My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
22
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:42:25 PM
Creation date
6/25/2007 2:29:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/20/2004
Description
WSP Section - SWSI Implementation Update
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />lilt <br /> <br /> <br />For the generic option, e <br />make general estimate about lilt 8 <br />it's potential cost CI) <br />as compared to other 1 <br />generic options <br />o <br />$ <br /> <br />$$$ <br /> <br />1. Generic Option <br />Performance <br /> <br />Partial Score from <br />Other Performance <br />Measures <br /> <br />Raw Performance Costs <br /> <br />3. Objective <br />Weighting <br /> <br />2. Standardized Score <br /> <br /> <br />Partial Score for <br />Cost Performance <br />Measure <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Satisfaction level x <br />Objective Weight = Partial Score <br />1 X 0.09 = 0.09 <br /> <br />6 . Continue <br />Calculating Overall <br />Score For Alt 6 <br /> <br />5. Plot <br />Partial Score <br /> <br />4. Calculate <br />Partial Score <br /> <br />The importance of the objective "Promote Cost Effectiveness" is then factored in for this <br />stakeholder, relative to the other objectives [Step 3]. In this example, cost was weighted 9% by this <br />individual (out of a possible 100%). <br /> <br />The standardized score is then multiplied by its relative weight of importance in order to get a <br />partial score for the option [Step 4]. In this example, this calculation would result in a partial score <br />of: <br /> <br />Standardized Score for Cost (1) X Relative Weight for Cost of (0.09) = 0.09 <br /> <br />The partial score of 0.09 is plotted on a graph for this generic option [Step 5]. This procedure is <br />repeated for all of the other performance measures for this generic option until a total score for the <br />option is calculated [Step 6]. <br /> <br />Finally, the option's total score is compared to the total scores of the other options in order to rank <br />the options for this individual stakeholder. <br /> <br />After ranking the generic options for each stakeholder based on raw scores and individual <br />preferences, the results were compared among stakeholders in the basin. The number of times an <br />option was within the top five options for any stakeholder in the basin was compiled and plotted <br />on a chart. The resulting chart for each of the eight basins is attached to this memo. From those <br />charts, the generic options that were consistently highly ranked by the stakeholders in each basin <br />are identified with an "x" in Table 1 below. <br /> <br />Table 1 Top-Ranked Generic Options by Basin <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.