Questions
How to compare two options without picking the one you already like
To compare two business options, agree on the criteria and their weights before scoring either, score each with the evidence written beside every number, and work out the money over the same period for both. Then find the single assumption that would flip the result, check it before you commit, and ask whether a third option beats both.
Put both options in the same terms
Options described in different language cannot be compared. One is pitched in revenue and the other in brand, one over a year and the other over five. Choose a common horizon, count money the same way for both, and write the criteria so that each applies to either option.
Separate the limits from the preferences. A limit, such as a maximum spend or a date that cannot move, is pass or fail. Everything else becomes a criterion whose weight is set before scoring, because weights chosen afterward tend to favor whichever option was already liked.
A worked example
A bakery with one shop weighs a second shop against a wholesale line supplying cafes. The shop needs $180,000 to fit out, loses about $4,000 a month for five months, then earns around $8,000 a month. Wholesale needs $40,000 for an oven and a van and earns about $3,500 a month from its second month.
Over three years, the shop returns about $48,000 after its outlay and wholesale about $82,500, with less than a quarter of the capital at risk. Over five years the order reverses: the shop reaches about $240,000 and wholesale $166,500. The horizon is a choice that decides the answer, so agree it openly rather than leaving it to whoever builds the spreadsheet.
The assumption that flips the three-year result is the shop's monthly profit. Above about $9,100 a month, the shop wins even over three years, and that figure tells the owner exactly what to verify, perhaps by checking takings at similar shops nearby, before signing a lease.
Look for the third option
Two options are often two halves of a better plan. Here, wholesale could start now and fund the second shop from its profits in year two, lowering the risk of both. Before scoring one against the other, ask whether a sequence, a smaller version, or a combination would beat each of them.
When the scores end close, treat the tie as information. It usually means the decision turns on something not yet on the record, or that either option is acceptable and the more reversible one deserves the edge.
How the room compares two options
Each option gets its own Champion, and the criteria and weights are fixed before any score is given. The sums are worked over the horizon you choose, exactly from your own figures. The Challenger presses on the assumption the leading option needs most, and the Strategist tests whether a sequence or a combination is materially better.
The Judge scores what survived, and the Verdict states which option leads, what it rests on, and the figure that would reverse it. If a new fact arrives later, Challenge the Verdict runs an independent second pass. The Human Decision is recorded separately, in your name.
Questions
- How should we choose the weights?
- Ask what would hurt most if the chosen option failed on it, and give that the largest share. Set the weights together before scoring, and write one sentence explaining each.
- Is a pros and cons list enough?
- For small choices that are easy to undo, yes. When the money is large or the choice is hard to reverse, a list hides the weights and the evidence a comparison needs.
- What if both options are poor?
- Then the honest result is that neither is ready. Say so, name what would make one of them acceptable, and keep looking for an option that clears the bar.
Bring Argumont a Decision worth challenging.
Start with a paid 60 day pilot on your own real Decisions.