How committed are you to seek the truth in decisioning when information interference is compounding exponentially?
Ten years ago, from a routine search engine, most topics would yield less than one million results. Today…hundreds of millions is common.
Then, consider the volume of social networks, digital editions, e-books, blog sites, and a zillion others…all forms of static and interference. Then, the hardware…smarter by the digital minute and growing by the nano-second.
The application of filtering becomes vital when the targeted information is conflicting. As you are seeking the truth, you are being drowned by a volume of competing noise.
The questions: Will you filter? How will you filter?
Could you use a MODEL? What should it include?
At the risk of redundancy, the Model for Intelligent Decisioning remains our best offer to help combat this compounding problem (does anyone believe it will get less conflicting in our future).
Again, the four steps applied to this dilemma:
Step One: Discovery (your issue, objective, problem, candidate)
Step Two: Commitment (your dedication, testimony, involvement)
Step Three: Solution (your specific answer to your discovery)
Step Four: Action (your plan of execution)
The efficiency of a model is that it allows you to organize your thinking/decisioning using successive and interactive steps. On the contrary, if you are not willing to take the time to methodically organize, then the decision before you may not be that important.
Boiled down, we often find deciders in one of two camps.
The Methodicals or The Herders
The Methodicals will decide by commitment, resolve and relentless determination. The Herders will tend to fall (and decide) into a group (herd) with limited individual research, facts or true information. They will believe and accept unchallenged polls, data or news and then melt into their adopted herd.
One camp seems to get it…the other one does not, and of course there are those others who are stuck in the middle and stay frozen in place.
As always…you decide.