Cost Ranking 9: Cost allocation: Fairness and Accuracy in Cost Ranking

1. Introduction to Cost Ranking

Cost ranking is a method of comparing and prioritizing different alternatives based on their costs and benefits. It can be used for various purposes, such as budgeting, project selection, resource allocation, and performance evaluation. Cost ranking can help decision-makers to identify the most efficient and effective options, as well as to avoid unnecessary or wasteful spending. However, cost ranking is not a simple or straightforward process. It involves many challenges and complexities, such as:

1. How to measure and compare costs and benefits of different alternatives? Costs and benefits can be expressed in different units, such as money, time, quality, or satisfaction. They can also be subject to uncertainty, variability, and interdependence. For example, the cost of a project may depend on the availability of resources, the demand for the output, or the risk of failure. The benefit of a project may depend on the preferences of the stakeholders, the impact on the environment, or the opportunity cost of forgone alternatives. Therefore, cost ranking requires a common and consistent metric to evaluate and compare different alternatives, such as net present value, return on investment, or cost-benefit ratio.

2. How to account for the distribution and fairness of costs and benefits among different parties? costs and benefits of different alternatives may not be equally shared or distributed among different stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, or society. Some parties may bear more costs or receive more benefits than others, which may raise ethical or social issues. For example, a project may have a positive net present value, but it may also cause environmental damage, health risks, or social inequality. Therefore, cost ranking requires a way to incorporate the distribution and fairness of costs and benefits into the analysis, such as equity weighting, social welfare function, or stakeholder analysis.

3. How to deal with the trade-offs and conflicts between different criteria and objectives? Costs and benefits of different alternatives may not always align or agree with each other. They may have trade-offs or conflicts, such as quality versus quantity, short-term versus long-term, or individual versus collective. For example, a project may have a high return on investment, but it may also have a low quality, a high risk, or a negative externalities. Therefore, cost ranking requires a way to balance and reconcile different criteria and objectives, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, goal programming, or analytic hierarchy process.

These are some of the main challenges and complexities that cost ranking faces. In this blog, we will explore how to address them and how to apply cost ranking in different contexts and scenarios. We will also discuss the advantages and limitations of cost ranking, as well as the best practices and tips for using it effectively. Stay tuned for the next section, where we will introduce the concept and steps of cost allocation, which is a key component of cost ranking.

2. Understanding Cost Allocation

understanding cost allocation is a crucial aspect when it comes to achieving fairness and accuracy in cost ranking. In this section, we will delve into the various perspectives surrounding cost allocation and explore its significance in different scenarios.

1. cost Allocation methods:

- Direct Method: This approach assigns costs directly to the specific cost objects. For example, in a manufacturing setting, the direct method allocates costs to individual products based on their direct usage of resources.

- Step-Down Method: The step-down method considers the sequential allocation of costs, starting from the department with the highest allocation to the one with the lowest. This method recognizes the interdependencies between departments.

- Reciprocal Method: The reciprocal method takes into account the mutual services provided by different departments. It involves iterative calculations to allocate costs based on the reciprocal relationships between departments.

2. factors Influencing cost Allocation:

- activity-Based costing (ABC): ABC allocates costs based on the activities that drive those costs. It provides a more accurate allocation by considering the specific activities that consume resources.

- cost drivers: cost drivers are the factors that determine the amount of cost incurred by a particular cost object. Identifying and allocating costs based on relevant cost drivers enhances the accuracy of cost allocation.

- cost pools: Cost pools are groups of costs that are allocated together. By categorizing costs into pools, organizations can allocate them more effectively and ensure fairness in the distribution.

3. Examples of Cost Allocation:

- overhead costs: Overhead costs, such as rent, utilities, and administrative expenses, are often allocated to different departments or products based on predetermined allocation methods.

- Shared Resources: When multiple departments or projects share resources, cost allocation ensures that the costs associated with those resources are appropriately distributed among the beneficiaries.

- Joint Products: In industries where multiple products are derived from a common production process, cost allocation helps determine the individual costs associated with each product.

By understanding cost allocation methods, considering relevant factors, and applying them to real-world examples, organizations can achieve fairness and accuracy in cost ranking. It enables them to make informed decisions, optimize resource allocation, and ultimately enhance their overall financial performance.

