Cuck Gulas, Robert Premus and John P. Blair—draft document
When Colonel Mark
N. Brown was orbiting the earth as a Mission Specialist aboard the Space Shuttle
Columbia on STS-28 in 1989, and when he served aboard Discovery on STS-48 in
1991, the decision regarding where to land was primarily in the hands of NASA
Mission Control. Barring an
emergency, the landing sites were limited to Edwards AFB,
Colonel Brown
retired from NASA in 1993. In 2004
he was the
The
idea of a hands-on educational outreach center focused on air and space emerged
from the 2003 Inventing Flight celebrations. Inventing Flight was a major event held
in
In the summer of 2004 the search for a permanent site for WA&SC began. Plans called for the construction of a 60,000+ square foot facility to support the learning and outreach programs of WA&SC. The site selection process would fall primarily on the shoulders of three members of the WA&SC board. Mark Brown was joined by Michael Farrell, president and CEO of the Farrell Aviation Company, and Amanda Wright-Lane, great-grandniece of Wilber and Orville Wright, trustee of the Wright Family Fund, and the Wright family’s liaison to numerous aviation-related organizations.
This case examines the decision of where to locate the learning center. Several factors distinguished this decision. First, like a for profit retail establishment WA&SC sought a propitious location that would facilitate its marketing efforts. Second, although the WA&SC Board hired a consulting team, they wished to remain actively involved throughout the process. Finally, concern over community support required that the location decision be seen as objective and transparent. The choice could not alienate parties associated with the sites that were not selected because WA&SC would require support from throughout the region in order to thrive.
The case provides an interesting study of the challenges involved in making a site selection decision. It can be used as a “how to” guide for businesses, non-profit organizations and communities seeking sites for recreational, educational, cultural or other sorts of facilities. The decision would require analysis of quantitative issues such as regional demographics as well as qualitative issues such as the “mommy factor.” This term, coined by a member of the board, refers to a set of factors that would make a location desirable to parents. Perhaps most importantly, the site selection would be critical to fund raising efforts.
To build support for WA&SC Mark Brown and Mike Farrell spoke with numerous business and community leaders. Many saw the opportunity that WA&SC would provide. The facility would draw large numbers of children and families, many of them on a repeat basis. It would have high regional visibility and regional draw. If WA&SC was successful, the facility might even attract national attention. It could spur further economic growth by providing a base of customers who could be served by restaurants, hotels, retail stores, and other businesses. As such, WA&SC was a highly desirable tenant. The WA&SC Board was soon approached by many commercial real estate developers, economic development officers, landowners, community leaders, and others attempting to lure them to specific sites. The decision would be complex. It would involve numerous economic, marketing, and political considerations. The WA&SC Board needed a systematic method for evaluating the alternatives. WA&SC needed to choose the site most likely to lead to long-term success. Additionally, as a start-up non-profit organization it would need community support. WA&SC could not afford to alienate anyone whose site was not selected. The site selection process needed to be thorough and fair. It needed to avoid even the appearance of any sort of bias. To aid in this process the board enlisted the help of the authors a consulting team.
The locations considered for analysis were initially developed by the WA&SC Board. An interesting dynamic occurred during the site selection process. As the activities of the site selection team became known throughout the community, the interest of community groups in the site selection increased. This resulted in new sites being added to the consideration set during the process.
Site selection studies are usually conducted in an iterative manner, referred to as winnowing and focusing. During the initial stages of site selection only information that is relatively easy and inexpensive to collect is gathered. In the case of WA&SC, the consulting team, working in consultation with the board, were able to eliminate several proposed sites from consideration after preliminary analysis. Ultimately, nine possible sites were analyzed with the model.
Since conditions sometimes change even during the selection process, flexibility is necessary. In a real sense, the site selection process may never be truly finalized until a contract is signed or ground is broken.
The location model used in this study was developed as a tool to aid in ranking and selecting sites. Although the WA&SC Board hired a site selection consulting team, they remained actively involved in the process. Furthermore they required a set of locational criteria that would be flexible enough to handle changes in the WA&SC concept that might be necessary as stakeholders provided input.
