Core idea: Decision criteria are the dimensions used to judge alternatives. They determine what a model rewards, so poor criteria can distort the answer even when calculations are correct.
When this model is useful
Use explicit criteria when options differ across cost, quality, time, reliability, flexibility, support, risk or other objectives that cannot be reduced to one measure.
The method is most useful when the question, alternatives and time horizon are stated before calculations begin. It should clarify tradeoffs and identify which assumptions deserve attention, not merely produce a score.
Inputs and evidence
The decision objective, stakeholder needs, mandatory requirements, measurable performance indicators and a clear definition of each scoring scale.
Use consistent units, definitions and periods across options. Mark estimates clearly, record their source and use ranges when precision is not supported. Evidence should be proportionate to the cost, risk and reversibility of the choice.
Step-by-step method
Start from objectives, remove overlapping criteria, define observable scoring anchors, represent both benefits and downsides, and keep the set small enough to review carefully.
- Write the decision question and accountable owner.
- List realistic alternatives and eliminate any that fail hard constraints.
- Collect evidence and separate verified facts from assumptions.
- Run a base case and at least one downside test.
- Record the chosen option, accepted tradeoffs and review triggers.
Practical example
A supplier comparison might use total cost, quality, on-time delivery, support coverage and financial stability. “Affordability” should not be added if total cost already captures the same concern.
The point of the example is not the exact numbers. It is the discipline of using the same boundaries for every option and making the decision drivers visible.
Common mistake and limitation
Do not let strong scores offset a failure on safety, law or another non-negotiable. Treat those items as pass/fail constraints rather than ordinary weighted criteria.
Review whether the result changes under reasonable alternative assumptions. A close or fragile ranking should be presented as such rather than converted into false certainty.
Questions to ask before deciding
- What evidence would change the preferred option?
- Which consequence is missing because it is difficult to measure?
- Could a threshold or constraint override the numerical result?
- Who receives the benefits and who bears the costs or risk?
- When should the decision be reviewed?
Professional context: Legal, tax, investment, safety, medical, engineering and regulated decisions require qualified, jurisdiction-specific advice.