Completed
07 · Compare designs without hiding the tradeoffs
Colabmo development course A-P02
Learning objective: Use explicit criteria and feasibility conditions to select a testable candidate.
Separate mandatory conditions from desirable performance. A design that cannot meet a binding authorization requirement does not become acceptable because it scores well on speed. Screen mandatory conditions first. A condition with unresolved feasibility receives “unproven,” not an optimistic pass.
Then compare feasible candidates using a small set of defined criteria: outcome quality, elapsed time, staff effort, exception resilience and maintainability, for example. Avoid counting the same benefit several times under different labels. Explain whose interests the weights represent and agree them before looking at the scores.
Numbers structure a conversation; they do not create evidence. If using a 1–5 scale, define the anchors. For elapsed time, 1 could mean no credible reduction, 3 a plausible modest reduction with an identified mechanism, and 5 a strong mechanism supported by relevant test evidence. Early concepts will rarely justify 5.
Conduct a sensitivity check. If a small weight change reverses the preferred option, report that fragility. If two options are close but depend on different unknowns, choose the next experiment that best informs the decision rather than declaring a premature winner.
Record rejected options and the conditions under which they would become worth reconsidering. A distributed approval model might be deferred until authority rules are clarified; it is not necessarily invalid forever. A decision record should let a later team understand the reasoning without reconstructing the workshop conversation.
Practice
Use W7 to compare the three W6 options. Apply a mandatory-condition screen, score no more than five criteria with defined anchors, and change the two most influential weights. Record whether the preferred option changes and which uncertainty should be tested first.
Check your reasoning
What should happen when the highest-scoring design fails a mandatory condition?
Worked response
Reject it as currently formulated or retain it as conditional on an authorized change. A weighted score cannot compensate for a failed mandatory condition.
There are no comments for now.