Financial management (final exam) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Financial management (final exam) - Essay Example Therefore, the results of both techniques will be different because of the differences between the assumptions of both techniques. Question 2 Part A a) Project A Years 0 1 2 3 4 Initial Investment (20,000,000) Cash Flows 3,000,000 7,000,000 9,000,000 15,000,000 Discount Factor (8%) 1.0000 0.9259 0.8573 0.7938 0.7350 Discounted Cash Flows (20,000,000) 2,777,778 6,001,372 7,144,490 11,025,448 Net Present Value 6,949,087 Project B Years 0 1 2 3 4 Initial Investment (20,000,000) Cash Flows 10,000,000 8,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 Discount Factor (8%) 1.0000 0.9259 0.8573 0.7938 0.7350 Discounted Cash Flows (20,000,000) 9,259,259 6,858,711 3,969,161 3,675,149 Net Present Value 3,762,280 Based on the above results it can be clearly observed that Project A has generated higher NPV therefore, it should be accepted. b) Project A Profitability Index = PV of Future Cash Flows    Initial Investment    = 26949087/20000000    = 1.35 Project B Profitability Index = PV of Future Cash Flows    Initial Investment    = 14503021/20000000    = 0.73 Since the Profitability Index of Project A is greater than 1, therefore this project should be accepted. c) IRR based on Trial & Error Method Years 0 1 2 3 4 Initial Investment (20,000,000) Cash Flows 3,000,000 7,000,000 9,000,000 15,000,000 Discount Factor (17.5%) 1.0000 0.8511 0.7243 0.6164 0.5246 Discounted Cash Flows (20,000,000) 2,553,191 5,070,167 5,547,904 7,869,367 Net Present Value 1,040,630       Years 0 1 2 3 4 Initial Investment (20,000,000) Cash Flows 3,000,000 7,000,000 9,000,000 15,000,000 Discount Factor (18.5%) 1.0000 0.8439 0.7121 0.6010 0.5071 Discounted Cash Flows (20,000,000) 2,531,646 4,984,956 5,408,632 7,607,078 Net Present Value 532,312       Years 0 1 2 3 4 Initial Investment (20,000,000) Cash Flows 3,000,000 7,000,000 9,000,000 15,000,000 Discount Factor (19.5%) 1.0000 0.8368 0.7003 0.5860 0.4904 Discounted Cash Flows (20,000,000) 2,510,460 4,901,875 5,273,984 7,355,626 Net Present Value 41, 945       Years 0 1 2 3 4 Initial Investment (20,000,000) Cash Flows 3,000,000 7,000,000 9,000,000 15,000,000 Discount Factor (19.58%) 1.0000 0.8362 0.6992 0.5847 0.4889 Discounted Cash Flows (20,000,000) 2,508,629 4,894,727 5,262,453 7,334,191 Net Present Value 0 d) Since the IRR of is 19.58% therefore it should be accepted because it is earning more than the double of the cost of capital of the company. e) Advantages of NPV NPV provides the total benefit in the form of currency amount. NPV is easy to calculate and understand. NPV is an absolute measure and provides the results of the project in isolation. Advantages of IRR IRR provides the answer in percentage form. IRR provides the net excess percentage over cost of capital. IRR is relative measure, which makes it comparable to other projects. Part B Steps in Capital Budgeting Typical steps in the process of capital budgeting are: 1. Brainstorming: the most important step in capital budgeting process is to generate good ideas for investments, which comes from brainstorming. 2. Capital Budget Planning: In this step, the company

Jurassic Park Summary Report Essay Example for Free

Jurassic Park Summary Report Essay Jurassic Park Summary Report Jurassic Park, by Michael Crichton is a thrilling, science fiction novel. It tells the story about the cloning of dinosaurs, which are to be controlled in a theme park, however one mans greed, drove the park into devastation and destruction. I consider the plot to be complex. The novel is based upon a theme park featuring dinosaurs, which are created from prehistoric DNA. The novel begins with bizarre attacks from bird like creatures. John Hammond a wealthy, elderly man establishes this park. However, before the ark is to be opened, Hammond invites three scientists to come visit the island to approve of it. They are Alan Grant a Paleontologist, Ellie Sattler a Poleobotanist, and Ian Malcolm a Mathematician. Hammond also invites his two eager grandchildren, Tim and Lex, to come explore the park. While they are visiting they separate into groups to take a tour of the park. They depart in electric-run land cruisers. While they are examining the surroundings around them Tim and Lex notice raptors leaving on a boat to go to the mainland. Meanwhile, a rival company is paying a disgruntled employee at the park, Dennis Nedry, a million and half-dollars to steal dinosaur embryos. After Nedry has followed through with the plans the security system is shut down leaving the electricity shut off. Grant and the rest of his company are now stranded in the park. Their land cruisers break down on the perimeter of the tyrannosaurus padlock. The group is terrified to find that the fences are not electrified and that the t-rex has escaped. The t-rex attacks the vehicle with the children in it and the remainder of the people are killed r manage to escape. Grant, Lex, and Tim are unfortunately now trapped in the park together. While they are in the park they have to hide and run from many dangerous predators. Whilst trying to reach safety Grant observes eggshells. This causes him to anticipate that the dinosaurs in the park are breeding. Grant was told that this could not be possible considering the park had only female dinosaurs in it. Grant brings the eggshells with him to provide evidence that they are in fact breeding. Grant believes that when inosaurs are all of the female gender and therefore dont have any one to mate with, they are capable of randomly changing their sex. The people who survive their visit to Jurassic Park are taken off the island to safety. there are a dozen frozen embryos still in existence, the possibility still remains for more dinosaurs to be produced. The theme greed is distinctively revealed in Jurassic Park. I strongly agree with the message that Michael Crichton is trying to portray. The message itself shows that the motivation of greed does not guarantee success in life. John Hammond the owner of Jurassic Park demonstrates an excellent example of greed. Hammonds greed was motivated by his desire for wealth. This ultimately led to nor only his own desire, but many other lives were ruined and the reality of the park was destroyed. The plot was very intense; it had many events that were suspenseful though forceful. I enjoyed the plot, in general I considered it to be clear, exciting, and reasonably interesting. I thought Michael Crichton overall did a superior Job on the plot. The events I found were well structured, and generally simple to follow. I considered the plot to be believable and as I read I found myself questioning whether the cloning of dinosaurs could actually take place. I wondered if scientists had actually tried to take prehistoric DNA from mosquitoes and try to recreate prehistoric creatures. I imagine that Michael Crichton had to put a lot of consideration into creating the plot so it would make the novel become alive. I thought the novel was exhilarating and most amusing to read. I believe that Jurassic Park was extremely well written. I would absolutely recommend this novel to anyone.

