**Important Note **: the following guidelines were adopted by SCIG in March 2021 and were the framework for the evaluation of submitted ideas. The rubric changed subtly during subsequent meetings and the final rubric and formula is toward the beginning of this report.
Functions of a SCIG Working Group
Adopted 2021/03/25
Purpose: This document outlines the basic processes for individual SCIG working groups to use to evaluate ideas for controlling costs, generating revenue, and/or improving service delivery in the town of Belmont.
Overview: steps for evaluating ideas assigned to a working group:
-
Confirm that this idea is properly assigned to this group
-
Perform initial evaluation
a. Rule Out
b. Update
c. Initial Evaluation
-
Where appropriate, perform in-depth evaluation
-
Report out at full SCIG meetings & update matrix with scores
Process Details:
-
Confirm that this idea is properly assigned to this group
- If not: refer idea back to the SCIG chair for reassignment
-
Initial Evaluation
-
Rule out: Confirm that conditions haven’t changed; that the reasons this was previously not done are still valid
-
Update : For completed ideas and ideas in progress, provide a brief update on the status of the idea, its impact to date, important details about implementation (e.g. lessons learned), and a status update on progress in implementation (where applicable)
-
Initial Evaluation : Purpose: to generate a baseline score and determine if an idea merits further investigation
-
Identify Stakeholders
-
Identify any major impediments that may prevent this idea from being implemented
-
Find out if any group(s) in Town already working on it
-
Develop rough estimates of impact and implementation process
-
Generate a preliminary score
-
Working group vote on whether to perform an in-depth evaluation for this idea
-
-
-
In-depth evaluation : Purpose: To provide more detailed & accurate estimates of impact, implementation, considerations, etc.
-
Develop detailed estimates of impact
-
Seek out possible pitfalls, stumbling blocks, etc.
-
Meet with and gather input from Department Heads, Town Boards, and Town Committees that would be impacted
-
If feasible, develop high-level implementation plan
-
Generate a final score based on this in-depth information
-
-
Periodically, report out at full SCIG meetings & update matrix with scores
Scoring Rubric
| Financial Impact | Label | An estimate of how much total revenue/savings this idea will create, using a ten-year planning horizon. (If recurring, estimate the total impact over the first 10 years. If the duration is shorter than 10 years, estimate the total impact.) |
| 0 | No impact or negative impact | Costs/Loses Money |
| 1 | Very small impact | $0-$100k |
| 2 | Little impact | $100k-$250k |
| 3 | Some impact | $250k-$1m |
| 4 | Medium impact | $1m-$5m |
| 5 | Big impact | > $5m |
| Y/N | Recurring? | |
| Operational Impact | An estimate of this idea's potential to impact efficiency, quality, or progress on town goals (e.g. equity, transparency, etc.) | |
| 0 | No impact or negative impact | Replaces one system with another of equal or worse quality |
| 1 | Little impact | Modest improvement to efficiency or quality |
| 2 | Some impact | Moderate improvement to efficiency or quality |
| 3 | Medium impact | Significant improvement to efficiency OR quality |
| 4 | Big impact | Significant improvement to efficiency AND quality |
| Ease of implementation | Label | An estimate of how easy or difficult this idea will be to implement. Below are examples to help estimate, but these are not hard rules. |
| 0 | Impossible | Ideas that are prohibited by state or federal laws |
| 1 | Very difficult | Complicated by local laws AND contracts; has complicated prerequisites; requires TMM AND town-wide approval |
| 2 | Difficult | Complicated by local laws OR contracts; requires TMM 2/3 vote OR requires TMM vote AND town-wide vote |
| 3 | Medium | Requires political will; has up-front capital requirements; requires a TMM or town-wide vote |
| 4 | Easy | Leg-work, Select Board vote |
| 5 | Very easy | Simple paperwork |
| Time Scale | Label | An estimate of how long it will take for impacts to be delivered, after the decision is made to pursue it. |
| 1 | VERY long | 5 or more years |
| 2 | Long | 3 to 5 years to complete |
| 3 | Medium | 1 to 3 years to complete |
| 4 | Short | 6 months to 1 year to complete |
| 5 | Immediate | Less than 6 month to complete |
Scoring & Weighting of Categories
| Financial Impact | Operational Impact | Implementation | Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40% | 30% | 15% | 15% |
Formula
We will weigh the normalized scores for each category by the above percentages using the following formula: Score = (f/5 * .4) + (p/4 * .3) + (i/5 * .15) + (t/5 * .15) * 100
Note/Reminder: The final rubric and formula were updated and are presented at the beginning of this report.