Relevant site attributes were initially identified by the board in a brainstorming session. This initial list of attributes was modified during discussions with the consulting team. After reviewing the list, it was determined that some attributes contained redundancies, which could undermine the analysis. For example, the list of attributes included 1. ease of access, 2. distance to major highway, 3. ease of highway access—car, and 4. ease of highway access—bus. While each of these attributes reflects an important consideration, there is also a very high degree of overlap. In order to prevent overlapping attributes from having excessive weight, the numerous attributes-for distinction termed location items-were aggregated into eight major location factors (see Table 1). The items and the factors were assigned weights. Each site was then evaluated using the site selection model.
|
Factor |
Location
Items |
Factor |
Location
Items |
|
SITE CHARACTERISTICS |
Acreage
available |
CLIENT ACCESS |
Distance
to major highway |
|
Site
visibility from highway |
Distance
to local schools |
||
|
Power availability |
Access to
public transportation |
||
|
water
availability |
Ease of
access |
||
|
High
speed data availability |
Traffic
congestion issues |
||
|
300'x20'
green strip |
Middle
school population |
||
|
Rocket
launch site |
Ease of
highway access-cars |
||
|
Room for
expansion |
Ease of
highway access-busses |
||
|
Prestige
of site |
COMMUNITY SUPPORT |
Financial
incentives |
|
|
NEIGHBORHOOD ATTRIBUTES |
Distance
to hotels |
Political
representation |
|
|
Distance
to restaurants |
Population
base and trends |
||
|
Proximity
to retail shopping |
Local
noise ordinances |
||
|
Prestige
of neighborhood |
Community
attitude |
||
|
PROJECT FEASIBILILTY |
Part of
village concept |
Secondary
revenue utility |
|
|
Prior experience
with similar projects |
PROXIMITY TO SUPPORTING
INSTITUTIONS |
Distance
to local universities |
|
|
Development
schedule |
Distance
to |
||
|
Site
impediments |
Distance
to |
||
|
Site
availability |
Distance
to |
||
|
Distance
to |
|||
|
Distance
to a general aviation airport |
|||
|
INTANGIBLES AND OTHER |
Partnership Critical mass / draw Excitement factor/ pizzazz
(applicable in model 2 only) |
TAX |
Location county
(e.g. outside of a municipal tax authority) |
|
|
County
tax rate |
||
|
|
Personal
tax rate |
While most of the location items are self-explanatory, some brief descriptions will make the specific features more tangible.
The following site items were intended to focus only on aspects of the site itself without concern for the surrounding neighborhood:
Acreage available: The board anticipated that 2.0-2.5 acres would be required to accommodate the building. If shared parking, or nearby off-site parking is not available the lot size would have to be bigger to accommodate that need.
Site visibility from highway: The highest ratings went to sites where the building could be seen from an interstate highway. A sign visible from a highway would be good, but slightly less desirable. Visibility from a major transportation artery, other than a highway, would be less desirable. Combinations of signs and building visibility were also reflected in the score for this item.
Power availability: For rural sites, distance from power sources was considered to have a slightly higher risk of disruptions, possibly slower response/repair times and potentially higher cost during construction.
Water availability: Municipal water was preferred to well water.
High speed data availability: Hard lines were preferred to satellite service.
300’x 20’ green space: This factor was required for some proposed outside activities such as flying remote-controlled planes. Absence of this item could be ameliorated by a nearby park, other accessible open space or a remote facility used in conjunction with the primary location.
Rocket launch site: The team envisioned an area about the size of a football field to accommodate launches. Even a large field would receive a reduced item score if it was crowded, had overhead power lines, or was otherwise unsuitable for this activity.
Room for expansion: The WA&SC Board was concerned with the ability to expand horizontally. A contiguous site was preferable. Non-contiguous expansion in the same neighborhood was considered a less desirable option.
Prestige of site: Locations that carry prestige and are well known in the community received highest item scores.
Safety of site: Detailed crime statistics are difficult to obtain and are unreliable at the neighborhood level needed to access a specific site. Thus the evaluation of the safety of a site was based on community perceptions as well as perception of physical threats such as traffic patterns. Since an important market segment for WA&SC would be children who would be dropped off by parents and entrusted to the staff of WA&SC it was felt that the perception of safety was critically important. Thus safety was one of the components of the previously noted “mommy factor.” The “mommy factor” was not a formal factor in the model, but rather a combination of issues that could make a site more or less desirable to an important market segment. The mommy factor would be critical in the marketing of WA&SC.
Site aesthetics: This factor addressed how well the WA&SC would look on the site when viewed from various perspectives. While this judgment was made ahead of an actual architectural design, we assumed that an architect would produce a design to fit the site. This being said, some sites afforded more aesthetically pleasing opportunities for facility construction than others.
Neighborhood factors extended the geographic area of consideration and recognize that a good location will require a compatible neighborhood. Most of the sites we considered were part of an existing or planned development. Typically, the management of existing developments had plans for future development. In the evaluation of each site, including the assignment of weights and location scores, the site selection team considered whether these plans were consistent with the locational needs of WA&SC.
