Chebaiywa Clinic Case

911 WordsNov 3, 20114 Pages
Question 1: * Extraction and other services: 40% of all visits Fillings and root canals: 60% of all visits * Interest rate 2% * Total investments: 4.710.000, starts in 2009 (startup, water well) * Positive cashflow start in 2012 till 2021 * Average revenue per patient = 873,8 * Assumptions: * we did not take time of the different dental procedures into consideration. This is because I thought that the clinic would never get full, so there would never be a bottleneck situation where patients would have to wait that long that they would leave for the competitor. * Furthermore I assumed that more time was needed, that the extra costs was already calculated in the total costs of the particular treatment…show more content…
Question 3 Extra note first uncertainty: * This is defined as an effect uncertainty, because regardless if the clinic stays with ELI or become an independent entity, keeping the current policy of charging for services will dissatisfy the community which can lead to a deficit for the clinic. (Will the community keep visiting the clinic or not?) Extra note 2 See slides of uncertainty-lecture * There is an absence of probability because no one could predict whether the clinic would continue or not, under ELI or selfsustaining entity (financial wise, upset community) * Changes in 2004 showed that community reaction towards policy was unpredictable not equal to volatility of events * Uncertainty is not a result of complexity: cannot be solved with calculations or knowledge Scope: January 2009, the Kipkaren neighborhood of Chebaiywa, Kenya Major stakeholders: Tarus ; the committee members; Clinic staffs ; ELI ; the local Community A significant infrastructure development led to a positive trend towards economic development. Tarus created the opportunity to generate sustainable income by executing

More about Chebaiywa Clinic Case

Open Document