| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.

View
 

Drive For Green Evaluation

Page history last edited by Ryan Thai 6 years ago

Still in edit

 

Alternative 1:  Added Green Fee Apart From Student Tuition

     Out of the 100 students surveyed in Wayne State, 41 saying they would not contribute to a sustainable fund.  Though more students are required for better analysis, already we see a disapproval for the added fee.  A similar disapproval trend is seen in whether students should be involved in a small fee.  Already the desirability for an added fee fails.  (See Below)  

     There is a cost affecting both the students and the committee members.  Money is being sacrificed from students' wallets while the time and management to measure annual balance performance will be added upon the commissioner of those fee.  This may not be a problem if Wayne State already has a someone who checks on current fund balances on a yearly basis.

     Depending on the amount being asked from students per semester and the attendence, the annual income will be great.  More money will be brought in than with Alternative 2.

     Implementation will be easy.  Only reporting the annual performance budget is required.

 

 

Alternative 2: The Revolving Fund

     The desirability of this option is based solely on the approval from the Office of Sustainability and other secondary audiences.

     The amount of cost (money) to implement a particular project affects how much the fund will lose.  The bigger the project the more money will be given out.  However, this cost is offset by the interest which will be given back through savings.  

     Implementation will require more work than Alternative 1 as it requires the committee to monitor projects and see how they are fairing and how much savings are being brought in.  Time of payback is dependent on how expensive the project is and the annual savings being brought back.  

 

 

Alternative 3: The Hybrid Model

     The desirability is dependent on both the students, the Office of Sustainability, and other secondary audiences.  Already because the survey showed a high percentage of disapproval, this fails the desirability.

     This alternative will have combined cost from Alternative 1 and 2.  However, the money being brought in through the extra fee and the interest from accomplished projects will far exceed both previous alternatives.

     Implementation will require a lot of work.  It requires managing and monitoring how much is bringing in through the student fee and through projects in-works annually.  A charter between the school and the Office of Sustainability will be required to ensure none of the money is used for corrupted purposes.   

 

 

Pugh Matrix

 

Alternatives/Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Cost DATUM    
Benefits ($ brought in)    
Desirability    
Ease of Implementation    


 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.