farshid adaviProject Manager and Strategic Planner| CivilHouse
The PMBOK® Guide – Seventh Edition explicitly identifies **Adaptability and Resiliency** as one of the core principles . It reminds us that successful projects are not only built on good planning, but also on the ability to respond effectively as conditions evolve.
That principle feels more relevant than ever.
For many years, the quality of a decision was often associated with having additional information, more analysis, and less uncertainty. The underlying assumption was simple: if we could reduce uncertainty, we could make better decisions.
But today's projects rarely offer that luxury.
Project managers are navigating rapidly changing markets, geopolitical disruptions, supply chain instability, evolving stakeholder expectations, accelerating technologies, and increasing regulatory complexity. By the time all the desired information is collected, some of the original assumptions may already be outdated.
Perhaps this is why the definition of a good decision is evolving.
The challenge is no longer choosing between speed and quality.
The real challenge is achieving the highest possible decision quality within the time available.
Consider a construction project approaching the design freeze milestone. The team postpones approving the structural design because they want to eliminate every remaining uncertainty before moving forward.
A few weeks later, updated client requirements, revised regulations, and changes in material availability force another round of redesign.
Ironically, the pursuit of the perfect decision created more rework, greater delays, and higher costs than the original uncertainty ever would have.
Perhaps the issue was never the lack of information.
Perhaps it was the inability to recognize when the available information was sufficient to make a responsible decision.
In the past, a good decision was often associated with:
• More information
• More analysis
• More certainty
• Then action
Today, a good decision may also need to be:
• Timely enough to keep the project moving.
• Informed enough to manage the most significant risks.
• Flexible enough to adapt as new information emerges.
This doesn't mean making rushed decisions.
It means recognizing that timing is becoming an essential dimension of decision quality, not its opposite.
In increasingly dynamic project environments, waiting for perfect certainty may itself become one of the biggest project risks.
What has been your experience?
Have you ever seen a project suffer because the team waited too long for the "perfect" decision?
Have you experienced situations where an earlier, "good enough" decision proved more valuable than a later, "perfect" one?
In today's project environment, how do you personally define a good decision?
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
An insightful reflection.
I agree that timing has become an essential dimension of decision quality. However, I would argue that the definition of a good decision has evolved even further.
A good decision should not be judged only by the information available when it was made, nor solely by its outcome. It should also be judged by the quality of the reasoning, the assumptions made, the trade-offs considered, and the ability to adapt as reality unfolds.
In increasingly complex environments, the goal is not to eliminate uncertainty, but to make decisions that remain explainable, defensible and adaptable as new information emerges.
Perhaps the future of decision quality is not certainty. It is resilient judgment under uncertainty.
...
1 reply by farshid adavi
Jun 26, 2026 3:09 AM
farshid adavi
...
Luis, thank you for such a thoughtful perspective. I particularly like your distinction between judging decisions by their reasoning rather than only by the information available or the eventual outcome. That broadens the discussion in an important way. Your point about "resilient judgment under uncertainty" also resonates strongly with today's project environment. As projects become more complex, perhaps our objective is no longer to make the "perfect" decision, but to make decisions that are transparent, adaptable, and robust enough to evolve as new information emerges. In that sense, decision quality may increasingly depend not only on what we decide, but also on how we think, challenge assumptions, and adapt throughout the project lifecycle. Thank you for enriching the conversation.
Another element of this is that the pursuit of more data to support a decision is sometimes used as a smokescreen by those who wish to delay or entirely defer the decision.
This is is why when preparing for a decision, it is valuable to understand the point of diminishing information returns from a time, effort or uncertainty perspective.
Kiron
...
1 reply by farshid adavi
Jun 26, 2026 3:11 AM
farshid adavi
...
Kiron, thank you for highlighting an important practical challenge. Your point about the diminishing returns of additional information is particularly valuable. In many projects, the search for "just one more piece of data" can unintentionally become a substitute for making the decision itself. That reinforces the central idea of this discussion: decision quality is not about maximizing information, but about recognizing when we have sufficient understanding to make a well-reasoned and timely decision. Perhaps one of the most important leadership skills today is knowing when additional analysis creates value—and when it simply delays action. Thank you for adding this important perspective.
Saving Changes...
farshid adaviProject Manager and Strategic Planner| CivilHouse
Jun 25, 2026 4:06 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
An insightful reflection.
I agree that timing has become an essential dimension of decision quality. However, I would argue that the definition of a good decision has evolved even further.
A good decision should not be judged only by the information available when it was made, nor solely by its outcome. It should also be judged by the quality of the reasoning, the assumptions made, the trade-offs considered, and the ability to adapt as reality unfolds.
In increasingly complex environments, the goal is not to eliminate uncertainty, but to make decisions that remain explainable, defensible and adaptable as new information emerges.
Perhaps the future of decision quality is not certainty. It is resilient judgment under uncertainty.
