Sensitivity analysis is an analysis process widely adopted by option traders. This analytical process measures how an option price responds to a small change in certain factors. By performing sensitivity analysis, the decision maker can obtain additional information that is valuable for strategy planning and resource relocating.
(1) Delta: Refers to N(d1) of the B & S formula. Delta indicates the ratio that the underlying asset’s price change will affect its option price. For example, Delta(Γ)=0.5 means that the call value will increase 0.5 point if SΓ increases 1 point. This factor can be applied to search the most efficient objective that can improve the BSC index value.
)
The Delta values listed in Table 6 are multiplied by the objective weight and the perspective weight to indicate the real impact on the final BSC index value. In this case, we found that I2 is the most efficient objective (Delta(I2)= 0.0401) to increase the BSC index value.
(2) Gamma: Is used to evaluate the sensitivity of Delta or the acceleration of SΓ. This factor can be used to determine the potential efficiency of each objective.
T
In this case L9 (= 1.1665) obtained the largest Gamma value indicates that L9 is the most potential objective to increase the entire e-learning project’s performance.
(3) Vega: This factor can be used to evaluate the impact of volatility change to its call price. Vega can help the analyst address the most volatility sensitive objective in the BSC sheet.
The Vega values listed in Table 6 are multiplied by the objective weight and the perspective weight to indicate the real impact on the final BSC index value. In this case, we found that I5 is most sensitive (Vega(I5) = 0.2418) to the volatility change in our BSC objectives.
(4) Rho: Is used to evaluate the influence of the risk-less interest rate. It can help the analyst to address the most valuable objective if the anticipated growth rate has changed.
) (5) Theta: Is used to evaluate the impact between time to maturity and the call price. It
can help the analyst to address the most sensitive objective to T.
) In this case, we multiplied the Theta with the objective and the perspective weights.
This study found that I3 is the most sensitive objective (Theta(I3) = 0.0351) if the e-learning check point varies from the pre-determined check point 1/1/2007.
Table 9 The option sensitivity analysis sheet
Objective Objective Objective Call **Delta Gamma **Vega **Rho **Theta Weight Index
(WΓ) (GΓ) Reaction (Customer, ex. students, trainee)
C1:Increase the enjoyment-of-use of e-learning environment 0.09 0.03 0.31 0.0083 0.6148 0.0493 0.0598 0.0018 C2:Provide friendly user interface, style and functionality 0.14 0.08 0.60 0.0119 0.2672 0.0772 0.0795 0.0066 C3:Enhance organizational collaboration capability 0.08 0.04 0.49 0.0071 0.3554 0.0442 0.0493 0.0028 C4:Improve the communication between trainees and trainers 0.13 0.06 0.45 0.0112 0.3683 0.0719 0.0773 0.0045
C5:Increase user satisfaction 0.12 0.09 0.72 0.0100 0.2083 0.0657 0.0638 0.0073
C6:Increase the flexibility of learning time arrangement 0.12 0.07 0.61 0.0099 0.2494 0.0659 0.0652 0.0061 C7:Provide abundant linkage to related learning materials 0.09 0.06 0.63 0.0073 0.2326 0.0492 0.0476 0.0049 C8:Provide sufficient examle and case studies 0.12 0.08 0.65 0.0098 0.2248 0.0655 0.0629 0.0068 C9:Provide vivid illustrations of rich multimedia materials 0.11 0.05 0.42 0.0091 0.3672 0.0607 0.0622 0.0038 Learning and Growth (Learning and Growth)
L1:Continuously improve knowledge by e-learning systems 0.025 0.0098 0.39 0.0029 0.4369 0.0181 0.0200 0.0009 L2:Ensure consistent support by organization for e-learning project 0.1 0.1107 1.11 0.0121 0.1512 0.0724 0.0748 0.0107 L3:Enhance the innovation and seniority capability of all organization members 0.1 0.0199 0.20 0.0109 0.8260 0.0726 0.0790 0.0020
