Search results

AbstractReturn on investment (ROI) has long been accepted as a primary tool for decision‐making for capital investments and even choices among competing operational budget lines. Applying ROI to investments intended to prevent or mitigate future risks and hazards can be very difficult, as benefits are typically arduous to define and calculate while risk probabilities can be very small. This paper uses examples from recent research concerning law enforcement, airport security, and airport resiliency to illustrate the feasibility of computing ROI and resiliency ROI (RROI) for such investments and to suggest methodology to approach these computations.

With costs for typical three- to five-year international assignments often at prohibitive levels, the justification for sending employees abroad is under scrutiny by global organizations. But in a recent survey of global mobility practitioners, only 14% of the respondents indicated that they had any type of initiative to determine return on investment (ROI). This article examines issues that organizations must consider to measure ROI. The first key area, the need to quantify costs, entails the ability to track associated costs and determine what those costs are. The article also explores direct expenses, administrative expenditures and productivity costs to achieve a balanced view of the equation. Measuring return involves identifying a clear definition of assignment success—an element that not only does not fit a universal standard but also faces inconsistent treatment across organizations in terms of tracking and evaluation. Postassignment career tracking as an additional ROI tool is also discussed.

The United States Navy and other military services send a large number of their officers to various military universities to obtain graduate degrees or perform academic research. These graduate education programs provide the officers with technical skills and nontechnical competencies highly valued in their respective billets. The cost of sending a Navy officer to a 1.5- to 2-year program for a master's degree may be upwards of $250,000 plus the opportunity cost of his or her lost services. In addition, a doctoral program may cost upwards of $500,000 per officer, plus their respective soft opportunity costs for being away for 3-4 years. The U.S. military's human resource environment is unique in that it is a closed internal hierarchical structure. For instance, an officer's pay is based on his or her rank and years of service, regardless of educational background. It can be argued that higher education may result in higher efficiency and productivity, thereby increasing the speed of promotions, but these are fairly difficult to quantify. Further, we see that 2 years after graduation, the retention rates are relatively high, ranging from 99.31% to 95.78% on average. This high rate of retention the first few years is to be expected as officers sent to graduate programs typically are required to "pay back" their education costs with guaranteed service for several years. The question is whether the benefits of such education and research are indeed greater than the cost incurred by the Navy. Another consideration is that naval research and education are not separate tasks but tend to coexist alongside the innovation engines of the country. The current research looks at various novel ways to value the monetary return on investment (ROI) of military education and research. The proposed methodologies apply theoretical constructs by using a systems approach to utilization; convolution methods to determine the frequency and quantity of use; and an analytical framework, empirical impact analysis, and work lifecycle ...