BizThinkFrame
← Back to frameworks
Compare weighted options

Decision matrix

Compare eligible options against shared criteria and make the effects of your weights and ratings visible.

When to use it

This template uses weights totaling 100% and ratings from 1 to 5. A higher rating must always mean a better outcome, including for cost criteria.

What to bring

Hard constraints, at least two eligible options, weighted criteria, complete ratings, and the evidence behind them.

What you will have

Calculated weighted scores alongside the original inputs, assumptions, and trade-offs.

How to use it

  1. Define hard constraints and keep only eligible options.
  2. Agree on criteria, weights, and a consistent rating scale.
  3. Enter evidence-based ratings in the same criterion order.
  4. Compare the calculated scores and test close results with plausible input changes.

Keep its limits in mind

Scores reflect the inputs; they do not prove an option is best. Screen out options that fail hard constraints and test whether small input changes alter close results.

Fictional teaching example

Comparing three service trial options

These fictional options and ratings are teaching data. They illustrate a close comparison, not a verified recommendation.

OptionCustomer fit40%Affordability35%Ease ofdelivery25%WeightedscoreOption A4534.10Option B5344.05Option C3453.85Highest score with these inputs: Option A. Weighted score = sum of eachweight × rating, divided by 100. Compare the evidence and testsensitivity before choosing.Constraints and rating scaleAll three options pass the trial capacity check. Ratings: 1 =least favorable, 5 = most favorable. Cost is rated byaffordability.OptionsOption AOption BOption CCriteria and weightsCustomer fit | 40Affordability | 35Ease of delivery | 25RatingsOption A | 4 | 5 | 3Option B | 5 | 3 | 4Option C | 3 | 4 | 5Evidence and trade-offsPractice ratings only. Option A scores 4.10 and Option Bscores 4.05; check the basis and sensitivity before choosing.

On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.

Close result: The 0.05 gap between A and B is small. Different supported ratings or priorities may reverse their order.

Calculation: Each score is the sum of rating multiplied by weight, divided by 100. The application recalculates it when inputs change.

Next step: Check rating evidence and compare plausible weight changes before committing.

Check your work

  • Options meet the hard constraints.
  • Weights total 100%.
  • Every option has a rating for each criterion.
  • Higher ratings consistently mean better outcomes.
  • Evidence and sensitivity are reviewed before a decision.

Method references

Put the method to work

Use this framework in the English Workspace with early access. Local generation copies clearly labeled fields; you can edit the diagram afterwards.

Open in Workspace

Practice with an example

Check hard limits, scoring evidence, and changing weights in a worked decision matrix. Try the interactive sensitivity exercise.

When a weighted decision matrix changes its winner →