Harvard Graduate Case Analysis

(Part 2)

 

Recommendations:

 

By analyzing and clearly understanding lessons drawn from the 2001 survey, there should be some changes made in the current 2005 survey. From 2001 survey few sections can remain the same like expectations of the participants from campus housing, personality and preference related questions, and ranking and positioning of the housing. Importance of housing features section can be modified by omitting few options and making it simple and even. It is always a good idea to keep any survey short and to the point, instead of making it long, complicated and time consuming. Short and simple surveys usually have a good response rate as the participants do not try to skip few questions. As a result, there will be a growth in the quality and quantity of the response rate. Though the survey is short and simple, it is good to verify if all questions are meeting the objective of HRES. It would be safe and easy if the survey is pre-tested by any of the members in HRES team to avoid jargons and other blunders. The 2005 survey should come up with a concept like Feedback on the survey, which tells participants about their own feedback on the campus housing, and what HRES has done with their responses. This could be a great incentive for all the students, because this feedback will make them realize that the time they have spent filling out the survey was worthy enough.

Peer University analysis should be done to understand what competitors are doing in the current housing market, and how well HRES can compete with the private housing and other University housing facilities. HRES should also come up with gap analysis which compares the actual performance with the expected. This can be done by knowing the unmet demands of college students.

 

 

Harvard