Weighted Decision Matrix Tool

Guide to the full use of the weighted decision matrix tool

The structification of the "assessment criteria x weight x scheme" is used to score the scores. Examples of default criteria: development costs (8), user experience (9), maintenance difficulties (6); Default scheme A/B. Standard weight input ranges by interface 1-10; Matrix cells for each Project-Standard key `${optionId}-${criteriaId}` Record 1-10 minutes. Total score = thallium (score x weight). The result area shows a list of winning options, scores and rankings. Data Keys decision-matrix-data Locally saves to support sharing of links, export results and emptying. Appropriate product programme/supplier/technical selection discussion, without replacing financial models and compliance evaluation.

Interfaces and Functions

• #decisionTitle: Decision title, input immediately saved.
• addCriteria/removeCriteria: maintain standard names and weights.
• addOption/removeOption: Maintenance of candidate options.
• renderMatrix: The header contains weights, the score input in the row, aggregates total points in real time and highlights higher points.
• calculateResults: Sorting output winners and rankings;shareMatrix/exportResult/clearAll Responsible for sharing and cleaning.

Recommended decision-making process

1. The decision title and non-compromising constraints (budget/compliance) are first written out, and the alternatives are directly excluded.
2. Sets 3-7 criteria with weights: more strategic standards have a strong weight.
3. Each programme is set independently under each standard 1-10, avoiding a first-hand total and then a different score.
4. Read the winner and make sensitivity: turn the key weight ±1 and see if the ranking is reversed.
5. Export or share the links to archive discussion conclusions before entering the implementation plan.

Border

• (a) The scores are subjective; Garbage in and out. The result is meaningless when the standard definition is not clear.
• (b) The complex containment planning, probability risk tree is not supported.
• Sharing links may contain titles and scores, and be sensitive.
• Clears local data for removeItem, export before operation.

FAQ

What do you mean, leave the score?

Unfilled 0 Participation (scores[key] || 0) , which is the lower total score.

Can weights exceed 10?

Interface number input press 1-10 design; Please express the relative importance in that context.

Different from random decision-making assistants?

Random assistants for low-risk ice break-ups; This page is used for the interpretable weighting.

Is it still there after the refreshing?

From decision-matrix-data or URL restore (in loadFromStorage/loadFromUrl The following is the list of participants:

Pair calibration technique.

Before the meeting, you can read "10 minutes, 1 size, 1 size" and write a definition of operation that can be attached to the title. Cost-type criteria suggest a uniform direction: if "higher" = better, the low cost should be given high marks or the standard should be renamed "cost control". The same message is not repeated (e.g. "price" is highly related to "total ownership cost"). The difference in the key criteria is seen in the total score, rather than adding a vague criterion hard-core.

Storage, sharing and export

Local Keys decision-matrix-data (a) Preservation of standards, programmes, scores and titles; URL sharing allows remote colleagues to open the same matrix. Export results are suitable for posting to the decision record (ADR). This is an unprecedented confirmation. The subject switch only affects the skin. In conjunction with the review tool: Recall the problems identified Queue matrix option → To be dismantled for implementation.

Anti-Model

The number of winners is determined and the points are returned; (a) Full weight 10 results in a disguised average; The standard is more than 10 without data support. This matrix is a framework for communication, with a red line of compliance to be rejected by one vote, rather than a weighted risk of "average drop".

How to use the matrix in the meeting

The projectile opens the matrix, freezing standards and weights before scoring them, avoiding the argument of changing weights. Each person may first score privately before refining or discussing the reduction of the number of points to one, reducing the number of anchoring bias. When the winner is created, write "Why is not second place" in a sentence, and enter a comment on the export result (which can be pasted to the document). If the data are insufficient, the matrix conclusions are marked as a "supposition to be validated" and the test or quotations need to be added, rather than being signed immediately.

Maintenance recommendations

The long-term decision-making can be accompanied by multiple links to contrast "the weight at the time" with "the weight at the time." Standard names are as stable as possible and allow for cross-project reuse templates. Confirmation of no unexplored conclusions of the discussion before deleting the programme. Without multiple real-time cursors, the remotes are dominated by one person who enters and is verbally agreed.