Decision Making on American Community Su...
Decision_Making_on_American_Community_Survey_Office_Tabulation_of_2020_Census_Data.pdf-ACSO Tabulation of 2020 Census Data
Showing 23-25 out of 30
Decision Making on American Community Survey Offic...
Decision_Making_on_American_Community_Survey_Office_Tabulation_of_2020_Census_Data.pdf-ACSO Tabulation of 2020 Census Data
Decision Making on American Communi...
Decision_Making_on_American_Community_Survey_Office_Tabulation_of_2020_Census_Data.pdf-ACSO Tabulation of 2020 Census Data
Page 23
ACSO Tabulation of 2020 Census Data
Page
|
23
Nick and Lan ranked
Combining Census Data
as the most important sub-objective, and Kevin
rated
Software Reuse
as the most important. Everyone else rated
Quality Data
as the most
important. Nick and Lan come from a perspective of working with higher level management who
have expressed the strategic goal of combining data from different sources. Kevin is responsible
for maintaining the major portion of the tabulation system and he would be more interested in
reusing software for multiple purposes. Ted ranked the first alternative of ACSO tabulating all
the data consistently very high for all the objectives indicating a high degree of confidence in this
alternative. Doug ranked outsourcing very high for some of the objectives indicating he thinks
some of the objectives would benefit from the help of outside contractors. Job opportunities and
advancement opportunities have been among the most talked about reasons to accept the new
work in meetings, but they both ranked very lo
w in the evaluations. This may indicate the staff’s
skepticism that the additional work will actually result in new job opportunities or advancement
(refer to Graphs 11, 12 and 13).
Graph 11
Nick’s sensitivity chart for the alternatives with respect to the objectives and sub
-
objectives


Page 24
ACSO Tabulation of 2020 Census Data
Page
|
24
Graph 12
Ted’s sensitivity chart for the alternatives with respect to the objectives and sub
-
objectives
Graph 13
Doug’s sensitivity chart for the alternatives with respect to the objectives and sub
-
objectives


Page 25
ACSO Tabulation of 2020 Census Data
Page
|
25
4.2 Evaluating Objectives
After receiving results from all the participants, total results for the objectives were evaluated.
“Quality D
ata
was rated the hi
ghest with 34.45%, followed by “Cost S
avings
with 21.38% and
“T
imeliness
wi
th 18.65%. The two lowest were “Public P
erception
” with 13.28% and “Proof of
Concept
with 12.23%. The total is a little over 100.1% which is due to rounding of the
percentages. Producing quality data and saving money are consistently emphasized at the ACSO.
Graph 14
The overall objective percentages from the group
In Graph 15, the percentages for each of the objectives can be broken down by the individual
participants. As staff members who work closely with higher level management, Nick and Lan
both ranked
“Proof of Concept”
the highest. This is consistent with the observation in the
judgments for the alternatives in section 4.1
where “
Combining
Census Data” is ranked th
e
highest for them. “
Combining
Census Data” is a sub
-
objective for “Proof of Concept”.
Senior
management has long expressed the need to combine Census data from different Census surveys
to address the concern that ACS data should be used more for businesses.
For Nick, “Public
Perception” ranked the highest, and this is also consistent with the judgments he made for the
alternatives. Although for Lan, since she was only asked to enter the judgments for objectives
and not for the sub-
objectives in “Public Perception”, her judgments on “Public Perception”
is
low at 3.57%.
“Quality Data” was rated the highe
st overall but it was rated very low by Nick; as the branch
chief, he would not have the same emphasis on producing the data. The concern for data
problems can be alleviated through job reruns and errata. Whereas staff who have to do the
tabulation work would feel the data should be correct in case someone may be held responsible
for the error. In contrast, Doug and Liza emphasized “Quality Data”
at over 50% because Doug
is coordinating special tabulations and Liza is coordinating the production side of the tabulations.
If there is a problem with the data, often they were the first stop for customers to make a
complaint. Therefore, it is important for them that the data delivered are accurate. Kevin and
Hong both maintain major tabulation systems, for them cost savings and reusing the existing
software are important.


Ace your assessments! Get Better Grades
Browse thousands of Study Materials & Solutions from your Favorite Schools
George Washington Univers...
George_Washington_University
School:
Collab_Decision_Making_and_Portfolio_Opt
Course: