Structured Decision-Making
Workshop
May 31, 2013
7479862
Opening Remarks
John Forsdick
Context Research
2
Agenda
3
How LGPAC & CRF input has influenced:
• Objectives Hierarchy
• 9 Design Concepts
• 3 Build Scenarios
4
Example – Impact of Community Input
Date Consultation
Activity
Impact of your input
Jun 2012 LGPAC Mtg #1 • Shaped development of 9 concepts
Sep 2012 Community
Workshop #1
• Informed site design
• Input considered by municipalities
Nov 2012 Community
Workshop #2
• Revised objectives framework
• Directly shaped specific objectives
Feb 2013 LGPAC Mtg #4 • Direction on 9 concepts
• Informed development of 3 scenarios
Apr 2013 Community
Workshop #3
• Design direction for 3 scenarios (eg.
estuary discharge)
Apr 2013 Public Meeting • Community interests/questions/ concern
provided direction in assessment of 3
build scenarios
5
Control Odour
Minimize
noise
Consider
truck traffic
impacts
Future proofing
including
population growth
and disasters
Examples of things we heard from
LGPAC and CRF that influenced the
evaluation framework
Design for
climate change
Objectives Hierarchy
6
Recover water,
energy, nutrient
resources
Water
conservation
Create a place
people want to live
Examples of things we heard from
LGPAC and CRF that influenced the
evaluation framework
Establish
connections to the
surroundings
Protect and enhance the
environment
Objectives Hierarchy
7
A tourist
attraction for
the North Shore
Reduce
nuisances
(noise, dust)
Public
education
Connect the
community to
the waterfront
Multi-use to leverage
infrastructure for
amenities
Examples of things we heard from LGPAC and
CRF that influenced the development of the
9 Design Concepts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 Design Concepts
Control
OdourFocus on
costs / value
8
Flexibility (Concept 3)
• Adaptability
• Accommodate
future population
growth / technology
• Smaller footprint
Examples of things LGPAC
members told us they thought were
the most appealing in the 9 design
concepts, that then influenced
the 3 Build Scenarios
3 Build Scenarios Ecology (Concepts 1, 7,
8)
• Regenerative design
• Passive onsite habitat
• Urban garden
• Tiered greenery
1 2 3
Additional uses / Cost-effectiveness (Concepts 6, 9)
• Office space
• Multi-purpose community space
• Artist studios and incubator industries
• Complementary businesses
• Sustainable from a cost perspective
Integrated Resource
Recovery (Concept 4)
• On-site IRR, but not
trucking off site
• Feed the energy
requirements of the
industrial community
Overview of Structured Decision Making (SDM)
Process used by Metro Vancouver for evaluating
alternatives
Graham LongCompass Resource Management
Structured-Decision Making Workshop
May 31, 2013
10
Objectives for this workshop
• To introduce and discuss the methodology being used by Metro Vancouver to
create and evaluate potential alternatives
• To clarify how LGPAC / CRF input has been used and will be used in future
• To engage participants in weighting exercises that help explore and
communicate preferences to Metro Vancouver
• To provide an update on the current status of the project and to seek further
input on key trade-offs for the three Build Scenarios
11
Overview of Structured Decision Making
(SDM)
“… a formalization of common sense for decision problems which are too complex
for informal use of common sense."
Ralph Keeney
12
Overview of Structured Decision Making
(SDM)
• Based on decision analysis principles that date back to the 1940s
• One of many variants on a theme
• Multi-attribute trade-off analysis
• Multiple account evaluation
• Kepner Tregoe is another variant
13
Overview of Structured Decision Making
(SDM)
All these methods rely in some way on:
• Defining a context
– what‟s the decision all about?
– what are the “must haves” or “must not haves”?
• Defining objectives (the things that matter)
• Developing alternatives
• Evaluating the impact of alternatives on objectives
– Some techniques use weighting to assist in this
14
Overview of Structured Decision Making
(SDM)Example: buying a truck
Objectives and measurement scales
Alternatives
15
Overview of Structured Decision Making
(SDM)
What’s different about SDM?
