Build vs. buy workbench
Which option still holds up once maintenance and switching cost are weighted the way your team actually feels them?
Rename an option in its column header, set its weight beside the criterion it governs, and score each option from 0 to 5. Everything is editable in place.
| Criterion | Weight | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time to first release | ||||
| Ongoing maintenanceHigher means less work for us. | ||||
| Fit to our own workflow | ||||
| Switching cost later | ||||
| Cost at our volume | ||||
| Weighted total | 65% Leads | 69% Leads | 74% Leads |
No option leads: the top two are within 5 points, which is closer than these scores can resolve. The weights are the argument — change one and see what moves.
Scores are judgements, not measurements. The weights are the argument — change them first and watch whether the leader moves. If it never moves, the decision was not close and the matrix has done its job.
How the total is calculated
Each score is multiplied by its criterion’s weight, and the products are summed. A blank cell removes that criterion from the option’s total and from the maximum it is measured against, so an unknown does not quietly count as a zero — an option nobody has evaluated should not lose on that basis.
Because options can be scored against different numbers of criteria, the totals are reported as a percentage of each option’s own available maximum. No option is called the leader unless it is clear of the next one by more than five points; below that the matrix is telling you the decision is a tie, and printing a winner would be inventing precision the scores do not have.
What it assumes
That the criteria are independent. They are not: time to first release and ongoing maintenance usually trade against each other, and scoring both high for the same option is a sign the scores are aspirational rather than observed.
That a weighted total is a prompt, not a verdict. The useful output is the moment the leader changes when you move one weight by one point — that tells you which disagreement the decision actually rests on.
What it does not model
Cost in money, timelines, staffing, or the risk that the vendor is acquired. It also cannot model the thing that decides most of these arguments in practice, which is whether the team wants to build it.