Publisher's Synopsis
This thesis addresses the problem of whether cost-benefit analysis would assist the manager in decisionmaking regarding combat developments studies within the Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity (CACDA) and develops a basis for improved decisionmaking techniques. The case study determined that CACDA is a professional and competent organization capable of developing recommendations, alternatives, or solutions, to many critical problems facing the Army; however, this capability has been degraded because CACDA has been tasked to undertake more combat developments studies than it has the capability to conduct. As a result of this excessive work load, significant delays in the planned completion of studies were experienced, and the desired validation of other studies may not have been possible. This situation resulted because the present system and management tools do not provide sufficient criteria for identifying the more critical studies and reducing the scope or eliminating the others. The study concludes that: (1) CACDA managers need an analytical tool to assist them in decisionmaking and developing recommendations to higher headquarters regarding whether a study should be conducted as proposed, (2) managers consider costs in decisionmaking although costs are not as significant as other considerations. (3) managers can assign a relative value to a study proposal, (4) a form of cost-benefit analysis would provide a valuable analytical tool to assist the managers in developing recommendations pertaining to a study proposal.
