| Course | GM591 Strategic Project Selection and Initiation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Gate review memo |
| Length | About 790 words, 5 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 8
The Seven Million Does Not Count: A Unit 8 Gate Review Memo on a Cooperative's Fiber Pilot
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM591: Strategic Project Selection and Initiation
Unit 8 Gate Review Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The electric cooperative, its fiber pilot and every figure are composite and illustrative; the research cited is real.
Memo
To: General Manager and Board Planning Committee, sitting as Gate 3 gatekeepers From: Finance Director Date: February 10 Subject: Gate 3 review of the fiber broadband pilot
Recommendation
Hold phase two capital, with conditions. Continue selling service in the pilot area, which costs little and will show whether demand can reach the level the business case needs. Release phase two funding only if the conditions below are met, and end the program if any of three stop conditions occurs.
What the Sunk Cost Means for This Decision
The pilot has spent about $7.0 million to pass 1,150 homes. That money is spent whether the program continues or stops, so it should play no part in this decision. Hal Arkes and Catherine Blumer showed that people often continue an endeavor because of what they have already invested, even when the future costs exceed the future benefits (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). The question before the gatekeepers is only whether the future cash and future risk of phase two justify the next $7.5 million or so.
Pilot Results Against the Plan
Homes passed. Planned 1,150; actual 1,150. On plan.
Take rate. The business case assumed 35 percent of homes passed would subscribe within 18 months. After 18 months, 27 percent have subscribed, 311 homes.
Construction cost per home passed. Estimated at $5,200; actual $6,100, about 17 percent higher, mainly because of rock in the eastern section and higher pole make-ready costs.
Service quality. Outages and support calls per subscriber are below the plan's targets.
Must-Meet Criteria
The gate procedure lists four must-meet criteria. All pass. The pilot complies with the state's broadband provider rules. Its finances are separated from electric rates through the subsidiary. It has had no safety incidents. And it still serves the board's goal of exploring broadband for unserved members.
Should-Meet Criteria
Five should-meet criteria are scored from 1 to 5. Service quality scores 5, member satisfaction 4, and schedule 4. Two fall short. Take rate scores 2, because 27 percent is well below the 35 percent the case needs. Unit cost scores 2, because the overrun leaves phase two's economics in doubt.
Phase two adds value only if the take rate climbs to about 32 percent and phase two costs stay below $5,800 per home, and the pilot has shown neither yet.
The Forward-Looking Case
Finance has rebuilt the phase two case with actual costs and a range of take rates. Phase two would pass about 1,250 more homes. With the state broadband grant of $3.0 million and a take rate of 32 percent, phase two roughly breaks even at a 6.5 percent discount rate if construction costs stay below about $5,800 per home. At the current 27 percent take rate, it loses value at any construction cost the bids are likely to show.
What Holding Costs
Holding is not free, but it is cheap. Continuing sales in the pilot area until September costs about $60,000 in marketing and installation labor, offset by new subscriber revenue. Holding phase two delays service to about 1,250 unserved homes by at least six months, which the board should weigh, but it avoids committing about $7.5 million before the three results are known.
Conditions
The program ends if any of the following occurs:
Sign-ups stay below 32 percent of homes passed by September 30. Sales in the pilot area continue until then.
The state broadband grant is denied. The decision is expected in May.
Phase two construction bids, due in July, exceed $5,800 per home passed.
If none of these occurs, phase two capital is released at a Gate 3 continuation meeting in October.
Isabelle Royer found that projects are hardest to end when no one is responsible for raising the evidence against them (Royer, 2003). Setting these conditions now, with dates, means the gatekeepers will not need to find the courage to stop in October; they will only need to read the three results. Robert Cooper describes gates as the point where poor projects are killed and resources moved to better ones, and warns that gates without real criteria become mere checkpoints (Cooper, 2008).
If the Program Ends
Ending the program would not strand the pilot's subscribers. The subsidiary would continue serving the 1,150 homes already passed, whose network is built and paid for, or sell that network to a regional provider. Either path keeps service for the 311 households and stops new spending.
References
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage-Gate idea-to-launch process: Update, what's new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x
Royer, I. (2003). Why bad projects are so hard to kill. Harvard Business Review, 81(2), 48-56.
