Comparison Tables

More than any other situation Change is about cooperation and collaboration. No matter if your company is in serious trouble or just wants to find a new way to line itself up – it always needs people to initiate, moderate, steer, coordinate and live that Change.

So what? The problem is that often people simply don´t know how to cooperate. Of course people cooperate on a daily base, but this is mostly routine, it´s like a form of vegetative state. Change causes different needs and different needs urges people to modify their behavior.

Over years I have collected several “Creativity Techniques” to support Cooperation between people – not only in times of Change. It is always better to be prepared than surprised…

What are Creativity Techniques?
Creativity techniques are heuristic methods to facilitate creativity in a person or a group of people. They are most often used in creative problem solving.

Generally, most creativity techniques use associations between the goal (or the problem), the current state (which may be an imperfect solution to the problem), and some stimulus (possibly selected randomly). There is an analogy between many creativity techniques and methods of evolutionary computation.

In problem-solving contexts, the random word creativity technique is perhaps the simplest such method. A person confronted with a problem is presented with a randomly generated word, in the hopes of a solution arising from any associations between the word and the problem. A random image, sound, or article can be used instead of a random word as a kind of creativity goad or provocation.

Comparison Tables
The two tables below show both simple and complex forms of the classic method of comparing small numbers of alternatives in terms of multiple properties (e.g. as used in many of the ‘best buy’ magazines). This particular version uses manual compilation, however there are software tools available, which would speed up the process.

An alternative option of a series of imaginary holidays appears on the left of the table, with a series of criteria along the top (happy kids, low cost, etc.) on which they are to be compared in order of importance to the decision maker (as indicated by the ‘weight’ to be attached to each criterion). The main body of the table contains raw and weighted scores for each alternative on each criterion. This comparison uses ratings from 1 to 5 (the ‘raw score’ columns), plus a numerical ‘weight’ for each criterion (also 1 to 5), so that weighted scores can in theory go from 1 (raw score = 1; weight=1) to 25 (raw score = 5; weight = 5).

Options
Happy Kids (weight=5)
Low Cost (weight=3)
Happy Adults (weight=2)
Easy Travel (weight=1)
Totals
&nbsp
Raw score
Weighted score: x5
Raw score
Weighted Score: x3
Raw score
Weighted score: x2
Raw score
Weighted score: x1
Sum of raw scores
Sum of weighted score
Walking Holiday
1
5
3
9
4
8
4
4
12
26
Cruise Holiday
2
10
1
3
2
4
3
3
8
20
Beach Holiday
4
20
1
3
3
6
2
2
10
31
Stay at home
1
5
5
15
2
4
5
5
13
29
Holiday Camp
5
25
1
3
1
2
2
2
9
32

During the final comparison, the ‘weighted value’ of a given option on a given criterion is the raw score for that option on that criterion, multiplied by the weight of that criterion. Thus, ‘beach holiday’ gets a raw score of ‘4’ on the ‘happy kids’ criterion. However as this criterion is highly valued (at 5) ‘beach holiday’ gets a weighted value of 20 (4 x 5).

It is clear that the ‘Total’ on the right shows ‘Stay at home’ would win on ‘raw scores’ (Sum of raw scores = 13) basis, but ‘Holiday camp’ wins once you allow for the different weight of each criterion (Sum of weighted scores = 32).

Nevertheless the results are still very sensitive to the exact values chosen. For instance, if the criterion ‘Low cost’ is given a weight of ‘4’ rather than ‘3’, ‘Stay at home’ would win instead (Sum of its weighted scores would be 34, whereas Holiday camp would only increase to 33). Such technicalities can make it quite difficult to see what going on unless one option is ‘head and shoulders’ above the rest. Sensitivity to slight changes also makes this an easy method to ‘rig’ so as to manufacture an impressive-looking self-objective case that seems to support an option that you happen to be in favour of!

The qualitative version presents essentially the same picture, but reduced to a scatter of ‘+’ and ‘-‘ signs, which amount, effectively, to a five-point scale: –, -, blank, +, ++:

Happy kids (+++) Low cost (++) Happy adults (++) Easy travel (+)
Walking Holiday
+
++
+
Cruise Holiday
Beach Holiday
+
+
Stay at home
++
++
Holiday Camp
++

To use this table begin by selecting the options that score best on the most important criterion. If there is only one (as above), it wins. If several tie, compare the tied options on the next most important criterion. Again, if there is only one, it wins, but if several are still tied, move on to the next criterion. And so on.

Less important criteria are only used to resolve ties. As this procedure is much easier and less obscure, the implications of working with such crude information are much simpler to grasp and discuss (and if necessary to allow for an even ignore).

Original Source: http://dreamlifecreation.com
Original Source: http://dreamlifecreation.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s