Search results

The paper aims to present an approach to cost-benefit analysis with stochastic data. Determining the type and the values of alternative’s factors are probably the most important issue in this approach. Therefore, in the proposed approach, a competitive advantage model was built to measure the values of alternative’s factors. Then, a satisfactory cost-benefit analysis model with random data was proposed to evaluate the alternatives. The cost-benefit analysis of each alternative was carried out to obtain the real and satisfactory cost-benefit of the decision-maker.

This paper is orientationally expressed as a mathematical problem in which the optimization problem needs to analyze the approach. This paper is written based on uncertainty linear optimization. Optimization under uncertainty refers to this branch of optimization where there are uncertainties involved in the data or the model and is popularly known as stochastic optimization problems.

As was seen in the purpose part, in this paper, an approach is presented to cost-benefit analysis by the use of competitive advantage with stochastic data. In this regards, a stochastic optimization problem to assess competitive advantage is proposed. This optimization problem recognizes the values of alternative’s factors which is the most important step in cost-benefit analysis. An optimization problem is proposed to cost benefit analysis, as well.

To investigate different aspects of the proposed approach, a case study with random data of 21 economic projects was considered.

Cost–benefit analysis is a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives used to determine options which provide the best approach to achieving benefits while preserving savings. Cost–benefit analysis is related to cost-effectiveness analysis. Benefits and costs are expressed in monetary terms and are adjusted for the time value of money; all flows of benefits and costs over time are expressed on a common basis in terms of their net present value, regardless of whether they are incurred at different times. As seen the paper using competitive advantage tries to determine the values of alternative’s factor. As competitive advantage model analyze the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives, this paper by the use of this idea tries to determine the costs and benefits. Two stochastic optimization problems in the middle of this approach are proposed, which assess competitive advantage and cost–benefit analysis, respectively.

RECENT YEARS have witnessed the proliferation of applications of cost‐benefit analysis to public sector expenditure. Cost‐benefit analysis is a method of decision‐making which seeks to quantify the benefits that are obtainable from a given course of action, to express them in financial terms (or in terms of financial equivalents) and then to deduct the estimated social and financial costs so that the results of the course of action may be assessed, valued and expressed in monetary terms. Quantification of actual financial costs and benefits poses no difficulties, but it has been shown elsewhere that the quantification of social costs and benefits often poses considerable problems. Some social benefits, such as the value of time‐saving, can be quantified reasonably successfully (using, for example, financial equivalents of time saved in terms of average wages or average salaries of the individuals concerned), but others, such as the measurement of alleviation of suffering or the assessment of degrees of incapability in nursing care, have no adequate financial equivalents.

Two studies in the context of English‐French relations in Québec suggest that individuals who strongly identify with a group derive the individual‐level costs and benefits that drive expectancy‐value processes (rational decision‐making) from group‐level costs and benefits. In Study 1, high identifiers linked group‐ and individual‐level outcomes of conflict choices whereas low identifiers did not. Group‐level expectancy‐value processes, in Study 2, mediated the relationship between social identity and perceptions that collective action benefits the individual actor and between social identity and intentions to act. These findings suggest the rational underpinnings of identity‐driven political behavior, a relationship sometimes obscured in intergroup theory that focuses on cognitive processes of self‐stereotyping. But the results also challenge the view that individuals' cost‐benefit analyses are independent of identity processes. The findings suggest the importance of modeling the relationship of group and individual levels of expectancy‐value processes as both hierarchical and contingent on social identity processes.

This paper aims to explore effective supply chain principles, through the theory of transaction cost economics, as measures to improve current contingency pharmaceutical item shortfalls in the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) Contingency Pharmaceutical Programme.

In this research, AFMS contingency pharmaceutical data was collected from various databases, including the Joint Medical Asset Repository, Medical Contingency Requirements Workflow and the Medical Requirements List. Through the methodology of cost-benefit analysis, alternative sourcing and fulfilment practices are evaluated.

The findings of this research indicate that the application of centralized purchasing principles, in an effort to leverage prime vendor contract fill rates for shortage items, can lead to 12%–17% increases in pharmaceutical material availability across the programme.

This research clearly shows that consolidating demand for shortage items across Active Duty War Reserve Material assemblages, though applications of centralized purchasing principles that leverage prime vendor contract fill rates, can lead to substantial increases in material availability at costs that justify the calculated benefits.

Prefabricated products are continually entering the building construction market; yet, the decision to use prefabricated products in a construction project is based mostly on personal preferences and the evaluation of direct costs. Researchers and practitioners have debated appropriate measurement systems for evaluating the impacts of prefabricated products and for comparing them with conventional on-site construction practices. The more advanced, cost–benefit approach to evaluating prefabricated products often inspires controversy because it may generate inaccurate results when converting non-monetary effects into costs. As prefabrication may affect multiple organisations and product subsystems, the method used to decide on production methods should consider multiple direct and indirect impacts, including nonmonetary ones. Thus, this study aims to develop a multi-criteria method to evaluate both the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabrication solutions to facilitate decision-making on whether to use prefabricated products.

