Speed vs Accuracy. Speed (Obviously) But How?

The DCDR agents made a mistake the other day. The vessel’s name was incorrect in the original report on the bridge collapse in Baltimore. Not just a little wrong, completely wrong: it was the name of an actual vessel, but one that didn’t appear in any of the details supplied to the model.

(Thanks, Mark, for picking that up.)

So, I’ve added some additional quality control checks to reduce errors in the reports without sacrificing too much speed.

But the mistake got me thinking again about speed vs accuracy. Which is better?

Let’s dismiss the obvious extremes first. We want highly accurate surgeons and fast planes (with accurate navigation systems).

In business, a complete organizational overhaul isn’t something to rush, but what about more general decision-making? Or reacting to an impending crisis?

In most cases, I’ll happily sacrifice some accuracy for a little more speed (usually the trade-off). After all, there’s a lot of uncertainty in the early stages of most events so the inaccuracy is built in. Plus, the situation will change either as the event develops or as people react to your actions (or don’t).

So, a faster decision-action cadence allows you to make a decision and iterate or correct it as things come into focus.

But speed alone isn’t the point: it’s being able to make quality decisions and execute at speed. Here are some ways you can develop speed without compromising the quality of your decisions.

Standardize the decision-making process.

You’ll be astonished at how much difference a simple agenda can make, so establish a well-defined and well-understood process for making decisions throughout the organization. An essential part of this process is defining how to capture and disseminate the final decision because there has to be a clear point when the discussion is over and the decision is made. Then, it’s time to take action. And once you have this process, you need to stick to it. 

Focus on the important, not the interesting.

We’re overloaded with information, which complicates decision-making, so you need to be ruthless about the information and questions you allow into the discussion. ‘How is that relevant?’ may feel like a sharp rebuke when it’s said out loud, but that’s the question everyone should ask themselves before introducing more information or a different perspective. (To be clear, that’s not an excuse to bulldoze over people; instead, it’s an acknowledgment that sometimes not everyone needs a say and not every fact is additive.)

Delegate and Assign Decisions.

Not every decision requires everyone’s input, so identify decisions managers can make at different levels of the organization and allow them to decide the best course of action. And once they’ve delegated these decisions leaders need to remain hands-off, not jump in and rehash every decision. 

This is different from developing the execution plan, that is going to need input from lots of others. And there will often still be a need for a check from legal or comms before you hit ‘send’, but that doesn’t mean that every decision needs every department at the table throughout the process. (That’s guaranteed to kill your speed.)

Always set a deadline.

Sometimes, there’s an external timetable you need to adhere to, but even when the timing is up to you, you need to set a deadline for the decision. This must accommodate the time required to execute the decision, so work back from there. You might have less time for deliberation than you’d like, but an OK plan with great execution will always beat a great plan with OK execution. So make sure you leave sufficient time to put your plan into action. (One thing you can try is parallel planning, where you start prepping options A, B, and C and then commit to one once a decision is made or you find that one approach is more successful than the others. That’s opposed to sequential planning, where you start with plan A, then switch to plan B if A fails, then C, etc.)

Agree and commit.

Once a decision is made, the focus switches to execution, and everyone involved has to commit to the agreed plan, even if they did not support it. Plans can fail for lots of reasons, but a senior leader’s vocal opposition or obvious lack of commitment is an almost guaranteed death sentence.  This ties into the previous point: when the discussion is over, it’s over.