decision-questionnaire

name: decision-questionnairedescription: >  Turn a blocked decision into an async questionnaire a stakeholder can answer  without a meeting. Use when you need someone else's input to decide, a meeting  would be overkill, or answers from several people must be consolidated.license: MIT + Commons Clausemetadata:   version: 1.0.0  author: borghei  category: project-management  domain: pm-execution  updated: 2026-11-08  python-tools: questionnaire_linter.py, answer_consolidator.py  tech-stack: async-decisions, stakeholder-input, decision-records, questionnaires  tags:     - decision-making    - async    - questionnaire    - stakeholders    - decision-record

Decision Questionnaire

Some decisions stall because the knowledge sits with someone else. A meeting costs everyone an hour; "thoughts?" gets a vague reply. A structured questionnaire costs the recipient fifteen minutes and returns comparable, recordable answers.

The agent interviews the sender only about the send (who, what they need back, by when, what happens on silence), never the subject they cannot answer. It writes neutral, one-idea questions with answer formats, gates the draft, and consolidates replies into a decision record.

When to Use

• A decision is blocked on knowledge that one to five specific people hold
• You would otherwise book a meeting just to ask questions
• Answers came back and must become a recorded decision

Clarify First

What most shapes the questionnaire is the gap between what the recipient knows and what the sender needs. Settle the inputs below before producing anything. When one is missing or vague and would change the result, ask about it; when it wouldn't, use a sensible default and say which one you used.

• Recipient and what they know: role and expertise set tone, how much context to carry, and which questions only they can answer.
• What you must walk away able to decide: each question has to unblock one of these outputs, or it gets cut.
• Deadline and default if silent: without both, silence blocks the work instead of resolving it.

Ask about the two or three inputs that matter most for this request, not the whole list. If the user wants a result straight away, produce it and state your assumptions at the top.

Quick Start

# Gate a draft before sending (exit 1 = not ready)
python3 project-management/execution/decision-questionnaire/scripts/questionnaire_linter.py \
  --input project-management/execution/decision-questionnaire/assets/sample_questionnaire_flawed.json \
  --today 2026-11-08

# Consolidate replies into a decision-record draft (exit 1 = critical question still blocked)
python3 project-management/execution/decision-questionnaire/scripts/answer_consolidator.py \
  --input project-management/execution/decision-questionnaire/assets/sample_questionnaire_clean.json \
  --answers project-management/execution/decision-questionnaire/assets/sample_answers_conflict.json \
  --today 2026-11-19 --format json

Tools Overview

Exit code contract

Workflow

1. Interview the send, not the subject. [PROVEN] Ask who it goes to, what they know that the sender doesn't, and what the sender must be able to decide afterwards. Cut every question the sender could answer by looking it up.
2. Write the header. Purpose, the decision riding on it, sender and recipients, how answers will be used, a context paragraph under 150 words for someone in none of the meetings, deadline, effort, and the default action if nobody answers.
3. Lay out the options. [RECOMMENDED] Two to four, each with its trade-off; mark at most one as the sender's lean; add "none of these".
4. Write the questions. One idea each, neutral, most important first, grouped by theme, each with a format: pick-one, ranked, number with unit, yes-no with condition, or capped free text. "Why this matters" only where misreadable. End with one catch-all.
5. Validate against the quality gate. Run questionnaire_linter.py; it must pass with zero errors before sending. Then read it once as the recipient and check the hand-review checklist in references/question-design.md (hidden premises, loaded descriptors).
6. Send with a four-line message (what, why you, time and deadline, default) and one answer channel.
7. Remind once, then last-call a day before the deadline, asking only blocking questions.
8. Consolidate and record. [RECOMMENDED] Run answer_consolidator.py, settle critical conflicts, fill assets/decision_record_template.md, and send it to every recipient.

python3 project-management/execution/decision-questionnaire/scripts/answer_consolidator.py \
  --input project-management/execution/decision-questionnaire/assets/sample_questionnaire_clean.json \
  --answers project-management/execution/decision-questionnaire/assets/sample_answers.json --today 2026-11-19

Anti-Patterns

The Leading Question

Mistake: "Don't you think Frankfurt is the safest choice?" Why it happens: The sender has a lean and wants it confirmed. Instead: State the lean once in the options table, labelled, then ask "Which option would you approve?"

The Thoughts Dump

Mistake: A link to a design doc and "Thoughts?" Why it happens: Writing questions forces the sender to work out what they need. Instead: Turn each unknown into a formatted question; keep one open question, at the end.

No Default on Silence

Mistake: A deadline with no stated consequence, so the decision waits indefinitely. Why it happens: Stating a default feels presumptuous. Instead: Write the action you will take on silence; anyone who dislikes it now has a reason to reply.

The Survey Creep

Mistake: Twenty-five questions, half of them nice-to-know. Why it happens: Every stakeholder adds "while we're asking…". Instead: Hold to about ten questions and fifteen minutes; defer the rest.

Merging Conflicts Away

Mistake: Two respondents disagree and the record reports only the majority view. Why it happens: A clean record looks more decisive. Instead: Record each conflict and how it was settled; hidden disagreements reopen decisions.

Files

Reference Documentation

• references/question-design.md — gap analysis, wording, the five answer formats, sizing, linter codes, hand-review checklist. Read while drafting.
• references/sending-and-consolidating.md — async vs meeting, multi-recipient variants, follow-up cadence, consolidator outcomes, the decision record. Read before sending.

Scope & Limitations

In Scope: async questionnaires for blocked decisions, multi-recipient variants, pre-send linting, consolidating answers into a decision record.

Out of Scope:

• Who decides, approves and is consulted (see project-management/execution/daci-framework/)
• Live customer discovery interviews (see project-management/discovery/customer-interview-script/)
• Large-sample surveys and statistical analysis of responses
• Broad stakeholder engagement planning (see project-management/execution/stakeholder-map/)

Important Caveats:

• The linter reads JSON, not prose; render the sent version with the template.
• Wording checks are pattern-based and miss loaded adjectives and hidden premises; a human read is still required.
• Effort estimates are a sizing aid. The consolidator matches respondents by exact name and does not judge free text.