Distance to hotels: The WA&SC Board foresaw the possibility of weekend “camps” and multiple day family visits. Therefore, sites with hotels within walking were preferred over locations where access to hotels would require driving. A variety of hotel categories, (luxury, family, no frills) nearby was preferred to a site with fewer choices.
Distance to restaurants: Both this item and the one below were components in the “mommy factor.” This item was included, in part, to address the issue of having a place for parents to spend time when a child was at WA&SC. In addition, it addresses the possibilities of combining the WA&SC visit with other activities. Thus, walking distance and variety of dining styles was preferred ranging from coffee shops to quality dining.
Distance to retail shopping: See above.
Prestige of neighborhood: By neighborhood we mean the area in which the facility will be located. Nearby residential neighborhoods may have some influence on this, but we were primarily concerned with surrounding public enterprises.
Part of village concept: The WA&SC may be part of an overall development. This item was intended to reflect how compatible the theme of surrounding establishments fits with images the learning center wished to project.
Client access: This item is focused on ease with which users of the center can get to and from the site. Availability of parking was also considered. Emphasis was given to access by the target age population, grades 6-8.
Distance to major highway: Locations near an interstate exit received the highest ratings. Sites directly on a major arterial street were also considered good. Lower scores went to the remote, rural locations.
Distance to local schools: Any likely marketing plan for WA&SC would call for significant school involvement. Hence, the availability of schools to use WA&SC as a field trip location was important. Distance was measured in driving miles. However, it should be noted that a school located a 5 minute drive from the site has nearly equal access of a school located 20 minutes from the site because bus travel would be required in both cases.
Access to public transportation: This item examines access by bus service and the nearness of a bus stop.
Traffic congestion issues: Traffic counts were not used because an area with good traffic flow may have a high or low traffic count. This item was judged by visual observation during peak traffic times. Judgment was used as to evaluate how congestion will be influenced by future development of the area.
Middle school population: The number of middle school students located within reasonable driving miles of the proposed site was the primary factor used in assigning scores for this item.
Ease of highway access—cars: Both proximity to major highways and the ability to navigate from the highway to the site affected the item score.
Ease of highway access—busses: Similar to proceeding item, but particular attention was given to parking and congestion.
The WA&SC is a
501c3 non profit organization. The
initial concept required that institutions in the
There are several factors involved in community support including the likelihood that WA&SC would be welcome in the community, that students in the community would be receptive and that financial incentives might be available.
Financial incentives: During the location decision process, the site selection team was not in a position to negotiate for all of the incentives that might be available. Such negotiations can only be left to principals who can commit to a location. Nevertheless, the score for this item was based on indirect evidence, judgments about incentives received by others and the tone of general discussions with landowners, developers, and public officials. In some instances discussions with representatives of particular sites constituted a first step towards concrete development incentives.
Political representation: Because of the educational and community resource aspect of the project, support by local public officials could be critical in attracting public support. The ability of both state and federal office holders to support the project was judged based on previous accomplishments, seniority, and interest.
Community socio-economic factors: This item considered the likelihood that individual children and families would support the facility. Attendance rates and academic performance in schools were major considerations in scoring this item.
Local noise ordinances: At times the WA&SC may engage in activities that generate high noise levels. The more likely that excess noise would be permitted, the higher the score.
Community attitude: Areas where average citizens would welcome and support the WA&SC was the intent of this factor. The researcher’s sense of citizen participation in civic activities and the likelihood that they would participate in the WA&SC in particular were considered.
Secondary revenue utility: The long-term plan for WA&SC was to be self-supporting, or nearly so. Thus the ability of WA&SC to generate a supplementary income flow at a particular location was a significant factor. In particular, the ability to use the WA&SC facilities for corporate functions, banquets, private parties, etc. was considered as was the likely success of a gift shop at various sites.
This factor was designed to determine whether the developers had the willingness and ability to contribute to the WA&SC vision. Both the site and the entire development were considered. In the case of projects that were under governmental control, the government entity was considered the developer.
Prior experience with similar projects: Developers with prior successful experience with similar projects received the highest scores on this item. Success in bringing innovative, exciting projects to fruition was a large part of this item’s scores.
Development schedule: The board was on a tight schedule, so the site selection team evaluated the stage of each development project and the probability that the developer could meet the WA&SC deadlines. Projects that were early in the development process were scored low on this item.
Site impediments: Site impediments included issues of ownership, need for public funding or infrastructure, number of ancillary interests that need accommodation, and the willingness and ability of developers to overcome the impediments.