• Less focus on using pre-defined weights to automatically select a „winner‟
• More focus on using structure to inform discussion
• Uses multiple weighting techniques to help understand and communicate what people
prefer and why
• Ultimately, uses structure as a prop to debate
Review of objective hierarchy and measurement
scales
Graham LongCompass Resource Management
17
Lions Gate SWWTP
Must haves include:
• Ability to treat wastewater from the North Shore to secondary standard as defined by the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations under the federal Fisheries Act, and as committed to in Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, approved by the Minister in 2011.
• Must be in service by Dec. 31, 2020
• Meet the four goals of:
1. Secondary treatment
2. Sustainability
3. Integrated Resource Recovery
4. Community Integration
18
Lions Gate SWWTP
Objectives:
See the handout:
19
Lions Gate SWWTP
Example of how to fill in the form
20
Lions Gate SWWTP
Example of how to fill in the form
21
Lions Gate SWWTP
Example of how to fill in the form
22
Lions Gate SWWTP
Example of how to fill in the form
23
Lions Gate SWWTP
Example of how to fill in the form
24
Lions Gate SWWTP
Exercise 1: individual swing weighting
Graham LongCompass Resource Management
26
BREAK
11:00 – 11:15 a.m.
Summary presentation of the nine concepts
Laurie FordSenior Engineer, Metro Vancouver
29
Summary Table for 9 Design Concepts
Summary Table for 9 Design Concepts
Concept 1 - Intertidal Wetland 2 - Living Breathing
Organism
3 - Network 4 - Ant Colony 5 - Flea Market 6 - Perpetual Motion Machine7 - Urban Garden 8 - Urban Ecology 9A - Dragons Den 9B - Dragons Den
Liquid Treatment Level Meets secondary Meets secondary Exceeds secondary Exceeds secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary
Effluent Use (other than
outfall)
Mackay wetland, pocket
estuaries
- Industrial use, satellite
facilities
Industrial use, satellite
facilities
- - Greenhouses - On-site development use On-site development use
Solids Treatment On-site digestion and
trucking biosolids cake off-
site
On-site digestion, drying,
and trucking dried pellets
off-site
Truck raw sludge in tanker
trucks to second site for
digestion with food waste,
and drying to pellets
Truck pulped food waste to
site for digestion with
sludge, drying to pellets
Combusted in thermal
reduction process
On-site digestion and
trucking biosolids cake off-
site
On-site digestion and
trucking biosolids cake off-
site
On-site digestion and
trucking biosolids cake off-
site
On site digestion for some,
addition of lime dust for
remainder
Addition of lime dust
Comanagement with North
Shore Food Waste
- - Yes, at second site Yes, at plant site - - - - - -
Use of Solids Land application Land application, energy for
cement kilns
Energy for cement kilns Energy for cement kilns Ash to disposal Land application Land application Land application Land application Land application
Energy Recovery Biogas upgraded to feed to
natural gas pipeline
Biogas sold for use in
district energy system
Biogas used for biosolids
dryer and to power/heat off-
site facility
Biogas used for biosolids
dryer
Heat recovered from burning
solids to heat plant
Biogas used to generate heat
and electricity for plant use
Biogas upgraded to feed to
natural gas pipeline
Biogas used to generate heat
and electricity for plant use
None None
Potential to use effluent heat
for adjacent district energy
systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Plant Footprint Low profile High visibility Small (on site) Medium Small Big Small footprint Small footprint to maximize
space available for
vegetation
Large footprint, partially
buried tanks with structures
built on top
Small footprint to maximize
space to build
Potential for Education Story of water treatment on
site
Story of MV work More opportunities for
awareness
More opportunities for
awareness
Repeat visitors - messaging
opportunities
Visible indicators of
performance
Potential for research Interpretive Information for tenants Information for tenants
Other Features Minimize chemical use and
energy intensity
Potential tourist attraction Leasable high bay work
space
Community space, such as
multipurpose, artist, outdoor
space
Flexibility for future process
modifications
Greenhouses on site, seed
starts
Terraced urban forest Towers/space for private
sector development
Towers/roof space for
private sector development
Viewpoints created for visual
connection to waterfront
Community amenity space -
ice sheet, ball courts
Reuse of water and nutrients
on site
Onsite and off-site habitat
creation
Exercise 2: Individual direct weighing
Graham LongCompass Resource Management
LUNCH
12:30 – 1:30 p.m.
