Step
5 Establish and Apply Screening Criteria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can now establish screening criteria to winnow the
options and get ones that will meet
the objectives.
|
|
|
|
Purpose
|
At this point, you are examining various
sets of potential trains and tracks and figuring out what
would cause a train wreck . If
a train wreck (or fatal flaw) is unavoidable, drop that
option. If it can be avoided, incorporate changes.
|
|
|
|
- To identify and eliminate options with fatal
flaws
- To develop criteria that ensure options
:
- Can be supported by various publics and participants
- Can withstand the scrutiny of adversarial entities
- Can respond to the needs
and objectives
- Can be accomplished within the resources
and constraints
- To retain workable options
- To document the results
|
|
|
|
Why?
|
You don't want to waste time or money
evaluating options that won't work, yet you want a broad
range of options. |
|
|
|
You need to focus on solutions which will
work by meeting the needs in environmentally acceptable, economically
efficient, and politically implementable
ways.
Carefully identifying and applying screening
criteria is an indispensable step!
A willy-nilly elimination of options will:
- Destroy credibility (Why wasn't my option considered?)
- Block workable solutions (x could have worked if only
we had done y!)
- Let unworkable options continue (Why didn't you consider
that factor?).
Screening criteria are applied to identify fatal flaws of
proposed actions or elements. Once you screen for these fatal
flaws, you can then concentrate on the remaining viable options.
You also need to be able to determine scales or thresholds for
these criteria. This will ensure that you can apply the screening
criteria objectively and consistently. For example, a threshold
might be that the option must ensure effluent meets a standard
for concentration of a specific toxin. Any option not meeting
this threshold would be considered fatally flawed. |
|
|
|
How?
|
|
Right now, you are simply weeding out options
that won't work--for one reason or another. Participants must
determine what criteria are appropriate. Involve sponsors, decisionmakers,
partners, and selected publics to help establish some of the
criteria that are particularly meaningful to them. Doing this
can be an excellent way to establish trust and confidence
in the Federal presence. Specialists need to contribute their
expertise to the overall whole so that criteria are as comprehensive,
consistent, and interactive as possible. For larger studies,
work groups may be assigned to deal with specific values and
disciplines, but groups must coordinate closely to avoid conflicts
and Catch-22's. Recognize that conflicts over criteria can happen
without shooting down options now.
Technological, social, economic, and environmental analyses
, as well as evaluations of public acceptability are performed
and the results displayed for comparison. Applying the screening
criteria is as much a documentation process as it is an analytical
process. Documenting the process provides the paper trail that
shows where and why some options were discarded and others were
carried forward.
|
|
Search
for Fatal Flaws
|
Keep "too difficult" options: Difficulty
is a factor in evaluating the relative worth of alternatives.
It is not a fatal flaw. For example, moving the castle
may be difficult, but not impossible. (Check out the London
Bridge now in the U.S.) |
|
|
|
Constraints are a
jumping off place to identify possible train wrecks. Ask:
- What can't we do? (This will provide a list of fatal
flaw triggers to work with.)
- At what level or under what conditions would this option
be unacceptable? (This will provide a range of extremes that
can become fatal flaw triggers.)
- Why can't we do that? (This will explain why the action
would trigger a fatal flaw.)
Potential implementors can explain
what factors you need to look at to ensure that options will
be workable. This involvement will not only look at the factors
that count in the real world, but it will also enhance your
credibility. These actions will help implementors conclude that
you are serious and you do care about solving the problem in
a realistic, responsible manner.
Before dismissing any option as unworkable--think through
the "what if"--what if the fatal flaw or roadblock were removed?
(e.g., NEPA requires that we look
beyond existing legislation). A lot of great ideas were once
scoffed at .
|
|
|
Each process will have its own set of fatal flaws. For
example, implementation time may be a fatal factor in a court-mandated
action, while it may not be in a long-term basin management
plan. Fatal flaws may lurk in any facet of the option: institutional,
organizational, economic, social, physical, etc. Some factors
to consider:
- Workability.
- Will it meet the need and fulfill the objective? Are
there enough resources to implement and support it?
-
- Decision factors.
- What are the policy issues? What are the institutional
judgments, laws, and philosophy?
-
- Technical factors.
- How will this affect physical and biological interrelationships
within the ecosystem? (Consider factors such as organizational,
environmental, hydrology, social, or geology.) It may be necessary
to repeat some of the methods used to assess resources.
-
- Key variables.
- What are the key interrelationships and dependencies?
