| Course | MT245 Project Fundamentals and Project Initiation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Feasibility assessment |
| Length | About 890 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT245 Unit 8
Six Tests, Two Conditions: A Unit 8 Feasibility Assessment of the Linden Park Court Conversion
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT245: Project Fundamentals and Project Initiation
Unit 8 Feasibility Assessment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Ashby Mills, Linden Park and every figure, threshold and record are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Method
Each test follows the same six parts: the figure supplied, the threshold it must meet, the result, the margin, the break point that would reverse the verdict and the source. Thresholds are stated before results so that the verdict cannot be shaped to fit the answer. Shenhar and Dvir (2007) note that even simple projects fail when their constraints are assumed rather than checked, and each of the six tests checks one constraint the town has assumed. Larson and Gray (2021) distinguish feasibility from justification: the business case asked whether the project is worth doing, while this assessment asks whether it can be done with the money, site, season and rules the town actually has.
Test 1: Money
Figure: funds available are the council's $150,000 appropriation plus the state grant of $40,000 if awarded, a total of $190,000. Threshold: available funds must cover the contractor's quote plus a contingency of ten percent. Result: the quote is $171,400; with a ten percent contingency of $17,140, the requirement is $188,540. Margin: $1,460 with the grant. Break point: without the grant, available funds of $150,000 fall $38,540 short, and the test fails. Verdict: passes only if the grant arrives.
The margin is thin. A contingency of ten percent is common for resurfacing work on an existing base, and the project carries one known risk to the base, tested below. If the grant is denied, the business case's fallback, reducing to six courts within $150,000, applies.
Test 2: Pavement
Figure: the contractor surveyed 1,240 linear feet of cracks on courts 3 and 4 and took five core samples of the asphalt base. Threshold: the crack repair system priced in the quote covers up to 1,500 linear feet, and the base must be sound in at least four of five cores. Result: 1,240 feet of cracks; four of five cores sound, one showing a soft layer near the northeast corner. Margin: 260 linear feet of crack repair; one core of tolerance. Break point: more than 1,500 feet of cracks or two failed cores would require partial base reconstruction, roughly doubling the cost. Verdict: passes, with the northeast corner to be inspected again when the old surface is removed.
Test 3: Weather
Figure: the acrylic product can only go down once the air reaches 50 degrees on a warming day, with no rain forecast for 24 hours. The town's weather records for the last five years give an average of about 30 suitable working days between mid-August and late October. Threshold: the contractor needs 18 suitable days to complete crack repair, surfacing, lines and nets. Result: about 30 days available against 18 needed. Margin: about 12 days. Break point: a fall with fewer than 18 suitable days would push completion into spring, after the high school season. Verdict: passes. Starting in mid-August rather than September keeps the margin.
Test 4: Noise
Figure: a noise consultant's projection, based on measurements at a comparable facility, gives 58 decibels at the nearest Orchard Lane lot line during busy play. Threshold: the town's noise bylaw limits daytime sound at a residential lot line to 55 decibels. Result: 58 decibels without mitigation; 51 decibels with acoustic panels along the north fence. Margin: 4 decibels with panels; none without. Break point: removing the panels from scope. Verdict: passes only if the panels stay in scope.
The panels are not a courtesy to the neighbors; without them the project breaks a town bylaw.
Test 5: Upkeep
Figure: public works estimates annual upkeep for the new courts at about $2,500 and about 40 crew hours. Threshold: the court maintenance line in the operating budget, currently $9,000 spent patching courts 3 and 4, must cover upkeep. Result: $2,500 against $9,000 that will be freed. Margin: $6,500 a year. Break point: none foreseeable. Verdict: passes.
Test 6: Access
Figure: the surveyed grade along the proposed walkway between the lot and the court gate is 4.2 percent over 140 feet. Threshold: the town's accessibility standard allows a running slope of no more than 5 percent on a walking route without handrails. Result: 4.2 percent. Margin: 0.8 percentage points. Break point: a design change that steepens the route. Verdict: passes.
What the Assessment Does Not Test
Two questions sit outside these six tests. Demand was tested in the business case, using the club's waiting list and a neighboring town's experience, and is not repeated here. And the planning board's decision on whether a site plan review is needed is still pending; if a review is required, it adds about five weeks before construction can start, which the weather test's twelve-day margin can absorb only if work begins by early September.
Summary
Four tests pass with room to spare: pavement, weather, upkeep and access. Two pass on conditions: money, if the grant arrives, and noise, if the acoustic panels stay in scope. PMI (2021) recommends that conditions found during assessment be carried forward into the approval decision, and this assessment recommends approval with both conditions written into the initiation package.
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.