Site availability: This item addresses issues such as whether the land owners are willing and able to sell the property as well as whether there are legal or other obstacles to using the site as envisioned. One otherwise outstanding site scored low on this item due to “turf” issues revolving around ownership and control of the physical facility.
This factor
recognizes that a successful project in the
The institutions included in this assessment were as follows: 1) the National Museum of the United States Air Force, the world’s oldest and largest military aviation museum which draws more than one million visitors each year, 2) the Wright-Dunbar Interpretive Center, the centerpiece of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, 3) Carillon Historical Park, a historical park whose collection includes the 1905 Wright Flyer, 4) general aviation airports, these could be used as possible sites of a remote facility, 5) local colleges and universities, primarily Wright State University, University of Dayton, and Sinclair Community College, a possible source of student teachers, museum employees, and volunteers, 6) Boonshoft Museum of Discovery, a local science museum with complementary programming.
A cost consideration to both the management of WA&SC and to the employees of the organization will be taxes.
County tax rate: Differences in county sales tax rates for counties in the region.
Personal tax rate: Local payroll tax rate.
In every location decision there are intangibles. Some locations generate more excitement or pizzazz than others. Some have generally better atmospherics. Some developers show high levels of enthusiasm for a project. Perhaps there is simply better chemistry between the parties involved. To account for these situations an “intangible and other” factor was created. In the first stage analysis, no items were included in this category. The initial location items were considered to be comprehensive for purposes of Model 1. As the project moved forward data emerged to allow for intangibles to enter the model.
Determination
of Weights in the Site Selection Model
The location model constructed for this project represents a way to organize and compare data. The ability of the model to present reasonable comparisons of various sites depends critically on the quality of the input into the model, specifically the weights and item scores. This section describes the determination of the weights. The next section describes scores for each item.
A telephone survey
of school superintendents and other school officials within the
Another important
source of input into the location model was a benchmark survey of similar types
of institutions. Specifically, the
site selection team talked with directors of established science and technology
museums and hands on learning centers in the
To derive the weights, each of the three members of the consulting team assigned weights to each item independently of each other. There was a high level of agreement on the weights assigned. Where differences existed they were discussed and agreement was reached. The consulting team then met with the members of the board who had also independently assigned weights to the items. Again differences were resolved so that a consensus was reached regarding the proper weight for each item.
Table 2 shows the final item weights assigned. For instance, in consideration of the items related to Client Access, access to public transportation received a score of 6.50. In contrast, ease of access—cars received a weight of 9.75. This reflects the determination that the target market would be more likely to arrive by private automobile than by public transportation.
A standardized weight was also constructed for each item as follows: Standard item weight = item weight for that individual item / S weights for all items in the category. The standardization reflects each item’s relative standing within the broad location factor category. The standardization is necessary to prevent one locational factor from having more weight solely because it has more items. Like the item weight, the standardized weight is used to evaluate each of the sites. For instance, site visibility from highway was given a location weight of 8.50. The 8.5 was 8.8% of the total weight given to items listed in the Site Characteristics factor. The value for each item was then calculated as: item value = standardized item weight * item score.
The summation of the item values for each item provides a factor score for each of the eight factors. In addition, each of the eight site categories was assigned a weight. In the judgment of the site selection team, the importance of Site Characteristics, Neighborhood Attributes, Client Access, Community Support, Site Feasibility, and Proximity to Supporting institutions were all equally important and they therefore each received a weight of 10. Taxes were deemed less important, as reflected by the rating of 2. Part of the reason for the low rating for taxes is that there were only small differences in some taxes and also, some tax advantages could be negotiated and thus counted under the Community Support factor. In Table 2, the score shown next to each of the major factors represents the weight given to that factor.
