As you have figured out by now from my blog posts, I like the rule of 3. This rule is validated and adopted by a variety of disciplines, besides, it is easy to understand and it sounds really cool! Here is today’s edition.
When arguing the merits of a solution, I try to shift attention to the problem. Once the problem is clearly understood, (or if people insist on debating solutions before the problem is clear) I compare the candidate solutions using the following criteria:
- Which one will solve the problem most (or least) effectively? Here “effective” solution is defined as one that is scalable, repeatable, has no side effects.
- Which one will cost the least (or the most)? This includes, cash costs, opportunity costs, and intangible costs (such as broken relationships and loss of trust).
- Which one is the fastest (or slowest) to implement?
The fact that I have an emotional preference should take lower priority, but I often use it as a tie breaker.
Here is a bonus criteria:
- Which one will give me flexibility? Meaning, which one will allow me to change my mind with the least penalty?
What are the criteria you use to choose between competing solutions?