Impacts assessed on a five-point scale
Each recommendation is scored against the 33 criteria as having a high negative, low negative, neutral, low positive or high positive impact, as shown in Table IV.2.
Scoring is a qualitative assessment of the impact, based on available evidence and supported by specialist judgement.
As an example of how the five-point scale is applied, the table includes the intended qualitative meaning of each score for an example criterion.
It shows the extent to which the suggested recommendation minimises the upfront and ongoing costs of implementation.
The scoring and evidence for each of the 33 criteria will be included in the detailed plans for each sector or cross-sectoral issues.
Infrastructure Australia will also be releasing a guidance note on how impacts have been assessed against the five-point scale in each criterion. This will be available on the Infrastructure Australia website.
Table IV.2: Each criterion is graded on a five-point scale
Qualitative rating | Score | Description | Example criterion: 'minimises upfront and ongoing costs' | |||
High |
|
| 5 | High positive support for meeting the criteria | Large reduction in the total costs from what would otherwise be spent | |
Low |
| 4 |
| Low positive support for meeting the criteria | Small, or potential, reduction in financial cost, compared to business as usual | |
No impact | 3 | No support for meeting the criteria (N/A) | No net change to financial cost, compared to business as usual | |||
Low negative |
| 2 |
| Low negative support for meeting the criteria | Requires some further Investment, above business as usual | |
High negative | 1 |
|
| High negative support for meeting the criteria | Requires substantially more financial resources than would otherwise be spent | |
