Textbox 1: MFMA clause on infrastructure projects
7.1 Methodology
7.1.2 Attributes and indicators
Mathematical structuring and stakeholder objectives were elucidated in the second phase using brainstorming techniques. Stakeholders, represented by the panel of experts discussed in the previous chapter, were instrumental in defining the attributes employed in this routine.
Goals used in the augmented Chebychev GP model were first incorporated into the MAVT framework forming a link between the two techniques. The MAVT technique incorporated softer criteria that the augmented Chebychev GP technique could not handle.
The interactive MAVT application took the form of iterative two-phased face to face, telephonic and virtual interviews. Virtual interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams, Zoom and Google Meet. These platforms were selected for the interactive advantages which permit video and screen sharing. Refer to Appendix D for step-by-step guidance on how to use the V.I.S.A groupware package. In addition to the goals considered under the augmented Chebychev GP technique, the panel members were first requested to enumerate all objectives that they would consider when crafting energy access interventions. Objectives obtained from literature were shared with the panel members, and the participants were then requested to validate the original objectives list.
In the last steps of this phase, the panel members were requested to explain, for each objective, including goals incorporated in the augmented Chebychev GP technique and why they would consider it and its direct consequences. This led to the listing of more objectives and the identification of relationships between pairs of objectives.
Three primary criteria and fourteen sub-criteria were chosen for analysis by the panel of experts after a screening procedure utilizing the brainstorming technique. The three-parent criteria identified were the user, fuel and system criteria. Two child criteria were also selected for the user criteria. The cost child criteria under the cost-benefit criterion was chosen as:
_________________________________________________________________________
138 - Investment costs (considered under the Chebychev GP technique); and
- Lifecycle operating costs (considered under the Chebychev GP technique).
The benefit sub-criteria under the cost-benefit criterion were selected as:
- Time savings (considered under the Chebychev GP technique); and - Health benefits.
The sub-criteria under the fuel type criterion were selected as:
- Availability;
- Security of supply;
- Pollution (considered under the Chebychev GP technique);
- Efficiency;
- Environmental impact; and - Alternative use.
The child criteria under the system criterion were selected as:
- Ease of use;
- Safety; and - Cultural fit;
Using the above criteria, a value tree was constructed by the panel of experts using the network constructed by the V.I.S.A groupware, which in essence depicted mean-objectives and end-objectives. Figure 30 presents the resulting value tree of the alternative energy supply technology options.
_________________________________________________________________________
139 Figure 30: Value tree
Source: V.I.S.A groupware model, study strategic dialogues
It is worthwhile noting the differences between the above-mentioned and GP objectives, reasons and potential impacts. The augmented Chebychev GP technique applied in the previous chapter only considered goals whose input variables were quantitative. The MAVT technique considered goals whose input variables were both quantitative and qualitative. As such, the MAVT technique should be viewed as an extension of the augmented Chebychev GP as it now incorporated softer criteria that were side-lined in the technical processes and thus could not be assessed using the augmented Chebychev GP technique. Table 13 presents a comparison of the augmented Chebychev GP and MAVT, and objectives highlight extensions and their impact.
_________________________________________________________________________
140 Table 13: Comparison of GP and MAVT objectives
Objective GP MAVT Comments
1. Maximise safety
√
Qualitative objective, in domestic environments, fuel safety is of utmost importance. Safer energy supply options are most
preferred in these environments.
2. Maximise
availability √
Qualitative objective, easy access and availability of fuel impacts on energy supply choices. Easily available energy
supply options are most preferred.
3. Maximise security
of supply √
Qualitative objective, security of supply also impacts energy supply choices. More secure energy supply options are most
preferred.
4. Maximise
alternative use √ Qualitative objective, energy supply options with diverse use are most preferred.
5. Maximise
efficiency √
Qualitative objective, energy efficiency implies less use of energy, highly efficient energy supply options are most
preferred.
6. Minimise capex
√ √
Quantitative objective whose variables incorporating lifecycle capital expenditure were considered under the GP and MAVT
frameworks adopted.
7. Minimise opex
√ √
Quantitative objective whose variables incorporating lifecycle operational costs were considered under the GP and MAVT
frameworks adopted.
8. Minimise environmental impact
√
Qualitative objective, environmental impacts of fuel influences energy supply choices. Energy supply options with the least
impact on the environment are preferred.
