The idea is that there is a point until which to gather information is necessary, valuable and responsible. Making the decision too early is as bad as making it too late.
70% is being suggested as a good percentage. If you feel you have that much information, make the decision, take the action.
This is the sweet spot, the point after which gathering more information is just masked procrastination. The extra 30% won't give you much more and is very expensive to get.
We’re terrified of the unknown, so we hunt for more data, hoping it will guarantee a perfect result. Spoiler alert: it never does.
We are not running for office so, in most cases, we can always pivot later, if we don't like the decision we made. Flip-flopping is mostly bad in politics.
Here is a crazy idea: What if we combine this with the Pareto Principle (the 80/20 rule)?
Let's call it the "20/70/70 Principle" : 20% of your actions, fueled by 70% of the information, will get you 70% of the results.
Please don't ask me to prove my math, it's just a hypothesis.
In some cases, 70% won't be enough. If you’re performing heart surgery, auditing a multi-million dollar compliance filing, or responding to emergencies, "70% of the information" is negligence, not agility. Accept that you need the full 100% of information, and pay the price in time and effort to get the results.
When the stakes are lower, like a marketing experiment, a product pivot, or a new workflow, moving on 70% saves you from the diminishing returns of the final 30%.
You get 70% of the results, and more importantly, you get the real-world feedback from those results, which is often more valuable than the theoretical data you would have spent months gathering.
The art is in knowing when you can afford to be fluid and when you absolutely must be thorough.
Next time you're stuck, ask yourself: Do I have enough to act? If yes, do I have the courage to embrace the unknown?