L4:Improve IT capability of all members 0.05 0.0573 1.15 0.0061 0.1482 0.0362 0.0378 0.0054
L5:Improve professional skills of all members 0.025 0.0128 0.51 0.0029 0.3327 0.0181 0.0198 0.0012 L6:Enhance personalization learning capabilities 0.025 0.0090 0.36 0.0028 0.4693 0.0181 0.0198 0.0009 L7:Ensure logical sequence among learning materials 0.15 0.0718 0.48 0.0163 0.3264 0.1085 0.1110 0.0077 L8:Ensure learners realize the learning subjects 0.15 0.0430 0.29 0.0175 0.6254 0.1085 0.1254 0.0039
L9:Increase knowledge comprehension 0.005 0.0008 0.16 0.0006 1.1665 0.0036 0.0043 0.0001
L10:Increase e-learning system usage frequency 0.1 0.0362 0.36 0.0105 0.4141 0.0722 0.0727 0.0040 L11:Increase e-learning system operational familiarities 0.27 0.1018 0.38 0.0290 0.4117 0.1954 0.2011 0.0110
L12:Create satisfied learning results 0.10 0.0495 0.49 0.0082 0.3083 0.0550 0.0552 0.0041
Behavior (Internal Business Processes)
I1:Provide differentiated e-learning environment 0.075 0.1010 1.35 0.0156 0.1265 0.0906 0.0941 0.0156
I2:Provide incentive systems for users 0.2 0.2061 1.03 0.0401 0.1631 0.2415 0.2516 0.0330
I3:Generate healthy organization cultures 0.15 0.2264 1.51 0.0315 0.1114 0.1808 0.1841 0.0351 I4:Motivate effective learning activities 0.05 0.0487 0.97 0.0098 0.1671 0.0602 0.0611 0.0082
I5:Improve the role playing capabilities during learning activities 0.2 0.0901 0.45 0.0377 0.3703 0.2418 0.2606 0.0149 I6:Encourage knowledge sharing between members 0.1 0.0619 0.62 0.0201 0.2914 0.1207 0.1374 0.0092 I7:Generate better learning behavior change 0.1 0.0506 0.51 0.0191 0.3340 0.1209 0.1310 0.0082 I8:Provide efficient and effective learning environment 0.125 0.1720 1.38 0.0258 0.1211 0.1506 0.1527 0.0273 Values (Finance, Results)
F1:Increase organization value 0.05 0.1304 2.61 0.0091 0.0614 0.0475 0.0446 0.0157
F2:Share knowledge to other organizations 0.125 0.1571 1.26 0.0211 0.1399 0.1209 0.1303 0.0186 F3:Provide high quality knowledge and information platform 0.025 0.0280 1.12 0.0042 0.1571 0.0242 0.0263 0.0033
F4:Raise organization reputations 0.1 0.0767 0.77 0.0164 0.2365 0.0966 0.1098 0.0090
F5:Improve organization's competitiveness 0.2 0.1375 0.69 0.0312 0.2469 0.1935 0.2077 0.0177
F6:Increase knowledge absorption 0.1 0.0980 0.98 0.0154 0.1607 0.0960 0.0947 0.0137
F7:Increase the number of research achievements 0.1 0.1027 1.03 0.0151 0.1475 0.0953 0.0906 0.0150
F8:Increase the number of online users 0.1 0.1048 1.05 0.0152 0.1461 0.0955 0.0914 0.0151
F9:Reduce learning costs 0.2 0.0957 0.48 0.0299 0.3418 0.1934 0.2047 0.0129
(**: multiplied with objective weight and perspective weight)
Using the sensitivity analysis, the decision maker can obtain additional information to determine the most effective objectives, the most potential objectives, the most satisfactory sensitive objectives and the most time sensitive objectives summarized below:
Table 10 Summarized information in sensitivity analysis
View point Additional information Most Sensitive Objective
Most effective objectives I2
Most potential objectives L9
Most satisfactory sensitive I5
Entire project
Most time sensitive I3
Most effective objectives C2
Most potential objectives C1
Most satisfactory sensitive C2
Customer perspective
Most time sensitive C5
Most effective objectives L11
Most potential objectives L9
Most satisfactory sensitive L11
Learning & Growth perspective
Most time sensitive L11
Most effective objectives I2
Most potential objectives I5
Most satisfactory sensitive I5
Behavior perspective
Most time sensitive I3
Most effective objectives F5
Most potential objectives F9
Most satisfactory sensitive F5
Value perspective
Most time sensitive F8
6 CONCLUSION
