Choose the criteria before the ranking
Possible considerations include burden, severity, community concern, inequity, available evidence, feasibility, and the organization's role. Some overlap, so avoid counting the same concern repeatedly under different names.
Define what a high or low score means for each criterion.
An illustrative comparison
| Issue | High burden | Feasible local response | Strong resident concern |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Yes | Uncertain | Yes |
| B | Moderate | Yes | Mixed |
This table exposes a discussion. It does not decide it. A numeric version should retain the reasons and evidence behind the scores.
Test whether the ranking is fragile
If a small change in weights reverses the order, report that sensitivity. It may indicate that several choices are defensible or that a key judgment needs more discussion.
Keep participation meaningful
Ask who selected the criteria and whose concerns are missing. A public vote alone can also favor groups with more time or access to participate.
Document why the chosen priorities were selected, what remains outside scope, and when the decision will be revisited. The matrix is useful when it supports a transparent choice, not when it gives a subjective process a misleading appearance of mathematical inevitability.
