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
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|
|Potential to Generate Income||SU||CSU||SU|
Feasible Ranges for Satisficing
|Attribute||Minimum Acceptable Value||Maximum Acceptable Value||Unacceptable Alternative|
|Potential to Generate Income||Med||High||AU|
|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.
Sullivan, W. (2009). Engineering Economy. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.