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
Overall
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 |
63%
|
|||||
| 02 | Bus priority lanes |
52%
|
|||||
| 03 | Park and ride |
35%
|
By the options
Scoring Explanations
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
- Define the options and three to six criteria that don't overlap. The template starts with five; rename them to fit.
- Agree the weights before anyone judges the options.
- Participants compare the options two at a time on each criterion. Participants do not need an account to respond.
- 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.