|
"It is impossible for ideas to
compete in the marketplace if no forum for The Business Forum Journal
An Outsourcing Internal Control Methodology
By Dr. Paul H. Rosenthal With: L. Jane Park Ph.D., CPA.,
Professor of Accounting
Introduction Industry and government has a long tradition of purchasing and subcontracting for products and services. This type of purchasing and subcontracting is currently called sourcing or outsourcing. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) regulations in the health care industry and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s Section 404, requires the management assessment and audit of all public companies Internal Controls as an integrated part of their financial audit [AICPA and HIPAA]. Following from these regulations, the AICPA’s Professional Ethics Executive Committee is exploring issues surrounding outsourcing to third-party providers. Outsourcing control methodologies are therefore becoming an essential element of organizations required internal controls. This paper will present a proven outsourcing internal control methodology that has been used for several decades in the information technology arena. Since the primary functions of a modern Information Systems organization, except for strategic planning, can be either performed in-house or outsourced to development, processing, networking or consulting providers/vendors. The evaluation of these providers/vendors is usually based on some type of cost-value analysis to rank and select providers. A basic method for such cost-value analysis is the computation of a worth index. Since almost all outsourcing proposals are required to provide a technical and managerial proposal and a separate cost proposal, the worth index is computed as: Worth Index = (α*Technical Score + β*Managerial Score) / Life Cycle CostThis paper includes a proven methodology for computing the technical score, managerial score and life cycle costs for a Worth Index using both RFP and RFQ approaches. The Worth Index methodology presented in this paper is applicable to functional sourcing opportunities in six IS/IT areas: the full IS organization (excluding strategic planning), IS development projects, IS data center production, IS technical support, telecommunications, and architecture planning support. These functional sourcing opportunity areas exist at both the enterprise and department/ workgroup levels. Quantitative Evaluation Methodology A fabricated comparison, based on several actual selection projects, between an in-house and three external potential vendors of an applications software package will be used to illustrate this papers proposed quantitative worth-index based process. The quantitative evaluation process is diagrammed in the following model.
Worth Index Computation ProcessThis paper will first discuss an overall methodology for sourcing evaluation based on popular RFP/RFQ approaches, second present the qualitative method used for the numerator, third a quantitative approach for the denominator, and fourth present some interesting approaches for presentation of the results of the analysis.RFP/RFQ MethodologiesThe process shown in the prior chart and described in the following sections of this paper are RFP based. Equal weight is placed on quality and cost. Most advanced systems and products use this RFP methodology.The RFQ approach shown in the following typical chart is used for projects with well known methodologies such as construction and sometimes consulting or shrink-wrapped package selection. The RFQ method uses a Fail/Pass approach to evaluation of technical and managerial factors. The sealed cost proposals are then opened for only the highly qualified bidders. The low bidder is then the winner. Note the Minimum Score column in the European Union procurement evaluation form following (The European Commission 2001). That column will not be used in the detailed IS example in this paper, since it is primarily RFQ oriented.A Typical Management and Technical Proposal Evaluation Form (EU “User-Friendly Information Society” Project
Each vendor is evaluated and scored. The scores are multiplied by the weights and summed to give a weighted total score for those vendors that exceed all minimums. The cost proposals are then opened and the lowest bidder is awarded the contract (Halifax 2000). Note: This method does not work for high technology projects and one-of-a-kind projects or products.The RFP oriented methodology that follows in this paper, therefore applies to most Information systems projects. The following chart outlines the procedure for computing the worth index. A management proposal evaluation team and a technical proposal evaluation team are formed at the time of RFP issuance. They follow the evaluation methodology in the next sections of this paper. The weighting of each proposal (α and β) is normally specified by executive management. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Multi-Product Vendor - A |
Specialized Vendor - B |
Start up Vendor - C |
In-house Development |
|
Qualitative Criteria Functionality Platform Utilization Survival Probability
Quantitative Criteria Initial Cost (000) Annual Cost (000) Annual Benefits (000) |
70% 30% 90%
$300 $100 $200 |
90% 40% 80%
$400 $100 $250 |
100% 40% 30%
$400 $100 $280
|
100% 40% 100%
$800 $150 $280 |
Step 2: Compute Life Cycle Costs and ROI
Computing a return on investment (ROI), requires (in addition to initial and continuing costs), an estimated life of the project[1]. Currently many investments in applications software involve a planning horizon that is twice the platforms technology cycle, while most investments in platform alternatives involve a single technology cycle planning horizon.
