GM591 · Unit 5

GM591 Unit 5 business case example

Strategic Project Selection and Initiation Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Every dollar of the 1.38 million a year that meter replacement promises the composite cooperative is traced in this GM591 Unit 5 business case to a count someone already keeps: meter reader invoices, disconnect truck rolls, estimated bills, crew hours spent finding outages. The softest line, unbilled consumption, is flagged as such, and the case shows the project still clears with that line removed.

What this page holds

Six benefit lines with owners, sources and dates, three options and a stress test support a 9.4 million dollar meter replacement in this GM591 Unit 5 business case. Searches like "gm 591 unit 5 assignment example", "gm591 unit 5 sample" and "gm591 unit 5 example" land here.

What a finished GM591 Unit 5 business case looks like

Seven pages following the cooperative's business case template. The problem statement comes first: the automated meter reading system installed in [2011] loses vendor support in [2028], and its failure rate has doubled in [three] years. Three options follow, do nothing, a third-party support extension and full replacement, each costed. The benefits register is the core. Six lines add to 1.38 million a year: meter reading contracts at 410,000 dollars, disconnect and reconnect truck rolls at 261,000, the legacy support contract at 282,000, estimated-bill handling at 97,000, outage patrol hours at 150,000 and unbilled consumption at 180,000. Each line names its source system, an owner by role and the date the saving should first appear. The cost side totals 9.4 million across meters, network, software, installation and project staff.

How a GM591 Unit 5 example is structured

The recommendation arrives only after the alternatives have had a fair hearing. The problem statement is followed by the three options, each with cost, risk and what it leaves unsolved; the support extension is cheapest for [three] years and then leaves the cooperative where it started. The benefits register comes next, under one stated rule: a benefit enters the case only if an existing system already counts the thing it claims to reduce. Unbilled consumption barely meets that rule and is labeled low confidence. Financial results follow, carried from the earlier screen. A stress test then removes the unbilled line, leaving an NPV of about 1.88 million, and shows benefits could fall a little over a quarter before value reached zero. Unquantified benefits are listed apart and kept out of every figure. A tracking schedule closes the case.

Three options, costed fairly

Doing nothing, extending support through a third party and replacing the system are each costed and assessed for what they leave unsolved. The extension looks cheapest until the paper shows it only postpones the same decision by [three] years.

A register of six lines

Each benefit line carries a source system, an owner by role, a baseline figure and a first-realization date. Meter reading savings, for example, come from vendor invoices and begin after the last route converts.

The rule for admitting a benefit

A benefit counts only if a system the cooperative already runs measures the thing it claims to reduce. That rule kept member satisfaction and future rate designs out of the figures and admitted unbilled consumption only as a flagged, low-confidence line.

With the softest line removed

Dropping unbilled consumption lowers annual benefits to 1.20 million and the NPV to about 1.88 million. Benefits could fall a little over a quarter before the project stopped paying for itself at 6.5 percent.

Tracking after approval

A schedule assigns each owner a quarterly report against the baseline for [two] years after cutover. The case treats that schedule as part of the approval request, since benefits nobody reports on tend to vanish from view.

Where marks go in GM591 Unit 5

Benefits asserted without a source are the defect business cases in GM591 are most often returned for: a round annual figure, no baseline, no owner, no date. The course generally expects every benefit to trace to something already measured, and a case that cannot show where its numbers came from has not made one. A single option presented as the only choice is another frequent gap, since approval means choosing among alternatives, including doing nothing. Soft benefits folded into the totals inflate the case and draw comment. Instructors tend to credit a stress test that removes the weakest assumption and reports what survives. Costs that omit installation labor, integration or project staff understate the request. Cases closing without a plan for tracking benefits after approval often lose ground on the implementation criterion.

Get a GM591 Unit 5 example written to your instructions

Outline the project the case argues for, the options against it, and any figures you have for costs and expected savings, even rough ones; include the Unit 5 prompt and rubric. The first case is free and returns in 24-48h, every benefit traced to a source, or bracketed where the figure lives only in your organization's records.

GM591 Unit 5 questions, answered

What if some benefits cannot be measured?

List them, describe them honestly, and keep them out of the financial figures. A business case gains credibility by separating what can be counted from what is merely likely. Instructors tend to reward that separation, and a reader who sees the soft benefits listed apart will trust the hard ones more. Say which of them could be measured later.

Does the case need a do-nothing option?

Almost always. Doing nothing has costs too, such as rising failures, lost support or missed savings, and stating them shows what the organization is actually comparing. A case without it implies the project is the only choice, which approval committees and graders both tend to question. A cheap intermediate option is worth including when one exists.

How detailed should the cost side be?

Detailed enough that nothing large is missing: equipment, software, installation, integration with existing systems, internal staff time and contingency. Each line needs a basis, whether a quote, an estimate or a comparable project. Precision to the dollar is unnecessary, but a category left out entirely usually costs more marks than an estimate that runs high.