The game begins

In the context of far-reaching business decisions, a decision-making body is formed in companies that commissions a project team with the preparation.

Goals are defined, requirements are structured and criteria are weighted so that the process appears clean, stable both internally and externally.

The providers are invited, the best may win.
The game begins.

The ranking is not the decision

As part of a structured benchmark, the providers prove themselves against the defined requirements and are ranked at the end.

One place 1 and several that are not.

Up to this point, everything is understandable, and yet the decision has not yet been made at this point. This is because the providers in 2nd and 3rd place have no interest in remaining in their positions and they know that they can continue to exert influence.

The foundation is shifting

What follows is usually quiet and rarely confrontational.

The basis for the decision is not openly attacked, but gradually shifted, often with a reference that appears reasonable at first glance: essential aspects have not been sufficiently considered so far.

No criticism of the process, no open questioning of those involved, just new insights.

This seems harmless, but it is not, because at this moment the basis of the decision begins to change.
And this is precisely where the next dynamic arises: new requirements and priorities change the game.

Step by step away from the goal

If the ranking shifts, everything starts all over again, with new places, new arguments and new requirements.

The process thus gradually moves away from its origins, not by leaps and bounds, but iteratively. New criteria are added and change the basis for decision-making without the actual goal being readjusted accordingly. What initially appears to be a clarification leads to a shift.

The decision moves away from the original goal and increasingly follows a different logic. And therefore no longer the benefit that it was originally intended to generate.

Escalation in the system

With each iteration, the complexity increases and with it the uncertainty.

Camps form, positions harden and agreement within the company becomes increasingly difficult. At some point, it becomes clear that a decision on this basis is risky, not professionally, but politically.

Have you ever seen or experienced it like this?

The actual break

While everyone involved continues to strive for the best solution, something fundamental is shifting in the background.

The original goal has been replaced by another: to be able to make decisions at all.

This is understandable and at the same time the point at which the logic of the decision changes.

It is problematic if the target corridor is changed without this aspect being consciously and controversially discussed.

The solution and its price

In this situation, a new, seemingly superior logic often emerges, in which new criteria are introduced and new perspectives emphasized, not in order to find the best solution, but to make a decision possible at all.

It works.

The organization becomes capable of acting again and the decision is made. However, it no longer necessarily follows the logic of the original problem, but the logic of the decision-making process.

Not abruptly, but step by step.

The decision has been made

The decision has been made. Whether it solves the original problem is another question. It is the result of a system that had to remain capable of acting under pressure.

And this is precisely where the risk lies:

Not every decision made is in your own interest. Some serve above all the ability to become capable of acting (again).