The word “computer” has become synonymous with “speed.” After all, today’s information technology can collect, process, and translate data at speeds previously unimagined. These machines can then distill that information down to a simple dashboard enabling us — and in many ways pushing us — to make quick decisions and rush forward.
“Move Fast, Break Things” was Zuckerberg’s mantra during the early days at Facebook.
But what happens when things go wrong? What happens when the data is there on the dashboard in front of you, the report is correct, yet the predicted outcome doesn’t materialize?
Maybe it’s time to slow down and think for a moment. The term “computer” once referred to a person, “one who computes,” as it was first known way back in 1613. These people had intimate knowledge of the data they were responsible for forging into actionable information — and this process took time. But somewhere along the way, through the evolution from punch cards to green bar paper to spreadsheets to dashboards to today’s Key Performance Indicators (KPI), data processing became known as information technology. The focus was more and more on speed, and the value of deliberate thinking was diminished.
To be clear, I’m not saying it isn’t crucial to be swift and decisive. I’m also not advocating for contemplation to the point of paralysis and indecision. But I think that there is room to be both quick and careful when making critical decisions, even in this day of breakneck business.
Two Systems
Much of this article will be based on Daniel Kahneman’s work presented in “Thinking, Fast and Slow” (Kahneman, 2011). His research and writing helped me understand this phenomenon. With his work in mind, let’s distinguish two methods of decision-making:
System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, unconscious.
System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious.
Kahneman’s work focuses on the errors stemming from the reliance on System 1 (Fast) when System 2 (Slow) would have given us a more correct answer. But that doesn’t mean System 2 is better. Even if you wanted to use the more contemplative System 2 exclusively, you couldn’t. There are too many decisions to be made and not enough time in the day. Besides, according to Kahneman, we are constantly evaluating our environment to determine if all is well and if so, we are in a state of cognitive ease. No threats detected, no need to engage system 2.
That’s where your KPIs come in. KPIs are designed to give you an early indicator to let you know if there is “danger” in your environment. If you have authored a story to explain this anomaly, getting System 2 to engage will be challenging. Once an anomaly becomes a pattern, the “danger” signal becomes noise.
“What you see is all there is.”
In addition to watching out for glaring and even subtle anomalies, you must somehow account for factors that don’t even appear on your dashboard or in your reports.
“We often fail to allow for the possibility that evidence that should be critical to our judgment is missing,” says Kahneman. “What we see is all there is.”
Donald Rumsfeld often referred to “Unknown, Unknowns.” He has caught some criticism for this over the years. Yet, Rumsfeld seemingly knew what Kahneman’s research revealed: “Contrary to the rules of philosophers of science, who advise testing hypotheses by trying to refute them, people (and scientists, quite often) seek data that are likely to be compatible with the beliefs they currently hold.”
To combat this, we must engage System 2. Slow down a bit and look at external benchmarks and outside sources of information. Challenge your assumptions and better inform your decisions. Perhaps there would be a benefit to having some sort of Rumsfeldian / Socratic discussion where your team identifies Unknown Unknowns and goes after ways to research and quantify them. To create additional benchmarks to challenge your assumptions, your system 1.
As a data professional, I am painfully aware of the need to balance visual appeal and easy consumption against information density and complexity. A noisy dashboard is not one that many will find helpful (unfortunately, what is signal today quickly becomes background noise as it becomes familiar). Yet, there must be contextual and sometimes contrarian information included, or a snap decision will be made on a one-sided basis.
But there is reason to be optimistic. Yes, business is a competitive endeavor by nature. Speed in decision-making is valuable, and there is indeed wisdom in the quote from Brian Tracy, “Almost any decision is better than no decision at all.” There is value in System 1; its speed comes from intuition built on lived experience, past successes and failures, and pattern recognition.
Yet, when the hair on the back of your neck signals danger, you are at a place for a pause for taking the time to think deliberately — not slowly — about the decision before you. This is where additional detail tabs in PowerBI or drill-through SSRS reports can facilitate System 2 thinking. A well-built reporting platform can provide a smooth combination of Systems 1 and 2.
The decision-making process has been studied many times and in many different contexts. In the context of business management, The Harvard Business Review publishes a very famous book called “The HBR Guide to Making Better Decisions.” Inside, the book lays out a framework entitled “Know, Think, Do.” The point of this article is to apply Kahneman’s work on the human thought process to work done by Harvard. When adequately built, your reporting platform illustrates KNOW through KPIs and other data visualizations. It facilitates THINK by linking or drilling to supporting details and benchmarks so that you and your team can DO most efficiently and effectively.
Perhaps it is time to Move Fast and Build Things.