# Capstone Project Report: [Project title]

> Report for an MBA capstone or integrative project: a substantial piece
> of work near the end of the programme that applies several core
> disciplines (strategy, finance, marketing, operations, leadership,
> analytics) to one real or realistic business question. It covers the
> research question, literature and frameworks, method, analysis,
> recommendations, limitations and a personal reflection, and closes with
> a grading rubric you can use to self-assess. Source basis: standard
> business research method (research question, design, evidence,
> analysis, conclusion), experiential and reflective learning (Kolb 1984,
> Schön 1983) and core-course techniques, all in original words. Your
> programme's capstone handbook sets the format, length, ethics review
> and grading; it always takes precedence. Replace every `[bracketed]`
> value and every row marked *Example*. This is a report format, not
> financial or investment advice.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Capstones take several forms: a strategy or consulting project for a
  real client, a business plan for a new venture, a research paper on a
  management question, or a simulation-based integrative course. This
  template fits the first three. For a client project, write the scope
  in a statement of work first (`mba/mba-field-project-sow`).
- Fix the research question before collecting data. A capstone is
  graded on whether the evidence answers the question it set, not on
  the volume of slides.
- Integrate: the examiners look for at least three disciplines working
  together (for example market evidence, unit economics and an
  operating plan), not three separate mini-essays.
- The worked example uses Corvane Robotics, a fictional growth-stage
  warehouse-robotics company, deciding whether to offer its robots as a
  subscription (robots-as-a-service, RaaS) to mid-market warehouses. All
  data are invented and every number was computed for this template.
- Related templates: Field Project Report (`mba/mba-field-project-report`),
  Group Project Report (`mba/mba-group-project-report`), EMBA Strategic
  Project (`mba/emba-strategic-project`), Decision Analytics guide
  (`mba/mba-decision-analytics-guide`), NPV and IRR card
  (`mba/mba-npv-irr-card`), Customer Lifetime Value card
  (`mba/mba-customer-lifetime-value-card`), Learning Journal
  (`mba/mba-learning-journal`), and the research templates
  `academic/research-paper-imrad`, `academic/literature-review`,
  `academic/stats-analysis-plan` and `academic/stats-results-reporting`.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Record the programme's capstone requirements next to the version: word limit, appendix limit, ethics approval reference and submission date. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [CAP-001] |
| Project title | [Should Corvane Robotics offer robots-as-a-service to mid-market warehouses?] *(Example)* |
| Capstone type | [Client project / New venture plan / Research paper / Integrative course] |
| Organisation studied | [Corvane Robotics] *(Example, fictional)* |
| Author(s) | [@student-1], [@student-2] |
| Supervisor | [Name] |
| Second reader | [Name] |
| Programme and course | [Programme, course code, term] |
| Word limit | [N words excluding appendices] |
| Ethics approval | [Reference number or "not required" per programme rules] |
| Version | [1.0] |
| Status | [Proposal / Draft / Submitted / Graded] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Confidential to supervisor and examiners / Public] |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supervisor | [Name] | [Proposal approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Organisation sponsor (client capstones) | [Name] | [Data use and publication approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Author | [@student-1] | [Submitted] | YYYY-MM-DD |

## Contents

- [1. Abstract](#1-abstract)
- [2. Research question and objectives](#2-research-question-and-objectives)
- [3. Context](#3-context)
- [4. Literature and frameworks](#4-literature-and-frameworks)
- [5. Method](#5-method)
- [6. Analysis](#6-analysis)
- [7. Recommendations](#7-recommendations)
- [8. Limitations and further work](#8-limitations-and-further-work)
- [9. Reflection](#9-reflection)
- [10. Grading rubric and self-assessment](#10-grading-rubric-and-self-assessment)
- [11. Quality checklist and common mistakes](#11-quality-checklist-and-common-mistakes)
- [Sources and further reading](#sources-and-further-reading)
- [Revision history](#revision-history)
- [Standard and licence note](#standard-and-licence-note)

## 1. Abstract

<!-- Guidance: 150 to 250 words, written last. Question, method, main result with its key number, recommendation, main limitation. No citations, no abbreviations without definition. -->

[Abstract: question, method, findings, recommendation, limitation.]

