A common used disaggregate method is the Goeller scorecard. It results in a column of effects for each alternative, with each effect being expressed in its 'natural' units. In comparing the alternatives, the decision-maker can assign whatever weight he/she deems appropriate to each effect. Explicit consideration of weighting thus becomes a central item to the decision process itself, as it should be.

Prior analysis can consider the full range of possible effects, using the most natural description for each effect. Sometimes effects can be described in monetary terms and others in physical units; some are assigned with quantitative estimates (e.g. "100 jobs would be created), others with qualitative comparisons (e.g. "recreation opportunities would increase slightly"), and still others with statements of non-ordinal facts ("an attractive tourist site would be destroyed"). A disadvantage of this approach is that the amount of detail makes it difficult for the decision-maker to identify patterns or to come to conclusions.

Effect values are summarized (in natural units) in a table, each row representing one effect and each column representing an alternative. Colours can be added to indicate each alternative ranking for a particular effect, for example Bluefor the best value, Yellow for the worst and Grey for the intermediate values.

As an example, the summary score-card of the Eastern Scheldt project is given. The three alternatives mentioned are:

• Closed case: closing the Eastern Scheldt estuary with a dam;
• SSB-case: closing the Eastern Scheldt estuary with a storm surge barrier;
• Open case: not closing the Eastern Scheldt, but improving the dikes around the estuary.