| Course | GM591 Strategic Project Selection and Initiation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Weighted scoring model |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM591 Unit 4
Weights Fixed Before the Scores: A Unit 4 Weighted Scoring Model for Five Cooperative Projects
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM591: Strategic Project Selection and Initiation
Unit 4 Weighted Scoring Model
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The electric cooperative, its committee, the scores and every figure are composite and illustrative; the frameworks cited are real.
Criteria and Weights
On September 4, before any project was scored, the planning committee of Coteau Plains Electric Cooperative issued a memo fixing six criteria and their weights. Fixing weights first prevents a familiar problem: once scores are known, people tend to adjust weights until their preferred project wins.
The criteria and weights are member reliability, 25; financial value, 20; strategic alignment, 20; delivery risk, 15; rate impact, 10; and demand on scarce staff, 10. The weights sum to 100.
Each criterion has anchored definitions for scores of 1, 3 and 5, so that a score means the same thing for every project. For member reliability, a 1 means no measurable effect on outage minutes, a 3 means a reduction of up to 5 percent in system outage minutes, and a 5 means a reduction above 10 percent. For financial value, the anchors use the Unit 3 results: a 1 is a negative NPV, a 3 is a positive NPV under $1 million, and a 5 is an NPV above $3 million. For delivery risk, a 1 means new technology the cooperative has never used with no reference installations at similar utilities, a 3 means proven technology new to the cooperative, and a 5 means technology the cooperative already runs. Scores of 2 and 4 fall between anchors. Robert Cooper and colleagues found that scoring models work best when each criterion has clear anchors, because anchors reduce disagreement about what a number means (Cooper et al., 2001).
Scoring
Three scorers, from engineering, member services and finance, scored each project independently. Where the three scores on a criterion differed by more than one point, the committee held a recorded discussion and agreed on a final score. Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony and Cass Sunstein recommend independent judgments followed by structured discussion as a way to reduce noise, the unwanted variability in judgments that should be identical (Kahneman et al., 2021). Of 30 project-criterion pairs, seven needed discussion, most often on delivery risk for fiber and strategic alignment for solar.
What the Discussions Changed
The recorded discussions changed five of the seven disputed scores. On fiber's delivery risk, engineering scored 3 and finance scored 1; engineering pointed to the pilot's working network, and finance pointed to construction costs running 17 percent over estimate. The committee settled on 2. On solar's strategic alignment, member services scored 5, citing the 1,900 members who asked for a renewable option, while finance scored 3, noting that the board's goals do not mention renewable energy. The committee chose 4, recording that the board should clarify its position. On meter replacement's staff demand, the scorers agreed after discussion that the project would occupy both GIS analysts for most of a year, and the score fell from 3 to 2. Without the discussions, these disagreements would have been averaged away, and the reasons behind them would have been lost.
Results
To reach a weighted total, each score is divided by 5 and multiplied by its criterion's weight, and the six products are added, so a project scoring 5 on everything would reach 100.
Outage system: 79.0. Reliability 5, financial value 3, strategic alignment 4, delivery risk 4, rate impact 4, staff demand 3.
Vegetation analytics: 77.0. Reliability 4, financial value 3, strategic alignment 4, delivery risk 5, rate impact 5, staff demand 2.
Meter replacement: 75.0. Reliability 4, financial value 5, strategic alignment 4, delivery risk 3, rate impact 3, staff demand 2.
Fiber: 46.0. Reliability 2, financial value 1, strategic alignment 4, delivery risk 2, rate impact 2, staff demand 3.
Solar: 45.0. Reliability 1, financial value 2, strategic alignment 4, delivery risk 2, rate impact 2, staff demand 3.
The top three projects sit within four points of one another, while the bottom two trail by nearly thirty, so the model separates the portfolio into two groups more clearly than it ranks within the first.
Sensitivity Analysis
A ranking that depends on one weight is fragile. The sensitivity grid moves each of the six weights up and down by 10 points, rescaling the others so the total stays at 100, for twelve runs in all.
The outage system ranks first in eight of the twelve runs. Vegetation analytics ranks first in three: when reliability's weight falls to 15, when delivery risk's rises to 25, and when rate impact's rises to 20. Meter replacement ranks first in one: when financial value's weight rises to 30, which lifts it to 78.1. When staff demand's weight falls to zero, the outage system and vegetation analytics tie at about 81.1.
Fiber and solar remain in the bottom two in all twelve runs. They swap places twice, when reliability's weight falls and when financial value's rises, but neither comes within 20 points of the third-ranked project in any run.
What the Model Shows
The model gives a firm answer about which projects belong in the portfolio and a weaker one about their order. The three leading projects are close enough that their order depends on how much the committee values reliability, financial value and delivery risk relative to one another. The Project Management Institute's portfolio standard treats scoring models as aids to judgment, not substitutes for it, and recommends sensitivity analysis to show decision makers where a ranking is robust (Project Management Institute, 2017).
The model also differs from the financial screen in an important way. Unit 3 found that meter replacement creates far more value than any other project, yet the scoring model ranks it third. Financial value carries only 20 percent of the weight, and meter replacement scores lower on delivery risk, rate impact and staff demand. Both results are correct for what they measure. The committee's final recommendation will need to weigh them, along with the staffing constraints that will appear in the capacity review.