Therefore assuming a ten year planning horizon (twice the mainframe five year technology cycle) with no adjustment for inflation, an ROI computation using the internal-rate-of-return methodology follows.
|
|
COMPUTATION USING FINANCIAL CALCULATOR |
|||
|
|
Vendor - A |
Vendor - B |
Vendor - C |
In-house Development |
|
1) Enter Trade-In value (FV) 2) Enter Product Life (n) 3) Enter Initial Cost (PV) 4) Enter Annual Savings (PMT) 5) Compute IRR (COMP)(i) |
0 10 -300 200 - 100 31% |
0 10 -400 250 - 100 36% |
0 10 -400 280 - 100 44% |
0 10 -800 280 - 150 10% |
Step 3: Compute Qualitative Criteria Index
Combining the three illustrated technical criteria requires that their relative importance be determined. This type of importance ranking methodology (called the Delphi Method when first presented by Rand Corporation during the 1950's) includes the use of expert's rankings which are then normalized into a weighting scale running from 0 to 1. Applying this approach to the illustration results in the following table:
|
|
|
Vendor - A |
Vendor - B |
Vendor - C |
In-House |
||||
|
|
Weight |
Value |
Wt'd Value |
Value |
Wt'd Value |
Value |
Wt'd Value |
Value |
Wt'd Value |
|
Functionality
Platform Utilization
Survival Probability |
.5
.2
.3
|
.7
.3
.9 |
.35
.06
.27
|
.9
.4
.8 |
.45
.08
.24 |
1.0
.4
.3
|
.50
.08
.09 |
1.0
.4
1.0 |
.50
.08
.30 |
|
Weighted Total |
.68 |
|
.77 |
|
.67 |
|
.88 |
||
|
As a % of Perfect |
68 |
77 |
67 |
88 |
|||||
The weighted value columns are the product of the weights assigned by the experts times the evaluation criteria scores contained in the table from Step 1.
Step 4: Compute Worth Index
The computation of a quantitative worth index for the illustrative evaluation is now straight forward.
|
|
WORTH INDEX CALCULATION |
|||
|
|
Multi-product Vendor - A |
Specialized Vendor - B |
Start up Vendor - C |
In-house Development |
|
Technical Score (from Step 3)
ROI (from Step 2) |
68
.31 |
77
.36 |
67
.44 |
88
10 |
|
Worth Index
(Technical Score X ROI) |
21 |
28 |
29 |
.9 |
Based on the worth index, vendors B and C are approximately equal from an objective (quantitative) viewpoint. The decision between them would be based on subjective criteria such as competitive issues and control
The worth index can be computed in three forms, using the ROI as shown in the illustration, using net present value (NPV), and using life cycle costs. The formulas for each follow.
Using ROI
WORTH = SCORE X ROI
Using NPV
WORTH = SCORE X NPV
Using Life Cycle Costs
WORTH = SCORE ÷ COST
The next section will discuss and structure the subjective and objective evaluation criteria relevant to scoring decisions.
Sourcing Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation criteria used in selecting sourcing alternatives can be divided into two major categories:
Objective Criteria
These can be quantified through costing.
Subjective Criteria
These require intuitive weighing and are used for score individual criteria. They can also be used for screening unacceptable approaches prior to the formal evaluation discussed in this paper.
The objective criteria used to compute Life Cycle Costs & ROI are discussed in a later section of this paper. The subjective criteria evaluated through scoring are discussed in this section.
The scoring of criteria can often have different forms when applied to in-house and external vendors. When relevant, these differences are highlighted.
