decision-memo-builder

name: decision-memo-builder description: Builds a 1-page decision memo (context → options → recommendation → risks → ask) enforcing McKinsey memo DNA — brutal brevity, SCP storyline clarity, decision-forcing output, evidence density. Use when drafting a memo for a leadership decision, a scope cut, a buy/build/partner call, a roadmap slip, or any "should we X?" moment that needs a yes/no from a specific person by a specific date.

Decision Memo Builder

A 1-page memo that forces a decision. Not a status update. Not a brief. Not a FYI. The reader walks away knowing exactly what they are being asked to approve, by when, and why.

Memo DNA — four non-negotiables

Every decision memo must pass all four. If the draft fails one, rewrite. Do not ship a memo that fails Memo DNA.

1. Brutal brevity — 1 page, ~400 words max. Every sentence earns its place or gets cut.
2. Storyline clarity (SCP) — Situation → Complication → Resolution flow. Reader never asks "so what?"
3. Decision-forcing — Last line is a yes/no ask with owner and date. Never "further analysis needed."
4. Evidence density — Every claim backed by a number, quote, or source. No adjectives doing load-bearing work.

Structure

Title (≤10 words)

Name the decision, not the topic.

• ✅ "Sunset legacy reporting engine by Q3"
• ❌ "Reporting strategy update"

Context (3–4 sentences)

State of the world before the ask. Facts only. Baseline numbers. No history-of-the-universe framing.

Complication (2–3 sentences)

What changed, or what's at risk if we don't decide now. Include the number that makes this urgent.

• ✅ "Usage down 15% QoQ; 3 enterprise deals ($1.2M) flagged the gap in Q1 QBRs."
• ❌ "Usage has been declining and customers are concerned."

Options (2–3 options, 1–2 lines each)

Mutually exclusive. Each option gets:

• Name
• One-line description
• The single most important trade-off (cost, time, or risk)

Do not sneak a recommendation in here.

Recommendation (1 short paragraph)

State the chosen option and why it wins on the decision criteria that matter most. Cite the evidence that tips the call.

Risks & Mitigations (≤3 bullets)

The top 3 things that could go wrong, each paired with a 1-line mitigation. Not a risk inventory — the three the reader would actually ask about.

The Ask (1 line)

A specific yes/no request with an owner and a date.

• ✅ "Approve sunset by EOD Friday; Sarah owns migration plan by 5/1."
• ❌ "Let's discuss next steps."

Process

1. Interview before drafting. Ask the user:

   • Who is the reader? (CEO, VP, peer)
   • What decision do they need to make?
   • What's the deadline?
   • What are the real 2–3 options, and which do you think wins?
   • What evidence do you have? (Numbers, quotes, benchmarks)

2. Draft in Memo DNA order. Title → Context → Complication → Options → Recommendation → Risks → Ask.

3. Run the four tests. For each section, confirm it passes Memo DNA. Flag any that fail.

4. Cut 30%. First drafts are always too long. Strip adjectives, hedging ("potentially," "may," "could possibly"), and throat-clearing.

5. Stress-test the ask. Can the reader answer yes or no from the memo alone? If not, sharpen.

Worked Example 1: Tooling Migration

Title Switch engineering + product from Jira to Linear by 5/30

Context ~60 engineers and PMs on Jira today. $48K/yr in licenses. 4 active projects, custom workflows, 6 years of history. Engineering NPS on tooling = 4/10 in the Q1 survey.

Complication Jira admin role has been open 4 months; no single owner maintaining workflows. Two teams (Growth, Platform) ran Linear pilots in Q1 — 30% faster issue creation, 50% less "which field is required" confusion. Renewal is due 5/30 and auto-renews at +12%.

Options

1. Stay on Jira — $54K next year, zero migration cost, continued tooling friction.
2. Migrate to Linear — $36K/yr, ~6 weeks of migration work, cleaner UX, loses some Jira-specific reports.
3. Run Linear + Jira in parallel for 6 months — hedged, doubled cost ($90K), splits team context.

Recommendation Migrate to Linear. Saves $18K/yr, ends the 4-month admin vacancy, and two pilot teams already validate the productivity win (60 people × 1 hr/wk saved ≈ $300K/yr loaded). The "lost reports" risk is low — exec dashboards already live in Looker, not Jira.

Risks & Mitigations

• 6 years of Jira history → export to a read-only archive; no lift-and-shift.
• Custom workflow loss → document the top 3 workflows, rebuild in Linear before cutover.
• Team resistance → give Growth + Platform leads ownership of internal comms.

The Ask Approve Linear migration by 5/30. Priya owns migration plan; Alex cancels Jira renewal.

Worked Example 2: Scope Cut

Title Cut AI-tagging from v2 launch — approve by EOD

Context v2 is committed for 5/15. Current scope: 8 features, ~1,800 engineer-hours estimated. Team capacity = 1,400 hours remaining.

Complication We're 400 hours over. AI-tagging alone = 350 hours and blocks 3 other teams' integrations if it slips.

Options

1. Ship all 8, slip 3 weeks — breaks GTM commits to 4 design partners.
2. Cut AI-tagging, ship 5/15 — scope fits, saves 350 hrs, feature defers 6 weeks.
3. Cut 2 smaller features, keep AI-tagging — fits scope but breaks onboarding funnel.

Recommendation Cut AI-tagging. Launch date > this feature. AI-tagging ranked #6 in customer survey (n=42). Cutting the 2 smaller features would break a conversion funnel we validated last quarter (+18% activation).

Risks & Mitigations

• GTM already promised AI-tagging → update positioning memo this week.
• Team morale dip → announce v2.1 date (7/1) alongside the cut.
• Competitor parity → no competitor ships it today; 6-week delay = low risk.

The Ask Approve cutting AI-tagging from v2 by EOD. Alex updates GTM narrative; Jordan re-plans v2.1.

Anti-patterns

• ❌ Bullet-point soup with no storyline
• ❌ "We should consider..." — decision-averse hedging
• ❌ Missing numbers — "significant impact," "major risk," "strong signal"
• ❌ Recommendation leaked into the Options section
• ❌ Ask that's just "discuss next steps"
• ❌ > 1 page — if you need more, split into memo + appendix

When to Use

• Leadership decision requests (buy/build, hire, cut, pivot)
• Roadmap calls (ship / slip / cut)
• Scope trade-offs (cut X to save Y)
• Strategic pivots
• Any moment a peer or exec needs a yes/no from you

When NOT to Use

• FYI updates → use a status note
• Brainstorms → use issue-tree-builder
• Broader strategic narratives → use scpr-framework
• Presentations → use storyline-builder
• Post-review quality check → pair with mckinsey-critic