MT314 Unit 4 Social Venture Theory of Change Example

Course	MT314 Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Unit	Unit 4
Paper type	Theory of change
Length	About 900 words, 6 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	BS in Business Administration
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MT314 Unit 4

Six Arrows, Two Weak Ones: An MT314 Unit 4 Theory of Change for a Car Repair Venture That Keeps People Employed

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT314: Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Unit 4 Theory of Change

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The venture, county and figures are composite; the methods and sources cited are real.

What this part is doingSaying in the lead that each arrow carries a falsifiable assumption tells the reader the paper tests its own logic.

The Diagram

Seven boxes, left to right, with six numbered arrows:

1. Referral by an employer or workforce center.

2. Diagnosis within 24 hours.

3. Repair within 72 hours, on a sliding scale.

4. A running car.

5. Shifts attended.

6. A job still held at 180 days.

7. Steadier earnings and less reliance on title loans.

Boxes 1 through 4 are activities and outputs. Boxes 5 through 7 are outcomes. The diagram shades the line between box 4 and box 5, because a running car is something the shop delivers, while attendance and a job kept are changes in a worker's life that the shop can only influence.

Why Separate Outputs and Outcomes

Ebrahim and Rangan (2014) distinguish outputs, the immediate products of an organization's activities, from outcomes, the changes those products produce for people, and argue that organizations should claim outcomes only where their logic and evidence support it. A shop that reported cars repaired as its result would be measuring its own work, not its effect. Weiss (1995) argued that a theory of change should spell out the assumptions linking each step, so that evaluators can test where a program's logic breaks.

The Six Arrows

Arrow 1: Referral leads to diagnosis. Assumption: referred workers will bring the car in within a day. Evidence: pilot data show 37 of 41 referred workers arrived within 24 hours. Rating: strong. Early signal: no-show rate above 15 percent.

Arrow 2: Diagnosis leads to repair. Assumption: workers can afford their share of a sliding-scale repair. Evidence: in the pilot, two of 41 could not pay their share. Rating: moderate. Early signal: more than 10 percent declining after diagnosis.

Arrow 3: Repair leads to a running car. Assumption: the repair holds for at least six months. Evidence: cars and light trucks in use nationally now average about 12.6 years of age (S&P Global Mobility, 2024), so other failures are likely. Pilot repeat breakdowns within 90 days: 4 of 41. Rating: moderate. Early signal: repeat breakdowns above 15 percent at six months.

Arrow 4: A running car leads to shifts attended. Assumption: the car was the binding constraint on attendance. Evidence: employer interviews named car trouble among leading causes of attendance termination, but workers may also face childcare, health or scheduling barriers. Rating: weak. Early signal: missed shifts not falling after repair.

Arrow 5: Shifts attended lead to a job kept. Assumption: employers will keep a worker whose attendance improves, even after earlier absences. Evidence: several employers' policies count absences over a rolling period, so a worker with past absences may be terminated even after the car is fixed. Rating: weak. Early signal: terminations within 60 days of repair.

Arrow 6: A job kept leads to steadier earnings. Assumption: retained workers' earnings stabilize and reliance on title loans falls. Evidence: plausible but unmeasured. Rating: moderate. Early signal: survey shows no change in title loan use at six months.

The two arrows most likely to break are the ones a mechanic cannot fix: whether the car was really the problem, and whether the employer will forgive the past.

What this part is doingLocating the weakest links outside the shop's own work shows the theory was tested honestly.

Weak Arrow 4: Was the Car the Real Obstacle?

A worker who misses shifts because the car broke down may also have an unstable childcare arrangement or a health condition. If the car is fixed but other barriers remain, attendance may not improve.

Response. At intake, a half-time navigator asks two short questions about other barriers to getting to work. Workers who report one are referred to the county's workforce center, which can help with childcare subsidies and other supports. The shop tracks whether workers with other barriers improve less, which would show how much of arrow 4 depends on factors outside the shop.

Weak Arrow 5: Will Past Absences Be Forgiven?

Several employers use rolling attendance points. A worker who missed four shifts before the repair may still be terminated for a fifth absence weeks later, even with a working car.

Response. Employers who refer workers sign a short agreement: absences in the two weeks before a referred repair are excused under their attendance policy. Two of the six employers interviewed have agreed in principle. The shop would prioritize referrals from employers who sign.

What the Theory Does Not Claim

The venture makes no promise to fix rural poverty, transportation access or employers' turnover. It claims a narrow causal chain and identifies where that chain is weakest. If evidence shows arrows 4 or 5 failing, the venture should change its referral criteria or employer agreements rather than report more repairs.

