Following on from my last blog – what does the marking spreadsheet for the RFI process look like? I could claim that I use the Sattay Analytic Hierarchy Process, wikipedia/AHP , this would partly be true. If there is a decision to be made then AHP provides a sound basis to achieve that aim. However, as you see, AHP uses pairwise comparison as its techniques for ‘scoring’ the alternatives. I have not had to resort to use pairwise comparison. I think it is great but the mathematical calculations used to turn the comparisons into scores are obscure. The stakeholders cannot see how their input generates the decision.
I stick with the AHP decomposition although, for an RFI process, I only use a single level. I then create quantitative criteria for each of the leaves of the tree. I define what scores 0, 5 and 10 say and leave it to the stakeholders to interpolate scores.
The weighting for each element of the tree I do in a workshop with the stakeholders. It is expedient to equally weight the elements and then let the workshop move particular weights up or down by consensus. I draft the criteria and again let the workshop refine them by consensus. At the end of the workshop you have your agreed marking spreadsheet.
For the RFI process the AHP decomposition is, or becomes the response format in the RFI document. A spreadsheet to match the RFI headings in my last blog is attached Download RFIv01 .
The RFI is then issued and the responses collated. The stakeholders are given sets of the RFI responses and asked to mark them against the criteria. A ‘short list’ workshop can be held, their scores entered into the spreadsheet directly in the meeting and the results discussed and agreed. It works well as the stakeholders see the decisions unfold in the meetings.
Ian Richmond
email: 'About' and 'Email Me' link
Comments