Laserfiche WebLink
<br />justified but either one-analyzed separately is not, f.e., the system <br />effect is great enough to justify both. The number of systems analysis <br />required to formulate a system based on this strategy could range up- <br />wards to 120 evaluations for a moderately complex (15 component) <br />system, which is probably close to being an unmanageably large number <br />of evaluations. <br />c. last Added Strategy. This strategy, sfmilar to b, is <br />designed such that successive applicatfon yields the formulated system. <br />Beginning wfth all proposed components to the system, the value of <br />each component in the "last added" position is computed. The project <br />whose deletion causes the value (net benefit) of the system to increase <br />the most is dropped out. The net benefits would increase ff the com- <br />ponent is not incrementally justifie~. The strategy is continued <br />through successive staged applications until the deletion of a com- <br />ponent causes the total system value (net beneffts) to decrease. <br /> <br />Table 2 contains information adapted from a recent study <br />and illustrates the strategy. Components K-T are candidates for <br />inclusion within a system. Components l, P, and R have already <br />been implemented. Stage 1 represents the 'last added' value of <br />the candidate system components. The incremental value (net <br />benefits lost) by adding component Q in the last position is the <br />greatest (-30) so it is selected for deletion from the system. <br />Stage 2 represents the 'last added' value of the components wfth <br />the base system now excluding component Q. Note that a number <br />24 <br /> <br />. <br />