The 100% rule is used in decision modeling to determine whether or not a change in project constraints or variables will affect the outcome of a decision. Under the 100% rule, any combination changes can occur without a change in the solution, as long as the total percentage deviation from the coordinate extremes does not exceed 100%.
Large companies are constantly making changes to projects and frequently use the 100% rule to compare simultaneous changes and how they will impact the bottom line. Now, take into account a small company with less than 50 employees, and describe how a smaller organization could benefit from utilizing the 100% rule.
- Describe how a smaller company could benefit from utilizing the 100% rule.
- In your opinion, would it be effective for smaller organizations to utilize this rule?
- Can the coefficient of a decision making variable change while the optimal point remains the same?
- Does the feasible region change?
- Can RHS value of a constraint be changed?
- Does the feasible region change?
- Can OFC values be changed?
PART B: 200-300 words
Designing Research
Discuss the following:
- Discuss your selected research design for the project.
- What research methods are you considering?
- How will you collect data?
Overall Scenario click here for more information on this paper
The process of intentional rounding involves performing regular checks on all the patients by following a standard protocol is introduced in UK. The Prime Minister has promoted the process and further published by the Chief Nursing officer at Health Department as well as the think tanks that are influential and individual National Health Service organization. From UK, the article suggests some ways in which the managerial and political imperatives impact upon the professional and ethical practice of nursing. Intentional rounding is not a new rounding initiative. In addition, it has gained renewed prominence in UK in the last few years partly as a response to the high number of scandals that involves the poor nursing care.
The practice has been highly promoted by government officers, press release, and the prime minister. The evidence that is in the form of local audits and published studies is cited in support of reporting, implementing in many claims notable improvement in the health care. Many NHS are implementing the process. As a result, the article traces the political activity promoting intentional rounding in UK and the set of professional and ethical concerns. The evidence base is presented in support of intentional rounding and found to be of poor quality.
In addition, the evidential claims have been misused as a result of the transatlantic transferability. The article is about the ethics of implementation of the intentional rounding. The manner in which it is introduced is unethical and professional since the competence standards for utilization of evidence and professional practice rationale have not been met. As a result, this makes the issue of the rationale a matter of vocational and ethical interest than the clinical effectiveness and worthy of analysis in ethical as well as clinical settings.
