Compare options and record a decision
Set hard limits, weigh your criteria, and see whether a different set of weights changes the ranking.
Use this when you have options to compare. Scores organize your judgment; they do not prove which option is best.
Choosing a supplier within a CNY 20,000 budget
An original fictional teaching case. A costs CNY 12,000, B costs CNY 18,000, and C costs CNY 26,000. The budget is a hard limit: C is excluded before scores are compared.
| Option | Price CNY | Quality | Speed | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 12,000 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| B | 18,000 | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| C | 26,000 | 5 | 5 | 1 |
First: what should happen to C?
Try changing the quality weight
Speed and cost share the remaining weight equally. The scores for A and B stay the same.
Speed and cost each receive 30%. Total weight remains 100%.
At 40%, A leads 4.2 to 3.8. At 60%, B leads 4.2 to 3.8. The reversal shows a tradeoff to discuss; it does not select a provider. These fictional scores and the equal speed/cost split determine this example's 50% tipping point.
At 40% quality weight, A leads 4.2 to 3.8. At 60%, B leads 4.2 to 3.8. At 50%, they tie. This depends on these scores and the other two criteria having equal weights.
What do the scores mean?
Quality: 3: mandatory criteria passed, revisions needed. 5: mandatory and predeclared extension criteria passed.
Speed: 5: desired delivery window met. 3: final deadline met, desired window missed.
Cost: 5: price at most CNY 12,000. 3: above CNY 12,000 and at most CNY 20,000. Price above the budget fails the separate hard limit.
A high weighted score cannot compensate for a failed hard limit. A missing score is unknown, not zero.