3. Importance of Fairness in Cost Ranking

Cost ranking is a process of assigning costs to different activities or outputs based on their relative importance or contribution to the overall objectives. cost allocation is a method of distributing the total costs among the different cost objects or beneficiaries. Both cost ranking and cost allocation are essential for effective decision making, resource allocation, performance evaluation, and accountability. However, they also involve some ethical and practical issues that need to be addressed carefully. One of the most important issues is fairness.

Fairness is a subjective and complex concept that can have different meanings and implications for different stakeholders. Fairness can be defined as the extent to which a cost ranking or allocation method is consistent, transparent, equitable, and acceptable to the parties involved. Fairness can also be influenced by the criteria, data, assumptions, and procedures used in the cost ranking or allocation process. Therefore, it is important to consider the following aspects of fairness when conducting cost ranking or allocation:

1. Fairness to the cost objects or beneficiaries: The cost ranking or allocation method should reflect the true value and impact of the cost objects or beneficiaries on the overall objectives. For example, if the cost ranking or allocation is based on the output or outcome of the activities, then the method should account for the quality, quantity, and timeliness of the output or outcome, as well as the external factors that may affect them. Similarly, if the cost ranking or allocation is based on the input or resources used by the activities, then the method should account for the efficiency, effectiveness, and appropriateness of the input or resources, as well as the opportunity costs and trade-offs involved. A fair cost ranking or allocation method should also avoid double counting, cross subsidization, or arbitrary allocation of the costs among the cost objects or beneficiaries. For example, if a project has multiple outputs or outcomes that share some common costs, then the method should allocate the common costs proportionally or equitably among the outputs or outcomes, rather than assigning them entirely to one output or outcome.

2. Fairness to the cost providers or funders: The cost ranking or allocation method should respect the rights and interests of the cost providers or funders who bear the burden of the costs. For example, if the cost ranking or allocation is used for budgeting or funding purposes, then the method should align with the preferences, expectations, and agreements of the cost providers or funders. Similarly, if the cost ranking or allocation is used for charging or recovering purposes, then the method should comply with the legal, contractual, or regulatory requirements of the cost providers or funders. A fair cost ranking or allocation method should also ensure that the cost providers or funders receive adequate information, justification, and feedback on the cost ranking or allocation process and results. For example, if a cost ranking or allocation method involves some subjective judgments or estimates, then the method should disclose the sources, methods, and uncertainties of the judgments or estimates, as well as the sensitivity and robustness of the results to the changes in the judgments or estimates.

3. Fairness to the cost managers or users: The cost ranking or allocation method should facilitate the management and use of the costs by the cost managers or users who are responsible for or affected by the costs. For example, if the cost ranking or allocation is used for planning or controlling purposes, then the method should provide relevant, reliable, and timely information on the costs and their drivers, as well as the incentives and feedback mechanisms for improving the costs. Similarly, if the cost ranking or allocation is used for evaluating or reporting purposes, then the method should provide accurate, comparable, and consistent information on the costs and their performance, as well as the benchmarks and standards for assessing the costs. A fair cost ranking or allocation method should also balance the benefits and costs of the cost ranking or allocation process and results. For example, if a cost ranking or allocation method involves some complex or sophisticated techniques or tools, then the method should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the techniques or tools, as well as the feasibility and availability of the data and resources required for the techniques or tools.

To illustrate some of the aspects of fairness in cost ranking or allocation, let us consider some examples from different contexts:

- In a hospital, the cost ranking or allocation of the medical services can affect the quality and accessibility of the health care for the patients, the reimbursement and profitability of the hospital, and the accountability and efficiency of the medical staff. A fair cost ranking or allocation method should consider the factors such as the severity and complexity of the medical conditions, the intensity and duration of the medical treatments, the outcomes and satisfaction of the patients, the costs and benefits of the medical technologies and procedures, and the policies and regulations of the health care system.

- In a university, the cost ranking or allocation of the academic programs can affect the attractiveness and competitiveness of the university, the funding and allocation of the university, and the teaching and research of the faculty and students. A fair cost ranking or allocation method should consider the factors such as the demand and supply of the academic programs, the quality and reputation of the academic programs, the outcomes and impact of the academic programs, the costs and revenues of the academic programs, and the mission and vision of the university.

