted score is the sum of score × weight divided by total weight. Check eligibility first; scores cannot offset constraints.

Checks you can perform

Verify eligibility before comparing viable options.
Record score endpoints, evidence and weight rationale.
Inspect plausible changes in the conclusion.
Name the action owner, review date and revision conditions.

Guided practice

Compare three event options in the workbench and name the unknown worth checking first.

My analysis and checking plan

Explore the explanation

Compare indoor, outdoor and postponed events. Constraints might concern access and preparation time; preferences might concern experience, convenience and flexibility. Verify an outdoor contingency before treating it as eligible. No weights are universally correct.

Apply it in a new context

A carefully planned event is cancelled by a power outage. What belongs in the review?

My independent response

Compare after attempting

Preserve known risks and original reasons; consider whether the outage was foreseeable, the cost of a fallback and actual impact. Improve the next process without treating one result as proof of ineffectiveness.

Preserve a revision record

What changed your judgment? What still supports it? When will you review?

The workbench organizes trade-offs; it is not an automatic recommender. Scores are not success probabilities.

Check whether you supplied inspectable evidence, a feasible next step and revision conditions. Revealing an answer is not mastery.

Source and scope

Herbert A. Simon — Rational Decision-Making in Business Organizations (1978)

The source provides conceptual or methodological background. Cases, steps and exercises are authored here; they are not the original experiment or evidence of this course’s effectiveness.

I have completed this section; uncheck to undo

Completion is a personal record, not proof of mastery or certification.