Transition Elements as Deep Level Dopant

Transition Elements as Deep Level Dopant HIGH RESISTIVITY SILICON: DEEP-LEVEL DOPING COMPENSATION USING ELEMENTAL GOLD INTRODUCTION 1.1  Research Background Monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) is a microwave circuit in which both active and passive components are fabricated on the same semiconductor substrate [1]. The development of MMICs has been augmented by the high demand for high-speed devices operating at microwave frequency ranging between 300 MHz and 300 GHz. Their advantages of being small, light, and cheap in large quantities have allowed the proliferation of high frequency devices such as cellular phones. However, a problem will arise when standard silicon (Si) substrate is used to operate in super high frequency environment (SHF). The high absorption of microwave power will be caused by the background free carriers present in the substrate [2]. Therefore, low loss and high resistivity substrates are needed to eliminate the problem. It can be achieved by reducing the number of background free carriers in the substrate which result in degradation of circuit performance. The III-V semiconductor materials such as GaAs, GaN and InP has been widely used in the production of high resistivity substrates due to their wide bandgap nature. However, the wafer diameter produced using III-V materials is typically from 4 to 6 [3]. This increases the cost of production since the standard wafer diameter for modern CMOS technology is 12 [4]. Furthermore, the lattice-mismatch problems will complicate the fabrication process, causing the cost to increase. Therefore, Si has been considered to be an alternative material for the III-V semiconductor compound due to less fabrication complexity and cost. However, the background impurities such as boron will enter the silicon during monocrystalline Si growth causing the increase in substrate losses at microwave range [5]. There have been efforts to use the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technologies and silicon-on-anything (SOA) to overcome the problem. The SOI wafers can be produced by several methods: silicon-on-sapphire (SOS), separation by implanted oxygen (SIMOX), bond and etch-back SOI (BESOI), Smart Cutà ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢ [6], and epitaxial layer transfer (ELTRAN ®) [7]. For SOS approach, a thin film of Si is epitaxially grown on sapphire substrate as shown in figure 1.1. Meanwhile, the other four approaches use a similar cross section of SOI wafer as shown in figure 1.2(b) which consists of three layers: SOI layer (top layer), buried oxide (BOX) layer (middle layer) and silicon substrate (bottom layer). The purpose of the BOX layer is to electrically insulate a fine layer of SOI layer (where the circuits are placed) from the rest of the Si wafer. The SIMOX approach uses implanted silicon dioxide, SiO2 layer as the BOX layer to separate the top thin Si layer from Si substrate. Figure 1.1: Cross-section of silicon-on-sapphire (SOS) wafer [8] Figure 1.2: A schematic representation of bond and etch-back (BESOI) process [9] Apart from the mentioned approaches, BESOI, Smart Cutà ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢, and ELTRAN ® methods involve the wafer bonding technique. For BESOI method, the thermally oxidised Si wafer (also known as handle wafer) is bonded to another Si wafer which acts as bond wafer as shown in figure 1.2(a). After the wafer bonding process, the top wafer will be etched to obtain the required thickness for SOI layer as shown in figure 1.2(b). On the other hand, implantation of gas ions, most commonly hydrogen is made after the oxidisation process for Smart Cutà ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢ method as shown in figure 1.3. The implantation process is meant for layer splitting process to achieve required thickness of SOI layer after the wafer bonding process. The processes involved in ELTRAN ® method is shown in figure 1.4. The ELTRAN ® method uses similar procedures in Smart Cutà ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢ with the difference in use of double layer porous Si layer instead of implantation of hydrogen ions. The advan tage of using Smart Cutà ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢ and ELTRAN ® methods is that the initial wafer or seed wafer can be reused for the same process. Figure 1.3: Smart Cutà ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢ process for production of SOI wafers [9] Figure 1.4: ELTRAN ® process flow based on seed wafer reusage [7] Meanwhile, the SOA technology is achieved by gluing a fully-processed SOI substrate to another substrate such as glass and alumina [10]. However, the on-chip dissipation which could cause thermal breakdown had been proven to be a severe issue [11]. Therefore, there is a need to look for the alternative to SOI and SOA wafers, which is the high resistivity bulk Si substrate. In 2009, International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) had stressed the importance of high resistivity Si in radio frequency (RF) and analog/mixed signal (AMS) CMOS application [12]. There are generally two techniques for Si crystal growth: Czochralski (CZ) technique and float-zone (FZ) technique [13]. A simplified version of CZ puller, which is an apparatus used to produce monocrystalline Si ingots for CZ technique is shown in figure 1.5. The high purity polysilicon, known as electronic grade silicon (EGS) is melted in a rotating silica or quartz crucible. A seed crystal is placed in the melt and then slowly withdrawn from the melt. The molten silicon adhering to the crystal freezes or solidifies into a continuous crystal from the seed. The diameter of the crystal can be maintained by controlling the temperature of the crucible and the rotating speed of the crucible and the rod. However, the CZ process will introduce contamination to the monocrystalline Si due to the presence of oxygen, carbon monoxide and impurities such as boron and phosphorus. Figure 1.5: Czochralski crytal puller. CW represent clockwise rotation and CCW represents counter clockwise rotation [13] The FZ process, on the other hand, produces Si crystals with lower contamination as no crucible is used in the process. FZ crystals are mainly used for high power and high voltages devices due to its high resistivity. There is a commercially available high resistivity FZ-Si technology