When faced with a blend of monetary, quantified and non-quantifiable considerations, it may be considered important to develop a system of weighting and scoring to make data comparable. The main technique for doing this is the "multi-criteria analysis" also known as "multi-variable analysis"27. This technique allows options to be ranked and a preferred option identified28.
Weighting and scoring usually involves key stakeholders, including those who will use and operate the service. Scoring should reflect how each option meets specific benefit criteria. Weights should be assigned to criteria to reflect their relative importance.
After benefits have been weighted and scored they should then be placed alongside respective financial estimates to give an overall picture of the VFM of each option. This may be complemented by a distributional analysis to identify which members of the population will be greater affected by a project. The logic behind conducting a distributional analysis is that a proposal may have a different impact on the lives of different groups (e.g. depending on age, gender, income, location).
________________________________________________________________________
27 For a good overview of this technique, see Department for Communities and Local Government Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual (2009).
28 Some may, however, consider it inappropriate to explicitly weigh and aggregate different impacts leading to a definitive numerical score, particularly when there are multiple objectives. This is the case of the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) in the UK which conducts a full cost-benefit analysis including five main criteria, environmental impact, safety, accessibility and integration, all of which have their own sub-criteria. No weighting is suggested between criteria, but a single sheet summary of principal impacts is provided for decision-makers to analyse.