Why Deal Assessment Needs to Precede Commitment, According to Nick Curum

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum discusses a fundamental flaw in the typical deal-making process: the tendency to commit before thoroughly assessing. Curum argues that by the time objective analysis tools like spreadsheets are employed, the decision to pursue a deal has often already been made, turning the numbers from a test into a defense of a pre-determined conclusion.

The Problem: Assessment After Commitment

Nick Curum highlights a common pitfall where the process of evaluating a potential deal occurs only after the initial commitment has been made. This sequence, according to Curum, renders the assessment phase ineffective because its purpose shifts from objective testing to reinforcing a chosen path.

“By the time the spreadsheet opens, you’ve pictured yourself owning it.”

As Curum points out, this psychological bias means that the subsequent analysis is not truly about determining the deal’s viability but rather about justifying the already formed intention. “The numbers stop being a test. They become a defence,” he writes, emphasizing how the analytical tools are co-opted to support a prior decision.

The Solution: Shifting Analysis to the Forefront

To counteract this inherent bias, Nick Curum proposes a structural change to the decision-making process. He asserts that the fix is not simply more analysis, but rather a reordering of the steps involved. The key, according to Curum, is to move the assessment phase to *before* the commitment is made.

Establishing Pre-Decision Criteria

Curum advocates for setting clear criteria and thresholds prior to any specific deal being evaluated. This involves defining what constitutes an acceptable opportunity while the decision-maker is in a neutral state, free from the emotional attachment that can arise during the evaluation of a specific prospect.

“Criteria set before you see a single property. Thresholds written down while you’re still calm. A rejection rule you agreed with yourself before an agent had your number.”

By establishing these parameters beforehand, Curum suggests, the evaluation process becomes a straightforward check against pre-defined standards. “Do that and the deal either clears the bar or it doesn’t,” he explains. This approach aims to eliminate the subjective “arguing with yourself” that often plagues the later stages of deal evaluation.

Portfolio OS: Enabling Front-Loaded Assessment

Nick Curum positions his platform, Portfolio OS, as a tool designed to enforce this critical reordering of the deal-making process. According to Curum, the system is built to ensure that assessment consistently comes first, followed by commitment.

“Same work. Different order. Different result.”

This structured approach, Curum argues, is essential for making sounder decisions. He draws a parallel to business case development, noting that anyone who has ever started writing a business case with the conclusion already in mind understands the importance of this principle.

The core message from Nick Curum’s LinkedIn post is that a disciplined, front-loaded assessment process is crucial for effective decision-making in deal-making and business. By establishing objective criteria before evaluating specific opportunities, individuals and organizations can avoid the trap of confirmation bias and make more rational, defensible choices.