| Course | GM594 Project Closing, Ethics, and Professional Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Final project report |
| Length | About 1,100 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 GM594 Unit 3
Promised and Delivered in Facing Columns: A Unit 3 Final Project Report for a 911 Center's Backup Power
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM594: Project Closing, Ethics, and Professional Responsibilities
Unit 3 Final Project Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The emergency communications district, its contractors and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Charter Commitments and Outcomes
Fuel runtime. Promised: 72 hours at full load. Delivered: about 66 hours, 91.7 percent of plan. The board accepted the shortfall on December 4 with a priority fuel delivery agreement.
Cost. Promised: $2,480,000. Delivered: $2,611,400, which is $131,400 or 5.3 percent over.
Schedule. Promised: fully operational by October 15. Delivered: substantial completion on November 20 and acceptance on December 9, 55 days after the promised date.
Cooling. Promised: equipment room held at or below 75 degrees with either cooling unit off. Delivered: on specification, 73 degrees.
Generator transfer. Promised: full load within 10 seconds of utility loss. Delivered: accepted on the second test at 8 seconds, after the first test measured 14.
Grant conditions. Promised: all conditions of the state 911 grant met. Delivered: met, with the final report still pending.
Continuity during construction. Promised: no loss of backup power during the work. Delivered: a rented portable generator covered the center from October to December at $14,300.
Six of seven commitments were met or met late, and the one shortfall, fuel runtime, was accepted by the board in writing rather than discovered afterward.
Variances, Causes and Decisions
Fuel runtime. The tank's size was fixed early in design, when a 400 kilowatt generator was planned. When a load study found that new radio equipment required a 500 kilowatt unit, the generator was changed but the tank was not. The commissioning review found the shortfall. The board chose a priority delivery agreement over an $18,000 day tank, on the projects manager's recommendation.
Cost. Three approved change orders added $96,200: the larger generator, $58,400; relocating the fuel tank pad after a buried utility line was found, $24,100; and added conduit for a future radio console, $13,700. The portable generator rental added $14,300, because the delay pushed the old generator's removal into storm season. The board approved each change order and, on December 4, funded the overrun from the district's capital reserve.
Schedule. Two causes account for most of the 55 days. The transfer switch and switchgear arrived 14 weeks after order, against an 8-week lead time quoted at bid, before the order was placed. The first transfer test failed and the alarm escalation had to be configured and retested. The projects manager decided to keep the old generator in service and rent a portable unit rather than cut over early.
Cost by Line
Final costs were: the general contractor, $2,280,200, including $96,200 of approved changes; design, $171,000; radio console relocation and IT cutover, $104,600; commissioning and testing, $21,800; the portable generator rental, $14,300; district project management time, $12,600; and permits, $6,900. The total is $2,611,400.
The Project Management Institute describes the final report as summarizing performance against the project's baselines and documenting how variances were handled (Project Management Institute, 2021). Harold Kerzner adds that a final report is most useful when it explains each variance in terms the next project can act on, rather than defending the team (Kerzner, 2022).
What the Project Delivered for the County
The dispatch center now meets the NFPA 110 requirement for a Type 10 emergency power system, transferring to generator power within 10 seconds (National Fire Protection Association, 2022). During two utility outages after acceptance, the transfer happened automatically, and dispatchers reported no interruption to calls or radio. Benefits are being measured separately against the business case and will be reported to the board in June. The business case promised three main benefits: no degraded operations during utility outages, an end to portable generator rentals during storm season and fewer high-temperature events in the equipment room. Early readings on all three are favorable, but six months of data will be needed before the district can say how much of each improvement belongs to the project.
How the Project Was Governed
The district's board approved the charter in February and received a monthly status report from the projects manager. A three-person oversight group, made up of the executive director, the technical services manager and the board's finance chair, met every two weeks during construction and approved change orders up to $25,000, with larger changes going to the full board. Of the three change orders, two were approved by the oversight group and one, the larger generator, by the board. Every approval is recorded in Appendix B with its date. The arrangement worked well for changes but less well for risks that did not look like changes: the fuel tank size was never raised as a decision, because no one recognized that changing the generator changed the tank's runtime.
What Stakeholders Said
The district asked three groups for comments before this report was written. Dispatch supervisors said the cutover was handled well and that keeping the old generator in service during the delay was the right decision, although the portable unit's noise outside the break room was disruptive for six weeks. The county's fire chiefs, whose radio traffic depends on the center, asked to be told earlier when backup power is being tested, since two tests happened during a busy weekend shift. The technical services manager, who now owns the system, said the training was thorough but that the alarm escalation failure would have gone unnoticed without the acceptance review.
Recommendations for the Next Project
Three recommendations follow from the variances and are written up in full in the lessons learned record. When a major item grows or shrinks, recompute every quantity tied to it, fuel runtime included. Treat a lead time quoted at bid as provisional until the order is placed and the supplier confirms a ship date. And hire the commissioning agent under the district's own contract, with the approved criteria in hand, so its report tests the project against the right numbers.
Open Items
One item remains open: the final report to the state 911 grant program, due within 30 days of project completion. The completion date it must certify is discussed separately, because the grant wants the date of full operation, and the answer depends on whether that means substantial completion or acceptance.
