Presenting only the upside gives enough context to helps the team execute the plan.

Another aspect is management trying to hide the distasteful aspects of decision making (e.g. choosing an "inferior" technology because it requires the company to invest more in training its staff)

I wish this wasn't the case and I dream of being part of an org where upsides/downsides are always explicitly stated but I am yet to find one (outside of very small teams within larger orgs) where complex politics doesn't have an oversized influence on decision making.

For example - in one's personal life, one can choose to learn woodworking. We'll ignore the case for for the sake of brevity.

The case against is primarily made of opportunity cost, both of time and money. What could I have done with that time instead of woodworking? What could I have bought?

It's all about your own choice. You know a lot about these things, and you're able to use that information to approach the best course of action.

But if you're an employee of a company that sort of thing is either impossible due to a lack of information, or might just run counter to the company's aims.

You might say "instead of doing this 6 month software project, we should just fire the developers and take a punt on the S&P500 with the savings".

Or "we should focus on other project A". But "other project A" might mean that you end up on a shrinking team and eventually get fired, so you're not going to suggest that.

Or maybe there's some internal project you don't even know exists that could do with some more dev time and would be more profitable. You probably don't even know that exists, though.

If one were to use an approach like Six Thinking Hats, one could use a hat sequence such as 1.Blue -> 2.White -> 3.Green -> 4.Yellow -> 5.Black -> 6.Green -> 7.Red -> 8.Blue. Each colored hat represents a specific thinking mode. We assign a predetermined time for each stage and use the thinking mode exclusively related to the hat color.

1.Blue: Establish a focus (for eg: building an app that does X)

2.White: What information do we have (for eg: addressable market size, MVP scope, any research/data available on prospective customers etc.,)

3.Green: The creative details (for eg: We will do Y1, Y2, Y3, ...)

4.Yellow: List the benefits

5.Black: List the drawbacks, pitfalls, challenges, risks etc.,

6.Green: Address the drawbacks, pitfalls and challenges creatively and try to mitigate risks

7.Red: Get a gut check from the team if the proposed idea/solution is trending in the right direction

8.Blue: Setup a follow-up action plan (for eg: Next steps on xx/xx/xxxx, task owner ABC).

The article's main point on putting forward the case against is only the #5.Black hat thinking. We are all natural black hat thinkers. But that is just one of the modes and focusing on that alone doesn't lead to a robust solution.

More on Six Thinking Hats in this book here: https://www.amazon.com/Six-Thinking-Hats-Edward-Bono/dp/0316...

Arguing against certainly takes more work. Do you feel that, if someone did the arguing against, as suggested in the article and presented the steel man argument against a proposal, and then refuted the arguement against, that their work and effort would be dismissed? Or worse, might others might think less of the proposal?

My preliminary feelings are that it would still be appreciated and recognized, just not perhaps proportionally to the effort.