BehavioralStrategy.com teaching pack v1.0
Author: Jason Hreha
Source file: education/decision-workbook.md
License for original text: CC BY 4.0. External sources retain their rights.
Editable text copy; Markdown headings and tables are retained.

# Decision Workbook

> **Purpose.** This workbook turns a public case or a practical problem into a recorded behavior choice, a realistic test, and a next decision that matches the evidence.

Choose a packet: [M-PESA](https://behavioralstrategy.com/education/mpesa-decision/), [Instagram](https://behavioralstrategy.com/education/instagram-decision/), or [GOV.UK Verify](https://behavioralstrategy.com/education/verify-decision/). Keep your initial response before opening its worked analysis. Recognizing the company does not prevent practice; explain your choice using the packet's evidence.

Download the [printable workbook](https://behavioralstrategy.com/downloads/teaching-pack/v1/decision-workbook.pdf) or [editable Word workbook](https://behavioralstrategy.com/downloads/teaching-pack/v1/decision-workbook.docx). The fields below are the same eight sections. Copy them into a document if you prefer to work there.

**Suggested standalone time: 40 minutes.** The section times are instructional estimates, not measured completion times. A workshop host can spread the sections across a longer discussion. Complete one row or short paragraph per prompt; expand only where the decision needs it.

**Record before starting:** your name or team label, date, case, source cutoff, and the practical decision you are making. Mark entries as public fact, reported experience, instructor analysis, your inference, or fictional assumption. A later published account of an earlier event remains a later source.

The examples throughout use an **invented shift-handover service**. Its conditions, thresholds, and choices are teaching examples. They are not company data or a completed study.

## 1. Define the outcome {#step-1}

*Suggested time: 4 minutes.*

| Record | Your entry |
|---|---|
| Useful outcome and whose problem it resolves | |
| Observable action that might contribute | |
| Feature or service that might enable it | |
| Reason the action could produce the outcome | |
| What would show that this link is wrong or incomplete | |

**Worked example.** The outcome is that incoming staff know who owns unfinished work. The action is a prepared handover acknowledged by the incoming lead. The feature is a shared form. Acknowledgement without correct task ownership could satisfy an interface metric while failing the outcome.

**Check:** Can another person distinguish what people do from what you build and what you hope improves?

## 2. Compare candidate actions {#step-2}

*Suggested time: 5 minutes.*

Write each candidate as **actor + observable action + context/opportunity + deadline + support**. Include the current workaround and a route that reduces user work.

| Candidate | Full action statement | Expected benefit | Work removed or added; for whom |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | | | |
| B | | | |
| C, including a less-user-work challenger | | | |
| Current route or workaround | | | |

**Worked example.** A: both leads exchange a written handover. B: they hold a brief discussion and record unresolved items. C: existing task records generate a draft that the leads check and acknowledge. C reduces writing but adds dependence on correct records and review. These are alternative service routes, not observed preferences.

**Check:** Are the candidates materially different actions? Renaming the button or changing its color is a change within a route.

## 3. Map actors and support {#step-3}

*Suggested time: 5 minutes.*

| Step and actor | Required action or handoff | Prerequisite | Completion evidence | Fallback if it fails |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |

Add rows until the useful service is complete. Include off-platform work, people who authorize access, recipients, and staff who repair errors.

| Support question | Your entry |
|---|---|
| Normal support the intended service will supply | |
| Exceptional help a trial might accidentally supply | |
| Staff work and cost, including failed attempts | |
| Peak demand, available capacity, and possible waiting | |
| Evidence or assumption supporting those capacity estimates | |

**Worked example.** Updating a task record, writing the handover, resolving an unclear owner, and acknowledging receipt require different work. A researcher who repairs every unclear owner creates exceptional support. A planned supervisor review can be normal support if its time and capacity are included in the service.

**Check:** Have you removed work, or transferred it to another person or system?

## 4. Compare the evidence {#step-4}

*Suggested time: 5 minutes.*

| Candidate | Supporting observation and source | Contradictory evidence | Unknown | Finding that would change your ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | | | | |
| B | | | | |
| C | | | | |

For each serious candidate, add a short note about **Dispositional Fit** (recurring tendencies and preferences), **Capability Fit** (abilities, skills, knowledge), and **Context Fit** (external social and physical conditions). State which segment and window each note describes.

**Worked example.** If a case packet shows inconsistent source records, a generated handover draft has an unresolved input-quality requirement. That does not establish that people dislike the draft or lack the skill to review it. Observe those questions separately.

**Check:** Can you justify the provisional selection without a total score? Optional BFA ratings organize judgments. They are not probabilities, validated cutoffs, or proof of fit. Leave a gap as unknown rather than assigning a middle score.

**Record your provisional choice:** chosen candidate, strongest reason, best alternative, and the most important unresolved assumption.