What the MT245 Unit 8 assignment asks for
The eighth unit asks students to test whether a justified project can actually be done with the money, site, schedule and rules available. The prompt usually supplies figures and expects each to be tested against a threshold stated in advance, with a result, a margin and the point at which the verdict would reverse. Common tests cover budget, physical condition, season or schedule, regulations, upkeep and access. A summary should separate tests that pass easily from those that pass only on conditions, and carry those conditions into the approval. Feasibility differs from the business case: it asks whether the project can be done, not whether it is worth doing. A four-page assessment is common, and each threshold should be traced to the document that sets it.
How this MT245 Unit 8 example is built
A method section sets the six-part pattern for every test and cites Larson and Gray on feasibility versus justification, with Shenhar and Dvir on unchecked constraints. The money test shows the $1,460 margin and the shortfall without the grant, under a margin note on break points. Pavement, weather and noise follow in the same pattern, and the highlighted line says the panels are required by the bylaw, not offered as a courtesy. Upkeep compares $2,500 with the $9,000 now spent patching, and access compares a 4.2 percent grade with the 5 percent limit. A section names what the assessment leaves out, demand and the site plan review. The summary carries both conditions into approval with the PMBOK Guide.
MT245 Unit 8 rubric: what earns full points
Feasibility assessments earn marks for thresholds stated before results, clear margins, honest break points and a summary that separates conditional passes. A test whose threshold appears only after the result loses credibility. Graders reward margins expressed in the test's own units, dollars, feet, days or decibels, and break points that show how close the project sits to failure. Distinguishing feasibility from justification shows conceptual clarity. Conditions should be carried forward into the approval rather than left in the assessment. Sources for each threshold, such as a bylaw or specification, strengthen the work. Consistent figures with earlier documents, a clean summary table and accurate citations complete the rubric. Instructors also look for a short section on what the assessment does not test, since that keeps the sponsor from reading a pass as a guarantee.
MT245 Unit 8 help from the desk
Students often present results without thresholds, so a reader cannot tell whether 58 decibels is acceptable. Another frequent problem is calling every test a pass without noting which depend on conditions. Some assessments repeat the business case's argument about benefits instead of testing feasibility. Others omit break points, leaving the sponsor unaware how thin a margin is. Check that contingency is included in the budget test, and that every threshold has a named source such as a bylaw or a product specification. Send the figures your scenario supplies, and a writer can set thresholds, compute margins and mark the break point for each test.
Get an MT245 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Feasibility depends on the figures a scenario provides, so paste in the case exhibits, any cost or site data, and the Unit 8 assignment sheet with its rubric. Returned free inside 24-48h, the first assessment tests each figure against a threshold stated in advance, reports the margin, and names the number that would change its answer. 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 MT245 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT245 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT245 Unit 2: Project Classification Exercise
- MT245 Unit 3: Business Case
- MT245 Unit 4: Project Charter
- MT245 Unit 5: Scope Statement
- MT245 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT245 Unit 7: Stakeholder Register
- MT245 Unit 9: Assumption and Constraint Log
- MT245 Unit 10: Initiation Package
- MT243 Unit 8: Valuation and Pricing Memo
- MT242 Unit 8: Risk and Safety Plan
- MT241 Unit 8: Tactical Analysis
- MT240 Unit 8: Governance Case Study
MT245 Unit 8 questions, answered
How does a feasibility assessment differ from a business case?
A business case asks whether a project is worth doing compared with alternatives. A feasibility assessment asks whether it can be done within the money, time, technology and rules available. The example keeps the questions apart: popularity and cost per visit belonged to the business case, while this document tests budget, pavement, weather, noise, upkeep and access.
What should a break point show?
The value at which a verdict would reverse. It tells a decision-maker how much room a pass really has. The example's budget passes by 1,460 dollars, so its break point is any cost growth beyond that or the loss of the grant. A pass with a distant break point is sturdy; a pass with a near one is a warning.
What if the scenario gives no threshold for a test?
Most strong assessments borrow a recognized standard and cite it, or state a reasonable threshold and label it as an assumption. The example takes its noise limit from the town bylaw given in the scenario and its temperature floor from the surfacing manufacturer's instructions. A test run without any stated threshold cannot produce a verdict anyone can check.
Where can I find a free MT245 Unit 8 sample paper?
Read the full MT245 Unit 8 feasibility assessment here. It tests a court conversion on money, pavement, weather, noise, upkeep and access, with a threshold, margin and break point for each.
Which tests pass only on conditions in the MT245 Unit 8 sample?
Money, which needs the $40,000 state grant to cover the quote plus contingency, and noise, which needs the acoustic panels on the north fence to bring sound at the nearest lot line under the bylaw's limit.