When we allow for the people that perhaps voluntarily

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: in their relative positions indefinitely (as a result of being unable to retire).3a. Using a BI-FLOW system, we get a more realistic representation of how the model would look in practice vs. theory. We're now able to demote people at higher levels as well as promote people at lower positions, creating a more equilibrious state (see graph 1, pg. 3). The model is an improvement from previous orientations, but is still less than ideal in the sense that we more ASSISTANTS than we would prefer.3b. With the addition of our attrition rates (i.e.-people leaving the system without replacement & prior to retirement), by year 10 we are left with a total of ASSISTANTS = 815, DIRECTORS = 85, EXECUTIVES = 9. When we allow for the people that perhaps voluntarily quit their jobs, our rates are lower than in previous models that retained all present employees under the pretense they would remain in the system.4. Assumptions for the implications of this model were highly improbable. As depicted on graph 1, pg. 5, our employee rates fluctuate back & forth as they might be likely to do in reality. The ideal numbers were RATE_OF_HIRING = 2.65 & RATE_OF_PROMOTING = 1.9. Such rapid fluctuation is indicative of a highly volitle economy or some other factor, but may be more accurately representative of corporate structure in a free-market, capitalistic environment as compared with the relatively smooth changes seen in previous models. FURTHER QUESTIONS:Could RATE_OF_HIRING & RATE_OF_PROMOTING be set in an effort to counter the oscillations of the entities within the model? How should we attempt to incorporate the fact that some employees will be fired from their positions? How do we account for people that are hired for upper level positions from outside the system as opposed to being promoted from within it, & in connection with that concept, promote individuals based on merit as opposed to an arbitrary promotional rate? Could a better model be simulated if we were to include more detailed list of positions (for instance, people immediately surrounding the assistants, directors, & executives)?ANALOGIES:Some companies operate in a fashion similar to that in our simulation whereby time spent within the company is a more determining factor than merit, but I think in general this is not the case across the board. Simply putting in your time does not automatically qualify one for promotion.#,- #(f#d#########################@##################### ###############%#o###l###########%#&)#####*#+)####N#,- #(d# %#############################@############################### #######.########)*#+#,- #(f#################### ######@########################## #########1#####e##########! #(#))##9#####*#+)##:#####,- #(d################ ##############@#########################! #####################)*#+#,- #(f##############################@####################### ###"##########R#H#############+#,)####@#*#+)#####, - #(d#H##############"##############@###################### #############?##Q########)*#+#,- #(c#f########################@#################### ######$#########U###t##########%)*#+#,- #(a###############$###########@################# #######%#####T...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/30/2009 for the course ECON Dynamic Si taught by Professor Hannon during the Summer '09 term at University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online