Prioritise work

Multi-Criteria Analysis

Prioritise options across five criteria: Impact, Feasibility, Cost-effectiveness, Equity, and Political Acceptability. The criteria can be changed, added to and weighted.

What the framework is

Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) ranks options that differ in several ways at once. You judge each option against a handful of criteria, weight the criteria by importance, and combine the results into one ranking. It makes the trade-offs explicit instead of leaving them inside someone's head.

What the result looks like

EXAMPLE
Which transport schemes should the council fund?
Top ranked
Cycle network
Impact 92% · 1st
Feasibility 63% · 1st
Cost-effectiveness 38% · 3rd
Equity 75% · 1st
Political Acceptability 50% · 2nd
63%
Weighted win rate

Overall

Options Weighted win rate
01
Cycle network
Impact 1st · Feasibility 1st · Cost-effectiveness 3rd · Equity 1st · Political Acceptability 2nd
63%
02
Bus priority lanes
Impact 2nd · Feasibility 2nd · Cost-effectiveness 1st · Equity 3rd · Political Acceptability 1st
52%
03
Park and ride
Impact 3rd · Feasibility 3rd · Cost-effectiveness 2nd · Equity 2nd · Political Acceptability 3rd
35%

Overall with the criteria

Rank
Options
Impact
20%
Feasibility
20%
Cost-effectiveness
20%
Equity
20%
Political Acceptability
20%
Overall
Weighted win rate
01 Cycle network
92%
1st
63%
1st
38%
3rd
75%
1st
50%
2nd
63%
02 Bus priority lanes
42%
2nd
58%
2nd
71%
1st
33%
3rd
54%
1st
52%
03 Park and ride
17%
3rd
29%
3rd
42%
2nd
42%
2nd
46%
3rd
35%

By the options

01 · Cycle network 63% weighted win rate
–
Impact
92%
1st of 3 · 22 Wins · 2 Losses
–
Feasibility
63%
1st of 3 · 15 Wins · 9 Losses
–
Cost-effectiveness
38%
3rd of 3 · 9 Wins · 15 Losses
–
Equity
75%
1st of 3 · 18 Wins · 6 Losses
–
Political Acceptability
50%
2nd of 3 · 12 Wins · 12 Losses
02 · Bus priority lanes 52% weighted win rate
–
Impact
42%
2nd of 3 · 10 Wins · 14 Losses
–
Feasibility
58%
2nd of 3 · 14 Wins · 10 Losses
–
Cost-effectiveness
71%
1st of 3 · 17 Wins · 7 Losses
–
Equity
33%
3rd of 3 · 8 Wins · 16 Losses
–
Political Acceptability
54%
1st of 3 · 13 Wins · 11 Losses
03 · Park and ride 35% weighted win rate
–
Impact
17%
3rd of 3 · 4 Wins · 20 Losses
–
Feasibility
29%
3rd of 3 · 7 Wins · 17 Losses
–
Cost-effectiveness
42%
2nd of 3 · 10 Wins · 14 Losses
–
Equity
42%
2nd of 3 · 10 Wins · 14 Losses
–
Political Acceptability
46%
3rd of 3 · 11 Wins · 13 Losses
Scoring Explanations
CRITERIA WEIGHTINGS — The % weighting for each criterion is shown in the table header. Unless this was entered in the setup, the weighting is equal across criteria.
WEIGHTED WIN RATE — Each criterion's result, in the measure they share, averaged using the assigned weightings.

When it earns its place

Use it when no option is best on everything: the cheapest is slowest, the fastest is riskiest. Typical uses are choosing sites, projects, investments or programme designs. For suppliers, the vendor selection template is the same method, set up for that job.

Watch for three traps:

  • Overlapping criteria. "Cost" and "affordability" count the same thing twice.
  • Too many criteria. Past six, each one stops mattering.
  • Hidden weights. The weights are value judgements. Whoever sets them shapes the result, so record who did.

How to run it with a group

  1. Define the options and three to six criteria that don't overlap. The template starts with five; rename them to fit.
  2. Agree the weights before anyone judges the options.
  3. Participants compare the options two at a time on each criterion. Participants do not need an account to respond.
  4. Read the overall ranking, then the ranking per criterion. Ask whether the winner would change if the most debated criterion counted for less. If it would, the decision rests on that weight, and it deserves the discussion.

Get started