*Example*: Corvane Robotics sells autonomous mobile robots to large warehouses and is considering a subscription offer, robots-as-a-service (RaaS), to reach mid-market operators. This capstone asks whether, for whom and at what price RaaS creates more value than outright sale. It combines 14 interviews with warehouse operators, a survey of 120 warehouse managers and a per-robot cash flow model. 38.3% of surveyed managers preferred a subscription (95% confidence interval 29.6% to 47.0%), with a higher share among small operators (52.5% for firms under 50 employees). At the current list fee of USD 3,200 a month over 60 months, the present value of a RaaS robot to Corvane (USD 57,040) is slightly below that of a sale with a service contract (USD 60,382); the break-even fee is USD 3,273 a month. The report recommends a RaaS offer for small operators at USD 3,400 a month with a 60-month term, funded through a dedicated equipment facility, and a pilot of 50 robots. The main limitations are a convenience sample and untested assumptions about early termination.

## 2. Research question and objectives

<!-- Guidance: One main question, two to four sub-questions, each answered by a named analysis. State the decision the answer informs. Check the question with the FINER-style tests used in research design: feasible, interesting, novel to the organisation, ethical, relevant. -->

**Main research question.** [Question.]

*Example*: Should Corvane Robotics offer a robots-as-a-service subscription to mid-market warehouses, and if so, to which customers and at what monthly fee?

| ID | Sub-question | Discipline | Analysis | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SQ1 *(Example)* | How many mid-market operators prefer a subscription, and does preference differ by size? | Marketing, statistics | Survey proportions, confidence interval, test of association | 6.1 |
| SQ2 *(Example)* | Which fee makes RaaS at least as valuable to Corvane as a sale? | Corporate finance | Per-robot NPV, break-even fee, sensitivity | 6.2 |
| SQ3 *(Example)* | Is RaaS a defensible strategic move? | Strategy | Five forces, resources and capabilities | 6.3 |
| SQ4 *(Example)* | What does Corvane need to operate RaaS? | Operations, organisation | Capacity, funding and organisation requirements | 6.4 |

**Decision informed**: the executive team's decision on the [year] product and pricing plan. **Out of scope**: international markets, a new robot model, the company's equity financing strategy.

## 3. Context

<!-- Guidance: The facts a reader needs to follow the analysis: industry, organisation, what is changing. One page. Cite every fact. -->

*Example*: Corvane Robotics is a venture-backed company that designs autonomous mobile robots for picking and transport in warehouses. It sells robots outright to large logistics operators at a list price of USD 120,000 per robot, with an optional annual service contract of USD 12,000 that 60% of customers buy. Unit production and installation cost is USD 70,000. Growth has slowed because large operators have already automated, while mid-market warehouses (under 250 employees) say the up-front price is too high. Competitors have started to offer subscription pricing, and Corvane's sales team reports losing deals to them. The executive team asked for an evidence-based recommendation before the next pricing review.

## 4. Literature and frameworks

<!-- Guidance: Review only what you use. For each source say what it contributes to your question. A capstone literature review is a toolkit, not a survey of the field (see `academic/literature-review` for a longer format). Cite primary works, and name textbooks as further reading. -->

| Source | Contribution to this project |
|---|---|
| Porter (1979) on competitive forces | Structure of the mid-market robotics industry: buyer power, substitutes (manual labour, conveyors), rivalry from subscription competitors (section 6.3) |
| Barney (1991) on firm resources | Whether Corvane's fleet software and service network are resources that make a RaaS offer hard to imitate (section 6.3) |
| Capital budgeting (NPV and IRR) | Comparing sale and subscription on a common present-value basis (section 6.2, `mba/mba-npv-irr-card`) |
| Gupta, Lehmann and Stuart (2004) on valuing customers | Treating subscription customers as a stream of margins over a customer life (`mba/mba-customer-lifetime-value-card`) |
| Survey sampling and inference | Confidence intervals for proportions, test of association (`academic/stats-confidence-intervals`, `academic/stats-contingency-tables`) |
| [Industry reports, with date] | Market size and adoption of warehouse automation (cite publisher and date) |

