# Case Write-Up: [Case title] > A template and guide for the written case analysis in an MBA course: the individual or team paper in which you > take the protagonist's decision, analyse it with your own exhibits, compare alternatives and recommend an action > with an implementation plan. It gives the standard section order (executive summary first), word-limit and > appendix conventions, a grading rubric, an original mini-case about Northfield Outdoor Co. (fictional) with > computed exhibits, and a short worked excerpt of a strong write-up. It is for MBA students in core and elective > courses, and for anyone writing a decision memo in case form. Source basis: the case method literature > (Christensen, Garvin and Sweet 1991; Ellet 2018), decision analysis (Hammond, Keeney and Raiffa 1999; Keeney 1992) > and standard capital-budgeting practice, written in our own words. Replace every `[bracketed]` value and every row > marked *Example*. Your course brief always overrides this template. ## Document control | Field | Value | |---|---| | Document ID | [CWU-001] | | Course | [Course code and name] | | Case | [Case title; author(s), publisher, product number, year] | | Assignment question | [Copy the question from the course brief, in full] | | Individual or group | [Individual / Group of N] | | Authors | [Name(s)] | | Word or page limit | [e.g. 2,000 words or 5 pages, excluding exhibits] | | Exhibit and appendix limit | [e.g. up to 6 exhibits; appendix allowed or not] | | Format | [Font, size, margins, file type, file name convention] | | AI-use rule for this course | [Copy the syllabus wording; disclosure required: yes / no] | | Due | YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM | | Version | [0.1] | | Status | [Draft / Team review / Submitted / Graded] | | Reviewed by | [Study partner or writing coach] | | Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD | ### Approvals | Role | Name | Decision | Date | |---|---|---|---| | Author or team lead | [Name] | [Ready to submit] | YYYY-MM-DD | | Team member (group papers) | [Name] | [Agreed] | YYYY-MM-DD | ## Contents 1. What a written case analysis is for 2. Format and conventions 3. Process from reading to submission 4. Write-up skeleton 5. Exhibit standards 6. Grading rubric 7. Mini-case: Northfield Outdoor Co. 8. Worked write-up excerpt 9. Quality checklist 10. Common mistakes 11. Self-test ## 1. What a written case analysis is for A case write-up answers one question: **what should the decision maker do, and why?** It is graded as a piece of management communication. The reader is a busy executive (in practice, your instructor reading forty papers) who has read the case and wants your judgement, your evidence and your plan. Three things separate a write-up from a book report: - **It takes a position.** "It depends" is not a recommendation. You may recommend a staged or conditional action, but you name the action, the condition and the trigger. - **It adds analysis the case does not contain.** Restating facts earns nothing. Exhibits that compute something new (incremental cash flows, a break-even, a scoring of alternatives, a sensitivity) earn most of the marks. - **It is honest about uncertainty.** You state the assumptions that drive the answer, show how far they can move before the answer changes, and say what you would monitor. The case method rests on this discipline of judgement under incomplete information (Christensen, Garvin and Sweet 1991). The written version forces what class discussion lets you skip: a complete chain from diagnosis to action. ## 2. Format and conventions | Element | Common convention | Your brief | |---|---|---| | Length | 1,500 to 2,500 words, or 4 to 6 pages, excluding exhibits | [ ] | | Exhibits | Numbered, titled, sourced; usually 3 to 8; often outside the word count | [ ] | | Appendix | Detailed calculations and assumptions; graders may not read it, so nothing essential lives only there | [ ] | | Voice | First person plural for teams, active voice, present tense for the recommendation | [ ] | | Headings | One per section of the skeleton; numbered if the paper is longer than 4 pages | [ ] | | Citation of the case | "Case Exhibit 3" for case data; "Exhibit 2" for your own exhibits | [ ] | | Outside data | Usually not allowed in core courses ("stay inside the case"); if allowed, cite source and date | [ ] | | Generative AI | Rules differ by school and course; follow the syllabus and disclose use when asked | [ ] | **Word budget.