Criterion 1 - End User Deliverables Functionality
When relevant, this functionality criterion evaluates the quality, from the view of the user, of the application/product/service deliverables to be provided by in-house or vendor organizations.
Criterion
What is the quality of the deliverables in terms of meeting end user defined functional requirements.
Scoring
The evaluation measures for developing a score for meeting functional requirements are completely dependant on the type of deliverable (e.g. application system, processing capability, image system, strategic plan, etc.). A small portion of a multi-page functional evaluation follows as an example of the type of approach often used.
Deliverables Functionality Example - Applications Software
|
REQ 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4
|
Generate Monthly Reports Yield Analysis Arrears Trends Loan Growth Rate of Return TOTAL POINTS
AVERAGE POINTS |
Essential (1)/ Desired (.8)
D E D E 3.6 |
Standard (1)/ Custom (.5)
C S S C 3.0 |
Points
.4 1.0 .8 .5 2.7 .75 |
Deliverables Functionality Example - Data Center
|
REQ 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
|
Help Desk Capability Automated Task Status Automated Report Status Automated Input Status Rescheduling Capability TOTAL POINTS
AVERAGE POINTS |
Essential (1)/ Desired (.8)
E E E D 3.8 |
Standard (1)/ Custom (.5)
C S S C 3.0 |
Points
.5 1.0 1.0 .4 2.9 .76 |
Criterion 2 - Product/Service Life
When relevant, this criterion is used during the evaluation of products where continuous enhancement is needed over the planned life of the product or service. Enhancement requirements can be due to such items as evolving user/legal requirements and evolving technologies.
In-House Supplier Criteria
In-house suppliers are often assumed to have an indefinite life. This can be very misleading if the internal enhancement skills required to maintain the product or service are not within the mainstream of IS activities.
A. What is the probability that the skills needed for support of the product/service will be available over the project/service life cycle?
External Vendor Criterion
B. What is the probability that the firm supplying support will maintain or improve its competitive position over the project/service life cycle?
C. What is the probability that the firm supplying support will still be providing adequate support over the project/service life cycle?
Criterion Applicability
HARDWARE:
Processing A,C
Network A,C
SOFTWARE:
Applications A,B
Systems A,C
The scoring of this criterion is subjective and normally based on the number of years that in-house capability has been maintained or on the number of years that a potential vendor has been supplying the product and its competitive position during those years.
Scoring
Typical evaluation measures for developing a score for the product/service life criterion with sample weights follow for in-house and vendor providers.
|
I. Evaluating In-house Providers A. Product/Service Stability (.6) 1. At least "X" years of experience 2. Required expertise available from other areas B. Reputation of provider organization (.4) 1. IT Management satisfaction 2. Users satisfaction TOTAL
|
WEIGHTS
.3 .3
.2 .2 1.0 |
|
II. Evaluating Vendors A. Product/Service Stability (.3) 1. Firm at least "Y" years old 2. Product at least "Z" years old 3. Specializes in Product/Service Area B. Financial Stability (.3) 1. Profitability 2. Asset/Equity Strength C. Reference Sites Reputation (.4) 1. Product/Service Satisfaction 2. Support/Training Satisfaction
TOTAL |
WEIGHTS
.1 .1 .1
.15 .15
.2 .2 1.0 |
Criterion 3 - Project Implementation Quality
When relevant, this criterion is used to evaluate the project management, implementation and maintenance support, and implementation planning quality that in-house and vendor providers intend to furnish for implementation of the product or service.
Criterion
What is the quality of the personnel to be assigned, and what is the probability that they will remain throughout the implementation period.
Scoring
Typical evaluation measures for developing a score for support quality together with sample weights follow.
|
Implementation Quality A. Project Management (.4) 1. Project Director Quality 2. Project Implementation Team Quality B. Implementation Plan (.2) 1. Schedule Realism 2. Task Definition Realism C. Operations Support (.2) 1. Training Quality 2. Documentation Quality D. Maintenance Support (.2) 1. Help Line Quality 2. Release System Quality TOTAL
|
WEIGHTS
.2 .2
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1 1.0 |
Criterion 4 - Platform Quality and Performance
When relevant, this criteria is used to evaluate the quality & performance of the processing platform(s) that in-house and vendor providers intend to use to process the desired product/service.
