Decision Hygiene as Organizational Infrastructure

Executive summary

Organizations that treat decision quality as a matter of individual brilliance and training tend to get, at best, sporadic improvements in judgment. Organizations that treat decision quality like infection control in a hospital, built into routines, roles, and infrastructure, achieve durable gains in performance and safety.[^1][^2]

Across domains such as surgery, intelligence analysis, megaproject planning, and public policy, the strongest evidence for lasting improvement comes from structural changes to how decisions are made, not from classroom style debiasing. Checklists in operating rooms, mediating assessment protocols in corporate decisions, reference class forecasting in infrastructure planning, and behavioral insights units in government all exemplify decision hygiene, systematic practices that reduce predictable errors from bias and noise before they materialize.[^3][^4][^5][^2][^6][^7][^8][^9][^10][^1]

This report argues that senior leaders who want better judgment should stop investing primarily in teaching people to think differently, and instead invest in building the decision architecture that surrounds them. The core move is to treat decision quality as infrastructure, not as a personal capability.

Opening: the hospital analogy

Modern surgery became safer not because surgeons suddenly became more careful, but because hospitals changed the environment in which they operated. In the World Health Organization surgical checklist study across eight hospitals, introducing a simple 19 item checklist cut inpatient complications from 11.0 percent to 7.0 percent and reduced mortality from 1.5 percent to 0.8 percent within 30 days of surgery. The protocol standardized critical steps such as confirming patient identity, antibiotic administration, and readiness of equipment, without requiring surgeons to learn new medical knowledge.[^11][^12][^1]

Equally important, the checklist changed roles and authority. One widely cited intensive care intervention empowered nurses to stop physicians if they skipped checklist steps for central line insertion. Within ten days, catheter related infections fell from 11 percent of patients to zero in that unit, and sustained reductions followed over a longer period. Gawande and others also document the resistance this seemingly simple infrastructure faced, from surgeons who saw checklists as an affront to professional autonomy and as a threat to the heroic, improvisational self image of experts.[^12][^13][^14]

The lesson for decision making is straightforward. Cognitive errors in organizations are analogous to hospital acquired infections. They arise from complex, high tempo work in noisy environments. Training clinicians to “try harder” on hand hygiene did little until soap, sinks, and standardized procedures made washing hands almost automatic. Likewise, training managers to “be less biased” seldom changes outcomes unless the decision environment incorporates structured checkpoints, shared scales, and explicit protocols that make good judgment easier and bad judgment harder.[^15][^2][^12]

The training fallacy: why individual debiasing fails at scale

Decades of research on human judgment show that unaided expert intuition is reliably outperformed by simple actuarial models in prediction tasks, even when those models use the same information available to the expert. A meta analysis of 136 studies of clinical versus statistical prediction found that statistical forecasts were on average about 10 percent more accurate than clinical judgments, and were dramatically more accurate roughly one third of the time. Paul Meehl’s original work and subsequent reviews converge on a clear conclusion. When environments are noisy and feedback is limited, structured rules dominate unstructured expertise.[^4][^16]

Yet organizational responses to this evidence have often focused on training experts to recognize their own biases, rather than changing the systems in which those experts operate. Early debiasing efforts that attempted to correct biases such as confirmation bias, overconfidence, and the fundamental attribution error through brief educational interventions produced limited and often short lived effects. Reviews by Lilienfeld and colleagues noted that many cognitive bias workshops increased familiarity with terminology but did not reliably alter behavior in real decisions.[^17][^15]

More recent work has shown that carefully designed training can improve performance on specific bias tasks for several weeks or months. Longitudinal experiments that used interactive games or instructional videos to teach six major biases found medium to large reductions in bias on test problems immediately after training, with meaningful effects still present two months later. A broader review in the cognitive science of belief likewise concludes that training can reduce some biases, but stresses that early results were mixed and that success depends on feedback, practice, and targeted content.[^18][^19]

