Context Slice The Decision Matrix
A decision matrix (also called weighted scoring or Pugh matrix) compares options against criteria with explicit weights. It turns subjective "which feels better" into structured "which scores higher on what matters."
When to Use a Decision Matrix
Use when you have 2+ options and can articulate criteria for choosing between them. Best for decisions where multiple factors matter and you need to make tradeoffs explicit. Less useful when there's a single dominant criterion or when the decision is values-based rather than criteria-based.
Examples: Choosing between job offers, selecting a vendor, prioritizing features, picking a technology stack.
Building the Matrix
1. Define Options
List the alternatives being compared. Keep to 3-6 options—more becomes unwieldy. Each option should be a genuine contender.
2. Identify Criteria
What factors matter for this decision? Be specific. "Quality" is vague; "reliability over 3 years" is measurable. Aim for 4-8 criteria. Include both must-haves and nice-to-haves.
3. Weight Criteria
Not all criteria matter equally. Assign weights that sum to 100 (or use 1-10 scale). The weighting conversation often reveals more than the scoring—it forces prioritization.
4. Score Options
Rate each option against each criterion (typically 1-5 or 1-10). Score relative to the options being compared, not absolute perfection. A "5" means best among these options, not perfect.
5. Calculate Weighted Scores
Multiply each score by its weight. Sum for each option. Highest total wins—but examine the results critically.
Facilitation Tips
Start with criteria before options if possible. Defining what matters first prevents retrofitting criteria to justify a preferred option.
Challenge extreme scores. If an option scores 1 or 10 on a criterion, verify that's accurate. Extreme scores dominate results.
Watch for correlated criteria. "Price" and "Value for money" may double-count the same thing. Combine or separate clearly.
Trust the process, but not blindly. If the winner feels wrong, examine why. The matrix surfaces tradeoffs—it doesn't replace judgment.
Output Format
# Decision Matrix: [Decision]
## Decision
[Clear statement of what's being decided]
## Options
1. [Option A]
2. [Option B]
3. [Option C]
## Criteria and Weights
| Criterion | Weight | Description |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| [Criterion 1] | [X]% | [What this measures] |
| [Criterion 2] | [X]% | [What this measures] |
| [Criterion 3] | [X]% | [What this measures] |
| **Total** | **100%** | |
## Scoring Matrix
| Criterion (Weight) | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|--------------------|----------|----------|----------|
| [C1] ([X]%) | [score] | [score] | [score] |
| [C2] ([X]%) | [score] | [score] | [score] |
| [C3] ([X]%) | [score] | [score] | [score] |
| **Weighted Total** | **[total]** | **[total]** | **[total]** |
## Analysis
**Winner:** [Option] with [score]
**Key Tradeoffs:**
- [Option A] scores highest on [criteria] but lowest on [criteria]
- [Option B] is balanced but doesn't excel anywhere
- [Insight about what the scores reveal]
**Sensitivity Check:** If [criterion] weight changed significantly, [how would results change?]
## Recommendation
[Final recommendation with reasoning, acknowledging key tradeoffs]Scoring Scale
Use consistent scale across all criteria:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Best among options |
| 4 | Strong |
| 3 | Adequate |
| 2 | Weak |
| 1 | Worst among options |
Scores are relative to the options being compared, not absolute standards.