A finished MGT-640 Topic 5 stopping criterion DQ post example, arguing one program should end because its case no longer holds and naming the criterion that should have been set at approval. Searches like "mgt 640 topic 5 assignment example", "mgt640 topic 5 sample" and "mgt-640 topic 5 example" land here.
What a finished MGT-640 Topic 5 stopping criterion dq post looks like
The post opens with its verdict: stop the telematics program this quarter. The facts follow, all labeled illustrative. The case approved fourteen months ago assumed 20 percent of eligible auto policyholders would enroll within a year of launch; the pilot has reached 3 percent. Of a 12.5 million dollar budget, 9.0 million is spent. The post sets the spent money aside, since it cannot be recovered whatever happens next, and asks only whether the remaining 3.5 million buys a benefit worth having. At 3 percent enrollment it does not. The post then concedes the strongest counterargument, that enrollment may rise once pricing discounts become visible, and answers it with the pilot's own discount data. It cites Staw on escalation of commitment for one claim only and ends by asking what stopping criterion should have been written at approval.
How an MGT-640 Topic 5 example is structured
The post puts its conclusion ahead of its evidence and saves a question for the end. Its opening sentence stops the program, so classmates know exactly which position they are answering. A second passage gives the case's key assumption beside the observed figure and separates money already spent from money still to be committed. The test comes third, stated so classmates can reuse it: continue only if the remaining spend buys a benefit worth more than the remaining cost, judged on current evidence. A fourth passage takes the best argument for continuing and answers it with data rather than dismissing it. The source sits there, backing the claim that a decision maker tied to a losing investment will often put more into it. The post closes by asking classmates to write the stopping criterion the approval should have contained, since that criterion is the real lesson.
Stop, stated in the first line
The post ends the telematics program before offering any reason, which commits it to a position classmates can test rather than a set of considerations.
Assumed enrollment against actual
The case assumed 20 percent of eligible policyholders would enroll, the pilot shows 3 percent, and every projected benefit scales with that one figure.
Spent money set aside
The 9.0 million already spent is gone whichever way the decision goes, so the post weighs only the 3.5 million not yet committed.
The best argument for continuing
Enrollment might rise once discounts show on renewals, but pilot drivers offered up to 15 percent off still enrolled at about 4 percent, a labeled figure.
Escalation research, used narrowly
Staw's research on escalation of commitment supports the claim that those responsible for a failing course tend to invest further, and nothing more.
The criterion approval should have set
Classmates are asked to draft the enrollment threshold and review date that, written at approval, would have ended this program without a fight.
Where marks go in MGT-640 Topic 5
Stopping posts lose credit most often by discussing sunk cost in general and never applying it. A reply explaining that past spending should not drive future decisions has restated a principle every classmate already knows, and it names no project where the principle is hard to follow. Posts that count the 9.0 million already spent as a reason to finish have made exactly the error under discussion. Recommending continuation with closer monitoring defers the decision and sets no point at which it must be taken. Replies that ignore the strongest case for continuing look one-sided, and a classmate will supply it. A post that never mentions the missing stopping criterion leaves out the graduate point, which is that the hardest part of stopping is deciding at approval what would justify it.
Get an MGT-640 Topic 5 example written to your instructions
Send the MGT-640 Topic 5 discussion question and the participation rubric for your section, with any project the prompt describes. A custom example is written to those criteria, with the verdict first, assumption set against evidence, spent money separated, the best counterargument answered, one source used narrowly and a question for classmates, in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
MGT-640 Topic 5 questions, answered
What is escalation of commitment?
The tendency to keep investing in a failing course of action, often more heavily after negative feedback, particularly when the decision maker is personally responsible for the original choice. Barry Staw's experiments are the usual starting point for the literature. Project sponsors are exposed to it because their reputation is tied to the project, which is one reason the example argues for stopping criteria set in advance.
Is stopping a project the same as failing?
Not in the sense that matters for governance. A project stopped because its case no longer holds has released the remaining budget and people for better uses, which is the portfolio working as intended. The failure, where there is one, usually lies earlier, in approving a case without a condition that would end it. The post makes that distinction explicitly.
What does a good stopping criterion look like?
A measurable condition, a date for checking it and the person who decides, all agreed at approval. For the telematics program that might read: if enrollment is below 10 percent of eligible policyholders twelve months after launch, the sponsor brings a stop recommendation to the portfolio board. The post itself leaves the drafting to classmates, so the thread can compare versions.