11. Placement rate for current year should be around 90% to achieve desired quality of applicants for the next year class. We have linked the placement rate to the quality of the students in our model. Higher the placement rate, higher would be the quality of applicants for next year class.
12. Offers accepted = Class size, we have ignored the candidates who accept the offer and then don’t show up on the registration day.
18. We take conservative approach while rolling out the offers, especially towards the end of the cycle. We do this to avoid having more than expected students turning up on the registration day.
19. The number of applications follow multiple peaks and troughs throughout the application cycle and the admissions decisions are made on a rolling basis, but we have not taken this in to account in our modeling process
20. The offer decision also follows a peak and trough pattern but we haven’t taken it in to account.
21. We have taken a simple approach when taking in to consideration uncertainty around application submission, offer roll out and offer acceptance pattern.
22. We have not taken in account additional team rooms required in our cost structure.
34. The model takes in to account most of the quantitative aspects of the case.
35. The data collection process and analysis involved in the modeling exercises gives us an opportunity to think critically on the current situation and if some of aspects could be improved upon.
53. Convince stake holders (MBA office, Finance) to share more data with us to incorporate a better cost structure and come up with a more robust model to make decisions
54. Incorporate last minute no-shows in the model to get a more clear picture of the situation Appendix <br />