- In a business, the cost ranking or allocation of the products or services can affect the pricing and marketing of the products or services, the profitability and growth of the business, and the innovation and improvement of the products or services. A fair cost ranking or allocation method should consider the factors such as the value and differentiation of the products or services, the demand and competition of the products or services, the costs and revenues of the products or services, and the strategy and objectives of the business.

Fairness is an important issue in cost ranking or allocation that requires careful consideration and communication. A fair cost ranking or allocation method should be consistent, transparent, equitable, and acceptable to the parties involved, and should reflect the true value and impact of the cost objects or beneficiaries, respect the rights and interests of the cost providers or funders, and facilitate the management and use of the costs by the cost managers or users. By doing so, a fair cost ranking or allocation method can enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the decision making, resource allocation, performance evaluation, and accountability processes.

4. Accuracy in Cost Allocation Methods

Accuracy in cost allocation methods is a crucial aspect when it comes to fair and effective cost ranking. In this section, we will delve into the various perspectives surrounding accuracy in cost allocation methods.

1. Theoretical Framework: To understand the importance of accuracy, we need to establish a theoretical framework. Cost allocation methods aim to distribute costs among different entities or departments based on certain criteria. Accuracy ensures that the allocated costs reflect the actual consumption or benefit derived by each entity.

2. Direct cost allocation: One method of cost allocation is direct cost allocation, where costs are assigned directly to the entity that incurred them. This method ensures accuracy by attributing costs to the specific entity responsible for their incurrence. For example, if a department purchases equipment, the cost of that equipment is allocated directly to that department.

3. indirect Cost allocation: In contrast, indirect cost allocation involves distributing costs that cannot be directly attributed to a specific entity. This method requires the use of allocation bases, such as square footage or labor hours, to allocate costs proportionally. Accuracy in indirect cost allocation relies on selecting appropriate allocation bases that reflect the underlying cost drivers.

4. activity-based Costing: Activity-based costing (ABC) is a more refined approach to cost allocation that focuses on the activities performed by each entity. ABC identifies cost drivers and allocates costs based on the level of activity. This method enhances accuracy by aligning costs with the specific activities that generate them. For instance, in a manufacturing setting, ABC may allocate overhead costs based on machine hours or setup time.

5. Fairness Considerations: While accuracy is essential, fairness also plays a significant role in cost allocation. Fairness ensures that the allocated costs are perceived as equitable by the entities involved. achieving a balance between accuracy and fairness requires careful consideration of the specific context and objectives of the cost allocation process.

6. Examples: To illustrate the importance of accuracy, let's consider a scenario where a company allocates marketing costs among its different product lines. accurate cost allocation would ensure that each product line bears the marketing costs in proportion to the revenue it generates. This allows for better decision-making and resource allocation within the organization.

In summary, accuracy in cost allocation methods is vital for fair and effective cost ranking. Direct cost allocation, indirect cost allocation, and activity-based costing are some approaches that enhance accuracy. Balancing accuracy with fairness is crucial to ensure the perceived equity of the cost allocation process.

5. Challenges in Achieving Fairness and Accuracy

In the section "Challenges in Achieving Fairness and Accuracy" within the blog "Cost Ranking,9. Cost allocation: Fairness and Accuracy in Cost Ranking," we delve into the complexities surrounding the pursuit of fairness and accuracy in cost ranking. This section aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges involved.

1. Diverse Perspectives: Achieving fairness and accuracy requires considering diverse perspectives. Different stakeholders may have varying definitions of fairness and different priorities. For example, a cost ranking algorithm may prioritize minimizing costs for consumers, while businesses may prioritize maximizing profits. Balancing these perspectives is crucial to ensure fairness and accuracy.

2. Data Bias: One of the major challenges is addressing data bias. Cost ranking algorithms heavily rely on data, and if the data used is biased, it can lead to unfair outcomes. For instance, if historical cost data disproportionately favors certain groups or regions, it can perpetuate existing inequalities. Mitigating data bias requires careful data collection, preprocessing, and algorithmic adjustments.

3. Algorithmic Transparency: Ensuring fairness and accuracy also involves addressing algorithmic transparency. Many cost ranking algorithms are complex and opaque, making it difficult to understand how decisions are made. Lack of transparency can lead to distrust and challenges in identifying and rectifying biases. Enhancing algorithmic transparency can help build trust and enable better accountability.

