Overview - Winnipeg



OverviewObjectiveTo provide guidance on how to use the Benefit Evaluation Sheet.Roles, Responsibility and Authority RoleResponsibilityAuthorityBusiness Case Author or MCP RaterTo follow the procedure outlined.Asset ManagerEnsure that the Business Case Author follows the procedure outlined.Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Overview PAGEREF _Toc419106974 \h 1Objective PAGEREF _Toc419106975 \h 1Roles, Responsibility and Authority PAGEREF _Toc419106976 \h 1Procedure Details PAGEREF _Toc419106977 \h 2Rating Scale PAGEREF _Toc419106978 \h 2Using the Benefit Evaluation Sheet PAGEREF _Toc419106979 \h 2Part 1: Evaluating Level of Service Benefits PAGEREF _Toc419106980 \h 3Part 2: Evaluating Benefit Uptake Factors PAGEREF _Toc419106981 \h 6Part 3: Evaluating Alignment Factors PAGEREF _Toc419106982 \h 7Benefit Evaluation Sheet PAGEREF _Toc419106983 \h 8References and/or Resources PAGEREF _Toc419106984 \h 12Procedure DetailsThe Benefit Evaluation Sheet is a matrix chart that helps to define and measure a project’s contribution to each Benefit Criteria. It is used in conjunction with two specific Investment Planning Templates to determine which Benefit points can be allotted to a Project:NPV and Benefit Template Procedures; and MCP Template Procedures.There are no maximum number of Benefits, Uptakes or Alignment criteria that are applicable to a Project. Each Project is assessed on its own merits. A Project can receive points from each Benefit, there is no maximum.The Benefit Evaluation Sheet is made up of three Parts containing specific Benefit Criteria and Measures which are rated on a five-point scale.Rating ScaleThe Benefit Evaluation Sheet uses a five-point rating scale to establish a way to compare risk exposures across several events or rate the relative impact of one situation against another. Relative impact should be aligned across all Measures so that a rating in one Measure is of approximately the same in another.The City of Winnipeg typically uses 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 scales to reflect Very Low, Low, Moderate, High and Very High ratings. When a rating is selected from a template’s drop-down list of ratings, it is used in the worksheet’s calculations to generate scores and resulting graphs.Each Consequence and Likelihood Measure is defined using the above rating scale in the Benefit Evaluation Sheet.Using the Benefit Evaluation SheetThe Benefit Evaluation Sheet is categorized into 3 parts. Each Part (separated by grey-coloured rows) contains Benefit Criteria indicated by blue-coloured rows) which lists its Measures of Consequences or Elements (peach-coloured columns) and Likelihood (violet-coloured rows) risks.For each Project, assess if a specific Benefit Criteria is applicable to the Project. If a Benefit Criteria is applicable, then evaluate the Project based on the explanation described on the following pages and in the Benefit Evaluation Sheet.Part 1: Evaluating Level of Service BenefitsEvaluate the proposed investment relative to each of the primary 10 LOS Benefit Types and evaluate the anticipated risk reduction or anticipated Benefit. Note: An investment may be scored to each benefit criteria should the investment merit . That is, an investment may receive benefits in both the “Maintain Essential LOS and Maintain Quality LOS criteria 1Maintain Essential LOSThese Projects maintain the aspects of service as set down in existing legislation/regulation or with regard to public health.The Essential Level of Service Benefit Type is such that a failure (e.g. non-compliance to legislative requirements) would expose the Business Unit to serious Consequences (e.g. loss of license, jail time, huge fines, etc.)For this Benefit Criteria, the driver of the Project must meet one of its 3 Consequential Measures. It is very important that the driver of the Project meet this threshold as all Projects do have some connection to these criteria but are not typically the driver of the Project.Consequence MeasureIf failure to comply:Legislative ComplianceAssess the severity of the breach and the type of legislation affected.Health and SafetyAssess the severity of an injury.Environmental ImpactAssess the severity of the incident and its effect on the environment.Likelihood MeasureProbability of failureAssess the chances of a failure or breach occurring and when the consequence is likely to happen.2Maintain Quality LOSThese Projects maintain the aspects of service as directed by current City Policies and Strategies, as well as bringing an Asset to current Level of Service or meeting existing Service Level Agreements.Quality Level of Service is such that a failure (e.g. severe and recurring reliability problems) would affect the service provided to the customers but would not expose the Business Unit to the same level of Consequences as a failure with an Essential LOS.Consequence MeasuresIf failure to maintain:QualityAssess the severity of deterioration of the service and how it would affect the service provided.Reliability/FunctionalityAssess the severity of the functionality or the reliability of continued service.ConditionAssess the severity of deterioration of the asset and its effect on users.AccessibilityAssess the accessibility of the asset and how it meets the LOS Target.Likelihood MeasureProbability of occurrenceAssess the chances of a failure occurring and when the consequence is likely to happen.Part 1 continued…3Maintain Image LOSThese Project types maintain the aesthetic aspects of a service and/or public image.Image Level of Services are such that a failure would affect the customer’s perceived experience, but would not necessarily directly alter the delivery of the service itself.Consequence MeasuresIf failure to maintain:ShineAssess the level of deterioration as to visual appearance.Public PerceptionAssess the level of public sentiment/opinion of the asset.Likelihood MeasureProbability of occurrenceAssess the chances of the failure occurring and when the consequence is likely to happen.4Enhance Quality LOSThese Projects enhances or increases an existing Level of Service.Element MeasureQualityAssess the level of improvement to other Quality LOS criteria.Reliability/FunctionalityAssess the level of improvement of the investment solving reliability or functionality issues.AccessibilityAssess the level of accessibility of the improvement by the investment.5Enhance Image LOSThese Projects enhance or increase the aesthetic aspects of a service and/or public space.Element MeasureShineAssess the level of improvement in terms of visual appearance that the investment brings.Public PerceptionAssess the level of public support of the investment.Part 1 continued…6Compliance with New LegislationThese Projects make changes to the service to meet new regulatory requirements.It is important that the driver must be new legislation and not meeting existing legislation.If the driver is an existing legislation, the Project should be assessed against the “Maintain Essential LOS” Benefit Criteria.MeasureCompliance with New LegislationAssess how clearly the Project addresses new regulations and the level of risk for non-compliance.7Support Growth and DevelopmentThese Projects either support business development or enables the growth of the city.MeasuresCapacity/HeadroomAssess the level of priority as to capacity issues.DemandAssess the level of priority as to demand issues.8Environment StewardshipThese Projects make changes to the services to improve environmental/sustainability aspects.MeasureEnvironmental ManagementAssess how the investment contributes in terms of meeting the Business Unit’s or City’s Environmental Management Plan objectives.9Operational EfficiencyThese Projects replace existing infrastructure to improve operational efficiency; that is, spend now in order to save costs in the long run.MeasureOperational EfficiencyAssess the investment’s net cost savings per year against the existing cost of operating the existing infrastructure.10CulturalThese Projects preserve and/or protects historic sites or maintains/creates performance venues.MeasureCulturalAssess how the investment is beneficial.Part 2: Evaluating Benefit Uptake FactorsCertain assets are of strategic importance, serve a large user base, or are located in a critical part of the city. Contributions of these types of Projects are recognized using Uptake Factors, which work to scale Benefit Criteria based on their coverage. Evaluate the three Benefit Uptake Factors.1CoverageThese are considerations that address the user-base: who will be affected, how many will be affected, and where and what will be affected.MeasuresService AreaAssess the size of the area affected.RouteAssess the busyness of the thoroughfare in which the asset will be constructed near.DestinationAssess the area in which the asset is important to.Internal FacingAssess how many people are required to manage the project.2Strategic ImportanceThese are considerations that address the importance of the Project to the city and its residents.Leave blank if does not apply.MeasureStrategic ImportanceAssess how the Project relates to a major strategic initiative.3Locational CriticalityThese are considerations that address the types of routes or facilities impacted by the Investment.Leave blank if does not applyMeasureLocational CriticalityAssess how the Project