Changes

All of the above methods will result in 1,200 hours being spent on the activity per year for businesses that are in the market at the start of the year. However, since the frequency determines the number of periods, it also determines at which point new entrants will enter the market and therefore begin to incur the cost. Stakeholders who enter the market partway through the year would not incur the cost as many times as those who were already there at the start of the year. With frequency = 1, all new entrants are assumed to join the market and incur the ongoing cost at the end of the year, meaning that all new entrants would spend 1,200 hours on the activity. This implies that the undiscounted impacts will be different depending on the selected frequency. Also, with 1,200 periods per year, every subsequent period will be discounted to a slightly greater extent to bring it back to the present-value base year. Compared to using a frequency of 1 and a time spent per occurrence of 1,200 hours, using a frequency of 1,200 and a time spent per occurrence of 1 hour will result in slightly higher discounted impacts. In summary, the choice of frequency can affect the total impact estimates, so different methods of modelling the activity by shifting between frequency and time spent will not give the exact same results. Use your judgement to determine the best way to model each activity.   

All of the above methods will result in 1,200 hours being spent on the activity per year for businesses that are in the market at the start of the year. However, since the frequency determines the number of periods, it also determines at which point new entrants will enter the market and therefore begin to incur the cost. Stakeholders who enter the market partway through the year would not incur the cost as many times as those who were already there at the start of the year. With frequency = 1, all new entrants are assumed to join the market and incur the ongoing cost at the end of the year, meaning that all new entrants would spend 1,200 hours on the activity. This implies that the undiscounted impacts will be different depending on the selected frequency. Also, with 1,200 periods per year, every subsequent period will be discounted to a slightly greater extent to bring it back to the present-value base year. Compared to using a frequency of 1 and a time spent per occurrence of 1,200 hours, using a frequency of 1,200 and a time spent per occurrence of 1 hour will result in slightly higher discounted impacts. In summary, the choice of frequency can affect the total impact estimates, so different methods of modelling the activity by shifting between frequency and time spent will not give the exact same results. Use your judgement to determine the best way to model each activity.   

'''Frequency < 1'''   

'''Frequency < 1'''   

The way the RCC estimates impacts with frequency less than 1 depends on the stakeholder growth rate: whether it is negative, zero, or positive. But regardless of the stakeholder growth rate, the Start Year selected in the table on the Activities sheet will be the first year in which the impact occurs (note this is different compared to how previous versions of the RCC worked).     

The way the RCC estimates impacts with frequency less than 1 depends on the stakeholder growth rate: whether it is negative, zero, or positive. But regardless of the stakeholder growth rate, the Start Year selected in the table on the Activities sheet will be the first year in which the impact occurs (note this is different compared to how previous versions of the RCC worked).     

First let's imagine that the stakeholder growth rate is zero. In this case, the first year with an impact will be the Start Year, and since this is an ongoing activity the impact is assumed to happen at the end of the year. After the Start Year, there will be a gap with several years of $0 impacts. The number of years with $0 impacts before the next occurrence depends on the frequency - there will be 'n' years of $0 impacts if the frequency = "1/n". Since the growth rate is zero, the number of stakeholders conducting the activity will be constant. [[File:Zerogrowth.png|center|thumb|900x900px|Freq = 1/3, Existing Stakeholders = 100, Stakeholder Growth Rate = 0%|alt=]]

First let's imagine that the stakeholder growth rate is zero. After the Start Year, there will be a gap with several years of $0 impacts. The number of years with $0 impacts before the next occurrence depends on the frequency: there will be 'n' years of $0 impacts for frequency = "1/n". Since the growth rate is zero, the number of stakeholders conducting the activity every 'n' years will be constant.   [[File:Zerogrowth.png|center|thumb|900x900px|Freq = 1/3, Existing Stakeholders = 100, Stakeholder Growth Rate = 0%|alt=]]

If the growth rate is negative, then there will be gaps in when the stakeholders incur the cost, and every 'n' years there will be a smaller and smaller number of stakeholders incurring the cost. In other words the existing stakeholder count will be diminishing over time, and whoever is still in the market every 'n' years will incur the cost (for frequency = 1/n).