How will they influence the different possible solutions?
-
- Exclusion factors.
- What are the internal and external constraints? (Consider
laws, endangered species, time, organizational policy, etc.)
-
The list of fatal flaws helps form your criteria. Examine
this list to ensure that you have all the criteria you need
and no more. Ask:
- What will drive the decision? Do the criteria reflect
this?
- What does each criterion add?
- Why must each option meet that criterion?
|
|
Determine
Thresholds and Scales |
|
Establishing criteria without establishing
limits fashions too wide a screen--practically every option
will fail. For example, if water quality is a criteria, determine
what standards options must meet. If time is a criteria, determine
which timeframes are acceptable (implementable in 1 to 5 years
or in 5 to 20)? Thresholds and scales will vary with each process.
Ask:
- At what threshold would an option fail to meet the need
or objective?
- When would it violate a limit
?
Be as specific as possible, given the level
of detail (e.g., At what flow level would flood damage occur?
At what point would water supplies or flow demands fail to be
met?)
|
|
Do
a Reality Check
|
Pitfall:
If your criteria are too limiting or site-specific,
you may exclude options needed to assemble a full range
of potential alternatives. |
|
|
|
Relate the criteria back to the needs, objectives,
and resources to ensure that they are on track. Potential implementors
are in the best position to tell you what will and won't work.
Ask them what factors will need to be considered and what thresholds
are realistic. Do a preliminary analysis on the interrelationships
of options--what would need to be done first? What actions depend
on other actions? What actions depend on seasons or other time
factors? Why?
|
|
Determine
Procedures |
|
The team should agree on a procedure to measure these
scales or thresholds. How will the options be measured? What
analyses will be used? Whatever criteria the team selects, consider
several factors when settling on a procedure for applying the
criteria:
- Value measures.
- How will we measure values such as public acceptability , effectiveness ,
feasibility , efficiency , and completeness ?
-
- Accuracy.
- How accurate do measurements, analyses, and projections
need to be? Are data adequate to support the selected criteria?
All specialists should review previous decisions and agree
on a congruent level of detail for
this step. This detail must be appropriate to the type of
action or study, the complexity, controversy, and data available.
-
- Reliability.
- What is needed to ensure that the solution will continue
to work?
If you can't agree on procedures, redraft the criteria and
scales.
|
|
Apply
the Screen
|
|
Use the criteria you have decided upon to
determine which option to keep. Make sure that you consider
each option in the same way. Keep options that meet the criteria
for now and drop only those that clearly fail the criteria.
While it is important and cost effective to limit options
to those which only address the stated objectives, being too
adamant at this time may create roadblocks by:
- Overlooking previously unidentified needs
- Not recognizing changes in identified needs
- Not considering all of the participants' input
- Losing credibility
- Losing support of publics
Comparing all criteria at the same time can provide an important
overall picture: |
|
Document
the Results
|
|
Your efforts will be meaningless if you don't
clearly document the results so participants can determine for
themselves if the process is fair and reasonable. A summary
document with concise text and the graphic displays can be distributed
to all participants to ensure that nothing has been overlooked.
The idea is to present factual information in a readily readable
form supported by visual confirmation. The combination will
help retention and understanding, and should make it easier
to build consent for the decisions made.
You will need two kinds of documentation:
-
For viable options.
- Agree on the type of displays you intend to use and use
similar approaches for each criteria. Displays must be simple,
consistent, and easily understood. Graphs and tables help
readers compare various aspects. Make sure that each graph,
table, and text lists the components and criteria in the same
order. This helps readers find information quickly. A brief
explanation of the methodology used puts the tables and graphs
in context. Each discipline should maintain a working file
of all the analysis for future backup and appendices. This
working file is part of your personal work record. It is an
official record and must be preserved.
-
For nonviable options.
- Whenever you eliminate an alternative, document that
you considered it and the rationale behind eliminating it.
The analysis for a nonviable option should go only as far
as identifying the fatal flaw. Document the flaw and present
the analysis in the report. (This may be as short as one sentence.)
|
|
|
|
Tools
|
|
Useful tools may range from simple ratings
to complex computer models. Display the screening results in
a consistent manner: in tables, bar charts, pie charts, etc.