|
Factor
and Factor Weight |
Items |
Item weight |
|
|
safety of
site |
9.75 |
|
|
high
speed data availability |
9.25 |
|
|
site
aesthetics |
9.25 |
|
|
300'x20'
green strip |
9.00 |
|
SITE
CHARACTERISTICS—10 |
acreage
available |
8.50 |
|
|
site
visibility from highway |
8.50 |
|
|
power
availability |
8.50 |
|
|
water
availability |
8.50 |
|
|
room for
expansion |
8.50 |
|
|
prestige
of site |
8.50 |
|
|
rocket
launch site |
7.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
safety of
neighborhood |
9.75 |
|
|
prestige
of neighborhood |
8.50 |
|
NEIGHBORHOOD
ATTRIBUTES—10 |
distance
to restaurants |
7.75 |
|
|
distance
to hotels |
7.00 |
|
|
part of
village concept |
6.50 |
|
|
proximity
to retail shopping |
6.00 |
|
Factor
and Factor Weight |
Items |
Item weight |
|
|
ease of
highway access-cars |
9.75 |
|
|
ease of
highway access-busses |
9.75 |
|
|
distance to
major highway |
9.25 |
|
CLIENT
ACCESS—10 |
ease of
access |
9.25 |
|
|
distance
to local schools |
9.00 |
|
|
traffic
congestion issues |
9.00 |
|
|
middle
school population |
8.75 |
|
|
access to
public transportation |
6.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
community
attitude |
9.50 |
|
|
political
representation |
8.75 |
|
COMMUNITY
SUPPORT—10 |
community
socio-economic details |
8.50 |
|
|
financial
incentives |
8.00 |
|
|
local
noise ordinances |
6.25 |
|
|
secondary
revenue utility |
6.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
site availability |
9.25 |
|
|
site
impediments |
8.75 |
|
PROJECT
FEASIBILITY –10 |
development
schedule |
8.25 |
|
|
prior
experience with similar projects |
7.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
distance
to |
7.50 |
|
|
distance
to local universities |
6.75 |
|
PROXIMITY
TO SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS –10 |
distance
to a general aviation airport |
5.25 |
|
|
distance
to Boonshoft museum |
5.00 |
|
|
distance
to |
4.75 |
|
|
distance
to |
4.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
county
tax rate |
6.25 |
|
TAX—2 |
personal
tax rate |
5.25 |
|
|
location
county |
4.50 |
|
Factor and Factor Weight |
Items |
Item weight |
|
|
Partnership |
10.00 |
|
INTANGIBLES
AND OTHER—10 |
Critical Mass
/ Draw |
10.00 |
|
|
Excitement
factor / Pizzazz |
10.00 |
Determination
of Item Scores in the Site Selection Model
The location model constructed for this project represents a way to organize and compare data. The ability of the model to present reasonable comparisons of various sites for the WA&SC depends most critically on the quality of the input into the model, specifically the item weights and item scores. The process used to determine the weights has already been discussed. Similarly great care was used to make the determinations of item values for each site.
Typically, the site visits were initially conducted unaccompanied by representatives of the site simply to provide the site selection team with information about visible attributes. Later interviews were conducted with individuals knowledgeable about the site. Discussions were held with developers, public officials, land owners, planners, and third parties with interest in the site. Input from the survey of school officials was also used in determining the item values for the sites.
A comprehensive study of economic and demographic trends was also undertaken to help determine site suitability in terms of population patterns, particularly among the target school-age population (see Tables 4 and 5), growth trends (see Table 6), income and buying power(see Table 7) and fiscal patterns among local governments. Actual driving distance from each middle school to each of the proposed locations was also calculated (see Table 8).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
Under
5 years |
23,106 |
9,480 |
3,570 |
8,717 |
6,325 |
37,054 |
2,682 |
12,369 |
103,303 |
|
5
to 9 years |
24,279 |
10,091 |
3,849 |
9,806 |
7,042 |
39,081 |
2,976 |
12,660 |
109,784 |
|
10 to
14 |
24,520 |
10,403 |
4,099 |
10,425 |
7,553 |
39,070 |
3,281 |
12,210 |
111,561 |
|
15 to
17 |
14,391 |
6,379 |
2,495 |
6,411 |
4,718 |
22,774 |
2,088 |
6,679 |
65,935 |
|
18 to
34 |
84,205 |
30,825 |
10,709 |
37,308 |
19,860 |
130,116 |
8,483 |
34,606 |
356,112 |
|
35 to
54 |