Write two or three paragraphs that connect the sources to the question. *Example fragment (fictional)*: Subscription pricing changes who carries the asset risk. Under a sale, the customer bears utilisation and obsolescence risk; under RaaS, the provider does, and must price it. The finance literature gives the tool to compare the two (present value at a risk-appropriate rate), while the strategy literature asks whether the provider has the resources to carry that risk better than the customer.

## 5. Method

<!-- Guidance: Describe design, data, sample, analysis and ethics so that another student could repeat the work. State the weaknesses of the design here, not only in section 8. -->

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  Q["Research question and sub-questions"] --> D["Design: mixed methods"]
  D --> I["Qualitative: 14 operator interviews"]
  D --> S["Quantitative: survey of 120 managers"]
  D --> F["Financial model: per-robot cash flows"]
  I --> T["Themes and model assumptions"]
  T --> F
  S --> A["Proportions, CI, association by size"]
  F --> N["NPV, break-even fee, sensitivity"]
  A --> R["Integrated findings"]
  N --> R
  T --> R
  R --> C["Recommendations and pilot design"]
```

| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| Design | [Qualitative / quantitative / mixed; why it fits the question] |
| Data sources | [Primary and secondary, with dates] |
| Sample and recruitment | [Who, how many, how chosen; response rate] |
| Analysis | [Techniques and tools] |
| Validity checks | [Triangulation, reconciliation, sensitivity] |
| Ethics | [Consent, anonymity, data storage; approval reference] |

*Example*: A mixed-methods design. Fourteen semi-structured interviews with operations managers of mid-market warehouses (recruited through Corvane's lost-deal list and an industry association) identified purchase criteria and contract concerns, coded against an initial frame of cost, risk, flexibility and service. A 12-question online survey reached 120 warehouse managers through the same association's newsletter (a convenience sample). Corvane's finance team supplied cost and pricing data. The financial model compares, per robot, the present value of a sale with a service contract against a 60-month RaaS contract. Interview and survey participants gave informed consent; responses are anonymous; data are stored on the school's approved drive and deleted after grading, as approved under the programme's ethics process [reference].

## 6. Analysis

<!-- Guidance: One subsection per sub-question. Lead each with the finding in one sentence, then the evidence and the calculation with formulas, then what it means for the question. Pitfall: presenting outputs without interpreting them. -->

### 6.1 About four in ten mid-market managers prefer a subscription, more among small operators

**Exhibit 1. Preference for subscription over purchase, survey of 120 managers** *(Example)*

| Firm size | Respondents | Prefer subscription | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under 50 employees | 40 | 21 | 52.5% |
| 50 to 249 employees | 52 | 18 | 34.6% |
| 250 employees and over | 28 | 7 | 25.0% |
| **Total** | **120** | **46** | **38.3%** |

Confidence interval for the overall proportion, using the normal approximation:

$$
\hat{p} \pm z_{0.975}\sqrt{\frac{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})}{n}}