called HiResà ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢ [14]. The bulk resistivity of Si produced through HiResà ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢ is up to 70 kÃŽÂ ©-cm, which is suitable for future GHz and THz application. However, it is not suitable for modern CMOS processing since its maximum wafer diameter is limited to 8, which will increase the cost. Therefore, there is a need to produce high resistivity bulk CZ-Si substrate due to its low fabrication cost. Therefore, CZ process is still the most widely used method in the manufacturing of single crystal silicon. In 2003, Mallik et al. [2] introduced a new idea in developing a semi-insulating silicon through a method called deep-level doping concentration using 3d transition elements. It showed that there is possibility to produce high resistivity bulk CZ-Si substrate using deep level doping compensation. Following this work, Mallik et al. [5] managed to produce CZ-Si bulk substrate using Mn with resistivity of up to 10 kÃŽÂ ©-cm. Jordan et al. has also used Au to produce CZ-Si wafer with bulk resistivity of up to 180 kÃŽÂ ©-cm [15]. The use of Au-compensated high resistivity bulk Si substrate has been proven by Nur Z. I. Hashim et al. to be able to suppress the parasitic surface conduction (PSC) effect [16]. 1.2  Problem Statement The idea introduced by Mallik et al. [2] on developing high resistivity bulk Si substrate through deep-level doping compensation is solely based on p-type CZ-Si. Even though high resistivity bulk Si substrate has been proven to be achievable using p-type CZ-Si, it has been shown in the work by Jordan et al. [15] that higher magnitude of Au-compensated high resistivity bulk Si substrate can be achieved by using n-type CZ-Si. The potential and problem of using transition elements other than Au as the deep level dopants to produce high resistivity bulk n-type CZ-Si substrate have not been discussed by the work mentioned above. 1.3  Objectives of Research There are three main objectives that must be met in this research project: To investigate the potential of using transition elements as deep level dopant for n-type Si substrate as compared to p-type Si substrate. To analyse the result obtained through numerical calculation using MATLAB by comparing it with the experimental data. To make comparative study on the resistivity and effectiveness of the high resistivity bulk substrate produced using n-type CZ-Si with other materials such as III-V semiconductor materials. 1.4  Scope of Research The scope of this project is to analyse the resistivity plot generated by numerical calculation using MATLAB. The potential and effectiveness of each of the transition elements as deep level dopants for n-type CZ-Si will be discussed in this work. The fabrication and experiment of high resistivity bulk n-type CZ-Si substrate will not be conducted in this work. The experimental data used for comparison with the result of numerical calculation is obtained from Dr. Nur Zatil Ismah Hashim which was done at Southampton Nanofabrication Centre in 2015. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1  Introduction There are several methods to produce high resistivity bulk Si substrate, namely proton implantation method, helium-3 ion irradiation and deep-level doping compensation method. Both proton implantation method and helium-3 ion irradiation use the charge trappings to reduce the current conduction by background free carriers. Meanwhile, the deep-level doping compensation method use the deep dopants to compensate the shallow dopants in the Si substrate. 2.2  Proton Implantation Method One of the methods to increase the resistivity of CZ-Si substrate is through proton implantation method. The bombardment of protons into Si bulk structure will create defects which can trap mobile carriers. Therefore, the carrier lifetime is low due to the presence of defects, which prevents the mobile carriers from conducting current freely in the substrate. Table 2.1 summarizes the studies conducted to produce high resistivity bulk CZ-Si substrate using proton implantation method. Table 2.1: Studies on high resistivity bulk CZ-Si substrate using proton implantation method. Contributor Year Proton Implantation Energy (MeV) Resistivity of the Produced Substrate (ÃŽÂ ©-cm) Li 1989 0.18 103 Liao et al. 1998 30 106 Wu et al. 2000 10 106 Rashid et al. 2002 17.4 105 In 1989, Li [17] managed to produce a high resistivity layer beneath Si surface layer using proton implantation and two-step annealing process. The implantation of proton and annealing process formed the buried defect layer with a resistivity of up to 103 ÃŽÂ ©-cm. Meanwhile, Liao et al. created semi-insulating regions within silicon substrate with a resistivity of 1 MÃŽÂ ©-cm [18]. It was achieved by bombarding proton beams at 30 MeV from a compact ion cyclotron to the surface of Si substrate. Following this work, the Si substrate with similar resistivity had been produced by Wu et al. using a lower proton implantation energy, which is 10 MeV [19]. In 2002, Rashid et al. reported a Si substrate with a resistivity of 0.1 MÃŽÂ ©-cm produced through their six-step implantation method using an implantation energy of 17.4 MeV [20]. The high-Q inductors and high transmission gain integrated antenna have been realised on the high resistivity Si substrate by Liao et al. and Rashid et al. respectively [18], [20]. However, the high process cost is needed for proton implantation method as an enormous dose of 1015 cm-2 to maintain the resistivity of the originally 15 ÃŽÂ ©-cm Si substrate to be higher than 1014 ÃŽÂ ©-cm [21]. 2.3  Helium-3 Ion Irradiation Technique In 1987, helium-3 ion irradiation technique has been used for carrier lifetime control of silicon power devices [22]. The charge trappings created by the helium irradiation and Coulomb scattering of the charged trap will prevent the conduction of current by free mobile carriers in the substrate [23]. Therefore, a high resistivity Si bulk substrate can be realised by the reduction in carrier lifetime. In 2014, N. Li et al. reported a high resistivity region created within CZ-Si substrate with a resistivity of over 1.5 kÃŽÂ ©-cm using a dose of 1.51013 cm-2 of helium-3 ions [24]. The produced high resistivity Si substrate has been used by N. Li et al. in both work for substrate noise isolation improvement in a CMOS process and quality factor improvement in on-chip spiral inductors [24], [25]. R. Wu et al. has also used helium-3 ion irradiation technique in their work on radiation efficiency improvement in 60-GHz on-chip dipole antenna [23]. The helium-3 ion irradiation technique has the advantage of saving the product cost up to 97% as compared to proton implantation method by reducing the dose amount from 1.01015 cm-2 to 1.51013 cm-2 [24], [25]. However, the helium-3 ion irradiation technique is comparably less studied and the problem associated with this technique has not been discussed in the work mentioned above. 