Fast Fedora | Trevor Lohrbeer

Photo by Windell Oskay

Pattern languages have become all the rage. Why? Because they help codify best practices and provide a vocabulary to talk about those practices with others. A pattern language provides a conceptual framework for understanding a practice area, explaining it to others and improving performance. Patterns become tested, reusable pieces of knowledge that help people avoid the mistakes of others and increase their chance of success.

So why a pattern language for decision-making? Despite years of research and dozens of techniques in how to make good decisions, most decision-making is still ad-hoc, done by gut feel or with custom processes, with no documentation and little awareness of the best techniques to apply to a given decision. Certainly, some industries have excelled at certain types of decisions. Allocation decisions are well understood in financial services when trying to optimize a portfolio. But without a pattern language to talk about these decisions, it is difficult to share best practices across industries.

I aim to change that. By documenting, naming and classifying types of decisions, the situations surrounding those decisions and the types of analysis used to support those decisions, we can create a pattern language and decision-making framework that can help people learn, track and improve their decision-making.

Continue reading >

We make hundreds of decisions a day, some conscious, some unconscious. But do we really understand what each decision entails, and are there ways to improve our decision-making?

The academics have defined dozens of models of decision-making, from the rational decision-making model to the ethical decision-making model to a nine step decision model proposed by David Welch. None of these, however, feels complete. Each deals with specific types of decisions, and while quite valuable for those types of decisions, fails to address so many of the other decisions we make in life. No one, or at least no one I’m aware of, has defined an overarching framework that covers all decisions that are made. This post is the beginning of my attempt to define such a framework. Continue reading >

Late on a Friday night a game of poker is in progress. Three old friends sit around a table, making small banter with each other. Smoke drifts up to the ceiling as the cards are dealt.

Jim receives a seven of clubs and a two of diamonds. Tonight is Jim’s first time playing, and he doesn’t yet know this is the worst hand you can be dealt. He bets two chips, excited to be playing poker with his friends.

Tyler sits across from Jim. He just received a pair of aces and inside his heart skips a beat. Tyler is an old pro and knows well that a pair of aces is the best starting hand. He matches Jim’s two chips, feeling confident in his decision.

Sean sits next to Tyler. He was dealt a seven and a two also. Sean’s a novice as well, but he’s also a math genius. He quickly calculates the odds of winning in his head and determines that playing this hand would be foolish. He folds, confident in his decision.

Three cards are dealt face up in the middle of the table: the two of hearts, the king of spades and the queen of clubs. Jim bets again, excited that he has a pair of twos. Tyler matches his bet and another card is dealt: the seven of spades. One more round of betting and the final card is revealed: the seven of hearts.

Tyler and Jim flip over their cards. Tyler has two pairs, but Jim has a full house and wins the game.

—

Did Jim make a good decision to play out his cards when he was dealt a seven and a two? Did Sean make a bad decision by folding? It depends on how we define “good” and “bad”.

Continue reading >