scores from previous applications may be used to provide baseline scores for a
c. Facilitator. Regardless of how the scoring process is formulated, it is important
that scoring teams be facilitated by an individual who thoroughly understands the
RBP system. The facilitator should understand principles of group facilitation.
The facilitator should also understand potential cognitive and motivational scoring
biases and the techniques that are available for countering these biases.
Guideline 3.5-- Training of Participants. Participants in RBP applications should be
trained to perform their assigned roles to ensure that they are adequately qualified
(also see Guideline 7.1). They should also be cognizant of the roles of other
participants and the overall purpose and goals of the prioritization.
Discussion. Participants in RBP applications need sufficient depth of understanding,
skills, and knowledge of their roles and the roles of other participants to effectively
support the prioritization. Training should be performed commensurate with the size
and complexity of the RBP application.
9.4 Guidelines Primarily Associated with Acceptability.
Guideline 4.1-- Establishing Weights and Other Value Parameters. Weights and
other value parameters (e.g., scaling functions) should be understood by the decision
makers and other stakeholders, and accurately reflect their value judgments. Since
equal or no weights necessarily imply value tradeoffs, weight assessment cannot be
avoided in an acceptable RBP system.
Discussion. The values represented by the RBP system, which are unavoidably
subjective, can have a significant impact on the prioritization results. Therefore, it is
important to reflect accurately the preferences of the decision makers and, to the
extent it can be done coherently, those of other stakeholders. Representing the
values of multiple stakeholders to the decision-making process poses additional
complications because preferences are likely to differ among stakeholders.
Unfortunately, there is no theoretically " orrect"way to combine divergent stakeholder
views. However, sensitivity analyses may be conducted to test which system outputs
are robust and which depend on alternative value judgments. In any case, values
inherent in the RBP system should be made explicit, established as parameters, and
documented to help justify their selection. It is important that the weights be chosen
based on precise definitions of the objectives to be weighted and of the impact ranges
spanned by the objectives. Weights should not be chosen based on some ill-defined
concept of the relative importance of objectives. As an example, assigning a higher
weight to health and safety than to future costs based on the simple statement that
" ealth and safety is more important than future cost,"while appealing on the surface,
is in reality too vague for proper weight assessment. While certain aspects of health
and safety are more important than certain costs, all aspects of health and safety are
not more important than any cost. Therefore, a clear statement that describes what