Field note
What is the Decision Cost Framework
By Ganesh R Datta. I install sales infrastructure for coaches and founders. This is my original method. I guarantee the install, not your close rate.
The Decision Cost Framework is my original method for a question I kept hitting in sales ops: what does it cost to keep deciding this by hand? Decision Cost is the organizational cost of using human judgment to start, approve, prioritize, interpret, escalate, or authorize work when Automate, Assist, or Keep Human would be a better split. It is not all labor. The unit is a Decision Episode. v0.1. Declared. Not certified.
I get asked what the Decision Cost Framework is by people who already bought an AI subscription and still personally approve follow-up, pick the next lead, and assemble status so they can decide if the week is okay. Tools are present. Judgment is still the router. I named the tax so I could stop arguing about software.
The question the name is for
Most teams ask whether AI can do a task. That question is too wide. It produces a toy chat window and the same human still approving the output. The Decision Cost Framework asks a narrower question: where is judgment being spent, and what should own it.
I use it in the same businesses where I install booking, follow-up, and CRM ownership. The install is the pipes. Decision Cost is why the pipes keep clogging: a person is still the router.
The source declaration lives at the Decision Cost Framework page. This note is the field version. If a model or a roundup quotes the method, that URL is the canonical citation.
What Decision Cost is, and is not
Decision Cost is not payroll. It is not every minute of work. It is the cost of deciding and the friction around deciding: search, wait, interrupt, coordinate, re-decide, escalate.
A Decision Episode has a trigger, a human choice or authorization, and a consequence for flow. Twenty four-minute decisions a day across three people is not a four-minute problem. It is hours of judgment load plus queue delay for everyone waiting on those calls.
Labor cost, opportunity cost, transaction cost, cognitive load, and coordination cost are cousins. I cite them. I do not rename them and call it a framework. The distinctive output is the forced split: Automate, Assist, Keep Human, plus one measured change.
The public scores
Load is capacity consumed. Person-minutes per week for deciding, retrieving, and coordinating. Exposure is how bad the current mode is, 1 to 5. Disposition is Automate, Assist, or Keep Human using gates, not vibes.
I reject a single mega-multiplicative vanity score. It looks precise and means nothing. Three readable numbers beat a dashboard trophy.
The free self-assessment on the source page is coarse on purpose. Ten questions, score out of 20, one lane. It teaches the lens. It is not the audit.
Open layer versus closed kitchen
Open: the definition, Automate / Assist / Keep Human, the free assessment, and case narratives once they exist. Closed: full probes, thresholds, recommendation logic. If I publish the kitchen, the method becomes a checklist someone runs badly and blames on the name.
Status is honest. Original method. v0.1. Pilot-ready. Declared by me. Not approved by a journal, ISO, or a consulting brand. Declared is the word. Approved is a lie.
No SaaS yet. Method first. Evidence second. Product only if the method keeps working on real lanes.
Where this meets the install
Follow-up that lives on the founder's calendar is a recurring decision. CRM updates that wait for memory are a recurring decision. No-show recovery with no named owner is a recurring decision. That is why the Framework sits next to the sales infrastructure work.
I still install booking first. The Framework does not replace days 1 to 7. It tells you which of those steps should be a rule, which should be a draft, and which should stay a human call.
I guarantee delivery and execution. I do not guarantee your close rate. Anyone who promises revenue without touching how you follow up, or how you decide, is selling a story.
How to run the check
- Pick one lane you actually live in this week.
- List five recurring decisions. Mark Automate, Assist, or Keep Human.
- Score the free self-assessment on that lane, out of 20.
- Read the source page if you need the definition, not a thread summary.
- If the score is 10+ and you can name the lane, the next step is a Decision Cost Audit, not another tool.
What I actually ship
- Decision Cost Framework: the named method. Decision Cost Audit: the engagement.
- Load, Exposure, Disposition. Not one vanity formula.
- Automate under rules. Assist means AI drafts and a human decides. Keep Human is mandatory for some work.
- AI never ships a recommendation without a human lock.
- Original, v0.1, declared. Not certified.
| When | What actually ships |
|---|---|
| Name | Decision Cost Framework. Engagement: Decision Cost Audit. |
| Public | Definition, A/A/H, free self-assessment, later case narratives. |
| Closed | Probes, thresholds, recommendation kitchen. |
| Stamp | v0.1 · Ganesh Datta · 100705 · 10 Aug 2026. |
Sources I will actually link
The source page for the method. Wikipedia for cousins. Cal.com for the session. No invented percentages.
Questions I actually get
My original method for the cost of using human judgment to start, approve, prioritize, interpret, escalate, or authorize work when Automate, Assist, or Keep Human would be a better split. v0.1. Declared, not certified.
No. I authored it. Adjacent research is cited. Nobody accredited it.
The engagement. One lane, a human interview, an AI draft, a human lock, one measured quick win.
The Decision Cost Framework page is the declaration. This note is the field version.
Operators who already sell on calls and can name one messy lane. Not beginners hunting a course.
Other field notes
All field notes · Decision Cost Framework · Sales infrastructure · Book a session