Open-Menu Decision Construction
Combine intuition, evidence, and dissent before choosing near the impact
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 99%
Open-Menu Decision Construction begins by locating authority as close as practical to the people who understand and will implement the outcome. The decision owner then combines three inputs: intuition grounded in relevant experience, data from appropriate and potentially conflicting sources, and voices from people who will live with the result. Any choice framed as only A or B triggers an expansion step: ask what else could be done, who disagrees, and what competing fact base exists. The goal is not unanimous approval but an outcome people can live with because material evidence and consequences were surfaced. This mechanism improves local accuracy, exposes hidden self-interest, strengthens commitment, and prevents people from pushing risk upward to distant authorities who know less about the point of impact.
Origin
Carucci described a client trapped in a launch-or-don't-launch debate. Expanding the conversation exposed market need, product flaws, bonus incentives, and the deeper question of how to serve customers and compete.
Core principles
- 01Decisions should be made close to where their impact is implemented
- 02Every consequential choice needs intuition, data, and other voices
- 03Two-option menus usually hide better alternatives
- 04Disagreeing evidence improves both choice quality and commitment
How to run it
- 1
Locate the impact
Identify where the decision will be implemented and who has the closest reliable knowledge of its consequences.
Pro tip Keep accountability with the appropriate owner instead of pushing discomfort upward.
Watch out Distance from impact usually reduces decision reliability.
- 2
State informed intuition
Name the experience and judgment shaping the initial view without treating it as proof.
Pro tip Separate relevant pattern recognition from preference or status.
Watch out Unstated intuition can masquerade as objective analysis.
- 3
Build the fact base
Gather data relevant to the decision and ask where the information came from and what it omits.
Pro tip Seek a competing fact base when evidence appears one-sided.
Watch out Data selected to justify a preferred outcome is not a decision process.
- 4
Invite affected voices
Include people who must implement or live with the choice, especially those likely to disagree.
Pro tip Ask directly who disagrees before apparent consensus settles.
Watch out Listening only to senior authority recreates the distance problem.
- 5
Break the binary
When the menu contains two options, generate additional paths, combinations, pilots, or sequencing choices.
Pro tip Ask what problem each side is actually trying to solve.
Watch out A forced binary often conceals incentives and better alternatives.
- 6
Choose and mobilize
Make the decision, explain how intuition, evidence, and dissent informed it, and assign implementation accountability.
Pro tip Record unresolved risks so the team can learn after action.
Watch out Consultation without a clear owner can become avoidance.
In the wild
A client debated only whether to launch a flawed new product. Supporters' bonuses favored launch while operational teams feared the cleanup. Carucci redirected the discussion toward customer need, design flaws, competitive timing, and the business objective. Those inputs created room to improve how the need was served rather than merely choosing between the two politically convenient positions.
→ The conversation moved from self-protection toward customer value and competitive performance.
Common mistakes
Pushing accountability upward
Sending the choice to a more powerful but distant leader does not remove implementation risk and often produces a less informed decision.
Accepting an A-or-B menu
A two-option framing usually means alternatives were edited out before the real problem was explored.
Inviting only confirming voices
Without dissent or competing evidence, consultation can simply legitimize the preferred answer.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for consequential organizational choices with uncertainty, affected stakeholders, and more than one plausible path.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for routine reversible choices where extensive consultation would cost more than a quick correction.
From the transcript
“a great decision is best made closest to the places most implemented”
“and experience what is the right amount of data and where shall I get the data from and what's the right amount of other people's…”
“the minute you hear the menu of choices reduced to two you can automatically assume you're gonna make a bad decision”
From the episode
Ron Carucci: Preparing for Leadership
Ron Carucci