affects existing surrounding assets and the level of public exposure/criticism.Part 3: Evaluating Alignment FactorsProjects based on sound planning and business acumen should also receive additional consideration to recognize their added benefit to the city; in this case Alignment Factors are applied.Evaluate the three Benefit Uptake Factors. If 1Lifecycle BonusThese are factors that address how the proposed Solution provides the best Whole-Life Value.Leave blank if does not apply.Measure% of Optimum Life CycleAssess how the Solution is in alignment with the optimum Business Case.2Coordination BonusThese are factors that address how the proposed Solution allows for coordination with other Projects resulting in costs savings and efficiency for the city.MeasureProject CoordinationAssess how the Solution facilitates or coordinates with other Projects.3Cost of Deferral BonusThese are factors that address the additional costs that will incur to the Project if the investment is delayed beyond the current 1 + 5 year planning cycle.MeasureCost of DeferralAssess the additional costs if the Project is not acted on Benefit Evaluation SheetMeasureRatingNotesVLLMHVHPART 1:Evaluate the proposed investment relative to each of the primary Benefit Criteria. "Maintain LOS" criteria are evaluated based on anticipated risk reduction; other criteria are evaluated based on the Benefit anticipated by making the proposed investment.Benefit CriteriaMaintain Essential LOS: Essential Levels of Service are such that a failure (e.g. non-compliance to Legislative Requirements) would expose the Business Unit to serious consequences (e.g. loss of license, jail time, huge fines, etc.). These projects maintain the aspects of service as set down in existing legislation/regulation or with regard to public health. The driver for the project need must meet one of the 3 consequence criteria noted belowConsequences (overall)Legislative ComplianceMinor breach. Adverse internal communications only within own Department.Statutory body notification but no further action. Raise to Senior Management Team and triggers investigation.Statutory body notification with further external investigation. Criticism of organization with requirement for localized corrective actions.Statutory / regulatory instruction requiring fundamental change in strategic objectives or global management practices.Major breach. Potential for prosecution with severe fines and/or imprisonment. Potential revocation of regulatory license.Health and SafetyMinor injury(s) with no associated lost time.Reportable injury with lost time. (typically < 3 days)Significant injury requiring short term hospitalization.Serious injury or work-related illness causing long-term disability.Fatality of one or more people or long-term disability affecting several people.Environmental ImpactManaged incident with negligible environmental impact.Localized and short-term effects on local ecosystem.Widespread but short-term effects on local ecosystem. Widespread and long-term effects on local ecosystem/ . Likely to lead to prosecution and fines.Widespread and persistent effects requiring specialist and extensive long-term clean-up and/or rehabilitation plan.Likelihood(of driver Consequence)Probability of occurrence <5% or likely to occur beyond 10 years.Probability of occurrence <10% or likely to occur within 5 to 10 yrs.Probability of occurrence <25% or likely to occur within 4 to 5 years.Probability of occurrence <50% or likely to occur within 2 to 3 years.Probability of occurrence >50% or occurred/imminent occurrence.Benefit CriteriaMaintain Quality LOS: This project maintains the aspects of service as directed by current City Policies, Strategies.This includes bringing an asset up to current LOS or meet existing SLA.Consequence of Failure (Overall)QualityNo quality deterioration or Minor deterioration to a secondary Quality LOS criteria.Minor deterioration to several secondary Quality LOS criteria.Major deterioration to one or more secondary Quality LOS criteria and Minor deterioration to a primary Quality LOS criteria.Major deterioration to several secondary Quality LOS criteria and Major deterioration to a primary Quality LOS criteria.Major deterioration to several primary Quality LOS criteria.Quality Levels of Service are those where a failure (e.g. severe and recurring reliability problems) would affect the service provided to the customers but would not expose the Business Unit to the same level of consequences as a failure with an Essential LOS.Examples of this type project are: Maintain average time between bus service;Provide recreation servicesReliability / FunctionalityVery minor reliability problems. Issues