Limits
A future cycle could add a scorer from outside the cooperative, such as an engineer from a neighboring utility, to test whether the anchors read the same way to someone without a stake in the outcome. Three scorers is a small panel, and all three work for the cooperative, so they may share its habits. The anchors for strategic alignment are the least precise, because the board's goals are broad, which explains why solar and fiber both scored 4 there despite very different fits. Finally, the model treats criteria as independent, though reliability and financial value overlap for meter replacement, whose savings partly come from faster outage detection.
References
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Portfolio management for new products (2nd ed.). Perseus.
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. Little, Brown Spark.
Project Management Institute. (2017). The standard for portfolio management (4th ed.).
The Purdue Global GM591 Unit 4 instructions
GM591 Unit 4 asks you to build a weighted scoring model and test how robust its ranking is. Fix criteria and weights before scoring, in writing, so the weights reflect priorities rather than a preferred result. Write anchored definitions for at least the low, middle and high scores on each criterion. Have more than one scorer rate independently, and record how disagreements were settled. Report each project's scores and weighted total. Then run a sensitivity analysis, moving each weight by a meaningful amount, rescaling the others and recording whether the ranking changes. Interpret what the model separates firmly and what it leaves close. Compare its result with the financial screen and explain any difference. Note the model's limits. Expect about five pages built around a scoring table and a sensitivity grid, citing portfolio selection sources in APA 7.
Inside the GM591 Unit 4 example
The paper opens with the committee's September 4 memo and the six criteria and weights, then gives anchors for reliability, financial value and delivery risk, citing Cooper and colleagues on anchored scoring. Three scorers rated independently, with Kahneman, Sibony and Sunstein on reducing noise, and seven disputed scores were discussed; examples show fiber's delivery risk settled at 2 and solar's alignment at 4. Totals follow with each criterion score: outage system 79.0, vegetation analytics 77.0, meter replacement 75.0, fiber 46.0 and solar 45.0. The highlighted sentence describes two groups. Twelve sensitivity runs put the outage system first eight times, vegetation analytics three and meter replacement once, with fiber and solar always last. The paper explains why meter replacement ranks third here despite leading the financial screen, cites the portfolio standard and notes limits.
Reading the GM591 Unit 4 grading rubric
GM591 rubric points for this model go to weights fixed in advance, clear anchors and an honest sensitivity test. Instructors check that weights were set before scoring and recorded. Anchored definitions earn credit because they make scores comparable across projects. Independent scoring with recorded discussion shows a defensible process. The sensitivity analysis carries significant weight: moving each weight, rescaling and reporting changes in rank shows where the ranking is robust. Interpreting the result as a firm split or a close call shows judgment. Comparing the model with financial results, and explaining differences, connects the units. A frank statement of limits rounds out the paper. Cooper, Edgett and Kleinschmidt, Kahneman, Sibony and Sunstein's Noise and the Project Management Institute's portfolio standard supply the sources in APA 7.
GM591 Unit 4 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GM591 Unit 4 models set weights after seeing the scores, which makes the ranking look reverse engineered. Others score without anchors, so a 3 means something different for each project. A frequent gap is sensitivity: a model that is never tested gives a ranking without showing how much it depends on the weights. Some writers ignore the gap between their scoring result and their financial screen. Write down weights first, anchor each criterion, score independently and settle disputes openly, report every score, move each weight and record the ranking, interpret what is firm and what is close, and explain any conflict with the numbers from the financial screen.
Get a GM591 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Share the candidates, the criteria and weights your prompt fixes or that you would set, and whatever facts inform each score. The Unit 4 prompt and rubric go with them. Free as a first sample, the model is ready inside 24-48h, with anchored definitions for every criterion and a sensitivity grid showing where the ranking holds. 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 GM591 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM591 Unit 1: Project Escalation Discussion Post
- GM591 Unit 2: Project Screening Matrix
- GM591 Unit 3: NPV and Payback Screening Exercise
- GM591 Unit 5: Business Case
- GM591 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GM591 Unit 7: Project Charter
- GM591 Unit 8: Gate Review Memo
- GM591 Unit 9: Portfolio Capacity Review
- GM591 Unit 10: Selection Recommendation
- GM586 Unit 4: Ferry Allision Leader Behavior Case
- GM585 Unit 4: Feedback Scenario Response
- GM543 Unit 4: Coordination Mechanism Analysis
- GM541 Unit 4: Sensor Pilot Resistance Analysis
GM591 Unit 4 questions, answered
How should the weights be chosen?
By people with authority over the decision, before candidates are scored, and in writing. Methods range from simple point allocation to pairwise comparison. The method matters less than the timing and the record: a reader needs to see that the weights reflect the organization's priorities rather than the result someone wanted. If the prompt supplies weights, use them and say so.
What is a reasonable sensitivity test?
Move each weight by a meaningful amount, such as ten points, rescale the others and record whether the ranking changes. Report which changes reorder the top candidates and which leave the order intact. A model whose top tier survives every reasonable change supports a stronger recommendation than one that flips with a small adjustment.
Should financial results be a criterion or kept separate?
Either can be defended. Including them lets one model weigh everything, but a one-to-five score compresses large differences in value. Keeping them separate preserves the magnitudes and forces the recommendation to reconcile two views. Many strong papers include a financial criterion and then check the ranking against the discounted figures directly.
Where can I find a free GM591 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM591 Unit 4 weighted scoring model for five cooperative projects, with anchored criteria, independent scorers, a twelve-run sensitivity grid and APA 7 references.
Why were the weights fixed before scoring?
Once scores are known, people tend to adjust weights until a favored project wins. A dated memo setting the weights in advance shows the ranking reflects the committee's priorities rather than a preferred result.