What the GM591 Unit 8 assignment asks for
In GM591 Unit 8 you write a gate review memo for a project at a stage gate. Use memo form addressed to the gatekeepers, and give the recommendation, go, kill, hold or recycle, in the first paragraph. Address any sunk cost directly and early, explaining why only future costs and benefits bear on the choice. Compare the project's results with its plan on each key measure. Apply the gate's must-meet and should-meet criteria and report the results. Rebuild the forward-looking case with actual figures. If you recommend anything other than kill, state conditions with dates that would end the project later. Explain what holding or continuing costs. Close with what would happen to existing users or assets if the project ended, so stopping is a realistic option. Expect about three pages, citing research on sunk costs and stage gates in APA 7.
Inside the GM591 Unit 8 example
The memo from the finance director to the general manager and planning committee recommends hold in its first section. The second sets aside the $7.0 million, citing Arkes and Blumer on sunk cost. Results compare homes passed, a 27 percent take rate with 311 subscribers, $6,100 construction per home and service quality. Four must-meet criteria pass, and should-meet scores show take rate and unit cost at 2. The highlighted sentence states the thresholds. The forward case for about 1,250 more homes breaks even only near 32 percent take and $5,800 per home with the $3.0 million grant. Holding costs about $60,000. Three dated stop conditions follow, with Royer on assigning the evidence against a project and Cooper on gates that kill poor projects. The close keeps service for existing subscribers through the subsidiary or a sale.
GM591 Unit 8 rubric: what earns full points
GM591 rubric points for this memo go to a clear recommendation, a direct treatment of sunk cost and conditions that make a later decision automatic. Instructors look for the recommendation first and the sunk cost addressed respectfully but firmly. Results compared with the plan on several measures earn credit. Must-meet and should-meet criteria should be applied as the gate procedure defines them. Rebuilding the forward case with actual figures shows the recommendation rests on what is still to be spent. Dated stop conditions carry significant weight because they spare gatekeepers a later argument. Explaining what holding costs and what stopping would mean for users makes every option real. Arkes and Blumer in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Cooper's stage-gate update and Royer form the citations in APA 7.
GM591 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GM591 Unit 8 memos build to their recommendation slowly or bury it at the end. Others let the money already spent shape the argument, which is exactly the bias gate reviews exist to prevent. A frequent gap is the hold: a hold without dated conditions tends to become a quiet continuation. Some writers recommend stopping without saying what happens to customers or assets already in place. Lead with the recommendation, set the sunk cost aside early, compare results with the plan, apply the gate criteria, rebuild the forward case, state dated stop conditions, price the hold and describe a realistic path if the project ends.
Get a GM591 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Give the project's original assumptions, its results so far and what has been spent, plus any gate criteria your organization or prompt sets; the Unit 8 prompt and rubric go too. A free first memo returns within 24-48h, with the spent money named and excluded and each exit condition tied to a date and a measure. 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 4: Weighted Scoring Model
- GM591 Unit 5: Meter Replacement Business Case
- GM591 Unit 6: Ending Projects Seminar Reflection
- GM591 Unit 7: Meter Replacement Project Charter
- GM591 Unit 9: Portfolio Capacity Review
- GM591 Unit 10: Selection Recommendation
- GM586 Unit 8: Destructive Leadership Analysis
- GM585 Unit 8: Coaching Boundaries Ethics Case
- GM543 Unit 8: Span of Control and Layers Review
- GM541 Unit 8: Fair Process Change Communication
GM591 Unit 8 questions, answered
What is the difference between hold and recycle?
In stage-gate terms, hold means the project is sound but should wait, often for resources or information, while recycle means it returns to the previous stage for rework before being reviewed again. A hold needs a condition or date that ends it; a recycle needs a statement of what must change. Memos that use the terms precisely read as grounded in the method.
How do I handle a sponsor who argues that stopping wastes the money already spent?
Answer it early and directly. Money already committed cannot be recovered by continuing; only future costs and benefits differ between the options. State the amount, acknowledge that it was spent in good faith, and show the forward comparison. Graders tend to reward memos that address the argument respectfully rather than ignoring the person making it.
Should the memo recommend killing the project?
Only if the evidence supports it. The memo's job is a defensible recommendation with conditions, and that may be go, kill, hold or recycle. What matters is that the recommendation follows from criteria set earlier and that any option other than kill carries clear terms for ending later. A well-argued kill is as creditable as a well-argued go.
Where can I find a free GM591 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM591 Unit 8 gate review memo on an electric cooperative's fiber pilot, with sunk cost set aside, gate criteria, three dated stop conditions and APA 7 references.
Why recommend hold instead of go or kill?
The pilot meets its must-meet criteria but falls short on take rate and cost, and phase two only adds value if both improve. Holding keeps selling in the pilot area cheaply while three dated results decide whether to release phase two capital.