How the Diagram Will Be Used

The diagram is not a decoration for funders. Each early signal is assigned to a staff member and reviewed monthly. If two signals on the same arrow appear in consecutive months, the founding team meets to decide whether the arrow's assumption has failed and what to change.

What this part is doingAssigning each early signal to a person shows the theory of change is a working tool.

Limits

Pilot evidence comes from 41 repairs, a small number. Employer interviews are self-reported. The theory has not yet been tested against a comparison group, which the impact plan in Unit 8 will address.

References

Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118-141. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.118

S&P Global Mobility. (2024, May 22). Average age of vehicles in the US hits 12.6 years. https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/average-age-of-vehicles-in-the-us-hits-126-years.html

Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65-92). Aspen Institute.

MT314 Unit 4 instructions, in plain terms

In Unit 4 students build a theory of change for a proposed venture. The diagram should run from activities through outputs to outcomes, with the boundary between outputs and outcomes clearly marked. Instructors expect every link in the chain to carry an assumption stated as a claim that could turn out false. Each assumption should have evidence and a rating of its strength. Early signals, the first signs that an assumption is failing, should be named. The weakest links deserve the most attention, with responses designed to strengthen them. The paper should state what the theory does not claim, and many prompts ask how the theory will be tested, often in a later measurement plan. A one-page diagram usually precedes the written explanation.

How this MT314 Unit 4 example is built

The sample lists seven boxes and shades the output-outcome boundary. A section explains why outputs and outcomes are separated, citing Ebrahim and Rangan and Weiss. Six arrows follow, each with assumption, evidence, rating and early signal, using pilot figures and vehicle age data. The highlighted line notes that the two weakest arrows are ones a mechanic cannot fix. Arrow four receives an intake screen for other barriers and workforce center referrals. Arrow five receives employer agreements excusing absences around the breakdown. A section states what the theory does not claim. Another explains how early signals are reviewed monthly, and limits note the small pilot and the comparison group still to come.

Reading the MT314 Unit 4 grading rubric

Theories of change are commonly weighed on the clarity of the causal chain, the separation of outputs from outcomes, the honesty of assumptions and the quality of responses to weak links. Graders reward assumptions written as testable claims rather than hopes. Evidence should be specific, and ratings should be justified. Early signals should be observable. Weak links should be identified honestly and addressed with practical responses. A statement of what the theory does not claim shows restraint. Evaluation sources appear in APA 7. Theories of change that present every arrow as strong, or that count outputs such as repairs completed as proof of impact, usually score lower, because the unit asks students to find where their own logic might fail.

Common MT314 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Theories of change often present a hopeful chain of boxes with no assumptions written down. Another frequent error is treating outputs, such as services delivered, as outcomes. Some students rate every link as strong. Weak links are rarely given a response. Early signals are often missing, so the venture would not know when its logic was failing. Before drafting, write each arrow as a sentence beginning "this works only if," and ask someone outside the venture which sentence they doubt most. The arrow they choose is often the one that deserves a full page and a designed response.

Get an MT314 Unit 4 example written to your instructions

Your venture concept or Unit 3 problem statement, the section's theory of change format and the rubric make up the whole request. Expect the model inside 24-48h: a diagram, every assumption written as a testable claim, the evidence rated and the weakest links identified alongside what would be watched. Your first custom sample comes at no cost and is built around your venture. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More MT314 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MT314 Unit 4 questions, answered

Is a theory of change the same as a logic model?

They overlap. A logic model lists inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes in columns, while a theory of change explains why each step should lead to the next, which is where the assumptions live. Some MT314 sections use the terms interchangeably. The sample follows your section's format and adds the assumptions whichever label it carries.

How many boxes should the diagram have?

Enough to show every causal step without hiding one inside another, often five to eight. The example uses seven because the step from a running car to attended shifts is where the model is weakest, and merging them would bury it. Your venture's pathway sets the count, not a template borrowed from someone else's diagram.

What if my evidence for an arrow is weak?

Say so. A theory of change that rates its own weak links honestly usually scores better than one claiming certainty. The example rates two of its six arrows weak and explains what the venture would measure to find out early. Weak evidence becomes a design decision rather than a flaw once it is named and answered.

Where can I find a free MT314 Unit 4 sample paper?

This page carries the full MT314 Unit 4 theory of change, with six assumptions behind a car repair venture rated for strength.

Which assumptions are weakest in the MT314 Unit 4 sample?

That the car was the real obstacle to attendance, and that employers will forgive absences that happened before the repair.