generally not noticeable to customer.Minor reliability problems. Occasional short-term issues affecting parts of the asset for a few hours at a time.Moderate reliability problems. Frequent short-term issues affecting parts of the asset or occasional moderate issues affecting larger part of the asset or lasting more than a day.Moderate and recurring or severe but occasional reliability problems. Extended outage (several days/ weeks) causing closure or severe use restriction. Generates significant user complaints.Severe and recurring reliability problems. Extended outages causing closure of asset or severe use restrictions. Actively driving users away.ConditionVery minor deterioration in condition, superficial minor damage / wear and tear.Minor deterioration in condition, obvious wear and tear.Moderate but progressing deterioration in condition. Significant wear and tear leading to numerous user complaints.Major deterioration in condition. Advanced damage, major wear and tear. Users considering other options.Severe deterioration in condition. Safe but barely tolerable. Significant user inconvenience/discomfort actively driving users awayAccessibilityVery minor accessibility issue. Distribution or accessibility of asset on or slightly under LOS target.Minor accessibility issue. Distribution and accessibility of assets slightly under LOS target.Moderate accessibility issue. Distribution and accessibility of assets moderately under LOS target.Major accessibility issue. Distribution or accessibility of assets significantly under LOS target.Severe accessibility issue. Distribution and accessibility of assets well-below LOS target.Likelihood of Failure (of driver Consequence)Probability of occurrence <5% or likely to occur beyond 10 years.Probability of occurrence <10% or likely to occur within 5 to 10 yrs.Probability of occurrence <25% or likely to occur within 4?to 5 years.Probability of occurrence <50% or likely to occur within 2 to 3 years.Probability of occurrence >50% or occurred/imminent occurrence.Benefit CriteriaMaintain Image LOS: This project maintains aesthetic aspects of a service?and/or public ?ImageConsequence of Failure (Overall)ShineVery minor deterioration in visual condition, superficial damage and/or minor wear and tear.Minor deterioration in visual condition, obvious wear and tear and/or damage.Moderate deterioration in visual condition, significant wear and tear and/or damage, etc.Significant user complaints.Major deterioration in visual condition, major wear and tear and damage causing repeated user complaints or users to consider alternative options.Severe deterioration in condition - eyesore. Impression of unsafe/ insecure asset causing user avoidance.Image Levels of Service are such that a failure would affect the customer's perceived experience, but would not necessarily directly alter the delivery of the service itself. Example of this type of project: Condition of existing streetscaping.Public PerceptionVery limited and short-term public criticism. Issue contained within the Business Unit.Short-term public criticism leading to local media interest.Sustained public criticism leading to negative local media reports. Adverse contact from Regulators, Councilors etc. but manageable.Public opposition leading to negative reports on national media. Significant adverse contact from Regulators, Councilors.Sustained public opposition leading to local and national media coverage, and criticism from regulators and politicians.Likelihood of Failure (of driver Consequence)Probability of occurrence <5% or likely to occur beyond 10 years.Probability of occurrence <10% or likely to occur within 5 to 10 yrs.Probability of occurrence <25% or likely to occur within 4?to 5 years.Probability of occurrence <50% or likely to occur within 2 to 3 years.Probability of occurrence >50% or occurred/imminent occurrence.Benefit CriteriaEnhance Quality LOS: This Project enhances or increases the existing LOS.Benefit Criteria ElementQualityMinor improvement to a secondary Quality LOS criteria.Minor improvement to several secondary Quality LOS criteria.Major improvement to one or more secondary Quality LOS criteria and Minor improvement to a primary Quality LOS criteria.Major improvement to several secondary Quality LOS criteria and Major improvement to a primary Quality LOS criteria.Major improvement to several primary Quality LOS criteria.Example of this project type:Reduce travel time between points.Reliability/ FunctionalityMinor reliability improvement, largely unnoticed by customers.Minor reliability improvement solving short-term issues affecting parts of the asset for a few hours at a time.Moderate reliability improvement