A team has used a multi-criteria scoring method to choose between three architectural options. After the scores are produced, several stakeholders begin arguing about how the criteria were weighted, and proposals are made to adjust the weights so that a different option wins. The most appropriate description of what has gone wrong is that:

Question

Accepted Answer

Weights are being retrofitted to favor a preferred option, which destroys the value of the method, because the weights should have been agreed before any scoring took place.

Answer

The method itself has failed, because no formal scoring framework can produce results that survive contact with the political dynamics of a real engineering organization.

Answer

The scoring should be repeated several times with different scorers, because individual differences in how each criterion is interpreted account for most of the variation in the output.

Answer

The wrong criteria were chosen at the start of the analysis, because a sound choice of criteria would not have produced a result that any stakeholder wanted to overturn after the scoring step was completed.

Crowdly

A team has used a multi-criteria scoring method to choose between three architec...

Want instant access to all verified answers on moodle.polytechnic.bh?