stakeholder in each RBP application. The selection process for stakeholders should
consider the specific RBP application and those individuals either impacted or
interested in its results. Detailed discussion of stakeholder involvement is provided in
references (n) and (m), but some special considerations regarding stakeholders in an
RBP process include:
a. Decision makers involved in the outcome of the RBP system application, as the
results may influence their actions, and they may have to defend decisions that
are not consistent with prioritization results.
b. Project managers who may see their projects funded or not funded.
c. Individuals who expect to conduct or participate in the RBP system application
have a stake in prioritization outcomes.
d. Personnel involved with organizational finances or budgets may also have a stake
in how RBP is used as a budget tool.
e. Site workers whose work conditions could be affected by the decisions resulting
from the prioritization.
f. Federal, State, and local regulatory bodies whose jurisdiction includes activities
that will be prioritized.
g. Public interest organizations who have expressed interest in activities that will be
h. Local civic, cultural, religious, or ethnic organizations representing individuals or
groups of individuals whose " uality of life"(e.g., financial status, beliefs,
practices) may be impacted by the decision resulting from the prioritization efforts.
9.5 Guidelines Primarily Associated with Practicality.
Guideline 5.1-- Timeliness. The RBP system should be capable of providing a timely
answer; therefore, it should be chosen with consideration of the scale and urgency of
the decision to be made.
Discussion. An RBP system is not practical if it does not provide an answer within the
time frame required to support the decision-making process. For major programmatic
decisions effecting long-term funding plans, the lead time between the definition of the
program and the decision to proceed is usually quite long, often involving
environmental impact statements (EISs). In these cases, the development and
implementation of an RBP system to evaluate the program, its options, and its
individual activities can be accomplished over a long period to allow for the level of
sophistication required to defensibly support such a major decision. Alternatively, the
yearly prioritization of funding for continuing activities is a process that takes on the
order of just weeks from the development of budget justification material to the
selection of activities for funding. In this case, compromises must be made in the
sophistication of the approach to allow the results to be available in time to support
that selection. Ultimately, timeliness is one of the most important guidelines in RBP