ONE OF SEVEN WAYS OF SEEING
Bring structure to complex choices and trade-offs.
Prince II is a project management framework for delivering change projects, emphasizing principles such as justified project continuation, clear roles, stage-based work, escalation tolerances, context adaptation, and continuous learning.
Redefining confidence as a numerical probability (e.g., 73%) allows for mutual recognition of uncertainty and invites open debate, rather than asserting certainty.
A probability tree analysis is a step-by-step method for mapping out all possible scenarios in a decision problem, assigning probabilities, and calculating conditional probabilities to answer questions about events and decisions.
Depression often impairs decision-making, but improving problem-solving skills can empower individuals, boost self-esteem, and help lift mood.
Bargaining can help a group consider alternatives and reach a decision its members will support. Procedural justice adds a fair process: people can state their case, the evidence is considered consistently, and the decision is explained. Both can make implementation easier without guaranteeing agreement or success.
This decision framework helps determine whether to conduct a root cause analysis (RCA) or directly work on process improvements. If the causes of a recurring problem are unclear, RCA is recommended; if you already have hypotheses, validate them and proceed with process changes.
Project management is a disciplined approach to planning and executing complex projects, emerging from construction and engineering, and formalized through techniques like Gantt charts and dedicated roles. It became a recognized profession after World War II.
Prompted choice asks people to make an explicit decision when they are already engaged in a related activity. Thaler and Sunstein use organ-donor registration to show how a timely prompt and a simple process can help willing participants follow through.
A six-step decision-making framework that expands traditional pros-and-cons lists by adding a fourth step: neutralizing as many cons as possible through creative fixes. This encourages systematic evaluation and mitigation of drawbacks before making a final choice.
For each option, list its advantages and disadvantages, then identify practical fixes for the disadvantages. Compare the options again after accounting for what those fixes would cost and whether they can be carried out.
A behavioral economic theory developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky that describes how people make decisions under risk. It posits that outcomes are evaluated as gains and losses relative to a reference point, and that people are loss averse, exhibiting diminishing sensitivity to changes in wealth.
Safeguards are tools that protect us from our own biological vulnerabilities and impulsive decisions by reshaping our environment or creating rules, thereby increasing friction against actions that undermine our long-term goals.
A framework for improving writing by asking structured questions about reasoning before writing and evaluating clarity, precision, logic, and other criteria during and after writing.
Critical readers examine whose perspective a news story favors, what it leaves out, and how its claims compare with other sources. The authors offer questions for separating reported facts from interpretation and recognizing slant or propaganda.
Rational decision-making and problem-solving require conscious questioning. By applying logical questions about goals, alternatives, and implications, we can make better choices and solve problems effectively.
A set of 14 reflective questions designed to help students assess their learning strategies, deepen understanding, and promote metacognitive awareness across various subjects.
A structured approach to understanding any academic discipline by examining its underlying purposes, questions, concepts, information, viewpoints, assumptions, inferences, and implications.
A framework for critically evaluating knowledge and expert claims within any academic discipline and its textbooks by asking probing questions about competing schools, biases, vested interests, and the nature of certainty.
Understand a discipline by asking what it studies, how it tests claims, and where its limits lie. Questions about plant classification in botany or social norms in sociology give an inquiry direction beyond following a textbook’s sequence.
Set a minimum number of alternative perspectives to generate before choosing one. The quota encourages continued searching even when an early idea looks promising.
Unclear R2A2 (Roles, Responsibilities, Accountabilities, Authorities) is a common root cause of organizational failures, leading to gaps and overlaps that create conditions for significant setbacks and problems.
R2A2 is a framework for clarifying who is responsible for what, especially for critical objectives and risks. It emphasizes separation of duties, accountability mapping, and learning from regulatory regimes like the UK Senior Managers and Certification Regime and the Australian BEAR provisions.
Random Support Theory (RST) is a parametric model of calibration that combines elements of support theory and signal detection theory, using parameters α (discrimination ability), σ (extremity), and β (response bias) to describe how probability judgments reflect the balance of evidence for correct and incorrect hypotheses.
In root cause analysis, it is rare to have just one root cause; focusing on a single cause can lead to incomplete understanding. This concept encourages looking beyond simple explanations like the Five Whys.
Root cause analysis (RCA) investigations must be conducted to high standards using systems thinking and avoiding conflicts of interest to correctly address the 'why' questions and support meaningful change, while also guarding against scapegoating and the blame game.
Root Cause Analysis begins by identifying the objective, key risks, and tolerance for failure. Using the Titanic as an example, the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) framework is applied to assess the worst-case scenario and risk severity.
A framework for assessing the range of expert views on an issue, distinguishing between competing theories, majority/minority, consensus, uncertainty, and fringe viewpoints to inform better decision-making.
The red pill/blue pill metaphor from *The Matrix* represents the choice between comfortable ignorance (blue pill) and uncomfortable truth (red pill). Committing to truthseeking—taking the red pill—improves decision-making, especially when supported by a group of like-minded individuals who help overcome cognitive biases.
Reducing friction (sludge) in government is challenging and often requires incremental changes, unlike disruptive innovations in the private sector. Technology can help, but resistance from stakeholders and bureaucratic inertia slow progress.
