2008
DOI: 10.1108/14635770810887195
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The exclusion of indirect costs from efficiency benchmarking

Abstract: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 26 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The method measures the expected savings if resources are deployed in their best alternative use [61,75]. This analysis excluded indirect costs that may inhibit a proper benchmarking comparison [76]; historical costs, since they already occurred [74,77]; and the costs of resources because they did not change based on the alternative options. The analysis considered those costs that are differential between the alternatives [78], namely:…”
Section: Comparative Economic Evaluation: Variables Data Collection and Opportunity-cost Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The method measures the expected savings if resources are deployed in their best alternative use [61,75]. This analysis excluded indirect costs that may inhibit a proper benchmarking comparison [76]; historical costs, since they already occurred [74,77]; and the costs of resources because they did not change based on the alternative options. The analysis considered those costs that are differential between the alternatives [78], namely:…”
Section: Comparative Economic Evaluation: Variables Data Collection and Opportunity-cost Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%