alternatives-overview

• Title: Development of Alternatives - Overview
• Author: CWCB
• SWSI - Doc Type: Supporting Documents

Development of Alternatives Overview
The importance of the objective "Promote Cost Effectiveness" is then factored in for
this stakeholder, relative to the other obje ctives [Step 3]. In this example, cost was
weighted 9% by this individual (out of a possible 100%).
The standardized score is then multiplied by its relative weight of importance in
order to get a partial score for the option [S tep 4]. In this example, this calculation
would result in a partial score of:
Standardized Score for Cost (1) X Relative Weight for Cost of (0.09) = 0.09
The partial score of 0.09 is plotted on a grap h for this option [Step 5]. This procedure
is repeated for all of the other performance measures for this option until a total score
for the option is calculated [Step 6].
Finally, the option's total score is compared to the total scores of the other options in
order to rank the options for this individual stakeholder.
After ranking the family of options for ea ch stakeholder based on raw scores and
individual preferences, the results were co mpared among stakeholders in the basin.
The number of times an option was within the top five options for any stakeholder in
the basin was compiled and plotted on a char t. The resulting chart for each of the
eight basins is attached to this memo. From those charts, the options that were
consistently highly ranked by the stakeholde rs in each basin are identified with an "x"
in Table 1 below.
DRAFT
3
S:\Meetings\Basin Roundtable\BRT4 Meeting - Alternatives\Alt Dev Att1 Bd Mtg July-04.doc