2.4  Deep-Level Doping Compensation Method The idea of creating high resistivity bulk CZ-Si substrate using deep-level doping compensation has been proposed by Mallik et al. in 2003 [2]. The basic principle of this method is compensating shallow impurities with deep impurities, i.e. shallow donors are being compensated by deep acceptors (as shown in figure 2.1) whereas shallow acceptors are being compensated by deep donors (as shown in figure 2.2). Figure 2.1: Compensation between shallow donors and deep acceptors [26] Figure 2.2: Compensation between shallow acceptors and deep donors [26] As illustrated in figure 2.1, deep acceptors introduced an energy level at EA, which is close to the intrinsic Fermi level. The deep acceptors which are negatively charged attract the minority carrier holes to be trapped at EA level. The electrons from shallow donors are initially excited to the conduction band, then fall to EA level to recombine with the holes. On the other hand, the positively charged deep donors introduced an energy level at ED as shown in figure 2.2. The minority carrier electrons are attracted and trapped at ED level while the holes from shallow acceptors will fall into valence band. The trapped electrons at ED level then fall into valence band to recombine with the holes. Therefore, there is no generation of free carriers which reduces the resistivity of the substrate in both cases. Figure 2.3 shows the resistivity of Si at 300K with a background boron concentration of 1014 cm-3, compensated using deep donor impurities with generic energy level positions below conduction band edge, ED. It can be observed that the resistivity of Si increases until a maximum value is reached while the concentration of deep donors, ND increases. The resistivity is low initially due to undercompensation caused by insufficient number of deep donors. The maximum value of the resistivity of Si is reached when deep donors exactly compensate the boron acceptors. Further increase in ND causes overcompensation which results in a fall in the resistivity of Si, making the substrate tends to become n-type. Figure 2.3: Calculated resistivity of Si at 300K as a function of generic donor concentration for background boron concentration of 1014 cm-3 [2] Table 2.2: Positions of energy levels of transition elements in Si [27] Element Donor level below EC (eV) Acceptor level above EV (eV) Co 0.89 0.82 Pd 0.84 0.9 Au 0.78 0.56 Ag 0.75 0.545 V 0.45 0.92 Mn 0.42 1.0 Pt 0.314 0.889 It can be noted that the resistivity peaks are sharper for ED which is lower than 0.3 eV while the resistivity remains high over a range of relatively low concentration values for larger values of ED. For small values of ED, almost all donors are ionised and take part in the compensation since the donor energy level is nearer to the conduction band than Fermi level. A slight increase in ND causes the resistivity to decrease sharply, changing the material to n-type. Meanwhile, for large values of ED, the donor level is near intrinsic Fermi level and less fraction of deep donors is ionised. Therefore, the compensation change gradually with the increase in ND and the resistivity remain high over a wide range of ND. The transition elements are used as deep level dopants as they introduce a pair of deep donor and deep acceptor levels into the Si band gap as shown in table 2.2. The deep dopant energy levels introduced by the transition elements pin the Fermi level near the middle of the Si band gap as shown in figure 2.4 [15]. Thus, high resistivity CZ-Si substrate can be achieved by capturing the free carriers by deep impurities, which reduces the concentration of background free carrier. Figure 2.4: Fermi level pin by deep levels introduced by transition elements [15] Figure 2.5: Calculated resistivity of Si at 300K as a function of Au, Ag, Co and Pd for three different background boron concentration in cm-3 [2] Figure 2.6: Calculated resistivity of Si at 300K as a function of (a) Pt (b) V and (c) Mn concentrations for three different background boron concentrations in cm-3 [2] Figure 2.7: Calculated resistivity of Si as a function of Au concentration for n-type and p-type Si with a shallow doping concentration of 1014 cm-3 [28] The transition element dopants are generally grouped into two categories: Au, Ag, Co and Pd are in first category whereas Pt, V and Mn are in second category. As illustrated in figure 2.5, the resistivity of p-type CZ-Si substrate increases with increasing concentration of the deep dopants in first category. The behaviour of impurities in first category is due to presence of both deep donor and acceptor levels very near intrinsic Fermi level of Si bandgap. For Au and Ag, the resistivity of Si reaches a plateau at the concentration of deep dopants over 1016 cm-3 for three different background boron concentration. The reason for the slight difference in the behaviour of Au and Ag is that the both donor and acceptor level is nearer to the middle in the Si bandgap as compared to Co and Pd. For the second category of deep dopants, the resistivity of p-type CZ-Si reaches a peak and then reduce sharply with the increase in the concentration of the deep dopants as shown in figure 2.6. The reason of the difference in the behaviour is that the impurities in second category have either donor or acceptor level near the intrinsic Fermi level. Therefore, the dopants in second category can only compensate for a single type of doped silicon substrate. The effect of using 3d transition elements as deep level dopants in n-type CZ-Si substrate has not been shown in the work by Mallik et al. Meanwhile, it is shown in the work by Jordan et al. that higher bulk resistivity of Au-compensated Si substrate can be achieved by using n-type CZ-Si as shown in figure 2.7 [28]. The n-type Au-compensated Si substrate with resistivity up to 70 kÃŽÂ ©-cm has been