- name
- traffic-lights
- description
- Create multi-criteria comparison charts using traffic lights or Harvey balls. Use for option evaluation, competitive comparison, and executive dashboards.
Traffic Light Charts
Metadata
- Name: traffic-lights
- Description: Multi-criteria assessment visualization
- Triggers: traffic light, harvey ball, stoplight, RAG status, multi-criteria
Instructions
You are creating a traffic light chart to evaluate $ARGUMENTS.
Your task is to compare options across multiple criteria using a simple, visual format.
Framework
Visual Options
Traffic Lights (RAG)
🟢 Green = Good / On track / Above target
🟡 Yellow/Amer = Caution / At risk / Near target
🔴 Red = Bad / Off track / Below targetHarvey Balls (Half-moons)
○ Empty = 0% / None / Very poor
◔ Quarter = 25% / Below average
◑ Half = 50% / Average
◕ Three-Q = 75% / Above average
● Full = 100% / ExcellentArrows
↑↑ Strong positive
↑ Positive
→ Neutral
↓ Negative
↓↓ Strong negativeWhen to Use Which
| Chart Type | Best For |
|---|---|
| Traffic Lights | Status, progress, alerts |
| Harvey Balls | Gradual comparison, rating |
| Arrows | Trends, momentum |
| Stars | Customer ratings, reviews |
| Numbers | Precision needed |
Standard Applications
- Competitive Comparison - Us vs. competitors on key criteria
- Option Evaluation - Compare alternatives for decision
- Status Dashboard - Project/portfolio health
- Gap Analysis - Current vs. desired state
- Vendor Selection - Compare suppliers on requirements
Output Process
- Define criteria - What dimensions matter?
- Set scale - What does each color/symbol mean?
- Gather data - Assess each option on each criterion
- Apply ratings - Consistent methodology
- Calculate overall - Summary score
- Visualize - Create the chart
- Annotate - Add context and insights
- Interpret - Draw conclusions
Output Format
## Traffic Light Chart: [Subject]
### Assessment Criteria
| # | Criterion | Weight | Definition |
|---|-----------|--------|------------|
| 1 | [Criterion 1] | 20% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 2 | [Criterion 2] | 15% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 3 | [Criterion 3] | 25% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 4 | [Criterion 4] | 15% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 5 | [Criterion 5] | 10% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 6 | [Criterion 6] | 15% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| | **Total** | **100%** | |
---
### Traffic Light Matrix
| Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D |
|-----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| **1. [Criterion 1]** | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🔴 |
| **2. [Criterion 2]** | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟡 |
| **3. [Criterion 3]** | 🟢 | 🔴 | 🟢 | 🟢 |
| **4. [Criterion 4]** | 🟢 | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟡 |
| **5. [Criterion 5]** | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🔴 | 🟢 |
| **6. [Criterion 6]** | 🔴 | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🟡 |
| **OVERALL** | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🟡 |
**Legend:**
- 🟢 Green = Strong / Meets requirements
- 🟡 Yellow = Moderate / Partially meets
- 🔴 Red = Weak / Does not meet
---
### Scoring (Optional Quantitative)
| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D |
|-----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| 1. [Criterion] | 20% | 3 (0.6) | 2 (0.4) | 3 (0.6) | 1 (0.2) |
| 2. [Criterion] | 15% | 2 (0.3) | 3 (0.45) | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.3) |
| 3. [Criterion] | 25% | 3 (0.75) | 1 (0.25) | 3 (0.75) | 3 (0.75) |
| 4. [Criterion] | 15% | 3 (0.45) | 3 (0.45) | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.3) |
| 5. [Criterion] | 10% | 2 (0.2) | 3 (0.3) | 1 (0.1) | 3 (0.3) |
| 6. [Criterion] | 15% | 1 (0.15) | 2 (0.3) | 3 (0.45) | 2 (0.3) |
| **WEIGHTED TOTAL** | **100%** | **2.45** | **2.15** | **2.50** | **2.15** |
| **RANK** | | **2nd** | **3rd** | **1st** | **3rd** |
*Scale: 1=Red, 2=Yellow, 3=Green*
---
### Alternative: Harvey Ball Format
| Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D |
|-----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| **1. [Criterion]** | ● | ◑ | ● | ◔ |
| **2. [Criterion]** | ◑ | ● | ◑ | ◑ |
| **3. [Criterion]** | ● | ○ | ● | ◑ |
| **4. [Criterion]** | ● | ● | ◑ | ◑ |
| **5. [Criterion]** | ◑ | ● | ◔ | ● |
| **6. [Criterion]** | ◔ | ◑ | ● | ◑ |
| **OVERALL** | ◕ | ◑ | ● | ◑ |
**Legend:**
- ○ None (0%) | ◔ Quarter (25%) | ◑ Half (50%) | ◕ Three-Q (75%) | ● Full (100%)
---
### Pattern Analysis
**Strengths by Option**
| Option | Key Strengths | Key Weaknesses |
|--------|---------------|----------------|
| Option A | [Criterion 1, 3, 4] | [Criterion 6] |
| Option B | [Criterion 2, 4, 5] | [Criterion 3] |
| Option C | [Criterion 1, 3, 6] | [Criterion 5] |
| Option D | [Criterion 1, 3, 5] | [Criterion 1] |
**Patterns Observed**
1. [Pattern 1 - e.g., "All options score well on Criterion 4"]
2. [Pattern 2 - e.g., "Criterion 3 shows largest differentiation"]
3. [Pattern 3 - e.g., "No option scores green on all criteria"]
---
### Recommendation
**Top Choice: [Option C]**
- Rationale: [Why this option]
- Trade-offs: [What we give up]
**Runner-up: [Option A]**
- When to consider: [Situations where this is better]
**Not Recommended: [Option D]**
- Why not: [Key deficiencies]Tips
- Define criteria before rating - don't retrofit
- Be consistent - same assessor or calibrated team
- Don't have too many criteria (6-10 is optimal)
- Weight criteria by importance
- Use supporting data in appendix
- The overall score should be a guide, not a rule
- Patterns matter more than individual cells
- Document the rationale for each rating
References
- Few, Stephen. *Information Dashboard Design*. 2006.
- Tufte, Edward. *Beautiful Evidence*. 2006.