options-comparator

What this skill does

# Options Comparator

Structured frameworks for systematically comparing alternatives, scoring options, and producing defensible recommendations.

## Weighted Scoring Matrix

### Standard Weighted Matrix Template

```
WEIGHTED SCORING MATRIX:

STEP 1: Define criteria and weights (must sum to 100%)

| Criterion       | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-----------------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| [Criterion 1]   |   25%  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |
| [Criterion 2]   |   20%  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |
| [Criterion 3]   |   20%  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |
| [Criterion 4]   |   15%  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |
| [Criterion 5]   |   10%  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |
| [Criterion 6]   |   10%  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |   [1-5]  |
|-----------------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| WEIGHTED TOTAL  |  100%  |  [sum]   |  [sum]   |  [sum]   |

STEP 2: Calculate weighted scores
  Weighted score = Raw score x Weight
  Total = Sum of all weighted scores

STEP 3: Interpret results
  4.5-5.0: Excellent fit
  3.5-4.4: Good fit
  2.5-3.4: Acceptable with trade-offs
  1.5-2.4: Poor fit — significant concerns
  1.0-1.4: Disqualified

SCORING RUBRIC:
  5 = Exceeds requirements / best in class
  4 = Fully meets requirements
  3 = Partially meets requirements
  2 = Significant gaps
  1 = Does not meet requirements / disqualifying
```

### Weight Assignment Methods

| Method | How It Works | Best For |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Direct assignment** | Stakeholders allocate 100 points across criteria | Small groups, quick decisions |
| **Pairwise comparison** | Compare criteria two at a time, derive weights | Rigorous prioritization |
| **MoSCoW ranking** | Must/Should/Could/Won't, then assign within tiers | Requirements-driven decisions |
| **Swing weighting** | Rate criteria by how much best-to-worst matters | Complex multi-attribute decisions |
| **Stakeholder voting** | Each stakeholder distributes 10 votes | Democratic team decisions |

### Weight Validation Checklist

```
BEFORE FINALIZING WEIGHTS:

- [ ] Weights sum to exactly 100%
- [ ] No single criterion exceeds 40% (unless justified)
- [ ] No criterion is below 5% (drop it if irrelevant)
- [ ] Weights reflect stated priorities (not just habit)
- [ ] Stakeholders reviewed and approved weights
- [ ] Weights were set BEFORE scoring options
      (prevents reverse-engineering to a preferred choice)
```

## Pairwise Comparison

### Pairwise Comparison Matrix

```
PAIRWISE COMPARISON TEMPLATE:

Compare criteria A through E. For each pair, indicate
which is more important (mark the winner):

         A      B      C      D      E    WINS  WEIGHT
A  [--]   [ ]    [A]    [ ]    [A]     2     25%
B  [B]    [--]   [B]    [B]    [B]     4     40%
C  [ ]    [ ]    [--]   [ ]    [C]     1     10%
D  [D]    [ ]    [D]    [--]   [D]     3     25%
E  [ ]    [ ]    [ ]    [ ]    [--]    0      0%

Weight = Wins / Total comparisons x 100
Total comparisons = n(n-1)/2 = 5(4)/2 = 10

INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Compare each pair: "Is criterion X more important than Y?"
2. Mark the winner in the matrix
3. Count wins for each criterion
4. Calculate weights from win percentages
5. Adjust if any criterion has 0% but should remain
```

### Forced Ranking

```
FORCED RANKING METHOD:

List all options and rank from best to worst on each criterion.
No ties allowed (forces differentiation).

| Criterion     | Rank 1 (Best) | Rank 2 | Rank 3 | Rank 4 (Worst) |
|---------------|---------------|--------|--------|-----------------|
| Price         | Option C      | Option A| Option D| Option B       |
| Quality       | Option B      | Option D| Option A| Option C       |
| Speed         | Option A      | Option B| Option C| Option D       |
| Support       | Option D      | Option C| Option B| Option A       |

SCORING:
  Rank 1 = 4 points, Rank 2 = 3, Rank 3 = 2, Rank 4 = 1
  (Or weight the ranking scores by criterion importance)
```