Even these more optimistic results, however, highlight the limits of training as a primary strategy. Effects are heterogeneous across individuals, often domain specific, and typically measured in laboratory type tasks rather than in complex, multi stakeholder organizational decisions. A recent study of base rate debiasing found that who benefits from training depends more on cognitive style traits such as actively open minded thinking than on raw cognitive ability, implying that some people will not benefit much without deeper motivational change. In practice, most corporate debiasing workshops are one off events without follow up or contextual changes, so expecting large, durable shifts in institutional judgment from such interventions alone is unrealistic.[^20][^18]

For senior leaders, the implication is that bias literacy is useful but insufficient. Knowing the names of biases does not automatically translate into different hiring decisions, investment approvals, or product launches. Unless routines, roles, and tools are redesigned, the same social pressures, incentives, and noise will continue to dominate behavior.

Decision hygiene defined

Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass Sunstein introduced the concept of decision hygiene to describe procedural safeguards that prevent predictable errors in judgment, with a particular focus on reducing noise, unwanted variability in judgments that should be identical. The metaphor is intentional. Decision hygiene is like washing hands, a set of practices that are individually modest, often invisible when they succeed, and aimed at reducing the probability of harm rather than guaranteeing any single outcome.[^2][^21]

In this view, a decision can be decomposed into two parts, a prediction about the world and a value judgment about what to do given that prediction. Errors in either part can arise from bias, systematic deviation in one direction, or from noise, random scatter across cases or decision makers. Decision hygiene aims to reduce both by structuring how information is gathered, how it is evaluated, and how final judgments are formed. Examples include decomposing complex judgments into independent components, using shared rating scales, aggregating individual estimates statistically, and forcing the use of base rates before considering case specific narratives.[^21][^3][^2]

Critically, decision hygiene is not a mindset and it is not synonymous with debiasing training. It is an organizational property, reflected in templates, protocols, role definitions, and meeting formats. It changes behavior even when participants are not consciously thinking about biases. Just as hospitals do not rely on each clinician independently deciding whether and how to wash hands, organizations that practice decision hygiene do not rely on each manager to invent their own way of structuring a major capital allocation or strategic bet.

The Mediating Assessments Protocol (MAP)

Kahneman and colleagues developed the Mediating Assessments Protocol as a practical embodiment of decision hygiene for high stakes, multi attribute corporate decisions such as acquisitions, major hires, and capital projects. The central idea is to replace unstructured meetings that jump quickly to overall evaluations with a staged process in which decision makers first make independent judgments on well defined mediating assessments, and only later aggregate those into a final decision.[^3][^21]

In MAP, the team begins by explicitly defining a small set of orthogonal mediating assessments that capture the key dimensions of quality for the decision at hand, such as strategic fit, quality of leadership, financial robustness, cultural compatibility, or execution risk. Whenever possible, each assessment is anchored in an outside view, for example by comparing a target acquisition to a reference class of similar deals or by benchmarking a candidate’s performance against relevant base rates. Responsibility for preparing each assessment can be distributed across different individuals to increase independence and reduce shared narratives.[^7][^2][^21][^3]

During the analytical phase, the assessments are kept as independent as possible. Analysts avoid discussing an overall verdict, and the decision making group reviews each assessment separately, with individual members recording private judgments on standardized scales before any group discussion. A simple estimate talk estimate routine is used. Members first submit their ratings silently, then the group discusses rationales and evidence, and finally individuals have the opportunity to update their ratings. Only after all assessments have been reviewed does the group turn to aggregating them, explicitly weighting each dimension rather than relying on a holistic impression.[^3]

MAP incorporates multiple decision hygiene principles at once. It decomposes complex judgments, enforces independence before information sharing, uses shared scales, and delays intuition about the overall decision until after structured analysis. While formal evaluations of MAP in field settings are still emerging, it is grounded in robust evidence from the actuarial versus clinical prediction literature, which shows that simple, transparent models built from structured assessments typically outperform or at least match unstructured expert judgment.[^16][^4][^2][^21][^3]

Infrastructure examples: checklists, pre mortems, red teams, decision rights, and structured analysis