used by Nur Z. I. Hashim et al. for realisation of coplanar waveguides (CPW) on the substrate [29]. Therefore, the potential and problem of using 3d transition elements for deep level compensation in n-type CZ-Si substrate will be discussed in this work. 2.5  Summary The realisation of high resistivity bulk Si substrate using proton implantation method and helium-3 ion irradiation technique was studied. The fabrication of high-Q inductors and antenna has been done on the Si substrate produced using both methods. However, there are problems associated with both methods such as high product cost for proton implantation method and being comparably less studied for helium-3 ion irradiation. Therefore, the idea of creating a semi-insulating silicon substrate using deep-level doping compensation with 3d transition elements was proposed by Mallik et al. in 2003. The deep-level doping compensation method has since been well studied and used for the fabrication of coplanar waveguides and inductors by Nur Z. I. Hashim et al. References [1]I. D. Robertson and S. Lucyszyn, RFIC and MMIC Design and Technology. IET, 2001. [2]K. Mallik, R. J. Falster, and P. R. Wilshaw, Semi-insulating silicon using deep level impurity doping: problems and potential, Semicond. Sci. Technol., vol. 18, no. 6, p. 517, 2003. [3]Products Capabilities | EpiWorks, EpiWorks. [Online]. Available: http://www.epiworks.com/products-capabilities/. [Accessed: 28-Feb-2017]. [4]Global Manufacturing at Intel, Intel. [Online]. Available: http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/architecture-and-technology/global-manufacturing.html?wapkw=wafer+size_ga=1.16867193.1775779534.1436014173. [Accessed: 28-Feb-2017]. [5]K. Mallik, C. H. De Groot, P. Ashburn, and P. R. Wilshaw, Enhancement of resistivity of Czochralski silicon by deep level manganese doping, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 89, no. 11, p. 3, 2006. [6]Smart Cut technology, Smart Choice Soitec, Soitec. [Online]. Available: https://www.soitec.com/en/products/smart-cut. [Accessed: 28-Feb-2017]. [7]T. Yonehara and K. Sakaguchi, ELTRAN  ®Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¯; Novel SOI Wafer Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 10-16, 2001. [8]S. Iwamatsu and M. Ogawa, Silicon-on-sapphire m.o.s.f.e.t.s fabricated by back-surface laser-anneal technology, Electron. Lett., vol. 15, no. 25, pp. 827-828, 1979. [9]G. K. Celler and S. Cristoloveanu, Frontiers of silicon-on-insulator, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 93, no. 9, pp. 4955-4978, 2003. [10]R. Dekker, P. G. M. Baltus, and H. G. R. Maas, Substrate transfer for RF technologies, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 747-757, 2003. [11]N. Nenadovic, V. DAlessandro, L. K. Nanver, F. Tamigi, N. Rinaldi, and J. W. Slotboom, A back-wafer contacted silicon-on-glass integrated bipolar process. Part II. A novel analysis of thermal breakdown, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 51-62, 2004. [12]RF and AMS tech for wireless communications, International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.itrs2.net/itrs-reports.html. [Accessed: 28-Feb-2017]. [13]S. M. Sze, Semiconductor Devices: Physics and Technology, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2002. [14]High resistivity silicon for GHz and THz technology, Topsil. [Online]. Available: http://www.topsil.com/en/silicon-products/silicon-wafer-products/hiresTM.aspx. [Accessed: 28-Feb-2017]. [15]D. M. Jordan, R. H. Haslam, K. Mallik, and P. R. Wilshaw, The Development of Semi-Insulating Silicon Substrates for Microwave Devices, Electrochem. Soc., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 41-56, 2008. [16]N. Z. I. Hashim, A. Abuelgasim, and C. H. De Groot, Suppression of parasitic surface conduction in Au-compensated high resistivity silicon for 40-GHz RF-MMIC application, 2014 Asia-Pacific Microw. Conf., pp. 55-57, 2014. [17]J. Li, Novel semiconductor substrate formed by hydrogen ion implantation into silicon, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 55, no. 21, pp. 2223-2224, 1989. [18]C. Liao et al., Method of creating local semi-insulating regions on silicon wafers for device isolation and realization of high-Q inductors, IEEE Electron Device Lett., vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 461-462, 1998. [19]Y. H. Wu et al., Fabrication of very high resistivity Si with low loss and cross talk, IEEE Electron Device Lett., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 442-444, 2000. [20]A. B. M. H. Rashid, S. Watanabe, and T. Kikkawa, High transmission gain integrated antenna on extremely high resistivity Si for ULSI wireless interconnect, IEEE Electron Device Lett., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 731-733, 2002. [21]L. S. Lee et al., Isolation on Si wafers by MeV proton bombardment for RF integrated circuits, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 928-935, 2001. [22]W. Wondrak and A. Boos, Helium Implantation for Lifetime Control in Silicon Power Devices, ESSDERC 87 17th Eur. Solid State Device Res. Conf., pp. 649-652, 1987. [23]R. Wu et al., A 60-GHz efficiency-enhanced on-chip dipole antenna using helium-3 ion implantation process, 2014 44th Eur. Microw. Conf., pp. 108-111, 2014. [24]N. Li et al., High-Q inductors on locally semi-insulated Si substrate by helium-3 bombardment for RF CMOS integrated circuits, 2014 Symp. VLSI Technol. Dig. Tech. Pap., pp. 1-2, 2014. [25]N. Li et al., Substrate noise isolation improvement by helium-3 ion irradiation technique in a triple-well CMOS process, 2015 45th Eur. Solid State Device Res. Conf., pp. 254-257, 2015. [26]J. D. Puksec and V. Gradisnik, Influence of shallow impurity on steady-state probability function of multilevel deep impurity, 2000 10th Mediterr. Electrotech. Conf. Inf. Technol. Electrotechnol. Mediterr. Countries. Proc., vol. I, pp. 185-188, 2000. [27]W. Schroeter and M. Seibt, Deep Levels of Transition Metal Impurities in c-Si, in Properties of Crystalline Silicon, R. Hull, Ed. London: INSPEC IEE, 1999, p. 561. [28]D. M. Jordan, K. Mallik, R. J. Falster, and P. R. Wilshaw, Semi-Insulating Silicon for Microwave Devices, Solid State Phenom., vol. 156-158, pp. 101-106, 2009. [29]N. Z. I. Hashim, A. Abuelgasim, and C. H. De Groot, Coplanar waveguides on gold-doped high resistivity silicon for 67-GHz microwave application, RFM 2013 2013 IEEE Int. RF Microw. Conf. Proc., pp. 274-277, 2013.

