Attachment L:
Framing a Cost Benefit Analyses (CBA)
Define the following: |
Description |
Step 1: The problem |
The objective of the study is to examine how the costs of the TS and E interventions compare with the benefits. |
Step 2: Control options |
TS and E interventions versus no control |
Step 3: Audience |
TEMA and employees, other manufacturers |
Step 4: Perspective |
TEMA |
Step 5: Time frame and Analytic horizon |
Two years from implementation of TS and E interventions (e.g. short enough that the outcomes are not unacceptably uncertain, but not long enough to capture fully the costs and benefits that are attributable to the program, and to account for seasonal variations in program activity levels and targeted health outcomes), |
Step 6: Discount rate |
6% (to compare benefits and costs that occur at different times by adjusting their values according to the time preference corresponding to the chosen perspective) |
Step 7: Format |
Key data was derived by a prospective experimental design (in Phase) |
Benefits
|
Costs |
Direct costs averted
Indirect costs averted
Value Added
|
Direct costs Tool Support (TS)
Exercise Program (E)
Indirect (productivity losses)
|
Intangible benefits3 Averted pain and suffering from back injury |
Intangible costs3 Stress on employees caused by program |
1Estimated using Toyota historical data (e.g. frequency/ costs for shoulder related MSDs associated with overhead work in processes similar to those targeted during Phase B) 2Estimated using data collected during Phase B 3Not estimated for this study |
The formula for NPV, where: r = discount rate (interest rate), t = year, and n = analytic horizon (in years) is: The formulas for ROI are presented below: , or
File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
Author | Lowe, Brian D. |
File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
File Created | 2021-01-29 |