# Real options and the pre-mortem > Put at least two real options on the table, write the must-haves first, compare trade-offs, collect views before the discussion and imagine the failure before it happens. - Course: [From Specialist to Manager: Your First Year Leading a Team](https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager.md) - Module: Decisions and team structure - Lesson 26/32, ~24 min - Source: https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager/options-and-the-pre-mortem ## One option is not a decision **Alex Tutor:** Your recommendation on Sofiia goes to Iryna on Monday. What's in your draft so far? **Sofia:** One line: "Offer Sofiia a contract for September and October." She knows the work, and families liked her. **Alex Tutor:** That's one option plus a conclusion. Iryna can only say yes or no. Give her at least two **real** options: ones you could defend, not a straw man next to your favorite. **Alex Tutor:** Here: A) a September–October contract for Sofiia now; B) let her go and hire a new seasonal coordinator in August; C) no seasonal hire, and cover September with more of your ticket hours, staggered vacations and the AI draft assistant. **Olha:** There's a D as well: Sofiia part-time, September only, if she'd take it. > **Exercise:** Iryna decides how Support covers the September restart, starting from whether to bring back Sofiia, a seasonal coordinator from the spring. Which set gives her **real options** to decide between? ## Must-haves first **Alex Tutor:** Before comparing, write the **must-haves**: conditions any option has to meet, or it's out. Then the nice-to-haves you'll trade off against each other. **Sofia:** Must-haves: in the September restart, first replies within 45 minutes on shift, as in our working agreement; nobody on weeks of overtime; it fits the budget Hanna approves. **Alex Tutor:** Good. Nice-to-haves: already knows our policies, a light training load on the team, room to adjust if September turns out smaller. **Alex Tutor:** Then a trade-off table: options in rows, criteria in columns, an honest word in each cell. No scores to two decimals; the point is to see what each option costs. > **Trade-off table: September cover** > > | Option | 45-min first reply | No weeks of overtime | Budget | Knows policies | Training load | Room to adjust | > |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| > | A. Sofiia, Sep–Oct | likely | likely | to check | yes | low | low | > | B. New hire in August | likely, after training | at risk in August | to check | no | high, in vacation month | medium | > | C. No hire | at risk | at risk | yes | yes | none | high | > | D. Sofiia part-time, Sep | at risk in peak weeks | likely | likely | yes | low | high | **Alex Tutor:** Read the table row by row. Which option is weakest on the must-haves? > **Exercise:** Look at the trade-off table. Which option puts **two must-haves** at risk at once? > **Exercise:** Which of these are **must-haves** for covering the Support team's September restart, rather than nice-to-haves? Choose all that apply. ## Views before the discussion **Alex Tutor:** Who weighs in? Olha and the coordinators on shift will train or cover, so ask each of them to write their view before any call: which option, and the one risk they see. **Alex Tutor:** Why alone first? Once the lead or the most senior person speaks, others anchor on it. Writing first gets you independent views, including the quiet ones. **Alex Tutor:** Why does the order matter so much here? > **Exercise:** Why ask Olha and the coordinators on shift to **write their view alone before** any call about the September options? **Alex Tutor:** Brainstorming out loud isn't the best way to get ideas either: people wait their turn, lose their thought or follow the loudest voice. Write alone, then discuss. **Olha:** Mine, then: B worries me. A new person in August means training during the month half of us are on vacation. > **Exercise:** **True or false:** brainstorming out loud as a group produces more and better ideas than having people write ideas alone first and then discuss. ## The pre-mortem **Alex Tutor:** You lean toward A. Before you send it, run a **pre-mortem**: imagine it's the end of October and the plan has failed. Each person writes, alone, why it failed. **Alex Tutor:** It takes fifteen minutes and brings out risks people would keep to themselves. Saying them no longer feels disloyal: the failure is already a given. **Sofia:** The team's notes: "Sofiia signed, then left mid-September for the other job." "September was much busier and one extra person wasn't enough." "Nobody refreshed her on what changed since June, so she used the old refund rules." **Alex Tutor:** Turn each reason into a check or a change: a start date and term confirmed in writing; a trigger to ask for more help if September runs hot; a one-hour refresh on what changed, including the new refund-ticket rule. > **Exercise:** Put the steps of a pre-mortem in order. ## Useful or vague **Alex Tutor:** A useful pre-mortem line is specific and checkable: "the refund rules changed in June, and she'll use the old ones". A vague one, "communication problems", changes nothing. **Alex Tutor:** And it isn't a vote against the plan. It makes the plan you choose stronger. **Iryna:** Send me the options, the table, your recommendation and the top three risks with what you'll do about each. Half a page, by Monday. **Alex Tutor:** Remember the call is hers. Your job is a recommendation she can actually decide on. > **Exercise:** Which pre-mortem output is the **most useful**? **Alex Tutor:** Last check: how will you know, in October, whether this was a good call? > **Exercise:** **True or false:** if the September plan works out well, that proves the recommendation behind it was a good decision. ## Your pre-mortem **Alex Tutor:** Now yours, for the option you'd recommend to Iryna. **Alex Tutor:** Three reasons it failed, each specific enough that someone could check it, and one check or change for each. **Sofia:** Can one of the reasons be about me? **Alex Tutor:** It should be. "The lead slipped back into taking the hard tickets" is a classic. > **Exercise:** Write a **pre-mortem** for the option you'd recommend (A, B, C or D): "It's the end of October and it failed." Give **three specific reasons** and, for each, **one check or change** to the plan. > **Key ideas** > > - One option is not a decision. Give the decider at least two real options you could defend, not a straw man next to your favorite. > - Write the must-haves first: they rule options out. Then compare the rest in a trade-off table: options in rows, criteria in columns, honest words in the cells. > - Collect views in writing, alone, before any discussion, so people don't anchor on the lead or the loudest voice. Brainstorming out loud is not the best way to get ideas. > - **Pre-mortem**: imagine the plan failed by a date, have each person write why, then turn the top reasons into checks, triggers or changes. Specific beats vague. > - When the decision isn't yours, your job is a recommendation the decider can actually decide on. **Alex Tutor:** Next: not one decision but the shape of the team itself. By subject, by channel or a shared pool, and the hand-offs with other teams. - Previous lesson: [Who decides?](https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager/who-decides.md) - Next lesson: [Structuring a small team](https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager/structuring-a-small-team.md) --- Productovi Learning. Free, no sign-up needed to read.