The Process of Staff Study - Research Paper Example

The Staff Study Format The staff study is a procedure developed by the military that is used to effectively analyze a problem, make decisions and present recommendations with the appropriate supporting evidence. The following is a modification of that model. 1) Identification of the problem Problem -- A short concise statement of the problem. State in the infinitive (To .....). Use active, action words when possible. Recommendation -- State in the imperative (That ....). This is up front, because some bosses don’t turn pages. Conclusions need to be at beginning and end, but this is written LAST!!! Background -- Brief narrative of situation relating to problem. 2) Collection of Relevant Information Facts -- List only facts bearing on the total problem. Put in a logical order (priority, chronological, etc.). Group associated facts together. Try to also group by source and use in-text citations!!! Assumptions -- Only list assumptions critical to the problem. Put in a logical order. Many assumptions focus on future predictions. Distinguish between facts and assumptions (Fact - budget allocates xx dollars. Assumption - no more money is available.). Courses of Action -- List the Course of Action (COA). No limit on number of COA's. List all COA's before applying the screening criteria. Be specific with your COA description. List only viable COA's, no throwaways. 3) Criteria a. Screening -- State minimum standards (threshold values) for COA to be acceptable. Comes from facts & assumptions, manager’s guidance, regulations, organizational policies, political considerations, etc. Think in terms of GO or NO-GO. Usually includes "limiting" words (I will not accept..., No more than..., You must have...). Should eliminate one or more COA's. b. Evaluation -- Desirable characteristics of any action that may help resolve the problem. Used to determine degrees of measurement. List out each with a short title, concise definition, the benchmark (average value), and what is better (greater or lesser than benchmark). c. Weighting -- Specify the relative importance of each criterion in terms of a scale that allows for comparison. 4) Analysis of the Information Screening Results -- List of COA's that fail with the reasons listed. List of surviving COA's Evaluation Results -- List Advantages / Disadvantages of each COA evaluated against each of the specified criteria. Be specific and tell why. Comparison of the Courses of Action -- Present results as narrative listing or as a matrix. Structure the narrative as a ranking of the COA's for each criterion. The more complex the criteria and diverse the measures, the more complex the matrix calculation has to be. 5) Conclusion Summary -- Logically summarize your analysis as a narrative or matrix or both. Tell how you arrived at your conclusion. State the clinching arguments. Recommendation -- State in the imperative Identification of the problem Problem Recommendation Background Collection of Relevant Information Facts Assumptions Courses of Action Criteria a. Screening b. Evaluation c. Weighting Establishing Measurable Criteria Criterion Unit of Measure Threshold Benchmark Direction of Advantage Standardizing Formula Weighting Minimum standards a COA must meet to be acceptable Dividing line or point at which a criterion becomes an advantage (usually the average) Which is better, greater or lesser than benchmark? Relative importance of each criterion in terms of a scale that allows for comparison 1. Hi = Avg = Lo = 2. Hi = Avg = Lo = 3 Hi = Avg = Lo = 4. Hi = Avg = Lo = 5. Hi = Avg = Lo = Creating the Standardizing Formula The first step in standardizing the criteria is to determine the level of measurement for each criterion. Dichotomous If you have only two values, ex: good vs bad, you can assign the good as 10 and the bad as 1 (some value but not much). If you were to assign the "bad" as a zero, it becomes a screening criterion. Ordinal In some cases you may have only ranked data, such as "very good, good, ok, poor, very poor" to which you may assign values of 9, 7, 5, 3, 1 respectively. Or you may have an interval scale for which you wish to emphasize only the extreme values so you assign an arbitrary Likert scale. Interval Upper-Lower Anchors – If you have a set of interval values, such as dollars, cubic feet, or mph, you commonly take the high and low acceptable values and use them as anchor values. Ex: if the low value is $15K and the high value is $25K you assign $15K as "0" and $25K as "10". You subtract $25K from $15K to get $10K as the interval of interest. The interval is divided by 10 to give $1K as the standardizing value. In this case it is negative (-$1K) because less is better. Thus, the formula becomes: Standardized cost = (actual cost – low cost) / –$1K That is, if an object in question costs $18K the standardized cost = ($18K - $15K)/–$1K = 3. Average Anchor – Alternatively, the average value can be chosen as the middle value (5) and either the upper value set as 10 or the lower value set as 0. The interval between the two anchors is divided by 5 to get the standardizing factor. If the median is used as the average, the