David Richards
Sep 4, 2018 · 1 min read

What decision makers need is a better way to evaluate risk. Knowing correlation, causation, and how to test a hypothesis is part of that, but so is choosing more-effective metrics and learning how to break down a complicated situation with Fermi questions.

The areas where risk can be discovered are probably discovered by answering:

  • What happened?
  • Am I winning?
  • Why am I winning or losing?
  • What can I do about it?

Some effective decision makers have learned to use dialog around them to get the right kinds of feedback. They speak to be challenged and state their position clearly so that it’s easier to have worthwhile conversations around important subjects. For example, they say what their biggest risk is, what happens if things go poorly, and why this is the most-critical risk they’re focusing on.

We start to see funny symptoms when something’s wrong with assessing risk. For example, decision makers become more autocratic with their demands. Or they start to purchase business intelligence tools that weren’t planned. Sometimes the management team starts to fracture and bicker. This wastes energy, with managerial effort spent grinding against its own machinery.

So I agree, we need more math. To what purpose? To better assess risk. How does that look? When it’s working, it’s a guided progression from broad to actionable questions. When it’s not working, teams get reactive and inefficient.

    David Richards

    Written by

    Data, software, hiking