Criterion
What is the cost/performance, modularity, and reliability of the platform to be used; and what is the probability that it can meet anticipated performance, growth and capability requirements over the life of the project/service.
Scoring
Typical evaluation measures for developing a score for the processing platform, together with sample weights follow.
|
Processing Platform Quality A. Platform Performance (.2) 1. Anticipated online performance 2. Anticipated batch performance B. Software Availability (.2) 1. Development Software Quality 2. Applications Software Quality C. Platform Vendor Quality (.2) 1. Firm at least (3 x technology cycle) years old 2. Financial Strength 3. History of Stability & Growth D. Hardware Components Quality (.2) 1. Product Line at least (2 x technology cycle) years old 2. Quality & Support Reputation 3. Expandable 4. Availability of Compatible Systems
E. Systems Software Components Quality (.2) 1. Product Line at Least (1 x technology cycle) years old 2. Quality & Support Reputation 3. Enhancement Reputation 4. Availability of Alternatives
TOTAL |
WEIGHTS
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .05 .05
.05 .05 .05 .05
.05 .05 .05 .05 1.00 |
Criterion 5 - Support Quality
When relevant, this criterion is used to evaluate the quality of support/service anticipated from in-house and vendor providers.
Criterion
What is the quality of the persons and organizations supporting the project throughout the operational life of the project/service.
Scoring
Typical evaluation measures for developing a score for Support Quality, together with sample weights follow.
|
Support Quality A. Operations Support/Service (.6) 1. Staff Quality 2. Training Quality 3. Documentation Quality B. Maintenance Support/Service (.4) 1. Help Line Staffing Quality 2. Release Procedure Quality TOTAL
|
WEIGHTS
.3 .15 .15
.2 .2 1.0 |
Criterion 6 - End User Deliverables Architecture Quality
When relevant, this architecture criterion evaluates, from the view of the IT organization, the quality of the application/product/service deliverables to be provided by in-house or vendor organizations.
Criterion
What is the quality of the deliverables in terms of optimum balancing of their technology architecture's flexibility, effectiveness, and efficiency.
Scoring
Typical evaluation measures for developing a score for Deliverables Architecture Quality, together with sample weights follow.
|
Deliverables Architecture Quality A. System Design Flexibility (.4) 1. Parametric Product Definition 2. Modularity of Options B. System Structure Effectivity (.3) 1. Development Productivity 2. Production Efficiency 3. Technology Reliability C. Documentation Quality (.3) 1. HELP Screens 2. USER Documentation 3. IT Documentation
TOTAL |
WEIGHTS
.2 .2
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 1.0 |
Criterion 7 - Provider Infrastructure
As relevant, this infrastructure criteria evaluates the fit between user and IT consumer organizations and in-house or vendor providers.
Criterion
What is the level of agreement between the consuming and providing organizations in terms of factors such as: management style, technology innovation, standards utilization, and productivity or quality tradeoffs.
Scoring
Typical evaluation measures for developing a score for provider compatibility, together with sample weights follow.
|
Provider Compatibility A. Industry Understanding and Commitment (.2) 1. Research and Development Commitment 2. Staff Development Commitment B. Contract Terms and Conditions (.15) 1. Initial Arrangements 2. Renegotiation for Special Conditions 3. Takeback Arrangements B. Management Style Compatibility (.05) 1. Structural Formalism 2. Monitoring and Control 3. Staffing and Career Paths C. Standards Compatibility (.2) 1. Planning Methods 2. Development Methods 3. Production Methods 4. Communication Methods 5. Data Base Methods D. Productivity and Quality Orientation (.2) 1. Development Performance 2. Production Performance E. Innovation Orientation (.2) 1. Development Technology 2. Production Technology
TOTAL |
WEIGHTS
.1 .1
.05 .05 .05
.01 .02 .02
.1 .025 .025 .025 .025
.1 .1
.1 .1 1.0 |
Criterion 8 - User References
As relevant, this criterion evaluates the results of the provider's user site visits and/or references.
