Illustrative Research Exhibit — Simulated Data
Capacity Expansion Under Uncertainty
- Research Context
- A simulated regional retailer compares retained capacity, phased expansion and full expansion over 36 months. The question is whether added fulfilment capacity justifies its cash commitment when demand growth and commissioning conditions vary.
- Assessment Scope
- Four-stock Vensim model executed by PySD; 12 scenario/option trajectories, 200 common Monte Carlo draws across three options, and 144 sensitivity conditions. All parameters and results are illustrative, with no empirical calibration.
System Dynamics Structure
Scroll horizontally to inspect the complete figure.
Scenario Trajectories
Scroll horizontally to inspect the complete figure.
Monte Carlo Outcome Distribution
Scroll horizontally to inspect the complete figure.
Sensitivity & Decision Conditions
Scroll horizontally to inspect the complete figure.
Principal Findings
- Under the baseline, phased expansion ends with EUR 5.44m cash and 0 queued orders; retained capacity ends with EUR 6.25m cash but 18,604 queued orders.
- At 2.0% continuous monthly growth, full expansion reduces terminal backlog to 372 orders versus 125,502 under retained capacity and becomes preferred under the stated decision measure.
- In the 200 common simulated parameter draws, retained, phased and full capacity rank first 35, 116 and 49 times. These counts describe the chosen assumption distribution, not real-world probabilities.
Executive Interpretation
The baseline favours phased expansion under the declared terminal-value measure, although retained capacity preserves more cash. Stronger demand changes the preference to full expansion as backlog costs rise. The ranking therefore depends on demand growth, capital cost and commissioning delay, together with assumed residual value and backlog liability; these inputs require business validation before investment approval.
Decision Conditions
- At EUR 235 per added monthly unit, the sampled monthly-growth grid favours retain capacity at 0.0–0.6%; phased expansion at 0.8–1.6%; full expansion at 1.8–3.0%. These are conditional comparisons; thresholds between sampled values are not resolved.
- Validate attainable throughput, the first-order commissioning assumption, cash collection timing, backlog liabilities and residual asset value before applying the model. The EUR 600,000 reserve constrains new investment but does not guarantee a universal cash floor.
Evidence Limitations
- Synthetic demand and independent parameter distributions have no empirical calibration. The simulation intervals and scenario frequencies are not forecasts.
- The objective is terminal cash plus 40% residual expansion value minus EUR 25 per queued order. It is not discounted cash flow; cancellation, financing, tax and receivables delays are excluded.
- Capacity commissions gradually through a first-order delay. Liquidity remains positive in the tested range; cash-distress and fixed completion-date models are outside scope.