This study proposed a framework integrating the BSC and the B & S model to evaluate e-learning performance. The applications of this framework are not limited to the e-learning field. It can be readily adopted to evaluate any BSC-based investigations if the objectives are designed in relative measurement methods. By integrating the B &
S model into the BSC analysis, the proposed framework provides a standard set of analysis methodology that has been widely adopted by experienced option traders with great success. The entire framework can be easily implemented by an analyst using popular spreadsheet packages like Microsoft Excel. With the help of an empirical case study, it will be easier to understand the entire evaluation process and realize the analytical benefits of this framework. It will also provide valuable and easy to understand information, such as the weakest objective, the most efficient objective, the most time sensitive objective, and the most volatility sensitive objective.
Future research will focus on: introduction of other financial engineering methodologies to provide more analytical methods in this BSC/B&S framework, and on investigating the possibility of applying this framework to perform investment analysis in e-learning and knowledge management applications. Lasting addition, we are working on fine-tuning the present framework to enhance its analytical capabilities.
References
[1]R. Kaplan and D. Norton. “The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business Review, 70(1), pp. 71-80, 1992.
[2]R. Kaplan and D. Norton. “Putting the balanced scorecard to work”, Harvard Business Review, 71(5), pp. 134-147, 1993.
[3]R. Kaplan and D. Norton. “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system”, Harvard Business Review, 74(1), pp.75-85, 1996.
[4]J.C. Cox and S.A. Ross. “The valuation of options for alternative stochastic processes”, Journal of Financial Economics , 3 , pp. 145-166, 1996.
[5]F. Black and M. Scholes. “The pricing of options and corporate liabilities”, Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), pp. 637–59, 1973.
[6]B.S. Bloom, M.F. Englehart, W. Hill and D.R. Krathwohl (eds), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York, Longmans, Green, 1956.
[7]D.R. Krathwohl, B.S. Bloom and B.B. Masia, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:
The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. David McKay Co., Inc., New York ,1964.
[8]A.J. Harrow, A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: a guide for developing Behavioral objectives, McKay , New York, 1972.
[9]R.H. Dave, Developing and Writing Behavioural Objectives. (In: R J Armstrong, ed.), Educational Innovators Press ,1975.
[10]E.J. Simpson, The classification of educational objectives in the Psychomotor domain, Illinois University, Urbana, 1972.
[11]D.L. Kirkpatrick, “Techniques for evaluating training programs”. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 13, pp. 3-26, 1959.
[12]D.L.Kirkpatrick & J.D.Kirkpatrick , Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd) , Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1994.
[13]Carnevale, A. P., & Schulz, E.R. “Return on investment: Accounting for training”.
Training and development journal, 44(7), 1990
[14]Dixon, N.M.. “Now routes to evaluation”, Training and Development 50(5), pp.82-86, 1996.
[15]Gordon, J. (1991). “Measuring the “goodness” of training”, Training, 28(8), pp.19-25, 1991.
[16]Phillips, J.J. “A rational approach to evaluating programs including calculating ROI”. Journal of Lending and Credit Risk Management 79(11), pp. 43-50, 1997.
[17]B.R. Worthen and J.R. Sanders, Educational evaluation , New York: Longman, 1987
[18]J. Fitz-Enz, “Yes…you can weigh training’s value”. Training, 31(7), pp. 54-58, 1959.