Surgical and operational checklists

The WHO surgical checklist example demonstrates how simple infrastructure changes can dramatically reduce error rates by standardizing process steps and clarifying roles in high stakes environments. Similar principles have been applied beyond operating rooms, as in central line insertion checklists that gave nurses explicit authority to enforce aseptic technique, leading to rapid and sustained declines in catheter related infections. Importantly, Gawande argues that checklists are often resisted because professionals fear loss of autonomy and associate checklists with rote, low skill work, even though well designed checklists actually free up cognitive capacity for complex judgment by offloading routine tasks.[^13][^14][^1][^11][^12]

In decision making, checklists can play a similar role. Pre meeting templates that require teams to specify decision owners, options considered, base rate information, and explicit success metrics function as decision checklists. By requiring this information before a decision forum, they reduce the chance that groups improvise around missing data or skip critical considerations under time pressure.

Pre mortems and prospective hindsight

Gary Klein’s pre mortem technique operationalizes the psychological phenomenon of prospective hindsight. When people are asked to imagine that a project has already failed and to write down reasons why, they generate significantly more potential causes of failure than when asked in a standard risk identification exercise. In a classic study, participants instructed to imagine that an outcome had already occurred generated about 30 percent more plausible reasons for that outcome than participants who considered the same outcome as merely possible, a result attributed to the cognitive clarity of “looking back” from an assumed future.[^22][^23][^24]

Klein adapted this into a team level practice at the outset of major projects. The facilitator announces that it is 18 months in the future and the project has been a disaster, then asks each person to write a brief “history” of what went wrong. These anonymous narratives are collected, clustered, and used to generate a more complete risk register and contingency plans. Field experience suggests that pre mortems legitimize dissent, surface concerns that might otherwise be socially costly to raise, and improve project resilience, though systematic large sample evaluations in organizations remain limited.[^25][^23][^24]

The pre mortem is a pure example of decision hygiene. It does not attempt to change individuals’ general tendency toward optimism. Instead, it inserts a structured step into the decision workflow that temporarily forces a different framing, and it does so in a way that is repeatable across projects.

Red teams, devil’s advocates, and structured analytic techniques

Security, intelligence, and military organizations have long used red teams and devil’s advocates to challenge dominant assumptions. In the intelligence community, structured analytic techniques manuals catalog dozens of methods such as key assumptions checks, alternative futures analysis, structured self critique, devil’s advocacy, and Team A and Team B competitive analysis. These techniques prescribe concrete procedures, for example assembling a separate team to build the strongest possible case against the prevailing view, or explicitly listing and interrogating the assumptions that underpin an assessment.[^6][^26][^27]

Team A versus Team B designs, in which two independent analytic teams develop competing hypotheses and present them to decision makers, are used when there are entrenched disagreements or when the stakes warrant explicit consideration of alternative worldviews. Managers have reported that such structured rivalry can help experts on opposing sides see the merits in each other’s positions and clarify genuine points of uncertainty. More generally, Heuer and Pherson argue that integrating structured techniques into routine analysis, rather than reserving them only for crises, improves psychological discipline and consistency across a distributed intelligence community.[^26][^27][^6]

Research and practice also highlight the conditions under which red teams and devil’s advocates work poorly. When the contrarian role is assigned without real independence, or when leaders signal that dissent will not affect decisions, the exercise devolves into ritualized opposition and can even increase cynicism. Effective red teaming requires formal mandates, access to information, protection from retaliation, and a commitment from leadership to engage with uncomfortable findings. Again, what matters is the institutional structure around the practice, not the abstract idea of encouraging dissent.[^28][^29][^6]

Decision rights and responsibility matrices

Ambiguity over who actually owns a decision is itself a form of noise. McKinsey’s decision rights and accountability framework, like RACI and related models, is essentially an infrastructure tool that specifies, for each material decision, who is the decider, who must be consulted, who executes, and how escalation works. Organizations that implement such frameworks identify a small number of high value or high risk decisions, assign single point accountability for each, and embed these rights into governance forums and performance reviews.[^30]