Connect team reflection to decisions, clear commitments, and follow-up. Intel manager Ilean Galloway describes how this discipline gives people a reason to make time for reflection while allowing disagreement about the decision they commit to implement.
A decision framework that involves projecting into the future and considering which choice would lead to the least regret. It helps clarify difficult life decisions by focusing on long-term emotional outcomes.
Regret minimization asks which choice you would most regret when looking back from the future. Use that perspective to clarify priorities, then examine feasibility, timing, and downside before deciding.
Risk is the effect of uncertainty on objectives and can involve opportunities as well as threats. Analytical tools help identify and manage some risks, while complex systems leave important interactions and outcomes uncertain.
An approach to relationships based on ISO 31000 risk management separates possible harms, their likelihood, and their consequences. This account also illustrates the limits of that approach: unsupported population claims and assumptions about gender cannot establish an individual partner’s risk, and fixation on one person can distort judgment.
Taleb describes a conflict facing institutional risk managers: stopping a profitable trade can attract blame for lost gains, while allowing it can attract blame for a later collapse. He argues that these incentives can encourage vague warnings and self-protection.
A risk policy is a broad frame that embeds risky choices in a set of similar choices, helping to mitigate narrow framing and loss aversion by applying a consistent rule across similar situations.
Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) examines how a process could fail and which failures deserve attention. Detailed risks, useful indicators, early milestones, and candid reporting help turn that analysis into action.
Root cause analysis investigates why a problem occurs. A fishbone, or Ishikawa, diagram organizes possible causes into categories so they can be investigated; the diagram alone does not establish which causes are responsible.
A structured technique for identifying the root cause of a problem by repeatedly asking 'why' until the underlying issue surfaces, preventing superficial solutions.
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a systematic process for identifying the underlying reasons why an event deviated from a plan, distinguishing between immediate, contributing, and root causes. It emphasizes looking beyond individual actions to understand systemic factors, using tools like the '5 whys', bowtie diagrams, and fault trees to prevent recurrence.
Apply root cause analysis to uncover deeper cultural and systemic issues behind common internal audit team problems, such as delays in information provision, management tick-box attitudes, and scope conflicts.
Root cause analysis (RCA) involves gathering relevant facts and evidence, establishing a timeline of events, and verifying causality to identify the true root causes of a problem or disaster.
Good root cause analysis takes time, detailed evidence, and a culture where people can speak openly. The managers quoted here recommend stabilizing a crisis first, returning to the investigation afterward, and examining how work is actually done before choosing improvements.
Root cause analysis can be useful for near misses and recurring minor defects as well as major failures. In high-volume processes, a small defect can accumulate into substantial harm or cost.
Routine removal would allow organs to be taken after death without consent. Thaler and Sunstein discuss its potential to increase transplant supply and reject it because of objections grounded in bodily autonomy.
Safe-to-fail probes are experiments whose consequences are limited enough that failure can be accepted. They let people explore a complex setting, observe what happens, and learn without assuming that every attempt will succeed.
Protect the problem-defining stage of decision-making by separating problem definition from problem solving (the firewall safeguard) and by checking whether a solution addresses the root cause or just a symptom (the test of time).
Save More Tomorrow lets employees commit now to future increases in retirement contributions. The original design timed increases with pay raises to make saving more feel less like an immediate loss, then used automatic increases to help the commitment persist.
Despite the urgency of climate change, progress on emissions reductions is limited by high costs. This decision framework advocates for adaptation policies that incorporate choice architecture and nudges to reduce harms from wildfires, sea-level rise, and heat and drought.
A scenario tree is a diagram that maps out alternative paths events could take given different decisions, used to structure and guide analysis of complex problems.
A scenario tree displays the alternatives in a decision as branches. A group can examine one branch at a time, record eliminations, and see how its remaining choices fit together.
A scenario tree structures investment decisions under uncertainty by mapping out combinations of choices (high-risk stocks, medium-risk stocks, low-risk bonds) and future developments (war/peace, prosperity/depression) to avoid overlooked scenarios.
A decision-making approach that evaluates the consequences of consequences, mapping out both positive and negative ripple effects to uncover hidden risks, opportunities, and information needs.
Guidance on choosing root cause analysis techniques from simple (e.g., three-way five whys) to advanced systems approaches (e.g., STAMP), emphasizing that no single method is best and each has limitations and trade-offs.
Compare possible solutions by weighing advantages and disadvantages, assessing them against a priority, or using SWOT. Define the goal clearly enough to judge whether the chosen solution addresses it.
Before an activity or decision, name the outcome you want and how you intend to act. Use that intention to check whether your actions serve your aims.
A long reference list can make promotional claims look more convincing than their evidence warrants. The source examines a report on chess and intelligence, asking what kinds of research its references actually contain.
SPPS emphasizes going directly to the problem area to see the real circumstances, avoiding reliance on second-hand information. It advocates for countermeasures rather than permanent solutions, focusing on continuous improvement.
SPPS is a flexible, context-sensitive problem-solving framework that adapts tools and steps to each specific problem. It treats problem-solving as a non-linear journey, emphasizing iterative investigation and common-sense application rather than rigid adherence to a fixed sequence.
Smart Disclosure would give consumers standardized, machine-readable information about products and access to their own usage records. Comparison tools could combine the two to estimate costs and compare options. The book describes UK banking and energy initiatives as examples.