It is very hard to compare the benefits of one project with another or to determine how much money is reasonable to spend on it. Allocating an objective number of benefit points to a project encourages discussion about measurable benefits and makes it possible to compare these benefits with vastly different initiatives.
Being wildly inaccurate is still better than not having benefit points. Even inaccurate values encourage discussion and transparency.
People vary in how much they assess the benefit of a purchase, but everyone does this to some degree even if it is not conscious. A series of questions can often reveal what dollar value people place on a benefit.
<aside> 🪪 Example of the benefit of an active-transport bridge
To calculate the benefit points you’d start by asking people questions like:
This sort of questioning might demonstrate that people feel that crossing the bridge is worth about forty cents to them. Then the base value could be calculated as .4 x crossings per day x bridge life in days Other value should also be recognised such as reduction in car traffic, increase in physical and mental well being, businesses at both ends of the bridge having access to more customers, people feeling more connected or being visited more often, etc.
</aside>
Once the benefit to people has been established by comparing it to the generalised benefit of money, it should then be multiplied by a ratio to make it more understandable and more timeless. Projects that benefit points might be most relevant to might typically cost between one million and ten billion dollars. But humans have no feeling for these numbers. So dividing benefit points based on a dollar by 1,000,000 would sit benefit points between 1 and 10,000. Then this ratio could increase to match inflation so that the benefit points of projects can be compared over time.
After many projects have been delivered, it will be possible to compare actual benefit and costs with the projected benefit and costs. It will then also be possible to compare the average cost of delivering a single benefit point. This benchmark would make it possible to easily identify projects that should be supported or rejected when their projected benefit is orders of magnitude different from the average.
For example, after ten years, the cost of delivering a benefit point might average around $800,000. If someone proposes a project which is projected to deliver benefit points at $80,000 each, then it should face very little resistance in proceeding. Or if the expected benefit points will cost $8,000,000 each, there should be some serious questions asked before proceeding.
Benefit points that demonstrate a high value in a project might be used to fast-track it through with less scrutiny than it deserves. To prevent this, people promoting a project should base their assumptions on trusted Outcome modelling and then bet their Career points on it.