| Course | GB601 MBA Capstone |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Risk and contingency analysis |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB601 Unit 8
The Rival That Copies the Advantage: A Unit 8 Risk and Contingency Analysis for Brightwater's Wedding Party Program
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB601: MBA Capstone
Unit 8 Risk and Contingency Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Brightwater Formalwear, its partners and rivals and every figure are composite and illustrative; the frameworks and sources cited are real.
Method
Each risk is expressed in the same currency, net present value over five years at 10 percent, using the Unit 5 workbook with the start-up budget updated to $135,000 in Unit 7. The base case is about $439,000. For each risk, the register records a likelihood rating, the effect on net present value if it occurs, an early warning sign with the date by which it would appear, an owner by role and a contingency. Measuring every risk in one currency, as Kaplan and Mikes (2012) recommend for strategy risks that must be weighed against expected returns, lets the risks be ranked by impact rather than by how alarming they sound.
The Risk Register
Risk 1: A national renter copies local fit assurance by year 3. If a national online renter opened fitting lounges in Columbus with backup sizes for the day of the event, recaptured rentals would fall sharply from FY2029. Net present value: about negative $107,000. Likelihood: medium, since at least one national renter has opened showrooms in other cities. Warning sign: job postings or lease announcements for fitting locations in central Ohio, watched quarterly. Owner: program lead. Contingency: accelerate venue partnerships into exclusive preferred-provider agreements, and expand the groom's buy-your-suit option, which online renters do not offer locally.
Risk 2: Tariffs raise garment costs further. Another round of tariffs on imported tailored clothing, if it raised garment cost by roughly $8 a rental and suit cost by $25, would leave net present value near $332,000. Likelihood: medium. Warning sign: published tariff changes and supplier price notices. Owner: finance manager. Contingency: extend garment life through more frequent repair and shift buying toward suppliers in countries with lower tariffs.
Risk 3: The program misses the first engagement season. If coordinators or the remote measurement process are not ready by December, first-year recaptured rentals would fall to about 300 and second-year to about 1,700. Net present value: about $323,000. Likelihood: low to medium. Warning sign: coordinators not hired by the end of August. Owner: program lead. Contingency: launch at two stores with the program lead covering partnerships.
Risk 4: Venue partnerships deliver less than expected. If recaptured rentals reach only 75 percent of the projection, net present value falls to about $190,000. The breakeven is about 56 percent. Likelihood: medium. Warning sign: referrals from partner venues during the pilot below half the target. Owner: wedding coordinators. Contingency: shift coordinator time from venues to direct outreach to recently engaged couples.
Risk 5: A coordinator leaves in the second year. Losing six months of one coordinator's work and paying about $20,000 to recruit a replacement would reduce net present value to about $365,000. Likelihood: medium. Warning sign: coordinator workload above fifty active weddings each. Owner: president. Contingency: document every venue relationship in the scheduling system so it does not leave with the coordinator.
Risk 6: Remote fittings produce more errors than planned. If remotely measured suits needed exchanges often enough to add about $6 to the average cost per recaptured rental, net present value would fall to about $384,000. Likelihood: medium. Warning sign: day-of fixes above 5 percent of remote fittings in the pilot. Owner: head tailor. Contingency: add a second measurement check by video for any measurement outside expected ranges.
Ranked by Impact
Ranked by the loss of net present value against the base case, the risks are: a rival copying fit assurance, about $546,000; weak venue partnerships, about $249,000; a missed first season, about $116,000; higher tariffs, about $107,000; coordinator turnover, about $73,000; and remote fitting errors, about $55,000. Only the first, alone, would make the program lose money.
The program's value rests on an advantage a rival could copy, so the plan must keep moving faster than the copy.
The Rival That Copies the Advantage
The first risk deserves more than a contingency. Unit 4 found that the wedding party program occupies an empty corner on the positioning map, pairing a local fitting promise with easy service for scattered wedding parties. A national renter with local fitting lounges would move into that corner. Barney (1991) argues that an advantage lasts only if it is hard to imitate, and the program's components, coordinators, remote fittings and backup inventory, are each imitable. What is harder to copy is the network of relationships with planners and venues and the history of reliable day-of service behind it. The contingency therefore centers on deepening those relationships early, while Brightwater still has the corner to itself.
Ethics as a Risk Category
Three ethical questions also carry risk.
Activity directors are public employees. High school activity directors who organize proms are employees of public school districts and subject to state ethics rules on gifts. Brightwater must not offer them anything of value, such as free rentals or event tickets, in exchange for recommending the company. Group fittings at schools will continue only on terms each district approves.
Referral payments to venues must be disclosed. If Brightwater pays venues or planners for referrals, couples should be told, because a planner's recommendation implies independent judgment. The program will offer partners a fixed marketing fee rather than per-referral commissions and will ask partners to disclose the relationship.
Body measurements and video calls are personal data. Remote fittings collect measurements and video images of customers. Brightwater will store measurements only for the rental and one year after, will not record video calls, and will not share measurement data with any partner. Martin (2016) treats privacy as a social contract: data shared for one purpose carry the expectations of that purpose. Customers hand over measurements to be fitted for a wedding, not to be profiled for marketing, and the program's rules keep to that bargain.
An Exit That Limits the Loss
If, at the month 14 pilot review or by month 18 at the latest, recaptured rentals are below 40 percent of the projection, Brightwater should end the program. Stopping at that point would limit the loss to about $266,000 in present value, mostly the start-up spending and the first year's coordinator costs, and the coordinators could move into store management roles that the company expects to fill through retirements. Without a defined exit, a program falling short would tend to continue on hope, and the loss would grow each year.
References
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Kaplan, R. S., & Mikes, A. (2012). Managing risks: A new framework. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 48-60.
Martin, K. (2016). Understanding privacy online: Development of a social contract approach to privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 551-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2565-9
The Purdue Global GB601 Unit 8 instructions
The eighth GB601 milestone asks you to analyze what could make your chosen solution fail. Build a risk register in which each risk has a likelihood, an impact measured in the same currency as your financial model, an early warning sign with a date, an owner and a contingency. Rank the risks by impact. Give the most serious risk more than a contingency: explain why it threatens the solution and how the plan addresses it. Treat ethical issues as risks with rules and owners, not as a closing paragraph. Define an exit point that limits the loss if results fall short. About nine pages with a register and APA 7 citations fits most sections.
How the GB 601 Unit 8 example is put together
A method section explains why every risk is priced in net present value, citing Kaplan and Mikes. The register sets out six risks: a rival copying fit assurance, tariffs, a missed first season, weak venue partnerships, coordinator turnover and remote fitting errors, each with likelihood, impact, warning sign, owner and contingency. A ranking orders them from about $546,000 of lost value down to about $55,000. The highlighted sentence says the plan must keep moving faster than the copy, and Barney's imitability test explains why relationships matter most. An ethics section covers activity directors, referral disclosure and measurement data, using Martin's social contract view of privacy. An exit at month 18 closes the analysis.
Where the points sit in the GB601 Unit 8 rubric
GB601 instructors award the most points in this milestone for risks measured in a common currency. Impacts expressed in net present value from the financial model let the reader rank risks by consequence rather than by alarm. Dated warning signs, owners and contingencies turn the register into a management tool. Deeper treatment of the most serious risk shows the writer understands what could defeat the strategy. Ethics treated as a risk category with specific rules demonstrates that the capstone takes its effects on people seriously. A defined exit that limits the loss shows financial discipline. A clear register and APA 7 citations complete the rubric.
GB601 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GB601 risk sections list generic risks, such as economic downturn, rated high, medium or low, with no link to the financial model. Others name risks without warning signs, so no one would know when they were occurring. A common gap is failing to admit the risk the plan cannot survive. Ethics often appears as a paragraph about integrity rather than as specific rules with owners. Exit points are frequently missing, which lets a failing program continue on hope. Price each risk in the model's currency, give it a dated warning sign and an owner, treat the worst one in depth, write ethics rules and set an exit. Our team can draft a free custom risk analysis for your plan.
Get a GB601 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Bring the strategy chosen in Unit 6, the implementation plan from Unit 7 if it exists, and the rubric for risk, ethics and contingencies. Returned within 24-48h, the custom analysis prices each risk against your projections where figures allow and pairs every one with a trigger and an owner. A first sample carries no fee. 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 GB601 papers and MBA samples
- GB601 Unit 1: Problem Statement and Scope
- GB601 Unit 2: Research Plan
- GB601 Unit 3: Industry and Market Analysis
- GB601 Unit 4: Competitive Positioning Evidence
- GB601 Unit 5: Financial Projections
- GB601 Unit 6: Strategic Alternatives Comparison
- GB601 Unit 7: Implementation Roadmap
- GB601 Unit 9: Integrated Capstone Document
- GB601 Unit 10: Capstone Defense Presentation
- GB600 Unit 8: Ethical Dilemma Analysis
- GB590 Unit 8: Global Labor Standards Analysis
- GB580 Unit 8: Implementation Plan
- GB570 Unit 8: Traceability Audit
GB601 Unit 8 questions, answered
Why include ethics in a GB601 risk analysis?
Because a capstone recommendation lands on real people, and ethical failures are among the costliest risks an organization runs. Many sections ask for it explicitly. The strongest treatments name the specific stakeholders, the specific conflict and the safeguard, such as a no-gifts rule where a partner is a public employee, rather than restating general principles.
How many risks should the register include?
Enough to cover the plan's real exposures, which for many capstones is five to eight. A long list of remote possibilities dilutes attention from the few that could actually sink the strategy. Ranking them, and giving the top two or three a fuller treatment with measured impact and a tested contingency, usually serves the rubric better.
Should the analysis admit a risk the plan cannot handle?
Yes, and doing so tends to raise credibility rather than lower it. Every strategy has conditions under which it fails; naming them, estimating their cost and stating the point at which the organization would stop shows judgment. A risk section claiming every threat is fully mitigated reads as advocacy, and experienced graders discount it accordingly.
Where can I find a free GB601 Unit 8 sample paper?
A full GB601 Unit 8 risk and contingency analysis is on this page, pricing six risks to a composite formalwear chain's program in net present value, with warning signs, owners, ethics rules and a month 18 exit.
Why measure every risk in net present value?
A single currency lets the risks be ranked by what they would actually cost the plan. Ratings such as high or medium cannot be added up or compared with the plan's expected value.