Who This Page Is For
A program team has a fixed available budget and several plausible ways to address a defined service gap. This page teaches a reasoned comparison, including what the numbers omit. It does not select the intervention for a real community or establish cost effectiveness.
The Short Answer
Compare options on the same scope, currency, period and cost basis. Identify duties and feasibility conditions first; then examine cost, intended reach, access, resources, risks and evidence quality. Do not hide a judgment in a weighted score or equate cheap delivery with a better outcome.
How They Differ
All amounts, costs, households and conditions below are invented for practice. The available incremental budget is 12,000 currency units for one specified service period. Existing essential service continues outside this incremental budget. No cost or reach figure is an actual market price, measured outcome or confirmed target.
| Option | Complete Incremental Cost | Planning Assumption About Households Able to Use It | Critical Condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: staffed fixed access point | Setup 2,000 + four sessions at 2,000 + access support 1,000 = 11,000 | 100 distinct households, subject to registration and access evidence | Venue and staffing must be feasible; people unable to travel may remain excluded |
| B: mobile service arrangement | Setup 1,000 + three visits at 3,000 + access support 1,000 = 11,000 | 80 distinct households, assuming no repeated household count | Safe route, staff time and appropriate service conditions must be confirmed |
| C: supported remote access | Setup 3,000 + support 6,000 + accessible communication 2,000 = 11,000 | 120 distinct households if connectivity, privacy and service fit permit | Some intended users may lack private access, a device, connection or accessible format |
Each total includes the named access-support provision. That does not prove it is sufficient. Check other cost categories, taxes, staff opportunity cost, recurrent costs and closure/continuity needs in a real comparison. Do not treat an omitted cost as zero.
Worked Cost and Sensitivity Check
Each base option leaves 12,000 - 11,000 = 1,000 unallocated. Simple planned cost per potentially served household is A: 11,000 / 100 = 110; B: 11,000 / 80 = 137.50; C: 11,000 / 120 = about 91.67. These ratios use assumed reach and measure neither service quality nor improved outcomes. Different access and need profiles also prevent a simple league table.
If only 60 households could actually use C, its corresponding planning ratio becomes 11,000 / 60 = about 183.33. If B's visit cost rises to 3,400, its total becomes 1,000 + 3 x 3,400 + 1,000 = 12,200, which exceeds the available budget by 200. Neither sensitivity is a forecast; each shows which assumption deserves checking before a choice.
Unused budget is not proof that a service can absorb a contingency, and a cost overrun does not authorize removing essential access support. Re-scope with the appropriate owners or reject an infeasible option rather than conceal the missing cost.
How to Decide
Record the evidence for the need and the intended users. Ask which option reaches people the present arrangement misses, whether its service is appropriate and what burdens it transfers to users or staff. Check capacity, permissions, protection and realistic continuity. Some conditions determine whether an option is permissible at all; they should not be traded away against convenience or a favorable unit cost.
In this fictional case, C looks cheaper only if its reach assumption holds. If protected consultation shows that many intended users cannot use a remote channel, the assumed 120 is not a defensible basis for selection. A or B could be preferable for a particular group, a mixed arrangement may need separate costing, or the team may need to reconsider the service design. The supplied packet does not establish one best choice.
Decision record: state the option recommended, why it fits the need better than the alternatives, which evidence is weak, the conditions that must be resolved, who can approve it and what would change the recommendation. Distinguish proposal, approval and implementation.
Common Mistakes
Avoid mixing visits with distinct households, comparing setup-only cost with a fully costed option, excluding the staff time a model depends on, or reporting assumed reach as delivered results. Do not add incomparable social benefits into a synthetic total without a defensible method. A spreadsheet can make an unsupported assumption appear precise.
Sources and Scope
The UNDP project-formulation procedure, steps 3.1-3.3, illustrates stakeholder participation, full programmatic/operational costing and participatory risk assessment in its institutional process. The option table, sensitivity arithmetic and decision distinctions here are original teaching material, not that procedure's required NGO scoring method.
Related Resources
Use response-option reasoning to connect each alternative to evidence and the assumptions guide to record what could change the plan.