Decision Frameworks — decision-making framework library
framework-designer agent decision-making structure design framework .
decision-making typeby framework mapping
| decision-making type |
also |
recommendation framework |
quality meeting |
| specialistday |
Low |
|
10minute |
| during option optional |
duringbetween |
during assessment matrix |
30minute decision-making |
| strategyquality direction |
High |
DACI + scenario |
60minute strategy meeting |
| specialistKRW allocation |
High |
priority matrix |
minutebasis plan |
| risk judgment |
High |
expected analysis |
KRW reporting |
DACI framework
| role |
description |
personKRW |
| Driver |
decision-making process week also |
1people |
| Approver |
final person |
1people |
| Contributor |
/information provide |
Npeople |
| Informed |
result report target |
Npeople |
DACI document template
## decision-making: [title]
- deadline: 2025-01-31
- Driver: [name/]
- Approver: [name/]
- Contributors: [name list]
- Informed: [name list]
### background
[ decision neededKorean]
### option
| option | description | advantage | disadvantage | cost | schedule |
|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| A | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| B | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
### plan
[Driver and basis]
### decision
[Approver final decision] — daywhen: ____
during assessment matrix (Weighted Scoring)
design procedure
1. assessment standard (5~7items)
2. duringvalue to do (total 100%)
3. each option standardby 1~5point assessment
4. during score = score × duringvalue
5. totalpoint comparison → point option optional
template
| standard |
duringvalue |
option A |
option B |
option C |
| cost |
30% |
4 (1.2) |
3 (0.9) |
5 (1.5) |
| implementation difficulty |
25% |
3 (0.75) |
5 (1.25) |
2 (0.5) |
| strategy qualitynature |
25% |
5 (1.25) |
3 (0.75) |
4 (1.0) |
| risk |
20% |
4 (0.8) |
4 (0.8) |
3 (0.6) |
| totalpoint |
100% |
4.0 |
3.7 |
3.6 |
2x2 priority matrix
Eisenhower matrix
grade
High Low
┌───────────┬───────────┐
│ DO NOW │ SCHEDULE │
│ i.e.when execution │ schedule establish │
├───────────┼───────────┤
during│ DELEGATE │ ELIMINATE│
│ │ │
├───────────┴───────────┤
│ │
│ │
└───────────────────────┘
Impact-Effort matrix
|
capability Low |
capability High |
| ** High** |
Quick Win (i.e.when) |
Major Project (plan) |
| ** Low** |
Fill-in ( when) |
Thankless Task (basis) |
expected analysis (Expected Value)
expected = Σ (result × probability)
option A:
nature(70%): +5000,000 KRW → 3500,000 KRW
failure(30%): -2000,000 KRW → -600,000 KRW
expected: +2900,000 KRW
option B:
nature(90%): +2000,000 KRW → 1800,000 KRW
failure(10%): -500,000 KRW → -50,000 KRW
expected: +1750,000 KRW
→ expected standard option A optional
→ However, risk also option B optional (versus loss )
derive method
| method |
description |
quality situation |
| Fist of Five |
1~5 when tablewhen |
confirm |
| Dot Voting |
eachspecialist allocation |
number option |
| Roman Voting |
👍/👎/✊ when |
confirm |
| Gradients of Agreement |
8stage |
un-Korean gap |
| Decision Sprint |
debate+table |
time limitation |
quality checklist
| item |
standard |
| role |
DACI or etc. role |
| assessment standard |
companybefore done standard 5~7items |
| option number |
2~5items (exceeding when companybefore ) |
| data basis |
each option quality basis |
| method |
companybefore done method |
| deadline |
decision-making person specify |
revfactory