Right now, when someone proposes a new program, you weigh it on instinct, politics, funder interest, and gut feeling. You hold it up against nothing in particular. Which is why the decision is hard.
When you have a specific outcome, you hold the proposed program up against it and ask one question: does this move us closer to producing that outcome, or does it not?
Most ideas don't survive that question. The ones that do, you can move on quickly. The ones that don't, you can decline without guilt, without long deliberation, and without losing sleep.
The "should we add this?" noise quiets because there is finally something underneath the question that knows the answer. (For more on why this discipline is harder than it sounds, see Focus Is Not Optional.)
-
Without a specific outcome, every new program idea is a debate.
-
With a specific outcome, most ideas answer themselves in under a minute.
-
The weight you carry from program decisions is mostly the weight of deciding without an anchor.