This decision matrix template separates must-have requirements from preferences you can trade off. Use the filled venue example to check the calculation, then change the weights to see which choice they support.
Compare one choice at a time
The original fictional example considers Maple, Loft, and Gallery for one team event. The team requires step-free access. Maple and Loft meet the supplied requirement; Gallery does not, so it stays visible with an explanation and is excluded from the ranking.
The remaining criteria are affordability, room layout, and transit access. Each uses a 1–5 scale where 5 is favorable. An affordability rating of 5 means the option suits the budget well; it does not mean the venue costs more.
| Venue | Required access | Affordability | Room layout | Transit access |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maple | Meets requirement | 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Loft | Meets requirement | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Gallery | Does not meet requirement | 4 | 4 | 3 |
These are invented comparison ratings for learning the method. They are not venue reviews, quotations, or measured accessibility assessments. Replace them with evidence from your actual shortlist before making a booking.
Check the weighted calculation
Start with affordability at 50%, room layout at 30%, and transit access at 20%. The weights total 100%.
Maple's calculation is 5 × 0.50 + 3 × 0.30 + 4 × 0.20 = 4.20. Loft scores 3 × 0.50 + 5 × 0.30 + 5 × 0.20 = 4.00. Maple leads by 0.20 points under those priorities.
ASQ's decision matrix procedure uses weighted criteria to compare options and stresses a consistent direction for favorable ratings. Write what each rating means before comparing totals. Mixing “higher cost” in one column with “better layout” in another can reward the wrong option.
Gallery's preferences would produce 3.80 under these weights, but its score cannot compensate for the failed requirement. If step-free access is genuinely mandatory, a more attractive price or room cannot trade it away.
Test the close result
Choose Layout matters more in the example. It moves ten percentage points from affordability to room layout, giving weights of 40%, 40%, and 20%.
Now Maple scores 5 × 0.40 + 3 × 0.40 + 4 × 0.20 = 4.00. Loft scores 3 × 0.40 + 5 × 0.40 + 5 × 0.20 = 4.20. The leading eligible venue changes from Maple to Loft.
That reversal is a reason to discuss the priorities before choosing. It does not establish which venue is objectively best. Ask whether the team really prefers the extra room flexibility to the budget advantage, and check the evidence behind the ratings.
You can also enter your own weights. Compare venues requires three numbers from 0 to 100 that total 100. A missing value is missing, rather than zero. If the inputs are invalid, the page identifies the problem and withholds the ranking. Editing a weight clears the old result until you compare again.
Make a matrix for your actual shortlist
Use the prompt with your own decision, constraints, ratings, and sources. Keep a must-have outside the weighted preferences, and leave an unknown requirement unresolved until someone checks it.
Create one complete self-contained HTML weighted decision matrix.
Decision and responsible owner: [FILL IN]
Mutually exclusive options: [PASTE IDS AND NAMES]
Must-have requirements and evidence for each option: [PASTE]
Preference criteria, rating scale, and what favorable means: [PASTE]
Criterion weights totaling 100%: [PASTE]
Option ratings with source or rationale per rating: [PASTE]
One alternative set of weights to compare, if useful: [PASTE]
Where the actual decision and approval must be recorded: [FILL IN]
Use only supplied facts. Do not invent prices, research, approvals, requirements, or ratings. Mark missing evidence [TO CONFIRM]. Show failed and unknown must-haves separately from preferences; exclude both from a recommendation until their status permits consideration. A high preference score must not override a failed requirement.
Keep the options and rating direction visible. Validate unique option IDs, ratings within the supplied scale, and finite nonnegative weights totaling 100%. Do not treat an empty field as zero or silently normalize invalid weights. When valid, show each eligible option's weighted calculation and the ranking. Report ties as ties. Show a supplied alternative weighting beside the original so the reader can see a changed ranking. Editing inputs must clear stale results.
Use labeled native controls, visible keyboard focus, at least 16px text, and a captioned table that becomes labeled records at 360px without page overflow. Use inline CSS and JavaScript, no network, storage, booking, approval, or pretend export. Label any fictional teaching fixture clearly. Return the complete HTML and unresolved evidence questions.
Check one result by hand before relying on the page. For a tied or sensitive result, return to the criteria and evidence with the people responsible for the decision. Adding decimal places does not resolve a disagreement about priorities.
Let the team inspect the trade-off
An HTML comparison is useful when a colleague needs to read the requirement, ratings, and calculation together. Put that page in your NOS workspace and share it for review. If a label such as “cost” hides which direction is favorable, correct the wording on the page so the criterion is clear.
After saving a correction, the link you already sent opens the revised page. Send a direct message if people need to know what changed; the page does not notify them. Confirm the real requirement evidence before booking, and record the chosen venue and agreed priorities in your normal decision record.