** For a 2,000-word paper, a budget that works (computed in the calc file): executive summary 200 words (10%), problem statement 150 (7.5%), analysis 800 (40%), alternatives 300 (15%), recommendation 200 (10%), implementation and risks 350 (17.5%). The analysis carries most of the words, but it is the exhibits that carry most of the analysis: a paragraph should interpret an exhibit, not re-type it. **Exhibits and the word limit.** If exhibits fall outside the count, the temptation is to put prose into exhibits. Graders notice. An exhibit holds numbers, a chart or a short structured table, with a one-line takeaway title ("Ship-from-store has the higher NPV at 10% growth"), not a descriptive one ("NPV analysis"). **Appendix convention.** Put inputs, formulas and intermediate steps in the appendix so a grader can check any number. The body states the result and refers to the appendix: "NPV USD 0.43m at 9% (Exhibit 3; calculation in Appendix A)." ## 3. Process from reading to submission ```mermaid flowchart TD A["Read the brief and the case once for the story"] --> B["Second read with a pencil: numbers, dates, constraints"] B --> C["Write the decision question and the criteria"] C --> D["Diagnose: root causes, not symptoms"] D --> E["List 3 to 4 real alternatives, including status quo"] E --> F["Build exhibits: numbers, scoring, sensitivity"] F --> G{"Does the analysis point to one action?"} G -- "No" --> H["Find the assumption that decides it and test it"] H --> F G -- "Yes" --> I["Write recommendation and implementation"] I --> J["Write executive summary last"] J --> K["Edit: limits, numbers, exhibit references, AI disclosure"] K --> L["Submit"] ``` | Step | Share of time | Output | |---|---|---| | Read and question | 15% | Decision question, criteria, data inventory | | Diagnosis | 15% | Root-cause statement (two or three causes) | | Analysis and exhibits | 35% | Exhibits 1 to N with takeaway titles | | Alternatives and recommendation | 15% | Comparison table, chosen option, trigger conditions | | Writing | 10% | Full draft | | Edit | 10% | Final paper within limits | ## 4. Write-up skeleton ### 4.1 Executive summary [We recommend that [protagonist] [action] by [date], because [reason 1 with a number], [reason 2] and [reason 3]. The main risk is [risk]; we mitigate it by [action] and will revisit the decision if [trigger].] ### 4.2 Problem statement | Item | Your answer | |---|---| | Decision maker | [Name, role] | | Decision question | [Should X do A, B or C by date D?] | | Why now | [Trigger or deadline in the case] | | Criteria | [e.g. NPV, customer impact, execution risk, strategic fit] with weights | | Constraints | [Budget, capacity, time, policy] | | Symptoms versus root causes | [Symptom] is caused by [root cause] | ### 4.3 Analysis - Situation: [two to three sentences on the context that matters for the decision]. - Key analysis 1: [finding] (Exhibit [n]). - Key analysis 2: [finding] (Exhibit [n]). - Key analysis 3: [finding] (Exhibit [n]). - What drives the answer: [the one or two assumptions; Exhibit with sensitivity]. ### 4.4 Alternatives | Option | Description | Pros | Cons | Score (Exhibit [n]) | |---|---|---|---|---| | [Status quo] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | | [Option A] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | | [Option B] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | ### 4.5 Recommendation [Recommended option], because [comparison against the runner-up]. We would change this recommendation if [condition, with the threshold computed in Exhibit [n]]. ### 4.6 Implementation and risks | ID | Action | Owner | By when | Cost or resource | |---|---|---|---|---| | IMP-001 | [ ] | [ ] | [Month 1] | [ ] | | IMP-002 | [ ] | [ ] | [Month 2] | [ ] | | IMP-003 | [ ] | [ ] | [Month 3] | [ ] | | ID | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | Leading indicator | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | RSK-001 | [ ] | [L/M/H] | [L/M/H] | [ ] | [ ] | | RSK-002 | [ ] | [L/M/H] | [L/M/H] | [ ] | [ ] | ### 4.7 Exhibits and appendix | Exhibit | Takeaway title | Source | Cited in section | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | [ ] | [Case Exhibit n; own calculation] | [4.3] | | 2 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | Appendix A, assumptions: [ID, assumption, value, source, sensitivity tested yes or no]. ## 5. Exhibit standards 1. **Takeaway title.