At its core, CBA emphasizes:

• Basing decisions on advantages, the measurable differences between the attributes of alternatives
• Anchoring decisions to facts, not assumptions or biases
• Using the right method for the right type of decision
• Creating a shared language so teams stay aligned

When teams apply these principles, they produce decisions that are rational, collaborative, transparent, and easy to revisit if conditions change.

A defining feature of CBA is its standardized terminology. While the words below may sound familiar, CBA uses them with intentional precision to eliminate ambiguity and ensure everyone evaluates options in the same manner:

• Alternative: The people, things, or plans being considered (often called options, but never “choices”).
• Attribute: A characteristic or quality of one alternative.
• Factor: The elements of the decision; the specific data needed to make comparisons.
• Criterion: The standard or rule that guides the decision; criteria clarify what matters most to customers and stakeholders.
• Advantage: A benefit or improvement that represents the difference between the attributes of two alternatives.

These definitions create consistency, improve communication, and support the disciplined decision-making process that defines CBA.

In many organizations, decisions are still made through habit, hierarchy, or intuition instead of a clear, consistent method. Teams often default to what worked at a previous time, follow the most forceful voice in the room, or rely on unsound tools like pros-and-cons lists or weighting-and-rating systems. While these shortcuts may feel efficient, they frequently include bias and lead to misalignment, and decisions that must be revisited later.

CBA provides a more disciplined alternative, a system built on four cornerstone principles that define what sound decisionmaking truly requires:

Decision-makers must learn and skillfully use sound methods.

Decisions must be based on the importance of advantages.

Decisions must be anchored to relevant facts.

Different types of decisions call for different sound methods of decision-making.

Choosing by Advantages breaks moderately complex decisions into five intentional phases:

Sound decisions begin with clarity. In this phase, the team defines the purpose of the decision, the circumstances surrounding it, and if relevant, the root cause of the problem the decision is meant to address. This upfront work ensures the decision being made actually fits the situation.

Next, identify who should participate. This means mapping out all customers and stakeholders and ensuring every voice is represented, even if not every person is in the room. Once participants are selected, a shared foundation is created by reviewing key CBA terms (Alternative, Attribute, Advantage, Criterion, and Factor) to ensure everyone is speaking the same language.

Finally, establish the decision criteria. This includes understanding any laws, policies, or constraints that apply, as well as the needs and preferences of the people affected. Aligning the group on this background prevents confusion, reduces rework, and keeps the decision-making process grounded and efficient.

In this phase, the goal is to surface every viable option. Begin by assembling a broad list of potential alternatives, then push beyond the obvious. Innovative choices often emerge when teams intentionally stretch their thinking.

Once the alternatives are defined, describe the attributes of each one. These attributes should highlight the meaningful differences between options, especially those that connect back to the decision criteria. For decisions with greater complexity, creating a structured comparison or visual display can help the team clearly see how each alternative measures up.

This is the stage most people think of when they hear the term “CBA,” even though it’s only one of the five phases. At this point in the process, the team works through a structured sequence to determine which alternative stands out, including:

1. Reviewing and summarizing the attributes of every alternative
2. Identifying the advantages each option offers
3. Evaluating how important those advantages are
4. Selecting the alternative with the highest total importance of advantages

While the process appears straightforward, this group decision-making process is far more nuanced. CBA blends objective data with subjective judgment, and it requires strong skills in listening, facilitation, and negotiation. It’s not an automated formula; it’s a disciplined, collaborative method for arriving at a sound decision.

Once a decision has been selected, this phase creates intentional space to confirm that the decision not only makes sense logically, but also feels right to all involved.

The group pauses to reflect:

• Does the selected alternative truly align with our collective understanding?
• Are there lingering concerns that weren’t voiced earlier?
• Is anything missing that could change the decision?

If the team identifies issues, they return to the earlier analysis, clarify what needs adjustment, and refine the decision accordingly. Part of this phase also involves reinforcing the benefits of the chosen alternative, forming a clear picture of why it’s the best choice.

Finally, participants commit to supporting the decision and identify any obstacles that could hinder implementation. For larger or more sensitive decisions, it can be helpful to give the team a day or two between Phases 3 and 4 to allow everyone time to process before reconvening.

With the decision finalized, the focus shifts to putting it into action. During this phase, the team aligns on the intended outcomes to ensure everyone understands what success should look like. This clarity makes it easier to spot issues early and adjust the plan as needed. Once the decision has been carried out, the group reviews both the process and the results. This final step is an opportunity to capture lessons learned and refine how future decisions are made.

When the full CBA system is applied, teams experience clearer communication, stronger alignment, and more predictable results. These five phases support decisions that are sound, transparent, and easier to implement successfully.