While public empirical data are thinner here than in medicine or public policy, internal case work and practitioner reports indicate that clarifying decision rights reduces “decision drift,” looping approvals, and rework, and tends to increase both decision speed and the perceived fairness of decisions. The mechanism is straightforward. When everyone is partially responsible, no one fully scrutinizes trade offs or owns the consequences, which invites both bias and noise.[^30]

Structured analytic and sequential evaluation

Sequential evaluation is a broad label for procedures that separate stages of a decision, for example information collection, individual assessment, and group aggregation. Structured analytic techniques used by the US intelligence community illustrate this logic in detail. Techniques such as key assumptions checks, indicators and signposts analysis, and alternative futures analysis impose explicit steps on analysts, forcing them to articulate assumptions, identify disconfirming evidence, and consider multiple possible trajectories rather than converging on a single forecast.[^27][^6][^26]

The value lies less in any one technique and more in the cumulative effect of routinized structure. By institutionalizing such techniques in training, tradecraft manuals, and analytic review processes, intelligence agencies attempt to protect assessments from common cognitive pitfalls without relying solely on the debiasing skill of individual analysts. The same logic can be adapted in corporate settings, for example by requiring alternative scenario analysis in strategic plans or by mandating explicit key assumptions sections in investment memos.[^6][^26][^27]

Government scale evidence: BIT and SBST

The UK Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) and the US Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST, now the Office of Evaluation Sciences) provide unusually rigorous evidence about the power of small, structural tweaks to decision environments at scale. Their work replaces appeals to better citizenship or financial literacy with concrete changes to forms, letters, defaults, and workflows.

In one of the largest randomized controlled trials on organ donation, BIT tested alternative messages on a government website where people renewed vehicle tax. The best performing message, which emphasized that “if you needed an organ, would you take one? If so, please help others” and used a simple social norm, was projected to generate about 96,000 additional registrations for the UK organ donor register per year compared with the control banner. In the realm of tax compliance, BIT and HM Revenue and Customs tested letters that informed taxpayers that “9 out of 10 people in your area have already paid their tax,” leading to substantial increases in payment rates and, in one trial program to reduce fraud, error, and debt, advancing roughly 160 million pounds of tax debt to the Exchequer over six weeks, with other trials saving local councils hundreds of thousands of pounds in avoided discounts.[^5][^31][^10]

The US SBST documented similar effects from relatively light touch but structurally embedded changes. In collaboration with the Department of Defense, SBST and partners sent approximately 720,000 unenrolled military service members one of several behaviorally informed emails about the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP); the best performing message nearly doubled the enrollment rate compared to no message, moving thousands of members into retirement saving. A redesigned email to previously enrolled service members who had stopped contributing increased re enrollment within a week by 22 percent, leading about 3,770 additional members to resume saving, and the new message was immediately scaled in subsequent outreach.[^9]

SBST also worked with Federal Student Aid to test reminder emails to borrowers who had missed their first student loan payments. A single reminder email increased the proportion of borrowers making a payment in the following week by 29.6 percent, from 2.7 percent to 3.5 percent. In another project targeting “summer melt,” SBST and education agencies sent personalized text message reminders to prospective college students about key tasks required to enroll. College enrollment among those who received texts rose to 68 percent, versus 65 percent in the control group, with effects exceeding 5 percentage points among low income and first generation students.[^32][^9]

These interventions did not train citizens in behavioral science. They redesigned the choice architecture within existing systems and used randomized evaluations to iterate. The pattern across dozens of trials is that carefully targeted changes in defaults, framing, timing, and personalization can produce consistent, sometimes large improvements in take up, compliance, and follow through, often at negligible marginal cost. This is decision hygiene at population scale.[^31][^10][^9][^32]

Decision rights as structural intervention

Decision rights frameworks treat “who decides what, with whose input, by when, and how outcomes are reviewed” as a design problem rather than a cultural norm that emerges organically. In complex, matrixed organizations, the absence of explicit rights leads to duplicated analysis, politicized escalation, and what McKinsey has termed decision drift, in which decisions loop between committees without resolution. From a judgment quality perspective, these pathologies translate into inconsistent criteria, shifting reference points, and susceptibility to whoever speaks last or loudest.[^30]

