Pursue/Defer/Decline Decision Logic

Purpose

Synthesise A1.4 findings into a structured, defensible recommendation by applying a four-factor decision tree that evaluates feasibility, strategic fit, need attractiveness, and solution landscape in sequence.

When to use

A1.4 Step~7 (Feasibility Assessment & Synthesis), after all six prior steps are complete and both scorecards populated.

Output

P/D/D recommendation with type classification (Pursue; Defer—Technology Timing / Strategic Timing / Information Gap; Decline—Strategic Misalignment / Low Attractiveness / Solution Saturation / Infeasibility), confidence level, written rationale, and next steps.

For Defer: monitoring plan with trigger condition, monitoring owner, re-evaluation timeline, and preparatory actions.

Inputs

• Technical Constraint Map (Step~2) — feasibility implications
• User Context Model (Step~3) — design viability
• Ecosystem Dependency Diagram (Step~4) — partnership feasibility
• Solution Landscape Matrix (Step~5) — white space or saturation
• Strategic Fit Scorecard (Step~6) — composite score
• Need Attractiveness Scorecard (Step~6) — composite score

Procedure

1. Evaluate feasibility (gating criterion). Three outcomes: itemize
2. Feasible now: No insurmountable barriers; organisation can address need within current technology and capability. Proceed to Factor~2.
3. Feasible later: Enabling technology immature OR capability gap requires 12+ months to close; clear improvement trajectory exists. DEFER (Technology/Capability Timing) with trigger.
4. Infeasible: Fundamental barriers (physics, regulation, cost); no foreseeable resolution path. DECLINE (Infeasibility). itemize
5. Evaluate strategic fit. itemize
6. HIGH (≥11/15): Strong alignment. Proceed to Factor~3.
7. MEDIUM (8–11/15): Conditional. Proceed if attractiveness HIGH and white space confirmed; otherwise DECLINE (Strategic Misalignment) or DEFER (Strategic Timing — revisit if B1 priorities shift).
8. LOW (<8/15): DECLINE (Strategic Misalignment). itemize
9. Evaluate need attractiveness. itemize
10. HIGH (≥9/12): Strong opportunity. Proceed to Factor~4.
11. MODERATE (6–8/12): Conditional. Proceed if white space confirmed and strategic fit HIGH; otherwise DECLINE (Low Attractiveness).
12. LOW (<6/12): DECLINE (Low Attractiveness). itemize
13. Evaluate solution landscape. itemize
14. White space confirmed: P0 criteria unmet by existing approaches. PURSUE to A1.5.
15. Partial white space: Segment- or context-specific gap. PURSUE if addressable segment is strategically relevant; otherwise DECLINE (Saturation).
16. Saturated: P0 criteria met; user satisfaction high. DECLINE (Solution Saturation). itemize
17. Calibrate confidence. itemize
18. HIGH confidence: All factors have strong evidence; no major uncertainties.
19. MEDIUM confidence: 1–2 factors have moderate evidence gaps; recommendation defensible but uncertain.
20. LOW confidence: Multiple evidence gaps. DEFER (Information Gap) — return to A1.2 for supplemental research. itemize
21. Write recommendation rationale. 2–3 paragraph narrative: address all four factors in sequence; make trade-offs explicit; state confidence level and its basis; specify next steps per recommendation type.

Quality criteria

• All four factors addressed in sequence (none skipped)
• Decision follows logic tree (not post-hoc rationalisation of predetermined conclusion)
• Trade-offs explicit (e.g., “fit HIGH but attractiveness MODERATE — pursuing because white space is strong”)
• Confidence calibrated to evidence strength (not uniformly “HIGH”)
• Defer includes actionable trigger (not “revisit later”)

Common errors

• Conclusion-first reasoning — deciding Pursue, then constructing justification
• Skipping the landscape factor — “HIGH fit + HIGH attractiveness = Pursue” without checking saturation
• Unactionable Defer — “revisit in the future” without trigger, owner, or timeline
• Uniform HIGH confidence — every recommendation rated HIGH regardless of evidence quality
• Omitting trade-offs — presenting recommendation as obvious when multiple factors pull in different directions

Theoretical basis

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (Keeney & Raiffa, 1976; Saaty, 1980); Real Options Theory (McGrath, 1999) for Defer-with-trigger as strategic option.