4. Contextual Considerations: Fairness and accuracy in cost ranking must also account for contextual factors. Different industries, regions, or user demographics may require tailored approaches to achieve fairness. For example, cost ranking algorithms for healthcare services may need to consider factors like patient demographics, medical conditions, and accessibility.

5. Trade-offs: Striking a balance between fairness and accuracy often involves trade-offs. For instance, optimizing for fairness may result in less accurate cost rankings, while prioritizing accuracy may lead to unfair outcomes. Understanding these trade-offs and finding the right balance is a challenge that requires careful consideration.

To illustrate these challenges, let's consider an example. Imagine a cost ranking algorithm for ride-sharing services. Ensuring fairness would involve considering factors like driver availability, distance, and surge pricing. However, optimizing for accuracy would require factoring in additional variables such as traffic conditions, time of day, and user preferences. Balancing these considerations is crucial to provide fair and accurate cost rankings for users.

Achieving fairness and accuracy in cost ranking is a multifaceted challenge. It requires addressing diverse perspectives, mitigating data bias, enhancing algorithmic transparency, considering contextual factors, and navigating trade-offs. By understanding and addressing these challenges, we can strive towards more equitable and accurate cost rankings.

6. Strategies for Fair Cost Allocation

cost allocation is the process of assigning the costs of a shared resource or activity to different users or beneficiaries. It is often used in accounting, budgeting, and management to determine how much each unit or department should pay for the common expenses. However, cost allocation is not a simple or straightforward task. There are many challenges and trade-offs involved in finding a fair and accurate way to distribute the costs. In this section, we will explore some of the strategies for fair cost allocation and their advantages and disadvantages. We will also look at some examples of how these strategies are applied in different contexts.

Some of the strategies for fair cost allocation are:

1. Proportional allocation: This strategy allocates the costs based on the proportion of the resource or activity that each user or beneficiary consumes or benefits from. For example, if a company has a shared internet service that costs $100 per month, and each department uses 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% of the bandwidth, respectively, then each department would pay $10, $20, $30, and $40 per month, respectively. This strategy is simple and easy to implement, but it may not reflect the true value or impact of the resource or activity for each user or beneficiary. For instance, some departments may use the internet for more critical or productive tasks than others, or some departments may have more alternative options or substitutes for the internet than others.

2. Equal allocation: This strategy allocates the costs equally among all the users or beneficiaries, regardless of their consumption or benefit. For example, if a company has a shared security service that costs $100 per month, and there are four departments in the company, then each department would pay $25 per month, regardless of how much they use or need the security service. This strategy is fair and simple, but it may not be efficient or optimal. For instance, some users or beneficiaries may overuse or underuse the resource or activity, or some users or beneficiaries may have different preferences or willingness to pay for the resource or activity.

3. Benefit-based allocation: This strategy allocates the costs based on the estimated or perceived benefit that each user or beneficiary receives from the resource or activity. For example, if a company has a shared marketing campaign that costs $100 per month, and the campaign increases the sales of each product by 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%, respectively, then each product would pay $10, $20, $30, and $40 per month, respectively. This strategy is efficient and optimal, but it may not be fair or accurate. For instance, some users or beneficiaries may have different costs or risks associated with the resource or activity, or some users or beneficiaries may have different contributions or inputs to the resource or activity.

4. Cost-based allocation: This strategy allocates the costs based on the estimated or actual cost of providing the resource or activity to each user or beneficiary. For example, if a company has a shared customer service that costs $100 per month, and the service handles 10, 20, 30, and 40 calls from each product, respectively, then each product would pay $10, $20, $30, and $40 per month, respectively. This strategy is accurate and fair, but it may not be efficient or optimal. For instance, some users or beneficiaries may have different values or impacts of the resource or activity, or some users or beneficiaries may have different demands or expectations for the resource or activity.

These are some of the strategies for fair cost allocation that can be used in different situations and contexts. However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for cost allocation. Each strategy has its pros and cons, and each situation and context has its specific characteristics and constraints. Therefore, it is important to consider the objectives, criteria, and trade-offs of cost allocation, and to choose the most appropriate strategy for each case.