$$

| Symbol | Meaning | Example value |
|---|---|---|
| $\hat{p}$ | Sample proportion preferring subscription | $46/120 = 0.3833$ |
| $n$ | Sample size | 120 |
| $z_{0.975}$ | Standard normal quantile for a 95% interval | 1.9600 |
| Standard error | $\sqrt{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})/n}$ | 0.0444 |

Result: 38.3% with a 95% interval of 29.6% to 47.0%. Excel: `=46/120`, `=NORM.S.INV(0.975)`, `=SQRT(B1*(1-B1)/120)`, lower bound `=B1-B2*B3`.

Does preference differ by size? A chi-square test of association on the 3 x 2 table gives $\chi^2 = 5.806$ with 2 degrees of freedom, $p = 0.055$ (smallest expected count 10.73, so the approximation is acceptable). Excel: `=CHISQ.TEST(observed_range, expected_range)`, where each expected count is row total x column total / 120. The pattern is consistent with interviews (small operators lack capital budgets), but at the 5% level the survey alone does not establish a difference, so the recommendation treats the size effect as a hypothesis to confirm in the pilot. See `academic/stats-contingency-tables` and `academic/stats-confidence-intervals`.

### 6.2 RaaS at the current fee is worth slightly less than a sale; the break-even fee is USD 3,273 a month

Per-robot cash flows to Corvane (assumptions in section 6.5):

- **Sale**: year 0 margin USD 50,000 (`=120000-70000`); expected service margin USD 2,880 a year for 5 years (`=12000*60%*40%`: contract price x attach rate x service margin).
- **RaaS**: year 0 outlay USD 70,000 (Corvane builds and installs the robot and keeps it); monthly net fee USD 2,600 (`=3200-600`, fee minus service and support cost) for 60 months; residual value USD 15,000 at month 60.

Both are discounted at Corvane's 12% annual cost of capital. For monthly cash flows, the equivalent monthly rate is

$$
r_m = (1 + r_a)^{1/12} - 1 = 1.12^{1/12} - 1 = 0.009489
$$

and the RaaS value is

$$
\text{NPV}_{\text{RaaS}} = -C_0 + (F - S)\,\frac{1-(1+r_m)^{-60}}{r_m} + \frac{V_{60}}{(1+r_m)^{60}}
$$

| Symbol | Meaning | Example value |
|---|---|---|
| $r_a$ | Annual cost of capital | 12% |
| $r_m$ | Equivalent monthly rate | 0.009489 |
| $C_0$ | Build and installation cost | USD 70,000 |
| $F$ | Monthly fee | USD 3,200 |
| $S$ | Monthly service and support cost | USD 600 |
| $V_{60}$ | Residual value at month 60 | USD 15,000 |
| Annuity factor | $\frac{1-(1+r_m)^{-60}}{r_m}$ | 45.5878 |

**Exhibit 2. Per-robot value to Corvane, USD** *(Example)*

| Measure | Sale with service | RaaS at USD 3,200 a month | Excel |
|---|---|---|---|
| NPV at 12% | 60,382 | 57,040 | Sale `=NPV(12%, C2:G2)+B2`; RaaS `=NPV((1+12%)^(1/12)-1, C3:BJ3)+B3` |
| PV of residual value | n/a | 8,511 | `=15000/(1+B5)^60` |
| IRR | n/a (no outlay) | 3.28% a month, 47.3% a year | `=IRR(B3:BJ3)`, annualised `=(1+B7)^12-1` |
| Simple payback | Immediate | 27 months | `=ROUNDUP(70000/2600,0)` |
| Break-even monthly fee | | 3,273 | Solve NPV RaaS = NPV sale: `=(60382+70000-8511)/45.5878+600` |

**Exhibit 3. RaaS NPV per robot by monthly fee, USD** *(Example)*

| Monthly fee | 2,600 | 2,800 | 3,000 | 3,200 | 3,400 | 3,600 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RaaS NPV | 29,687 | 38,805 | 47,922 | 57,040 | 66,157 | 75,275 |
| Sale NPV (for comparison) | 60,382 | 60,382 | 60,382 | 60,382 | 60,382 | 60,382 |

Each USD 200 of monthly fee changes NPV by USD 9,118 (`=200*45.5878`).

