Criteria and Multi-Criteria Analysis
POLICY DECISION LAB · LABORATORY 05
Criteria &
Multi-Criteria Analysis.
Make public priorities explicit. Compare options across effectiveness, efficiency, equity, feasibility, resilience and legitimacy—and reveal when a recommendation depends on contested weights rather than dominant evidence.
THE PUBLIC-VALUE SCORECARD
One objective is
rarely enough.
Multi-criteria analysis compares alternatives against dimensions that cannot all be expressed credibly in one monetary unit. It structures judgment; it does not remove it.
Effectiveness
Expected achievement of the policy objective.
Efficiency
Results relative to resources and opportunity cost.
Equity
Distribution of benefits, costs and risks.
Feasibility
Administrative, legal and political deliverability.
Resilience
Performance across shocks and uncertain futures.
Legitimacy
Procedural fairness, rights and public acceptability.
THE MCDA METHOD
Score transparently.
Test the ranking.
Define criteria
Use non-overlapping, decision-relevant and measurable dimensions.
Set weights
Represent relative priority through an explicit, documented process.
Score options
Use evidence and common scales, recording uncertainty and rationale.
Test sensitivity
Change weights and scores to identify robust or fragile rankings.
INTERACTIVE DECISION MATRIX
Change the values.
Watch the ranking.
Weights normalize automatically. Option scores are fixed illustrative evidence; adjust public priorities and observe whether the leading choice remains stable.
| OPTION | Effect. | Efficien. | Equity | Feasib. | Resilien. | Legitim. | Total |
|---|
ROBUSTNESS READINGOption B leads under the current priorities. Test alternative weights before recommending it.
MCDA DISCIPLINE
Transparency does not make
all judgments objective.
Avoid double counting
Closely related criteria can give the same benefit excessive influence.
Separate evidence and values
Scores describe expected performance; weights describe relative priority.
Record uncertainty
A precise score should not conceal weak, conflicting or incomplete evidence.
Inspect veto conditions
Legal rights or safety thresholds may not be compensable by high scores elsewhere.
SCIENTIFIC CHECKPOINT
What do criterion
weights represent?
Which interpretation is most accurate?
Keep value priorities distinct from evidence-based performance scores.
