Learn
Weights are a decision, not a decoration
Weighted scoring is the oldest honest way to compare options on more than one quality at once. You decide what matters and by how much, score each option against each quality, and let the arithmetic add it up. The method is simple. The discipline lies in the order you do it.
How the arithmetic works
List the criteria that separate the options, give each a weight, and make the weights total 100. Then score every option on every criterion on the same scale, say 1 to 10. Multiply each score by its weight, add the products, and the option with the highest total leads.
Two cautions sit inside that recipe. Scores must point the same way, so a low price earns a high score rather than a low one. And each criterion should measure one thing, because a criterion called quality and reliability counts the same virtue twice.
Weights first, options second
The order matters more than the formula. Set weights after you have met the options and you will tilt them, mostly without noticing, toward the option you already like. The table then confirms a preference and calls it analysis.
One practical safeguard is to agree the weights in a meeting held before any proposal is opened. Another is to write one sentence beside each weight explaining why it sits where it does, so a later change has to argue with that sentence.
Find the weight that flips the result
Once the totals are in, test them. Take the leading option and the runner up, and ask how far one weight would have to move before they trade places. If the answer is two or three points, the result is fragile and the honest summary is a near tie. If it takes twenty points, the lead is real.
The same test shows where to spend the next hour. A criterion that cannot change the outcome at any reasonable weight needs no more research. A criterion that flips it deserves all the attention you have.
Weighted scoring in a Decision Room
Argumont asks for criteria with weights that total 100 before any option is scored, so the weighing is on the record before the argument starts. The engine does the multiplication from your own figures. The Challenger then presses on the weight that carries the leader, and the Judge names in the Verdict the condition, often a single weight or a single score, that would change the result. The Human Decision stays with you.
Three suppliers, one fragile lead
Weights: unit cost 35, quality 30, lead time 20, payment terms 15. Supplier A scores 8, 6, 7 and 6, for a total of 6.90 out of 10. Supplier B scores 6, 8, 6 and 7, for 6.75. Supplier C trails at 6.60. A leads, but move five points from unit cost to quality and B overtakes it, 6.85 to 6.80. The fair reading is that A and B are close, and the real question is how much a better finish is worth to this buyer. That is the question to settle before signing, not the second decimal.
Questions
- Should weights always total 100?
- They need to total something fixed, and 100 is the easiest to read. A fixed total forces trade offs: raising one criterion means lowering another, which is exactly the conversation the method exists to start.
- What scale should I score on?
- Any scale works if every option uses the same one. A 1 to 10 scale is common. Very fine scales invite false precision, because few people can say honestly why an option deserves 7.3 rather than 7.
- What if one criterion is a must have?
- Treat it as a gate, not a weight. An option that fails a legal requirement or a hard budget limit should leave the table before scoring, since no score on other criteria can make up for it.
Bring Argumont a Decision worth challenging.
Start with a paid 60 day pilot on your own real Decisions.