The idea
Delaying a decision changes both what we know and what we can still do. Waiting is useful when the information we expect to gain justifies the costs and changes to our options.
Worked example · illustrative
Waiting for a friend to confirm a trip
Situation. You’re booking a weekend away with friends. It’s Monday, and one friend won’t know until Friday whether they can come. You could wait until then so you know how many beds you need.
The tempting conclusion. I’ll book on Friday, once everyone has confirmed.
What changes the view. Places are getting booked, and only a few have room for everyone. By Friday, you may know who’s coming but have fewer places to stay. If there are still plenty of suitable places, waiting might be fine. If the larger ones are nearly gone, those extra days could make the trip harder to arrange.
What this supports. If you’d struggle to find somewhere for the whole group later, booking now may make sense. A place you can cancel without a fee could give your friend time to answer, as long as the cancellation deadline is late enough. If there’s plenty of room elsewhere, you may be happy to wait. Knowing more on Friday helps only if you can still make a booking that works.
Useful when
Watch for
Time alone does not produce useful information. The two clocks are a metaphor, not directly comparable rates; ask whether the expected learning could change the decision and justify the cost of waiting.
Where this came from
Startups
Lineage
Builds on the discussion of optionality and reversibility in Kirk/Spock by examining how information and available options change while a decision is delayed.