Appendices
Appendix A holds the acceptance record, with each criterion's evidence and verdict. Appendix B holds the change log, with each change order's request, approval date and cost. Appendix C holds the board resolutions accepting the fuel runtime deviation and funding the overrun.
References
Kerzner, H. (2022). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (13th ed.). Wiley.
National Fire Protection Association. (2022). NFPA 110: Standard for emergency and standby power systems.
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.).
What the GM594 Unit 3 assignment asks for
In GM594 Unit 3 you write the final report for a completed project. Open with a side-by-side comparison of each charter commitment and its outcome, before any narrative. Then give each variance a paragraph naming its cause and who decided on the response. Show final costs line by line, with approved changes separately, and state how any overrun was funded. Describe what the project delivered for the organization and how benefits will be measured. Explain how the project was governed, and include comments from stakeholders. Make a small number of recommendations for future projects and point to the full lessons record rather than repeating it. List open items and the appendices that hold the evidence. Expect about ten pages plus appendices, citing project management sources and any standards the deliverable meets in APA 7.
How the GM 594 Unit 3 example is put together
Page one compares seven commitments: fuel runtime, cost, schedule, cooling, generator transfer, grant conditions and continuity during construction, and the highlighted sentence gives the verdict. Variances are explained: a tank sized early for a 400 kilowatt generator, three change orders totaling $96,200 for the larger generator, a relocated tank pad and added conduit, and a 55-day delay from switchgear arriving 14 weeks late and a failed first test. Costs total $2,611,400 across seven lines, with the overrun funded from the capital reserve. The PMBOK guide and Kerzner describe the final report's purpose. Delivery cites NFPA 110 and two clean transfers. A governance section, stakeholder comments from dispatch supervisors, fire chiefs and the technical services manager, and three recommendations follow, with the grant report left open and three appendices listed.
Reading the GM594 Unit 3 grading rubric
GM594 instructors grade this report on whether it puts accountability first and explains every variance with a cause and a decision maker. A page-one comparison of commitments and outcomes earns significant credit. Each variance paragraph should name what happened, why and who decided the response. Costs shown line by line, with changes visible and funding stated, show financial transparency. Linking delivery to what the organization gained, and to how benefits will be tracked, shows purpose. Governance and stakeholder comments add depth. Recommendations should be few and point to the lessons record. Appendices should hold evidence referred to in the body. The PMBOK Guide, Kerzner's Project Management and NFPA 110 supply the citations in APA 7.
Common GM594 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GM594 Unit 3 reports open with a narrative of the project and bury the variances in later pages. Others report only revised baselines, which hides what the sponsor first approved. A frequent gap is the decision maker: explaining why something happened without saying who decided the response leaves accountability unclear. Some writers repeat the whole lessons record inside the report. Put commitments and outcomes on page one, explain each variance with cause and decision, show costs and changes line by line, state funding, describe benefits and governance, include stakeholder views, make a few recommendations and list the evidence.
Get a GM594 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Results only mean something against promises. Attach the charter first, then the baseline, change log, Unit 3 prompt and rubric. Promise and result appear side by side in the report, each variance carries a dated cause, and every open item leaves with a named holder, overrun or not. First sample free; 24-48h. 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 GM594 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM594 Unit 1: Project That Never Closed Post
- GM594 Unit 2: Acceptance Criteria Review
- GM594 Unit 4: Lessons Learned Record
- GM594 Unit 5: Handover and Transition Plan
- GM594 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GM594 Unit 7: Contract Closeout Memo
- GM594 Unit 8: Benefits Realization Review
- GM594 Unit 9: Ethics Case Analysis
- GM594 Unit 10: Professional Responsibility Paper
- GM593 Unit 3: Earned Value Calculation by Account
- GM500 Unit 3: Weber and Seniority Bidding Paper
- GM592 Unit 3: Dry Kiln Scope Statement
- GM501 Unit 3: Empowerment or Standard Work Analysis
GM594 Unit 3 questions, answered
Should the final report compare against the original or revised baseline?
Both, in most sections. The original shows what the sponsor first approved; the revised shows what was approved along the way. Reporting only the revised figures makes a project look better than its history, while reporting only the original ignores legitimate changes. The sample shows approved change orders separately so the board sees which costs it authorized.
How is the final report different from a lessons learned record?
The report judges delivery: what was promised, what arrived, and why the two differ. The lessons record looks forward, turning causes into practices a future project can use. The sample's report names causes neutrally and points to the separate lessons record rather than folding recommendations into the variance paragraphs, which keeps its judgment clear.
Where can I find a free GM594 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM594 Unit 3 final project report on a county 911 district's generator and cooling project, with seven commitments against outcomes, explained variances, line-by-line costs and APA 7 references.
How was the cost overrun funded?
The board approved each change order as it arose and, on December 4, funded the $131,400 overrun from the district's capital reserve. The report records both decisions with dates.
Why was the fuel runtime short?
The tank was chosen early in design for a 400 kilowatt generator. When a load study required a 500 kilowatt unit, the generator changed but the tank did not, leaving about 66 hours of fuel instead of 72.