```vega-lite
{
  "$schema": "https://vega.github.io/schema/vega-lite/v5.json",
  "description": "Exhibit 3 chart: RaaS NPV per robot by monthly fee against the sale NPV (Example, fictional data)",
  "width": "container",
  "height": 240,
  "data": {"values": [
    {"fee": 2600, "npv": 29687, "offer": "RaaS"},
    {"fee": 2800, "npv": 38805, "offer": "RaaS"},
    {"fee": 3000, "npv": 47922, "offer": "RaaS"},
    {"fee": 3200, "npv": 57040, "offer": "RaaS"},
    {"fee": 3400, "npv": 66157, "offer": "RaaS"},
    {"fee": 3600, "npv": 75275, "offer": "RaaS"},
    {"fee": 2600, "npv": 60382, "offer": "Sale with service"},
    {"fee": 3600, "npv": 60382, "offer": "Sale with service"}
  ]},
  "mark": {"type": "line", "point": true},
  "encoding": {
    "x": {"field": "fee", "type": "quantitative", "title": "RaaS monthly fee (USD)", "scale": {"zero": false}},
    "y": {"field": "npv", "type": "quantitative", "title": "NPV per robot (USD)"},
    "color": {"field": "offer", "type": "nominal", "title": "Offer"},
    "tooltip": [
      {"field": "offer", "type": "nominal"},
      {"field": "fee", "type": "quantitative", "format": ","},
      {"field": "npv", "type": "quantitative", "format": ","}
    ]
  }
}
```

The contract term matters as much as the fee. If a customer terminates at month 36 and Corvane recovers a robot worth USD 30,000, the RaaS NPV at USD 3,200 falls to USD 30,328, about half the sale value. Termination terms (minimum term, early-exit fee) are therefore part of the pricing decision, not a legal detail.

### 6.3 RaaS is defensible only if fleet software and service are hard to copy

Apply the five forces (Porter 1979) to the mid-market segment and the resource-based view (Barney 1991) to Corvane's capabilities. Summarise in a table:

| Lens | Finding | Implication for RaaS |
|---|---|---|
| Buyer power *(Example)* | Many small buyers, but low switching cost before installation | Price competition at acquisition; lock-in after integration |
| Substitutes *(Example)* | Manual labour and fixed conveyors | RaaS must beat the cost per pick of labour, not only rival robots |
| Rivalry *(Example)* | Two competitors already offer subscriptions | Being late means matching, not leading, on price |
| Resources *(Example)* | Fleet-management software with uptime data from large customers; national service network | Valuable and rare; imitable over time; a source of advantage only if the service organisation scales |

### 6.4 Operating RaaS needs capital, a service model and new skills

| Requirement | Detail | Example estimate |
|---|---|---|
| Capital | Corvane funds each robot up front | 50-robot pilot: USD 3.5m (`=50*70000`) |
| Funding | Equipment financing secured on the contracts, or a partner lessor | Term sheet from two lenders |
| Service | Uptime commitment and remote monitoring | Service cost USD 600 a month per robot in the model |
| Organisation | Contract management, credit checks, collections | Two hires in finance operations |
| Metrics | Utilisation, churn, cost to serve per robot | Monthly dashboard |

### 6.5 Assumptions and sensitivity

| ID | Assumption | Value | Source | Effect if wrong |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-01 *(Example)* | Cost of capital | 12% a year | Corvane finance | Higher rate lowers RaaS NPV more than sale NPV |
| A-02 *(Example)* | Service contract attach rate and margin (sale) | 60%, 40% | Corvane finance | Small effect: service margin is USD 2,880 a year |
| A-03 *(Example)* | Monthly service cost (RaaS) | USD 600 | Corvane service team | USD 100 more lowers NPV by USD 4,559 (`=100*45.5878`) |
| A-04 *(Example)* | Residual value at month 60 | USD 15,000 | Refurbishment estimate | PV effect USD 0.57 per USD 1 of residual |
| A-05 *(Example)* | Contract runs the full 60 months | 60 months | Assumption | Exit at 36 months cuts NPV to USD 30,328 |

## 7. Recommendations

<!-- Guidance: Answer the main question directly, then give the actions with owner, timing, cost and success measure. Link every recommendation to the analysis that supports it. -->

**Answer.** Yes, but selectively: offer RaaS to small operators (under 50 employees), at a fee above the break-even, with protections against early exit, and start with a pilot.

| ID | Recommendation | Evidence | Owner | Success measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| REC-1 *(Example)* | Launch RaaS for operators under 50 employees at USD 3,400 a month, 60-month term | Exhibits 1 to 3: highest stated preference; NPV USD 66,157, USD 5,775 above a sale | Chief commercial officer | 50 robots contracted in 12 months |