solving frequent short-term issues affecting parts of the asset or occasional moderate issues affecting larger part of the asset or lasting more than a day.Moderate improvement solving moderate and recurring or severe but occasional reliability problems causing extended outage (several days/weeks) with closure or severe use restriction.Major improvement solving severe and recurring reliability problems casing extended outages with closure of asset or severe use restrictions. Actively driving users away.AccessibilityVery minor accessibility improvement bringing slightly under target asset distribution or accessibility on LOS target.Minor accessibility improvement bringing slightly under target distribution and accessibility on LOS target.Moderate accessibility improvement bringing moderately under target distribution and accessibility on LOS target.Major accessibility improvement bringing significantly under target distribution or accessibility on LOS target.Major accessibility improvement bringing severely under target distribution and accessibility on or above LOS target.Benefit CriteriaEnhance Image LOS: ?This Project enhances or increases aesthetic aspects of a service and/or public ?Image.Benefit Criteria elementShineSuperficial/cosmetic and limited improvement in visual condition.Minor improvement in visual condition, fixing obvious wear and tear and/or damage.Moderate improvement in visual condition, fixing significant wear and tear and/or damage.Major improvement in visual condition, fixing major wear and tear and damage.Major improvement in visual condition into a "like new" condition.Example of this project type:New streetscaping or new decorative landscapingPublic PerceptionVery limited and short-term public support.Short-term public support leading to local media interest.Sustained public support leading to positive local media reports. Positive feedback from Regulators, Councilors etc. Public support leading to positive reports on national media. Significant contact from Regulators, Councilors.Sustained public support leading to local and national media coverage, and public praise from regulators and politicians.Benefit CriteriaCompliance with New Legislation:? This Project makes changes to the service to meet new regulatory requirementsCompliance with New LegislationProject addresses new regulations which currently present either unclear requirements, are open to challenge or have wide tolerances within which there is a very low risk of non-compliance.Project addresses new regulations which currently have some significant grey areas or have tolerances within which there is general compliance but there is a low risk of non-compliance.Addresses requirements which have some degree of certainty or have tolerances where generally already compliant but there is moderate risk of non-compliance.Addresses requirements that are fairly clear, where there is a known and significant shortfall or moderate to high risk of non-compliance and/or a potential for fines.Addresses clear and certain requirements where there is a known and major shortfall or a high risk of non-compliance. Typically short implementation period and probable fines.Assess the Benefit anticipated from making the requested investment.Examples of this project type:New nutrient removal in wastewater; installing new safety equipment.Benefit CriteriaSupport Growth and Development: This Project either supports business development or enables growth of the CityBenefit Criteria ElementCapacity / HeadroomProject addresses a very low priority capacity issue. (i.e. > 5 years fully serviced land or >10 years of plant capacity currently available).Project addresses a low priority capacity issue. (e.g. 4-5 years of fully serviced land or 8-10 years of plant capacity available).Project addresses a moderate priority capacity issue. (e.g. 3 years of fully serviced land or 6-8 years of plant capacity available).Project addresses a high priority capacity issue. (e.g. 2 years of fully serviced land or 4-6 years of plant capacity available).Project addresses a very high priority capacity issue. (e.g. 0-1 year of fully serviced land or less than 4 years of plant capacity available).Assess the benefit anticipated from making the requested investment.Examples of this type of project are:Widening/extending major route; extending water supply to new developmentDemandProject addresses a very low priority demand issue. (e.g. proposed long term development horizon with high degree of uncertainty which is considered high risk).Project address a low priority demand issue. (e.g. medium term development horizon, some significant uncertainties and commitment issues and is considered