The approach to site selection should be a collaborative and programmatic process. The most important consideration in developing a framework is to have a diverse representation of stakeholders at the table. This way financial criteria don’t overpower the decision-making process and there is equal representation of program delivery success factors. I will facilitate a workshop with your team to create 3 groups of criteria for site selection. Here’s how we do it:
Criteria noted under this section are deemed “Mandatory”. They will be rated as pass/fail during the site selection process. No further evaluation will be completed if either criterion “fails”.
Criteria noted under this section will be evaluated based on financial impact. They can be viewed as adding incremental costs to the overall project, either as a development “capital” cost or as an ongoing “operating” expense. The guidance provided below will assess the potential impact in relative dollars not absolute dollars. A development pro forma will be completed at a later date. In this group of criteria a “high” raw score implies the least amount of financial impact.
Criteria noted under this section will be evaluated based on intrinsic value and utility. Almost all can be distilled to a quantitative value, and as applied to real estate analysis they are each embedded within the cost of land. i.e. location, location, location. Each of the criteria in this category are better evaluated vis-à-vis program benefits. Better utility for staff, community and stakeholders garners a higher raw score during the evaluation process.
1st Level – Relative level of importance
This level of scoring identifies the importance of each criterion relative to each other. This exercise will be completed by the Evaluation Team in a collaborative fashion; the weighting remains static for each site evaluated.
1 = Low 3 = Medium 5 = High
2nd Level – Raw Score
This level of scoring represents the evaluation of each site relative to the Base Case, and to each other. Each scorer shall be trained to use numerical scoring, from 1 to 10, to evaluate each site with the a low amount of subjectivity.
1 = minimal project objectives met
10 = maximum project objectives met