Decision methods · 3/6
Compare trade-offs without hiding them
Use common scales, opportunity costs and weighted scores cautiously.
About 15–20 minutes. The following cases are fictional.
Record your first judgment
Eligible option A scores eight on impact and four on ease; B scores six and eight. Two people disagree about which is better.
Understand the judgment process
With 60% weight on impact and 40% on ease, A scores 6.4 and B 6.8. At 80/20, A scores 7.2 and B 6.4. The ranking reflects assumptions and preferences. Weights concern the value of moving across a defined scoring range, not an abstract label alone.
Define zero and ten, with higher always better. Do not enter raw expenditure as a benefit score. Avoid counting the same benefit repeatedly as speed, efficiency and time saved.
Opportunity cost is the best forgone alternative use. Separate irrecoverable past spending from changeable future costs. Use scenarios for uncertain outcomes; expected values require defensible probabilities and common units. An average does not remove intolerable downside.
Checks you can perform
- Align horizon, score direction and endpoints.
- Record evidence and uncertainty for each score.
- Compare future costs and forgone uses.
- Vary plausible weights and scores to inspect ranking changes.
Guided practice
Which option leads under the two weight sets? Does that establish what to choose?
Explore the explanation
B leads by 0.4 at 60/40; A by 0.8 at 80/20. This exposes sensitivity, not the correct preferences or validated scores. Check constraints and omitted impacts.
Apply it in a new context
An event offers a 50% chance of twelve useful conversations and 50% of four; another guarantees seven. What does the mean miss?
Compare after attempting
The first has expected count eight versus seven, but risks missing a minimum of six. Probabilities are assumptions in this example; real decisions need evidence and attention to the value of outcomes.
Preserve a revision record
Weighted averages assume compensable, sufficiently distinct criteria. High totals cannot erase constraints, serious harms or omitted factors.
Check whether you supplied inspectable evidence, a feasible next step and revision conditions. Revealing an answer is not mastery.
Source and scope
UK Government — Multi-criteria analysis: a manual
The source provides conceptual or methodological background. Cases, steps and exercises are authored here; they are not the original experiment or evidence of this course’s effectiveness.
Completion is a personal record, not proof of mastery or certification.