interval between the median and the upper value will not be the same as the interval between the median and the lower value. The smaller of the two should be used to calculate the standardizing factor. Weighting Procedures There are a couple of approaches to creating a weighting factor for each criterion. Holistic Comparison - You can look at all the criteria and rank them at the same time from 1 to n. Pairwise Comparison - You list each criterion and then compare the first one against each of the remaining ones (2 thru n), making a tally mark beside the criterion that you prefer. Repeat the process comparing the second one against each of the remaining ones (3 thru n), again making a tally beside the criterion that you prefer. Upon reaching the last criterion in the list, rank them according to the number of tally marks for each. There also are a couple of approaches to creating a scale for the weighting factors. Bare Rank – Give each the value it has in the list, i.e., the number of tally marks. Anchored Scale – Look at the lowest and the highest ranking items and assign the lowest one a 1 and the highest one the amount by which you think it is more important. Ex; if you think the highest item is thirty times as important, give it a 30 and rank the others proportionally. Analysis of the Information Screening Results Evaluation Results Comparison of the Courses of Action Courses Of Action Criteria COA Weighted Totals 1. Wt = 2. Wt = 3. Wt = 4. Wt = 5. Wt = 6. Wt = 7. Wt = 1. Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = 2. Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = 3. Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = 4. Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = 5. Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = Act = Std = Wtd = (Steps to Comparing Evaluation Criteria Results) First, list the courses of action in the leftmost column and the criteria in the second row next to the numbers. Second, fill in the weight (Wt =) you assigned to each criterion. Third, fill in the actual value (Act =) for each COA/Criterion cell. Fourth, fill in the standardized value (Std =) for each COA/Criterion cell according to the scale you set up. Fifth, multiply the standardized value in each cell by the weight of that criterion. Enter that value in the cell (Wtd =). Sixth, add together all of the weighted values for a course of action. Enter that value in the last cell of the row. Conclusion Summary Recommendation Example The following example was prepared by a student and is presented for illustrative purposes only. I have no idea whether the information contained is accurate or not. Staff Study on American Made 1996 Minivans Introduction Problem To determine the best, new 1996 American-made seven-passenger minivan with built-in child seats for under $20,000 before 30 September 1996. Recommendation That we buy a new 1996 Dodge Caravan before 30 September 1996 at any dealership in the United States. Background Over the past three years, my family has grown and so has our need for a new minivan. Now, with a 2 ½ year-old and a six month-old, our Honda Accord has several disadvantages. It has limited space on trips and vacations. It is also inconvenient to reconfigure the child safety seats when we change automobiles. The inability to carry more than the immediate family when we visit friends or relatives is also a problem. Information Facts a. Attributed by author & wife (1) Our Honda Accord has limited luggage space. When we took a trip to the beach in May 1996, we did not have enough room for all the luggage and beach gear. (2) It is inconvenient to reconfigure child safety seats when we change cars or to carry the baby inside while she sleeps in the seat. (3) During visits to friends or family’s houses, we can’t carry everyone in one car if we go somewhere. Including the children, we usually have six or seven people that need transportation to the same place. Our Accord will carry five persons maximum. (4) We are pre-approved for a $20,000 loan from USAA for the purpose of buying a minivan. b. Attributed by Jack Gillis in The Truck, Van, and 4x4 Book 1966 (1) Of all 1996 American-made minivans under $20,000, the average price is $18,660, the average amount of cargo space is 140 cubic feet, the average fuel cost per year is $937, the average number of complaints (Complaint Index) is 4057, and the average depreciation over five years is 31 percent. (2) Of all 1996 American-made minivans under $20,000, three were government rate “strong” for impact protection; the Dodge Caravan, Ford Windstar, and Plymouth Voyager. (3) All 1996 minivans come with optional built-in child seats. (4) All 1996 American-made minivans have the same basic warranty. Assumptions The prices of the minivans will not change through 30 September 1996 Courses of Action COA 1. Chevrolet Astro COA 2. Chevrolet Lumina COA 3. Dodge Caravan COA 4. Ford Aerostar COA 5. Ford Windstar COA 6. GMC Sufari COA 7. Mercury Villager COA 8. Plymouth Voyager COA 9. Pontiac Transport COA 10. Chrysler Town and Country COA 11. Honda Odyssey COA 12. Isuzu Oasis COA 13. Mazda MPV COA 14. Nissan Quest COA 15. Oldsmobile Silhouette COA 