This research project’s goal is to determine whether or not the Army should increase its safety program to include additional training and incentives for Army families that are safe in their activities. When family members are injured it creates a dilemma for the Army. It creates low morale and negatively affects a unit’s ability to complete its missions. There are even cases where family member injuries or deaths render a soldier completely unable to continue service under any capacity. The loss of a soldier and the soldier’s family is not a good outcome if more emphasis on safety can ensure that the army can continue its relationship with them. The six stage research process covers the necessary requirements for making the project comprehensive (Cooper& Schindler, 2008, p. 140-45). Identifying the true nature of the problem and finding the best way to implement a solution will ensure that both parties can maximize this aspect of their relationship. Stage 1 (Define Problem)
Stage one of this project is to identify several things involving understanding the problem. The problem is that hundreds of injuries are occurring in the Army every year and most of them are avoidable. The fact is that there is an average of 146 for the last three years and there have been 139 fatalities (U.S. Army Accident Information, 2010). Considering that that means that 139 Army soldiers died in 2009 at the cost of $450,000 of Soldier Group Life Insurance that totals $62,550,000 (US Department of Veterans Affair, 2010). With such a large annual expense will the added spending on the safety program be worth it? Furthermore, the previous numbers do not include family member injuries. The numbers are much larger in scale. There is also no way to truly measure the loss of productivity in a unit when a soldier is out because of injuries or taking care of a family member’s injuries. The question is now identified. What is the maximum financial benefit to the Army when balancing spending additional money on the Army Safety Program and the expense of life insurance for those who die off duty in accidents? Stage 2 (Research Proposal)
There are many sources available that provides statistics on accidents and fatalities within the Army. The research will bring together several of these resources and show a bigger picture of the problems that the Army Safety Program should focus on improving. Judging by the current knowledge already obtained by acquiring a baseline of knowledge about the subject the following hypothesis is going to be tested. The null hypothesis is that the Army will prevent ore accidents if it places more financial emphasis on training Army soldiers and their families about possible dangers (Cooper& Schindler, 2008, p. 470). This extra money will be offset by the savings in soldier readiness, lower medical expenses and the lower cost of life insurance payouts. The alternative hypothesis is that the extra money spent will only be an extra expense that will not bring forth the offset financially and save people from having more accidents (Cooper& Schindler, 2008, p. 470). This hypothesis and alternative hypothesis results will be determined after the research is compiled and analyzed. Stage 3 (Research Design Strategy)
The design that is most useful for this project is the data collection design. The data collection design is most useful here for many reasons (Cooper& Schindler, 2008, p. 192). To name a few, the data is already collected and the Army has already spent its time and resources compiling it. By using data collection instead of sampling to only risk is the possibility that the Army has tampered with the information which is highly unlikely. But only raw data will be used to increase confidence in the results. Some investigative questions a required in order to ensure that relevant data is used to test the hypothesis (Cooper& Schindler, 2008, p. 283). The sample size is a pool that covers the entire...
References: Army Field Band. (n.d). DOD Privacy Act and Security Statement. Retrieved on July 30, 2010 from http://www.armyfieldband.com/pages/privacyAct.html.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2008). Business research methods with student DVD (10th ed.). New York : McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Department of the Army. (2008). The Phantom Warrior Standard For Every Soldier, vol. 1-3. Retrieved on July 30, 2010 from http://www.hood.army.mil/files/PhantomStandardsBooklet.pdf.
Department of Veterans Affairs. (2010). SGLI rates. Retrieved on July 30, 2010 from http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/SGLI/sgliPremiums.htm
Downie, M.(2009). The Army’s Budget Request- Fiscal 2010 retrieved on July 30, 2010 from http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2008/02/04/7260-army-outlines-fiscal-year-2009-budget/.
Kennedy, K. (2009). Motorcycle Accidents, deaths still rising. Retrieved on July 30, 2010 from http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/military_motorcycle_accidents_deaths_070609w/.
Thompson, M.A., Lyle, C., & Davis, G.(n.d.). How’d Your Army Do? Fiscal 2008 End-of-Year Review. Retrieved on July 30, 2010 from https://safety.army.mil/knowledge_online/january2009/HowdYourArmyDoFiscal2008EndOfYearReview/tabid/1077/Default.aspx.
U.S. Army Accident Information.(2010). Retreived on July 30, 2010 from https://rmis.army.mil/stats/prc_fy_ground_stats.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document