The creation of a decision matrix should be a collaborative effort, where the key decision-makers or leaders brainstorm, determine and decide on the core dimensions and scale of a decision matrix, as well as the process that will govern the use of the decision matrix.Ī decision matrix is only as good as the dimensions and weights. There should be standards for vendor selection, partner evaluation, hiring, performance evaluation, investments, projects, and initiatives. It’s best practice to establish standard decision matrices across an organization. Here are some of the best practices when it comes to decision matrices: They objectify decisions as much as possible, removing the emotions, gut instincts, and politics that often muddle up good decision-making. I’ve introduced decision matrices into organizations that didn’t have them, and there is consistently a marked improvement in the speed, quality, collaboration, and alignment of decision-making. I say semi-objective since most decision matrices have some dimensions that are more subjective than objective, which is fine since they provide a focus for debate.
The semi-objective evaluation of options is crucial to decide on the right option objectively. The columns added down will give the inverse answer.
The meaning of the rating is 1 = the same, 3 = somewhat better than, 9 = significantly better than, 1/3 = somewhat worse than, and 1/9 = significantly worse than. Then on each criterion, the group decides the rating by comparing the item on the vertical axis to the item on the horizontal axis. The facilitator first establishes the criteria for comparisons. The weightings for head-to-head comparisons are usually 1, 3, 9, 1/3, and 1/9. The lists are in the same order horizontally and vertically. The vertical and horizontal axes are a list of the items to be compared. After all the scores are tallied, while it looks like vendor 2 & 3 are tied with non-weighted scores of 17 each when you multiply the weights and the scores of each dimension you get a clear winner in vendor 3.Īnother form of the decision matrix is the head-to-head matrix. And, the feature set is the most important dimension with a weight of 4, while the product roadmap is the least important with a weight of 1. Instead of a 5-point scale, this decision matrix is based on a 3-point scale of poor, adequate, and excellent.
#SOFTWARE SELECTION DECISION MATRIX SOFTWARE#
If multiple employees interview the candidates and there are differing opinions, then the team can quickly isolate which scores there wasn’t agreement on and debate those particular dimensions of the candidates.īeyond hiring, decision matrices can and should be used to evaluate options for many decisions, including the selection of vendors or partners, IT systems, product features, acquisition targets, and strategic direction.īelow is an example of a decision matrix in choosing a software vendor. In this case, functional experience is weighted 3, while education is weighted 1, so for this role, functional experience is three times more important than education.ĭuring the interviews, you would ask the appropriate questions to assess each candidate on each dimension and then score them. This is a fancy example because each dimension is weighted to make some dimensions more important than others in the scoring of candidates. In the example, the most important dimensions of the role are functional experience, industry experience, problem solving skills, interpersonal skills, cultural fit & education. Below is a simple example of a hiring decision matrix. Then you put those in a simple spreadsheet with a scoring table so you can rate candidates on each dimension. Before the interviews, you figure out what the most important dimensions are for the role. You can go with your gut, but the typical best practice is to create a decision matrix to evaluate different candidates against each other. Let decision matrices do a lot of the heavy lifting, turn the irrational into rational, and help you make the right decision.Ī decision matrix is the evaluation of different options based on prioritized variables. As a strategic leader, you often have to rally and align a team around complex and hard decisions, which can be fraught with frustration, emotion, and confusion. They can elegantly align people that were once at odds with each other. They can turn the subjective into objective numbers. They can break down seemingly difficult decisions with ease. I’ve always had a thing for decision matrices. “Most discussions of decision making assume that only senior executives make decisions or that only senior executives’ decisions matter.
0 kommentar(er)