Market for Coors in South Delaware Essay -- Business Market Analysis

Q1). Currently, there is an opportunity for owning a Coors Distributorship in the southern Delaware counties of Sussex and Kent. Coors is a well-known brand name nationally, and retailers in the targeted area are willing to carry the product, which is an indication of pre-existing brand awareness and demand for Coors. It was necessary to obtain a feasibility study to project a possible profit or loss and $800,000 dollars will be needed for the initial investment. We believe the following decision criteria should be embraced by Larry to make his decision. Market Share - Since Coors will enter this market area for the first time, it is believed that market share will continue to grow as the brand becomes established over time and market share percentage should meet or surpass company market share percentage of 8.7% - 8.9% in the next three years. Larry Brownlow -Although Larry has many alternatives, (conduct no research, continue graduate school, invest trust money, conduct own research following completion of MBA, hold off on MBA to do research presently), obtaining his degree seems to be of utmost importance, as well as achieving success, sooner rather than later, in a self-owned business. Purchasing Research – Purchasing research may be costly, but the knowledge and insight it will provide is paramount. While Larry could surely conduct his own secondary data research for less than $15,000, a busy schedule and time constrain him. See research purchased in Q3. SWOT Analysis - The review of internal and external information provided by a SWOT analysis would provide Larry with information needed to make his decision. Strengths †¢ Owner has an MBA. .. ...market he only has to acquire a 6.31% market share to break even. We feel that making the investment is the best option for his future. Overall Evaluation The investment is an excellent option because the probability of profit is very high. Based on our Pro-forma Income statement, profit will be substantial and will increase each year even after losing .2% of market share. Pessimistically, the market share to break even is very generous making 2.5% room for error if needed when tapping into a brand new market. The ability to make a high market share in the southern part of Delaware would be very substantial. Because it is a beer perceived to be higher class (study H) than its competitors, it will be introduced into a brand new market. See link below for all Exhibits: https://courses.jonesinternational.edu/private/jiu/media/pdf/bba431/bba431m1_coors.pdf

Reality Television

Reality television has strong influence and damaging effects on our society. But let’s face it, we feed on the drama. We love to absorb another life other than our own. Along with it comes the misconception of reality which distorts how one believes they have to behave to gain fame or attention. Reality television is bad for culture because it only elevates money, beauty, and fame above other qualities by promoting inappropriate behavior such as bullying, casual sex, alcohol abuse and bad language. The media plays a major role in selling this trash in order to increase revenue. Reality tv has a strong impact on our society because it distorts our view of reality. It pollutes our minds with Knowledge, attitudes, values, and behavior that are influenced by exposure to reality television and deemed acceptable by society. Our culture serves up degradation as a form of entertainment. Such shows incorporate inappropriate behavior such as bullying, scheming, and manipulating in order to get ahead or get the guy/girl. This is extremely harmful to children and teens because at this age they are seeking out their personal identities and starting to develop relationships with family, friends, and the opposite sex. They indentify with the media for what’s cool and look up to these public figures for how they should act, dress, talk etc. One example how these shows are negative would be MTVs Parental control, where the parents are unhappy with their child’s current choice of whom in which they’re dating. So, they get to choose who they assume would be a better choice for their child. While doing so, their current significant watches as they bf/gf go on a dates with their parent’s choices. This usually results in disrespect and bad mouthing to the parents from the current bf/gf. Some of the stuff is appalling that is said and sexually suggested to a teen audience. Not only do these shows encourage inappropriateness it creates drama because drama creates attention that we all crave at times. Other shows spotlight this lavish lifestyle and make the common person believe that they do can live this life if they model these infamous characters behavior and they too can receive stardom for random careless acts. It mainly bases stardom on physical appearance and how far you will go for the prize whether it be 100,000 or the rich husband. It makes us all superficial, materialistic and really unrealistic. Fall in love in 8 weeks, give me a break. But it’s entertaining and does suck us in. The contestants on these shows contribute to the ideology of competitive elements and stereotyping over working. What kid would want to go to school if he could party all day and have a rich bf gf and receive fame for it as well. I think we all seek another unrealistic lifestyle and these reality shows are giving our youth the message that if they act according they may too receive fame. Although, such shows demonstrate negative values ans are corrupting our youth and perception on things, the media is making money and doesn’t see these shows as negative only a positive asset to their bank account. The media has definitely altered the baseline of civility because money rules all things. The cost for these shows and their content are nothing but cheap. According to a recent article by Laurie Hibberd, she suggests cost has much to do with it. Reality shows cost an average of 400,00 to produce and gain up to 2 million for a dramatic series (Hibberd2002. It’s the less expensive option and ratings sky high , why wouldn’t; they keep these drama on the air. They may lack moral and values but big companies are not bothered by this only bothered by financial gain. Also big companies and organizations back these productions up with service or merchandise. Their only motive is to market their products and services, not to improve quality of programs. For in stance, a clothing label may give out merchandise hoping this may promote their brand. If the reality stars are wearing it, the kids will want to wear it as well. They don’t care what else the show may promote as long as its promoting their brand and resulting in an increase in sales. Reality television I believe has such a negative impact on society because it makes us believe that we can see ourselves on tv. That if we fit the profile that we too may receive stardom. But on the same not it makes us believe that our lives aren’t normal and maybe even boring which may even cause more drama in our life. Also, the media’s interest in making money is a contributing factor to wht such behavior these shows represent are coming into the norm. Reality Television In the year 1992 a new idea was introduced to America and it was called reality television. MTV produced a show called, The Real World that had seven strangers living in a house together and had everything they did filmed. After many failed attempts at trying to make this reality trend catch on, CBS launched Survivor, which pioneered the way for all reality shows to follow in the next decade. It was a show about people battling it out in two separate tribes to their wits end in the jungle and it spread like wildfire across America. Survivor premiere debuted to 28 million viewers and is still on today, a decade and 21 seasons later (McCraley). Reality television did not have the power to tip and become an epidemic until producers began to use clever marketing strategies to bring Survivor to the mass of America. It has been almost twenty years since MTV first attempted to air The Real World with hopes of creating a new type of television America would love. First broadcasted in 1992 it is now the longest running show in MTV’s history and is currently on its twenty-fifth season. It is credited with being the first reality television show aired but it was not the first to grasp America and change the way we watch television. Reality television’s first big tipping point came the night Survivor premiered in May of 2000 on CBS and producers were beyond ecstatic when receiving the numbers the next day of viewers that tuned in (Metz par. 1). An epidemic had begun and it was here to stay. The American Survivor was derived from the Swedish version of the same show but only the first season of America’s Survivor had the same format. Throughout the seasons the producers have added new twists, turns, and contests. The United States version of Survivor is produced by Mark Burnett and hosted by Jeff Probst (Metz par. 1). This one single show caught the eyes of millions of Americans and since then all of our basic channels have been flooded with what we call ‘reality’ television. The format and concepts have changed drastically but there still seems to be a demand for reality television so producers will continue to come up with new ideas until America no longer seems to show interest. Reality television has become a constant target for controversy and complaints but seems to be one of those things we either love to hate or hate to love. Reality television that used to just be fun