Paradigretem

The best framework depends on your specific decision:

• Weighted Scoring: Best for comparing multiple options against defined criteria (e.g., vendor selection, product features)
• Pros/Cons Matrix: Ideal for evaluating a single option in depth (e.g., "Should we expand to a new market?")
• SWOT Analysis: Best for strategic planning and situational assessment (e.g., annual planning, competitive positioning)

Our tool allows you to try multiple frameworks for the same decision to gain different perspectives.

Assigning weights is both an art and science:

1. Start by ranking your criteria in order of importance
2. Assign the most important criterion a weight of 10
3. Assign other criteria weights relative to the most important one
4. Consider using the "100 points" method: distribute 100 points across all criteria based on their importance
5. Validate weights by asking "Would I choose an option that scores poorly on this criterion but well on others?"

Remember that weights can be adjusted if the initial results don't feel right.

Currently, our tool operates in your browser session. To save your work:

• Use the "Export" feature to download your analysis as a PDF or spreadsheet
• Bookmark the page after entering your data (note that refreshing will clear current inputs)
• For persistent storage, we recommend copying your inputs to a document or spreadsheet

We're working on account-based saving functionality for a future release.

Collaborative decision-making often yields better results. Here's how to involve your team:

• Have team members independently complete the framework, then compare results
• Facilitate a workshop where you complete the tool together in real-time
• Assign different perspectives to different team members (e.g., finance, operations, marketing)
• Use the exported results as discussion starters in team meetings
• Consider averaging weights/scores from multiple team members for a balanced view

While similar, these concepts have important distinctions:

Many important criteria are subjective. Here's how to handle them:

• Define what the criterion means specifically to your decision
• Create a clear rating scale (e.g., 1=Poor, 5=Average, 10=Excellent)
• Use multiple evaluators and average their scores
• Consider breaking broad criteria into more specific sub-criteria
• Document your rationale for each score to maintain consistency

Example: "Ease of use" could be broken into "Learning curve," "Interface design," and "Documentation quality."

Absolutely! While designed for business decisions, these frameworks work equally well for personal choices:

The structured approach can bring clarity to emotionally-charged personal decisions.

The frequency depends on your context:

• Annually: For most organizations as part of strategic planning
• Quarterly: In fast-changing industries or during periods of disruption
• Ad hoc: When facing major changes (new competitors, regulations, technologies)
• Project-based: At key milestones for long-term initiatives

Regular updates ensure your strategies remain relevant to the current environment.

This common situation suggests either:

1. Missing criteria: Important factors may not be included in your model. Revisit your criteria list.
2. Incorrect weights: The importance of certain criteria may be misrepresented. Adjust weights.
3. Scoring bias: Subjective scores may not reflect reality. Re-evaluate with more data.
4. Intuition signaling: Your experience may detect something the model misses. Investigate further.

Use this discrepancy as an opportunity to refine your decision framework.

While broadly applicable, these frameworks may not be ideal for:

• Time-sensitive emergencies: When immediate action is required
• Highly creative processes: Early-stage ideation may benefit from less structure
• Decisions with moral/ethical dimensions: Quantitative models can't replace ethical judgment
• When data is completely unavailable: Models require some basis for comparison

Even in these cases, elements of the frameworks may provide helpful structure.