Use cases
Search for a better option on purpose
Most decisions arrive with two choices already framed, and the debate becomes which of the two. Often the best answer is neither, but a third path nobody put on the table. This workflow searches for that path deliberately, then makes it compete on the same terms as the originals.
Why narrow choices fail
Paul Nutt's long-running studies of organizational decisions found that choices framed as a single yes or no failed noticeably more often than choices where several alternatives were weighed. A narrow frame does its damage quietly, because nobody misses the option that never appeared.
One simple question opens the frame. Imagine that every option currently on the table were forbidden: what would you do then? The answers are rarely all good, yet one of them is often better than both originals.
Where better options come from
Most strong alternatives follow a few patterns. Sequence the options, doing the cheaper one first and funding the larger from it. Shrink an option to a version that tests its key assumption. Rent or borrow before buying, or change who pays, when they pay, or which part of the work you do yourself.
A better option has to be materially different: another mechanism, cost structure, timeline, or level of risk. A renamed version of the first option is the same option, and a clever idea resting on an unsupported assumption should lose like any other.
How the room searches
The original options stay in the room with their own Champions, so any new path is measured against something real. The Strategist's task is to propose a materially different route, and the Contrarian presses on any agreement that formed too easily around the original pair. Once a new path appears, it receives its own Champion and faces the Challenger like every other option.
Inspector tests the new option's claims as strictly as the old ones, and the Judge awards nothing for novelty. If no better path survives, the Verdict says so, which is itself worth knowing, and the Human Decision stays with you.
A restaurant finds a third path
A restaurant group weighs a second location at $450,000 against renovating its first at $200,000. The second site would earn about $144,000 a year once settled, a payback of a little over three years. The renovation might lift sales of $1.8 million by 12 percent, about $32,400 a year in profit at a 15 percent margin, a payback of more than six years. The Strategist proposes a catering arm using the existing kitchen in quiet hours, for about $60,000 in a van and equipment. At six events a month of $3,000 each and a 30 percent margin, it would repay itself in about eleven months, but those six events are an assumption with nothing yet behind them. The Verdict recommends a one-quarter catering trial before committing the $450,000: if bookings reach four a month by the third month, catering scales first and helps fund the second site; if not, the second location leads on its own merits.
Questions
- What makes an option materially different?
- It works by a different mechanism, spends money in a different way, runs on a different timeline, or carries a different kind of risk. When only the name has changed, the option has not.
- What if no better option exists?
- Then the search has still done its work. Knowing that the original pair is the real choice lets you decide between them with more confidence.
- Can I add an alternative of my own?
- Yes. Name it when you bring the question, and it is scored on the same criteria as the others.
Further reading
Bring Argumont a Decision worth challenging.
Start with a paid 60 day pilot on your own real Decisions.