## 5. Specify the next test {#step-5}

*Suggested time: 6 minutes.*

| Test field | Your entry |
|---|---|
| Decision the test will change | |
| Population, recruitment route, exclusions, and relevant contexts | |
| Action and full normal-support service to test | |
| Comparator and assignment method, if estimating an effect | |
| Observation method, window, and repeat-opportunity rule | |
| Sample and precision rationale, including grouped/repeated records | |
| Completion, quality, cost, and capacity rules with reasons | |
| Missing-data rule and condition for an inconclusive result | |
| Date agreed; any later changes and their reasons | |

**Worked example.** A handover service might require at least 70% completion because its assumed fallback capacity covers only the remaining 30%. That is an invented operating rationale, which must itself be checked. A small pilot above that threshold still needs adequate precision, normal support, and a quality check before it could justify expansion.

Choose a diagnostic observation when you need to locate a break. Choose an appropriate comparison when you need to estimate the effect of a service change. Neither a staged demonstration nor a few convenient volunteers establishes a general population rate.

**Check:** Would a different result change the decision? If every possible result leads to the same action, explain why this is the next useful test.

## 6. Define the measures {#step-6}

*Suggested time: 5 minutes.*

| Measure | Numerator | Denominator and unit | Window | Data source; unknown/missing rule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reach and applicable opportunity | | | | |
| Attempt | | | | |
| Completion and quality | | | | |
| Repeat completion given another opportunity | | | | |
| Useful outcome | | | | |
| Staff time, total cost, and capacity | | | | |

**Worked example.** A saved handover form starts an attempt. A usable handover acknowledged by the next lead completes the action. Count team-handover opportunities, and identify repeat completion among first-completing teams that have another applicable handover. A missing acknowledgement record is unknown if the recording failed; a verified lack of acknowledgement by the deadline is a noncompletion.

Keep **yes, no, not applicable, and unknown** distinct. Report the unresolved count beside each rate. A zero denominator gives an undefined rate. A rate among attempts needs the broader opportunity rate beside it.

**Check:** Would excluding unreachable people or missing records make the result look better? Show what the exclusions remove and how plausible unresolved outcomes affect the decision.

## 7. Diagnose the result {#step-7}

*Suggested time: 5 minutes.*

For a case with no observed test results, write anticipated interpretations here. Label them as a proposed analysis. Do not invent a successful trial to finish the workbook.

| Result or scenario | Plausible explanations | What this does not establish | Evidence that distinguishes the explanations |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
| | | | |

**Worked example.** Forms are saved but handovers are not acknowledged. Possible causes include shift overlap, unclear responsibility, a notification problem, or a recording failure. The result alone does not prove that written handovers are the wrong behavior. Compare record checks and observation of the handoff before choosing a repair or alternative.

**Check:** Separate a treatment that did not help from a behavior that cannot work, and a completed action from a useful outcome. Consider uncertainty, alternate explanations, and who is missing from the data.

## 8. Record the next decision {#step-8}

*Suggested time: 5 minutes.*

Choose one: **proceed narrowly, change support, reselect, stop, or inconclusive**. A proposed test is a complete next action when the evidence cannot yet support rollout.

| Decision record | Your entry |
|---|---|
| Selected next decision and specific action | |
| Evidence and operating rule that justify it | |
| Population, context, support, and scale limits | |
| Remaining uncertainty and best rival explanation | |
| Owner, resource limit, and review point | |
| Finding that would reverse or reopen the decision | |

**Worked example.** Change support: investigate acknowledgement timing and test a scheduled overlap before extending the written route. Preserve the discussion route as an alternative. This is a proposed response to an invented problem, not evidence that the repair will work.

**Final check:** Can a reader follow the evidence to your decision, identify what remains unknown, and carry out the next action without asking you to supply missing assumptions?

## Compare and revise

Keep your original response, then open the selected case's worked analysis. Record one defensible difference and one revision. A good response need not reproduce the historical outcome. It must use the available evidence, expose assumptions, and make a practical next step clear.

Choose your worked analysis: [M-PESA](https://behavioralstrategy.com/education/mpesa-worked-decision/), [Instagram](https://behavioralstrategy.com/education/instagram-worked-decision/), or [GOV.UK Verify](https://behavioralstrategy.com/education/verify-worked-decision/).

Use the [measurement lab](https://behavioralstrategy.com/education/measurement-lab/) to check your denominators and failure diagnosis. The [teaching notes](https://behavioralstrategy.com/education/teaching-notes/) explain source labels, adaptation, and review of learner responses.

*Original workbook text and exercises: Jason Hreha, version 1, 2026-09-05, CC BY 4.0. Linked external sources retain their own rights. This is a teaching resource; no participant study or independent validation of the method is claimed.*
