Weighted decision matrix
The calculator uses a simple additive weighted average: sum of (criterion weight × option rating), divided by the sum of weights. Weights range from 0 to 10, ratings from 1 to 5. It does not perform pairwise comparisons, derive utility functions or estimate probabilities.
Higher ratings must consistently indicate a better fit. Screen hard constraints before scoring. Avoid overlapping criteria, and define the meaning of scores. The method assumes that trade-offs can be represented by addition and that rating differences are meaningful enough for this purpose.
The sensitivity check replaces one weight and recalculates while keeping all other weights and ratings fixed. It is an illustrative scenario, not a full robustness analysis. Near-ties within 0.005 of the highest unrounded average are reported together. Exported summaries show two decimal places.
Background reference: Multi-criteria analysis: a manual, Department for Communities and Local Government (2009). This provides broader methodological context; the Mindtiller calculator implements only a simplified comparison.
Decision journal
The journal separates an original entry from later reviews. It records the choice, supporting evidence, unknowns, expected result and review date. The review asks about the observed outcome, the earlier reasoning and a practical adjustment.
There is no automatic judgment score or claim of validated behavioral improvement. Optional probability entries refer to a defined event. Device timestamps are informational and can be inaccurate; this is not a secure audit trail.
Related explanatory resources: Decision Journal and Outcome Bias at Intuition Management, a related project by the same creator.
Premortem worksheet
The worksheet applies the prospective failure exercise associated with Gary Klein’s premortem method. Mindtiller adds fields for early warnings, actions, owners, review dates and a user-selected priority. Those labels organize discussion and do not compute risk likelihood or severity.
Original reference: Gary Klein, Performing a Project Premortem, Harvard Business Review (2007). This reference explains the method; it does not validate this particular website or worksheet.
Editorial standards
Worked examples are labeled fictional. We distinguish calculations from judgments and implementation choices from research findings. Dates reflect substantive content updates rather than automatic daily changes. Sources are included where they explain a method or support a factual claim.
Limitations and corrections
The tools depend on what you enter. They cannot identify every omitted factor, verify your evidence or determine an objectively correct decision. Use them to structure thinking and discussion. Where specialist advice is required, bring the output to someone qualified to assess the underlying situation.
If a calculation, example or explanation appears wrong, please report the issue with a reproducible example that does not include confidential information.