| Course | MBAX 6007 Complexity and Systems Thinking Dynamics |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Scenario write-up |
| Length | About 890 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MBAX 6007 Week 8
Two Futures Through One Staffing Model: A Reimbursement Increase Passed to Aides' Wages and a Hospital System That Opens Its Own Home-Care Service
Student Name
Walden University
MBAX 6007: Complexity and Systems Thinking Dynamics
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Two Futures Through One Staffing Model: A Reimbursement Increase Passed to Aides' Wages and a Hospital System That Opens Its Own Home-Care Service
Purpose and Setup
This write-up runs two possible futures through the staffing model of Hearthside Home Care, the invented western Michigan agency whose aide roster swings above and below need about once a year. Neither run is a forecast. Each asks how the agency's current hiring rule would cope if one outside condition changed. Everything else in the model is held fixed: the two-month hiring pipeline, the one-month perception delay, the rule that replaces quits and closes the visible gap over two months, and a starting roster of 100 aides against a need of 120. All parameter changes are illustrative.
Table 1
What Each Scenario Changes
| Element | Base run | Scenario A: reimbursement increase | Scenario B: hospital competitor | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly quit fraction | 4 percent | 3 percent, as higher wages hold aides | 5.5 percent, as the hospital hires aides away | |
| Aides needed | 120 throughout | 120 throughout | 120, falling to 110 from month 6 as referrals shift | |
| Hiring rule | Ignores the pipeline | Unchanged | Unchanged | |
Composite organization. Values are illustrative.
Scenario A: A Good Policy With a Slow Surplus
In Scenario A, the state raises its home-care reimbursement rate and Hearthside passes the increase to aides as higher hourly wages. Better pay lowers the quit fraction from 4 to 3 percent a month. This is good news, and it does help in one way: the shortage that follows the first hiring wave is milder, with the roster bottoming out near 113 aides in month 17 rather than 111 in month 16, about 6 percent short instead of 7.
It also has a cost the agency might not expect. The surplus lasts longer. In the base run, the roster stays above need from month 5 through month 12; in Scenario A it stays above need through month 13. The reason lies in the structure: in a surplus, the main way the roster shrinks is through quits, and with aides better paid, fewer of them leave when hours are short. The roster drains more slowly, so the period of short hours and idle aides stretches out. Higher wages make shortages less severe but surpluses more persistent, because the hiring rule still overshoots in the same way. Meadows (2008) points out that strengthening one part of a system often shifts a problem rather than removing it, and this run shows that pattern in miniature.
Scenario B: A Competitor That Speeds the Cycle
In Scenario B, a hospital system in the region opens its own home-care service in month 6. It hires aides away, raising Hearthside's quit fraction to 5.5 percent, and it keeps more of its own discharges, cutting the aides Hearthside needs from 120 to 110. The first hiring wave still overshoots, peaking near 134 in month 7. Then the faster quit rate drains the roster quickly: it falls below the new, lower need by month 12 and bottoms near 99 aides in month 15, about 10 percent short of need, compared with 7 percent in the base run. The surplus is shorter, the low point arrives a month earlier and the shortage is deeper. The hiring rule, which looks only at last month's roster and ignores the pipeline, struggles to keep pace with a roster that is now leaking faster.
Scenario B also shows why the agency's own response can make an outside shock worse. When the hospital begins hiring away aides in month 6, Hearthside is in the middle of its surplus, so its hiring rule has already shut off recruiting. By the time the roster falls below need, the pipeline is nearly empty, and refilling it takes another two months. The competitor did not create the shortage on its own; it arrived at the point in the cycle when the agency was least ready for it.
Comparing the Scenarios
The two scenarios are very different, one favorable and one hostile, and that was deliberate. Choosing scenarios that differ sharply shows how the current policy behaves across a range of conditions rather than in one expected future (Sterman, 2000). In both, the same weakness appears: the hiring rule overshoots because it ignores aides already in screening and training. In Scenario A, the overshoot produces a longer surplus. In Scenario B, it produces a brief surplus followed by a deeper shortage. Neither outside change fixes the swing, and neither causes it.
Table 2
Results Under the Current Hiring Rule
| Measure | Base run | Scenario A | Scenario B | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak roster | About 137 (month 8) | About 137 (month 8) | About 134 (month 7) | |
| Lowest roster after peak | About 111 (month 16) | About 113 (month 17) | About 99 (month 15) | |
| Shortage at the low point | About 7 percent | About 6 percent | About 10 percent | |
| Months above need, first cycle | 8 | 9 | 7 | |
Composite organization; illustrative runs of the course model.
