Most of us have never been formally taught how to make important decisions. We make thousands of choices every day, many automatically and without much conscious consideration. Others carry considerably more weight and require time, judgement and thought. But when it comes to making decisions at work, do we actually have a method for determining the right course of action?

If decisions are repeatedly producing undesirable outcomes, the problem may not necessarily be the decisions themselves. It might be how they are being made.

What if we took a more methodical approach?

Decision-making frameworks exist for exactly this reason. The military relies heavily on structured processes for making rational decisions, often in environments where information is incomplete, time is limited and consequences matter.

One of the frameworks we can apply to business is the FASD method.

What Is the FASD Decision-Making Method?

The FASD approach provides a framework for assessing potential courses of action before deciding between them.

Rather than immediately asking which option should we choose?, it asks an earlier and arguably more important question:

Have we actually developed viable options worth choosing between?

To use the method, first determine the possible courses of action. Then measure each option against four FASD principles:

1. Feasibility

2. Acceptability

3. Sustainability

4. Discernibility

Both the Australian and American military use a variation of these terms in their decision-making methods. 

Feasible

Can it actually be done?

Consider the restrictions surrounding the decision, including time, resources, capability, authority, physical limitations and access to people or equipment.

An option might look excellent on paper but become considerably less attractive once we establish that the organisation doesn't have the resources, capability or time required to execute it.

If a course of action cannot realistically be delivered within the constraints we're operating under, it isn't a viable option.

If it passes the feasibility test, we can move on to the next parameter.

Acceptable

Next, consider the risks, costs and potential consequences of the option.

If a particular course of action plays out as expected, what will it cost us? What could go wrong? What are the consequences if it does? And are those risks proportionate to the potential benefit?

Importantly, this assessment should also consider the consequences of doing nothing. Not making a decision doesn't necessarily remove risk. Sometimes it simply allows a different risk to develop.

The question becomes:

Are the likely costs and risks of this course of action acceptable in relation to what we stand to gain?

Sustainable (or Suitable)

Does the option actually achieve what we set out to achieve? And, if it does, can we support the outcome?

A decision can solve the immediate problem while creating another one six months later. An organisation might technically have enough resources to implement something, for example, without having the capacity to maintain it over time.

This requires leaders to look beyond implementation and consider the longer-term consequences.

Can we follow through with this decision, and does the outcome genuinely solve the problem we started with?

Discernible

Lastly, look at whether each course of action is genuinely discernible from the others.

This is one of the most useful parts of the FASD process.

If the options identified at the beginning are not significantly different from one another, we aren't really making a meaningful decision. We may simply be choosing between slightly different versions of the same thing.

If that's the case, return to the beginning of the process and reconsider the potential courses of action.

For example, imagine an organisation needs to improve how documents are securely exchanged with clients. If the only options considered are different versions of the same existing system, the organisation may have framed the decision too narrowly.

The better question isn't necessarily: Which version should we choose? It might be:

What problem are we actually trying to solve?

Once the problem is framed correctly, genuinely different courses of action can emerge. This matters because more options don't necessarily create better decisions. Better options do.

From there, the options that have passed the FASD criteria can undergo further course-of-action analysis to determine which provides the strongest path forward.

Why the FASD Method Is Better Than Most Decision-Making Methods

The FASD method gives decision-makers a structured way to assess potential courses of action before making critical calls. Its real value is that it forces us to set the decision up properly before trying to make it.

Leaders often focus heavily on choosing the best option. But a perfectly rational decision between two poor or indistinguishable courses of action is still a poor decision-making process.

FASD acts as a screening mechanism.

• Does the option work within our constraints?
• Are the risks and consequences acceptable?
• Does it actually solve the problem, and can we sustain it?
• Is it genuinely different from the alternatives?

If an option fails one of those tests, there may be little value in continuing to compare it with the others.

The framework also forces decision-makers to understand the problem before rushing towards a solution. That can reduce impulsive decisions and expose assumptions that might otherwise go unchallenged.

Better Decisions Start Before the Decision

Structured decision-making doesn't mean every decision needs to become a lengthy process. Sometimes leaders need to decide quickly. Other times, they have the luxury of detailed analysis.

A decision can be made quickly and still be thoughtful. It can also take three months and still be poorly framed.

The value of FASD isn't that it guarantees the right answer. No framework can do that. Its value is in improving the quality of the options before we choose between them. Because good decision-making isn't only about choosing well. It's about making sure we have something worth choosing between.