** The title states the conclusion, the subtitle states the measure and units. 2. **Source line.** "Source: case Exhibits 2 and 4; team analysis." Every input traces to the case or to a numbered assumption. 3. **Units and periods** in every column header (USD m, year 1 to 5, orders in millions). 4. **Consistent rounding.** One decimal for percentages, two or three for USD millions, never mixed in one table. 5. **Totals that add up.** Recompute totals after rounding changes; if a rounded table does not sum, say so in a note. 6. **Formulas available.** For each computed figure, the appendix shows the formula (for example `=NPV(rate, C12:G12)+B12`), so a grader can rebuild it. 7. **One message per exhibit.** If an exhibit needs two titles, split it. ## 6. Grading rubric | Criterion | Weight | 4 Excellent | 3 Good | 2 Adequate | 1 Weak | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Problem definition | 15 | Precise decision question, criteria and root causes | Clear question, criteria partly implicit | Question vague or mixes symptoms and causes | Summarises the case instead | | Analysis and exhibits | 30 | Original computations that decide the question; sensitivity on the key driver | Correct analysis, little sensitivity | Frameworks listed without insight | Restates case data | | Alternatives and criteria | 15 | Three or more real options scored against weighted criteria | Options compared informally | Only one option seriously considered | No alternatives | | Recommendation and logic | 20 | Clear action, beats runner-up for stated reasons, change-of-mind condition | Clear action, reasons partly linked to analysis | Hedged or conditional without trigger | No recommendation | | Implementation and risks | 10 | Owners, sequence, cost, risks with mitigation and indicators | Plan without risks or owners | Generic steps | Missing | | Writing and format | 10 | Executive summary first, within limits, every exhibit cited, clean | Minor slips | Over limit or hard to follow | Disorganised | Score each criterion 1 to 4; points = weight x score / 4. *Example:* scores of 4, 3, 4, 3, 2, 4 on the six criteria give 15 + 22.5 + 15 + 15 + 5 + 10 = **82.5 out of 100**. The fastest gains are almost always in "Implementation and risks" and in sensitivity analysis, because they are the parts students leave until there is no time. ## 7. Mini-case: Northfield Outdoor Co. ### 7.1 Situation It was late January, and Dana Okafor, chief operating officer of Northfield Outdoor Co., had six weeks to bring a fulfilment proposal to the board. Northfield sold tents, packs, footwear and technical clothing through 42 stores and its own website. Online orders had reached 1.00 million in the year just ended, and the single distribution centre that served them could process about 0.95 million orders a year at acceptable service levels. For the last two quarters the overflow had gone to a third-party logistics (3PL) provider at USD 13.10 per order, against about USD 9 in-house. Customers had noticed: average delivery time on overflow orders was a day longer, and the share of one-star reviews mentioning delivery had doubled. The marketing team forecast 10% annual growth in online orders for the next five years, but Okafor knew the forecast had been 14% the year before and actual growth had come in at 8%. The chief financial officer, Rahul Menon, set the hurdle at Northfield's 9% cost of capital and asked that every option be compared with simply continuing to use the 3PL for all overflow orders. Two options had support inside the company. The supply-chain director, Ines Varga, wanted a second fulfilment centre near the company's fastest-growing region: a leased building with automation costing USD 6.0 million, fixed operating costs of USD 0.90 million a year and a variable cost of USD 7.60 per order, which she argued would also cut delivery times by a day for a third of customers. The equipment could be resold for an estimated USD 1.5 million after five years. The retail director, Tomás Reyes, proposed ship-from-store in the 20 largest stores. Store staff would pick and pack online orders from store stock. It needed USD 2.4 million for order-management software, packing stations and training, and USD 0.35 million a year in fixed costs. Picking in stores was less efficient, at