From 'Teaching the Right Answer First' to 'Designing Judgment Experiences': Systematizing 'Judgment Experience Design' to Cultivate Judgment Skills Within Work, Releasing Key 9 Pages and Offering Full 34-Page Document Free of Charge

Request Inc. (headquartered in Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo; CEO: Tomoyasu Kowari), which conducts research and educational development in 'Organizational Behavior Science®' based on data from 980 companies and 338,000 workers, has systematized a practical leadership model called 'Judgment Experience Design' (subtitle: Work-State-Adaptive Judgment Experience Design Model) to cultivate members' judgment skills within real work contexts.

This press release introduces the key 9 pages out of the full 34-page document and offers the complete material free of charge to interested recipients.

For those requesting the full 34-page 'Judgment Experience Design' document:

This release highlights the key 9 pages of the 34-page document. Those who wish to receive the full material can obtain the PDF free of charge.

Email: [email protected] Subject: Request for Judgment Experience Design Materials

Please include your name and company name in the email body. A representative will send the materials.

*Due to numerous illustrations and large file size, the full document is provided via email only.

'Judgment Experience Design' for leaders cultivating judgment skills: assess the current work state, design small and safe judgment experiences, and transform post-action feedback into the next judgment criteria.

Markets, customers, rules, and technologies are changing at an accelerating pace, increasing the number of jobs where past successful procedures no longer apply. At the same time, while AI accelerates the speed at which options and proposals are generated, the responsibility for deciding what to aim for, what to treat as fact, what to prioritize, and which move to make remains firmly with humans.

This model does not negate the importance of teaching procedures.

'Teach procedures concretely. Let individuals experience judgment within defined conditions.'

It proposes a shift from development methods that simply hand over correct answers and procedures, toward a model where individuals gain firsthand experience of a full cycle of judgment—'seeing → distinguishing → choosing → updating'—within their actual work, and transform those experiences into judgment criteria applicable to future work and organizational contexts.

Background: Even as AI increases options, the responsibility for judgment remains with people

Jobs that can be executed via procedures differ from those requiring judgment.

In routine tasks, if necessary information, processes, and completion criteria are clear, work can proceed with consistent quality by simply providing procedures.

However, in jobs where customer requirements, deadlines, quality standards, budgets, stakeholders, and priorities frequently change, procedures alone are insufficient. There are increasing situations where past successful procedures cannot be directly applied, or where multiple conditions must be compared and reevaluated.

AI can generate multiple proposals and options in a short time. However, as the number of options grows, the following judgments become increasingly critical on the ground:

What are we aiming for?

What should be confirmed as fact?

What should be treated as a problem?

What should be prioritized?

Under which conditions, and how far should we proceed?

How should changes observed after action inform the next judgment?

What is needed is not merely the ability to recall past correct answers.

It is the ability to confirm facts amid changing circumstances, break down problems into key issues, set priorities, choose the next actionable step safely, and update judgment criteria based on post-action feedback.

With shifting premises, outdated past solutions, and AI-generated abundance of options, the ability to 'see, distinguish, choose, and update' on the ground has become essential.

The model's definition of 'judgment'

Judgment is not merely the ability to choose one option at the end

Generally, the term 'judgment' is often understood as the ability to select the correct answer from multiple options.

However, this model does not limit judgment to the final selection alone.

In this model, judgment is defined as follows:

Judgment is the ability to grasp facts in light of goals and constraints, define problems from the gap between the current and desired states, break problems down into key issues, set priorities, select the next safe and testable action, and update judgment criteria based on post-action feedback.

Specifically, it consists of the following sequence of tasks:

1. Define the desired state

2. Confirm current facts

3. Define the gap from the desired state as a problem

4. Break down the problem into key issues

5. Determine priority issues

6. Choose the next action

7. Update judgment criteria based on post-action feedback

Judgment does not exist only at the final moment in meetings or on-site, when choosing between 'Option A or B'.

It involves defining what to aim for, confirming current facts, recognizing the gap as a problem, breaking it into issues, setting priorities, testing small actions, and learning the next judgment from the results.

Judgment is the ability to advance this entire sequence of work.

The core of 'Judgment Experience Design' is to design work so that individuals can experience this entire sequence within their actual jobs.

Judgment is not merely the ability to choose one option at the end. It is a sequence of work: setting a desired state, recognizing the gap from facts as a problem, breaking it into issues, choosing the next action, and updating judgment criteria from feedback.

What is 'Judgment Experience Design'?

Connecting leader's design, individual's judgment, and shared learning within one task

Judgment Experience Design is not about delegating entire tasks.

What leaders design is the point at which individuals exercise judgment.

First, leaders assess the current work state and agree with the individual on the judgment to be developed. Then, they adjust the task scope so the individual can observe facts and make judgments, defining the delegation scope, boundaries to uphold, consultation conditions, and what feedback to observe after action.

The entire model consists of five stages:

'Assess → Design → Try → Observe Reaction → Transform into Criteria'

First, assess the current work state using the following six conditions:

① Purpose and completion criteria

② Information and facts to observe

③ Standard procedures

④ Experience with exception judgments

⑤ Authority, time, and resources

⑥ Consultation partners and conditions

Based on this assessment, design the following elements:

Target task or situation

Desired state

Judgment to be developed

Delegation scope, authority, time, and resources

Boundaries to uphold, consultation, and interruption conditions

Support content and check-in points

Feedback to observe after action

Next situation for reapplication

Individuals, within the given conditions, observe facts, break down problems into issues, choose the next action, and act.

After action, they confirm changes in themselves, counterparts, workflow, outcomes, and risks. Then, they transform insights and causal hypotheses into provisional judgment criteria to test in the next task.

Connecting leader's design, individual's judgment, and shared learning within one task. Judgment is cultivated not by listening to explanations, but by making judgments within work and receiving feedback.

Three key features of this model

1. Do not evaluate people statically; assess the 'current work state'

This model avoids fixed evaluations such as 'this person can do it' or 'this person cannot'. Even the same person’s ability to judge and act changes depending on the type of work, stakeholders, conditions, and timing.

Someone who can independently manage standard tasks may still struggle with judgment when customer requirements, deadlines, budgets, or priorities change.

Therefore, development should not focus solely on the 'person', but on the intersection of 'person × work situation × timing'.

What matters is not the person’s overall capability.

Instead of asking 'can this person do it?', ask 'what conditions are in place, and what is missing, in this current work context?'

Development targets are not isolated individuals. Evaluate how many of the conditions necessary for the current task are present through the lens of 'person × work situation × timing'.

2. Not workload, but 'judgment