The SPADE decision-making framework is an acronym for Setting, People, Alternatives, Decide, Explain.
The SPADE decision-making framework can help synchronize and speed up collaboration to make difficult choices. The system outlines a step-by-step process.
-
Setting: The context for the decision. The Setting should consists of a what, where, and why. Knowing the Setting answers the question: what does this decision matter?
-
People: The types of people included in the framework are those who are consulted (provide input to the decision), the person who approves the decision, and the person who is responsible for making the call.
-
Alternatives: The responsible person (the decision-maker) should come up with alternatives without bias. The alternatives should be feasible, diverse, and comprehensive.
-
Decide: Bring all consultants back into the same room, and ask them to submit their vote privately. This allows your colleagues to be honest about their choices and not succumb to peer pressure.
-
Explain: The decision-maker should explain the decision and the impact of the decision.
SPADE was created by Gokul Rajaram at Google and Jeff Kolovson at Square.
-
This summary page is based on Square Defangs Difficult Decisions with this System — Here’s How
-
Goku's SPADE toolkit is an interactive template for SPADE.
The setting is the context. It establishes the tone. It helps to figure out what the decision actually is. It breaks it down into elements and sets the participants in the decision into motion.”
The setting has three parts: what, when, why.
-
What: precisely define the decision
-
When: create a calendar with the exact timeline for the decision. Include the time take to make the decision, and also the reasons why the time is that amount.
-
Why: parse the objective from the plan. Defines the value of the choice. It explains what you’re optimizing for. It shows why the decision matters.
There are three primary roles for people involved in the decision: Responsible, Approver, and Consultant. Formally recognize the roles of all active participants.
Some decision-making frameworks separate the responsible person from the accountable person. The SPADE decision-making framework makes the responsible person the same as the accountable person, because SPADE believes that responsibility and accountability are the same thing.
The approver is the person who can veto the decision. Typically, the approver does not vote down the decision itself, rather they veto the quality of the decision. It is a checks-and-balances function on the responsible person to make sure she is not abusing her privilege and making a low quality decision. Vetoing a decision a superpower that needs to be used very sparingly, but also not forgotten to be flexed when needed.
The consultant provides help. Consultants are people who are active participants in the decision. These are people who’ll give input, feedback, analysis, and support to the responsible person so she can make a high quality decision.
An alternative is a view of the world. It’s the job of the responsible person — the decision maker — to come up with a set of alternatives to consider, without any bias.
Alternatives should be:
-
feasible — they should be realistic
-
diverse — they should not all be micro-variants of the same situation;
-
comprehensive — they should cover the problem space
The decision maker needs to list out the pros and cons of each alternative as it relates to the value function. In many situations, one can also quantitatively model out the impact of each alternative and evaluate it against the decision’s setting — specifically the why, the optimization function.
For many complex decisions, it’s best to generate alternatives in a group setting with all of the Consulted people. Get in a room, get on a whiteboard, and brainstorm. For each alternative, list out pros and cons, as well as the parameters behind the quantitative model. There are no shortcuts. Get into the numbers as much as possible. It can be very hard with ambiguous decisions to get down into the numbers, but it’s very valuable to do so.
Now it time to decide. Bring all the consultant folks back into the room and present everything. This involves listing out alternatives, their pros and cons, and the values from the model you ran. Then ask them for their feedback.
The most important part part of this process is to ask them to send you their vote privately. It can be by email, chat, or any other way, as long as it’s delivered privately along with the chosen alternative and why it was selected. Casting votes privately is important because difficult decisions can have controversial solutions. Your goal is to get honest declarations, not answers that bend to organizational hierarchy or peer pressure.
Now that the decision maker has all the votes, they should evaluate the information thoughtfully, consider people’s votes, and then make the decision. This involves choosing one of the alternatives, and writing out in as much detail as possible, why they chose it. Writing out the decision shouldn’t be too hard because you’ve already listed the pros and cons and the formula.
The decision maker must explain the decision. They must articulate why they chose the alternative that they did, and explain the anticipated impact of the decision. This process is much easier if the decision maker records their thoughts as soon as they make the decision.
This stage involves three steps:
-
Run your decision and the process by the Approver. The default of the Approver should be to monitor the decision process, not result. Since the decision maker is leading the SPADE framework, it’s likely that the approver has not been as involved, and therefore can evaluate the decision with a fresh perspective. If you’re responsible for the decision, meet with the Approver, explain the decision, and get buy-in. If you created a high quality decision framework, then the Approver is likely to approve it.
-
Convene a commitment meeting. This takes coordination, and it’s important to pull together all the consultants that have been involved in the decision. Reserve a conference room and line that will include all participants to date. Then walk them through the decision. Explain the decision and rtake ownership of the decision. There might be grumbling or disagreements, but this is the moment when you explicitly become the owner of the decision. It’s paramount that each person — regardless of being for or against the result — individually pledges support out loud in the meeting. Go around the room and ask each one of them to support the decision one at a time. Commitment meetings are important because when you pledge to support a decision in the presence of your peers, you're much more likely to support it. Pledging support aloud binds you to the greater good.
-
Circulate the annals of the decision for precedent and posterity. After the commitment meeting, you need to to figure out how next steps will be delegated and executed. The decision maker must summarize the SPADE behind the decision in a one page document. This brief should be emailed out by the decision maker to the rest of the company or to as broad of an audience as possible. Why? Because the company needs to see what and how decisions are being made. Employees start to register the high quality decisions that are being made about important topics across the organization. That’s how more people get encouraged to confront difficult decisions and share how they made them.”
Understand the purpose and context for making the decision, in order to optimize.
Ensure that the decision maker is both responsible and accountable for the final choice.
Consult maximally, because many more people want to be involved than you think.
Get feedback privately, then document and get support publicly.
