Compare options with a decision matrix and your own data

You may be comparing a job offer, a business site or two ways to run a community project. A useful comparison starts with the decision you must make, not with collecting every available number.

This is a manual process for a document or spreadsheet. Flexible analysis of user-provided datasets and interactive Life decision tools are in development. This guide does not provide an upload tool or calculator. Available ifYouMind Business city comparisons are illustrated in the sample report.

Define options, constraints and criteria first

Write one decision, the options you can actually choose and a deadline. List non-negotiable constraints before preferences. If an option cannot meet a required access condition or opening date, scoring its other strengths will not resolve that constraint.

Choose criteria that capture different things. For example, total occupancy cost and base rent overlap if the first already includes the second. Counting both at full importance can give the same difference extra influence. Keep the raw evidence beside any interpretation so another reader can spot that overlap.

Build an evidence table before a score table

The following is an invented comparison of two rooms for a weekly workshop. It is a demonstration of record-keeping, not a market dataset or a recommendation.

Swipe the table sideways to see every column.

Record when each source was checked and whether the number is observed, quoted, estimated or assumed. Keep names or other personal information out of the sheet unless needed for the decision. Do not turn “unknown” access into a zero cost or an acceptable score.

Make comparisons on compatible terms

Use the same duration, units and inclusion rules. Separate one-time setup costs from recurring costs. Where evidence uses different periods or geographies, explain the mismatch before comparing it. A precise-looking decimal does not fix incompatible inputs.

An evidence table without a combined score is often enough. The Scottish Government's multi-criteria guidance describes approaches both with and without scores. Its public-policy context is different from this small worksheet; we use it as a methodological reference, not validation of a personal recommendation.

If you score, explain the scale and test the assumptions

Define what low and high performance mean on each criterion before scoring options. Explain whether a larger number is better, and keep the underlying figure visible. Avoid adding pounds, minutes and subjective ratings directly into one unexplained total.

Weights express judgement about the differences under consideration. They are not measured probabilities of success. Ask which improvement would actually matter across the range of options, and let the people affected challenge those judgements. Government guidance on multi-criteria analysis is a starting point for more formal methods; a simple worksheet is not a substitute for that analysis.

Change the uncertain quote, the disputed rating or the relative emphasis on one criterion. If the preferred option changes, identify the assumption that caused it. That sensitivity points to the next useful evidence to collect, rather than a reason to hide the disagreement behind an average.

Leave a decision record someone else can review

Finish with the option you currently prefer, the evidence supporting it, unresolved constraints and a review trigger. Preserve the version of the table used for the decision. Record whose judgement supplied a score and distinguish that judgement from a source-backed fact.

Apply the process with the job-offer and relocation worksheet or the business location checklist. For an existing product example, inspect the Business sample report; do not assume it accepts arbitrary uploads or makes personal financial recommendations.