Pros and cons list
Compare the benefits and drawbacks of possible actions against a shared goal.
Use a short comparison when you need to make trade-offs visible. This template adds a mitigation column to help examine whether a drawback can be reduced.
Possible actions, a common goal, constraints, and evidence for the expected benefits and drawbacks.
A side-by-side comparison with an explicit reason for choosing an action or collecting more evidence.
How to use it
- State the common goal and constraints.
- Record benefits and drawbacks for each option.
- Add possible mitigations and identify their uncertainties.
- Explain which trade-offs are acceptable and what still needs checking.
Keep its limits in mind
Counting items does not show which option is best. Consider importance, likelihood, and irreversible costs; do not treat suggested mitigations as proven solutions.
Comparing collection and delivery
A fictional shop is comparing pickup and local delivery to make repeat purchases easier. No customer demand or financial outcome is assumed.
On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.
Assessment: Pickup uses an existing resource, but this alone does not establish that customers prefer it.
Next check: Ask customers about collection and delivery, then check whether either trial fits staff capacity.
Next step: Record the evidence behind the final choice and review it after a trial.
Three reasons a longer list is not a better choice
Use a Pros and Cons List when feasible alternatives involve tradeoffs that cannot be honestly reduced to a score. State one shared goal and the constraints before writing advantages. Compare the same scope, including who benefits, who does extra work and which effects remain uncertain. A short, decisive drawback can matter more than several minor conveniences.
Pause if an option fails a mandatory requirement. A benefit elsewhere cannot compensate for that failure. Pause if the table counts the same advantage in several phrases or lists known drawbacks for one option but only hopes for the other. Pause if a proposed mitigation is already being treated as a solved problem. “Run a rehearsal” is an action requiring capacity, permission and a result, not evidence that setup risk has disappeared.
Distinguish a known property from its possible value. An existing counter may simplify pickup operations without proving customer preference. Local delivery may avoid a customer trip while creating unmeasured work. Keep uncertain likelihood or magnitude in words unless there is a defensible scale. Numbering three pros and two cons is not a reason to choose.
Choose qualitative tradeoffs, scores or more investigation
The method should match the available evidence. A comparison can usefully end with a request for one decisive fact instead of a premature winner. Keep the choice open until the decision owner accepts a rationale.
| Method | Use when | Output and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Pros and Cons List | Important eligible-option tradeoffs resist honest scoring | Evidence, acceptable tradeoffs and unresolved questions |
| Decision matrix | Shared criteria and defensible weights/ratings exist | Weighted comparison and sensitivity; no success probability |
| TOWS | Possible actions have not yet been developed from factors | Action candidates with tests, not a final choice |
| Stakeholder analysis | Decision rights or affected roles are unclear | Authority and input questions, not assumed agreement |
Worked case: two eligible workshop arrangements
This independent fictional collaboration case is separate from the shop’s pickup/delivery example. A team needs a two-hour community workshop without adding a permanent staff role. Packet V1 stipulates that West Hall and East Library meet the brief’s space, access, activity and Saturday 14:00–16:00 requirements for comparison. Neither venue is booked. Fees, staffing acceptance and final terms are still unconfirmed; eligibility under those four requirements is not authority to commit.
V2 records that the team already runs its regular check-in desk at West Hall. V3 records that East Library is inside the intended community, but supplies no participant preferences, attendance estimate or travel comparison. V4 says the team has not rehearsed its equipment at East Library. These are invented case inputs. V3 supports a location description, not proven reach; V4 supports uncertainty, not a claim that equipment will fail.
Write each consequence with its basis and retain the unknowns. West Hall offers familiarity for the team, while attendee fit needs checking. East Library may fit the intended location, while unfamiliar setup needs investigation. The common no-permanent-role constraint still requires actual capacity checks for either arrangement. A proposed rehearsal or temporary helper does not establish availability or approval.
| Option | Possible advantage and basis | Drawback or unknown | Proposed mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| West Hall | Existing check-in desk:V2; familiar arrangement | Participant location preference, fees and staffing unconfirmed | [Suggestion] Check participant fit and obtain terms/capacity replies |
| East Library | Within intended community:V3; potential location fit | Unrehearsed equipment:V4; reach, fees and staffing unconfirmed | [Suggestion] Request a setup rehearsal and check actual participant interest |
Conclude with the missing decision evidence
The current conclusion is to retain both alternatives and request the facts that could change the choice. Ask which matters most for this workshop: familiar execution, participant location or another explicit requirement. That priority is a decision judgment, not something to infer by counting cells. Obtain actual terms and capacity replies before turning an eligible option into a commitment.
A review request can be specific: “Please confirm whether either arrangement fits our staffing limit, what each venue would charge and what participants need from the location. For East Library, a rehearsal is proposed; its owner and permission remain unconfirmed.” This separates facts sought from actions already authorized. If a new mandatory condition excludes an option, document the reason rather than hiding it as one more con among many.
When an owner chooses, retain the accepted tradeoff, evidence, conditions and unresolved items. If a limited workshop is then approved, record actual setup effort, attendance and participant feedback against the original question. Completion of a rehearsal does not prove demand; a successful event does not prove every earlier assumption. Reopen the comparison when terms, people or requirements change, preserving the first rationale so the later decision remains explainable.
Check your work
- Options address the same goal.
- Claims have a stated basis or uncertainty.
- Mitigations remain distinct from confirmed benefits.
- The choice explains the importance of the trade-offs.
Framework references
References explain the framework and its scope; they do not validate the fictional example's results.
Put the framework to work
Copy the outline and add your question, evidence, and open questions.