Priorities Now - Conclusion

TABLES

The tables which follow were referred to in the text of the paper.

Table 1	Methodological Summary

Table 2	Judgement Scale

Table 3	A Sample Discrimination Scale

Table 4	Scale Comparisons

Figure 1	Magnitude Scale

Figure 2	Relationship between Magnitude and Eigenvector Scale

Table 1 - Methodological Summary

RESOURCES NOW STAGES	DECISION METHODS	MATHS TECHNIQUES	CHECKS & MEASURES
BUDGET OR DECISION-MAKER FRAMEWORK	Direct assignment Optimization partitioning Repertory and socio-grid Cladistic analysis Standard clustering Discriminant judgement analysis Cross-matrix item classification Fuzzy set scaling Basic judgement analysis Sensitivity analysis	'Fuzzy set' mathematics Agglomerative techniques Centroid analysis Monthetic and polythetic divisive techniques Association analysis Density search techniques	Cross-matrix correlation levels Correlation and concordance measures Interactive category feedback analysis
DECISION-MAKER INFLUENCES	Direct assignment Basic judgement analysis Sensitivity analysis Management gaming Organisation design system	Geometic mean Comparison algebra Trace index Deviance discrimination analysis	Individual and team consistency, concordance and coherence Tabulated test statistics Empirical standard Capability measures
BUDGET CONSTRAINTS	Successive assignment Sensitivity analysis	Piecewise linear programming	Individual and team consistency, concordance and coherence Compatibility analysis Capability measures Interactive incremental constraint analysis
BUDGET PRIORITIES	Direct assignment Fuzzy set scaling Basic judgement analysis Stimulus and response scaling Magnitude estimation Linear compensatory rule Non-compensatory decision rules Sensitivity analysis	Geometic mean Comparison algebra Trace Index Deviance discrimination analysis	Graph theoretic sampling plan Individual and team consistency, concordance and coherence Tabulated test statistics Empirical standard ‘Comprehensibility’ measures Interactive operational priority analysis
CRITERIA FRAMEWORK AND WEIGHTS	Direct assignment Optimization partitioning Repertory and socio-grid Standard clustering Discriminant judgement analysis Fuzzy set scaling Basic judgement analysis Stimulus and response scaling Magnitude estimation Sensitivity analysis	‘Fuzzy set’ mathematics Agglomerative techniques Centroid analysis Association analysis Density search techniques Geometic mean Comparison algebra Trace index Combination analysis	Cross modality matching Graph theoretic sampling plan Correlation and concordance measures Individual and team consistency, concordance and coherence Tabulated test statistics Empirical standards
BUDGET ALLOCATIONS OPERATIONS BUDGETING BUDGET MONITORING	Direct assignment Allocation modeling Interactive simulation Benefit-cost analysis N-dimensional scaling	Quadratic programming Dynamic programming ‘Fuzzy set’ mathematics Managerial coefficients analysis	Cross matrix correlation levels Data feedback analysis ‘Mode fit’ measures

Table 2 - Judgement Scale

RATING	DEGREE OF PRIORITY	DEFINITION
1	EQUAL	Two items are considered of equal priority, contribution, impact, importance or pertinence in respect of specified criteria, involving ‘indifference’ or equal preference between them, such that if i is chosen for the decision-maker by whatever method, he will be unwilling to exert any effort whatever to alter the selection in favour of j.
3	WEAK	One item is slightly favoured over the other in respect of specified criteria, involving a ‘just noticeable preference’. The converse, if it exists, is probably rated as ‘STRONG’.
5	SIGNIFICANT	One item is significantly favoured over the other in respect of specified criteria, at a noticeably higher threshold of preference.
7	STRONG	One item is strongly favoured over the other in respect of specified criteria, at a demonstrably higher threshold of preference. The converse, is it exists, is probably rated as ‘WEAK’.
9	ABSOLUTE	One item is comprehensively favoured over the other in respect of specified criteria, at the highest possible order of preference.
2,4,6,8	INTERMEDIATE	Intermediate values between two adjacent judgements, used when compromise is required.

Table 3 - A Sample Discrimination Scale

TABLE 3: A SAMPLE DISCRIMINATION SCALE (For preservability-cuttability of budget items)
PRESERVABILITY-CUTTABILITY LEVEL	DEFINITION
COMPLETELY PRESERVED (NO DIFFERENCE)	Existing budget level - no negative effects, all aspects of provision of the service safeguarded.
VIRTUALLY PRESERVED (INDEFFERENCE)	Provision of service effectively preserved at par-no appreciable noticeable negative effect in provision of the service overall.
SOMEWHAT PRESERVED (MINIMAL, JUST NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE)	Provision of service essentially safeguarded - a minimal marginal negative effect 'sort of' noticeable in provision of the service overall.
JUST PRESERVED (MODEST NOTICABLE DIFFERENCE)	Provision of service maintained - some modest, marginal negative effect discernable in provision of the service overall.
CONTRACTED (SIGNIFICANT RECOGNISABLE DIFFERENCE)	Service contracted - some significant appreciable negative effect clearly recognisable in provision of the service overall.
ERODED (EVIDENT MARKED DIFFERENCE	Service eroded - very marked telling negative effect evident in provision of service overall.
EMASCULATED (REMARKABLE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE)	Service emasculated - fundamental, impelling negative effect unavoidably remarkable in provision of service overall.
VIRTUALLY ELIMINATED (MAXIMUM MANIFEST DIFFERENCE)	Service all but eliminated - budge so drastically cut that foundations of service manifestly underminded.
COMPLETELY CUT	Nil budget - service completely eliminated

Table 4 - Scale Comparisons

TYPE OF OFFICE	(1) GEOMETRIC MEAN	(2) EIGENVECTOR SCALE	(3) MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION SCALE	(4) THURSTONE SCALE	(5) WALKER SCALE	(6) SUMMATED RATING SCALE
1. Assault causing actual bodily harm	.286	.285	54.4	4.529	223	254
2. Robbery	.193	.197	47.31	3.875	200	230
3. Burglary (£400 goods)	.176	.141	44.49	3.555	183	211
4. Driving away a motor vehicle	.109	.109	41.61	3.159	156	184
5. Burglary (£30 goods)	.047	.061	32.05	2.793	116	143
6. Theft (£35 goods)	.022	.039	25.65	2.110	81	110
7. Criminal damage (£20)	.039	.038	24.41	1.997	74	105
8. Theft(£10))	.026	.027	22.65	1.129	33	64
9. Attempted theft from parking meters	.017	.023	21.04	1.000	20	49

Figure 1 - Magnitude Scale

Figure 2 - Relationship between Magnitude and Eigenvector Scale

Top