7. Impact of Cost Ranking on Decision Making

Cost ranking is a method of comparing the costs of different alternatives or options based on their relative efficiency, effectiveness, or value. Cost ranking can be used for various purposes, such as budgeting, project selection, resource allocation, performance evaluation, or policy analysis. However, cost ranking also has a significant impact on decision making, as it can influence the preferences, judgments, and behaviors of the decision makers and the stakeholders involved. In this section, we will explore how cost ranking affects decision making from different perspectives, such as rationality, fairness, accuracy, and ethics. We will also discuss some of the challenges and limitations of cost ranking, and suggest some ways to improve its quality and usefulness.

1. Cost ranking can help decision makers to make more rational and informed choices, as it provides a clear and objective basis for comparing the costs and benefits of different options. Cost ranking can also help to reduce uncertainty, complexity, and cognitive biases in decision making, as it simplifies the information and highlights the most relevant criteria. For example, cost ranking can help a company to choose the best supplier for its raw materials, based on the total cost of ownership, which includes not only the purchase price, but also the transportation, storage, quality, and environmental costs.

2. Cost ranking can also affect the fairness and equity of decision making, as it can create winners and losers among the alternatives or the stakeholders. Cost ranking can have distributive, procedural, and interactional implications for fairness, as it can determine who gets what, how the decision is made, and how the decision is communicated. For example, cost ranking can affect the fairness of public spending, as it can allocate more or less resources to different sectors, regions, or groups, based on their cost-effectiveness, efficiency, or priority.

3. Cost ranking can also influence the accuracy and reliability of decision making, as it depends on the quality and validity of the data, methods, and assumptions used. Cost ranking can be subject to errors, uncertainties, and biases, which can affect the results and the conclusions. For example, cost ranking can be influenced by the choice of the cost measure, the time horizon, the discount rate, the inflation rate, the exchange rate, the sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty analysis, the scenario analysis, and the stakeholder involvement.

4. Cost ranking can also raise ethical and moral issues in decision making, as it can involve trade-offs, conflicts, and dilemmas among different values, principles, and interests. Cost ranking can also reflect the norms, beliefs, and preferences of the decision makers and the stakeholders, which can vary across cultures, contexts, and situations. For example, cost ranking can pose ethical challenges in health care, as it can require to compare the costs and benefits of saving lives, improving quality of life, or preventing diseases.

Stop wasting your time with mass emails when approaching investors!

FasterCapital introduces you to angels and VCs through warm introductions with 90% response rate

Join us!

8. Case Studies on Fairness and Accuracy in Cost Ranking

Cost ranking is a method of allocating costs to different activities or products based on their relative importance or contribution to the overall objective. Cost ranking can be used for various purposes, such as budgeting, pricing, performance evaluation, and decision making. However, cost ranking is not a straightforward process, and it involves many trade-offs and challenges. In this section, we will look at some case studies that illustrate how fairness and accuracy can be achieved or compromised in cost ranking. We will also discuss some of the factors and criteria that affect the cost ranking process and its outcomes.

Some of the case studies that we will examine are:

1. Cost ranking for public services: Public services, such as education, health care, and transportation, are often funded by taxes or fees collected from the citizens. However, the demand for public services may exceed the available resources, and therefore, some form of cost ranking is needed to prioritize and allocate the funds. One of the main challenges in cost ranking for public services is how to balance the fairness and efficiency of the allocation. Fairness means that the allocation should reflect the needs and preferences of the citizens, and that no one should be discriminated or excluded from the benefits. Efficiency means that the allocation should maximize the social welfare and the return on investment. However, these two goals may conflict with each other, and different stakeholders may have different views on what constitutes fairness and efficiency. For example, some people may argue that public services should be allocated based on the ability to pay, while others may advocate for equal access or need-based distribution. Moreover, measuring the costs and benefits of public services can be difficult and subjective, as they may involve intangible or long-term effects. Therefore, cost ranking for public services requires careful analysis and consultation, as well as transparency and accountability, to ensure that the allocation is fair and accurate.