Issue and process maps and influence diagrams focus attention
on those parameters that affect or influence specific elements.
|
|
Rating Tables
|
Define, explain, and clearly document
the classifications, ranking scales, and other measurements
to show your thinking. |
|
|
|
Results of initial screening could be displayed
in simple comparative tables for which specific criteria are
stated or displayed in a rating scale. For example, preliminary
factors considered for geologic suitability of a structural
site might include basic foundation geology, seismic risk, and
availability of construction materials. Results of the rating
could be displayed in a table similar to the following:
Brine replacement reservoirs |
Alternate sites
|
Geology
|
Seismic
|
Embankment
|
Sad Iron Peak |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Setter's Creek |
2 |
4 |
2 |
Sugar Boy Mine |
3 |
6 |
2 |
Sites are rated on a scale of increasing
risk from 1-10 for each criteria. Risks less than 4 are
acceptable for further examination.
Ranking criteria are discussed in section 8.1 of the
Miner's Creek Water Supply report. |
(In this example, the Sugar Boy Mine site has an unacceptable
seismic risk, and should not be examined further. Sad Iron Peak
and Settler's Creek can continue as workable options--if they
don't fail another screening test)
|
|
Risk And Uncertainty |
|
Determine what an acceptable range is (e.g.,
less than a 5 risk) and then use a rating or matrix
table to screen out options outside that range. Another
rating scale useful in communicating with the public is an evaluation
summary. This type of display could be used for any level of
screening or evaluation process. You may not be able to precisely
quantify something without further data. At this stage, merely
identifying the level of concern ("none," "minor," "major,"
"unresolvable") will be enough--if you can justify that classification.
|
|
Constraints
Analysis |
|
Use constraints tables, force field analyses,
or other tools that show what can and can't be done. Using a
variety of analyses will help ensure that nothing is overlooked.
You may be able to develop strategies to eliminate or reduce
restraining forces to retain the option as workable. Be sure
to document any changes to the option.
|
|
Decision
Process Worksheets |
|
Using the decision process worksheets to list
your criteria will provide an overall view of the process so
far. You can then take each option ,
match it against the criteria, and eliminate ones with fatal
flaws.
Where information is suspect, identify and clearly describe
the reliability of the data or estimates being used in screening.
Future projections, measurement errors, and complex studies
may make data uncertain. Sensitivity analyses, which adjust
data to discover the allowable margin for error, help evaluate
outcomes with uncertain data. Some ways to reduce risk and uncertainty
about potential fatal flaws include:
- Gathering more detailed and refined data
- Including more safety features
- Committing fewer resources.
|
|
Scatter Diagram Analysis
|
|
Use a scatter diagram to spot possible fatal
flaws. Determine two critical vectors that interact with each
other, for example power output and redd survival. Graph each
vector on the x and y axes. Plot results from each alternative.
Draw a "safety region" where the results are ok. Anything falling
outside of this region may be a fatal flaw.
|
|
Acceptability |
|
At this point, acceptability will likely be
limited to select publics, such as actual users of the resource
and concerned environmental groups. A broader exposure will
be applied when the various solutions are combined into alternatives.
It may be best to focus public participation to those who helped
identify the solutions. Use your public involvement specialist
to help conduct an effective public participation program.
|
|
|
|
Look Forward
|
|
Carefully following and documenting this step
should ensure that the options that remain are doable. Ensure
that:
- The criteria focus on identified needs and stated objectives.
- The criteria are acceptable to the technical community.
- The important criteria provided by the public was included.
- The criteria thresholds and measurements were accurate
and reliable for your detail level.
- All participants were invited to help develop the screening
criteria.
Potential implementors were consulted.
|
|
Go/No
Go
|
Ask potential implementors--Did we miss
any key factors? Are the options that remain realistic
and doable? |
|
|
|
By analyzing the results of the screening
process, you should be able to report to decisionmakers
and the affected publics whether or not:
This is a crucial go/no go decision point. If you have not
identified options that work to meet the needs and fall within
the Reclamation's role, then you must either:
- Determine if the purpose and scope
are appropriate.
- Do you need to redefine the problem?
-
- Review the process so far.
- Is there anything that was overlooked? Have needs, objectives,
or circumstances changed? Can you go beyond the constraints
to change the process and free up solutions?
-
- Develop more options .
- Go back to the drawing board.
-
- Redefine your involvement and rebuild the
foundation .
- Are there aspects of the problem we can solve that do
fall within Reclamation's role ?
-
- Terminate the involvement
- See if someone else can act
to solve the problems and work with those groups and individuals.
Keep in touch with other participants.
|
|
|
|
Go On
|
|
Executive
Summary and Process Tours:
Options <- ----> Alternatives
|
|
|
|
|