| REC-2 *(Example)* | Include a minimum term of 36 months and an early-exit fee sized to the lost present value | Section 6.2 termination case | General counsel with CFO | No early exits below break-even value |
| REC-3 *(Example)* | Fund the pilot fleet (USD 3.5m) through an equipment facility secured on the contracts | Section 6.4 | CFO | Facility signed before the first deployment |
| REC-4 *(Example)* | Confirm the size effect and price response in the pilot before extending RaaS to larger operators | Section 6.1: $p = 0.055$ | Head of strategy | Pilot conversion by size band |

Implementation, first 90 days: price and contract design, lender term sheets, sales training for the small-operator segment, and a pilot dashboard (utilisation, churn, cost to serve).

## 8. Limitations and further work

<!-- Guidance: Be specific and honest: which limitation could change which conclusion, and how you would remove it. Examiners reward this section. -->

- **Sample.** The survey is a convenience sample from one association's newsletter; it may over-represent operators interested in automation. Further work: a random sample from a commercial database (`academic/stats-sampling-plan`).
- **Stated preference.** Survey answers about future purchases overstate behaviour. The pilot measures actual uptake.
- **Single cost of capital.** RaaS shifts utilisation risk to Corvane, which arguably warrants a higher discount rate for RaaS cash flows than for sale margins; a 12% rate for both may flatter RaaS.
- **Termination and credit risk.** Modelled only as one scenario. Further work: a probability-weighted model of churn and default.
- **Competitor response.** Not modelled; rivals may cut fees.

## 9. Reflection

<!-- Guidance: Most capstones grade an individual reflection. Use a cycle: experience, reflection, concept, experiment (Kolb 1984), and reflection-in-action (Schön 1983). Write about specific decisions, and connect them to the competencies the programme targets: analytical reasoning, ethical judgement, communication, leadership and teamwork, global perspective, technology and data. -->

| Prompt | Response |
|---|---|
| The decision in this project I would make differently | [Specific moment, what I did, what I would do] |
| Where two disciplines conflicted, and how I resolved it | [Example: marketing preference versus finance value] |
| A belief I held at the start that the evidence changed | [Belief, evidence, new view] |
| What I learned about working with a sponsor or team | [Specific behaviour] |
| A skill gap I will close next, and how | [Plan with date] |

*Example fragment (fictional)*: I started convinced RaaS was the answer because every interviewee complained about up-front cost. The NPV comparison showed the current fee did not compensate Corvane for carrying the robot, and the chi-square result reminded me that a clear pattern in a small sample is still a hypothesis. I now frame recommendations as pilots with explicit tests.

Keep longer notes in `mba/mba-learning-journal`.

## 10. Grading rubric and self-assessment

<!-- Guidance: Replace with your programme's rubric if it publishes one. Score yourself before submitting and ask a peer to score you blind; large gaps show where the report is unclear. -->

| Criterion | Weight | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Adequate (2) | Weak (1) | Self | Peer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research question and scope | 10% | Decision-focused, answerable, scoped | Clear, slightly broad | Topic rather than question | Unclear | [ ] | [ ] |
| Use of literature and frameworks | 10% | Primary sources, each applied to the question | Relevant sources, partly applied | Listed, not applied | Missing or misused | [ ] | [ ] |
| Method and evidence | 20% | Design fits the question; sample and limits stated; reproducible | Sound, some gaps | Weak sample or undocumented steps | No method | [ ] | [ ] |
| Analysis and integration | 25% | Correct calculations, sensitivity, three or more disciplines integrated | Correct, limited integration | Errors or one discipline only | Descriptive only | [ ] | [ ] |
| Recommendations and implementation | 15% | Direct answer, owners, costs, tests, risks | Clear answer, partial plan | Vague | None | [ ] | [ ] |
| Reflection | 10% | Specific, honest, linked to competencies | Specific | Generic | Missing | [ ] | [ ] |
