Real options and the pre-mortem

A recommendation with one option is a conclusion in disguise: the decider can only say yes or no. Decisions made that way fail more often than ones where several options were compared, mostly because nobody looked for a better path.

Real options are different ways to meet the same need, and each is one you could defend if it were chosen. Three fakes to avoid: a straw man placed next to your favorite to make it shine ("rehire Sofiia" vs "do nothing and hope"); variants of one option (two start dates for the same contract); and one option with strong arguments, which leaves nothing to decide.

For the September cover there are four real ones: A) a September–October contract for Sofiia; B) a new seasonal hire in August; C) no hire, with more lead ticket hours, staggered vacations and the AI draft assistant; D) Sofiia part-time, September only. They differ in cost, risk and who carries the load. Asking "what else could we do?" is how Olha found D.

A trade-off table puts options in rows and criteria in columns, with an honest word in each cell: likely, at risk, yes, to check. Skip scores to two decimals; precise numbers on guesses look rigorous and hide the judgement inside them, and one heavily weighted column can quietly decide everything.

Read it in two passes. First the must-have columns: any option that is "at risk" there needs a fix or is out. In the September table, C (no hire) is at risk on both the 45-minute first reply and the overtime limit, even though it's the cheapest and the most flexible. Then compare the survivors on the nice-to-haves and ask what each one costs: A knows the policies but leaves little room to adjust; D is flexible but thin in peak weeks.

Cells that say "to check" are homework, not answers: A's budget must be confirmed with Hanna before the recommendation goes to Iryna.

Before comparing options, write down the criteria, and split them in two.

Must-haves are conditions any option has to meet, or it's out, however attractive it is otherwise. For the September restart: first replies within 45 minutes on shift, as the working agreement says; nobody on weeks of overtime; and it fits the budget Hanna approves. Nice-to-haves are things you value and are ready to trade against each other: the person already knows Klasna's policies, the training load on the team stays light, there's room to adjust if September turns out smaller.

Writing must-haves first saves time, because they knock options out before anyone falls in love with them. Keep the list short: if everything is a must-have, nothing can be traded. And watch for criteria that are really preferences in disguise: "the option the team likes best" isn't a criterion; the team's concerns, such as training during vacations, belong in the criteria themselves.

When a group discusses a decision, the first strong opinion pulls the others toward it. This is anchoring, and it's strongest when that opinion comes from the lead or the most senior person. Groups also tend to talk about what everyone already knows and leave out what only one person knows, which is often the most useful part.

The fix is cheap: before any call, ask each person whose view matters to write it down alone, for example which option they'd pick and the one risk they see. Then share all the notes and discuss. You get independent views, and the quiet people are heard as clearly as the confident ones.

For the September cover, that means Olha and the coordinators on shift, the people who would train or cover, each send a few lines first. Olha's note flags a risk you hadn't weighed: a new person in August means training in the month half the team is on vacation.

Open group brainstorming feels productive, but it's not the best way to get ideas. In a room or on a call, people wait for their turn and lose their thought, hold back half-formed ideas in front of others, and drift toward the first or the loudest suggestion. Studies comparing the two keep finding that the same number of people working alone first produce more distinct ideas, and no worse ones.

So separate generating from discussing. Give everyone a few minutes to write options or risks alone, collect them one person at a time, then discuss and combine. On a remote team like Klasna Support, with people in Kyiv, Lviv and abroad, this works even better: a shared document gives quiet colleagues and those in other time zones the same voice as whoever unmutes first.

That's how option D appeared: Olha wrote it down instead of waiting for a gap in the conversation.

A pre-mortem imagines that a plan has already failed and asks why. It works because the failure is a given: naming a risk no longer feels disloyal to the plan or to the person who proposed it.

The steps, in order: describe the plan in a few lines, so everyone imagines the same thing; set the scene ("it's the end of October, and the plan has failed"); each person writes the reasons alone; collect every reason, one person at a time, so nobody's list gets lost; pick the most likely or most damaging ones; turn each into a check, a trigger or a change to the plan.

It takes about fifteen minutes. For option A the team wrote: Sofiia signed, then left mid-September for the other job; September was much busier than one extra person could cover; nobody refreshed her on what changed since June. Each became an action: a start date and term in writing, a trigger for more help, a one-hour refresh including the new refund-ticket rule.

A pre-mortem line is useful when someone could check it and the plan changes because of it. That takes three parts: a specific risk, a measurable trigger that tells you it's happening, and an action with an owner.

Compare "things might go wrong with Sofiia" with "risk: September is busier than planned; trigger: first replies miss 45 minutes on shift two weeks running; action: the lead asks Iryna for temporary help that week". The first is a feeling. The second can be watched, and everyone knows what happens when it fires. "The team isn't fully on board" and "let's be extra careful" are just as empty: nobody can check them, so nothing changes.

It helps to include a reason about yourself. "The lead slipped back into taking the hard tickets" is a classic for a stretched summer team. And a pre-mortem isn't a vote against the plan: it makes the option you choose stronger before you send it to the person who decides.

When you look back at a decision, it's tempting to judge it by how it turned out. But outcomes mix two things: the quality of the decision and luck. A quiet September could make a careless recommendation look brilliant; an unusually busy one could sink a careful plan.

So review both. Did the outcome close the gap you aimed at? And, separately, was the decision well made for what you knew then: real options, must-haves first, independent views, a pre-mortem, a clear owner? The decision log from the previous lesson makes this possible, because it records the options and the reasons at the time, before hindsight rewrites them.

That's also why Iryna gets half a page with the options, the table, your recommendation and the top three risks with what you'll do about each: a decision she can make, and later check.

How it fits together: real options give a choice, must-haves and the table narrow it, written views and the pre-mortem test it. The next lesson moves from one decision to the shape of the team itself.