This toolkit helps teams prepare executive material at three levels: 30 seconds, 3 minutes and 30 minutes. It can be used for investment decisions, transformation initiatives, pilots, process changes and committee submissions.
The toolkit does not replace analysis. It makes the logic of the analysis visible.
How to use it
- Write the decision question in one sentence.
- Complete the option matrix before designing the recommendation.
- Label claims as fact, hypothesis, forecast, assumption or recommendation.
- Identify information capable of changing the choice.
- Build three consistent information levels.
- Define the specific leadership action required.
- Run the integrity check before sending.
The same logic must remain traceable as detail increases:
1. Decision card
DECISION
What specifically needs to be decided?
DECISION OWNER
Who has the authority to decide?
DEADLINE
When must the decision genuinely be made, and why?
CRITERIA
What 3–6 criteria will be used to compare options?
RECOMMENDATION
What does the author recommend?
MAIN RISK
What fact or scenario would make the recommendation wrong?
ASK
What specific action is required now?
If the wording begins with “discuss,” “review” or “support,” the decision question may not yet be defined.
2. The 30-second executive entry
WHAT IS HAPPENING
[one observable fact]
WHY IT MATTERS
[customer / financial / risk / management impact]
WHY NOW
[trend / opportunity window / cost of delay]
NEXT STEP
[show options / obtain a decision / appoint an owner]
Constraints:
- no more than three numbers;
- no methodology name in the first sentence;
- no artificial urgency;
- the objective is to earn more attention, not explain the full programme.
Example:
OTIF has fallen from 94% to 87%, and delays affect our three largest customers. In 68% of reviewed cases, the main loss occurs at two cross-functional handoffs with no common owner. We would like to show four response options and our recommended way to test the mechanism.
3. The three-minute decision frame
DECISION
What choice should the recipient make?
WHY NOW
What is the cost of delay, and why is the deadline real?
MATERIAL FACTS
What 2–4 facts define the choice?
MECHANISM HYPOTHESIS
What do we believe is creating the situation?
OPTIONS
What real alternatives exist, including staged action and waiting?
TRADE-OFFS
What do we gain and sacrifice under each option?
RECOMMENDATION
What do we recommend under the selected criteria?
UNCERTAINTY
What remains unproven and could change our position?
ASK
What specific leadership action is required?
4. The thirty-minute evidence level
Prepare enough material to test the logic—no more and no less:
| Block | What should be accessible |
|---|---|
| Source data | source, period, sample, quality, limitations |
| Mechanism | causal hypothesis and alternative explanations |
| Options | common criteria, economics, timing, reversibility |
| Sensitivity | assumptions, scenarios, ranges, thresholds |
| Delivery | resources, owner, dependencies, change capacity |
| Risks | likelihood, impact, early indicators, responses |
| Governance | checkpoints, continuation and stop conditions |
| Evidence | traceability from conclusion to model and source data |
5. Option matrix
Define the criteria before comparing alternatives.
| Criterion | Weight, if needed | A | B | C | D: wait and learn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial effect | |||||
| Cost | |||||
| Time | |||||
| Risk | |||||
| Reversibility | |||||
| Evidence strength | |||||
| Change load |
Do not use weights to create false precision. If reasonable executives might assign different weights, show how the recommendation changes.
6. Claim matrix
| Type | Control question | Acceptable phrasing |
|---|---|---|
| Fact | Was this directly observed or measured? | “OTIF fell to 87%” |
| Hypothesis | Is this an explanation of an observation? | “A likely cause is two handoffs” |
| Forecast | Is this a statement about the future? | “The pilot may add 3–5 points” |
| Assumption | What must be true for the calculation? | “At utilisation above 90%” |
| Recommendation | Is this a proposed choice? | “We recommend pilot B” |
Editorial check: underline every causal verb—“created,” “led to,” “will deliver,” “will reduce.” Ask whether causality has been demonstrated or remains a hypothesis or forecast.
7. Materiality test
Information is material when a reasonable decision-maker might use it to:
- select another option;
- change scale, timing or sequence;
- request more evidence;
- set a condition, checkpoint or constraint;
- reject the decision.
For every omitted fact, complete:
FACT:
WHY IT IS NOT IN THE FIRST LEVEL:
WHERE IT IS ACCESSIBLE:
COULD IT CHANGE THE DECISION:
If the final answer is “yes,” the fact must appear before the choice, even when it is absent from the first 30 seconds.
8. Specific leadership-ask builder
Weak asks include “support us,” “pay attention” and “be our sponsor.”
A strong ask contains:
WHO
[specific leader or body]
DOES WHAT
[decides / appoints / funds / stops / reviews]
WHEN AND HOW OFTEN
[deadline / cadence]
EVIDENCE OF COMPLETION
[observable outcome]
ESCALATION
[what happens when progress is blocked]
Example:
The COO appoints the end-to-end flow owner by Friday, reviews metric X every two weeks for three months and accepts escalation when two functions cannot agree within 48 hours.
9. Sponsor behaviour contract
| Behaviour | Owner | Cadence / deadline | Evidence of completion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appoint an owner | |||
| Allocate resources | |||
| Resolve a cross-functional obstacle | |||
| Change a KPI or priority | |||
| Review a leading indicator | |||
| Stop a competing initiative | |||
| Model the new behaviour personally |
10. First-screen check
- The required decision is clear within 10 seconds.
- The issue's current significance is visible.
- Two to four defining facts are shown.
- Real alternatives have not disappeared.
- The core trade-off is explicit.
- The author's position is clear.
- The main risk sits next to the position.
- A material assumption is visible.
- The ask is expressed as an action.
- The evidence is accessible.
11. Final integrity review
Before sending, ask an independent reviewer:
- Which option am I explicitly or implicitly steering you toward?
- Which fact most weakens my recommendation?
- Could you reasonably defend an alternative option using this material?
- What missing information could change the decision?
The material is ready when brevity shortens the path to the decision without narrowing the decision space itself.
Practise before the real committee
Use Decision Room to test the toolkit under time pressure. Read Clarity Without Manipulation for the integrity principle and Competing for Executive Attention for the communication sequence.