| Communication | 10% | Answer-first, insight headlines, clean exhibits | Clear | Hard to follow | Poor | [ ] | [ ] |
| **Total** | **100%** | | | | | [ ] | [ ] |

Weighted score: `=SUMPRODUCT(weights, scores)` on the 1 to 4 scale; for example scores of 3 on every criterion give 3.0.

## 11. Quality checklist and common mistakes

<!-- Guidance: Run before the supervisor draft and again before submission. -->

**Checklist**

- [ ] The abstract states the answer and the key number.
- [ ] Every sub-question is answered in a named section.
- [ ] Every number has a source or a formula, and totals reconcile.
- [ ] Statistical results report the estimate, interval or test, and the sample size.
- [ ] Assumptions are listed with their effect on the conclusion.
- [ ] Recommendations follow from the analysis and include a first step.
- [ ] Limitations name what could change the conclusion.
- [ ] Ethics approval, consent and data handling follow the programme's rules.
- [ ] Organisation data are used only as the sponsor agreed, and confidential versions are marked.
- [ ] AI-tool use follows the programme's academic integrity policy and is disclosed where required.

**Common mistakes**

1. **A topic, not a question.** "Subscription models in robotics" cannot be concluded.
2. **Literature as decoration.** Frameworks named in section 4 and never used in section 6.
3. **Disciplines in silos.** A marketing chapter and a finance chapter that never meet.
4. **Comparing undiscounted totals.** Five years of fees against one sale price ignores the time value of money.
5. **Mixing monthly and annual rates.** Discounting monthly cash flows at 12% a period destroys the result.
6. **Treating a non-significant pattern as proven.** Report the test and treat it as a hypothesis.
7. **No sensitivity.** A single-point NPV hides the assumption that drives the decision.
8. **Recommendations without owners or costs.**
9. **Generic reflection.** "I learned teamwork is important" earns little; specific decisions earn marks.
10. **Over the word limit.** Many programmes penalise or stop reading.

## Sources and further reading

<!-- Guidance: One reference style throughout. Primary works for frameworks; textbooks named as further reading. -->

- Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. *Harvard Business Review*, 57(2), 137-145.
- Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. *Journal of Management*, 17(1), 99-120.
- Gupta, S., Lehmann, D. R., and Stuart, J. A. (2004). Valuing customers. *Journal of Marketing Research*, 41(1), 7-18.
- Kolb, D. A. (1984). *Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development*. Prentice Hall.
- Schön, D. A. (1983). *The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action*. Basic Books.
- Further reading (textbooks, named only): Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, *Research Methods for Business Students*; Yin, *Case Study Research and Applications*; Berk and DeMarzo, *Corporate Finance*.
- Open resource: OpenStax, *Introductory Statistics 2e* (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), chapters on confidence intervals and the chi-square distribution.
- Your programme's capstone handbook, ethics policy and academic integrity policy.

## Revision history

<!-- Guidance: Record the proposal, supervisor drafts and the submitted version. -->

| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@student-1] | Proposal: question, method, ethics |
| 0.5 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@student-1] | Survey and model results |
| 0.9 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@student-1] | Draft to supervisor |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@student-1] | Submitted |

## Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with standard business research reporting (question, literature, method, analysis, conclusion), reflective and experiential learning (Kolb, Schön) and core MBA techniques (survey inference, net present value, five forces, resource-based view), which are general methods described here in original wording. This template is not affiliated with or endorsed by any business school, and your programme's capstone handbook takes precedence. Corvane Robotics, the survey and all figures are fictional and were computed for this example. This template is original text written for this collection. It is not financial or investment advice. Template licence: MIT.