16. Toyota Previa Criteria Screening Criteria (1) Base price must be less than $20,000 U.S. dollars, (2) Must be a new 1996 model, (3) Must be assembled and/or made in an American factory, (4) Must have optional built-in child safety seats, and (5) Must have a minimum of seven passenger seats. Evaluation Criteria A scale of 0-5 is selected on which to standardize the values of each criterion. (1) Cost. Defined as the amount of U.S. dollars to buy a new 1996 minivan. Less is better. The benchmark is $18,660 – the average cost of the remaining minivans. Scale: standard cost = (cost - $20550) / -630. (2) Cargo Space. Defined as amount f space in cubic feet the minivan offers. More is better. The benchmark is 140 – the average space in the remaining vehicles. Scale: standard space = (space - 100 cu ft) / 13.33. (3) Fuel Economy. Defined as the estimated amount of U.S. dollars that will be spent each year on fuel driving 15,000 miles. Less is better. The benchmark is $937 – the average fuel cost of the remaining minivans. Scale: std mileage = (mileage - 1091) / -31. (4) Crash Tests. Defined as impact protection in case of a crash. Given a “strong” rating if the vehicle has met the 1999 side impact protection standards as defined by the federal government, or a “weak” rating if they have not yet met those standards. Strong is better. Scale: strong = 5, weak = 1. (5) Complaint Index. Defined as the number of complaints for each vehicle type to the number of sales of that vehicle. Less is better. The benchmark is 4057 complaints – the average of the remaining vehicles. Scale: 1500-2500= 5, 2501-3500= 4, 3501-4500= 3, 4501-5500= 2, 5501-6500= 1. An ordinal Likert scale was chosen even though the index is an interval measure due to its uncertainty and only excessive values are considered important. (6) Depreciation. Defined in percentages as the historical depreciation of the minivans in resale value over a five-year period. Less is better. The benchmark is 31 – the average of the remaining minivans. Scale: standard depreciation = [(cost x % depreciation rate) - 7975)] / -700. Value was calculated using the median rather than the mean for the central value due to the skew of the distribution. Weighting of Evaluation Criteria (1) Cost. (6.0) The cost of the minivan is slightly less favored than the cargo space or the crash protection. The cost is favored over the complaint index and the depreciation. Cost is greatly favored over fuel economy. (2) Cargo Space. (9.0) The amount of room in the vehicle is very important. It is greatly favored over fuel economy, favored over depreciation and the complaint index, and equal to the crash protection. (3) Fuel Economy (1.0) The amount of gas the minivan burns is the least important of all the evaluation criteria. It is favored over no other criteria, while cost, space available, and crash protection is greatly favored over it. The complaint index and depreciation are slightly favored over fuel economy. The cost of fuel is about 1/6 the purchase price plus interest. (4) Crash Tests (9.0) The impact protection of the vehicle as defined by the federal government as mandatory protection in 1999 is an extremely important feature found in only a handful of minivans in 1996. Along with the cargo space available, it is the most important criteria. It is favored over the complaint index and depreciation. It is greatly favored over fuel economy, and slightly favored over cost. (5) Complaint Index (2.0) The number of complaints on a minivan is an important criteria, however, because the government study did not specify the type of complaint, it lost much credibility. Anyone who called with a complaint about something frivolous would be a number alongside a person who called with a serious complaint. For this reason, cost, space, and crash protection are favored over complaint index, while depreciation is equally weighted. Complaint index is slightly favored over depreciation and fuel economy. (6) Depreciation (1.6) The study of depreciation of the minivans is influenced by current market trends including supply and demand, as well as the appearance of the vehicle so the depreciation study could be tainted. The cost for depreciation is only realized when the vehicle is traded in but at that time it influences the purchase of the next vehicle as it is about 1/5 the original purchase price plus interest. For these reasons, I rated this criterion as slightly favored over fuel economy. Cargo space available, crash protection, cost and complaint index are favored over depreciation. Analysis Screening Results (1) Courses of Action 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 fail the screening criteria because their base price exceeds $20,000. Additionally, COA’s 12, 13, and 16 fail a second screening criteria because they are not made in America. (2) Surviving Courses of Action are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Advantages/Disadvantages of each Course of Action COA 1 Chevrolet Astro Advantages The Chevy Astro has more cargo space and less complaints than the average. Historically, it depreciated much less than the norm, so it would most likely retain its value