case study

Order Description A project engin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ineer is assigned to provide computer networkin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing and in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">internet access to an office buildin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing. After research various equipment suppliers� two alternatives are detailed for further economic analysis. Alternative A is a wireless network with lower acquisition costs but higher operational costs. Alternative B is a wired network with low operational costs but higher equipment and in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">installation costs. The costs associated with each of two alternatives are outlin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ined below. Alternative A Wireless Network Alternative B Wired Network Design $1,000 Design $2,000 Equipment $1,000 Equipment $2,000 Installation $ 500 Installation $2,000 Upgrades $500 per year Upgrades $0 M & O* $500 per year M & O* $100 per year Salvage $200 Salvage $100 Service Life 6 years Service Life 9 years * Main" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">intenance and Operation Q. Usin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing the in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">information provided above, determin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ine which alternative to recommend usin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing Present Worth analysis. Conduct the analysis twice, once for the least common multiple of the service lives and once usin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing a five year study period. Assume a 10% in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">interest rate.