Criterion
What is the quality of the provider's reference sites, and how do their users evaluate the commitments, quality of products/services, and level of support provided.
Scoring
Typical evaluation measures for developing a score for User References, together with sample weights follow.
|
User References A. Company Management's Evaluation B. IS Management's Evaluation C. Professional Staff's Evaluation D. User Staff's Evaluation
TOTAL |
WEIGHTS .25 .25 .25 .25 1.0 |
Sourcing Cost Categories
The objective of the costing process is to present a complete and
understandable set of current system costs for the denominator of the worth
index, so that alternative providers can provide comparable pricing. The
process advocated consists of the steps shown in the following chart:
The steps generally used to develop the costs needed involve a) determining relevant functions for organizations or locations with the potential to be outsourced, b) producing a functional cost analysis for each, c) obtaining prices from potential providers, and d) adjusting bids to produce comparable life cycle costs for each feasible alternative.
Guidelines for preparing and analyzing appropriate costs are presented in the next portion of this paper.
Step 1: Determine Relevant Cost Types
Using the following staffing and costing categories as an example, define the categories appropriate for the organizations and functions to be evaluated and fill in Functional Costs Analysis Forms for each organization and business function.
TYPICAL COST CATEGORIES
|
Personnel Related Costs FTE* Salary Benefits Bonus/Incentives Communication Memberships & Dues Occupancy Professional Fees Supplies Training Travel Related Misc. Personnel Costs
Equipment Related Costs Hardware Depreciation Software Depreciation Rental/License Hardware Maintenance Software Maintenance Technical Support Fixed Assets Depreciation Misc. Equipment Costs
Network Related Costs Voice Network Data Network: WAN Data Network: LAN Telecomm Hardware Telecomm Software Other Network Assets |
Specialized Data Center Costs Processors DASD Tapes/Cartridges Printers Terminals Maintenance Contracts Systems Software Applications Software Misc. Data Center Costs
Other Costs Cost of Capital Data Center Charges Facilities/Utilities Furniture/Fixtures Insurance Outsourced Services Off-Site Storage Property Taxes Publishing/Printing Security/Disaster Recovery Transportation/Vehicles Misc. Other Costs |
* non-cost items
Step 2: Determine Costs of Relevant Functions
Using a form similar to the IS Functional Cost Analysis Form that follows, a life cycle cost analysis should be prepared for all involved organizations or functions, that details by cost category, the current and anticipated life cycle costs.
A portion of a typical completed form follows. The spread sheet function used for the future value calculation used in the last column follows:
@FV(interest, term, payments)
To compute the first row use @FV(.06,10,30) yielding 395.
SAMPLE OF PARTIAL "IS FUNCTIONAL COST ANALYSIS FORM"
|
Organization: Retail Banking Group Function: Application Systems Development
|
Location: Headquarters |
||||
|
Equipment Related Costs
|
Current Annual Costs |
|
Annual Growth Factor |
|
Total Life Cycle Costs |
|
Hardware Depreciation |
$ 30 |
|
6% |
|
$ 395 |
|
Software Depreciation |
200 |
|
8% |
|
2,897 |
|
Rental/License |
700 |
|
4% |
|
8,404 |
|
Hardware Maintenance |
80 |
|
4% |
|
960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 3: Produce Alternative Life Cycle Costs
A series of forms, similar to the Alternative Life Cycle Costing Form that follows, should be completed, one for each feasible provider, during the proposal preparation period. The forms should be used for both initial (one time ) costs and for life-cycle (recurring) costs. Note that the Current Project Costs column is normally not relevant when the form is used for Initial Costs.
A portion of a typical completed form follows.
