During IDS, our team constantly resolves debates by assigning someone a to-do to do more research or gather more information, only for the issue to drag on for weeks. How do we stop using research to-dos as an excuse to avoid making hard decisions?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Assigning a research To-Do is frequently executive cowardice disguised as diligence. When an issue requires a difficult call, such as letting go of an underperforming manager, discontinuing an unprofitable service, or confronting a broken process, teams naturally seek safety in information gathering. It feels productive, but it is pure procrastination.

The Integrator must draw a bright line between legitimate missing data and decision avoidance. When a leader proposes a research To-Do during the solve step of IDS, the facilitator should challenge the room directly: Will having this extra data fundamentally change the choice before us, or do we already know what needs to be done?

If the decision requires a specific factual data point that nobody in the room possesses, such as a gross margin calculation on a specific SKU or a precise contract term, then an information-gathering To-Do is acceptable. However, that To-Do must be narrowly defined and time-boxed to seven days, and the original issue must stay at the top of the Issues List for the next meeting.

If the room already has eighty percent of the required information, the rule of IDS is to decide and act. Executive teams rarely fail because they made a decision with imperfect data; they fail because they spent three months gathering data while the problem continued burning cash and team morale.

Push for the solve immediately. Agree on the best path forward, assign a single accountable owner for the execution To-Do, and move to the next issue. Stop turning your Issues List into a recurring research library.