-Evaluation-

Student Fee (Green Grant)

    Because many students (60%) in our survey are willing to contribute to some sizable amount that they approve on, the desirability test passes. Time and management in this alternative requires the least amount of effort between the three. That is because the committee does not have to track what's going on each year. At minimum, the project plan must include ending expenses with the original documents at the end. Money generated will be greater than Alternative 2 but less than Alternative 3. The enrollment in each semester drives what is being brought to the WSU Green Grant.

120% Return (Revolving Fund)

     Students' desirability test based on the survey for this alternative passes.  Because there is a need for Wayne State to be more environmentally sustainable and energy efficient, Wayne State needs to make necessary improvements.  Because Wayne State has been gridlocked due to little funding it receives, some changes to their funding procedures needs to be changed.  And students want Wayne State to be responsible in their Sustainability.  And of course not having to pay extra is something every student would likely desire.  Problem with this alternative in accordance to time and management is that it require more effort than Alternative 1 but less effort than Alternative 3. The committee will need to monitor annual savings it receives through projects to determine when they will reach the 120% limit.  Because money is brought in through long-term savings, the amount the revolving fund will receive incrementally small.  That is it will receive very little per year for each project till it reaches that 120%.  This is slower than Alternative 1 and Alternative 3.

Grant + Revolving Fund System = Hybrid Model

     Following the results from the survey, the desirability test passes.  Students are willing to contribute to a set amount (Figure 1) and believes that the college campus is responsible to maintain a sustainable environment (Figure 3). Time and management is the worst of all three alternatives. Implementing a grant and fund systems will require checks on both balance accounts with the additional check on what is being brought in annually in savings in projects. There will be too many documentations and may require a very large committee to spread the work, or two separate committees evaluating both systems separately. However, this alternative will have the greatest influx of money generated out of the three alternatives. Money is being brought in through two separate systems (the student fees and the 120% of the initial project cost).

Pugh Chart

     The figure below is a chart depicting what has been stated for each case. This is an easy way of evaluating for those who understand using figures. A selected alternative is the datum by which comparisons can be made. We selected the Alternative 2 (The Student Fee) as our Datum option because this is the second best choice out of the three. The green box represent that the alternative is better than the datum for the specific criteria. The red box represent that the alternative is worst than the datum for the specific criteria.  If noted the same then both the datum and the underlying alternative have the same level of effect.  All three alternatives receive the same passing grade.

What needs to be worked on:

-Refer back to the research when evaluating your alternatives (sort of to back up your conclusions).  

-Maybe move the Pugh chart to the execute summary, since it seems to easily sum up the results even though most of us didn't understand that type of chart.

-Alternative 1: results didn't agree with your evaluation