Scenario
The setup for this example.
A small team is choosing between three options. Impact is weighted at 35%, confidence at 25%, effort at 20%, and risk at 20%. Lower effort and lower risk are better, so the formula reverses those scores before weighting.
Inputs
The numbers used in the worked example.
decision matrix example
| Input | Value | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Impact weight | 35 | |
| Confidence weight | 25 | |
| Effort weight | 20 | |
| Risk weight | 20 | |
| Option A | Impact 5, confidence 4, effort 3, risk 2 | |
| Option B | Impact 4, confidence 3, effort 2, risk 3 | |
| Option C | Impact 3, confidence 5, effort 1, risk 1 |
Decision matrix score formula
Formula
score = (impact*35 + confidence*25 + (6-effort)*20 + (6-risk)*20) / (5*100) * 100
Effort and risk are reversed because lower effort and lower risk are better in this workflow.
Result
What the example produces.
Lower effort and risk carry the option.
Highest impact, but more effort.
Safer than it looks, but weaker overall.
Interpretation
How to read this result.
- Option C wins because the low effort and low risk scores offset its lower impact score.
- Option A is close enough that the team should challenge the confidence and effort assumptions before deciding.
- The matrix should clarify tradeoffs; it should not replace judgment about strategic fit or constraints.
Next step
Run the same workflow with your own assumptions.
- Use the decision matrix calculator to adjust weights and test whether the ranking changes.
- Use the build vs buy calculator if one option is an internal build and another is a vendor path.
- Write a decision note before reopening the debate.
This is a worked example, not a recommendation. Real results can change with contracts, workflow quality, taxes, staffing, vendor terms, and data quality.