Evaluation Matrix — for facilitators

Samvinas

• Pipe in the options to evaluate (for example, the shortlist from a vote).
• In the tool's settings, list your criteria (comma- or line-separated), e.g. "Impact, Effort, Fit". Set the rating scale maximum if 1–5 isn't right.
• Set the criteria before scoring starts — changing them mid-way detaches earlier scores.
• Participants rate one criterion at a time: all options on the first criterion, then "Next →" to the second, and so on. Short screens, and everyone uses the same yardstick for each criterion.

The results matrix shows each option's average on every criterion, a Total (the mean of its criterion averages), and how many people scored it. A small "±" is the spread — a large spread means the group disagreed on that cell, which is often the most interesting thing to discuss.

The matrix consumes items from an earlier tool — connect its Source to the vote or list that produced the shortlist.

Paper and pen

You need: a flip chart with the grid drawn large — options as rows, criteria as columns, plus a Total column — and a scoring sheet (the same grid, small) per person.

• Agree the criteria first and write them as column headings, phrased so higher always means better.
• Everyone fills their own sheet, working column by column — score every option on the first criterion before moving to the next, so each criterion is judged on one yardstick.
• Collect the sheets; two people tally averages into the wall grid while the group takes a break. Circle any cell where individual scores were far apart.
• One failure mode to avoid: mixed-polarity criteria ("Impact" high-is-good next to "Cost" high-is-bad) — the totals become meaningless. Rephrase to "Affordability" before anyone scores.
• Harvest: photograph the wall grid, circled cells and all, and note the top two or three totals on a fresh sheet.

When & why

Reach for the Evaluation Matrix late in convergence, when the shortlist is down to a handful of serious options and the decision has several dimensions that deserve separate scrutiny.

A convergent step. Its purpose isn't to crown a single winner — use it to understand the field, then combine, modify, or sequence the strongest options.

• Best with a handful to a dozen options and a few clear criteria.
• Follow the matrix with a discussion of the high-spread cells — that's where the group is scoring on different assumptions.
• What usually follows: PPCO or ALoU to strengthen a leading option, or Elaboration to develop it in depth.