SAMPLE OF PARTIAL "ALTERNATIVE LIFE CYCLE FORM"
|
Provider: VENDOR B |
O-Initial O-Life-Cycle |
||||
|
Organization: Retail Banking Group Function: Application Systems Development |
Location: Headquarters |
||||
|
Personnel Related Costs
|
Current Project
|
Retained
|
Bid by Vendor |
Total Project
|
Change |
|
FTE Employees |
300 |
40 |
230 |
270 |
-30 |
|
Salary |
$ 14,000 |
$ 1,200 |
$ 10,200 |
$11,400 |
$(2,600) |
|
Benefits |
2,400 |
200 |
1,650 |
1,850 |
(750) |
|
Bonus/Incentives |
1,100 |
0 |
750 |
750 |
(350) |
|
Travel Related |
80 |
15 |
70 |
85 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: all dollar values in thousands
Step 4: Produce Life Cycle Cost Summary of Each Alternative
The final step in preparing the cost data for use in the Worth Analysis, is to summarize the initial and recurring costs for each alternative. A table similar to the following can be used to present the summaries and to show relevant ROI.
Typical Life-Cycle Savings and ROI Summary
|
Quantitative Criteria |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
In-House |
|
Initial Costs Period one)
|
$300 |
$400 |
$400 |
$10 |
|
Current Project Costs* less Total Bid Project Costs*
Savings (Loss)*
|
200
100
$100 |
250
100
$150 |
280
100
$180 |
280
150
$130 |
|
ROI** |
.31 |
.36 |
.44 |
.10 |
* Sum of annual total dollars in thousands from step 3 (e.g. total 10 year costs or savings).
* See System-Life Oriented Presentation Methodology on page 9 for calculation approach.
Step 5: Compute Worth Index
The computation of an illustrative quantitative worth index is now straight forward.
|
|
WORTH INDEX CALCULATION |
|||
|
|
Multi-product Vendor - A |
Specialized Vendor - B |
Start up Vendor - C |
In-house Development |
|
Technical Score (initial table)
ROI (from Step 4) |
68
.31 |
77
.36 |
67
.44 |
88
.10 |
|
Worth Index
(Technical Score X ROI) |
21 |
28 |
29 |
9 |
Based on the Worth Index, Vendors B and C are approximately equal from an objective (quantitative) viewpoint. The decision between them would be based on subjective criteria such as competitive issues and internal control.
Calculation of the worth index using ROI is illustrated in the above table. Alternatively, the worth index can be calculated using NPV or life-cycle costs using the following formulas.
Using ROI
WORTH = SCORE X ROI
Using NPV
WORTH = SCORE X NPV
Using Life Cycle Costs
WORTH = SCORE ÷ COST
Worth Index Oriented Presentation Methodology
The following chart has been useful in presenting the results of the Worth Index methodology to management. Two of the loan application scores were noticeable close, while there was an obvious winner in the finance area. This is typical based on the author’s experiences.
The final decision was based on site visits to vendor-A and vendor-B user sites.
Platform Architectures: MF is mainframe, HP is high performance, PC is PC/LAN, and AS is a mini
System Life Oriented Presentation Methodology
There are two basic sourcing approaches: non-competitive and competitive bidding. To this point, this paper has considered only competitive bidding. The Savings vs. System Life presentation chart shown below, can be used for displaying either a) an RFP methodology winner’s ROI using the savings vs. system-life profile; b) an RFQ methodology in which the lowest cost vendor is selected whose management and technical proposals are evaluated as feasible or c) a sole source (often in-house) provider (Rosenthal 1991).
The calculations are normally done using a spreadsheet. A formula approach follows.
Col A Col B Col C Col D
row 5 Cash Flows first period second period third period
net cash flow net cash flow net cash flow
row 10 IRR -1 @IRR(B10,$B5...C5) copy formula from prior column
Experience with the Methodology
The original concept for this evaluation methodology dates from 1991, when The Sourcing Interests Group requested one of the authors to design a reusable methodology for their members use. Since that time, the authors have used the methodology numerous times during their consulting practice. Regrettably the reports from these projects are confidential. The proceedings by the authors (Park 2003, Rosenthal 1991 and 2003) reference presentations that included brief overviews of the application of the process.