Luis, thank you for such a thoughtful perspective. I particularly like your distinction between judging decisions by their reasoning rather than only by the information available or the eventual outcome. That broadens the discussion in an important way. Your point about "resilient judgment under uncertainty" also resonates strongly with today's project environment. As projects become more complex, perhaps our objective is no longer to make the "perfect" decision, but to make decisions that are transparent, adaptable, and robust enough to evolve as new information emerges. In that sense, decision quality may increasingly depend not only on what we decide, but also on how we think, challenge assumptions, and adapt throughout the project lifecycle. Thank you for enriching the conversation. Saving Changes...
farshid adaviProject Manager and Strategic Planner| CivilHouse
Jun 25, 2026 4:15 PM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Farshid -
Another element of this is that the pursuit of more data to support a decision is sometimes used as a smokescreen by those who wish to delay or entirely defer the decision.
This is is why when preparing for a decision, it is valuable to understand the point of diminishing information returns from a time, effort or uncertainty perspective.
Kiron
Kiron, thank you for highlighting an important practical challenge. Your point about the diminishing returns of additional information is particularly valuable. In many projects, the search for "just one more piece of data" can unintentionally become a substitute for making the decision itself. That reinforces the central idea of this discussion: decision quality is not about maximizing information, but about recognizing when we have sufficient understanding to make a well-reasoned and timely decision. Perhaps one of the most important leadership skills today is knowing when additional analysis creates value—and when it simply delays action. Thank you for adding this important perspective. Saving Changes...
Gurcharan GaurProject Manager| Thost Projektmanagement GmbhDUBAI, United Arab Emirates
I agree. Excessive pursuit of certainty can introduce avoidable risk. In dynamic environments, decisions are best made when they are sufficiently informed, time-sensitive, and built on clear assumptions with the expectation of iteration as new information emerges.
...
1 reply by farshid adavi
Jun 26, 2026 12:21 PM
farshid adavi
...
Gurcharan, thank you for adding this perspective. I fully agree with your point that excessive pursuit of certainty can itself become a source of avoidable risk. In dynamic project environments, waiting too long may reduce uncertainty in one area while increasing exposure in others. Your phrase “sufficiently informed” is especially important. Perhaps a good decision today is not the one made with complete certainty, but the one made with clear assumptions, timely judgment, and the discipline to revisit and adapt as reality evolves. Thank you for enriching the discussion.
Saving Changes...
farshid adaviProject Manager and Strategic Planner| CivilHouse
Jun 26, 2026 10:04 AM
Replying to Gurcharan Gaur
...
I agree. Excessive pursuit of certainty can introduce avoidable risk. In dynamic environments, decisions are best made when they are sufficiently informed, time-sensitive, and built on clear assumptions with the expectation of iteration as new information emerges.
Gurcharan, thank you for adding this perspective. I fully agree with your point that excessive pursuit of certainty can itself become a source of avoidable risk. In dynamic project environments, waiting too long may reduce uncertainty in one area while increasing exposure in others. Your phrase “sufficiently informed” is especially important. Perhaps a good decision today is not the one made with complete certainty, but the one made with clear assumptions, timely judgment, and the discipline to revisit and adapt as reality evolves. Thank you for enriching the discussion. Saving Changes...
I don't work in construction, but a good example of a bad decision seems like "they want to eliminate every remaining uncertainty before moving forward" while in design freeze. I've spoken with enough construction project managers to feel comfortable saying that many "uncertainties" in construction are fairly well cataloged, including how to respond to them - not all of them would require postponing moving forward. If you're waiting for results from an environmental impact assessment or geotechnical investigation, than yes, they should probably wait.
In my current role, there have been times when an issue arose and, instead of pursuing a well-designed solution that would solve multiple problems, we ended up pursuing a quick fix and delaying the long-term solution in favor of other business priorities. This can be frustrating for IT, but that doesn't make it the wrong decision for the business. It's not just about the best decision for the specific project at hand, it's about the impact on the larger organization. My point is that project decisions are often an example of local optimization. If a decision that make one project successful leads to critical failures in other areas, was it a good decision?
I think companies that pursue portfolio management, intentionally or otherwise, are on their way to seeing changes in how decisions are made, but you could argue that there are different approaches to portfolio management, like there are different types of PMOs. For me, the vision could be described as portfolio-aware decision-making during project execution. Achieving this would most certainly change the definition of a good decision in an organization. I think some companies are pursuing this vision, or something like it, and others aren't. This makes it feel like the definition of a good decision is relative to the context of the organization and leaders making the decision. I may be starting to ramble. Hopefully this makes sense.
...
1 reply by farshid adavi
Jun 29, 2026 7:25 AM
farshid adavi
...
