Strategy Survival Guide

events. There are a number of different techniques for identifying risks, these include check lists, prompt
lists, workshops, questionnaires and brainstorming.
Work from the organisational analysis should also feed into the development of the criteria, particularly
those looking at suitability, feasibility and acceptability. Understanding the organisational structure and
culture of the department can help in understanding the ease or difficulty with which new strategies can be
adopted. Some consideration should also be given to whether the Department has the resources and
competencies available to deliver a new strategy. The key areas to assess include:
• Availability of and sources of finance
• Skills: organisational, leadership, technical expertise
• Availability of physical resources e.g. buildings, offices etc
• IT capacity
• HR capacity.
The criteria should also encompass a range of different perspectives on the policy problem, including the
following (where applicable):
• economic
• social
• environmental
• ethical
• legal
• scientific.
Sponsor, stakeholder and public attitudes should be reflected, together with relevant local, national (including
the devolved administrations) and international perspectives. It should also include any specific values or
principles that could underpin the success of future policy.
3. Assess options against criteria using quantitative or qualitative data
Once the options have been agreed and the criteria determined, assessing each option against each
criterion brings them together. All available evidence should be employed, both quantitative and qualitative.
The results are then typically presented in a matrix format. If a wide range of criteria is employed, then the
quality and type of information available to make each assessment will vary considerably. This will mean that
the results in turn will vary in nature, including:
• monetary values
• other quantified data
• rankings
• naïve descriptions (e.g. positive/neutral/negative).
In principle, the MCA could stop at this stage (though preferably including stage 6) and the matrix presented
in its raw form to decision-makers. The exercise has added value by presenting and appraising options in a
systematic and comprehensive way. But unless one option clearly dominates all the others, implicit
judgement is still required. Subsequent stages help to make the judgements involved in decision-making
much more explicit.
4. Score options against criteria on a consistent basis
Scoring takes place primarily as a pre-cursor to weighting, and is designed to present in a common format all
of the results generated in stage 3. A typical approach is to decide a range of scores for each criterion, for
example 0 (the lowest score) to 100 (the highest score). The end points are then fixed in relation to the raw
results.
Example A: if the cost to the Treasury of an option varies from £1m to £10m, then a score of 100 may be
assigned to £1m and a score of 0 assigned to £10m.
Example B: if options are ranked as "positive, neutral or negative", then a score of 100 may be assigned to
"positive" and a score of 0 assigned to "negative", with "neutral" scored as 50.
Once end points are fixed for each criterion, intermediate scores are assigned, usually on a linear scale. The
matrix can then be re-written using this common scoring basis.
Strategy Survival Guide – Strategy Skills
Page 170