This book is primarily aimed at people occupying the rank of policy maker, policy advisor or decision maker: those in charge of an institution such as a bank, a shop, a company, a university, a government, members of a decision committee or an international organisation. It is not meant to serve as a course textbook. Rather, it is meant as a handbook, used by anyone who finds making decisions difficult. Since the readership is diverse in background and expertise the reader should read chapters and parts selectively, as and when questions or concerns surface. More guidance about the parts of the book is found in this chapter. The crux of the book is the method outlined in Chap. 5.

The reason for making the effort to understand how to construct an institutional compass is that politicians and other decision makers increasingly find themselves in complex situations where there are many incomparable tensions – between promoting jobs in a region versus preserving an ecological zone in its greater integrity versus encouraging investment versus maintaining infrastructure versus deciding on repressive measures on one part of the population to ensure protection of another part versus ensuring power or long-term peace. It is too easy to be caught in the moment, to react to the latest information to which we have been exposed. A good decision maker corrects for his, or her, spontaneity and emotion, has a clear view of the issues at play and makes a judicious and balanced decision. An indication of a good decision is its long-term effects. Another is in the confidence inspired in others by the decision maker. A third is in the resulting health of the economy, society or ecology of a region. In an effort to ensure good decisions in large organisations, we institute decision making processes that take time. The time and cumbersome quality of some of these decision-making institutions is a safeguard against poor spontaneous and emotional decisions. But for all that, it is not always the best decisions that are made, even given the information available. This is because even with the most sophisticated decision aides to date, important information is missing or is not weighted appropriately.

By using an institutional compass to make or modify policy decisions, policy makers are equipped with a comprehensive and balanced picture of their institution and its context. They have a sense of the direction in which their institution is heading and whether this is the right direction. They have a means of communicating decisions intuitively, explaining them at length and justifying them in depth, and modifying them in the light of new evidence or changes in the environment without losing track of the final aim. Decision makers can watch over time the steadiness of the direction of their institution, or watch it change as a result of policy, and so they can adjust policy quickly to regain the desired direction.

For an institutional compass, the direction is qualitative and quantitative. The quality is associated with an adjective, the quantity is the intensity with which the institution is heading in that qualitative direction. Instead of the qualities: “good, bad”, “good, neutral, bad” or “like, dislike”, which we might call “scalar” or “ranking” qualities, we use others that are each good in the right place and in the right proportion. They are not scalar, but descriptive in a broader sense. Considering decisions in terms of general, non-ranking, qualities, gives us a sense of rational remove because it is not the way in which we usually think, or are too often conditioned to think. The qualities are not in themselves ranked, but we can, of course, have a preference for one over another. This will depend in part on our own psychology and, more broadly, on our culture. See Fig. 10.1. It is important to notice this. The ranking of a quality is not internal to the quality. It is a separate (meta-) step to decide to rank them or to prefer one to another. The thinking in terms of in-and-of-themselves neutral qualities, and a separate (optional) raking of the qualities affords rational remove, because it distances us from our gut reactions. Rational remove increases objectivity. It makes for clear justifications for policy decisions.

The advantage for policy makers of having a deep and strong justification for their policy decisions is that it reduces risk. Better, they will be equipped with a tool of communication that supports the justification and can be used for mediation between opposing factions. The latter, ensure the longevity of policy direction.

When we have to make decisions in a complex situation, when there are tensions, and uncertainties, we cannot rely on tools that are too simplistic or reductionist. We cannot afford to ignore information that is important to people affected by our decisions. This is why we need a comprehensive tool of analysis and evaluation, adapted to the particularities of the situation: the culture, the history of the region, the infrastructure and the geography. There is an increasing recognition that reductionist monetary evaluations alone are not enough for many decisions. Money-only based evaluations miss the qualitative element, and more importantly, they miss the plurality of values that accompany decisions. Even our personal decisions such as whether or not to accept a job, whether to move to a different geographical region, whether to conform or act against a political system are not made on the basis on money alone, but depend on other values such as political, moral, cultural or more personal values. They are informed by our sense of identity and our place in society. Such decisions are made on the basis of thinking in terms of the quality of life, maybe in the long term, for future generations. It is this element of quality and pluralism in values that is incorporated into an institutional compass.

1 Parts and Chapters of the Book

In Part I, I give some of the general ideas behind the compass. I discuss the three compass points – the three general qualities, where they come from and what they mean. I introduce a number of important ideas that contribute to the compass and its uses. I compare the compass to alternative decision aides. Each has its place, and each has been inspirational for the compass. The place of the institutional compass is when we are faced with complex decisions where there are many considerations that are not easy to compare to each other, that we dare not weigh using one measure for fear of making too poor a decision. There is a place in the construction of the compass to make the decisions inclusively, and to air differences in worldview and philosophy. The places for inclusion and philosophical question are the right places in the decision-making process, and are measured against the stark reality of facts.

In Part II, I present the methodology for constructing an institutional compass. This is the heart of the book. The method is original and novel, and therefore, each step is scrutinised and justified. The introduction, Part II and the conclusion are conceptual. Part III deepens the conceptions.

In Part III, I show some extensions and adaptations of the compass. I consider one particular extension in some detail: how to construct an ecological economics institutional compass. This extends the method for constructing an institutional compass by combining three compasses, or equivalently, by normalising the data using a normative normalisation technique. That is, a technique for aligning data to a norm or world view. In the case of ecological economics, the norm is to weight ecological data more strongly than social data, and the latter more strongly than economic data. We can reverse the preferences to align with other norms.

The full scope of the compass is not yet known. Working with it becomes a way of seeing.

In Part IV we look at case studies. These are actual compasses that have been constructed and used for various purposes. At the end we draw some philosophical conclusions for the entire book.

The book is written to be tolerant of a selective reader. That is, since the readership has a wide range of experience, concerns, education and norms; sections of the book are not appropriate for some readers but are for others. Unfortunately, such tolerance comes at a price – there is some repetition. The reader is invited to discover the compass for himself or herself. The index and chapter headings will help with navigation.