Why Great Teams Decide Faster: Decision-Making Frameworks for High-Performing Teams
The holiday season is upon is and it is often a time leaders use to reflect on the year and conduct a pulse check on how your teams are functioning.
In construction and in Partnering, strong decision-making frameworks for teams are essential to keeping projects on track. We are, after all, an industry that runs on a clock. With Time Related Overhead, we can very clearly articulate the cost of even a single delay. When cranes are up and multiple crafts are working, it’s common for teams to spend $20K – $50K per day or more. In full construction, the stakes even higher, and we cannot afford to let teams get stuck in analysis paralysis.
Research shared in Laurens Bonnema’s June 24th article in Medium, Why High Performing Teams Make Decisions in Minutes, Not Meetings (Plus 3 Frameworks They Use), revealed how teams working for Google who made “go/no-go” decisions within two weeks had a 73% better success rate than teams who extended the process. There are a variety of reasons why, but the main benefit relates to opportunity cost.
When decision-making is delayed, teams lose the chance to pivot if the first strategy isn’t working. A good decision made quickly can be improved, while a slower “ideal” decision that drags on leaves no alternatives.
Consider this your holiday gift from your friendly neighborhood Facilitator. Below are three frameworks from the article that can be incorporated into project structures, and then connected to your Issue Resolution Ladder, so you can work with your design team to select the best fit when you are in crunch time.
Frameworks
- DEEPRED Decision Velocity Model
- Empirical Process Control Method
- Strategic Prioritization Model
Framework #1: The DEEPRED Decision Velocity Model (15 mins)
Structure to support speed
Similar to brainstorming sessions we use in Partnering workshops, the DEEPRED Decision Velocity Model uses a timed approach to force progress and prevent do-loops.
- Phase 1 – Frame/Scope (3 min): Define the decision and criteria. Example: What’s the best resolution for pumping soil where the joint utility trench must be placed?
- Phase 2 – Facts (5 min): Share only decision-relevant facts. What do we know? What don’t we know? What assumptions are we making? (No analysis yet.)
- Phase 3 – Options (4 min): Develop 2–3 viable solutions. For construction, include cost and schedule considerations.
- Phase 4 – Decide (2 min): The decision-maker selects based on the criteria. No further discussion.
- Phase 5 – Act (1 min): Assign next steps and owners. A decision without action becomes tomorrow’s re-decision.
This model works because it separates information gathering from analysis, analysis from decision-making, and decisions from action. Each phase has a single purpose and time boundary. If your team is stuck in a technical decision, the discipline of rapid decision-making will help you.
Framework #2: The Empirical Process Control Method
Data – Not emotions
When you are working through a technical issue, sometimes the data doesn’t line up with your intuition causing the team to start doubting the data and the source. Empirical Process Control eliminates this conflict by having the team convert what is treated as “fact” to a set of hypotheses.
The framework has three key elements or “pillars.”
- Transparency – make all relevant information visible to the investigating team,
- Inspection – regularly examine outcomes against expectations, and
- Adaptation – adjust based on learnings, not opinions.
Rather than focus on “what’s the best/right decision?” you focus on how quickly you can test if the method works.
- Step 1 Hypothesis Formation: Convert your decision into a testable statement. You can do this in your meeting objective or include it as a question on your agenda. “If we include a structured meeting during the shift overlap, we will improve production by 10% in four weeks.”
- Step 2 Define Success Metrics: Establish SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound) outcomes that will test and validate or invalidate your hypothesis. Focus on metrics or KPIs that indicate real progress.
- Step 3 Set Learning Timeframes: Commit to review your KPIs actual results within 30 days maximum. Giving your team a short cycle helps you confirm whether you have gone down a rabbit hole or if you are on the right track.
- Step 4 Inspect and Adapt: Compare actual outcomes to predicted outcomes. When the results match the predictions set, go ahead and expand or scale that approach. If it’s not working out, either adjust it or kill it and test something new based on your learnings.
Adjusting the approach from “tried and true” or an emotional connection to the “most relevant and testable idea,” reduces opinion-based arguments because everyone agrees to let outcomes be the judge. Teams stop debating what might work and start learning what actually works. This becomes a muscle the entire team learns to flex.
Framework #3: The Strategic Prioritization System
When everything is a priority, nothing is!
The Strategic Prioritization System is essential for construction. It cuts through the noise by applying objective criteria to subjective judgments, transforming heated debates into mathematical clarity. Used primarily for more subjective business decisions, I believe we can adapt it to construction effectively.
The system uses three factors:
- Impact: Potential “business” value (scale of 1-10)
- Effort: Resources required (scale of 1-10)
- Confidence: Level of certainty in the outcome (scale of 1-10)
You give a score to each element from 1-10 (30 being highest total) and then add weight to each of the factors (10 – 100%) by organizational (or project) priorities.
The magic happens in how the team weights the three factors. A growth-stage company or a project in the Design Phase might weight Impact at 50% of the total score, Effort at 30%, and Confidence at 20%. A cash-strapped startup or a project in construction might weight Impact at 25%, Effort at 35% and Confidence at 40%. The system enables your team to adjust to conditions in real time while maintaining objectivity.
When teams see their gut instincts translated into numerical scores, it helps decouple them from projects they are emotionally attached to and enables the group to focus.
Final Thoughts
As you consider each of these models, note how they can be connected to your Issue Resolution Ladder (IRL). I recommend tying your IRL to the weekly progress meeting. If a technical issue arises in the field that causes the team to pause work in an area, the contractor can establish a near term deadline based on the Schedule and 3-week look ahead schedule.
If you haven’t advanced the ball on that decision in week 1 and have an update in the weekly progress meeting, set up a special meeting to analyze the issue and the potential alternatives. If the team has made no significant progress by week 2, elevate the issue while you implement a framework where you can determine the best decision that day if possible. The design may take longer, but it is much cheaper to design something in two ways than to test the first and then redesign and test the second.
I encourage you to try one or more of these approaches with your teams. These decision-making frameworks for teams help leaders reduce delays, increase confidence, and improve results when time and cost matter most.
I hope you are having a happy holiday season and please let me know if you have a best practice you like to use with your teams to get decisions quickly!
– Rob
Rob Reaugh is President of OrgMetrics LLC. He facilitates the City and County of San Francisco Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee and currently works with San Francisco International Airport, San Jose International Airport, BART, Caltrans, and others. He holds a Masters’ Degree in Alternative Dispute Resolution.
For more information please contact Rob Reaugh, RobReaugh@Orgmet.com / (925) 487-2404 (cell), or OrgMetrics, (925) 449-8300.