Choosing the “best” option

So you’ve got some problem you’re trying to solve (Know the problem you are solving). You’ve agreed to work together on coming up with a solution. So you call a meeting and ask everyone to bring some ideas.

The objective of the meeting is to select the “best” option among the ideas presented.

In my observation, most folks tend toward an approach I call “Judge and Jettison”.

Don’t Just Judge and Jettison

Each option is judged for it’s individual value and applicability. Then, options are jettisoned when they fail in comparison to other options. Ultimately, one option is selected from the remaining.

There are numerous forms of this. In some cases, options are actively judged and jettisoned. In other cases, we use a more subtle approach such as a ranking or voting exercise where we are not explicitly jettisoning options, we are merely selecting the ones we prefer.

Judge and Jettison can certainly get you to a decent option quickly. But is it the best option? What are some beneficial aspects of the second or third ranked options that are not present in the top-ranked option? What are some risks of the top-ranked option that were better addressed by a jettisoned option?

There are additional considerations here. It can be difficult for individuals to have their ideas judged and jettisoned. From feeling unheard to under-valued to unwilling to participate in the future - these are real impacts of critique; be it explicit or implicit.

Over time, this approach often devolves into one or two members emerging from the group. Folks to whom everyone else defers as the best idea generators. But are they? What if these folks tend to consistently articulate their ideas well regardless of the idea’s actual merit? Or what if there is some form of social or positional authority at play? Or what if these are the folks who tend to fatigue the other participants into submission?

Decision-making doesn’t need to be a competition.

So what to do? How might we approach this in a way that garners more of the positive aspects of all options presented, reduces the risks, and encourages everyone to continue to fully participate over time?

First Compare and Combine

Rather than looking at each option individually, take a look at them all at once. Rather than debating the merits of one versus the other, have a discussion about how they are similar and how they differ. The intent here is to use the options as a way to more deeply explore the problem space. Potential solutions carry with them a set of assumptions and oversights. By discussing how the options compare rather than evaluating each one its individual merits, you create a space for new ideas to emerge and for all ideas to coalesce into something new.

You are not trying to choose; You are trying to create.

There are a number of techniques that can be used here:

• Affinity Mapping

  • Group similar features or options together based on shared characteristics, goals, or themes. Once clustered, the participants can brainstorm better options.

  • Try mapping a few times, using different prompts for each session

    • For Example

      • What is the benefit to the customer?

      • What are the risks?

      • In what ways are these differentiators?

      • What market segment does this serve?

• Quadrants

  • Place the options on quadrants. This can help to visualize the different strengths and weaknesses of the options. From there, the group can brainstorm better options.

  • Some possible quadrants are:

    • Impact and Effort

    • Cost and Benefit

    • Customer Benefit and Business Value

    • Differentiation and Feasibility

    • Short-Term Value and Long-Term Value

    • Risk and Reward

• Mashup

  • Combine elements of different options into a new option.

    • Consider what happens if you take the best aspects of one option and combine them with the best aspects of another option

    • Consider if there are smaller components of each option that could be broken out and re-combined into something new

Remember that you are trying to create, not eliminate. This isn’t about selecting the best among the available options, this is about co-creating new options.

Then Judge and Jettison

Once you’ve run at least one round of Compare and Combine, you should ideally have one or more new options that are co-created improvements over the originals. If the group has coalesced around one of these, you are done. If you are not yet united in your choice, decide whether or not to run another Compare and Combine or move to Judge and Jettison. At this point, you are no longer judging one individual’s contribution against another - you are evaluating your co-created options.

We have approached this in a way that garners more of the positive aspects of all options presented, reduces the risks, and encourages everyone to continue to fully participate over time.

If you are thinking that the extra time required to Compare and Combine is too much of an investment; contrast it to the cost of moving forward with lower value, higher risk ideas or potentially disengaging members of the group. Trust me - In the bigger picture, it is worth the extra time by an order of magnitude.