Skip to content
Ameen Abozaid
Englishالعربية
ARC-033

Solution options

  • 6 Lessons
  • 4 h practice (estimate)
Start module
On this page 9 topics

Overview

Topics

  • Alternative designs
  • evaluation criteria
  • decision matrices

Learn first

4 h of practice (estimate)

Learning outcomes

  1. Generate genuinely different solution options (e.g., commerce SaaS, packaged platform, custom build, hybrid).
  2. Define evaluation criteria and weights with stakeholders before scoring.
  3. Score options in a decision matrix and test the result's sensitivity to weights.
  4. Recommend an option and record why the others were rejected.

Lessons

  1. 01Why one option is no option
  2. 02Generating real alternatives
  3. 03Criteria and weights with stakeholders
  4. 04Decision matrices and sensitivity
  5. 05Demo: four options for Larkspur's commerce platform
  6. 06Demo: when changing one weight flips the recommendation

Lab and exercises

Lab

ARC-033-LAB1 · Larkspur options analysis

Outcomes: 1–4 · Time: ~4 h

  1. Draft at least three genuinely different options (commerce SaaS, packaged platform, custom build, hybrid) plus the "extend the old web shop" baseline.
  2. Run a role-played stakeholder workshop and record gates, criteria, weights, and who endorsed them before scoring.
  3. Score each option in a decision matrix with an evidence note per score.
  4. Run sensitivity analysis: vary each weight and report whether the winner changes.
  5. Write the recommendation, and for each rejected option record its honest strengths and why it lost.
  6. Defend the analysis to an assessor who challenges your weights and scores.

Acceptance: rejected options documented with their honest strengths.

Exercises (case-based; six exercises)

IDOutcomeTask
ARC-033-EX011A project brief for Larkspur lists "Option A: buy Platform X; Option B: build everything from scratch with no budget for testing; Option C: do nothing and lose the market". Explain what is wrong and rewrite as three credible options.
ARC-033-EX021Write a half-page sketch for the hybrid option (SaaS storefront plus custom order orchestration): what Larkspur owns, rents, and what the first release contains.
ARC-033-EX032Larkspur's finance director wants "cheapest" and e-commerce wants "fastest". Draft gates, six weighted criteria, and a workshop plan that settles weights before scoring.
ARC-033-EX043Given a matrix with totals 3.9 (SaaS), 3.8 (hybrid), 3.2 (custom), explain what can and cannot be concluded, and design the sensitivity tests you would run.
ARC-033-EX053In EX04, raising "process fit" by 5 points makes hybrid win. Write the message to the sponsor presenting this result honestly.
ARC-033-EX064Write the recommendation section for the SaaS option, including three rejected options with their strengths and a re-evaluation trigger.
Show solutions
  • EX01 Option B is built to fail (no testing budget) and option C is not a real option; replace with commerce SaaS, hybrid, and extending the existing shop as baseline, each with cost, time, and risk sketches.
  • EX02 Owns: order orchestration, integration to ERP and CRM; rents: storefront, checkout, hosting; first release: web storefront with ERP stock and price sync; later: store pickup and returns orchestration.
  • EX03 Gates: PCI scope reduction, data residency, ERP integration possible. Criteria and weights summing to 100 (for example time-to-market, total cost, process fit, integration effort, exit risk, team skills); workshop with both leaders, weights recorded and signed off before scoring.
  • EX04 A 0.1 gap is within scoring noise; conclude that SaaS and hybrid are close and the decision depends on weights; test by moving each weight by 10 points, swapping top two weights, and varying scores by one point on uncertain criteria.
  • EX05 State that the result depends on how much Larkspur values process fit; present both outcomes, name the disagreement, and ask the sponsor to rule on the weight, recorded as a decision.
  • EX06 Recommend SaaS for speed and low run effort; note hybrid's strength of process fit, custom build's control, baseline's zero migration; re-evaluate if customization needs exceed the vendor's extension limits.

All four outcomes are also covered by the lab acceptance and the quiz.

Workplace evidence: an options analysis you led that produced a decision.

Quiz

Outcomes: O1 generate real options · O2 criteria and weights · O3 decision matrix and sensitivity · O4 recommend and record rejections.

A self-check for you: nothing is graded, saved or sent anywhere. Choose an answer, then check it. You can try again as often as you like.

  1. 1Which set of Larkspur options differs in approach rather than in vendor?O1
  2. 2A strawman option is:O1
  3. 3When should evaluation weights be agreed?O2
  4. 4A must-have such as card data staying out of Larkspur's scope is best treated as:O2
  5. 5Two options total 3.9 and 3.8. The most defensible reading is:O3
  6. 6Sensitivity analysis checks:O3
  7. 7Raising "speed to market" by 10 points flips the winner. You should:O3
  8. 8For rejected options, the recommendation page should record:O4
  9. 9The e-commerce and finance leads disagree on whether cost or speed matters more. The best move is:O2
  10. 10A good recommendation includes:O4

Practical part

Options defense with assessor challenges on the Larkspur lab: the assessor challenges weights, scores, and one rejected option. Pass: quiz at least 8/10, at least five of six exercises correct, and a lab with at least three real options, pre-agreed weights, a sensitivity table, and documented rejected-option strengths.

Common mistakes

Strawman options; criteria chosen after the favorite; no sensitivity check.

Assessment

Options defense with assessor challenges.

Workplace evidence

An options analysis you led that produced a decision.

Career relevance

Options analysis is the heart of solution architecture.

Type to search levels, phases, modules and lessons.