After the options for changes have been screened to eliminate the ones which will have adverse or negligible effects on future performance, the surviving candidates need to be prioritized. This requires analyzing all the tradeoffs, comparing options, developing a followup plan, and preparing a decision package. Where the effects are minimal and the costs are minor, this can be done mentally and quickly; otherwise trade-offs should be documented.

In addition to risk levels, analysts may have to weigh other considerations to arrive at a ranking of options to fix a problem. Those considerations may include costs, down time concerns, the range of activities improved by the option, work force capabilities, returns on investment, public relations, threat of litigation or penalties and others that may be unique or important to an organization. Each may have several aspects. For example, public relations problems might range from a major national media and political fire storm or a brief one-time burst of publicity at the national level; media and political criticism at state level; media and political criticism at local level; detrimental employee relations, or loss of shareholder or market confidence.

Costs should be considered, both from the perspective of future loss estimates and cost of implementing the option, and given appropriate weight. There's no free lunch, and it will be only one of numerous tradeoffs. Cost may include cost of capital as well as out of pocket costs. Such considerations are unique as a group for each option, but some may be common to several options.

Where the option involves minimal change, the tradeoffs can be analyzed informally in discussions. If the analyst needs to do more formal, documented analysis for any reason, Investigation Catalyst provides a table for documenting and assigning weights or indicators of importance to each consideration, pro and con, using a scale of 1-10 or whatever other scale might be preferred. For Pros, the weight would be a positive or + value; for cons it would be a negative or - value.

The table also provides space for recording the sum of the + and - weights assigned or net weight of all the tradeoffs for each option. Options with a positive net weight are viable; negative net weights would not be considered, because the arguments against the option outweigh the arguments favoring the option.

NOTE: Try to capture and record comments discussed BUT NOT USED during this decision making process for future use as possible criteria in future control selection decisions. Strive for consistent criteria in the long run. The glossaries will help achieve that.

After the tradeoffs and weights are assigned, analysts can document the sum or net weights of the entries, that is, of the + and - values for each surviving option. This enables users to see the relative desirability of each option. It provides the person responsible for selecting the best option a reasoned basis to support that decision, and a way to incorporate additional criteria if they arise.

Investigation Catalyst provides a summary view of all the recorded problems, options and tradeoffs in the Diamond Panel view. This enables team members or anyone else interested in the details behind a proposed action to review the analyst's reasoning and judgments about the ratings, and develop a consensus for action.

In evaluating the options, feasibility of monitoring implementation was estimated. The next task is to define a follow up monitoring plan to determine if the option selected successfully accomplished the desired results. This can be done quickly by thinking about how the changes would alter the process described in the matrix, and what data would tell everyone that the change was successful in achieving the desired results, and then recording the plan to do that.

For high-cost or high-stakes changes, development of the follow up plan may required documenting and analyzing the new expected system operation with Investigation Catalyst. Using the new Matrix, analysis of EB pairs or sets can help identify where data might be available, and how to capture it.

For high cost or high stakes changes, the follow up plan should at least define and document what success is, how it will be determined, who will determine it, and milestones for reporting on the predicted success or progress. For less significant changes, the predicted results and how they will be confirmed should also be documented and the task assigned to someone.

The needs statements selected, the action options that could be selected to address the need, the affected parties and their interests, and the trade-offs are then assembled into a written or documented decision package for the person who will have to sign off on the change. The decision package should also include either the MES worksheet or a narrative derived from the worksheet, plus as many illustrations as judged necessary for the specific decision maker.

That package should be directed to the decision maker with the requisite level of authority to make the go/no go change decision. This seems obvious, but requires vigilance. Often analysts without organizational responsibility will load up a manager with a task that is not feasible, valid or implementable, without realizing the consequences. Good tradeoff analyses will reduce this kind of problem, and help you actually document the recommended actions.

Investigation Catalyst also captures the problems, options and tradeoffs entered in glossaries. That helps users with future data entry, and offers a form of corporate memory of the results of the analyses. Export the Diamond list for incorporation into a narrative report if needed.