Clarifying decision rights is a form of decision hygiene because it constrains variance in process. When a specific executive is accountable for a particular type of decision, that person can be required to document options considered, assumptions, and rationales, and can be evaluated ex post on decision quality and outcomes. Others know whether they are being consulted for input or hold a veto for risk and compliance reasons, and decision forums can be designed accordingly. The RACI style distinctions between Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed become more than labels; they anchor the structure within which practices like MAP, pre mortems, and red teaming operate.[^30]

In practice, organizations that adopt decision rights frameworks for their most material decisions often pair them with standard decision templates and calendars, for example monthly capital allocation councils or quarterly product portfolio reviews. This bundling is important. If rights exist only on paper, without corresponding infrastructure that shapes how information flows and when decisions are made, the organization reverts to informal influence games.

Reference class forecasting as institutional policy

Megaprojects in transportation, energy, and IT have a long history of large cost overruns and benefit shortfalls, patterns that Bent Flyvbjerg and colleagues attribute in part to optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation during planning. Across major project types, average cost overruns of 40 to 90 percent and frequent schedule delays are the rule rather than the exception, with some categories, such as Olympic Games, showing mean cost overruns above 150 percent. These errors are persistent across countries and decades, suggesting that case specific learning is weak.[^33][^8][^7]

Reference class forecasting (RCF) was developed as a method for countering such biases by forcing planners to adopt an outside view. Instead of relying on internal estimates alone, planners select a reference class of completed, similar projects, derive the statistical distribution of actual outcomes, and then locate the new project within that distribution, adjusting forecasts based on historical performance. The American Planning Association formally endorsed RCF in 2005, advising planners never to rely solely on conventional inside view methods for major projects.[^8][^7]

In practice, governments have embedded RCF into appraisal guidelines. Work with the UK Department for Transport, for example, involved defining reference classes for categories of transport projects and calculating uplifts to cost estimates that would reduce the probability of overrun to an acceptable risk level, such as 20 percent. Analyses of these uplifts show that had they been applied to historical projects, most cost overruns would have been prevented, demonstrating the robustness of the reference classes. Other jurisdictions and sectors have begun to adopt similar approaches for program portfolios, using RCF to produce more realistic business cases and to allocate contingencies systematically.[^34][^35][^7][^8]

Again, the key point is infrastructural. Reference class forecasting is not a suggestion that planners “be more realistic.” It is a mandated step in the approval process, with defined data sources, statistical procedures, and governance expectations. It changes the institution’s default forecast from one anchored in internal optimism to one anchored in empirical distributions.

Organizational inertia and resistance to decision hygiene

If the evidence for decision hygiene is so strong, why are these practices not universal? Organizational ecology and change research provides part of the answer. Michael Hannan and colleagues define structural inertia as a persistent resistance to changing core organizational features such as authority structures, routines, and decision processes. Formal models and empirical studies suggest that selection pressures in complex, opaque environments actually favor higher levels of inertia over time, because frequent architectural changes carry significant reorganization costs and increase the risk of failure.[^36][^37][^38]

Complex and opaque organizations underestimate how long change will take and how disruptive it will be, leading them either to avoid change altogether or to implement changes superficially without altering deep structures. Gawande’s accounts of resistance to checklists echo this dynamic. Many surgeons initially rejected checklists as insulting to their expertise or as bureaucratic overhead, and adoption often required visible sponsorship, local champions, and cultural negotiation before the infrastructure could take root.[^37][^38][^12][^36][^13]

Decision hygiene interventions often challenge status and identity. MAP constrains senior leaders’ ability to rely on “gut feel” in acquisitions; pre mortems create sanctioned spaces for junior staff to imagine and describe failure modes; red teams question cherished strategies. Without explicit framing as infrastructure that protects the organization and its experts, these practices can be perceived as attacks on competence. Recognizing inertia as a structural, not merely attitudinal, phenomenon helps leaders design implementation strategies that bundle technical changes with political and symbolic work.

