Decision Frameworks
Decision Classification
Reversible vs Irreversible (Bezos Type 1/2)
| Type |
Description |
Process |
| Type 1 (One-way door) |
Hard to reverse, high stakes |
Slow, careful, get more data |
| Type 2 (Two-way door) |
Reversible, low stakes |
Fast, decentralize, iterate |
Most decisions are Type 2. Move fast on Type 2 — speed matters more than perfection.
Identify Type 1 early and apply appropriate rigor.
Decision Urgency Matrix
High Impact Low Impact
Urgent → Decide now → Delegate
Not urgent → Schedule → Automate/Ignore
RAPID Framework
Role Definitions
| Letter |
Role |
Responsibility |
| R |
Recommend |
Gathers input, proposes a recommendation |
| A |
Agree |
Must formally agree (veto power) |
| P |
Perform |
Executes the decision |
| I |
Input |
Consulted, provides relevant knowledge |
| D |
Decide |
Makes the final call (one person only) |
RAPID Assignment Template
Decision: [What are we deciding?]
Deadline: [By when]
R (Recommend): [Name] — will provide recommendation by [date]
A (Agree): [Names] — must sign off (keep to ≤2 people)
P (Perform): [Name/team] — will implement
I (Input): [Names] — consulted, not deciding
D (Decide): [ONE person] — makes final call
Common mistake: multiple D's → paralysis. Always one D.
Decision Matrix (Weighted Criteria)
Building a Decision Matrix
Step 1: List options (rows)
Step 2: Define criteria (columns)
Step 3: Assign weights to criteria (must sum to 100%)
Step 4: Score each option on each criterion (1-10)
Step 5: Multiply score × weight, sum across criteria
Example: Selecting a database
Criteria: Perf Scale Cost Ease Ecosystem
Weight: 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
PostgreSQL: 8 7 9 8 9
MySQL: 7 7 9 9 8
MongoDB: 8 9 7 6 8
DynamoDB: 9 10 6 5 7
Weighted scores:
PostgreSQL: 8(.30)+7(.25)+9(.20)+8(.15)+9(.10) = 7.95 ✓
MongoDB: 8(.30)+9(.25)+7(.20)+6(.15)+8(.10) = 7.75
DynamoDB: 9(.30)+10(.25)+6(.20)+5(.15)+7(.10) = 7.90
Result: PostgreSQL wins — but decision matrix shows DynamoDB close on perf/scale
Pre-Mortem
Pre-Mortem Protocol
When: Before committing to a major decision or project
Step 1 (5 min): State the plan clearly — what exactly are we deciding?
Step 2 (10 min, solo): "Imagine it's 12 months from now.
The decision was made. It was a disaster.
Write down everything that went wrong."
Step 3 (15 min): Share and cluster failure scenarios
Step 4 (10 min): For each top scenario, ask:
- How likely (1-5)?
- How severe (1-5)?
- Can we mitigate it? How?
Step 5: Decide with eyes open, or modify the plan
Pre-mortem catches: overconfidence, groupthink, planning fallacy
Second-Order Thinking
Second-Order Thinking Framework
First-order: What happens immediately?
Second-order: Then what happens?
Third-order: And then what?
Example: "We should lower prices to grow revenue"
1st order: More customers sign up → revenue up
2nd order: Existing customers demand same price → margin hit
3rd order: Competitors match price → race to bottom
3rd order: Resources cut → quality suffers → churn rises
→ Decision is more complex than it appeared
"And then what?" Template
Decision: [What you're considering]
Immediate effect (1st order):
→
What happens next (2nd order):
→
What happens after that (3rd order):
→
Unintended consequences to watch:
•
•
Does this still look like a good idea?
10/10/10 Framework (Suzy Welch)
How will I feel about this decision:
- In 10 minutes? (immediate, emotional)
- In 10 months? (medium-term, practical)
- In 10 years? (long-term, values)
Best for: Personal/career decisions, not technical ones
Example: Should I speak up about a process problem in the team meeting?
10 min: Uncomfortable, anxiety
10 months: Either problem persists OR it improved
10 years: Almost certainly glad I raised it
→ Speak up
Regret Minimization Framework (Bezos)
Project yourself to age 80, looking back at this decision.
Which choice will you regret less?
Best for: Career choices, entrepreneurial bets, life decisions
Not for: Tactical/operational decisions
Script: "When I'm 80 and looking back at my life,
will I regret not having tried [X]?"
Avoiding Decision Traps
Common Cognitive Biases in Decisions
| Bias |
Description |
Counter |
| Anchoring |
Over-weighting first number heard |
Generate independent estimates before discussing |
| Confirmation bias |
Seeking data that confirms existing view |
Assign devil's advocate role |
| Sunk cost |
"We've already invested so much" |
Ask: "If we hadn't invested anything, would we start now?" |
| Status quo bias |
Default to doing nothing |
Evaluate inaction as a choice with its own consequences |
| Availability heuristic |
Overweighting vivid recent examples |
Seek base rates and statistical data |
| Planning fallacy |
Underestimating time/cost/risk |
Use reference class forecasting (how long do similar projects take?) |
Devil's Advocate Protocol
For important decisions, explicitly assign someone to argue the opposite:
"[Name], your job for the next 10 minutes is to argue
against this proposal as strongly as possible.
We're not judging your actual opinion — we want the best arguments against."
This separates role from person and reduces social pressure
to conform to apparent consensus.
Decision Documentation
Decision Record Template
Decision: [What was decided]
Date: [When]
Decider: [Who had final call]
Context: [Why this decision needed to be made]
Options considered:
1. [Option A] — pros/cons
2. [Option B] — pros/cons
3. [Status quo] — always list this
Decision rationale: [Why this option was chosen]
Tradeoffs accepted: [What we're giving up]
Success criteria: [How we'll know if it worked]
Review date: [When to revisit — especially for Type 1 decisions]