Drawing upon a literature review, this research suggests a multi-criteria method that combines the choosing-by-advantage approach with a cost–benefit analysis. The method was presented for validation in focus group discussions and tested in a case involving a prefabricated bathroom.

The analysis indicates that the method helps a project’s stakeholders communicate about the relative merits of prefabrication and conventional construction while facilitating the final decision of whether to use prefabrication.

This research contributes a method of evaluating the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabricated products. The research underlines the need to evaluate the diverse benefits and sacrifices that stakeholder face when considering production methods in construction.

The purpose of this paper is to determine recidivism costs and benefits for 1,030 community-based male offenders enrolled in a domestic abuse program (DAP) compared to an untreated control group (n=1,030) matched on risk factors.

The study time frame was October 1, 2007-June 30, 2010 with reconvictions measured to December 31, 2010. Follow up averaged 19 months. Controls received standard community supervision, but no domestic violence group interventions. Follow up measures included court costs for violent and non-violent reconvictions; re-incarcerations and community-based orders costs measured in days.

Adjusting for time at risk, DAP enrollees had 29 percent fewer reconvictions, 46 percent fewer violent reconvictions, 34 percent fewer custodial days, but 23 percent more days on community orders. Costs: DAP enrollment avoided $2.52 M in custodial costs, but higher community correction costs (+$773 K) and court costs (+$5.8 K), reducing the DAP’s criminal justice system cost savings to $1.754 M ($8.92 M for the DAP group compared to $10.67M for controls). Cost benefits: when the 64 DAP program costs were deducted ($602 K), the net benefit to the New South Wales criminal justice system was $1,141 M, or $1,108 per enrollee, providing a net benefit/cost ratio of 2.89. If the DAP was completed, the net benefit was $1,820 per offender. These results compares favorably to economic evaluations of other community-based interventions.

Group interventions for domestically violent (DV) offenders can provide good investment returns to tax payers and government by reducing demand on scarce criminal justice system resources. The study provides insights into justice costs for DV offenders; a methodological template to determine cost benefits for offender programs and a contribution to cost-effective evidence-based crime reduction interventions.

Using a rigorous methodology, official court, custodial and community correction services costing data, this is the first Australian cost benefit analysis of a domestic violence group intervention, and the first to justify program expenditure by demonstrating substantial savings to the criminal justice system.

The costs and benefits of patient/public involvement in health, social and political settings are important determinants of whether people and organisations participate. However, actual costs and benefits of public participation are rarely measured other than as proxies or as only “measuring the measurable”. This paper aims to examine whether economic analysis poses a threat or an opportunity for future public participation.

This inquiry is based on original research by INVOLVE (literature review of participation costs/benefits; qualitative interviews with “think tanks”, participants and managers of participation projects) that examined the options for measuring monetary costs and benefits of public participation.

The case against measuring includes: mainstream economic theory is unable to explain participation; mainstream economic models are unsuitable for appropriately assessing participation costs and benefits; participation benefits are beyond economic value; and, economic values of participation may be misinterpreted and misused. Conversely, the case for measuring includes: economic measurement is necessary because public participation constitutes investments of public resources; there is a need to improve the evidence base on which participation decisions are made; the lack of economic information about participation causes problems; and neo‐classical economics is not the only available option for measuring participation costs/benefits.

The limitations and implications for granting bodies, researchers/health economists, evaluators/administrators, and donor‐commissioned evaluations are discussed.

There is a need for innovative indicators that capture the costs and benefits of public participation, as well as appropriate resources for the economic analysis of such initiatives.

Auditing researchers have recommended that the use of audit decision models should be subject to cost‐benefit analysis. This paper provides insight into cost‐benefit analysis and its shortcomings as a tool for evaluating audit decision models. The paper also identifies and discusses the limitations of other evaluation methods. Finally, the paper suggests the use of model confidence as an alternative to model value and model validity.

The purpose of this paper is to show that the need to communicate the value of libraries is growing, and especially now during the global financial crisis. As a response library valuation research is expanding and there is now a need for a status report.

The library valuation field is developing towards generating a critical mass of empirical studies. The focus of the meta‐analytical review is on the subgroup that reports a return on investment (ROI) or a cost‐benefit ratio. Meta‐analysis is a quantitative analysis of findings of previous studies, conducted to infer general findings and lessons from prior empirical research. The dataset is 38 library valuation studies reporting a return on investment figure or cost‐benefit ratio.

Of the 38 studies, 32 are of public libraries, a number high enough to indicate a tenable result. The meta‐analysis indicates that the patterns in the findings are consistent with expectations regarding the benefit types that are included in the ROI figure, the methods used, and the scope of the study.

This study appears to be the first meta‐analytical review of library studies reporting a return on investment figure. The tentative conclusion is that for each dollar invested in public libraries they return, on average, approximately four times more. This is a strong message with policy implications.

The increasing use of cost‐benefit analysis (CBA) in financial regulation is bringing a sharper focus on the benefits conferred by regulation. This paper addresses the impact of that sharper focus on the compliance culture of regulated firms. Why focus on the benefits of regulation? What does CBA have to offer to the compliance culture of authorised firms? How does the introduction of CBA fit in with other developments in the regulatory arena? This paper offers some tentative answers to these questions.