If a single consideration dominates, it might be for good reason. The relative insensitivity of WFMs can reflect poor scaling of the score with impact.
(With BOTECs, sometimes the final ranking/conclusion is very dependent on one or two very uncertain or arbitrary criteria.)
I might be inclined to do sensitivity analysis to the parameters and multiple different BOTECs/models in these cases, but that’s also more work. At some point, it’s not really a BOTEC anymore, because the model is too complicated to fit on the back of an envelope. And it can no longer be practical to use the same BOTEC/model structure across interventions that are too different.
Yeah I agree in principle it “might be for good reason”, though I still have some sense that it seems desirable to reduce overdependence on your ratings for one or two criteria. Similar to the reasoning for sequence thinking vs. cluster thinking
If a single consideration dominates, it might be for good reason. The relative insensitivity of WFMs can reflect poor scaling of the score with impact.
I might be inclined to do sensitivity analysis to the parameters and multiple different BOTECs/models in these cases, but that’s also more work. At some point, it’s not really a BOTEC anymore, because the model is too complicated to fit on the back of an envelope. And it can no longer be practical to use the same BOTEC/model structure across interventions that are too different.
Yeah I agree in principle it “might be for good reason”, though I still have some sense that it seems desirable to reduce overdependence on your ratings for one or two criteria. Similar to the reasoning for sequence thinking vs. cluster thinking