99,689 |
41,743 |
15,242 |
44,153 |
30,207 |
162,926 |
13,031 |
52,270 |
459,261 |
|
55 + |
62617 |
35821 |
13345 |
31066 |
23163 |
128041 |
9796 |
27589 |
331,438 |
|
Total |
332,807 |
144,742 |
53,309 |
147,886 |
98,868 |
559,062 |
42,337 |
158,383 |
1,537,394 |
|
Source:
Population Division, US Census Bureau |
|||||||||
|
|
Middle
Schools |
Population
(2003) |
Middle
School Enrollment |
MSE/
Population |
|
|
65 |
947,025 |
35,011 |
36.97 |
|
|
30 |
552,187 |
17,714 |
32.08 |
|
|
17 |
143,351 |
8,263 |
57.64 |
|
Greene |
9 |
151,257 |
5,537 |
36.61 |
|
|
9 |
100,230 |
3,497 |
34.89 |
|
Other Counties |
|
|
|
|
|
Preble |
5 |
42,417 |
1,438 |
33.90 |
|
|
9 |
181,743 |
5,843 |
32.15 |
|
|
14 |
343,207 |
10,285 |
29.97 |
|
Darke |
8 |
52,960 |
2,581 |
48.73 |
|
Greater |
|
|
|
|
|
Source: http://www.greatschools.com &
Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, April,2004 |
||||
|
|
1980 |
1990 |
2000 |
2002 |
%
Change in Population (1980-2000) |
%
Change in Population (2000-2002) |
|
|
31,589 |
33,626 |
37,984 |
38,046 |
20% |
0.2 |
|
|
18,886 |
21,082 |
23,031 |
23,072 |
22% |
0.2 |
|
|
203,371 |
182,005 |
166,197 |
162,669 |
-18% |
-2.1 |
|
|
29,702 |
31,300 |
32,052 |
32,459 |
8% |
1.3 |
|
|
35,480 |
38,696 |
38,224 |
38,055 |
8% |
-0.4 |
|
|
61,186 |
60,569 |
57,697 |
56,680 |
-6% |
-1.8 |
|
|
... |
... |
23,545 |
23,449 |
NA |
-0.4 |
|
|
72,563 |
70,487 |
65,556 |
64,132 |
-10% |
-2.2 |
|
|
24,653 |
24,664 |
24,185 |
24,160 |
-2% |
-0.1 |
|
Oakwood village |
NA |
NA |
3,667 |
3,662 |
NA |
-0.1 |
|
Moraine city |
NA |
NA |
6,897 |
6,859 |
NA |
-0.6 |
|
|
NA |
NA |
13,818 |
13,562 |
NA |
-1.9 |
|
Source: Population Division, |
||||||
|
|
Total
Retail Sales ($000) |
Food
and Drink ($000) |
Total EBI |
Median
Household EBI |
% of
Household by EBI |
Buying Power Index |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
$20,000-34,999 |
$35,000- 49,999 |
$50,000-Over |
|
|
|
12,536,539 |
1,045,928 |
17,458,049 |
37,753 |
23.90 |
20.70 |
33.60 |
0.3294 |
|
|
1,925,408 |
147,095 |
2,458,098 |
36,987 |
24.60 |
21.70 |
31.60 |
0.0484 |
|
|
1,072,804 |
89,560 |
943,065 |
30,069 |
27.20 |
20.40 |
21.70 |
0.0289 |
|
GREENE |
2,006,647 |
171,276 |
2,880,033 |
42,633 |
20.90 |
20.40 |
40.50 |
0.0535 |
|
|
318,501 |
30,878 |
526,080 |
33,052 |
27.00 |
21.60 |
24.90 |
0.0130 |
|
|
1,305,526 |
75,039 |
1,810,213 |
38,838 |
24.40 |
22.70 |
33.60 |
0.0343 |
|
|
7,298,958 |
652,518 |
10,309,705 |
36,637 |
24.40 |
20.10 |
32.40 |
0.1932 |
|
|
1,451,840 |
147,741 |
2,098,143 |
26,217 |
26.40 |
16.90 |
18.40 |
0.0567 |
|
|
782,333 |
68,769 |
1,296,873 |
40,428 |
24.60 |
22.50 |
36.80 |
0.0299 |
|
DARKE |
532,873 |
33,748 |
848,354 |
35,357 |
26.10 |
23.30 |
27.30 |
0.0159 |
|
PREBLE |
324,217 |
36,595 |
688,613 |
38,232 |
25.90 |
24.20 |
31.60 |
0.0120 |
|
|
2,006,178 |
262,387 |
3,881,774 |
51,975 |
16.40 |
19.80 |
52.60 |
0.0646 |
|
|
3,656,127 |
542,480 |
6,503,278 |
43,183 |
20.80 |
20.70 |
41.20 |
0.1139 |
|
Source: Survey of Buying Power, Sales & Marketing Management Magazine,
2003 |
||||||||
|
|
0 to 9.9 |
0 to 19.9 |
0 to 29.9 |
0 to 39.9 |
Residual Area1 |
|
|
9,303 |
22,254 |
35,982 |
43,924 |
55,158 |
|
|
8,361 |
25,000 |
35,368 |
47,466 |
55,158 |
|
|
4,229 |
19,667 |
33,412 |
42,378 |
55,158 |
|
|
8,449 |
23,757 |
34,402 |
46,378 |
55,158 |
|
|
10,139 |
25,190 |
37,040 |
46,070 |
55,158 |
|
|
10,158 |
22,666 |
36,734 |
43,924 |
55,158 |
|
|
10,815 |
25,267 |
35,427 |
46,352 |
55,158 |
|
Sage Hill |
5,108 |
14,452 |
26,524 |
35,115 |
55,158 |
|
|
5,407 |
20,992 |
34,036 |
42,047 |
55,158 |
|
1The residual area refers to the
area beyond the 40 mile zone but within the Source:
maps.yahoo.com |
|||||
Based on all of the information gathered each site was scored on each attribute (see Table 9). Model 1 was then used to evaluate each site (see Table 10). Further analysis was then conducted on the three sites that ranked highest based on Model 1 (see Table 11).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sage Hill |
|
|
|
|
SITE
CHARACTERISTICS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acreage
available |
8.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
8.00 |
7.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
5.00 |
0.00 |
|
site
visibility fm/hyw |