competition has turned into pregnant teenagers, partying Guidos, rich kids in Los Angeles or eight roommates all sleeping with each other in one house. Each one of these presents obvious controversy for the public eye but the producers do this for a reason. If there is nothing to talk about then no one will talk. The more buzz a producer can build about their show the more people will want to watch (King par. 2). Reality television producers seem to have a certain niche for stirring up as much debate and controversy as they can. As ridiculous as reality television shows have recently become with at least 6 different ones all involving competition of baking the perfect cake, Americans are what propel this industry. We continually watch them and keep their ratings up so they are beginning to take over other shows such as sitcoms and dramas. Some reality television shows are even getting signed for more seasons than non-reality shows are receiving. Survivor and The Real World being prime examples, both having over twenty seasons of airtime (Metz par. ). It is not a question of whether or not reality television is or is not an epidemic, it is a question of how did Survivor manage to turn this industry around and make everyone fall in love with it. The gist of Survivor goes a little something like this; the show starts with sixteen average Americans who are brought to a remote island to fend for themselves. The island is usually a very unforgiving place with no modern conveniences. The sixteen individuals are divided into two teams. Every few days, one of the teams gathers at a tribal council and votes someone off the island. You can gain immunity by winning the challenges, which are very fun and interesting to watch. Once a total of six people remain the tribes merge. After this, it is every person for him or herself. The last Survivor at the end wins one million dollars (Charkow). It is all about who will make just the right alliances and just the right enemies in order to take home the money. Over the past years connecting with people on common interests has become an important aspect of living. Reality TV allows us to do just that; we can watch a show Monday night and then have something to talk about the next day at work or school. We can have a common interest with someone without really having to like the same things. Curiosity also plays a role in our obsession with this trend, viewers will imagine themselves in these certain situations and think how they would react but the difference is the viewers get to watch from afar and not have any consequences for what they might choose (Hotchkiss par. 2). Reality television has completely changed the entertainment industry in that it creates a fun way to follow these participants and since they are real people with real conflicts their lives matter to us. This seems to be one reason surrounding why reality television has become so captivating for America and just why it is undeniably here to stay for the long haul. So what exactly did Survivor have that managed to captivate America and keep us here? Unpredictability with relatability (Crum). Each week there were these normal human beings performing risky tasks unknowing if they were going to be sent home the following week. Americans began to watch, found their favorite contestants, and had to stay to make sure they made it until the end. Survivor producers also knew when creating this show the factor of relatability would play a major role. By taking normal human beings that are not trained actors, viewers begin to realize they may personally know one of the contestants or at least know them through the six degrees of separation. Even if they do not somehow know a contestant there is always one that they can relate to and connect with. When a viewer has a personal connection in a show it makes them want to invest more and they are willing to dedicate an hour of their time each week to tune in and see how their favorites are doing (Yazbek). Producers and casting directors thrived off of this concept of relatability. Each and every contestant is different in some way that producers believe will reach a vast majority of viewers in America. If there is a contestant representing each main demographic there is at least one person for almost everyone to connect with and want to root for. Once the viewers lock in their favorites they religiously watch Survivor in order to check up and make sure their contestant is still in and surviving. This is what helped Survivor manage to tip the reality trend (McCraley). The casting directors and producers knew exactly what to look for in the contestants they choose and they chose perfectly. America originally tuned in for Survivor’s first premiere because they did not know what to expect from these ordinary people getting their own television show and Survivor’s marketing team created a hype that was able to draw in over 28 million viewers for the first time (Metz par. 1). Dr. Kathleen King, who is a motivational keynote speaker, believes that Survivor uses their contestants as characters as a marketing strategy. If situations can't be resolved in a timely manner, people grow frustrated and bored with them. Our brain starts telling us, through our emotions, that it is time to move on. For a show to be successful, it has to introduce a parade of situations, just like real life would. So, how does a show keep us engaged in between situations? What keeps us tuned in? The characters . Characters are what we connect to. Characters engage us at a completely different level than situations. Situations are an intellectual challenge. Characters create emotional bonds. We care what happens to them (King). This caring, this connection, provides the emotional overtones that keep the situations of Survivor consistently interesting. Americans instantly fell in love with this nail-biting reality show as soon as it made its debut. From the get-go producers created characters that they knew America would fall in love with, each for different reasons. Although Survivor is not scripted certain teams are paired together and certain scenes may be edited in hopes of causing a stir with viewers. Producers create good and bad controversy to evoke emotions from their viewers. Once you are able to pull at the heartstrings of your viewers and have them emotionally involved with your characters you can create a true bond (Morrison par. ). Survivor made viewers fall in love with certain characters so when they were backstabbed or voted off they felt emotions for them. They would continue to watch so they knew exactly how their season would end and who took the winning spot of someone they wished would have won or stuck with their favorites until they would win (Hotchkiss par. 2). This level of emotional connection created a st ickiness factor that helped Survivor stay with its viewers. One more reason Survivor has lasted so long and continually intrigued viewers is they way it is shot. A reality show's segment producers or story editors usually assemble storyboards and shooting scripts, which are important tools for shaping the direction of the show. In the TV sitcom and drama world, these people would be known as writers. Unlike writers, the Writers Guild of America does generally not recognize them and so they are not union employees. This distinction could be seen as a disservice to the segment producers and story editors, but it benefits the show in that it lowers production costs and it helps preserve the idea that the shows are real and unscripted. It also allows reality shows to keep on rolling when a writer strike hits, like it did in fall 2007. Many reality show staffers have contested the distinction in ongoing court cases since 2005 (Poniewozik par. 2). Reality shows typically do not have scripts, but there is often a shooting script or an outline that details aspects of an episode or part of the show. For example, it can set up a specific challenge for the contestants on Survivor. A shooting script could also create conflict between some of the participants by pairing specific people as roommates or partners. Producers create shooting scripts with viewers in mind thinking about what they might like to see and what would make them stay tuned. In extreme cases, a shooting script might include a storyboard, which is a visual representation of the concept that physically illustrates what will occur in a scene (Metz par. 2). Ultimately, reality producers and editors have a lot of control over what happens on the show, just by the sheer fact that they have put the people together in certain situations, and they are controlling what footage gets aired and what does not. If Survivor were just a 24/7 camera on contestants living in the jungle viewers would get bored. Producers pick and choose the best material and content to air because obviously America does not want to watch strangers sleeping or eating their food, they want to see conflict, emotion, and turmoil. If it were not for Survivor we would never know if some other show would have had the power to tip the reality television trend. Thanks to Survivor, its stickiness factor, and its relatability we will never have to worry about that. Survivor paved the way for the majority of America’s favorite television shows we watch today and opened doors for a new format of television programming. There is no way to tell how long reality television is here to stay but at the rate it is going, it seems like it will be putting up a fight until America stops watching. After all, reality television would not have already lasted this long if it wasn’t a survivor.

