The Experts below are selected from a list of 13179 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gregory C Keating - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pressing precaution beyond the point of Cost Justification
Vanderbilt Law Review, 2003Co-Authors: Gregory C KeatingAbstract:Economists generally argue that it is irrational to take more than Cost-justified precaution against risks of accidental physical injury. Cost-justified precaution minimizes the dollars spent preventing and paying for accidents, thereby maximizing the wealth at society's disposal. When we take more than Cost-justified precaution we make ourselves worse off by making ourselves poorer. It Costs more to prevent Cost-justified accidents than it does to let those accidents happen and pay for the damage they do. Yet both common law and statutory risk regulation sometimes prescribe more than Cost-justified precaution. Are these prescriptions irrational? This Article argues that they are not. When risks of devastating injury are imposed-when we risk premature death, or severe injury whose debilitating effects can never be fully undone-fairness generally requires more than Cost-justified precaution. It is unfair to treat devastating injury as commensurable, at some ratio of exchange, with just any benefit which might be gained by risking such injury. Sacrificing an interest as urgent as the interest in avoiding premature death or devastating injury can only be justified if the burden of eliminating that risk is comparable to the burden of bearing it. This requirement of comparability means that we must usually take more than Cost-justified precaution against risks of devastating injury. In this context, the Article examines two statutory norms which require more than Cost-justified precaution-the "feasibility" and "safety" norms found in federal risk regulation. The "feasibility" norm calls for the elimination of "significant" risks of devastating injury, unless the elimination of those risks would prevent the activity which generates the risks involved from flourishing over the long run. The "safety" norm requires the elimination of all "significant" risks of devastating injury. The paper argues that feasible precaution is appropriate when an activity cannot flourish without imposing a "significant" risk of devastating injury, and the loss of the activity in question would work a harm comparable to and greater than the "significant" risk of devastating injury that is the price of the activity's flourishing. Safe precaution-the elimination of all "significant" risk of devastating injury-is appropriate when the benefits in question are not valuable enough for its elimination to count as a harm comparable to and greater than "significant" risk of devastating injury. I. THE PUZZLE: WHY PRESS PRECAUTION BEYOND THE POINT OF Cost-Justification? A. The Clash Between Economic "Science" and Ordinary Moral Sensibility Years ago, Bruce Ackerman contrasted two competing perspectives on law, that of the "ordinary observer" and that of the "scientific policymaker."1 The perceptions and discourse of the "ordinary observer," Ackerman explained, start from the common practices and language of laymen.2 The "scientific policymaker" takes the realization of particular objectives-efficient precaution against risks of accidental injury and death, for example-as her end and uses the law as an instrument toward that end.3 Clashes between these two perspectives are endemic to our legal culture.4 Nowhere in the law of accidents is that conflict sharper than in cases where the risks imposed threaten severe and irreparable injury. A powerful and influential tradition of thought asserts that reasonable care in the law of negligence is, and ought to be, economically efficient care. When Learned Hand devised his famous "formula" for determining the amount of care due, Richard Posner argues, he was both "adumbrating, perhaps unwittingly, an economic meaning of negligence," and attempting nothing more novel than to "make explicit the standard that the courts had long applied."5 Judge Hand, as Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen explain, "set the legal standard of care by explicitly balancing the benefits and Costs of precaution, just as an economist would have done . …
-
pressing precaution beyond the point of Cost Justification
Social Science Research Network, 2002Co-Authors: Gregory C KeatingAbstract:Economists generally argue that it is irrational to take more than Cost-justified precaution against risks of accidental physical injury. Cost-justified precaution minimizes the dollars spent preventing and paying for accidents, thereby maximizing the wealth at society's disposal. When we take more than Cost-justified precaution, we make ourselves worse off by making ourselves poorer. It Costs more to prevent Cost-justified accidents than it does to let those accidents happen and pay for the damage they do. Yet both common law and statutory risk regulation sometimes prescribe more than Cost-justified precaution. Are these prescriptions unjustifiable? This paper argues that they are not. When risks of devastating injury are imposed - when we risk premature death, or severe injury whose debilitating effects can never be fully undone - fairness generally requires more than Cost-justified precaution. It is unfair to treat devastating injury as commensurable, at some ratio of exchange, with just any benefit which might be gained by risking such injury. Sacrificing an interest as urgent as the interest in avoiding premature death or devastating injury can only be justified if the burden of eliminating that risk is comparable to the burden of bearing it. This requirement of comparability means that we must usually take more than Cost-justified precaution against risks of devastating injury. In this context, the paper examines two statutory norms which require more than Cost-justified precaution - the "feasibility" and "safety" norms found in federal risk regulation. The "feasibility" norm calls for the elimination of "significant" risks of devastating injury, unless the elimination of those risks would cripple the activity whose risks they are. The "safety" norm requires the elimination of all "significant" risks of devastating injury. The paper argues that feasible precaution is appropriate when an activity cannot flourish without imposing a "significant" risk of devastating injury, and the loss of the activity in question would work a harm comparable to and greater than the "significant" risk of devastating injury that is the price of the activity's flourishing. Safe precaution - the elimination of all "significant" risk of devastating injury - is appropriate when the activity in question is not valuable enough for its elimination to count as a harm comparable to and greater than "significant" risk of devastating injury. The paper also takes up key interpretive questions raised by these standards, arguing that these standards are both reasonably coherent and normatively defensible.