to be moderate to high risk).Project addresses a moderate priority demand issue. (e.g. short to medium term development horizon, which still requires some degree of clarification/ commitment and is considered to be moderate risk).Project addresses a high priority demand issue. (e.g. short term development horizon, good degree of clarity/commitment, which is considered to be low risk).Project addresses a very high priority demand issue. (e.g. imminent development with a high degree of clarity and firm commitment which is considered to be very low risk).Benefit CriteriaEnvironmental Stewardship:? This project makes changes to the service to improve environmental/sustainability aspectsEnvironmental ManagementVery minor contribution to the BU / City?Environmental Management Plan Objectives.Minor to Moderate contribution to the BU / City?Environmental Management Plan Objectives.Moderate contribution to the BU / City?Environmental Management Plan Objectives.Moderate to Major contribution to the BU / City?Environmental Management Plan Objectives.Major contribution to the BU / City?Environmental Management Plan Objectives.Assess the Benefit anticipated from making the requested investment.Examples of this project type:Reduce greenhouse gases; Support active transportationBenefit CriteriaOperational Efficiency:? This Project replaces existing infrastructure to improve operational efficiency (spend to save).Operational Efficiency<$50k net savings per year$50-$200k net savings per year$200-$500k net savingsper year$500k-$1m net savings per year>$1m net savings per yearAssess the Benefit anticipated from making the requested investment.Example of this project type:Replace old pumps with new to improve performance and reduce electrical useBenefit CriteriaCultural:?This Project preserves and/or protects historic sites or maintains/creates performance venues.CulturalMakes a minor contribution to the City's cultural, facilities, heritage, events/festival and organizational portfolio.Makes a small contribution to the City's cultural, facilities, heritage, events/festival and organizational portfolio.Makes a significant contribution to the City's cultural, facilities, heritage , events/festival and organizational portfolio.Makes a major contribution to the City's cultural, facilities, heritage, events/festival and organizational portfolio.Makes a major and keynote contribution to the City's cultural, facilities, heritage, events/festival and organizational portfolio.Assess the benefit anticipated from making the requested investment.Example of this type of project: Construct stage in Wascana Park.PART 2:Some Benefit is proportional to an asset's user base. Evaluate the anticipated Benefit Uptake from the proposed investment. Benefit Uptake is a function of Coverage (i.e. who and how many people will be impacted by the proposed investment?) and Criticality/Strategic Importance (i.e. how important is the Project to the City and its residents?)Benefit UptakeCoverageBenefit Uptake ElementsService AreaSingle Property or Street.Neighborhood as officially defined by the City of Winnipeg, or an equivalent in terms of size or population covered.Ward as officially defined by the City of Winnipeg, or an equivalent in terms of size or population covered.Quadrant as officially defined by the City of Winnipeg, or an equivalent in terms of size or population covered.City-Wide.Best suited to Projects from WWD, F&P, and Police Services etc.i.e. Treatment Plant, CSO, Police & F&P station, Watermain and Street Programs.RouteLocal or Industrial Street or Minor Route or Location impacting local service.Collector or Minor Route impacting neighborhood service.Regional II or III Street or Major Route impacting travel to and from downtown.Regional I Street or Major Corridor impacting a large portion of the City.City-Wide.Best suited to Projects from Roads, Transportation, Transit, etc.DestinationLocal.Neighborhood.Large Neighborhood or Small Regional.Regional.City-Wide or Flagship.Best suited to Projects from Municipal Accommodations, Parks, Recreation Services, Parking, etc.i.e. Bug Spray, Dutch Elm.Internal FacingImpacts one or a few individuals.Impacts a Branch, Team or Group of individuals.Impacts an entire Business Unit.Impacts several Business Units.Impacts all City Staff.Best suited to Projects from Corporate Support Services and for inward facing Business Unit initiatives.IT across the City (i.e. PeopleSoft), Department-only impacted.Benefit UptakeStrategic Importance:Strategic ImportanceProject not directly related to the City's strategy, drives and/or supports a few minor businesses or very limited economic activity.Project somewhat related to the