Position in the Decision-Making Hierarchy
In the case of a development that is highly sensitive politically, or where different
levels of the political hierarchy are responsible for different aspects of the project, it
may be necessary to obtain attribute weightings from each relevant layer of
administration.
In the case of the planning of a proposed incineration plant to cater for the waste
disposal needs of a major urban centre, three levels of government may be involved:
the national administration may be funding the project, with the regional government
responsible for its design and the operation of the plant handled at local level. A
multi-criteria analysis of this proposal may require weights from decision-makers
from these three different levels of administration, reflecting their different political
and operational perspectives on the project.
15.6.8 Scoring Systems for the Criteria
The assessment of the performance of criteria depends to a very large extent on the
nature of the criterion being considered. Where the criterion is assessed in quantitative terms in its own units, the process is relatively straightforward. As can be seen
from the worked examples at the start of this chapter, the transformation of these
scores onto a 10-point scale involves assigning ‘10’ to the option performing best on
the criterion in question, with the other options being given a score somewhere along
the 10-point scale between 0 and 10, depending on each one’s performance relative
to the best one.
The process of assessment of qualitatively-based criteria is less straight forward.
On the basis that the same 10-point scale that is used to score the quantitatively based
criteria must be used to assess intangible criteria, some efforts have been made to
compile a standardised set of descriptions for the level of desirability associated with
each point on this scale. These attempt to define in straightforward language, for
each option under consideration, the outcome that is equivalent to each numbered
score on the scale. The actual descriptions will vary depending on the nature of the
qualitative criterion being assessed.
Take for example a qualitatively assessed environmental criterion such as the
landscape impacts of a structure such as a high-level bridge in the centre of a large
conurbation. While it is obvious that the score ‘10’, the most desirable outcome, is
equivalent to ‘no impact on the landscape’, and the score ‘0’, the least desirable
outcome, is equivalent to ‘extreme intrusive impacts on the landscape’ with all value
of the view being lost, Table 15.20 defines how the scores from ‘1’ to ‘9’ might be
defined.
One can see that there is a high level of description associated with these
qualitatively assessed criteria, allowing quite a precise valuation to be assigned to
each of the competing options. In order to compile rating information for all the
qualitative criteria associated with a given multi-criteria evaluation, experts in the
relevant field must be employed to compile the descriptions associated with each
438
15 Multi Objective Evaluation Criteria for Infrastructure
In the case of a development that is highly sensitive politically, or where different
levels of the political hierarchy are responsible for different aspects of the project, it
may be necessary to obtain attribute weightings from each relevant layer of
administration.
In the case of the planning of a proposed incineration plant to cater for the waste
disposal needs of a major urban centre, three levels of government may be involved:
the national administration may be funding the project, with the regional government
responsible for its design and the operation of the plant handled at local level. A
multi-criteria analysis of this proposal may require weights from decision-makers
from these three different levels of administration, reflecting their different political
and operational perspectives on the project.
15.6.8 Scoring Systems for the Criteria
The assessment of the performance of criteria depends to a very large extent on the
nature of the criterion being considered. Where the criterion is assessed in quantitative terms in its own units, the process is relatively straightforward. As can be seen
from the worked examples at the start of this chapter, the transformation of these
scores onto a 10-point scale involves assigning ‘10’ to the option performing best on
the criterion in question, with the other options being given a score somewhere along
the 10-point scale between 0 and 10, depending on each one’s performance relative
to the best one.
The process of assessment of qualitatively-based criteria is less straight forward.
On the basis that the same 10-point scale that is used to score the quantitatively based
criteria must be used to assess intangible criteria, some efforts have been made to
compile a standardised set of descriptions for the level of desirability associated with
each point on this scale. These attempt to define in straightforward language, for
each option under consideration, the outcome that is equivalent to each numbered
score on the scale. The actual descriptions will vary depending on the nature of the
qualitative criterion being assessed.
Take for example a qualitatively assessed environmental criterion such as the
landscape impacts of a structure such as a high-level bridge in the centre of a large
conurbation. While it is obvious that the score ‘10’, the most desirable outcome, is
equivalent to ‘no impact on the landscape’, and the score ‘0’, the least desirable
outcome, is equivalent to ‘extreme intrusive impacts on the landscape’ with all value
of the view being lost, Table 15.20 defines how the scores from ‘1’ to ‘9’ might be
defined.
One can see that there is a high level of description associated with these
qualitatively assessed criteria, allowing quite a precise valuation to be assigned to
each of the competing options. In order to compile rating information for all the
qualitative criteria associated with a given multi-criteria evaluation, experts in the
relevant field must be employed to compile the descriptions associated with each
438
15 Multi Objective Evaluation Criteria for Infrastructure