Designing for implementation in organizations new to decision hygiene

Introducing decision hygiene into an organization that has no language for it is primarily a design and sequencing problem. Leaders must select entry points where structural changes will be most credible, frame them in operational rather than psychological terms, and build reinforcing infrastructure rather than isolated tools.

A practical approach often begins with one or two high value decision domains that are already causing pain, such as major capital investments, large technology projects, or senior hiring. Mapping the current decision process in detail, including who provides analysis, who attends which meetings, what artifacts are produced, and how decisions are documented, makes visible the hidden architecture that currently governs judgment. This diagnostic step frequently reveals noise, for example similar proposals being evaluated with different criteria by different committees, or decisions being revisited multiple times without new information.[^2]

Leaders can then introduce a small number of decision hygiene interventions tailored to that domain. For a capital allocation council, this might include a standardized investment memo template that requires base rate data and reference classes, an explicit pre mortem step at the start of the process, and a MAP style structure for council meetings, where mediating assessments such as strategic fit, execution risk, and financial value are rated independently before any discussion of the overall go or no go decision. For a product portfolio review, it could involve a red team responsible for constructing an alternative narrative about the competitive landscape and stress testing optimistic assumptions.[^23][^24][^28][^7][^6][^3]

Critically, these interventions should be encoded in artifacts and routines. Templates, checklists, decision calendars, and charters for red teams or decision councils make practices durable beyond individual champions. Measurement also matters. Borrowing from BIT and SBST, organizations can run internal experiments, for example comparing error rates, project overruns, or employee perceptions of decision fairness before and after implementing new protocols, and iterating based on results. Publishing these results internally reinforces the framing of decision hygiene as a performance infrastructure rather than a compliance exercise.[^10][^9][^32]

Finally, leaders need to invest in language. Decision hygiene is easier to accept when explained through analogies that professionals already respect, such as infection control, aviation checklists, or intelligence tradecraft. Training still has a role, but as an accompaniment to structural change. Educating managers about bias and noise can be positioned as explaining why the new infrastructure exists, not as a standalone solution.[^1][^26][^6]

Decision quality as infrastructure, not capability

Treating decision quality as infrastructure reframes the role of senior leaders. Instead of asking “how do we make our people smarter or less biased,” the central question becomes “how do we design an operating environment in which even average, busy humans systematically make better calls.” Infrastructure thinking emphasizes reliability, redundancy, and maintainability over heroics.

From this perspective, practices such as MAP, pre mortems, red teaming, structured analytic techniques, decision rights frameworks, and reference class forecasting are not optional tools. They are components of a decision operating system, analogous to electronic health records, sterile procedure protocols, and safety checklists in medicine or to air traffic control systems in aviation. Their value lies less in any one spectacular save and more in the cumulative reduction of errors and variability across thousands of decisions.[^26][^7][^8][^1][^6][^3]

The provocation for enterprise leaders is simple. If an organization continues to rely primarily on workshops and exhortations to “be objective” or “avoid bias,” without redesigning the underlying decision architecture, it is making the same mistake hospitals made when they responded to infections with posters about handwashing instead of installing sinks in every room. The evidence now available from clinical research, megaprojects, intelligence analysis, and government behavioral units suggests that structural decision interventions are both feasible and powerful.[^4][^5][^33][^7][^8][^9][^10][^1][^6]

For organizations serious about judgment quality, the path forward is to build decision hygiene into the infrastructure, one protocol at a time, until the question “how do we decide” is treated with the same rigor and investment as “how do we build” or “how do we sell.”

---

References

1. A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality ...

2. Use A Shared Scale - Noise-cancellation headphones for the organization

3. The Mediating Assessments Protocol - The Uncertainty Project - It steers the behaviors of the decision making team to minimize the effects of noise on the quality ...

4. [PDF] Measuring the Accuracy of Clinical and Actuarial Risk Assessments ...

5. Applying Behavioural Insights to Organ Donation | BIT - Applying Behavioural Insights to Organ Donation sets out the results from one of the largest randomi...

6. [PDF] Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis ... - Like Devil's Advocacy and Team A/Team B techniques, Red Team analysis is aimed at freeing the analys...

