Strategy Survival Guide

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
An expert panel was used to assess the feasibility of each option as alternative ways of meeting the Landfill Directive and to assess the flexibility of each option (i.e. the extent to which it risked locking-in to one option). An overall judgement could then be made about the cost-benefit ranking of the different waste management options, and their respective strengths and weaknesses. The options and the results of the analysis are summarised in table 1 below, which is taken from the SU waste report. It shows that a balanced package of measures with a focus on waste minimisation was judged the preferred option in cost-benefit terms (under a range of weightings for the benefits and risks). Benefits and costs of alternative strategic approaches, 2002-2020 Option Costs (£bn) (a) Feasibility as a way to meet the Landfill Directive Environmental benefits Flexibility (avoiding locking-in to one option) Ranking Option 5: Reduction/recycle Option 3: High incineration (ii) Option 4: Maximum recycling Option 2: High incineration (i) Option 1: Status quo 29.6 1 29.6 2 31.0 3 28.9 4 27.4 x x x 5 offers maximum benefits offers some benefits offers few benefits X offers no benefits Notes: (a) costs represent discounted waste management expenditure at local authority level from 2002 to 2020. Source: SU Analysis Strategy Survival Guide – Strategy Skills Page 173
Page 1:
Strategy Strategy Survival Survival
Page 4 and 5:
Strategy Survival Guide Version 2.1
Page 6 and 7:
Building an Evidence Base 113 Data
Page 8 and 9:
A Framework for Strategic Direction
Page 10 and 11:
These four components need to be co
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Recruiting a team In Practice: SU G
Page 52 and 53:
• Commitment to a common purpose
Page 54 and 55:
Away-days A project away-day is ano
Page 56 and 57:
WHY ...are you telling me this? SO
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Try to put into practice the princi
Page 62 and 63:
Encouraging creativity In Practice:
Page 64 and 65:
There are clear differences between
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Identifying key stakeholders and th
Page 82 and 83:
Engaging with stakeholders Having i
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
• What channels do we know don’
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Preparing the Story Once you have a
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
development process include brainst
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Reinforcing Loops A + Balancing Loo
Page 102 and 103:
Structuring the thinking - Systems
Page 104 and 105:
Opportunities • Where are the goo
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Structuring the thinking - PESTLE I
Page 110 and 111:
Revolution This is creativity at it
Page 112 and 113:
For example, Sub-problem: My collea
Page 114 and 115:
Structuring the thinking - Creativi
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
in The Magenta Book) are rigorous m
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
• Avoid asking the same question
Page 124 and 125: Expectations can be shaped by a num
Page 126 and 127: Collecting data - Surveys In Practi
Page 128 and 129: Strategy Survival Guide Version 2.1
Page 130 and 131: Collecting data - Interviews & focu
Page 132 and 133: Step One: Define the problem explic
Page 134 and 135: • Are the units correct? Step Sev
Page 136 and 137: Analysing data - Modelling In Pract
Page 140 and 141: The Five Forces Framework can be us
Page 142 and 143: References Structure, Conduct, Perf
Page 146 and 147: Symbols • What language and jargo
Page 150 and 151: • Put a contact name, telephone n
Page 152 and 153: Learning from others - Internationa
Page 154 and 155: 4. Functional Benchmarking or Gener
Page 158 and 159: Strengths • Quantitative forecast
Page 162 and 163: 3. Bring drivers together into a vi
Page 164 and 165: Scenario development In Practice 1:
Page 166 and 167: Scenarios used in the Strategy Unit
Page 168 and 169: groups at random. In other words, t
Page 172 and 173: events. There are a number of diffe
Page 178 and 179: Cost-benefit & cost-effectiveness a
Page 182 and 183: For further material, see the Ratio
Page 186 and 187: Compelling vision for action - the
Page 192 and 193: Designing an implementation plan In
Page 194 and 195: Creating Public Value http://www.nu
Page 196 and 197: National Statistics http://www.stat
Page 204 and 205: Driver trees 97 Econometric modelli
Page 206 and 207: management 17, 20, 27, 34, 45 outpu
Page 208: Strategy Unit, Admiralty Arch, The
show all

Strategy Survival Guide

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?