References
AICPA. Internal Control Reporting- Implementing Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404, AICPA Paperback. www.aicpa.org also see www.404institute.com
Halifax (2000). “Evaluation Framework for the Request for Proposals”. Halifax Harbour Solutions Project.
http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/harboursol/rfp_evaluation.pdf
HIPAA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. www.cms.hhs.gov/hipaa .
Park, L. Jane and Rosenthal, Paul (2003). “Costing and Presentation Approach for an Information Systems Project”, Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on Business. Honolulu, June 18-21, 2003.
Rosenthal, Paul (1991). “Graphical Analysis of IS & MS Project Economics: The Media is the Message”. Proceedings of the ORSA/TIMS Joint National Meeting, Anaheim CA, November 3-6, 1991.
Rosenthal, Park and L. Jane Park (2003). “Outsourcing Evaluation Approach for an Information Systems Project”. Proceedings of The International Business & Economics Research Conference. Las Vegas, October 6-10, 2003.
The European Commission, Fifth Framework Program (2001). “Evaluation Procedures for the Programme, User- Friendly Information Society”. http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/management/eval/r_evaluation.htm
[1] Net present value is not used here because it also requires a forecast of cost of funds over the project life cycle.
://www.calstatela.edu
Doctor Paul H. Rosenthal, is a Professor of Information Systems at California State University, Los Angeles. Dr. Rosenthal teaches a variety of courses encompassing information systems technology, management, political economy, and systems audit and assessment Paul has a BS in Education and an MA in Applied Mathematics from Temple University, an MBA from UCLA, and a DBA from the University of Southern California, and has been active in the Information Systems, Computing Science, and Scientific Computing areas for 50 years as a programmer, analyst, manager, consultant, and academic. His early projects included producing the first mainframe sort/merge package for UNIVAC I, writing the proposal for the first mainframe commercial application at GE’s Major Appliance Center, and installing the first mainframe data center at Remington Rand in New York. He then spent over thirty years in a wide variety of consulting, professional, and managerial positions. His current research interests encompass the manual and computerized infrastructure aspects of mission-critical transaction processing systems. Prior to joining California State University, Los Angeles, he spent thirty six years in industry and as a consultant in the United States and in Asia. His research interests and current projects involve business continuity management, IS/IT education assessment and IS/IT Infrastructure Planning and Technology Systems Assessment.
Visit the Authors Web Site
Return to
Search the ENTIRE Business
Forum site. Search includes the Business
Forum Library, The Business Forum Journal and the Calendar Pages.
Nothing you read in The Business Forum Journal should ever be construed to be the opinion of, statements condoned by, or advice from, The Business Forum, its staff, workers, officers, members, directors, sponsors or shareholders. We pass no opinion whatsoever on the content of what we publish, nor do we accept any responsibility for the claims, or any of the statements made, within anything published herein. We merely aim to provide an academic forum and an information sourcing vehicle for the benefit of the business and the academic communities of the Pacific States of America and the World. Therefore, readers must always determine for themselves where the statistics, comments, statements and advice that are published herein are gained from and act, or not act, upon such entirely and always at their own risk. We accept absolutely no liability whatsoever, nor take any responsibility for what anyone does, or does not do, based upon what is published herein, or information gained through the use of links to other web sites included herein. Please refer to our: legal disclaimerEditorial Policy:
Home
Calendar The Business Forum Journal
Features
Concept
History
Library
Formats
Guest Testimonials
Client Testimonials
Search
News Wire
Why Sponsor
Tell-A-Friend
Join
Experts
Contact The Business Forum
The Business Forum
Email:
john@bizforum.org
Graphics by
DawsonDesign
Webmaster:
bruceclay.com
Beverly Hills, California United States of America
© Copyright The Business Forum Institute 1982 - 2010 All rights reserved.
