Structured Decision-Making Workshop May 31, 2013 7479862 Opening - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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 Odour Focus 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 Long

Compass 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 Long

Compass 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 Long

Compass Resource Management

26

BREAK 11:00 – 11:15 a.m.

Summary presentation of the nine concepts Laurie Ford

Senior 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

• utfall)

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

• ff-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

• pportunities

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

• n site

Onsite and off-site habitat creation

Exercise 2: Individual direct weighing Graham Long

Compass Resource Management

LUNCH 12:30 – 1:30 p.m.

Discussion of weighting results and comparison with previous findings Graham Long

Compass 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

• nly if 4 measures are

highly weighted: Alternative 6 beats 7

• nly 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

• utperformed 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 Ford

Senior Engineer, Metro Vancouver

BREAK 3:00 – 3:15 p.m.

Discussion: Key trade-offs requiring input Graham Long

Compass 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

• xidation, community-focused site usage etc).

Most effective components reconfigured to form Build Scenario B ‘Community’

Wrap up and close John Forsdick

Context Research