⢠Identify and apply appropriate quantitative and qualitative business models to evaluate business performance and solve complex organizational problems.
⢠Generate business plans at the corporate, business unit, and functional levels.
⢠Conduct business research by finding, collecting, analyzing, and evaluating business data.
⢠Evaluate information consisting of multiple perspectives, conflicting evidence, competing interests and priorities, and risk, to determine an optimal course of action.
⢠Generate oral/written presentations in various business formats (e.g., memos, reports, PowerPoint, spreadsheets, charts/graphs).
⢠Apply a systemâs perspective to improve, integrate, and align business functions with organizational strategy.
⢠Demonstrate ethical and reasoned decision making and action in all facets of organizational management.
Course Overview
BUS530 is designed to expose students to the main issues in managerial economics. Managers in the business world need to make vital decisions, such as what price to charge, how much to produce, how many employees to hire, etc., that can make or break the company. Optimizing these decisions is complex, because this may depend not only on the internal nature of the firm, but also the nature of the market and competitors. We will learn specific decision-making tools such as marginal analysis and game theory, and also cover in detail the different types of industrial structures and their implications for firm strategy.
This course begins explaining the classical demand and supply model of price determination and the associated concept of price elasticity of demand, which plays an important role in the decision-making process of firms (Module 2: Production and Costs)
Modular Learning Outcomes
Discussion
⢠Assess and evaluate sources of information on game theory and market structure.
Sample Solution
On a separate note, Haga and colleagues (2018) recently published a distinct dismantling study assessing the cost-effectiveness of DBT for adolescents (DBT-A) by comparing it to enhanced usual care (EUC). The research described DBT-A as a shortened version of DBT that has been adapted for adolescents to focus more on teaching distress tolerance skills and enhancing family functioning. This treatment was delivered in an outpatient setting with the aim of using more outpatient resources than usual care and, consequently, reduce the need for hospitalisation. While DBT-A was superior to EUC in reducing self-harm over the set time interval, the study found no statistical significant differences in total treatment cost between DBT-A and EUC, however, that could be due to low statistical power of their small sample size (Haga, et al., 2018). To elaborate, DBT-A group may have had a higher outpatient treatment cost during the intervention but the EUC groups had a higher cost during the follow-up period, which shows that intensified use of resources during the intervention resulted in a reduced need for treatment during follow-up sessions. Additionally, DBT-A patients rapidly improved at 19 weeks, considering the total treatment cost to be similar at 71 weeks, this shows that initial extra use of resources garnered a higher improvement and gave a better value for money. Generally speaking, the present study provided findings that lend support for DBT-A having a higher probability of being more cost-effective than EUC, as it improved self-harm at a faster rate and similar cost, and hence, may be a better option for adolescents. Future studies should expand on the study by increasing the sample size in order to properly evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DBT-A. CONCLUSION Based on a critical evaluation of the evidence, I conclude that DBT is a promising approach that is empirically-supported to be effective in its goals to reduce suicidality in BPD patients. DBT has challenged the notion of BPD individuals rejecting therapeutic interventions (Allen, 1997) and has shown >
On a separate note, Haga and colleagues (2018) recently published a distinct dismantling study assessing the cost-effectiveness of DBT for adolescents (DBT-A) by comparing it to enhanced usual care (EUC). The research described DBT-A as a shortened version of DBT that has been adapted for adolescents to focus more on teaching distress tolerance skills and enhancing family functioning. This treatment was delivered in an outpatient setting with the aim of using more outpatient resources than usual care and, consequently, reduce the need for hospitalisation. While DBT-A was superior to EUC in reducing self-harm over the set time interval, the study found no statistical significant differences in total treatment cost between DBT-A and EUC, however, that could be due to low statistical power of their small sample size (Haga, et al., 2018). To elaborate, DBT-A group may have had a higher outpatient treatment cost during the intervention but the EUC groups had a higher cost during the follow-up period, which shows that intensified use of resources during the intervention resulted in a reduced need for treatment during follow-up sessions. Additionally, DBT-A patients rapidly improved at 19 weeks, considering the total treatment cost to be similar at 71 weeks, this shows that initial extra use of resources garnered a higher improvement and gave a better value for money. Generally speaking, the present study provided findings that lend support for DBT-A having a higher probability of being more cost-effective than EUC, as it improved self-harm at a faster rate and similar cost, and hence, may be a better option for adolescents. Future studies should expand on the study by increasing the sample size in order to properly evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DBT-A. CONCLUSION Based on a critical evaluation of the evidence, I conclude that DBT is a promising approach that is empirically-supported to be effective in its goals to reduce suicidality in BPD patients. DBT has challenged the notion of BPD individuals rejecting therapeutic interventions (Allen, 1997) and has shown >