Aaron, thank you for taking the time to expand on this. I think you've introduced an important dimension to the discussion. Your distinction between project optimization and organizational optimization really resonates with me. A decision that appears suboptimal from a single project's perspective may actually be the right one when viewed through the lens of portfolio priorities and organizational strategy. Perhaps this is where decision quality becomes highly context-dependent. A "good" decision may not always maximize the success of one project; instead, it may maximize value across the broader system. In that sense, evaluating decision quality may require us to ask not only "Was this the right decision for the project?" but also "Was it the right decision for the organization at that point in time?" I think your idea of portfolio-aware decision-making is a very compelling direction for the future of project governance.
A good decision is one that is timely enough to maintain momentum, sufficiently informed to mitigate major risks and challenges, flexible enough to pivot as new information emerges and helps the team to deliver a valuable outcome. Striving for absolute perfection can lead to missed deadlines, costly rework and stakeholder dissatisfaction, all leading to an unsuccessful project. I think project managers and professionals should engage with the team and relevant stakeholders to make the most responsible decision based on the available information with the timeframe, even though sometimes it could mean the decision needs to be changed based on new circumstances.
...
1 reply by farshid adavi
Jun 29, 2026 7:29 AM
farshid adavi
...
Thank you, Srikana. I really like how you've framed decision quality as a balance between timeliness, informed judgment, and adaptability. Your point reinforces something I find increasingly important: good decisions are rarely perfect decisions. They are decisions made responsibly with the best available information at the time, while remaining open to adjustment as new evidence emerges. Perhaps one of the strengths of effective project teams is not that they always make perfect decisions, but that they build decision-making processes that are resilient enough to learn, adapt, and continue creating value throughout the project lifecycle.
Saving Changes...
farshid adaviProject Manager and Strategic Planner| CivilHouse
Jun 28, 2026 4:59 PM
Replying to Aaron Porter
...
I don't work in construction, but a good example of a bad decision seems like "they want to eliminate every remaining uncertainty before moving forward" while in design freeze. I've spoken with enough construction project managers to feel comfortable saying that many "uncertainties" in construction are fairly well cataloged, including how to respond to them - not all of them would require postponing moving forward. If you're waiting for results from an environmental impact assessment or geotechnical investigation, than yes, they should probably wait.
In my current role, there have been times when an issue arose and, instead of pursuing a well-designed solution that would solve multiple problems, we ended up pursuing a quick fix and delaying the long-term solution in favor of other business priorities. This can be frustrating for IT, but that doesn't make it the wrong decision for the business. It's not just about the best decision for the specific project at hand, it's about the impact on the larger organization. My point is that project decisions are often an example of local optimization. If a decision that make one project successful leads to critical failures in other areas, was it a good decision?
I think companies that pursue portfolio management, intentionally or otherwise, are on their way to seeing changes in how decisions are made, but you could argue that there are different approaches to portfolio management, like there are different types of PMOs. For me, the vision could be described as portfolio-aware decision-making during project execution. Achieving this would most certainly change the definition of a good decision in an organization. I think some companies are pursuing this vision, or something like it, and others aren't. This makes it feel like the definition of a good decision is relative to the context of the organization and leaders making the decision. I may be starting to ramble. Hopefully this makes sense.
Aaron, thank you for taking the time to expand on this. I think you've introduced an important dimension to the discussion. Your distinction between project optimization and organizational optimization really resonates with me. A decision that appears suboptimal from a single project's perspective may actually be the right one when viewed through the lens of portfolio priorities and organizational strategy. Perhaps this is where decision quality becomes highly context-dependent. A "good" decision may not always maximize the success of one project; instead, it may maximize value across the broader system. In that sense, evaluating decision quality may require us to ask not only "Was this the right decision for the project?" but also "Was it the right decision for the organization at that point in time?" I think your idea of portfolio-aware decision-making is a very compelling direction for the future of project governance. Saving Changes...
farshid adaviProject Manager and Strategic Planner| CivilHouse
Jun 29, 2026 12:47 AM
Replying to Srikana Ray
...
A good decision is one that is timely enough to maintain momentum, sufficiently informed to mitigate major risks and challenges, flexible enough to pivot as new information emerges and helps the team to deliver a valuable outcome. Striving for absolute perfection can lead to missed deadlines, costly rework and stakeholder dissatisfaction, all leading to an unsuccessful project. I think project managers and professionals should engage with the team and relevant stakeholders to make the most responsible decision based on the available information with the timeframe, even though sometimes it could mean the decision needs to be changed based on new circumstances.
Thank you, Srikana. I really like how you've framed decision quality as a balance between timeliness, informed judgment, and adaptability. Your point reinforces something I find increasingly important: good decisions are rarely perfect decisions. They are decisions made responsibly with the best available information at the time, while remaining open to adjustment as new evidence emerges. Perhaps one of the strengths of effective project teams is not that they always make perfect decisions, but that they build decision-making processes that are resilient enough to learn, adapt, and continue creating value throughout the project lifecycle. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
