A finished HRM-640 Topic 8 competing proposal executive case example, setting an HR redesign beside three rival proposals on cost, payback and whether a rival could reproduce the result. Searches like "hrm 640 topic 8 assignment example", "hrm640 topic 8 sample" and "hrm-640 topic 8 example" land here.
What a finished HRM-640 Topic 8 competing proposal executive case looks like
The finished case is three pages for a reader who will fund perhaps two of four proposals. The first page states the ask, 610,000 dollars across two years, and the return on labeled illustrative figures: each point of repeat-stay rate among business travelers is worth about 380,000 dollars a year in room revenue, so the redesign breaks even at a gain of about 0.8 points a year and targets two. All four proposals are then compared on a question the others never ask: could a competitor match the result? A points program could be matched by chains already running larger ones, and it pulls the group toward competing on scale, a basis it declined at the start. Revenue software is parity. The renovation is probably necessary, so the case pairs it with the redesign and defers the loyalty program.
How an HRM-640 Topic 8 example is structured
The case is arranged for an executive comparing proposals side by side. It opens with the request, the two-year cost, the break-even gain and the measure the executive would watch, carried over from the measurement plan. A second section summarizes the redesign in five lines, since the executive needs effect and cost, not history. A third section sets all four proposals in one table showing cost, payback period, time to visible results and whether a rival could copy the outcome. A fourth section concedes where the other proposals are stronger, including the faster visible impact of a points program. A fifth section connects the imitability column to the strategy fixed at the start of the course, which makes that column decisive. The closing section recommends a funding combination rather than a solitary win, naming the review date and the result that would end the redesign early.
The ask on the first page
Cost, break-even and the measure to watch appear before any explanation, since the executive will compare those figures across all four proposals.
Four proposals in one table
Cost, payback, time to visible results and copyability sit side by side, which puts the redesign on the same terms as its rivals.
Copyability as the deciding column
A points program and revenue software can be matched by a rival's budget, while service built on long guest relationships cannot be bought quickly.
The rivals' strengths conceded plainly
The loyalty program shows results faster and the renovation may be unavoidable, and the case says both before making its own argument.
A funding combination recommended
Funding the redesign alongside the renovation while deferring the loyalty program gives the executive a decision rather than a contest between advocates.
An early end condition named
If the leading measures stay flat across the first wave of properties after six months, the case proposes stopping second-year spending.
Where marks go in HRM-640 Topic 8
The closing case is marked on whether it survives comparison. A proposal arguing only its own merits, with no reference to the alternatives on the executive's desk, has been written for a reader who does not exist. Returns stated without a break-even ask the executive to share the writer's optimism. Papers that dismiss the other proposals rather than conceding their strengths lose credibility on the one page where credibility decides the outcome. Imitability asserted without tying it back to the strategy established earlier reads as a slogan instead of the finding of a term's analysis. Requests with no measure or review date leave the executive unable to stop the spending if it fails, and recommendations framed as all or nothing force a choice that a funding combination could have avoided.
Get an HRM-640 Topic 8 example written to your instructions
Send the HRM-640 Topic 8 instructions, the rubric posted in your classroom and the proposal, rivals or organization the case involves. We write a custom example to those criteria, with the ask and break-even first, all proposals compared in one table, copyability tied to strategy, rival strengths conceded and an end condition named, in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
HRM-640 Topic 8 questions, answered
Why compare the proposal with its rivals at all?
Because the executive will, whether or not the paper does. A proposal that ignores the alternatives leaves the comparison to someone less sympathetic. Setting all of them on the same terms shows the writer understands the decision being made, and it lets the strongest argument, here that only the people redesign produces something a competitor cannot buy, carry its full weight.
Is recommending a combination a weaker position?
Usually not. Executives rarely fund one proposal and reject the rest, and a case showing how its request fits beside a necessary renovation is easier to approve than one demanding everything. The concession is also honest. What would weaken the case is recommending every proposal, which would amount to declining to make the argument at all.
How does this topic connect to the earlier ones?
It rests on all of them. The strategy from the opening topic defines what counts as advantage, the imitability audit supplies the copyability column, the fit and redesign work describes what is being funded, and the measurement plan provides the figure to watch. The case summarizes each in a line or two rather than repeating it, and points to earlier work for detail.