What This Means for Policy
Because the same rule performs poorly under both futures, improving the rule is likely to help whatever happens outside the agency. That is the question for the next analysis: which change to Hearthside's own policies would reduce the swing across both scenarios? Ghaffarzadegan et al. (2011) argue that small models are well suited to this kind of policy comparison, because their results can be explained rather than simply reported.
References
Ghaffarzadegan, N., Lyneis, J., & Richardson, G. P. (2011). How small system dynamics models can help the public policy process. System Dynamics Review, 27(1), 22-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.442
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
What the MBAX 6007 Week 8 instructions ask for
Week 8 asks you to test your current policy under two outside scenarios. Define each scenario by its assumptions before reporting any result, and hold everything else fixed so differences can be traced. Choose scenarios that differ sharply, one favorable and one hostile, to see how the policy behaves across conditions. For each, explain the mechanism behind the result before giving the numbers. Compare the scenarios in a table on the same measures. Then ask what the comparison reveals about your own policy, since the purpose is to find what to change inside the organization. Four to five pages with charts described in the text is a common length.
Inside the MBAX 6007 Week 8 example
A setup section and table define both scenarios against the base run. The Scenario A section reports the milder shortage, explains the longer surplus through slower quits and cites Meadows on shifting problems. The Scenario B section reports the earlier, deeper shortage and explains how the competitor's timing met an empty pipeline. A section compares the scenarios, citing Sterman on choosing contrasting futures, and a second table sets peak, low point, shortage depth and months above need side by side. The closing section argues that improving the hiring rule would help under either future, citing Ghaffarzadegan and colleagues. Every changed parameter is labeled illustrative in both the text and the setup table.
Where the marks sit in the MBAX 6007 Week 8 rubric
Scenario write-ups are graded on clear assumptions, attributable differences and insight about policy. Each scenario should be defined by what it changes, with everything else held fixed. Mechanisms explained before results show understanding rather than chart reading. Contrasting scenarios earn credit for testing the policy across conditions. The comparison table should use the same measures for every run. The strongest write-ups find a policy weakness that appears in both futures and point toward an internal remedy. Treating scenarios as forecasts, or changing several things at once so results cannot be traced, loses marks. Figures should be consistent between text and tables. Instructors also look for a closing paragraph that turns the comparison into a question for next week.
MBAX 6007 Week 8 help: mistakes that cost marks
Pick two outside changes your organization might face, one helpful and one harmful, and write down exactly which model numbers each one changes. Keep everything else the same. Before running the model, predict what will happen and why; afterward, check whether the mechanism you expected is the one that showed up. Report the same few measures for every run in one table. Then ask what stayed the same across both runs, because that is usually your own policy at work. A frequent misstep is presenting scenarios as predictions. If your scenarios are producing results you cannot explain, send us the setup and we can help trace them. Run the base case again beside each scenario so the comparison stays honest.
Get a MBAX 6007 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk which two futures your prompt asks about, or which ones matter most to your organization, and send the Week 8 prompt and rubric. A custom scenario write-up comes back in 24-48h, first one free, with each result explained by the model's structure and each assumption's sensitivity named.
More MBAX 6007 papers and MBA samples
- MBAX 6007 Week 1: Systems Orientation Post
- MBAX 6007 Week 2: Causal Loop Diagram Paper
- MBAX 6007 Week 3: Stock and Flow Map Paper
- MBAX 6007 Week 4: System Delay Analysis
- MBAX 6007 Week 5: Spreadsheet Modeling Exercise
- MBAX 6007 Week 6: Model Critique Discussion Post
- MBAX 6007 Week 7: Model Boundary Memo
- MBAX 6007 Week 9: Leverage Point Analysis
- MBAX 6007 Week 10: Draft Workshop Submission
- MBAX 6007 Week 11: Final System Dynamics Paper
- MBAX 6005 Week 8: Leadership Brief Memo
- WMBA 6882 Week 8: Change Implementation Plan
- WMBA 6695 Week 8: Ninety-Day Review Slide Deck
- WMBA 6633 Week 8: Coaching Boundary Memo
MBAX 6007 Week 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MBAX 6007 Week 8 sample paper?
The two-scenario write-up and its results table are reproduced below without charge.
What scenarios does the MBAX 6007 Week 8 paper run?
A reimbursement increase passed to wages, and a hospital system opening its own home-care service.
Why does higher pay lengthen the surplus?
Better-paid aides quit less in short-hour periods, so the roster drains more slowly after the hiring overshoot.
What does the competitor do to the cycle?
It brings the low point a month earlier and deepens it to about 10 percent below need.
What do both scenarios reveal?
The current hiring rule overshoots in each, so changing the rule would help whatever happens outside.