Costing out Quality Changes: An Econometric Frontier Analysis of U.S. Navy Enlistments

  • Richard C. Morey
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 332)


The required quality mix of U.S. Navy enlisted recruits, i.e. the proportion who have a High School Degree and who score in the upper percentiles on the Armed Services Entrance Exams, can have pervasive impacts on the size of the recruiting budget needed and its composition. Additionally, the recruiting environment, e.g. the unemployment rate, the size of the eligible population, competition from other services, service policies concerning the management of its Delayed Entry Program, etc., as well as the cost per recruiter, overhead costs associated with placement cost of advertising, etc. also will affect the total budget needed and the proper utilization of each resource. This effort focuses on forecasting the recruiting cost impacts of contemplated changes in the quantity and quality mix of U.S. Navy recruits. The approach utilized is econometric, utilizing the so-called Translog frontier estimation technique, involving estimating systems of equations. The data base is at the monthly, regional level for FY84-FY86. The effort estimates the recruiting cost impacts of varying the quality mix as well as the recruit substitution possibilities without increasing recruiting costs. The costs impact of varying key demographics is also estimated. The results generally agree with the conventional wisdom of Dod manpower planners. The general approach is applicable to settings other than military recruiting where it is of interest to estimate the budget impacts of varying the quality or quantity of outputs.


Active Duty Eligible Population Advertising Expenditure Local Advertising Local Unemployment Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Armor, D.J., Fernandez, R., Bers, K. and Schwarzback, D., “Recruit Aptitudes and Army Job Performance: Setting Enlistment Standards for Infantrymen,” Rand Corporation Report R-2874-MPRL, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banker, R.D., Conrad, R.F., and Strauss, R.P., “A Comparative Application of Data Envelopment Analysis and Translog Methods: An Illustrative Study of Hospital Production,” Management Science, 32, No. 1, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christensen, L.R., Jorgenson, D.W. and Lau, L.J., “Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 55: 28 - 45, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christensen, L.R. and Greene, W.H., “Economies of Scale in U.S. Electric Power Generation,” Journal of Political Economy, May, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Congressional Budget Office,“ Quality Soldiers; Costs of Manning the Active Army,” June, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horne, D.K., “The Impact of the Soldier Quality on Army Performance,” Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lovell, C.A.K. and Morey, R.C., “The Allocation of Consumer Incentives to Meet Simultaneous Sales Quotas: An Application to U.S. Army Recruiting,” (under review in Management Science), 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morey, R.C. “Impacts of Size, Composition and Compactness of the Delayed Entry Pool on Enlistment Contract Production: Efficient Allocation of Recruiting Expenditures and Optimal Dep Management,” Office of Naval Research Final Report, Duke University, February, 88.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morey, R.C. “Managing the Armed Services’ Delayed Entry Programs to Improve Productivity in Recruiting,” Interfaces, Sept.-Oct., 85, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 81 - 90.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morey, R.C. and McCann, J. “Armed Forces Recruiting Research: Issues, Findings, and Needs,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, December, 83, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 697 - 719.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morey, R.C. and McCann, J.M. “Evaluating and Improving the Recruiting Process for the Navy,” Management Science, Vol. 26, No. 12, December, 1980, pp. 1198 - 1210.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schinnar, A.P., Wood, L., Nord, R., Schmitz, E. and Durongkavenoj, P. “Recruit Quality, Soldier Performance, and JA Assignment,” (submitted to Journal of Productivity, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scribner, B.L., Smith, D.A., Baldwin, R.H., and Phillips, R.W., “Are Smart Tankers Better? AFQT and Military Productivity,” Armed Forces and Society, 12 /2, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Toomepuu, J. (Chief, Research and Studies Division, U.S. Army Recruiting Command), private communication, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varian, H., Microeconomic Analysis, Second Edition, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zellner, A. (1963). “Estimations for Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations: Some Exact Finite Sample Results,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63, 1180 - 1200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard C. Morey
    • 1
  1. 1.QA/IS DepartmentUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations