W2.2_David King_Mentor Lilly Wasitova_MBA Program Selection


Problem Recognition, Definition, and Evaluation

I want to have an MBA to enhance my knowledge and be able to position myself to do things I know I am capable to do now and I know an MBA will help me get there. Based on my week 3 blog posting I was unable to determine which online MBA program was correct for me. Using a multi-attribute analysis, I will determine which MBA program to apply for?

Development of the feasible alternatives

1.      Colorado State University

2.      Syracuse University

3.      Ashford University

Development of the outcomes and cash flows for each alternative

1.      Colorado State Costs about $26,000 and will take under 2 years to complete.

2.      Syracuse University will cost $63,000 and will have an indirect cost of $2,500 at least 9 times through the duration of the program. The program will take 3 years to complete.

3.      Ashford University will cost $18,000 and will take 1.5 years to complete.

Selection of the criterion

Grid Analysis

Alternatives

Drivers – Positive Effect

Cost Credit Hours Accredited AACSB Hours Spent Public Perception Potential to Generate Income
1.      Colorado State University $25000 36 Yes Yes 1456 Med High
2.      Syracuse University $87000 54 Yes Yes 2184 High High
3.      Ashford University $18000 33 Yes No 1335 Low Low

 

Paired Comparison – Dominance

Attribute CSU vs SU CSU vs. AU SU vs. AU
Cost CSU AU AU
Credit Hours CSU AU AU
Accredited Same Same Same
AACSB Same CSU SU
Hours Spent CSU AU AU
Public Perception SU CSU SU
Potential to Generate Income SU CSU SU
Dominance No No No

 

Feasible Ranges for Satisficing

Attribute Minimum Acceptable Value Maximum Acceptable Value Unacceptable Alternative
Cost $15000 $30000 SU
Credit Hours 0 40 SU
Accredited YES YES
AACSB YES YES AU
Hours Spent 1200 1500 SU
Public Perception Med High AU
Potential to Generate Income Med High AU

 

Lexicography

Attribute Rank Alternative Rank
Cost 6 AU > CSU > SU
Credit Hours 1 AU > CSU > SU
Accredited 3 CSU = SU = AU
AACSB 4 CSU = SU > AU
Hours Spent 2 AU > CSU > SU
Public Perception 5 SU > CSU > AU
Potential to Generate Income 7 CSU = SU > AU

 

Analysis and comparison of the alternatives

Using the dominance no one attribute is dominant. Can’t eliminate any alternatives (universities) based on dominance.

When using the satisficing CSU satisfies all the needs in the acceptable ranges (meaning it is cheaper to get the degree and faster to get it) where each other university has an attribute that doesn’t meet the minimum acceptable value or exceeds the maximum acceptable value (takes too long, too expensive, or creates minimal long term value). Clearly CSU creates bang for buck, AU creates the buck, but with no bang, SU creates the bang, but it sure is expensive to get the buck.

Disjunctive Resolution – Based on the satisficing chart since each attribute has one attribute that is acceptable, disjunctive resolution can’t eliminate alternatives (universities) based on attributes.

Lexicography – Going based on the highest rank, potential to generate income, CSU and SU have the same rank. This makes it a two horse race. From there we visit the next highest rank which is cost. There CSU is the highest value based on cost and is the winning alternative.

Selection of the preferred alternative

As CSU has won based on comparing attributes through satisifcing and lexicography, CSU would be the preferred alternative and SU would be the secondary alternative.

Performance monitoring and post evaluation results

As this is an objective approach the results are entirely subjective based on my needs. The results became subjective when I set minimum ranges for satisficing. If money wasn’t a concern I can change the min/max on the cost which can alter the results. The same can be said for the Lexicography as if I picked public perception over cost then SU would have won.

References:

Sullivan, W. (2009). Engineering Economy. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in David King, Lilly Wasitova. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to W2.2_David King_Mentor Lilly Wasitova_MBA Program Selection

  1. DrPDG says:

    OK David, MUCH better…….. Accepted as submitted….!!

    My only question- why didn’t you take it a couple of pages more and WOW me by applying the COMPENSATORY models- non-dimensional scaling and additive weighting technique?

    Why not make just a bit more effort to really IMPRESS me with your newly gained knowledge and understanding?

    Also, for future postings, I am trying to get you to use MORE than just a single reference.

    Bottom line- DEFINITELY on the right track and for your next blog posting, I would really love to see you WOW me by projecting the cost of your MBA forward, based on historic data. Another EXCELLENT blog posting topic would be for you to go to the AACE Annual Salary Survey and using the real data for someone your age and experience for the past 4 or 5 years, perform a regression analysis and using that data and applying NPV or IRR, JUSTIFY the cost of getting an MBA……

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Jakarta

  2. DrPDG says:

    PS: Thanks Bu Lilly for mentoring David on his posting. I recognize and appreciate very much your leadership!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s