Deborah J Mayhew - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cost Justification of usability engineering for international web sites
Cost-Justifying Usability (Second edition)#R##N#An Update for an Internet Age, 2005Co-Authors: Deborah J MayhewAbstract:Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the Cost Justification of adding usability engineering to projects aimed at developing software for use in different countries and cultures. The focus is on what is unique about adding usability engineering to an international development project and how to adapt the general Cost-Justification technique in this case. To do this, discussion and examples of unique aspects of the usability engineering process for international development projects are provided. Some examples of adapting the technique to cross-cultural projects are also provided. Just as in the case of traditional software and websites intended only for a single culture, international websites can benefit greatly from usability engineering. The bottom-line benefits of a proposed usability-engineering program on a project to develop an international website can be calculated just as they can for development projects of other sorts. The difference is primarily in the details of the usability-engineering program and in calculating the Costs of that program. As in the two examples given in this chapter, it is likely that significant usability engineering effort will usually be easily Cost justifiable on international web development projects.
-
Keystroke Level Modeling as a Cost Justification Tool
Cost-Justifying Usability, 2005Co-Authors: Deborah J MayhewAbstract:Publisher Summary Keystroke level modeling (KLM) is a type of cognitive modeling technique that has been reported in the literature over the last two decades. It is the simplest and most basic of a family of modeling techniques that have evolved over the past two decades. KLM, simply put, involves identifying and counting all of the discrete human operations: physical, cognitive and perceptual, that a user must execute to efficiently accomplish a specific task on a specific user interface design. As discussed in this chapter, modeling is a valid and useful Cost-Justification technique for projects. It allows business managers to predict accurately, whether or not productivity gains, required to Cost-justify new development effort, would be achieved. In addition, it enables an analysis of those tasks predicted to fail to meet business goals, which in turn drive redesigning to achieve those goals again, long before launch, when it is much cheaper and easier to make design changes. The productivity data from the proposed application, when finally collected, validates the model results generated earlier. In addition, it is demonstrated that goal productivity can be achieved quite quickly; it was in fact achieved on most tasks after only a brief training program and several hours of practice time.
-
the usability engineering lifecycle a practitioner s handbook for user interface design
1999Co-Authors: Deborah J MayhewAbstract:A commitment to usability in user interface design and development offers enormous benefits, including greater user productivity, more competitive products, lower support Costs, and a more efficient development process. But what does it mean to be committed to usability? Inside, a twenty-year expert answers this question in full, presenting the techniques of Usability Engineering as a series of product lifecycle tasks that result directly in easier-to-learn, easier-to-use software.You'll learn to perform a complete requirements analysis and then incorporate the resulting goals and constraints in a highly structured, iterative design and development process. This process doesn't end with installation but instead begins anew with the collection of user feedback that will guide further development. Also covered are organizational issues related to the implementation of Usability Engineering, including Cost Justification, project planning, and organizational structures. * Unites all current UE techniques in a single, authoritative resource, presenting a coherent lifecycle process in which each clearly defined task leads directly the next.* Teaches concrete, immediately usable skills to practitioners in all kinds of product development organizations-from internal departments to commercial developers to consultants.* Contains examples of actual software development projects and the ways in which they have benefited from Usability Engineering.* Deals in specifics, not generalities-provides detailed templates and instructions for every phase of the Usability Engineering lifecycle.* Pays special attention to Web site development and explains how Usability Engineering principles can be applied to the development of any interactive product.
