MT245 Unit 3 Business Case Example

Courts or a Playground: A Unit 3 Business Case for Converting Two Linden Park Tennis Courts to Pickleball

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT245: Project Fundamentals and Project Initiation

Unit 3 Business Case

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Ashby Mills, Linden Park, the club, the quotes and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

The Problem

Linden Park has four tennis courts. Courts 3 and 4 were last resurfaced in 2011. Their surface has cracked so badly that the town closed them for nineteen days last season after players reported trip hazards, and the public works superintendent expects them to be unplayable within three seasons without major work. Courts 1 and 2 are in fair condition and are used by the high school team in spring and by adult tennis players year round.

At the same time, demand for pickleball in Ashby Mills has grown faster than the town can serve it. The local pickleball club runs two evening sessions a week in the middle school gym, where four temporary courts fit, and its organizers report turning away about 40 players a week. The club has asked the town for outdoor courts for three years.

The town council has set aside $150,000 for court repairs in this year's capital budget, and the state recreation grant program has invited the town to apply for up to $40,000. The same money could be used elsewhere. The Elm Street playground, built in 1998, has been cited twice by the town's insurance pool for worn equipment, and replacing it has been quoted at $210,000.

Larson and Gray (2021) describe the business case as the document that justifies a project by comparing its expected benefits and costs with the alternatives, including doing nothing. This case does that for four options.

The Options

Option A: convert courts 3 and 4 into eight pickleball courts. The surfacing contractor's quote is $171,400, covering crack repair, new acrylic surface, lines, permanent nets, divider fencing and an accessible path. Tennis keeps courts 1 and 2.

Option B: resurface all four courts for tennis and paint pickleball lines on two of them. The quote is $118,000. Pickleball players would share two courts with tennis, using portable nets.

Option C: keep patching courts 3 and 4 at about $9,000 a year until they close. This is the do-nothing option.

Option D: move the money to the Elm Street playground and leave the courts to option C.

Expected Use

Use figures come from the town's court reservation records, the pickleball club's attendance logs and a count the recreation staff made on six weekends last summer. They are estimates, but each comes from a stated source.

Under option A, the eight pickleball courts would host an estimated 320 player visits a week during the 30-week outdoor season, about 9,600 a year, based on the club's current waiting list and the use observed at a similar conversion in a neighboring town. Under option B, the two shared courts would add about 120 pickleball visits a week, limited by tennis use, while the resurfaced tennis courts would hold their current use of about 140 visits a week. Under option C, courts 3 and 4 would keep about 60 tennis visits a week until they close. Option D would not change court use but would serve an estimated 400 child visits a week at the playground, a different group of residents.

Cost per Visit

Over a ten-year surface life, cost per player visit gives a rough comparison of value.

Option A: $171,400 for about 96,000 visits, about $1.79 a visit

Option B: $118,000 for about 78,000 combined tennis and pickleball visits, about $1.51 a visit

Option C: about $27,000 over the three seasons before closure for about 5,400 visits, about $5.00 a visit, then nothing

Option D: $210,000 for the playground, about $1.01 per child visit over ten years at roughly 400 visits a week all year, but the courts still close

Option B looks cheapest per visit. But its pickleball capacity is small, and the shared courts would produce conflicts between tennis and pickleball players over time slots, which the adult tennis association has already raised. Option A costs more but meets most of the demand the club reports. Shenhar and Dvir (2007) argue that project selection should weigh a project's contribution to the organization's goals, not only its efficiency, and the parks plan names meeting new recreation demand as a goal.

The cheapest option per visit leaves the waiting list where it is.

Operating Costs After Construction

Capital cost is only part of the picture. Under option A, the town would stop spending about $9,000 a year patching courts 3 and 4, and would instead budget about $2,500 a year for net replacement, line touch-ups and windscreen repairs on the new courts, a saving of about $6,500 a year. Option B would carry similar upkeep for four courts plus the cost of storing and replacing portable nets. Option C carries the full patching cost until closure and then the cost of fencing off two dead courts. Option D adds playground inspection and mulch costs of about $3,000 a year while the court patching continues. Over ten years, option A's lower upkeep recovers about $65,000 of its higher capital cost compared with option C.

What Each Option Leaves Unsolved

Option A leaves the Elm Street playground for a later budget. Option B leaves most of the pickleball demand unmet and creates scheduling conflicts. Option C leaves both problems and ends with two closed courts. Option D solves the playground but lets two courts close and leaves the pickleball club indoors.

The playground is a real need. But the insurance pool's citations require repairs, not replacement, and the parks director estimates those repairs at $22,000, which can come from the operating budget next year. The full replacement could then be planned for the following capital cycle with its own grant application.

Risks

The main risks for option A are cost and the base. The contractor's quote assumes the asphalt beneath the cracks is sound; if core samples show otherwise, reconstruction could roughly double the cost. The quote also exceeds the council's $150,000, so the conversion depends on the state grant. And neighbors on Orchard Lane have raised noise, since pickleball is louder than tennis. PMI (2021) treats such uncertainties as part of the business case, to be named before approval rather than discovered after.

Recommendation

This case recommends option A, on two conditions. First, the contractor's core samples must confirm a sound base before the town signs a construction contract. Second, the town must receive the state grant; if it does not, the project should be reduced to six courts within the council's $150,000. The Elm Street playground should receive the $22,000 in repairs next year and be prepared for the following capital cycle.

References

Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2021). Project management: The managerial process (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.

Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business School Press.