[19]D.S. Bushnell, “Input, process, output: A model for evaluating training”, Training and Development Journal, 44(3), pp.41-43, 1990.
[20]D. Valcheva and M. Todorova, “Defining a system of indicators for evaluation the effectiveness of e-learning”, International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies-CompSysTech’2005.
[21]L. Forbes and J. Hamilton. “Building an international student market: educational-balanced scorecard solutions for regional Australian cities”, International Education Journal, 5(4), pp. 502–520.
[22]M. Mitri. “Applying tacit knowledge management techniques for performance assessment”, Computers & Education, 41, pp.173-189, 2003.
[23]M.Y. Chen and A.P. Chen “Integrating option model and knowledge management performance measures: an empirical study”, Journal of Information Science, 31(5) , pp. 281-393, 2005.
[24]D. Eseryel. “Approaches to Evaluation of Training: Theory & Practice”, Educational Technology & Society, 5 (2), pp.93-98, 2002.
[25]S.C. Myers, Finance Theory and Financial Strategy, (ed: D. Chew Jr.), The New Corporate Finance, 2nd ed., pp. 119, McGraw Hill, 1998.
[26]Fama, E. and French, K. “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns”, Journal of Finance, pp.427-466, June 1992.
[27]S.C. Myers and S. Majd, “Abandonment Value and Project Lift”, Advances in Futures and Option Research 4:1, 1990.
[28]Marion A. Brach, Real Options in Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.33, 2003.
[29]E.K. Clemons. “Evaluating strategic investment in information system”, Communications of the ACM, 34(1), pp.22-36, 1991.
[30]B.L. Dos Santos. “Justifying Investment in new information technologies”, Journal of management information systems, 7(4), pp. 71-89, 1991.
[31]M. Benaroch, “Managing information technology investment risk: a real options perspective”, Journal of management information systems, 19(2), pp.43 – 84, 2002.
[32]J.J. Phillips, Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement Programs,Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas,1997.
[33]Taudes, M. Feurstein and A. Mild. ”Options Analysis of Software Platform Decisions: A Case Study” , MIS Quarterly, 24(2) , pp. 227-243, 2000.
[34]M. Benaroch and R.J. Kauffman. “Justifying electronic banking network expansion using real options analysis”, MIS Quarterly, 24(2), pp.197-225, 2000.
[35]N. Kulatilaka, P. Balasubramanian and J. Strock. “Using real options to frame the IT investment problem, In real options and business strategy: applications to decision-making”. In: Trigeorgis L.(Ed) ,London, ENGLAND:RISK Books,1999.
[36]K. Zhu. “Evaluating information technology investment: cash flows or growth options?” Proceeding of the Workshop on Information system economics (WISE’99) ,Charlotte, NC, September,1999.
[37]L. Chen , O. Sheng, D. Goreham and J. Watanabe. “A real option analysis approach to evaluating digital government investment”, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 89, (Proceedings of the 2005 national conference on Digital government research, 2005).
[38]R. Merton, “Theory of rational option pricing”, Bell Journal of Economics 4: 141-183,1973.
[39]Amin, K., Jarrow, R. “ Pricing Options on Risky Assets in a Stochastic Interest Rate Economy”, Mathematical Finance 2, pp.217-237, 1992.
[40]Bates, D. S. “Jumps and Stochastic Volatility: Exchange Rate Processes Implicit in Deutsche Mark Options”, Review of Financial Studies 9, pp.69–107, 1996.
[41]Bates, D. S. “The Crash of '87: Was It Expected? The Evidence from Options Markets”. The Journal of Finance 46: pp.1009-1044, 1991.
[42]Madan, Dilip B., Peter Carr and Eric C. Chang , “The Variance Gamma Process and Options Pricing”, European Finance Review 2(1), pp.79-105, 1998.
