Weighted Decision Matrix
A scoring method that rates options against weighted criteria, used to expose disagreement about priorities rather than to produce an answer.
Options as columns, criteria as rows, weights on the criteria, scores in the cells. The total is not the point.
The value is in the argument the exercise forces. Agreeing the criteria makes implicit priorities explicit; agreeing the weights surfaces genuine disagreement about what matters, which is usually the real dispute hiding behind a technical debate; and scoring the cells reveals where the evidence is thin.
The failure mode is treating the total as an answer. Weights and scores are judgements, and a matrix can be constructed to produce any preferred result — often unconsciously, by the person who already had a view. If the winner surprises everyone, the matrix is wrong or the intuition is; either way that is the finding, and it should be investigated rather than overridden.
Related methods worth knowing for the cases where this one is too crude: ATAM, which analyses an architecture against prioritised quality-attribute scenarios and identifies sensitivity points and trade-off points; cost of delay for sequencing decisions; and decision trees with expected values when outcomes are genuinely probabilistic and quantifiable.
Whatever method is used, record the result as an ADR with the rejected options and their reasons — that record is what stops the same debate recurring in eighteen months.