CDT504 Chap.7 Screening and Scoring Product Concepts
Screening and Scoring Product Concepts
Screen before scoring
Concept screening compares alternatives against a reference using better, same or worse ratings. It is appropriate while concepts remain coarse and helps remove weak options without pretending to fine precision. Concept scoring then allocates weights across criteria, rates each concept on a consistent scale and sums weighted contributions.
Both methods should record evidence and invite improvement or combination.
Challenge close rankings
A correct total does not validate uncertain weights or inconsistent ratings. Threshold criteria may need to be checked before compensation is allowed. Sensitivity analysis shows whether a small input change reverses the winner and reveals whether the real disagreement concerns evidence or priorities.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Reference concept screening
- 02
Better, same and worse ratings
- 03
Weighted scoring equation
- 04
Criterion thresholds
- 05
Sensitivity analysis
- 06
Selection reflection
Worked example · free
Recompute a weighted ranking
- 1Check the weight total.
- 4Calculate both weighted totals.
- 3Interpret the difference.
Key terms
- Reference Concept
- The baseline against which alternatives are rated during screening.
- Net Score
- The better-than count minus the worse-than count in a screening matrix.
- Criterion Weight
- The declared relative importance assigned to a selection criterion.
- Weighted Score
- The sum of each criterion weight multiplied by its concept rating.
- Sensitivity Analysis
- Testing whether plausible input changes alter a ranking or recommendation.
Screening and Scoring Product Concepts FAQ
When should screening be used instead of scoring?
Use screening when concepts are still coarse and evidence cannot support fine distinctions. Apply scoring after the strongest candidates and criteria have been refined with clearer evidence.
Can a high total compensate for poor safety?
Only if the decision allows compensation. If safety is a threshold, check it first and exclude concepts that fail before calculating trade-off totals across the remaining criteria.
What should a team report with the final matrix?
Define criteria and scales, justify weights and ratings, show calculations, record evidence and discuss sensitivity. The source specifically requires justification of weights and scores in the submitted decision record.
Why must weights and ratings remain separate?
Weights express how much a criterion matters, while ratings describe expected concept performance. Raising a rating because the criterion feels important counts the same preference twice. Debate priorities through weights and challenge performance through evidence so the final total remains interpretable.
What happens when selection creates a revised concept?
Give the revision a new identifier, describe which features were combined, update its evidence and rerun affected criteria. A matrix should not appear to select one concept while the team quietly commits to another. Record any new interface or risk introduced by the combination.
How should uncertain ratings be handled?
Record the evidence, confidence or plausible range rather than forcing a precise value. Test whether the ranking changes across that range. If uncertainty can reverse the result, collect better evidence or improve the concepts before claiming a robust winner.
Assessment move
Rebuild one screening matrix with a different reference and note which conclusions change. Then calculate a weighted matrix line by line and verify that weights sum to one. Move the most uncertain weight until the ranking changes. Explain whether the switching point calls for better evidence, stakeholder priority work or concept improvement. Prepare a selection record before scoring.
Give each concept an equivalent description and define every criterion, its direction and its evidence source. Choose a reference that is familiar without automatically favouring the existing solution. Apply better, same and worse ratings one criterion at a time so the evidence standard remains consistent across concepts.
Count positive and negative comparisons and calculate the net result, but inspect critical criteria before removing a concept. A safety threshold, for example, may not be compensable by several minor advantages. Refine surviving concepts and carry forward useful features from candidates that would otherwise be rejected.
For scoring, allocate one hundred percentage points across criteria and state why the priorities fit customer and enterprise needs. Define rating anchors so one team member's four means the same as another's. Multiply each weight by the corresponding rating, print each contribution and sum them. Verify units and direction before trusting the arithmetic.
Keep weights and ratings conceptually separate: weights express preference, while ratings describe predicted performance. If performance evidence is weak, record confidence or a plausible range. Conduct sensitivity analysis on the uncertain inputs and identify the value at which the ranking changes. A close or unstable result calls for more evidence or an improved concept, not a stronger adjective.
After the decision, document consensus and dissent, the selected or revised concept, unresolved risks and the next test. Store the matrix beside descriptions and test records so later reviewers can reconstruct why the judgement was reasonable. This complete trail meets the assignment's requirement to justify both weights and scores.