[43]M. Rubinstein, “Implied binomial trees”, Journal of Finance 49 , pp.771-818, 1994.
[44]Yacine Ait-Sahalia and Andrew W. Lo, “Nonparametric estimation of state-price densities implicit in financial asset prices”, Journal of Finance 52, pp.499-548, 1996.
[45]D. Bates, “Jumps and stochastic volatility: exchange rate processes implicit in Deutsch mark options”, Review of financial studies 9 , pp.69-107, 1996.
[46]Scott, Louis O. “Pricing Stock Options in a Jump-Diffusion Model with Stochastic Volatility and Interest Rates: Applications of Fourier Inversion Methods”, Mathematical Finance 7(4) , pp. 413–424, 1997.
[47]Marion A. Brach, Real Options in Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.218-223, 2003.
[48]Paul R. Niven. Balanced scorecards in the public and not-for-profit sectors.
Balanced scorecard step-by step: maximizing performance and maintaining results.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. pp.293-313, 2002.
[49]Allan J. Henderson. The e-learning question and answer book. American management association, 2003.
[50]Kirkpatrick and Beyond: “A review of models of training evaluation”, Tamkin P, Yarnall J, Kerrin M. IES Report 392, 2002. ISBN13: 978-1-85184-321-3.
[51]Robert A. Rademacher, “Applying bloom’s taxonomy of cognition to knowledge management systems”, Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, pages 276–278. ACM Press, 1999.
[52] Anonymous, “what is assessment of learning? “, http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/ae0/al_what.html
Appendix A. Questionnaire
Note to the respondents: Please answer all the questions as compared to last month.
Example: Please answer “Do you feel more satisfied about our e-learning environment?” the same as ”Do you feel more satisfied about our e-learning environment compared to last month?”
Reaction(Customer, ex. students, trainees)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
C1.Do you feel more satisfied about our e-learning environment?
C2.Do you feel more satisfied about the interface, the style and the functionality of our e-learning environment?
C3.Do you agree that our e-learning environment can enhance organizational collaboration capability?
C4.Do you agree that our e-learning environment can improve the communication between trainees and trainers?
C5. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase user satisfaction?
C6. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase the flexibility of the learning time arrangement?
C7. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can provide abundant linkage to related learning materials?
C8. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can provide sufficient examples and case studies?
C9. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can provide vivid illustrations of rich multimedia materials?
Learning (Learning and Growth)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree L1. Do you agree that our learning environment can continuously improve knowledge by means of the
e-learning system?
L2. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can ensure consistent support from the organization for the e-learning project?
L3. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can enhance the innovation and seniority capability of all organization members?
L4. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can improve the IT capability of all members?
L5. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can improve the professional skills of all members?
L6. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can enhance personalized learning capabilities?
L7. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can ensure logical sequence among learning materials?
L8. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can ensure learners to realize what the learning subjects are?
L9. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase knowledge comprehension?
L10. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase the usage frequency of the e-learning system?
L11. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase operational familiarity with the e-learning system?
L12. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can create satisfactory learning results?
Behavior(Internal Business Processes)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree I1. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can provide a differentiated e-learning environment?
I2. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can provide an incentive system for users?
I3. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can generate a nurturing culture in the organization?
I4. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can motivate effective learning activities?
I5. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can improve the role playing capabilities during learning activities?
I6. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can encourage knowledge sharing between members?
I7. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can generate a change towards a better learning behavior?
I8. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can provide an efficient and effective learning environment?
Value (Results, Financial)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree F1. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase the value of the organization?
F2. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can share knowledge with other organizations?
F3. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can provide high quality knowledge and a good information platform?
F4. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase the reputation of the organization?
F5. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can improve the competitiveness of the organization?
F6. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase kowledge absorption?
F7. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase the number of research achievements?
F8. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can increase the number of online users?
F9. Do you agree that our e-learning environment can reduce learning costs?