I use logical razors in a corporate setting to break down the babble that tends to occur in discussions/meeting/sessions.
At some point, people start throwing out random ideas and they are given serious consideration in spite of the obvious dumb or stupid. You need tools to combat the human reaction to that all ideas should be considered.
These logical razors are widely used in philosophy. Don’t let that put you off since since any discussion in Enterprise IT is philosophical in nature. A complete lack of evidence or logic is common practice.
Occam’s Razor: When faced with competing hypotheses, select the one that makes the fewest assumptions and is thus most open to being tested. Do not multiply entities without necessity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The complex solution is the worst solution. An enterprise solution likely requires many products from multiple vendors with different technologies and requires a range of skills to deploy and operate. The solution that requires more money, more staff and more products is more likely to fail. In short, simpler is always better but you can sound fancy when you call it “Occams Razor”.
Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Dumb things happen because dumb is the most likely outcome, its very hard for smart things to happen. Big companies are inherently stupid and often hurt customers because of that stupid not because they hate you.
Hume’s razor: “If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just proportion to the effect.” In essence, the cause must be proportionate to the effect it produces.
When a vendor sales grunt exaggerates the impact of their product, they must be able to clearly explain the cause of this improvement or gain. If the cause is trivial or insubstantial then the impact must be insignificant. A so-called innovation that is 10% improved do not deliver a 200% enhancement to the customer.
Hitchens’ razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Most often used with vendors but increasingly with security professionals, there must be proof that your claims have substance. Without proof, I can dismiss your assertions completely.
Newton’s Razor: If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation then it is not worthy of debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Alder#Newton’s_flaming_laser_sword
Devops uses this philosophy heavily. Execute, test, fail, repeat. This is experimentation and observation used to progress projects in a rapid failure/long success loop.
I also find myself thinking about McNamara Fallacy because the current fashion of “metrics driven products” but its not a logic razor:
McNamara fallacy (quantitative fallacy) Making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
Use this as a cautionary message that sometimes your evidence can take you in the wrong direction. In simple terms, you might believe that increasing your server count from 100 to 200 would double the total compute power if you measure it by number of servers. If you measure by the number of CPU cycles and account for overall CPU performance except that you can only load 20 VMs per server because of failure domain size. In this case, 200 servers is likely to be better than 100 faster servers.
If you aren’t familiar with Razors in philosophy then this Wikipedia article might be useful- Razor (philosophy) – Wikipedia – (Retrieved 29 Apr, 2018)