Limits on Use of This Standard for Major Policy Issues.

DOE-DP-STD-3023-98

a. When the activity has a total cost over a certain threshold value for other

decisions, It consider utilizing a threshold value of 10 percent of the capital

asset management program. For example, if 50 million dollars is the value for

the capital asset management program, then groupings of activities of $5

million should be considered for prioritization.

b. Consider formal prioritization of 20 percent of the decision options that utilize

80 percent of the resources. The prioritization effort is based on the cost of

the activities with consideration given to a graded approach.

c. Consider formal prioritization of 20 percent of the decision options that utilize

80 percent of the person hours. The prioritization effort is based on the person

hour cost of the activities with consideration given to a graded approach.

10.4 Limits on Use of This Standard for Major Policy Issues.

Issue. The use of risk-based prioritization to illuminate national policy decisions or to

tradeoff resource allocations among program offices and DOE sites can be

controversial. Its use in such contexts may be warranted, but requires special

considerations beyond those indicated in this standard.

Discussion. While theoretically possible to use the quantitative approach suggested

by this standard for decisions at any level, practical considerations obviate against

such use for national level decisions with broad policy implications.

As the level of the decision elevates, the dominant influences on the decision become

more and more the intangible objectives. Politically driven and/or programmatically

broad, these objectives are frequently difficult to measure and quantify. Examples of

such objectives include implementation of administration policy or legislative

resolutions, impacts on national or global economies and treaty obligations.

Formal decision aids such as RBP can be technically capable and highly useful in

such contexts, but run the risk of serving as lightning rods for interested parties.

National level decisions with broad policy implications also involve the participation of

a large number of stakeholders, presenting difficulty in reaching consensus on

objectives and values. In the absence of a consensus, using statistically generated

" onsensus"values is possible. However, the statistical aggregation of a large,

diverse set of opinions tends to mask the individual values of the stakeholders. Thus,

the resultant values are so " lended"that they do not accurately reflect the values of

any particular stakeholder.

On the other hand, some national issues, such as military base closings, tend to be so

politicized that the only way of achieving a consensus is for all parties to agree to

utilize a formal, disinterested decision process such as that afforded by formal risk-

based prioritization. However, the decision to adopt RBP as a decision aid in such

contexts requires careful consideration of the implications for stakeholder acceptance.

Recommendation. This standard normally should be applied to prioritize activities

within established programmatic line item budgets and budgets established for a given