Strategy Survival Guide

Multi-criteria analysis
In Practice 1: SU Global Health Project
The Global Health Project Matrix Framework used by Global Health project to evaluate proposals
assessed a number of proposed policy instruments against eight top-level criteria, beneath which were a
number of sub-criteria. A matrix of scores was constructed, and the scores were then scaled to enable
comparison, before the different criteria were weighted and the policy instruments compared.
Multi-criteria analysis
In Practice 2: SU Waste Project
Background and Approach
A central aim of the SU Waste Project was to identify a preferred option for meeting the EU Landfill
Directive which sets tough targets for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill sites
(historically, the main method of waste disposal in this country).
As the UK lags most other developed leading nations in waste management, the first step in identifying a
preferred option was to benchmark and study the various waste management options used by other
nations. The options in use included actions: to reduce waste streams; to re-use waste; to recycle and; to
develop alternatives to landfill such as incineration and mechanical and biological treatment (MBT).
The benchmarking work showed that countries varied in the use made of these different actions.
However, most countries generally intervene at all stages of the waste hierarchy whereas debate in the
UK has tended to focus on the choice between recycling and incineration with little attention paid to
actions that would result in reductions in waste streams.
Building on this benchmarking exercise, the SU Waste team consulted with UK waste experts and drew
on modelling work to examine a range of options for tackling UK waste. The first option was the status
quo. The other options covered a range of waste management options with varying degrees of emphasis
on incineration or recycling as well as more balanced packages of action. Each option had to be able to
meet the requirements of the Landfill Directive.
The options are outlined below:
• Option 1 – do nothing
• Option 2 – High incineration (50% + incineration and 25% recycling)
• Option 3 – High incineration (50% incineration and 35% recycling)
• Option 4 – Maximum recycling (60% recycling and incineration at current levels 10%)
• Option 5 – Reduce/recycle – a more balanced package of waste reduction, recycling, greater
variety of residual waste technologies etc
A lowest cost option was also considered initially (but abandoned early on as it was judged to meet none
of the environmental criteria and to be a step back from current government waste policy).
Choosing between the options
The options were compared using two analytical tools. The first of these examined the number of different
waste facilities required for each option and the costs of those facilities over time. This allowed the
present value cost of each option to be estimated over a 20 year period.
The second was adapted from an Environment Agency tool called "STOAT" – a Strategic Option
Appraisal Tool. Essentially, this model is a multi-criteria analysis tool that allows one to analyse the
benefits and risks of different waste management options including environmental impacts (e.g. C02
emissions, leeching), potential land use planning difficulties, consistency with public preferences and
whether an option has been operated successfully in other countries. These criteria could be weighted in
different ways to establish how this affected the preferred option.
Strategy Survival Guide – Strategy Skills
Page 172