VSA: A Case Study of Operational Decision Making

The data accuracy and cost effectiveness of the yearly reviews are questionable. According to Gunasekaran et al. (2015), the most important aspects of the process to consider are the cost effectiveness and time saving. There are possibilities that the 5% of the data from yearly reviews are biased. Therefore, the proposed design should be able to satisfy Valley of the Sun (VSA) needs of achieving time management and cost effectiveness. Critical analysis of the current VSA has with Teachbest consultancy reveals challenges with achieving cost efficiency and effectiveness. For instance, there is no correlation between students increase from 813 to 1000 and the contract cost with $ 2500. Besides, the instructors are assumed to be increasing by 10 without evidence. This paper seeks produce a relevant approach and rationale for evaluating the available alternatives for VSA.

Analysis of the Scenarios

Scenario II

VSA has the freedom to go for the old design so that Teachbest will still be responsible for the hiring, training, and the annual reviews. In this case, Teachbest will manage the review process. Thus, VSA will be responsible for paying the annual contract fee to Teachbest after submission of the review report. The human resources department will be submitting the completed courses to be reviewed. As mentioned earlier, there were no correlation between the increase in students or instructors and the rise in contract cost. The 5% error in reporting will be incurred in every reporting period. Thus, VSA will be paying for inaccurate reviews. The decision alternative fails to meet the cost effectiveness/efficiency and time management requirements.

VSA will incur an additional amount of $50 discounted on each review of a follow-up as a result of the biased and inaccurate reviews submitted by Teachbest Consulting. Moreover, the fact the increase or decrease in the number of students in the next 18 months will directly influence the cost of annual contract implies that VSA will have to incur more cost to pay for the contract with Teachbest Consulting. For instance, the probability that the students will increase to 1000 in the next 18 months is 0.75. Moreover, there are chances of hiring at least six more instructors. Based on the terms of contract, the cost will increase to $ 5000.

The implication of this alternative is that a $ 5000 fee (double the current cost), $ 75 on every completed review, and the additional charge of $ 50 for each follow-up will paid. This alternative will subject VSA to higher contract fees.

Scenario II

In order to reduce the contracting cost, VSA consider ending their contract with Teachbest Consulting a better alternative. The proposed in house based faculty reviews will required the HR to invite best performing instructors to join the review committee. Each reviewer will be paid $ 20 every month as a technology fee for their access and completion of the review forms. There are three options that can be derived from the scenario are that; a) VSA may consider scheduling a session at any time with Teachbest Consulting at a fee of $500.

b) An externally based company can offer a monthly session at a cost of $ 750.

c) VSA’s HR can collaborate with instructional design specialists and develop a session. Although the session will be free of charge, it will require both labor and time.

Since VSA will not spend its growing funding to review of instructors through external consulting, the institution may not only save through cost minimization but also be able to cater for the cost of numerous in house reviews thereby achieving cost effectiveness, efficiency, and time management goals.

Recommendation

From the two scenarios, it is evident that every decision alternative has its possible outcomes. According to Gunasekaran et al. (2015), firms can only maximize their revenues and minimize their costs by addressing the inefficiencies. For VSA, hiring external consulting firms such as Teachbest Consulting result into higher review costs and poor time management. Moreover, the fact that Teachbest is providing inaccurate data to inflate their service charge adversely affects the cost of running the GED’s programs. For instance, association between the students’ increase from 813 to 1000 and $250 cost cannot be proved mathematically. Therefore, VSA should consider a free session between HR and instructional design specialist since the only costs incurred are private time and labor costs. In order to increase the efficiency and reliability of the reviews, the number of the best performing instructors from each discipline should be increased to develop a pool of in house specialist. The move will reduce the cost of hiring instructional design specialists in future.

Conclusion

Operational decision-making may have challenging to most organizations especially when it comes to outsourcing. Since Teachbest Consulting charges higher fees and do not help in cost and time management, there is need to adopt an alternative so that the programs can be sustainable. The best decision alternative for VSA is to use the HR and external instructional design specialist since it requires less cost and is also beneficial in the long run.

Reference

Gunasekaran, A., Irani, Z., Choy, K. L., Filippi, L., & Papadopoulos, T. (2015). Performance measures and metrics in outsourcing decisions: A review for research and applications. International Journal of Production Economics,

161, 153-166.

Appendix

Decision Tree