## Pros/Cons with Weights

### Structured Pros/Cons Template

```
WEIGHTED PROS/CONS ANALYSIS:

OPTION: [Name]

PROS:
| # | Advantage                    | Impact | Certainty | Score |
|---|------------------------------|--------|-----------|-------|
| 1 | [Pro description]            | H/M/L  | H/M/L    | [1-9] |
| 2 | [Pro description]            | H/M/L  | H/M/L    | [1-9] |
| 3 | [Pro description]            | H/M/L  | H/M/L    | [1-9] |

CONS:
| # | Disadvantage                 | Impact | Certainty | Score |
|---|------------------------------|--------|-----------|-------|
| 1 | [Con description]            | H/M/L  | H/M/L    | [1-9] |
| 2 | [Con description]            | H/M/L  | H/M/L    | [1-9] |
| 3 | [Con description]            | H/M/L  | H/M/L    | [1-9] |

SCORING GUIDE:
  Impact:    High=3, Medium=2, Low=1
  Certainty: High=3, Medium=2, Low=1
  Score = Impact x Certainty (range: 1-9)

NET SCORE = Sum of Pro scores - Sum of Con scores
  Positive: Pros outweigh cons
  Negative: Cons outweigh pros
  Near zero: Trade-off decision (needs judgment)
```

### Comparative Pros/Cons

| Factor | Option A | Option B | Option C |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Best for** | [ideal use case] | [ideal use case] | [ideal use case] |
| **Worst for** | [poor fit scenario] | [poor fit scenario] | [poor fit scenario] |
| **Top Pro** | [strongest advantage] | [strongest advantage] | [strongest advantage] |
| **Top Con** | [biggest drawback] | [biggest drawback] | [biggest drawback] |
| **Risk level** | Low / Medium / High | Low / Medium / High | Low / Medium / High |
| **Reversibility** | Easy / Hard / Impossible | Easy / Hard / Impossible | Easy / Hard / Impossible |

## Decision Matrix Template

### Comprehensive Decision Matrix

```
DECISION MATRIX:

DECISION: [Clear statement of what you are deciding]
DATE:     [Date of analysis]
OWNER:    [Decision maker(s)]
DEADLINE: [When decision must be made]

OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
  A. [Option name and brief description]
  B. [Option name and brief description]
  C. [Option name and brief description]
  D. [Status quo / do nothing]

MUST-HAVE CRITERIA (pass/fail — eliminates options):
| Requirement          | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D |
|----------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| [Hard requirement 1] | Pass/Fail| Pass/Fail| Pass/Fail| Pass/Fail|
| [Hard requirement 2] | Pass/Fail| Pass/Fail| Pass/Fail| Pass/Fail|
| [Hard requirement 3] | Pass/Fail| Pass/Fail| Pass/Fail| Pass/Fail|

NICE-TO-HAVE CRITERIA (scored and weighted):
| Criterion    | Weight | Opt A | Opt B | Opt C | Opt D |
|-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| [Criterion] |   X%   | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| [Criterion] |   X%   | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| [Criterion] |   X%   | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
|-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| TOTAL       |  100%  | [sum] | [sum] | [sum] | [sum] |

RECOMMENDATION: [Option letter] because [1-2 sentence rationale]

RISKS OF CHOSEN OPTION:
1. [Risk and mitigation plan]
2. [Risk and mitigation plan]

NEXT STEPS:
1. [Action item, owner, deadline]
2. [Action item, owner, deadline]
```

## Trade-Off Analysis Framework

### Trade-Off Mapping

```
TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS:

STEP 1: Identify the key trade-off dimensions
  Common trade-offs:
  - Cost vs Quality
  - Speed vs Thoroughness
  - Flexibility vs Standardization
  - Control vs Convenience
  - Short-term vs Long-term
  - Risk vs Reward
  - Simplicity vs Capability

STEP 2: Map options on trade-off axes

              HIGH QUALITY
                  |
                  |    Option B
                  |       *
                  |
  LOW COST -------+--------- HIGH COST
                  |
          Option A|
              *   |
                  |    Option C
                  |       *
              LOW QUALITY

STEP 3: Identify the efficient frontier
  Options on the frontier are rationally competitive.
  Options below the frontier are dominated
  (another opt