01
Start by checking whether the proposals solve the same problem.
“Should we replace the equipment?” already contains a possible solution. The alternatives will differ depending on whether the underlying issue is downtime, inconsistent quality, or maintenance effort. Before selecting a method, describe the situation to improve and the scope of the decision.
Problem framing in RAIFFA identifies what needs to be decided, who is responsible for the choice, and which outcome the comparison should address. This makes it possible to examine proposals from different teams against the same objective. A clearer question may also reveal alternatives that the original proposal left out.
02
Separate the desired outcome from the conditions that must hold.
A desired improvement and a firm constraint play different roles. Reducing work time may be an objective; completing the work inside an available window or with an assigned team may be a constraint. Combining them can hide why an attractive proposal does not fit the actual task.
Keep established facts separate from assumptions that still need checking. An assumption that a part will be available is not a record that the part has been obtained. The problem definition should expose which missing information matters before the alternatives can be compared.
03
Create common questions that make the choice explainable.
Once the problem is clear, define questions for every alternative: the expected result, required people and time, possible failure conditions, and further investigation. This avoids describing one proposal only by cost and another only by speed.
RAIFFA structures the question and its conditions without preselecting the answer. The person responsible for the final choice can use that basis to examine the reasons for each approach. Work can begin with evidence the organization already has; prior use of HARBINGER is not required.