USD 12.40 per order, but Reyes pointed to a benefit Varga's plan lacked: stores ended each season with excess stock that was cleared at deep discounts, and selling it at full price online would add about USD 0.90 million a year to gross margin. Store managers were wary; in a pilot two years earlier, online picking had slowed checkout on busy Saturdays. Okafor asked her team for a written recommendation. The tax rate was 25%; investments would be depreciated straight line to zero over five years. She wanted the analysis to show which option was better if growth turned out to be 5%, 10% or 15%, and at what growth rate the answer changed. ### 7.2 Exhibits All figures are fictional and computed in the calc file for this template (USD millions unless stated). **Exhibit 1. Online orders exceed in-house capacity from year 1 (orders in millions, 10% growth case)** | | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Forecast orders | 1.100 | 1.210 | 1.331 | 1.464 | 1.611 | | In-house capacity | 0.950 | 0.950 | 0.950 | 0.950 | 0.950 | | Overflow orders | 0.150 | 0.260 | 0.381 | 0.514 | 0.661 | | Cost of overflow with 3PL at USD 13.10 | 1.965 | 3.406 | 4.991 | 6.735 | 8.653 | Excel: orders `=1.00*(1+10%)^B$2`; overflow `=B4-B5`; 3PL cost `=B6*13.10`. **Exhibit 2. Option inputs** | Input | 3PL baseline | A: second fulfilment centre | B: ship-from-store | |---|---|---|---| | Investment (year 0) | 0 | 6.0 | 2.4 | | Fixed cost per year | 0 | 0.90 | 0.35 | | Variable cost per overflow order (USD) | 13.10 | 7.60 | 12.40 | | Margin benefit per year | 0 | 0 | 0.90 | | Salvage value in year 5 | 0 | 1.5 | 0 | **Exhibit 3. Incremental after-tax cash flows against the 3PL baseline (10% growth)** | Option | Year 0 | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | NPV at 9% | IRR | Payback (years) | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | A: pre-tax saving | | -0.075 | 0.530 | 1.196 | 1.928 | 2.733 | | | | | A: after-tax cash flow | -6.000 | 0.244 | 0.698 | 1.197 | 1.746 | 3.475 | -0.77 | 5.3% | 4.61 | | B: pre-tax saving incl. margin | | 0.655 | 0.732 | 0.817 | 0.910 | 1.012 | | | | | B: after-tax cash flow | -2.400 | 0.611 | 0.669 | 0.733 | 0.802 | 0.879 | 0.43 | 15.2% | 3.48 | After-tax cash flow = pre-tax saving x (1 - 25%) + depreciation x 25%, plus after-tax salvage in year 5. Depreciation is USD 1.2m a year for A and USD 0.48m for B. Excel: `=C9*(1-$B$2)+$B$3*$B$2`; NPV `=NPV(9%,C10:G10)+B10`; IRR `=IRR(B10:G10)`. Option A's payback includes the year-5 salvage. $$ NPV = CF_0 + \sum_{t=1}^{5} \frac{CF_t}{(1+r)^t}, \qquad r = 0.09 $$ **Exhibit 4. The answer depends on growth: NPV against the 3PL baseline (USD m)** | Annual order growth | A: second fulfilment centre | B: ship-from-store | |---|---|---| | 5% | -3.51 | 0.08 | | 10% (base) | -0.77 | 0.43 | | 15% | 2.32 | 0.82 | Break-even growth: B reaches NPV = 0 at 3.7% a year, A at 11.3% a year; A overtakes B at 12.3% a year (solved numerically; in Excel, Goal Seek on the growth cell with the NPV difference set to 0). ```vega-lite { "$schema": "https://vega.github.io/schema/vega-lite/v5.json", "description": "NPV of options A and B against the 3PL baseline at three growth rates, Northfield Outdoor Co. (fictional).", "width": 360, "height": 220, "data": {"values": [ {"growth": 5, "option": "A second fulfilment centre", "npv": -3.51}, {"growth": 10, "option": "A second fulfilment centre", "npv": -0.77}, {"growth": 15, "option": "A second fulfilment centre", "npv": 2.32}, {"growth": 5, "option": "B ship-from-store", "npv": 0.08}, {"growth": 10, "option": "B ship-from-store", "npv": 0.43}, {"growth": 15, "option": "B ship-from-store", "npv": 0.82} ]}, "mark": {"type": "line", "point": true}, "encoding": { "x": {"field": "growth", "type": "quantitative", "title": "Annual order growth (%)", "scale": {"domain": [5, 15]}}, "y": {"field": "npv", "type": "quantitative", "title": "NPV vs 3PL baseline (USD m)"}, "color": {"field": "option", "type": "nominal", "title": "Option"} } } ``` **Exhibit 5. Weighted scoring of the three options (scores 1 to 5, 5 best)** | Criterion | Weight | 3PL baseline | A: second centre | B: ship-from-store | |---|---|---|---|---| | NPV at base case | 40% | 3 | 2 | 4 | | Delivery speed for customers | 20% | 2 | 5 | 3 | | Execution risk (5 = low risk) | 20% | 4 | 2 | 3 | | Flexibility if growth slows | 20% | 5 | 1 | 4 | | **Weighted score** | 100% | **3.4** | **2.4** | **3.6** | Excel: `=SUMPRODUCT($B$2:$B$5,C2:C5)`. The scores are team judgements, so the scoring supports the NPV analysis; it does not replace it (Keeney 1992). ### 7.3 Discussion questions 1. What is the decision, and what is the right baseline to compare against? 