Do nothing, do minimum and do maximum: building a credible range of options

A preferred option is only as convincing as the alternatives it was tested against. If the short list contains one real option and two that were never credible, a reviewer will notice. This guide covers how to build a genuine range of options, narrow it down fairly and define the three options almost every appraisal should include: do nothing, do minimum and do maximum.

Why the range of options matters

Decision makers, funders and regulators all ask the same question: how do we know this is the best way to meet the need? The answer is to show that a wide range of approaches was considered, that each was assessed on its merits and that the reasons for discarding options were recorded. A well built range also protects the project team. When someone later asks "did you consider…?", the answer is already written down.

Step 1: Build a long list

The long list is every reasonable way the need could be met. Keep it broad at this stage. It is far better to discard an option for a clear reason than to have never considered it. A helpful way to generate options is to vary one dimension at a time. The HM Treasury Green Book suggests five:

• Scope: how much of the need to address. Part of the site or all of it?
• Solution: which technical approach. Repair, refurbish, replace or redesign?
• Delivery: who delivers it. In house, framework contractor or specialist?
• Implementation: when and how. All at once, phased or combined with other work?
• Funding: how it is paid for and over what period.

Step 2: Filter against your must have criteria

Before comparing options in detail, test each one against a small set of must have criteria. Formal guidance such as the HM Treasury Green Book calls these critical success factors. They are pass or fail, not weighted: legal and safety compliance, technical feasibility, affordability within realistic limits and fit with strategy. An option that fails any of them is discarded, however well it might score elsewhere.

The criteria that matter but are not absolute, such as whole life cost, resultant risk and programme, come later. They are weighted and scored when the short listed options are compared. See our guide to weighted criteria scoring.

Record every discarded option with a one line reason. That short list of reasons is some of the most valuable evidence in the whole appraisal.

Step 3: Agree a short list

The short list is the set of options developed and appraised in detail, usually four or five including do nothing. HM Treasury guidance expects at least four unless there is a good reason for fewer, which can be the case on smaller or simpler projects. It should include:

• Do nothing as the baseline.
• Do minimum, the least that meets essential requirements.
• At least one intermediate option, often the likely preferred way forward.
• A more ambitious option, often the do maximum.

Each option on the short list should be genuinely different, not three versions of the same idea with slightly different costs.

Defining the baseline options properly

Do nothing means continuing as you are now. It is rarely free. It usually means ongoing inspections, reactive repairs, rising risk as the asset deteriorates and eventually a forced intervention. Cost it and assess its risk like any other option. The Association for Project Management suggests calling it "continue as we are", because literal inaction is rarely the real alternative.

Do minimum is the least you could do to meet essential safety, legal or service requirements. It is not the cheapest option that sounds reasonable. It is the floor below which the organisation cannot go. It can be easier to fund, but not always: a lower upfront cost can mean a higher whole life cost or risk that needs more spending later.

Do maximum is the most comprehensive credible option: everything that could sensibly be addressed, addressed. It is useful because it shows the upper bound of cost and benefit. Sometimes it reveals that most of the benefit comes from a smaller, cheaper scope. Other times it shows that doing everything at once brings real bundling benefits, such as a single outage, shared access and mobilisation and less disruption to operations. Despite the higher upfront cost, it can then have the lowest whole life cost.

A worked example

Consider a site with ageing pumps, a failing boundary fence and some minor civils issues:

Laid out like this, the conversation becomes clear: is the extra cost of the intermediate option justified by the pump risk it removes? Is the further cost of the do maximum justified at all?

Common pitfalls

• Straw man options that were never credible, added to make the preferred option look good.
• Do nothing shown as zero cost with no account of the risk it carries.
• Variations of one idea presented as different options.
• Discarded options not recorded, so the same questions come back at every review.
• Jumping to a solution before the long list has been properly explored.

How DevelopVault helps

In DevelopVault every option, including do nothing, is assessed against the same criteria, so the differences between options are clear at a glance. Options can be built up from scope items, which suits upgrades and replacements, or described as whole alternatives, such as different sites for a new facility or different routes for a new connection. Every option stays in the record with its scores, benefits and trade offs, so the reasoning behind the options not chosen is never lost. See DevelopVault Pro.

Frequently asked questions

Related guides

This guide is general information, not professional or regulatory advice.