Skip to Main Content

Sensitivity analysis is used to test the robustness of the AHP weights and the WSP Index benchmark of 60%. Table 4 shows that AHP weights are more stringent than equal weights (100% divided by five categories = 20%) and simple weights (maximum possible score of a WSP category divided by the total maximum possible score of 140) in the sense that, for example, Health Care Facility G WSP, with a failing mark of 58% using AHP weights, got a passing mark of 65% and 61%, respectively, in consideration of the initial benchmark of 60%. Sample computations are shown in Tables 5–7 for the WSP Index using different weighting systems. To test the 60% benchmark, scores of output indicators were manipulated using two assumptions:

Table 5

Sample computation of WSP Index for Water District B using equal weights

StageStepOutput indicatorScore per output indicatorTotal score per stage (A)Maximum possible score per stage (B)Equal weights (%) (C)WSP Index (%) (D)
1. Management support     
2. WSP team     
3. Stakeholders     
  15 15 20 20 
4. Users and uses     
5. Drinking water quality standards     
6. Schematic/flow diagrams     
7. System description     
8. Risk assessment methodology     
9. Hazardous events     
10. Raw risks     
11. Control measures     
12. Residual risks     
13. Significant risks     
14. Improvement plan link to risks     
15. Improvement plan details     
   41 60 20 14 
16. Operational monitoring plan     
17. Corrective action     
18. Compliance monitoring plan     
19. Internal auditing plan     
20. External auditing plan     
21. Consumer satisfaction monitoring plan     
   28 30 20 18 
22. SOPs – Normal     
23. SOPs – Incident     
24. SOPs – Emergency     
25. Supporting program description     
26. Supporting program plan     
   25 25 20 20 
10 27. Periodic review plan     
11 28. Revision plan     
   10 20 
Total   111 111 140 100 76 
StageStepOutput indicatorScore per output indicatorTotal score per stage (A)Maximum possible score per stage (B)Equal weights (%) (C)WSP Index (%) (D)
1. Management support     
2. WSP team     
3. Stakeholders     
  15 15 20 20 
4. Users and uses     
5. Drinking water quality standards     
6. Schematic/flow diagrams     
7. System description     
8. Risk assessment methodology     
9. Hazardous events     
10. Raw risks     
11. Control measures     
12. Residual risks     
13. Significant risks     
14. Improvement plan link to risks     
15. Improvement plan details     
   41 60 20 14 
16. Operational monitoring plan     
17. Corrective action     
18. Compliance monitoring plan     
19. Internal auditing plan     
20. External auditing plan     
21. Consumer satisfaction monitoring plan     
   28 30 20 18 
22. SOPs – Normal     
23. SOPs – Incident     
24. SOPs – Emergency     
25. Supporting program description     
26. Supporting program plan     
   25 25 20 20 
10 27. Periodic review plan     
11 28. Revision plan     
   10 20 
Total   111 111 140 100 76 

Sample computation for Stage 1:

Sample computation for WSP Index:

.

Table 6

Sample computation of WSP Index for Water District B using simple weights

StageStepOutput indicatorScore per output indicatorTotal score per stage (A)Maximum possible score per stage (B)Simple weights (%) (C)WSP Index (%) (D)
1. Management support     
2. WSP team     
3. Stakeholders     
   15 15 11 11 
4. Users and uses     
5. Drinking water quality standards     
6. Schematic/flow diagrams     
7. System description     
8. Risk assessment methodology     
9. Hazardous events     
10. Raw risks     
11. Control measures     
12. Residual risks     
13. Significant risks     
14. Improvement plan link to risks     
15. Improvement plan details     
   41 60 43 30 
16. Operational monitoring plan     
17. Corrective action     
18. Compliance monitoring plan     
19. Internal auditing plan     
20. External auditing plan     
21. Consumer satisfaction monitoring plan     
   28 30 21 20 
22. SOPs – Normal     
23. SOPs – Incident     
24. SOPs – Emergency     
25. Supporting program description     
26. Supporting program plan     
   25 25 18 18 
10 27. Periodic review plan     
11 28. Revision plan     
   10 
Total   111 111 140 100 80 
StageStepOutput indicatorScore per output indicatorTotal score per stage (A)Maximum possible score per stage (B)Simple weights (%) (C)WSP Index (%) (D)
1. Management support     
2. WSP team     
3. Stakeholders     
   15 15 11 11 
4. Users and uses     
5. Drinking water quality standards     
6. Schematic/flow diagrams     
7. System description     
8. Risk assessment methodology     
9. Hazardous events     
10. Raw risks     
11. Control measures     
12. Residual risks     
13. Significant risks     
14. Improvement plan link to risks     
15. Improvement plan details     
   41 60 43 30 
16. Operational monitoring plan     
17. Corrective action     
18. Compliance monitoring plan     
19. Internal auditing plan     
20. External auditing plan     
21. Consumer satisfaction monitoring plan     
   28 30 21 20 
22. SOPs – Normal     
23. SOPs – Incident     
24. SOPs – Emergency     
25. Supporting program description     
26. Supporting program plan     
   25 25 18 18 
10 27. Periodic review plan     
11 28. Revision plan     
   10 
Total   111 111 140 100 80 

Sample computation for Stage 1:

Sample computation for WSP Index:

.

Table 7

Sample computation of WSP Index for Water District B using AHP weights

StageStepOutput indicatorScore per output indicatorTotal score per stage (A)Maximum possible score per stage (B)AHP weights (%) (C)WSP Index (%) (D)
1. Management support     
2. WSP team     
3. Stakeholders     
   15 15 10 10 
4. Users and uses     
5. Drinking water quality standards     
6. Schematic/flow diagrams     
7. System description     
8. Risk assessment methodology     
9. Hazardous events     
10. Raw risks     
11. Control measures     
12. Residual risks     
13. Significant risks     
14. Improvement plan link to risks     
15. Improvement plan details     
   41 60 40 27 
16. Operational monitoring plan     
17. Corrective action     
18. Compliance monitoring plan     
19. Internal auditing plan     
20. External auditing plan     
21. Consumer satisfaction monitoring plan     
   28 30 30 28 
22. SOPs – Normal     
23. SOPs – Incident     
24. SOPs – Emergency     
25. Supporting program description     
26. Supporting program plan     
   25 25 15 15 
10 27. Periodic review plan     
11 28. Revision plan     
   10 
Total   111 111 140 100 81 
StageStepOutput indicatorScore per output indicatorTotal score per stage (A)Maximum possible score per stage (B)AHP weights (%) (C)WSP Index (%) (D)
1. Management support     
2. WSP team     
3. Stakeholders     
   15 15 10 10 
4. Users and uses     
5. Drinking water quality standards     
6. Schematic/flow diagrams     
7. System description     
8. Risk assessment methodology     
9. Hazardous events     
10. Raw risks     
11. Control measures     
12. Residual risks     
13. Significant risks     
14. Improvement plan link to risks     
15. Improvement plan details     
   41 60 40 27 
16. Operational monitoring plan     
17. Corrective action     
18. Compliance monitoring plan     
19. Internal auditing plan     
20. External auditing plan     
21. Consumer satisfaction monitoring plan     
   28 30 30 28 
22. SOPs – Normal     
23. SOPs – Incident     
24. SOPs – Emergency     
25. Supporting program description     
26. Supporting program plan     
   25 25 15 15 
10 27. Periodic review plan     
11 28. Revision plan     
   10 
Total   111 111 140 100 81 

Sample computation for Stage 1:

Sample computation for WSP Index:

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal