Evaluate and rank competing alternatives by scoring them against weighted criteria to make transparent decisions.
Use a Decision Matrix to objectively compare options against weighted criteria, reducing bias and surfacing the strongest choice for your team.
A Decision Matrix is a structured evaluation tool that helps teams compare multiple options against a defined set of weighted criteria. Product managers, UX designers, and cross-functional teams use it to bring objectivity to choices that might otherwise be driven by personal preference or organizational politics. The method works by listing alternatives as rows and criteria as columns, assigning importance weights to each criterion, and then scoring every option against each factor. The weighted scores are totaled to reveal which alternative best satisfies the collective priorities. Decision Matrices are particularly valuable when teams face several viable options and need a transparent, repeatable process for choosing among them. Whether selecting between design concepts, prioritizing features on a roadmap, or evaluating vendors, the matrix creates a shared record of why a particular decision was made. This documentation proves especially useful when revisiting decisions later or communicating rationale to stakeholders who were not part of the original discussion.
Clearly define the problem or decision you need to make. This step is crucial, as it will help you understand the context and the factors that need to be considered while making the decision.
Identify the most important criteria (factors) that need to be addressed in the decision-making process. These criteria should be relevant, specific, and measurable. It's recommended to limit the number of criteria between 5 and 10 to make the decision matrix easier to manage.
Assign a weight to each criterion to signify its importance in the decision-making process. The weights can be assigned on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represents the least important criterion and 10 represents the most important criterion. Ensure that the sum of all weights is equal to 1 (or 100%, if using percentages).
List out all possible alternatives or solutions that could potentially address the problem. These alternatives should cover a wide range of options and should be viable in the given context.
For each alternative, evaluate its effectiveness in addressing each of the criteria. The evaluation can be done using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represents the least effective solution and 10 represents the most effective solution. Rate the performance of each alternative on each criterion, thus creating a matrix.
Multiply the rating of each alternative for a particular criterion by the weight assigned to that criterion. Repeat this for all criteria, and then sum up the weighted scores for each alternative. The result will be the total weighted score for each alternative.
Compare the total weighted scores for each alternative. The alternative with the highest total weighted score should be considered as the most suitable solution to the problem, as it best satisfies the chosen criteria. Make a decision based on the results of the decision matrix, taking into consideration any additional factors, if necessary.
Review the decision matrix results, and critically analyze if the outcome makes sense in the given context. If necessary, adjust the weights, ratings, or even reevaluate the criteria, and repeat the process until you find a satisfactory and well-supported decision.
After completing a Decision Matrix session, your team will have a clearly ranked list of alternatives based on agreed-upon criteria and weights. Each option will carry a total weighted score that makes it easy to see which solution best satisfies the group's priorities. You will also have documentation of the criteria definitions, weight rationale, and individual scores, providing a transparent audit trail for the decision. This artifact can be shared with stakeholders who were not present, revisited if circumstances change, or reused as a template for future decisions. The process itself builds team alignment by making implicit assumptions explicit and surfacing disagreements early.
The method can also be used if there is no existing solution. Proceed similarly, but instead of comparing new solutions with the existing one, only evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of individual solutions.
If necessary, you can choose a more detailed scale for evaluation, for example, 0-5 or -2 to +2.
Ensure criteria weights are agreed upon by stakeholders before scoring to reduce bias.
Include 'must-have' criteria as pass/fail filters before applying weighted scoring.
Document the rationale for scores to enable meaningful discussions about disagreements.
Consider running the exercise with multiple team members independently, then compare results.
Add a feasibility or risk dimension alongside desirability criteria for balanced evaluation.
Revisit and update the matrix as new information emerges during the project.
Using criteria that are too broad or that measure the same thing twice inflates certain factors. Define distinct, specific criteria and verify each one measures something unique.
When weights are not agreed upon before scoring, participants unconsciously adjust scores to favor their preferred option. Finalize weights as a group before anyone begins rating.
Teams sometimes accept the highest-scoring option without discussion. Use the matrix as a conversation starter, not a replacement for critical thinking about context and trade-offs.
Including more than ten criteria dilutes the impact of each factor and overwhelms participants. Keep the list between five and eight focused criteria for best results.
A matrix captures quantifiable aspects well but may miss strategic fit, brand alignment, or user delight. Complement the matrix with a brief qualitative discussion of intangibles.
Document outlining research goals and evaluation criteria for team alignment.
Structured template with options as rows and weighted criteria as columns.
Comprehensive list of viable solutions or design alternatives to evaluate.
Rationale behind selected criteria and their assigned importance weights.
Completed matrix with scores for each alternative against all criteria.
Ranked list of alternatives based on aggregated weighted scores.
Summary report with key insights and recommended actions from the analysis.