9.00 |
1.00 |
10.00 |
1.00 |
6.00 |
1.00 |
7.00 |
1.00 |
8.00 |
|
power
availability |
10.00 |
9.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
9.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
|
water
availability |
10.00 |
7.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
7.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
|
high speed
data availability |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
3.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
|
300'x20'
green strip |
8.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
6.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
0.00 |
|
rocket
launch site |
6.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
6.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
|
room for
expansion |
2.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
2.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
0.00 |
|
prestige
of site |
9.00 |
4.00 |
7.00 |
9.00 |
8.00 |
4.00 |
10.00 |
9.00 |
10.00 |
|
safety of
site |
9.00 |
9.00 |
10.00 |
6.00 |
9.00 |
9.00 |
10.00 |
6.00 |
10.00 |
|
site
aesthetics |
10.00 |
5.00 |
6.00 |
10.00 |
8.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
8.00 |
9.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sage Hill |
|
|
|
|
NEIGHBORHOOD Attributes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
distance
to hotels |
6.00 |
4.00 |
7.00 |
5.00 |
6.00 |
2.00 |
9.00 |
4.00 |
6.00 |
|
distance
to restaurants |
5.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
7.00 |
5.00 |
2.00 |
9.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
|
proximity
to retail shopping |
3.00 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
4.00 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
9.00 |
3.00 |
3.00 |
|
prestige
of neighborhood |
8.00 |
2.00 |
6.00 |
10.00 |
5.00 |
2.00 |
10.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
|
safety of
neighborhood |
8.00 |
9.00 |
9.00 |
6.00 |
7.00 |
9.00 |
9.00 |
6.00 |
7.00 |
|
part of
village concept |
10.00 |
3.00 |
5.00 |
7.00 |
9.00 |
3.00 |
10.00 |
9.00 |
6.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sage Hill |
|
|
|
|
CLIENT
ACCESS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
distance
to major highway |
9.00 |
6.00 |
10.00 |
6.00 |
8.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
9.00 |
8.00 |
|
distance
to local schools |
6.00 |
4.00 |
8.00 |
6.00 |
7.00 |
3.00 |
10.00 |
8.00 |
7.00 |
|
access to
public transportation |
7.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
10.00 |
8.00 |
2.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
8.00 |
|
ease of
access |
4.00 |
3.00 |
9.00 |
4.00 |
6.00 |
5.00 |
9.00 |
7.00 |
6.00 |
|
traffic
congestion issues |
6.00 |
8.00 |
7.00 |
3.00 |
5.00 |
9.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
|
middle
school population |
6.00 |
6.00 |
7.00 |
5.00 |
9.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
7.00 |
9.00 |
|
ease of
highway access-cars |
4.00 |
5.00 |
9.00 |
6.00 |
7.00 |
5.00 |
9.00 |
9.00 |
7.00 |
|
ease of
highway access-busses |
4.00 |
5.00 |
9.00 |
6.00 |
7.00 |
3.00 |
9.00 |
9.00 |
7.00 |
|
COMMUNITY
SUPPORT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
financial
incentives |
6.00 |
6.00 |
6.00 |
4.00 |
6.00 |
6.00 |
10.00 |
6.00 |
0.00 |
|
political
representation |
7.00 |
7.00 |
7.00 |
8.00 |
6.00 |
8.00 |
10.00 |
8.00 |
6.00 |
|
community
socio-economic details |
6.00 |
5.00 |
8.00 |
5.00 |
6.00 |
6.00 |
9.00 |
5.00 |
6.00 |
|
local
noise ordinances |
1.00 |
9.00 |
5.00 |
0.00 |
4.00 |
9.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
10.00 |
|
community
attitude |
6.00 |
8.00 |
7.00 |
6.00 |
6.00 |
8.00 |
8.00 |
6.00 |
0.00 |
|
secondary
revenue utility |
2.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
7.00 |
9.00 |
2.00 |
9.00 |
3.00 |
0.00 |
|
PROJECT
FEASIBILITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
prior
experience with similar projects |
5.00 |
3.00 |
9.00 |
8.00 |
6.00 |
3.00 |
10.00 |
6.00 |
6.00 |
|
development
schedule |
3.00 |
4.00 |
10.00 |
3.00 |
6.00 |
4.00 |
9.00 |
5.00 |
0.00 |
|
site
impediments |
3.00 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
3.00 |
5.00 |
9.00 |
8.00 |
4.00 |
0.00 |
|
site
availability |
4.00 |
9.00 |
