Realisation of diffuse benefits using a relative return on investment paradigm

Authors

  • Stephen Bounds Cordelta, Australia

Keywords:

social return on investment, monte carlo, uncertainty, knowledge management

Abstract

This paper explores a number of ways used to quantify the realisation of systemic and diffuse benefits in public and private settings, including return on investment (ROI), social return on investment (SROI), relative return on investment (RROI), and cost benefit analyses (CBA). The paper explores the relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach, discusses a number of modelling approaches, and looks at factors to weight when determining the most appropriate technique to use.

Author Biography

Stephen Bounds, Cordelta, Australia

Stephen Bounds is an Information and Knowledge Management Specialist with more than 20 years of experience across the government and private sectors. He provides clear strategic thinking along with a hands-on approach to help organisations successfully develop and implement modern information systems. Stephen is Executive – Information Management, at Cordelta, Australia.

References

Australian Government, 2016. Cost benefit analysis guidance note [WWW Document]. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. URL https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/006-Cost-benefit-analysis.pdf

Boardman, E.A., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R. and Weimer, D.L. 2010, Cost–benefit analysis: concepts and practice, 4th edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Boonstra, J. J., and Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K.M., 1998. Power dynamics and organizational change: A comparison of perspectives. European Journal of work and organizational psychology, 7(2), pp.97-120.

Dawes, J., 1999. The relationship between subjective and objective company performance measures in market orientation research: further empirical evidence. Marketing Bulletin, 10(3), pp. 65-75.

Goh, S.C., Elliott, C. and Quon, T.K., 2012. The relationship between learning capability and organizational performance: a meta-analytic examination. The learning organization, 19(2), pp. 92-108.

Harrison, R.L., 2010, January. Introduction to Monte Carlo simulation. In AIP conference proceedings (Vol. 1204, No. 1, pp. 17-21). AIP.

Heylighen, F., 1992. Evolution, selfishness and cooperation. Journal of Ideas, 2(4), pp.70-76.

Kim, G. (2011), A critical review of valuation studies to identify frameworks in library services. Library & Information Science Research, 33(2), pp. 112–119.

Knights, D. and McCabe, D., 1999. Are there no limits to authority?': TQM and organizational power. Organization studies, 20(2), pp.197-224.

Nooteboom, B., 2013. Proximate and ultimate goals. Philosophy on the move. Available at: http://philosophyonthemove.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/97.html [Accessed April 6, 2018].

Rabushka, A., 1988. The tax reform act of 1986: Concentrated costs, diffuse benefits—An inversion of public choice. Contemporary Economic Policy, 6(4), pp.50-64.

Segar, A., 2010. Can we measure ROI in social media? – Part 2. Conferences That Work. Available at: https://www.conferencesthatwork.com/index.php/uncategorized/2010/04/can-we-measure-the-roi-in-social-media-part-2/ [Accessed April 5, 2018].

Shapiro, M., 2004. Deliberative, independent technocracy v. democratic politics: will the globe echo the EU. Law & Contemp. Probs., 68, pp. 341-356.

Ssozi, J. and Amlani, S., 2015. The effectiveness of health expenditure on the proximate and ultimate goals of healthcare in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 76, pp.165-179.

Stejskal, J. and & Hájek, P, 2015. Evaluating the economic value of a public service—the case of the Municipal Library of Prague. Public Money & Management, 35(2), pp145-152.

Published

2020-09-11