The increased growth rate of video or nonbroadcast television use in business and industry (e.g., Brush & Brush, 1973; Barwick & Kranz, 1975; Cathcart, 1976; Brush & Brush, 1977; and Cruebel, 1979) has occurred, for the most part, without systematic analysis of costs and benefits and cost-effectiveness in the decisionmaking process. Barwich & Kranz (1975), for example, suggest that not all video decisions can be explained by rational processes; that video has some of the earmarks of a fad and part of its popularity can be attributed to its being the "in" thing. Brush & Brush (1977) found a new category of respondents in their most recent survey, former users who could not cost-justify their video operation after several years of program production and distribution. Gruebel (1979) found that one insurance company is now a former user because they "bought some equipment· which was completely outof-date before we real;y found a use for it." Only 12.6 percent of the total user respondents to Gruebel's survey indicated they h",d a formalized cost-analysis/cost-justification system, but it was questionable whether any of these organizations were actually measuring cost-effectiveness. In view of a major investment of dollars in video, it would have been reasonable to assume that some kind of costs and benefits analysis would be performed prior to making the decision to purchase the video package. Lately, top management apparently has come to realize that communicationsnamely, television services-within an organization must, like every other aspect of the business, be a managed function (e.g., Brush & Brush, 1977). To provide guidance in this direction, we have developed a decision-model for the potential user of video. In addition, present users also can ascertain with this decision-model whether or not they are using video cost-effectively.