Communities are shaped by decisions made over decades. Though some of these choices are made with full knowledge of possible consequences, those made with insufficient thought and information can leave communities with unfortunate and unanticipated outcomes—some felt immediately, some delayed many years. This tool supports better informed decisions. Community leaders faced with an important decision can use it to discover many aspects of a proposed action that might otherwise be missed. It will help
them think about aspects that are often left out of decision making (for instance those that influence quality-of-life) in addition to the financial and technical information normally considered in community decisions. This tool might be used to identify the best of several alternative actions. It can be used to decide for or against a proposed action. Or, discussions that take place during its use might lead to creative changes to a proposed action that make it more compatible with the community, its economy, and the environment.
This tool is effective only when everyone potentially affected by, and knowledgeable about, the proposed action participates in its use. It is not particularly useful when only like-minded people are involved. Therefore, participants must include people from different political points of view. For example, those for and those against; or those who want A, B and
C alternatives. Also, people with differing technical backgrounds must be involved.
For example, if the decision relates to the sewer system, then people who understand the water system, soils, and alternative treatment systems must be involved. The meeting in which this tool is used must be conducted by a skilled facilitator, someone who is impartial and understands how to ensure that all sides are fairly heard.

An individual with much power and
influence is seldom the best facilitator,
often the worst. The meeting should be
convened on neutral “turf,’ not in a
location identified with one point of view.
The object of using this tool is not simply to fill in each blank, rather it is to involve participants in a comprehensive and
meaningful discussion about an important decision. Though this tool does not guarantee that resulting actions will be sustainable, it will help evaluate options in a more systemically.
This tool does not result in a numerical
score by which a decision can be made.
Rather it displays the positive and negative aspects of proposed actions so that its users can more easily recognize likely implications and render a sensible decision.
It is particularly useful when comparing
two or more alternatives. Even without a numerical score, the preferred alternative usually emerges.