Nine cooperative proposals meet five pass-or-fail filters, with obligations routed around the ranking, in this GM591 Unit 2 project screening matrix, shown complete with reasons for every cell. Searches like "gm 591 unit 2 assignment example", "gm591 unit 2 sample" and "gm591 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GM591 Unit 2 project screening matrix looks like
Four pages: a one-page matrix, a page of filter definitions and two pages of discussion. Rows are the nine proposals: advanced metering replacement, an outage management upgrade with a member app, vegetation risk analytics, a community solar array, a fiber broadband build, pole-loading remediation, segmentation of the control network, district office EV chargers and a drone inspection program. Columns are the five filters: obligation, fit with the board's three strategic goals, problem definition with a named sponsor, rate impact under [two] percent, and deliverability within [three] years. Each cell holds pass, fail or conditional, with a one-line reason. Pole-loading remediation, required by the state safety code, and network segmentation, a condition of the cyber insurance renewal, bypass ranking and go straight to the capacity plan. Drone inspection merges into pole-loading. EV chargers fail definition.
How a GM591 Unit 2 example is structured
Definitions come before the matrix, because a filter nobody defined in advance can be bent after the fact. Each filter is stated as a test with its threshold and the source that settles it: the safety code and insurer letter for obligation, the board's adopted plan for fit, the proposal form for definition, a rate model for impact, the engineering estimate for deliverability. Obligations come first, with a note that bypassing the ranking does not exempt them from capacity, since mandatory work uses the same crews. The drone merger is argued from overlapping scope, the charger failure from a proposal describing equipment and no member need. Fiber passes only on condition that it be split into a pilot and a later phase. A closing paragraph borrows Meredith and Mantel's sacred cow and operating necessity categories to name what screening cannot settle.
Five filters, defined first
Each filter has a threshold and a named source. Rate impact, for instance, is tested against the cooperative's own rate model, and anything above [two] percent in a single year fails regardless of how attractive the project looks.
Two obligations, outside the ranking
Pole-loading remediation and control network segmentation are not choices. The matrix routes them to the capacity plan directly and records why, so no one mistakes their absence from the ranking for a low priority.
A merger, not a rejection
The drone inspection program proposed to inspect the same poles the remediation program must inspect anyway. Its scope is folded into pole-loading, which keeps a useful idea without funding the same inspection twice.
Chargers with no problem attached
The EV charger proposal describes hardware, locations and costs but no member or operational need it answers. It fails definition, and the matrix invites a resubmission with a problem statement and a sponsor.
Fiber, passed on a condition
At full scale the fiber build cannot be delivered within [three] years. It passes only as a pilot of about [1,100] homes with the remainder decided at a gate, a condition the matrix writes into its cell.
Where marks go in GM591 Unit 2
Screening matrices lose marks most commonly by doing the scoring job instead of the screening job: filters with gradations and weights, which turn a pass-or-fail step into a second, less careful ranking. The GM591 unit usually wants thresholds stated in advance and applied the same way to every proposal. Obligations placed inside the ranking are a frequent conceptual error, since a required project cannot lose to an attractive one. Cells without reasons draw comments, as do filters defined only by a heading. A matrix that shows at least one proposal rescued by merging or phasing, rather than simply failed, tends to be rewarded. Leaving mandatory work out of the capacity picture altogether is the other common gap. A matrix where everything passes has screened nothing, and papers rarely recover from that on the discussion pages.
Get a GM591 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
List the candidate projects your prompt supplies, or the ones competing for money where you work, and add the Unit 2 instructions and rubric along with any strategic goals the organization has published. The sample matrix is free on a first request and ready in 24-48h, with every threshold stated before a single cell is filled.
GM591 Unit 2 questions, answered
How is screening different from scoring?
Screening decides which proposals are eligible to compete; scoring ranks the ones that are. Screens are pass or fail against stated thresholds, and a proposal that fails one is out regardless of its other merits. Scoring then weighs trade-offs among the survivors. Many papers blur the two, and a matrix that keeps them separate reads as better organized.
Should mandatory projects appear in the matrix at all?
Yes, but marked as obligations and routed around the ranking. Leaving them out hides the capacity they consume, and ranking them invites the absurd result of a legal requirement losing to a discretionary project. Record the source of the obligation, such as a code, contract or insurer condition, so the reader can verify it.
How many filters does a screening matrix need?
Enough to remove proposals that should not compete, and few enough that each is meaningful. Four to six is common in course examples. Each filter needs a threshold a second person could apply and get the same answer. Filters that every proposal passes add nothing, and filters that require judgment usually belong in the scoring model instead.