OPS.17:4.3 - Compare feasible ways of working

First exclude options that violate a supplied protection, authority limit or necessary operating condition. For the remaining options, compare the consequences that could change the decision: accepted service, resource demand, delay, quality, human burden, financial effect and the effort to introduce and sustain the method.

Use the same Work family, horizon and result definition for each option. Carry uncertainty as an interval, scenario or unresolved claim suitable for the use. Separate an observed result from a forecast or causal explanation. A method that worked in one team may still be a useful candidate elsewhere; the evidence for that receiving use must remain visible.

An option is dominated when another feasible option is at least as good on all consequential comparison characteristics and better on at least one, under the stated comparison. Keep non-dominated options when the preference remains unresolved. The authorized decision maker can choose among them by an explicit priority or justified trade-off. For example, earlier service may justify a higher payment; a weighted score cannot make a breached recovery condition acceptable.

Increase comparison effort only where it can change the choice. If every proposed option depends on the same unresolved mandatory staffing condition, obtain that missing result before refining their service scores.