City's strategy, drives and/or supports multiple minor business and/or limited economic activity.Project part of the City's strategy, but not a major component of it, drives and/or supports multiple businesses and moderate economic activity.Project important to the City's strategy, drives and/or supports multiple important businesses and important economic activity.Project is a key component of the City's strategy, drives and/or supports multiple and critically important businesses and major economic activity.Leave blank if does not applyApplicable to Investments that are associated with major strategic initiatives, often council driven, (big picture City initiatives, not Departmental Strategic plan) that span multiple Departments. i.e. Ikea developments; Stadium development; Centerport developmentBenefit UptakeLocational CriticalityLocational CriticalityProject directly affects assets with potential-only for customer inconvenience / low level complaints (e.g. Typical standard route with many other options available. No bus routes).Project directly affects assets with potential for minor economic damage to the City and/or low level adverse press coverage (e.g. small scale commercial/ industrial areas).Project directly affects assets with potential for moderate economic damage to the City and/or significant adverse local press coverage (e.g. moderate commercial/industrial facilities, care homes & schools, regional public facilities. image routes).Project directly affects assets with potential for significant economic damage to the City and sustained local / national press coverage (e.g. major commercial customers / flagship City facilities/Many bus routes involved and/or major truck route).Project directly affects assets with potential Political involvement - key / flagship regional facilities (healthcare, airport etc.) / Major Industrial Customers / Downtown Core / Strategic route. Potential for sustained national press coverage and/or political pressure. Major economic impact.Leave blank if does not apply.Rank how the Investment affects existing surrounding assets and the level of public exposure/criticism.PART 3:Alignment Factors: Benefits are amplified by sound planning and business acumen. Evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed Solution in supporting the City's Asset Management objectives.Alignment FactorLifecycle Bonus% of Optimum Life CycleProject is wholly misaligned with optimum business case - major variance from lowest Whole Life Cost Solution e.g. short life solution due to external factors/drivers.Project is significantly misaligned with optimum business case. Significant variance from lowest Whole Life Cost Solution e.g. capital spent to bypass operational issues.Project partially aligned with optimum business case but some tradeoffs have had to be made and the project is not the lowest Whole Life Cost Solution.Project mostly aligned with optimum business case but some minor shortcomings.Project is fully aligned with optimum business case (e.g. provides lowest Whole Life Cost Solution).Assess the alignment of the proposed Solution with the optimum lifecycle.Leave blank if does not applyAlignment FactorCoordination BonusProject CoordinationMay facilitate another project that is only loosely defined at this stageMay facilitate another project that is partially defined at this stage.Co-ordinates with other small to medium city projects and minimizes negative effects or enhances overall Project Benefits.Minor Renewal Program or Facilitates other moderate to large city projects that are well defined - minimizes negative effects or costs or enhances overall Project Benefits.Major Renewal Program or Directly links to and facilitates another committed high profile or major city project or multiple city projects - minimizes negative effects or costs or enhances overall Project Benefits.Assess the degree of coordination or support the proposed Business Case provides to other ongoing projects or initiatives.Leave blank if does not applyAlignment FactorCost of Deferral BonusCost of DeferralNot acting in the proposed timeframe will result in <$100k in additional costs.Not acting in the proposed timeframe will result in $100-500k in additional costs.Not acting in the proposed timeframe will result in $500k - $1m in additional costs.Not acting in the proposed timeframe will result in $1m - $10m in additional costs.Not acting in the proposed timeframe will result in >$10m in additional costs.Assess the financial impact of delaying the project beyond the current 1 + 5 year planning cycle.References and/or ResourcesTitleDescriptionDocument Location ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download