•analysis
The most common structure for any decision-making communication involves analysis.  The message might be written with a paragraph or report section covering each element.  It might be a presentation that provides a slide for each step.  A meeting or conversation could also follow the structure, which forms the basis of most managerial decision-making models.

Step One:  Define the question to be answered.
The "problem" to be solved should be described in terms of harms that are occuring or symptoms that there is a reason to do some analysis. For example, a fraternity might be concerned about recruitment, citing the "problem" that applications after the first mixer were down 47% from the year before.  The question to be analyzed, then, is whether problems with the mixer might be a cause of the downturn.  Common error: "jumping to a conclusion" and naming the assumed cause of the problem as the problem.  Example: "Our problem is really bad mixers."   Deciding whether or not that is true is the purpose of the analysis, not the first step.
Step Two: Select an analytical framework.
There are many ways to look at any problem, and analysis requires selecting and using one of those ways.  Every framework will define the component pieces of a topic, along with the standards that guarantee success.  For example, The Book of Parties might define a "good" party as having a "good" band, "good" beer, "good" decorations on the dance floor, and "good" food.”  When communicating your decision to others, it is important to explain why you think this is the best framework to choose (i.e. the author of The Book of Parties is an expert on fraternity parties rather than tea parties).  You will also need to specify clearly what the criteria are for each of the elements (i.e. how is "good" defined in each of these areas.)  Common error: vaguely defined criteria that simply restates the need for an element to be "good".  No analysis can be performed until it is possible to know what "counts" as good for each aspect of the subject being analyzed.  A benefits analyst could not evaluate the performance of a 401K investment, for example, without knowing what level of performance would be considered "good" with respect to employee investment needs.

Step Three: Evaluate the data
The heart of analysis is to systematically compare each element of the situation against the evaluative criteria established in the analytical framework or "decision model" that has been selected.  Many people refer to this as "running the numbers" as they compare each aspect of an equity, for example, against the list of criteria by which a portfolio analysis selects investments.  In this case, the fraternity council must evaluate each element of the party on the list, determining whether or not each element meets the stated criterion for "goodness."  Common error: comparing only one or two elements of the framework and ignoring others.  Complete analysis means that all listed criteria are evaluated. Sometimes one criterion will be more important that another, which should be explained, but nothing can be ignored without an explanation.

 Step Four: Come to a conclusion
–
Once each element has been compared, it will be possible to say which, if any, do not meet the criteria and are thus the bases for answering the original question.  Our fraternity council, for example, might be able to say that all criteria were met, except that the food did not meet the The Party Book's recommendation for "fresh, organic pizza at all college functions."  It thus concludes that "organic pizza is needed at the next function."  Common error: claiming a conclusion that cannot be supported by the analytical framework or the evaluation of available data.   In this case, for example, the fraternity council cannot conclude anything about whether the type of people invited to the party might have an impact on recruitment because the analytical framework selected did not consider that issue.

Step Five: Recommend action
•
Finally, it is possible to communicate a plan of action that is "supported" by analysis and thus an acceptable message in the business environment.  The recommendation will include all or part of the answer determined in the analysis, of course, and will also address any relevant implementation issues such as cost, ethical considerations, or the time required for success.  Common error: recommending a "pie in the sky" solution that is beyond the resources or contradictory to the norms of the organization without any plan to achieve such a goal.
•