(i.e., integrate the ES&H and non-ES&H activities in the same prioritization and use
the total budget of resources to fund the highest ranked activities), or (2) the most
cost-effective ES&H activities and the most cost-effective non-ES&H activities (i.e.,
keep the budgets separate and rank the activities in separate groups, funding ES&H
activities from one budget and non-ES&H activities from another). The separation of
budgets assures that a set amount of funding goes to ES&H activities, even if some
non-ES&H activities are more cost effective. The decision maker(s) may need to
justify how and why particular normalization and/or weighting parameters were
chosen, but it should be remembered that the prioritization effort is intended to help
inform the decision maker(s), not to make the decision.
Recommendation. The decision maker(s) should determine whether it is desirable to
utilize a methodology to understand what may be the best use of limited resources
across all competing activities or determine the optimal use of resources in a given
functional area. If a decision has been made to integrate ES&H activities with others,
it is suggested to normalize to a common attribute when comparing results.
Person/hours or dollars are good normalization parameters, however, ultimate
responsibility for making this determination is retained by the prioritization decision
10.2 Reprioritization of New Information.
Issue. All decision makers are confronted with a need to decide whether to reprioritize
each time new information is introduced. That is, as new information becomes
available about a subject, should the decision maker(s) reopen/review past decisions?
Discussion. In planning the prioritization effort, consideration should be given to
reprioritization in light of new information, as it is probable that new information will be
revealed when performing a prioritization effort. The new information is usually one of
four types: (1) identification of new activities that were not previously considered; (2) a
desire to improve a process based on an enhanced understanding; (3) a methodology
is challenged, requiring a reexamination of the effort based on the challenge, and (4)
changes in the condition of the facility or in external constraints such as budget or
mission. Experience has shown that encountering one or more of these forms of new
information is likely, and the decision maker(s) should prepare a conceptual approach
outlining how new information will be incorporated.
Recommendation. In planning for and implementing a risk-based prioritization, the
decision maker(s) should consider two alternatives to performing a snapshot
prioritization using only then-current information. One alternative is to prepare
contingency plans for the eventuality that the factors driving the preferred decision
might change before the decision is fully carried out, perhaps warranting a
reprioritization and an altered plan of action. The other alternative is to plan for a
"iving schedule"in which new information is routinely processed in an ongoing
prioritization, so that the scheduled activities or resource allocations always reflect the
most up-to-date information on constraints, incentives and preferences that is