Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, \)'.)~'O <br /> <br />5,0 Resu Its <br /> <br />May 2003 <br /> <br />This exercise was a pilot, and as a result, caution should be used in drawing any conclusions <br />about selecting or rejecting management options. However, the following outlines the kinds of <br />insights the analysis can provide to decision makers. <br /> <br />Figure 1 provides an example from a single stakeholder comparing their ranks assigned by the <br />direct method and ranks assigned by the swing weighting method, Options ranked the same by <br />both methods fall on or near the 45 degree line, Options that fall far from the 45 degree line <br />should trigger a re-examination of that alternative by the stakeholder. For example, from <br />Figure 1 we see that Stakeholder 2 's ranks are quite consistent across the two methods except <br />for Flow Option B. This option is ranked very low by the direct method, but is ranked number <br />one by the weighted method, While this does not necessarily mean that the direct rank is <br />wrong, it may indicate any of a number of problems, such as: <br />mixing up the options in the direct ranking (common when there are many options); <br />overlooking some elements of performance in the direct ranking (common when there are <br />many attributes) <br />overlooking options that are less controversial or less visible (reflecting a tendency to <br />spend more discussion time on options with either vocal champions or vocal opponents). <br /> <br />Alternatively the direct ranking may be a more accurate reflection of the stakeholder's values <br />if the attributes do not adequately capture all the important elements of performance. The <br />intent of the multi-method approach is therefore not to say that one method is better than <br />another, but to expose inconsistencies, clarify the rationale for choices, and improve the <br />transparency and accountability of decisions. <br /> <br />Figure 1 Comparison of Ranks by Direct and by Swing Weighting Methods for Stakeholder 2 <br /> <br />Comparison of Direct Ranking versus Ranking based on Swing <br />Weights <br /> <br /> 10 <br /> 9 <br /> 8 <br /> 7 <br />1l 8 <br />e <br />c <br />~ 5 <br />~ <br />= <br />{}. 4 <br /> 3 <br /> 2 <br /> <br /> <br />2345678 <br />Rank by SwIng Weights <br /> <br />9 10 <br /> <br />GCDAMP MATA Pilot: <br />May 2003 Workshop Report <br /> <br />AlIarnab..eslocal9cllZ]lhlI45 <br />degree Une ha;e lhs Silrre rank <br />usmg8lMrTlIlI'lodof <br />e-.eluabOll <br /> <br />Allernatl..esIoc.aIedQlfIhe45 <br />degree Ine ha\(l dlHerenl ranks <br />depaodlngonlhe6\GWb(ll <br />rretOOdused. <br /> <br />Alternativ.. <br /> <br />. MLFF <br />... TeD w MLFF <br />. Sed Pipe. Sam <br />. Flow A <br />o Flow B <br />o Flow C <br />o Flow 0 <br />t:J. POWER - I'b Action <br />o Sed Pipe. TlSbidity <br />- 45 degree lire <br /> <br />6 <br />