Report : enabling team collaboration with pervasive and mobile computing : cost benefit analysis methodology

Construction is an information intensive industry in which the accuracy and timeliness of information is paramount. It observed that the main communication issue in construction is to provide a method to exchange data between the site operation, the site office and the head office. The information needs under consideration are time critical to assist in maintaining or improving the efficiency at the jobsite. Without appropriate computing support this may increase the difficulty of problem solving. Many researchers focus their research on the usage of mobile computing devices in the construction industry and they believe that mobile computers have the potential to solve some construction problems that leads to reduce overall productivity. However, to date very limited observation has been conducted in terms of the deployment of mobile computers for construction workers on-site. By providing field workers with accurate, reliable and timely information at the location where it is needed, it will support the effectiveness and efficiency at the job site. Bringing a new technology into construction industry is not only need a better understanding of the application, but also need a proper preparation of the allocation of the resources such as people, and investment. With this in mind, an accurate analysis is needed to provide clearly idea of the overall costs and benefits of the new technology. A cost benefit analysis is a method of evaluating the relative merits of a proposed investment project in order to achieve efficient allocation of resources. It is a way of identifying, portraying and assessing the factors which need to be considered in making rational economic choices. In principle, a cost benefit analysis is a rigorous, quantitative and data-intensive procedure, which requires identification all potential effects, categorisation of these effects as costs and benefits, quantitative estimation of the extent of each cost and benefit associated with an action, translation of these into a common metric such as dollars, discounting of future costs and benefits into the terms of a given year, and summary of all cost and benefit to see which is greater. Even though many cost benefit analysis methodologies are available for a general assessment, there is no specific methodology can be applied for analysing the cost and benefit of the application of mobile computing devices in the construction site. Hence, the proposed methodology in this document is predominantly adapted from Baker et al. (2000), Department of Finance (1995), and Office of Investment Management (2005). The methodology is divided into four main stages and then detailed into ten steps. The methodology is provided for the CRC CI 2002-057-C Project: Enabling Team Collaboration with Pervasive and Mobile Computing and can be seen in detail in Section 3.

Who pays for standardised testing? A cost-benefit study of mandated testing in three Queensland secondary schools

This paper reports on an Australian study that explored the costs and benefits of the National Assessment Programme, Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) testing, both tangible and intangible, of Year 9 students in three Queensland schools. The study commenced with a review of pertinent studies and other related material about standardised testing in Australia, the USA and UK. Information about NAPLAN testing and reporting, and the pedagogical impacts of standardised testing were identified, however little about administrative costs to schools was found. A social constructivist perspective and a multiple case study approach were used to explore the actions of school managers and teachers in three Brisbane secondary schools. The study found that the costs of NAPLAN testing to schools fell into two categories: preparation of students for the testing; and administration of the tests. Whilst many of the costs could not be quantified, they were substantial and varied according to the education sector in which the school operated. The benefits to schools of NAPLAN testing were found to be limited. The findings have implications for governments, curriculum authorities and schools, leading to the conclusion that, from a school perspective, the benefits of NAPLAN testing do not justify the costs.

Valuing maternity care: a comparison of stated preference methods with an application to cost-benefit analysis

This research investigates whether a reconfiguration of maternity services, which collocates consultant- and midwifery-led care, reflects demand and value for money in Ireland. Qualitative and quantitative research is undertaken to investigate demand and an economic evaluation is performed to evaluate the costs and benefits of the different models of care. Qualitative research is undertaken to identify women’s motivations when choosing place of delivery. These data are further used to inform two stated preference techniques: a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and contingent valuation method (CVM). These are employed to identify women’s strengths of preferences for different features of care (DCE) and estimate women’s willingness to pay for maternity care (CVM), which is used to inform a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on consultant- and midwifery-led care. The qualitative research suggests women do not have a clear preference for consultant or midwifery-led care, but rather a hybrid model of care which closely resembles the Domiciliary Care In and Out of Hospital (DOMINO) scheme. Women’s primary concern during care is safety, meaning women would only utilise midwifery-led care when co-located with consultant-led care. The DCE also finds women’s preferred package of care closely mirrors the DOMINO scheme with 39% of women expected to utilise this service. Consultant- and midwifery-led care would then be utilised by 34% and 27% of women, respectively. The CVM supports this hierarchy of preferences where consultant-led care is consistently valued more than midwifery-led care – women are willing to pay €956.03 for consultant-led care and €808.33 for midwifery-led care. A package of care for a woman availing of consultant- and midwifery-led care is estimated to cost €1,102.72 and €682.49, respectively. The CBA suggests both models of care are cost-beneficial and should be pursued in Ireland. This reconfiguration of maternity services would maximise women’s utility, while fulfilling important objectives of key government policy.

A thematic cost-benefit analysis of a marine protected area

The implementation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is ultimately a social endeavour to sustain or improve human well-being via the conservation of marine ecosystems. The degree to which ecological gains are realised can depend upon how economic, ecological and social costs (negative impacts) and benefits (positive impacts) are included in the designation and management process. Without the support of key stakeholder groups whose user rights have been affected by the creation of an MPA, human impacts cannot be reduced. This study analyses a three year dataset to understand the themes associated with the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of an MPA in Lyme Bay, United Kingdom (UK) following its establishment in 2008. Methodologically, the paper presents an ecosystem based management framework for analysing costs and benefits. Two hundred and forty one individuals were interviewed via questionnaire between 2008 and 2010 to determine perceptions and the level of support towards the MPA. Results reveal that despite the contentious manner in which this MPA was established, support for the MPA is strong amongst the majority of stakeholder groups. The level of support and the reasons given for support vary between stakeholder groups. Overall, the stakeholders perceive the social, economic and environmental benefits of the MPA to outweigh the perceived costs. There have been clear social costs of the MPA policy and these have been borne by mobile and static gear fishermen and charter boat operators. Local support for this MPA bodes well for the development of a network of MPAs around the UK coast under the United Kingdom Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. However, this initial optimism is at risk if stakeholder expectation is not managed and the management vacuum is not filled.

Multicentre randomised control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care:societal cost-benefit analysis

Comparison of real time teledermatology with outpatient dermatology in terms of clinical outcomes, cost-benefits, and patient reattendance.

A comparison of real-time and store-and-forward teledermatology:a cost-benefit study

Increasing use of teledermatology should be based on demonstration of favourable accuracy and cost-benefit analysis for the different methods of use of this technique. Objectives To evaluate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of real-time and store-and-forward teledermatology.

Incorporating Severity and Risk as Factors to the Fardal Cost-Effectiveness Model to Create a Cost-Benefit Model for Periodontal Treatment

Background: A previously described economic model was based on average values for patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (CP). However, tooth loss varies among treated patients and factors for tooth loss include CP severity and risk. The model was refined to incorporate CP severity and risk to determine the cost of treating a specific level of CP severity and risk that is associated with the benefit of tooth preservation.

Methods: A population that received and another that did not receive periodontal treatment were used to determine treatment costs and tooth loss. The number of teeth preserved was the difference of the number of teeth lost between the two populations. The cost of periodontal treatment was divided by the number of teeth preserved for combinations of CP severity and risk.

Results: The cost of periodontal treatment divided by the number of teeth preserved ranged from (US) $ 1,405 to $ 4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than $ 8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was $ 3,416, and the cost of a single-tooth replacement was $ 4,787.

Conclusion: Periodontal treatment could be justified on the sole basis of tooth preservation when CP risk is moderate or high regardless of disease severity.