Hospital clinical improvements recognised by 2 0 0 2 4 3 6 4 8 regulators <etc> - - - - - - - - - 100 0 38 48 55 Total scores Summarise here the relative ranking of the options in terms of qualitative benefits along with a rationale for highlighting any particular option as the preferred choice on quality grounds. Risk assessment Each of the short-listed options will have a certain level of risk attached to them. This is because of biases unwittingly inherent in the appraisal and the risks and uncertainties that materialise during the design, build, and operational phases of the project. This section of the economic case provides high-level analysis of these risks. High-level risk assessment of the short-listed options example – Option Option Option Option 4 1 5 6 Risk Type Status Central Federated description Quo hub £ £ £ £ Funding Business Low Med Med High uncertainty
Hospital clinical improvements recognised by regulators 2 0 0 2 4 3 6 4 8 <etc> - - - - - - - - - Total scores 100 0 38 48 55 Summarise here the relative ranking of the options in terms of qualitative benefits along with a rationale for highlighting any particular option as the preferred choice on quality grounds. Risk assessment Each of the short-listed options will have a certain level of risk attached to them. This is because of biases unwittingly inherent in the appraisal and the risks and uncertainties that materialise during the design, build, and operational phases of the project. This section of the economic case provides high-level analysis of these risks. High-level risk assessment of the short-listed options – example Type Risk description Option 1 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Status Quo Federated Central hub £ £ £ £ Business Funding uncertainty Low Med Med High
Interoperability-Business-Case-Template-v2.0-INTEROPen.docx