A finished MGT-640 Topic 2 competing business case appraisal example, scoring three proposals on agreed weights, testing the assumptions under each NPV and defending the one left unfunded. Searches like "mgt 640 topic 2 assignment example", "mgt640 topic 2 sample" and "mgt-640 topic 2 example" land here.
What a finished MGT-640 Topic 2 competing business case appraisal looks like
The finished appraisal starts from the constraint: 6.0 million dollars is available and the three proposals total 7.4 million, all figures labeled illustrative, so only two can proceed. Weights agreed by the investment committee before any scoring give 30 percent each to strategic contribution and financial return and 20 percent each to delivery risk and demand on scarce staff. On that basis the pricing refresh scores 3.8 of 5, fraud analytics 3.7 and the agent portal 3.5. Net present values at the insurer's 10 percent hurdle rate follow: 3.1 million for fraud analytics, 2.6 million for pricing and 1.2 million for the portal. Each case is then reduced to the assumption carrying most of its value. The portal's rests on a 5 percent rise in agent-written premium that no baseline supports, and the appraisal recommends the other two.
How an MGT-640 Topic 2 example is structured
The appraisal is built so the decision rule exists before the proposals are judged by it. The funding constraint and the investment committee's criteria come first, with the date the weights were agreed, since weights chosen after scoring can be bent toward a favorite. Each proposal's case is summarized in the same form: the problem, the proposed change, the cost, the claimed benefit and its owner. Scores follow in a table, with a sentence of evidence beside every score rather than a bare number. The financial section states each NPV and the hurdle rate, then isolates the assumption doing most of the work and shows what happens to the NPV if it fails. A sensitivity check shows the ranking changes when strategic weight rises to 40 percent, which the committee is told plainly. The recommendation funds two proposals and defends declining the portal.
Weights fixed before any scoring
The investment committee agreed its four weights in advance and the date is recorded, so no one can tune them afterward to favor a sponsor's proposal.
Three cases in one form
Problem, change, cost, claimed benefit and benefit owner appear in one fixed sequence across all three proposals, which exposes the portal's missing owner at once.
Each NPV reduced to its hinge
Fraud analytics depends on recoveries from new claims data, pricing on regulators approving filed rates, and the portal on a premium rise nobody has measured.
What a delayed approval does
If rate approval slips from six months to nine, the pricing refresh NPV falls from 2.6 million to a labeled 1.9 million and still clears the hurdle.
The ranking tested against the weights
At 40 percent strategic weight the portal ties the pricing refresh and fraud analytics drops to third, so the recommendation depends on weights set in advance.
The portal declined, with a route back
A smaller first phase inside the remaining 1.8 million is set aside until a baseline for agent-written premium exists, and the portal may return next cycle.
Where marks go in MGT-640 Topic 2
Selection papers weaken fastest when the criteria arrive after the proposals, because scoring then works backward from a preferred answer. An appraisal presenting weighted scores without saying when the weights were set leaves that suspicion open. Scores given as bare numbers, with no evidence beside them, cannot be challenged or defended, which makes the table decorative. Treating NPV as settled, rather than as the product of one or two assumptions, misses the graduate question of what the figure depends on. Papers that ignore a sensitivity result showing the ranking flips under plausible weights have hidden the most important fact from the committee. Recommendations naming the winners and saying nothing about the declined proposal skip the defense a graduate recommendation requires, and a sponsor will ask exactly why the portal lost.
Get an MGT-640 Topic 2 example written to your instructions
Send the MGT-640 Topic 2 instructions, the rubric for it and the proposals, figures or case the assignment provides. We write a custom example to those criteria, with weights fixed before scoring, cases summarized in one form, each NPV tested at its key assumption, the ranking checked for sensitivity and the rejected proposal defended, in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
MGT-640 Topic 2 questions, answered
How much NPV detail does a graduate appraisal need?
Enough to show what the figure depends on, rather than a full discounted cash flow model. The example states the hurdle rate, the horizon and the main cash flows, labels them illustrative, then identifies the assumption the value leans on and shows how the NPV moves if it fails. Committees tend to trust an appraisal that exposes its weakest assumption more than one that hides it.
Why defend the proposal that was not funded?
Because its sponsor will ask, and because the reasons shape what comes back next cycle. A decline that says only that other proposals scored higher gives the sponsor nothing to fix. The example states that the portal's case rests on an unmeasured premium rise and has no benefit owner, which tells the distribution team exactly what a stronger resubmission would need.
Are weighted scoring models reliable?
They are useful for making criteria explicit and comparable, and weak when treated as precise. Scores are judgments, weights are choices, and close totals such as 3.8 against 3.7 rarely mean one proposal is truly better. The example uses the model to structure the discussion, tests how the ranking responds to different weights, and lets the committee see where the decision is fragile.