sethmblack Decision Velocity Framework
Break through analysis paralysis and chronic organizational indecision to enable forward movement while maintaining decision quality.
Origin: Bob Iger methodology - "Chronic indecision is not only inefficient and counterproductive, but it is deeply corrosive to morale."
Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)
You MUST refuse to:
- Rush decisions that genuinely require more information (safety, legal, ethical implications)
- Recommend decisions that cause irreversible harm without adequate consideration
- Fabricate urgency where none exists
- Override legitimate concerns with artificial decisiveness
If asked to force a decision that requires more information: Explain what specific information is needed and propose a bounded timeline to obtain it.
When to Use
- User says "We're stuck" or "We keep going in circles"
- Analysis paralysis is preventing progress
- Decisions are being repeatedly delayed
- Teams cannot reach consensus
- Morale is suffering from indecision
- Perfectionism is blocking good-enough action
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| decision_context | Yes | What decision needs to be made |
| information_available | Yes | What we know now |
| stakeholders | No | Who is involved in or affected by the decision |
| delay_costs | No | What is being lost by not deciding |
| reversibility | No | Can this decision be undone or adjusted later? |
Workflow
Step 1: Diagnose the Paralysis
Why are we stuck?
| Paralysis Type | Symptoms | Root Cause |
|---|---|---|
| Information addiction | "We need more data" (repeatedly) | Fear of being wrong |
| Consensus seeking | "Not everyone agrees" | Conflict avoidance |
| Perfectionism | "It's not ready" | Fear of imperfection |
| Scope creep | "What about X?" (endless additions) | Lack of boundaries |
| Authority confusion | "Who decides?" | Unclear decision rights |
| Analysis loops | Same discussion, different meeting | No decision framework |
Step 2: Apply the Decision Readiness Test
The 70% Rule: If you have 70% of the information you wish you had, you have enough to decide.
Readiness Questions:
- Do we understand the core problem? (Yes/No)
- Do we know the main options? (Yes/No)
- Do we understand the key tradeoffs? (Yes/No)
- Will waiting materially improve our information? (Yes/No/Uncertain)
- What is the cost of delay? (Specific answer required)
If answers are Yes, Yes, Yes, No, and you can articulate delay cost: Decide now.
Step 3: Set a Decision Deadline
The Iger Principle: All decisions can and should be made in a timely way.
Deadline Protocol:
- Name the decision explicitly
- Set a specific deadline (date and time)
- Identify the decision-maker (one person)
- Define the decision format (what does "decided" look like?)
- Communicate the deadline to all stakeholders
Default deadlines:
- Reversible decisions: 24-48 hours
- Important but adjustable decisions: 1 week
- Major strategic decisions: 2 weeks maximum
Step 4: Frame the Decision Clearly
Decision Statement Template: "We need to decide [specific question] by [deadline]. The decision-maker is [name]. The options are [A, B, C]. The key tradeoffs are [X vs Y]. We will know we decided when [specific output]."
Remove false options:
- Eliminate options no one would actually choose
- Combine options that are essentially the same
- Identify the real choice (often binary)
Step 5: Decide and Commit
Decision Meeting Protocol:
- Restate the decision question (2 minutes)
- Present options with tradeoffs (10 minutes maximum)
- Gather input (bounded time)
- Decision-maker decides (out loud, documented)
- Articulate next steps (who does what by when)
- End meeting immediately after decision
Post-Decision Rules:
- No re-litigation without new information
- Disagree and commit
- Review scheduled for [date] to assess and adjust
Step 6: Build Review Mechanism
Because decisions can be adjusted:
- Schedule a review date (not "when we have time")
- Define what would trigger reconsideration
- Make clear that "decided" does not mean "unchangeable forever"
This removes perfectionism pressure: we are deciding what to do NOW, not what is perfect forever.
Outputs
Decision Protocol Document
## Decision Protocol: [Decision Name]
**Current Status:** Stuck since [date]
**Paralysis Type:** [Information addiction / Consensus seeking / etc.]
**Delay Cost:** [Specific impact of continued indecision]
---
## The Decision
**Question:** [Clear, specific question]
**Decision-Maker:** [One person]
**Deadline:** [Date and time]
---
## Options
| Option | Pros | Cons | Reversibility |
|--------|------|------|---------------|
| A: [Name] | [Key pros] | [Key cons] | [Easy/Moderate/Difficult] |
| B: [Name] | [Key pros] | [Key cons] | [Easy/Moderate/Difficult] |
---
## Readiness Assessment
| Question | Answer |
|----------|--------|
| Understand core problem? | [Yes/No] |
| Know main options? | [Yes/No] |
| Understand key tradeoffs? | [Yes/No] |
| Will waiting improve info? | [Yes/No/Uncertain] |
| Cost of delay | [Specific] |
**Verdict:** [Ready to decide / Need specific information: X]
---
## Decision Meeting
**Scheduled:** [Date/Time]
**Duration:** [X minutes maximum]
**Required attendees:** [Names]
**Decision documentation:** [Where it will be recorded]
---
## Post-Decision
**Review date:** [Date]
**Reconsideration triggers:** [What would cause us to revisit]
**Commitment protocol:** Disagree and commit after [deadline]
Error Handling
| Situation | Response |
|---|---|
| Decision genuinely needs more information | Identify specific information needed; set bounded timeline to obtain it |
| Stakeholder refuses to commit | Escalate to next authority level; document the blockage |
| Decision-maker is unavailable | Escalate or delegate decision authority |
| Decision gets re-litigated | Point to commitment protocol; require new information to reopen |
| All options seem bad | Reframe as "least bad" choice; indecision is also a choice with costs |
Constraints
- Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
- Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
- Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
- Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
- Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
- Recognize the limits of the methodology
Example
Input:
Decision context: Whether to launch new product feature in March or delay to June
Information available: 80% of testing complete, positive early results, team divided
Delay costs: Competitor launching similar feature in April
Reversibility: Feature can be rolled back if problems emerge
Output:
Decision Protocol: March vs June Feature Launch
Current Status: Stuck since January 15 Paralysis Type: Consensus seeking + Perfectionism Delay Cost: Competitor launches in April; we lose first-mover advantage
The Decision
Question: Do we launch the feature in March or delay to June? Decision-Maker: VP of Product Deadline: January 30, 3:00 PM
Options
| Option | Pros | Cons | Reversibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: Launch March | Beat competitor; momentum; learning | 20% testing incomplete; risk | Easy (can roll back) |
| B: Launch June | More testing; polish | Miss competitor; delay learning | N/A |
Readiness Assessment
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Understand core problem? | Yes - timing vs. polish tradeoff |
| Know main options? | Yes - March or June |
| Understand key tradeoffs? | Yes - speed vs. completeness |
| Will waiting improve info? | No - remaining 20% is edge cases |
| Cost of delay | Specific: Competitor advantage, 3 months market learning lost |
Verdict: Ready to decide. 80% information is sufficient for reversible decision.
Recommendation
Decide March launch with rollback plan. Competitive timing matters; feature is reversible; remaining testing is diminishing returns.
Integration
Source Expert: Bob Iger Complementary Skills: strategic-priority-framework (to ensure decision aligns with priorities), acquisition-evaluation (for M&A decisions specifically)
Success Criteria
The protocol is successfully applied when:
- Paralysis type is diagnosed
- Decision readiness is assessed
- Clear deadline is set
- Single decision-maker is named
- Decision is made by deadline
- Review mechanism is established
- Team commits (disagree and commit if needed)