well. Disadvantages The Astro costs several hundred dollars over the average, while its fuel economy is less than average and crash protection is weak. COA 2 Chevrolet Lumina Advantages The Chevy Lumina uses less fuel than the average. Disadvantages The Lumina costs over a thousand dollars over the average while sporting less cargo space and weak crash protection. It has thousands of complaints over the industry average which may account for its rapid depreciation which is also well above the norm. COA 3 Dodge Caravan Advantages The Caravan costs almost a thousand dollars under the average, while still supplying a massive amount of cargo space. It also uses less fuel and has less complaints than the norm and meets the government safety standards for crash tests with a “strong” rating. Disadvantages The Caravan depreciates two percent higher than the average. COA 4 Ford Aerostar Advantages The Aerostar costs several hundred dollars less than the average and produces a lower number of complaints. Disadvantages The Aerostar costs more in fuel each year and has a weak crash rating. It also depreciates slightly more tan the average. COA 5 Ford Windstar Advantages The Windstar has more room and uses less fuel than the average, while it earns a “strong” rating for crash protection and produces less complaints. Disadvantages The Windstar costs almost a thousand dollars over the average. COA 6 GMC Sufari Advantages The Sufari costs a little less than average, while supplying more cargo space. It also produces less complaints and does not depreciate as fast as the average. Disadvantages Fuel costs are more than average while the Sufari’s crash protection is weak. COA 7 Mercury Villager Advantages The Villager’s fuel cost is less than average. Disadvantages The Villager’s cost is almost $1,300 over the average while it maintains much less cargo space than average. Its crash protection is weak while it produces many more complaints than average. COA 8 Plymouth Voyager Advantages The Voyager has more cargo room and costs over $1,200 less than the average while it uses less fuel and boasts a “strong” crash rating. It also has less complaints and maintains its value better than average. Disadvantages There were no disadvantages using the criteria listed. COA 9 Pontiac Transport Advantages The Transport costs less than average while using less fuel and maintaining its value. Disadvantages The Transport offers less cargo space and weak crash protection while charting a higher than normal complaint index. Comparison of Courses of Action Actual (x) and scaled value (y) COA Cost Cargo Mileage Crash Complaints Depreciation 1 19200 2.14 152 3.9 1000 1.57 strong 5 3000 4 27 3.99 2 19800 1.19 118 1.35 850 4.98 strong 5 6300 1 38 0.64 3 17800 4.37 173 5.48 900 3.84 weak 1 3250 4 33 3.00 4 17800 4.37 141 3.38 1060 0.20 strong 5 3850 3 34 2.75 5 19600 1.51 145 3.38 900 3.84 weak 1 3150 4 31 2.71 6 18400 3.41 152 3.90 1055 0.32 strong 5 3650 3 28 4.03 7 19950 0.95 127 2.02 900 3.84 strong 5 5550 1 31 2.71 8 17400 5.00 147 3.53 900 3.84 weak 1 3600 3 29 4.18 9 17900 4.21 114 1.05 850 4.98 strong 5 4300 3 25 5.00 Comparison of Weighted Courses of Action COA Cost (3.63) Cargo (5.14) Mileage (1.00) Crash (5.14) Complaints (1.63) Depreciation (1.63) TOTALS 1 19.200 0.007 1001.000 6.500 3.000 27.000 5559.795 2 19.990 0.009 857.000 6.500 6.300 38.000 148455.981 3 17.820 0.006 900.000 2.000 3.240 33.000 7.434 4 17.820 0.007 1058.000 6.500 3.830 34.000 14314.369 5 19.590 0.007 900.000 2.000 3.130 31.000 22.309 6 18.400 0.007 1058.000 6.500 3.630 28.000 7293.182 7 19.940 0.008 900.000 6.500 5.540 31.000 51319.312 8 17.410 0.007 900.000 2.000 3.590 29.000 15.186 9 17.890 0.009 857.000 6.500 4.280 25.000 26625.313 Comparison of the Courses of Action Conclusion Summary The courses of action of acquiring a Chrysler Town and Country, Honda Odyssey, Isuzu Oasis, Mazda MPV, Nissan Quest, Oldsmobile Silhouette, or Toyota Previa did not meet the screening results regarding cost and were eliminated from consideration. The Isuzu Oasis, Mazda MPV, and Toyota Previa also did not meet the screening criteria of being made in America. The remaining courses of action were compared by six evaluation criterion. They were cost, cargo space, fuel economy, depreciation, crash test ratings, and customer complaints. Cost, cargo space, and crash test ratings were the three highest criterion, while fuel economy, complaints, and depreciation were significantly less important, achieving a weighted ranking of 2 or less each. Application of the weighted rankings to each of the criteria revealed the Dodge Caravan to be the superior selection when compared to the other vehicles considered. It costs almost a thousand dollars under the average, while still supplying a massive amount of cargo space. The Caravan also uses less fuel and has fewer complaints than the norm. It also meets the government safety standards for crash tests with a “strong” rating. These factors override the fact that the Caravan depreciates at a rate two percent higher than the average. Recommendation That a new 1996 Dodge Caravan is purchased before 30 September 1996 at any dealership in the United States. Read More