IS.3:4.6 - Compare complete alternatives at the decision’s scale

Use an adequate C.32.MWA.PP comparison directly. When a support choice remains, use the same current baseline, receiving use and relevant horizon. Include preparation, participant time, provider time, tools, coordination, inquiry, retained support, transition and displaced work where they can change the choice. Separate total effort from the demand on a particular scarce contributor.

First remove alternatives that cannot meet the required result or conditions. Then compare the remaining consequential differences: time to usable result, future dependence, human mastery where promised, error exposure, response delay, effort and adaptability. C.11.CRC supplies finite comparison; C.11 supplies the legitimate choice. Do not add unlike ordinal ratings into an unexplained total.

When results differ, make the trade-off explicit. A temporary expert service can be preferable for immediate continuity while a learning arrangement remains necessary for the promised later independence. Combine them only if the additional work and transition are actually supplied. The combination is not automatically the best of both.

Select further inquiry only when its attainable answer could reverse the strategy or permitted conclusion enough to justify its full burden. A bounded first attempt can be the comparison when its protection, recovery and receiving conditions are available. Retain alternatives with an honest limit when no useful comparison is obtainable.