Discussion of weighting results and comparison with
previous findings
Graham LongCompass Resource Management
33
How were each of the concepts rated?
Engineering Team Evaluation
This initial evaluation was undertaken by Webex on February 4, 2013 and was a precursor to an evaluation meeting with the Lions Gate SWWTP Core Team on February 7 and discussions with the Integrated Design Team (IDT) and other stakeholders at Workshop No. 4 (Feb 12 to 14). The following people participated in the Webex on February 4, 2013:
1. Mohammad Abu-Orf
2. Joyce Chang
3. Pat Coleman
4. Kim Fries
5. Dave Lycon
6. Dan Pitzler
7. Barry Rabinowitz
8. John Spencer
9. Beverley Stinson
10. Rick Bitcon
34
How were each of the concepts rated?
People involved in the initial Community Integration ratings are shown below.
1. Matthew Woodruff
2. Robin Mills
3. Jeff Cutler
4. Michel Labrie
5. Sarah Primeau
6. Graham Long
35
Alternatives 1 and 7:
Least expensive and functionally strong
36
Alternatives 1 and 7:
Least expensive and functionally strong
Few differences in their relative performance:
Alt 1 performs better for most of Goal 2
Alt 7 performs better for a variety of other measures
Questions:
Are they too alike?
Should they compete or merge?
Should one be removed?
37
Alternatives 3 and 4: Bigger financial and operational risks – but worth it for
the sustainability pay-off?
38
Alternatives 3 and 4: Bigger financial and operational risks – but worth it for
the sustainability pay-off?
Comparison
Alt 4 has a slight edge on Goal 1
Alt 3 performs better on Goal 2 and other social measures
Alt 4 is less expensive and has less cost risk
Questions:
Are they too alike?
Should they compete or merge?
Should one be removed?
39
Alternatives 2 and 6:
Inexpensive and simple–but mediocre performance?
40
Alternatives 2 and 6:
Inexpensive and simple–but mediocre performance?
Little to differentiate their
performance…
But are either the best
that can be done…?
See next slide
41
Alternatives 2 and 6:
Inexpensive and simple–but mediocre performance?
Alternatives 2 beats 7
only if 4 measures are
highly weighted:
Alternative 6 beats 7
only if 5 measures are
highly weighted:
42
Alternative 5: Strong community aspects…but is it ‘sustainable’ enough?
43
Alternative 5: Strong community aspects…but is it ‘sustainable’ enough?
Alternative 5 is perhaps
outperformed by
Alternative 1?
Could elements of
Alternatives 5 be used to
strengthen Alternative 1?
44
Alternative 8:
A strong all-rounder?
45
Alternative 8:
A strong all-rounder?
Alternative 8 performs
quite well across a wide
range of measures.
Not clearly beaten by
any other
May be worth a further
look?
46
Alternative 9A and 9B:
Out-performed, one-trick ponies?
47
Alternative 9A and 9B:
Out-performed, one-trick ponies?
Both 9A and 9B may
also be out-performed by
Alternative 1?
Can the economic
development benefits of
these alternatives be
used to strengthen
another alternative(s)?
Summary presentations of the three Build Scenarios
Laurie FordSenior Engineer, Metro Vancouver
BREAK
3:00 – 3:15 p.m.
Discussion: Key trade-offs requiring input
Graham LongCompass Resource Management
51
From 9 concepts to 3 build scenarios
Concept considerations Outcome
Alternatives 1, 7 and 8 were leading candidates
using both techniques; however, all three of these
Concepts were similar in their focus of themes that
were designed to appeal to „naturalness‟ in some
way.
Most effective
components
reconfigured to form
Build Scenario C
‘Natural’
Alternatives 3 and 4 were strongly favoured by
some people based on strong performance in Goals
3 and 4. Although Alternative 9 performed poorly as
configured in this first round, there was still interest
in exploring further the notion underlying the
„Dragon‟s Den‟ Concept.
Most effective
components
reconfigured to form
Build Scenario A
‘Resource’
There were other individual thematic and
engineering ideas within the remaining alternatives
that people considered important to explore further
in a second round of evaluation (e.g. thermal
oxidation, community-focused site usage etc).
Most effective
components
reconfigured to form
Build Scenario B
‘Community’
Wrap up and close
John ForsdickContext Research