S9_11-15-04

• Basin: Statewide
• Title: SWSI Phase 1 Report - Section 9 Evaluation Framework
• Date: 11/15/2004
• Author: CWCB
• SWSI - Doc Type: Final Report

Section 9
Evaluation Framework
9.5.2 Evaluate Options and
Combine Option Evaluation
with Stakeholder
Preferences
Figure 9-13 illustrates how the options were
evaluated using a multi-criteria score card
approach. This approach is widely used by
industry and government to rank projects based
on multiple, and often conflicting, criteria.
The options that best satisfied the objectives -
i.e., those scoring the highest - can be
combined to form complete alternatives that
would eliminate the water supply gap within
each of the basins. This process may be
employed in subsequent phases of SWSI.
9.5.3 Identify Likely Preferred
Options to be Used to
Construct Alternatives
After ranking the family of options for each
stakeholder based on raw scores and individual
preferences, the results were compared among
stakeholders in the basin. The number of times
an option was within the top six options for any
stakeholder in the basin was compiled and the
options that were consistently highly ranked by
the stakeholders in each basin are identified
with an °x" in Table 9-2.
5 Satisf ction Level
For each Option, make a ~% ~
general estimate about _~o _~
its Performance, relative N
2 -------- o
to the other options ~° %
~ $ $$$
Example Performance: Cost
1. Option Performance 2. Standardized Score 3. Objective Weighting
Partial Score from I
Other Perfor ance
Measures Partial Score for `~
Cost Performance
Measure Standardized Score x
Objective Weight =
~ 0.18 ~ Partial Score
2 x 0.09 = 0.18
Due to the multi-objective nature of the process, ~
tradeoffs exist and difficult choices may need to
be made. The SWSI process identified general
options that seem to best meet the sometimes-
conflicting water management objectives. "Diverse"
options, or options that address more than one objective
and offer benefits in more than one aspect and to more
than one user, will have a greater likelihood of being
supported and implemented, based on the preferences
showed in each basin.
Examples of those multi-objective options are presented
in Table 9-3.
These options that perform well when compared to more
than one of the objectives have the ability to provide the
~
$~ole'ri~ice Wo~e' $upplY Initia~ive
6. Continue 5. Plot PaKial Score 4. Calculate PaKial Score
Calculating Overall
Score for Option
Step 1 of the score card approach is to estimate how each option performs against
the objectives. Since SWSI is a reconnaissance-level process, performance was
assessed qualitatively based on engineering judgment, using the best available
information.
Step 2 of the approach uses the performance measures to convert the qualitative
performance for the given option into a score between 1 and 5; where 1 represents
poor performance and 5 represents superior performance. In the case of the
example shown here, this particular option was fairly expensive in terms of cost,
and therefore scores a 2(relatively poor).
Step 3 of the approach determines the weight that a particular stakeholder places
on the sub-objective being evaluated - in this example, cost. This stakeholder gives
the cost sub-objective a weight of 9 percent, relative to all other sub-objectives. The
weighting approach used was described in Section 9.4.
Step 4 of the approach applies the weight for the sub-objective to the performance
score for the option in order to get a partial score. In this example, the partial score
is 2 multiplied by 0.09, which yields 0.18.
Step 5 of the approach plots the partial score for the option and sub-objective.
Step 6 of the approach repeats this method for all of the other sub-objectives in
order to get a total score for the option. Options were then ranked from highest to
lowest in terms of their overall score for each individual Basin Roundtable member.
Figure 9-13
Multi-Criteria Score Card Approach for Ranking Options
supply necessary to fill the demand gaps, in the basins
where gaps exist. This is particularly true when the
options are implemented conjunctively, as balanced
alternatives or portfolios to meet demands while also
meeting many of the management objectives.
The options that have the ability to address stakeholders'
preferences, as identified through the process described
above, could be used to craft alternatives to meet the
projected demand gaps for each basin. More specific
options for each basin that could be employed in this
process are described in Section 10, some of which are
multi-objective and some of which are not.
~~
S:\REPORT\WORD PROCESSING\REPORT\S9 11-10.04.DOC 9-15