Thoughtbox

export const TRADE_OFF_MATRIX_CONTENT = `# Trade-off Matrix Map competing concerns explicitly to make balanced decisions with clear reasoning. ## When to Use - Multiple valid options with different strengths - Stakeholders prioritize different things - Need to communicate reasoning for a decision - Want to avoid "gut feeling" decisions on complex choices ## Process ### Step 1: Define the Options List the distinct alternatives you're choosing between. - Option A: Build custom solution - Option B: Use open-source library X - Option C: Use commercial service Y ### Step 2: Identify Evaluation Criteria What factors matter for this decision? - Performance - Development time - Maintenance burden - Cost - Flexibility - Team expertise - Risk ### Step 3: Weight the Criteria Not all criteria matter equally. Assign relative importance. - Critical (3x): Must be good here - Important (2x): Strongly prefer good - Nice-to-have (1x): Prefer but will compromise ### Step 4: Score Each Option Rate how well each option satisfies each criterion (1-5 scale). Be honest—don't inflate scores for your preferred option. ### Step 5: Calculate and Compare Multiply scores by weights, sum for each option. The math isn't the point—the process of explicit evaluation is. ### Step 6: Sense-Check the Result Does the "winner" feel right? If not, what criteria are missing or mis-weighted? ## Key Principle The goal isn't to find the "objectively best" option—it's to make trade-offs explicit so decisions are reasoned and communicable. ## Example Application **Decision:** Which state management for our React app? **Criteria (with weights):** - Learning curve (2x): Team needs to ramp up fast - Performance (1x): App is simple, perf not critical - Bundle size (1x): Mobile users, bundle matters - Ecosystem (2x): Need good tooling/community - Future flexibility (1x): May need to scale later **Scoring:** | Criterion | Weight | Redux | Zustand | Jotai | |-----------|--------|-------|---------|-------| | Learning curve | 2x | 2 | 4 | 4 | | Performance | 1x | 3 | 4 | 5 | | Bundle size | 1x | 2 | 5 | 5 | | Ecosystem | 2x | 5 | 3 | 3 | | Flexibility | 1x | 4 | 4 | 3 | **Totals:** - Redux: 4+3+2+10+4 = 23 - Zustand: 8+4+5+6+4 = 27 - Jotai: 8+5+5+6+3 = 27 **Analysis:** Zustand and Jotai score similarly. Zustand has slight edge on flexibility. Check if ecosystem difference matters in practice—does Redux's ecosystem give us something we actually need? ## Matrix Variations **Simple Yes/No:** For quick decisions | Criterion | Option A | Option B | |-----------|----------|----------| | Under budget | Yes | No | | Team knows it | No | Yes | | Scales to 10K | Yes | Yes | **Risk-focused:** Add likelihood and impact columns | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Option A | Option B | |------|------------|--------|----------|----------| | Data loss | Low | High | Mitigated | Exposed | ## Anti-patterns - Including criteria that don't actually vary between options - Weighting after you see which option is winning (reverse engineering) - Excessive precision (3.7 vs 3.8 is false precision) - Not including "gut check" at the end `;