9. Minimise pollution
√ √
Quantitative objective whose variables incorporating pollution impacts were considered under the GP and MAVT frameworks
adopted.
10. Maximise health
benefits √ Qualitative objective, health benefits of fuel impacts on energy supply choices.
_________________________________________________________________________
141
Objective GP MAVT Comments
11. Maximise cultural
fit √ Qualitative objective, culturally acceptable energy supply options performed better.
12. Maximise ease of
use √ Qualitative objective, easy to use energy supply options performed better and are most preferred.
13. Minimise drudgery
√ √
Quantitative objective whose variables incorporate time spent collecting fuel and maintaining systems were considered under
the GP and MAVT frameworks adopted.
Source: Study strategic dialogues
Participants were also requested to identify the most suitable and practical indicator by which the performance of each option on each of the new attributes could be measured. Table 14 presents a summary of the issues raised during strategic dialogues and the justification for the inclusion of the attributes used in the model.
Table 14: Attributes and indicators
Attribute group Attribute Strategic dialogue
feedback summary Justification
Technical viability
1. Safety
2. Alternative use 3. Availability 4. Security of
supply 5. Efficiency
Performance and reliability are measured by (efficiency
and heat values) of an energy supply technology.
Technical barriers can constrain the implementation
of some technology options.
Economic viability
6. Capex 7. Opex
Economic costs (measured by investment and operating
costs) to the user.
Trade-offs exist between investment costs and ongoing
operating costs.
Environmental
8. Environmental impact 9. Pollution 10. Health benefits
Environmental benefits and costs (measured by Co2 emissions) to the user and
society.
While feasible, some technology options can be constrained by environmental
barriers.
_________________________________________________________________________
142 Attribute group Attribute Strategic dialogue
feedback summary Justification
Social
11. Cultural fit 12. Ease of use 13. Drudgery
Social benefits and costs (measured by time spent and acceptability) to the user and
society.
While feasible, some technology options are constrained by social barriers.
Source: Study strategic dialogues
Possible solutions to the problem were elaborated towards the end of the second phase. The set of alternatives were created following the VFT approach discussed earlier in Section 7.1.
In addition to alternatives that emanated from the technical evaluation, the panel of experts was requested to draw up a list of alternatives that would fulfil one performance criterion at a time. Two at the same time and so on, until the number of criteria considered made it impossible to come up with solutions that would succeed in all of them. The panel of experts then screened the original list of possible alternatives. . With the pre-emptive criteria and the list of desired criteria in place, the panel identified a list of energy supply technologies that met the pre-emptive criteria and looked closest to the desired criteria.
Altogether, the ten energy supply strategies were evaluated in this routine. The policy-relevant strategies were identified as appropriate in unravelling the problem. These strategies were defined by the panel of experts and were ranked in order of the most rudimentary to the cleaner options. The selection and construction of the strategies were undertaken by the experts during the strategic dialogue sessions conducted. Table 15 and Table 16 provide summaries and technology characteristics of the ten energy supply portfolios considered for the study, with Portfolio 10 being the optimal GP model portfolio. The same input variables were used under the augmented Chebychev GP model (Table 13).
_________________________________________________________________________
143 Table 15: Energy supply portfolios: rural area community
Source: Study strategic dialogues, 2021
Table 16: Portfolios characteristics: rural area community
Portfolio name
Portfolio characteristics Lifecycle capital
costs (R/GJ)
Lifecycle fuel and O&M costs (R/GJ)
Drudgery (Hrs/GJ)
Pollutants (kg/GJ)
Energy portfolio 1 1.47 68.03 100.00 100.00
Energy portfolio 2 6.61 81.51 89.57 84.17
Energy portfolio 3 11.77 94.43 75.59 67.91
Energy portfolio 4 26.21 100.00 66.10 51.27
Energy portfolio 5 35.03 78.51 62.77 40.41
Energy portfolio 6 52.36 84.05 56.26 36.20
Energy portfolio 7 61.59 90.48 50.21 31.98
Energy portfolio 8 77.41 69.86 42.04 16.71
Energy portfolio 9 100.00 63.89 35.88 3.72
Energy portfolio 10 61.92 64.60 45.89 5.13
Source: Study strategic dialogues, 2021