Unfortunately that appears to be my natural inclination and now I'm facing a list of more than 50 or so "available paths". This can be equally as daunting as having no options and frankly it has led to decision paralysis.
Some might then say, "well, narrow down the list to 3-5 options". Well, how does one go about doing that? Am I to perform the pre-mortem and value analysis on all 50 of these potential options? Randomly select a few to discard (since having so many options suggests perhaps that all have enough benefits to be viable?), or maybe run some kind of "tournament" where I play off each option against one another, loser is discarded and we continue on until there is a winner?
I appreciate the article and will take some of its lessons into account but I'd love to hear what the author of the piece would think about my situation.
I generally just start down my favorite path and then use the additional data to decide if I should switch paths or make that 51st path that I didn't think about when I had less data to go off of. Being flexible has generally worked in my favor.
Some might then say, "well, narrow down the list to 3-5 options". Well, how does one go about doing that? Am I to perform the pre-mortem and value analysis on all 50 of these potential options? Randomly select a few to discard (since having so many options suggests perhaps that all have enough benefits to be viable?), or maybe run some kind of "tournament" where I play off each option against one another, loser is discarded and we continue on until there is a winner?
I appreciate the article and will take some of its lessons into account but I'd love to hear what the author of the piece would think about my situation.