7. From Nobel Prize to project management - PMI - Where Flyvbjerg, Holm, and Buhl (2005) briefly outlined the idea of reference class forecasting, thi...

8. Microsoft Word - Flyvbjerg.Bent.RCF6.1PMIAAM.doc

9. [PDF] Social and Behavioral Sciences Team 2015 Annual Report - The results of. SBST projects completed to date represent a foundation on which the Federal Governme...

10. [PDF] Applying behavioural insights to reduce fraud, error and debt - This document is intended to help those who administer systems to tackle fraud, error and debt to id...

11. [PDF] Surgical Safety Checklist Reduces Complications, Mortality

12. Checking Everything Off - Except the Resistance to Change - The Checklist Manifesto takes us on the journey that Gawande traveled as he developed the idea — fin...

13. The Checklist Manifesto Summary: 8 Lessons by Atul ... - To focus on the big picture, we need to remember small things in life. The summary of The Checklist ...

14. Success in complexity - Atul Gawande's Checklist Manifesto proves simple checklists cut surgical deaths by 47%. Here is how ...

15. untitled

16. Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgments in Criminal Justice Decisionswww.uscourts.gov › sites › default › files

17. [PDF] Chapter 11 Mythbusting in Introductory Psychology Courses - In our new book, 50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about hu...

18. Debiasing Decisions: Improved Decision Making With a Single ... - ... fail to increase the amount of healthy Evidence that training ... bias, and fundamental attribut...

19. Training Can Improve Decision Making (Chapter 25) - The Cognitive ... - The body of evidence reviewed so far shows how specific biases can be mitigated by training people o...

20. Who benefits from debiasing? - Reasoning errors significantly impede sound decision-making. Despite advancements in debiasing inter...

21. Decision Hygiene - To Summarise - Decision hygiene is like washing your hands. It's good practice but you don't know what errors you a...

22. [PDF] Evaluating the Effectiveness of the PreMortem Technique on Plan ... - Furthermore, the Premortem method, imagining that a plan has failed and then generating reasons to e...

23. [PDF] Performing a Project Premortem by Gary Klein

24. 1454 Sep07_Cover.indd

25. The Pre-Mortem: Gary Klein's Technique for Killing Bad Plans ... - The pre-mortem is one of the only bias-reduction techniques with strong empirical backing. Here is t...

26. Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis - Air University - Heuer and Pherson supply 50 different techniques for structured analysis but do not suggest using al...

27. Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis - Heuer Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson turn a lifetime of expertise toward formalizing, adapting, and sta...

28. Red Team: How to Succeed By Thinking Like the Enemy - Red Team is the first book to examine the work of these modern-day devil's advocates across a broad ...

29. Red Teams And Devil's Advocates: How To Make Use Of Contrarian ... - Devil's advocates take the other side, pointing out counterevidence and presenting arguments that ca...

30. 5. How To Apply The... - McKinsey decision rights framework defines who decides and executes, aligns roles, speeds decisions,...

31. How normative messaging increased tax compliance by 15% - The Behavioural Insights Team in the UK found that more people paid their owing taxes when location-...

32. Reaching Citizens Through Science - In conjunction with the executive order, SBST issued its first annual report detailing the results o...

33. Reference class forecasting: promises, problems, and a research ... - By applying an 'outside view' – using distributions of comparable past projects – RCF seeks to corre...

34. [PDF] Bent Flyvbjerg, Chi-keung Hon, and Wing Huen Fok, 2016 - arXiv - Reference Class Forecasting (RCF) is a method to remove optimism bias and strategic misrepresentatio...

35. De-risking the programme portfolio with reference class forecasting - Select a reference class. Assess the distribution of outcomes. Make an intuitive prediction of your ...

36. Structural Inertia and Organizational Change Revisited III - Building on a formal theory of the structural aspects of organizational change initiated in Hannan, ...

37. (PDF) Structural Inertia and Organizational Change Revisited III - This paper extends a formal theory of structural aspects of organizational change initiated by Hanna...

38. Structural Inertia and Organizational Change - R Discovery - This paper attempts to clarify the meaning of structural inertia and to derive propositions about st...