Respond to two of your peers’ initial posts and consider the following:
How does your decision-making process compare to your peers’ process?
Refer to the Discussion Rubric below for directions on completing these discussions:
Peer Two’s Response:
I can see using the decision matrix quite often in my career. I actually created a similar tool that I titled “Protocol Weighting Tool.” I work in clinical trials, and I use the Protocol Weighting tool to determine how many resources new studies are going to require, before deciding if my team can take them on. Each aspect of a study is given a weight (based on how much it affects the allocation of resources), then a study is ultimately given a score which ranges from 50-180 points. The average number of points for a new study is between 75 and 120. Any study that falls in that range will probably be opened, and not cause any sort of bottle-neck in our workflow. Studies that score higher than 120 points will probably require more resources than we have, and we won’t open the study unless we are able to secure additional resources for it.
The decision matrix is very useful because it’s so flexible. You are able to modify it to fit the criteria of almost any project, and use it to make an objective assessment. In our final project, my decision matrix really opened my eyes to what would be best for my company. Prior to completing the decision matrix, I thought I knew what was best, but it turns out that one of the technologies I selected didn’t score very well. That was challenging for me because I thought “should I select a new technology, and essentially start over with my research, or should I work with what I have and just make the best of it?”. Ultimately I decided to work with what I had. Luckily, by using the decision matrix, I was able to determine that my two technologies balance each other out. So where one technology is lacking, the other excels in that area. Individually they might not be the best, but together (as an overall business plan), they are effective.