The Basic Process of Program Evaluation in Non

The Basic Process of Program Evaluation in Non According to W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998), program evaluation is the â€Å"efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of a department, program or agency.†It applies â€Å"systematic measures and comparisons so as to provide the outcome of the program to executives who in turn use the results in making decisions for the program† (W.K. Kellogh Foundation 1998).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The Basic Process of Program Evaluation in Non-Profit Sector specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More An outcome is usually a description of â€Å"short or long term effects, including those that were not planned for but occurred as a result of the program’s outputs†(United Way of America, 1998).The basic process of program evaluation involves outcome evaluation as discussed below. â€Å"Outcome Evaluation† (W.K. Kellogh Foundation,1998) According to W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998), there is no specific method or approach can suit all programs in outcome evaluation. However, W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998) recommends that â€Å"it is important to start with the overall goals and outcomes of the program and then come up with a way of measuring these outcomes.† The initial step is to identify outcomes (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998).This can be achieved by creating a team which may comprise of internal and external stakeholders to help you have a wider view of the outcomes of your organization (Herman Associates, 2005). The next step is to think about areas whereby change is eminent in the program. It could be change in clients, in the society or even in the larger systems (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998).The outcomes can be classified into three groups: †initial outcomes, intermediate outcomes and longer-term outcomes† (Herman Associates, 2005). One way in which these outcomes can be measured is by is by identifying indicators. According to Lanzerotti Lanzerotti (2004), an indicator should be something that is visible, audible, tangible or something that can be verified and â€Å"every outcome should have at least one indicator†. Their main purpose is usually to determine the extent to which an outcome has been realized. The indicators can also be compared with targets and benchmarks. In this case, targets are your expected achievements in form of numbers while benchmarks are data from a past program that one can use to compare with a current program.Advertising Looking for research paper on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Logic models can also be used to measure outcomes in program evaluation. According to W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998) a logic diagram is a â€Å"diagram that helps clarify the links between the components of your program design.† The logic diagram is usually composed of â€Å"inputs, activities, outputs, in itial outcomes, intermediate outcomes and long term outcomes† (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998). This diagram can them be compared with the program’s outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative approaches can also be used in evaluating the program outcomes (United Way of America, 1998). According to Lanzerotti Lanzerotti (2004), quantitative method involves â€Å"experimentation and testing, a reflection of changes introduced by a program in numeric form, interviewing a large group of people, and analyzing relationships between hypothesized variables and the outcomes.† On the other hand, United Way of America (1998) notes that â€Å"qualitative evaluation seeks to explain how a program functions, the views of the program implementers and the clients as well as the extent to which the objectives are met.† Some of the qualitative measures that can be applied include â€Å"collection of non- numeric, in depth descriptions of the program, sorting through large amou nts of data and allowing for in-depth study of selected issues† (United Way of America, 1998). The other evaluation method of outcomes is â€Å"effectiveness and efficiency† (Lanzerotti Lanzerotti, 2004).Effectiveness seeks to examine how well the program performed. According to Lanzerotti Lanzerotti (2004), this can be achieved by â€Å"identifying standards, benchmarks or criteria against which progress or performance can be assessed.† On the other hand, â€Å"efficiency seeks to find out whether the cost was worthy the outcome by determining the output to input ratio† (United Way of America, 1998).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The Basic Process of Program Evaluation in Non-Profit Sector specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More If the output ratio is greater than the input ratio, then there was efficiency but in case the input ratio is greater than the output ratio, then there was lack of efficiency in the program (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998).The problem of inefficiency can be solved by looking for ways to minimize costs. The final evaluation method of outcomes is by use of cost benefit analysis (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998).although this method is commonly applied in the profit sector, it can also be applied in the non-profit sector. One is supposed to determine the relationship between the costs and the benefits. According to W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998) the cost benefit relationship is â€Å"the relationship of the cost of the program to the cost of achieving them.† â€Å"Politics of Goal Definition(Hellriegell Slocum, 2007) Political behavior often occurs in organizations due to â€Å"different opinions over goals, different views about the organization and it’s limitations, different knowledge about dealing with situations as well as how to make use of resources that are scarce† (Hellriegell Slocum, 2007).These are the basi c forces that result in politics of how goals are defined. However, doing away with these forces is not possible because there is no point in life when all people will have similar views. Similarly, organizations are always striving to make use of the scarce resources so as to obtain the required goals. As a result, political behavior must be exhibited as every individual in the organization strives to acquire their preferred results (Hellriegell Slocum, 2007). In cases whereby such situations arise, a manager should not use force to stop such behavior but instead should work to see that such behavior does not impact the organization in a negative way (Herman Associates, 2005). According to Hellriegell Slocum (2007) the political behavior among employees can be stimulated by the actions of a manager. For instance, as Hellriegell Slocum (2007) notes â€Å"in departments like accounting, human resources, and quality control, legal and information systems among others† emplo yees’ performance is hard to measure.Advertising Looking for research paper on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Thus, leaders processes give yield to inadequate resources in terms of â€Å"pay, bonuses, and benefits† (Hellriegell Slocum, 2007).Other leaders tend to give the political behavior in the process of appraisal a blind eye and assume that it does not exist. However, politics in appraisal is a fact that can not be done away with and which can have several impacts. Some of these impacts as noted by Hellriegell Slocum (2007) include â€Å"organizational goals and performance are undermined; increase political behavior in other decision making processes and expose the organization to litigation if employees are terminated.† In conclusion, program evaluation involves several steps. The first step should be to identify the outcomes. After that, other processes follow. These other processes include: identifying indicators, use of logic model, use of quantitative and qualitative methods, determining effectiveness and efficiency as well as determining the cost-benefit analysis . On the other hand, political behavior is often displayed in organizations when it comes to formulation of goals. It is important for managers to know that this can not be avoided but can be minimized. One of the ways in which a manager can minimize political behavior is by ensuring that the goals are clear and specific. References Hellriegel, D. Slocum, J.W. (2007). Organizational behavior. New York: Thomson Learning. Herman, R. D. Associates. (2005). The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership management. 2nd ed. San Francisco: John Wiley Sons. Lanzerotti, R. Lanzerott, L. (2004). Measuring Change to Make Change: The Fundraising Case for Program Evaluation. Grassroots Fundraising  Journal, 23, 4-8. United Way of America. (1996). Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach. Alexandria: United Way of America. W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (1998).Outcomes Logic Model. Mexico: Kellogg Foundation