2. Cost ranking for environmental projects: Environmental projects, such as conservation, restoration, and mitigation, are aimed at protecting and enhancing the natural resources and ecosystems. However, environmental projects also incur costs, such as opportunity costs, implementation costs, and maintenance costs. Therefore, cost ranking is needed to select and prioritize the most cost-effective and beneficial environmental projects. One of the main challenges in cost ranking for environmental projects is how to incorporate the environmental values and impacts into the cost-benefit analysis. Environmental values and impacts are often non-market and non-monetary, and they may vary depending on the perspective and preference of the decision maker and the affected parties. For example, some people may value the aesthetic or cultural aspects of the environment, while others may focus on the economic or ecological aspects. Moreover, environmental values and impacts may be uncertain or irreversible, and they may span across different spatial and temporal scales. Therefore, cost ranking for environmental projects requires appropriate valuation and discounting methods, as well as stakeholder participation and sensitivity analysis, to ensure that the cost-benefit analysis is fair and accurate.

3. Cost ranking for research and development (R&D): R&D is a process of creating and applying new knowledge and technologies to solve problems or improve products or services. R&D can generate significant benefits, such as innovation, competitiveness, and growth, for the organization and the society. However, R&D also involves costs, such as research costs, development costs, and opportunity costs. Therefore, cost ranking is needed to allocate the limited R&D resources to the most promising and profitable projects. One of the main challenges in cost ranking for R&D is how to estimate the costs and benefits of the R&D projects. R&D projects are often risky and uncertain, and their outcomes may depend on various factors, such as market demand, technological feasibility, and competitive advantage. Moreover, R&D projects may have spillover effects, such as knowledge diffusion, network externalities, and social welfare, that are not captured by the private costs and benefits. Therefore, cost ranking for R&D requires sophisticated forecasting and evaluation techniques, as well as strategic and dynamic considerations, to ensure that the cost-benefit analysis is fair and accurate.

9. Conclusion and Future Directions

In this blog, we have discussed the problem of cost ranking, which is the task of ordering a set of alternatives based on their costs. We have seen that cost ranking is not a trivial problem, as it involves many challenges and trade-offs, such as:

- How to measure and compare costs that are heterogeneous, uncertain, and dynamic?

- How to allocate costs fairly and accurately among multiple stakeholders who may have different preferences and objectives?

- How to communicate and justify the cost ranking results to the decision makers and the public?

We have also reviewed some of the existing methods and frameworks for cost ranking, such as:

- Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which evaluates the net benefits of each alternative by monetizing all the relevant costs and benefits.

- cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which compares the costs of achieving a given level of effectiveness or outcome for each alternative.

- Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which aggregates the costs and other criteria of each alternative using a weighting scheme or a preference model.

We have highlighted the strengths and limitations of each method, and how they can be applied to different types of cost ranking problems. We have also provided some examples of cost ranking applications in various domains, such as health care, education, energy, and transportation.

In this final section, we will conclude the blog by summarizing the main points and providing some future directions for research and practice in cost ranking. We will organize this section into three parts:

1. Key takeaways: We will recap the main messages and lessons learned from the blog.

2. Open questions: We will identify some of the unresolved issues and challenges that remain in cost ranking.

3. Future opportunities: We will suggest some of the promising directions and innovations that can improve the theory and practice of cost ranking.

Let's begin with the key takeaways.

1. Key takeaways: Here are some of the main messages and lessons learned from the blog:

- Cost ranking is a common and important decision problem that requires careful and systematic analysis and evaluation.

- Cost ranking is not a one-size-fits-all problem, as it depends on the context, objectives, and constraints of the decision situation.

- Cost ranking is not a purely technical problem, as it involves ethical, social, and political considerations and implications.

- Cost ranking is not a static problem, as it needs to account for the uncertainty and dynamics of the costs and the environment.

- Cost ranking is not a solo problem, as it involves multiple stakeholders who may have different perspectives and interests.

- Cost ranking is not a black-box problem, as it requires transparent and explainable methods and results.

- There is no single best method for cost ranking, as each method has its own assumptions, advantages, and limitations.

- The choice of the cost ranking method should be based on the criteria of validity, reliability, efficiency, and fairness.

- The application of the cost ranking method should follow the steps of problem definition, data collection, cost measurement, cost comparison, cost allocation, and cost communication.

- The evaluation of the cost ranking method should consider the robustness, sensitivity, and uncertainty of the results, as well as the feedback and satisfaction of the stakeholders.