They all have in common that the decision is generally made in order to achieve a specific goal. But unfortunately, in real life the goal is not always clear. Therefore, with the rosette the argumentations is turned from head to feet: We ask which option will be the best when we modify the goal.
As an example, we take the same example as with the other decision making methods with the same “scores” as well. And – like with school grades – we
accept to treat them like cardinal numbers. That way we can use the
mathematical operations of addition and multiplication. Then we play with weighing in order to
clarify the effect of changing priorities on option ranking.
When we take economy as the sole
criterion (100% weight), we get the following optima:
Until now, it seems confusing. But by introducing some finer transitions,
hopefully we shall find a pattern. We will calculate these transitions with
the weights:
When we paint all 10 combinations and arrange them to a "rosette", we can put our winners the three poles:
We can make it separately for the effectiveness and the efficiency or as combination of both for the suitability (like above). Here we see the result of the example for all aspects:
#3 fC winch assist is the best option when
economy and/or societal aspects play a role.
#0 zero-option is better, when ecology
comes to the fore.
The same basics can be used to point out the focus area of a specific option, like here the zero option that is the winer under ecological and societal view.