-
Cost justifying usability
Cost-Justifying Usability (Second edition)#R##N#An Update for an Internet Age, 1994Co-Authors: Randolph G Bias, Deborah J MayhewAbstract:Part 1 A framework: wherefore Cost Justification of usability - pay me now or pay me later, but how much?, R.G. Bias a basic framework for Cost-Justification usability engineering, D.J. Mayhew and M.M. Mantei business case approach to Cost Justification, C.-M. Karat. Part 2 Approaches to Cost-justifying usability: Cost-Justification of usability engineering - a vendor's perspective, J. Rohn and K. Ehrlich human factors Cost Justification for an internal development project, C.-M. Karat and S.M. Dray justifying usability in a contractor company, C.L. Mauro. Part 3 Case studies: UPAR process - casual analysis of use errors, P.O'Neal Cost benefit analysis of upgrading computer hardware, D.J. Mayhew reusable software platforms - Cost benefit of adapting a common software platform, N. Aykin design of a human factors Cost-Justification tool, L.A. Blatt, M.C. Harrison and R.L. Henneman. Part 4 Special issues: guerrilla human-computer interaction - using discount usability engineering to overcome the intimidation barrier, J. Nielsen justified human factors in a pre-funded research environment, R. Brooks organization inhimitors and facilitators, D.J. Mayhew and R.G. Bias summary - a place at the table, R.G. Bias and D.J. Mayhew.
David L. Hald - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cost Justification of a laboratory information system
Journal of Medical Systems, 1992Co-Authors: Rodney S. Markin, David L. HaldAbstract:A pre- and postimplementation comparison of tangible and intangible benefits of the laboratory information system are presented. The key activities projected to save Costs through work reduction were evaluated as a basis for procuring a laboratory information system. Following implementation and four years of LIS operation the individual activities used for Justification were resurveyed. The tangible benefits which were measured prior to LIS Justification totaled $153,471.84 per year based upon fiscal year 1985–86 dollars. The objective re-evaluation of these activities four years after implementation and operation resulted in a measured $115,326.93 per year savings. The loss of projected savings is directly related to over estimates in the original Justification evaluation and personnel behavior. The intangible benefits projected were all realized including a number of intangible benefits which made a significant impact on several departmental and clinical services at our institution.
J T Robinson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cost Justification of the new ohio edison company s energy management system
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 1991Co-Authors: A Jamshidi, E C Stein, B Hoveida, J T RobinsonAbstract:The authors discuss a systematic method for analyzing alternative strategies that the Ohio Edison (OE) Company used during the feasibility study of its energy management system (EMS). The primary objectives were to develop requirements, Cost estimates, benefits, and an overall plan for a system control center computer upgrade to meet OE's needs through the year 2009. A key element in the requirements study of an energy management system was determining the value of not only the present system, but also of several feasible alternatives in terms of present worth dollars. The term value represents the difference between a system's benefits, or the loss of those benefits, and its Cost. When the values of various alternatives are compared over time with that of the existing system, the most Cost-effective point for system replacement can be accurately defined along with the best alternatives with varying degrees of implementation Costs, and resulting benefits could be evaluated. >
G Kaye - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the hidden investments in information technology the role of organisational context and system dependency
International Journal of Information Management, 1996Co-Authors: C M Hinton, G KayeAbstract:Management effectiveness is strongly influenced by the quality and availability of the information resource available to managers. This is partially dependent upon the information and communication technologies which transport events, data and knowledge from isolated consciousness to individual and collective awareness. However, the use of these technologies rarely occurs in isolation. Rather, it is embedded in a far wider organisational context which recognises the politics of decision making and technical change, and the broader culture and experiences of organisations. Central to this is understanding how information technology (IT) investments cause organisations to reflect on the importance of their processes of communication and the value they place on information. A key part of this organisational flux acknowledges that IT applications are built on the existing systems, structure and past experiences of the organisation. Accordingly, investments in IT form part of an ongoing organisational development. Such intangible aspects create a dilemma for management in that they prove problematic to evaluate using conventional approaches to Cost Justification. By drawing on a series of case studies, questionnaires and interviews, this paper suggests a fresh approach to this dilemma by developing the concepts of dependency, legacy and heritage. The paper concludes by recognising that current approaches to investment appraisal emphasise a narrow, short-term perspective which focuses on a single investment, rather than on a continuous investment stream.