Next imagine that the stakeholder growth rate is negative. This case is similar to the situation where the growth rate is zero, except for the fact that the number of stakeholders who incur the cost every 'n' years will decline over time. Since ongoing impacts are assumed to be incurred at the end of every period, this means that the first decline in the stakeholder count happens in period 1. In other words, if you enter 100 stakeholders on the Stakeholders sheet, but the growth rate is negative, then fewer than 100 of them will incur the ongoing cost in year 1.  

[[File:Freq less than 1 negative stakeholder growth.png|center|thumb|900x900px|Freq = 1/3, Existing Stakeholders = 100, Stakeholder Growth Rate = -1%|alt=]]

[[File:Freq less than 1 negative stakeholder growth.png|center|thumb|900x900px|Freq = 1/3, Existing Stakeholders = 100, Stakeholder Growth Rate = -1%|alt=]]

[[File:Image1111112221.png|center|thumb|900x900px|Freq = 1/3, Existing Stakeholders = 100, Stakeholder Growth Rate = 1%|alt=]]

Lastly, consider the case where the frequency is less than 1 but the stakeholder growth rate is positive. This case is a bit more complicated because every year bring some new entrants (new 'cohorts'), and each cohort of new entrants will be on its own track of incurring the impact every 'n' years for frequency = '1/n'. 

Note that with positive stakeholder growth and a frequency less than 1, there are no years with $0 impacts. In the 'off-years' there are still costs because new entrants are entering the market and incurring costs for the first time, after which they are then on their own unique track to incur costs every 'n' years for frequency = 1/n. In some years multiple cohorts will incur costs at the same time. For example, if the frequency = 1/3 and the activity starts immediately, then the existing stakeholders will incur the cost at the end of Year 1 along with the new entrants from Year 1. This is the 'first cohort' incurring the cost. The new entrants in year 2 will be the only ones incurring the cost in Year 2, and the new entrants in Year 3 will be the only ones incurring the cost in Year 3. In year 4, the first cohort incurs the cost again (since 3 years have elapsed since the last time they incurred the cost), and they will do so along with the new entrants in Year 4. In year 5 the new entrants from year 2 along with the new entrants from year 5 will incur the cost. Skipping ahead to Year 10, the following cohorts will incur costs at the same time: 1, 4, 7, 10.   

Note that with positive stakeholder growth and a frequency less than 1, there are no years with $0 impacts. In the 'off-years' there are still impact estimates because new entrants are entering the market and incurring the impact for the first time, after which they are then on their own unique track to incur costs every 'n' years for frequency = 1/n. In some years multiple cohorts will incur costs at the same time. For example, if the frequency = 1/3 and the activity starts immediately, then the existing stakeholders will incur the cost at the end of Year 1 along with the new entrants from Year 1. This is the 'first cohort' incurring the cost. The new entrants in year 2 will be the only ones incurring the cost in Year 2, and the new entrants in Year 3 will be the only ones incurring the cost in Year 3. In year 4, the first cohort incurs the cost again (since 3 years have elapsed since the last time they incurred the cost), and they will do so along with the new entrants in Year 4. In year 5 the new entrants from year 2 along with the new entrants from year 5 will incur the cost. Skipping ahead to Year 10, the following cohorts will incur costs at the same time: 1, 4, 7, 10.   

The lowest frequency that should be entered is 1 divided by the total length of the analytical period (e.g., 1/10 for a 10-year analytical period). Any frequency lower than this will be equivalent to a frequency of 1 divided by the length of the analytical period, since the first cohort will not incur the cost a second time within the analytical period, and in all years after year 1, the same new entrants will incur the cost.    

The lowest frequency that should be entered is 1 divided by the total length of the analytical period (e.g., 1/10 for a 10-year analytical period). Any frequency lower than this will be equivalent to a frequency of 1 divided by the length of the analytical period, since the first cohort will not incur the cost a second time within the analytical period, and in all years after year 1, the same new entrants will incur the cost.

Check the message in the Error Check column and consult your TBS analyst if you are unsure what to do.    

[[File:Image1111112221.png|center|thumb|900x900px|Freq = 1/3, Existing Stakeholders = 100, Stakeholder Growth Rate = 1%|alt=]] 

===== Labour: Time Spent (hours) =====

===== Labour: Time Spent (hours) =====