10.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
9.00 |
9.00 |
10.00 |
0.00 |
|
PROXIMITY
TO SUPPORTING INST. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
distance
to local universities |
7.00 |
4.00 |
6.00 |
7.00 |
6.00 |
5.00 |
7.00 |
8.00 |
6.00 |
|
distance
to |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
6.00 |
10.00 |
4.00 |
6.00 |
6.00 |
10.00 |
|
distance
to |
10.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
8.00 |
6.00 |
2.00 |
6.00 |
8.00 |
6.00 |
|
distance
to |
8.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
8.00 |
6.00 |
2.00 |
6.00 |
10.00 |
6.00 |
|
distance
to |
8.00 |
4.00 |
4.00 |
9.00 |
5.00 |
2.00 |
5.00 |
8.00 |
5.00 |
|
distance
to a GA airport |
3.00 |
10.00 |
5.00 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
10.00 |
6.00 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sage Hill |
|
|
|
|
TAX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
location
county |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
|
county tax
rate |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
5.00 |
0.00 |
|
personal
tax rate |
4.00 |
10.00 |
5.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site |
Overall Score |
|
|
491.34 |
|
|
451.37 |
|
|
390.52 |
|
|
384.54 |
|
|
366.19 |
|
|
363.64 |
|
|
363.56 |
|
Sage Hill |
335.42 |
|
|
303.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Middle Schools
within 30 mile radius |
92 |
92 |
83 |
|
Middle school enrollment
within 30 mile radius |
50,457 |
50,140 |
45,180 |
|
Household with children
within 30 mile radius |
207,123 |
180,724 |
166,293 |
|
Children ages 5-7 within 30
mile radius |
305,359 |
267,378 |
246,477 |
Sensitivity analysis was preformed to determine if the relative rankings provided by the site selection model are stable. This was done by introducing small changes in one or more of the location item scores and weights and observing the sensitivity of the relative ranking to these changes. This analysis demonstrated the model to be stable. One reason for this stability was the large number of items considered.
The model was presented to the board in spreadsheet form. This provided them with the opportunity to change weights and item values, allowing board members to test their own assumptions to determine whether the location choice would be altered if values were adjusted. It also allowed the board the opportunity to do quick reassessments if any significant changes occurred at any of the potential sites.
In Model 2 the intangible factors were added. As the site selection team became familiar with the sites, and the principle parties involved with the sites, the intangible factors began to emerge. It became apparent that the principles involved with some of the sites were very enthusiastic about creating a partnership with WA&SC. Others were more reserved about the concept. It also became apparent that some locations had a greater long-term potential to draw a stream of visitors due to the critical mass of the site. As a stand alone facility WA&SC would draw large crowds if its overall business model was successful. However, being located near other facilities with significant draw of their own would make the marketing task easier for WA&SC. Finally, perhaps the most intangible of the intangible items was pizzazz. This item is difficult to fully describe. It includes atmospheric elements such as design factors, ambient factors and people factors. It also includes an evaluation of how trendy the location is and is likely to become. How interested are teens, pre-teens and families likely to be in visiting the site? The site selection team used their judgment to estimate all of these issues and included them in the intangible category. The inclusion of the intangible items did have an effect on site scores (see Table 12). However, the top three sites remained the same and the highest rated site increased its lead over the other sites.
|
Site |
Overall Site Score |
|
|
591.34 |
|
|
480.52 |
|
|
471.37 |
|
|
446.96 |
|
|
444.52 |
|
|
419.53 |
|
|
403.56 |
|
|
363.71 |
|
Sage Hill |
355.42 |
STS-28 landed
safely on Runway 17, Edwards Air Force Base,
Return to John Blair’s home page
[1] The
names of all sites other than the recommended site,