Decision Fish Matrix

This matrix shows the comparative “size” (impact, complexity) of decisions and suggests methods for discussing and making decisions. These suggestions are a starting point. Actual decisions may not fall neatly in into these categories!

	Type of Decision	Criteria	Decision-making method How is the decision made?	Discussion method How is the decision introduced and discussed?	Possible relationship to RACI (see below for definition) Where does the buck stop?

	Type of Decision	Criteria	Decision-making method How is the decision made?	Discussion method How is the decision introduced and discussed?	Possible relationship to RACI (see below for definition) Where does the buck stop?
Open	“Little fish”	Affects only one functional group; or Simple decision; or Widely-held determination of solution	Supermajority is used to decide if the issue should be standardized. If yes, start with Consent agenda to make the decision.	Decision is summarized in advance of a meeting and shared via email or slack If no objection or call for discussion is raised, the decision is immediately approved at the deciding group’s next meeting.	Gets decided by responsible group; no further approval needed.
Open	“Medium fish”	Affects 1-2 SILS groups; or Complex but not contentious; or Widely-held determination of solution	Supermajority (same as above) Consent agenda (same as above) Engage in discussion and unpack complexities; then, when at or nearing the decision point, use the Fist-of-five to gauge agreement; if members are at a (3) or lower, they should discuss remaining reservations/concerns; amendments are made, if any; and the fist-of-five is used to finalize the decision. For fist-of-five to pass: there should be no blocks (1) and at least 50% of quorum should be (4) or (5). It might not be necessary to take the fist-of-five vote twice.	Same as above, or If objections or concerns are raised, and they are not resolved, the item goes to a meeting for discussion.	Gets decided by responsible group, with consent from approving group
	“Big fish”	Affects multiple SILS groups; or Potentially broadly contentious; or Disagreement on solution(s); or Impacts project timeline	Fist-of-five (same as above)	Meeting	Recommended by responsible group; approved by approving group
	“Whale”	Impacts campus resources; or Broadly contentious; or Major departure from previous policy	Fist-of-five (same as above)	Meeting	Recommended by responsible group; needs approval at the highest level

See also: Decision Flow

SILS decision-making processes

(Excerpted from Shared Governance PDF, page 10)

For decisions specific to harmonization (i.e., determining when to standardize and when to maintain local, campus practices), the Policy & Practice groups will begin their work by employing three main decision-making types: supermajority, fist-of-five and consent agenda decision-making.

Supermajority decision-making is used to select which items (e.g., policies, practices, implementation details, etc.) are considered for standardization. For the SILS project, a supermajority requires a two-thirds threshold, so long as quorum is met (quorum requires half of the membership plus one in attendance). If two-thirds does not equal a whole number, the group will round down. With supermajority support, an item will proceed in the decision-making workflow (see steps 3(a)-(j)).

Fist-of-five decision-making is used to make a determination around whether and how a policy, practice or other item will be standardized. This process involves broad discussion and exploration of options and concerns; through synthesis of the ideas and issues, common ground (though not necessarily unanimity) is established. Fist-of-five decision-making can take place if quorum is met; given the time constraints present in the SILS implementation timeline and the broad consultation that will occur before decisions are called, decision-making should not be delayed if some group members are absent.

Consent agenda decision-making is used when dealing with low-risk, non-controversial decisions around how a policy, practice or other item will be standardized. Low-risk decisions are bundled into a “consent agenda” item and, unless a group member calls for discussion or objects to the inclusion of a decision item, the consent agenda is immediately approved/endorsed at the meeting in question.

Supermajority, fist-of-five and consent agenda decision-making may also be employed by other SILS groups or for non-harmonization decisions made by the Policy & Practice groups. As noted, these processes represent a starting point; as work progresses and decisions are made, phase 4 groups will learn from this experience and potentially expand upon (or change) the decision-making processes outlined here, or pursue different decision-making approaches. Changes to decision-making processes should be clearly documented, both to confirm they are shared amongst group members and to make such changes visible to the entire cohort and UC Libraries community.

RACI

R = Responsible. Assigned to do the work

A = Accountable. The owner and final decider

C = Consulted. Must be consulted before a decision is made

I = Informed. Informed that a decision or action has been taken