5.4 Implementation by Teams. A premise of this standard is that the individuals who are
experts in the decision options and decision context will work in close partnership with
experts in RBP, with each educating the other and collaborating in the application.
The standard generally assumes that the individuals who commission the use of RBP are
the decision makers, and they are commonly referred to in the text as " ecision makers."
However, the standard is fully applicable to cases in which those commissioning the
prioritization are responsible for evaluating the alternatives rather than those with the
authority to make the final decision.
The standard also covers the question of whether or not RBP should be selected, and if so,
which of the many RBP approaches are appropriate to the context. Those seeking to
evaluate whether RBP should be selected as a method to illuminate a decision at hand are
encouraged to work with experts in RBP to help resolve such questions.
5.5 Variety of Applications. There are a wide variety of contexts in which RBP may be
warranted and useful, including: (1) cases where many projects are competing for limited
funding; (2) the preparation and justification of budgets; 3) the prioritization of remediation
initiatives; (3) the selection among competing designs for fulfilling a particular mission; (4)
the regulatory analysis of proposed major Federal rules as mandated by Executive Order
12866; (5) the allocation of staff resources; (6) the allocation of time to activities, such as
the development of "iving schedules"for complex facilities or enterprises; and (7) selecting
among many suggestions for upgrading troubled facilities, operations, or organizations.
5.6 Variety of RBP Methods. This standard may be used in the selection, application, and
documentation of a wide variety of prioritization methods. It encourages, but does not
demand, a quantitative approach. Among quantitative RBP methods, this standard
encourages, but does not demand, the use of MAUT. Some of the specific guidelines
presume that a method within the MAUT class of RBP methods will be employed. These
guidelines and this preference have been included because the class of methods known as
MAUT is among the most rigorous, systematic, demanding, and powerful of quantitative
RBP techniques. However, it is not intended to imply that MAUT is always the method of
choice for DOE applications or that MAUT must be employed to adhere to this standard.
This standard may be applied fruitfully to other quantitative or semi-quantitative methods of
a. Arrow, K. J. et al., " enefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation,"
American Enterprise Institute, the Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future, 1996.
b. Keeney, R. L. and H. Raiffa, " ecisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value
Trade-Offs,"Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1993.
c. Keeney, R. L., " alue-Focused Thinking, A Path to Creative Decision-making,"National
Research Council, 1993.
d. Morgan, M. G. et al., " ncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk
and Policy Analysis,"Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1995.
e. National Academy of Science, " cience and Judgment in Risk Assessment,"National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1994.