2. Why does option A look bad at 10% growth but good at 15%? What does the five-year horizon do to A? 3. How much of option B's value comes from the margin benefit, and how confident should Okafor be in it? 4. What would you need to believe to recommend A today? 5. Write the first two sentences of the executive summary. ## 8. Worked write-up excerpt **Executive summary (excerpt, 121 words).** We recommend that Northfield launch ship-from-store in its 20 largest stores this spring and defer the second fulfilment centre. At the forecast 10% growth, ship-from-store adds USD 0.43m of NPV against continuing with the 3PL (Exhibit 3), while the second centre destroys USD 0.77m. Ship-from-store stays NPV-positive even at 5% growth, so it is the robust choice given that last year's forecast overshot by six points (Exhibit 4). It also clears end-of-season stock at full price. The second centre wins only if growth exceeds 12.3% a year; we will review that option each quarter against actual growth. The main risk is store service on peak days; we cap online picking at weekends and pilot in five stores before the full rollout. **Analysis paragraph (excerpt).** The choice turns on growth, not on unit costs. The second centre saves USD 5.50 per overflow order against the 3PL, but it carries USD 0.90m of fixed cost and a USD 6.0m investment, so it needs volume: at 10% growth it is still losing money in year 1 (pre-tax saving of USD -0.075m, Exhibit 3). Ship-from-store saves only USD 0.70 per order, and its margin benefit of USD 0.90m a year is larger than its whole pre-tax saving in years 1 to 3. That makes the margin estimate the assumption to test: with the benefit set to zero, ship-from-store's NPV falls to USD -2.2m and it no longer beats the baseline. We therefore make the five-store pilot measure full-price sell-through of end-of-season stock before the full rollout. **Before and after (one sentence).** Weak: "Option B is better because it is cheaper and more flexible." Strong: "Ship-from-store beats the 3PL above about 3.7% growth and beats the second centre below 12.3%, a range that covers both last year's actual growth (8%) and this year's forecast (10%)." The strong version gives the comparison, the threshold and the evidence. ## 9. Quality checklist - [ ] The first sentence of the paper states the recommended action. - [ ] The decision question names the decision maker, the options and the deadline. - [ ] Root causes are separated from symptoms. - [ ] At least three real alternatives, including the status quo, are compared against stated criteria. - [ ] Every exhibit has a takeaway title, units, a source line and is cited in the text. - [ ] Every number in the text matches its exhibit after the final edit. - [ ] The key assumption is tested and the change-of-mind threshold is stated. - [ ] Implementation has owners, sequence and cost; risks have mitigations and indicators. - [ ] Within the word and exhibit limits; file named as the brief requires. - [ ] No case text pasted; the case is cited by title and publisher. - [ ] Generative AI use follows the syllabus and is disclosed if required. ## 10. Common mistakes 1. **Case summary instead of analysis.** Half the paper retells the case. The grader has read it; give one paragraph of context at most. 2. **Recommendation at the end.** The reader should not have to reach page 5 to learn what you recommend. 3. **Wrong baseline.** Comparing an option with "doing nothing" when doing nothing is not possible (the 3PL costs money). Compare each option with the realistic status quo. 4. **Framework dumping.** A SWOT, five forces and a value chain that lead nowhere. Use a framework only when it produces a finding you cite in the recommendation. 5. **No sensitivity.** A single-point NPV hides the assumption that decides the answer. Show the threshold. 6. **Sunk and non-incremental costs included.** Past pilot costs and allocated head-office overhead do not belong in the incremental cash flows. 7. **Straw-man alternatives.** Options designed to lose do not show judgement. 8. **Hedged recommendation.** "Northfield could consider either option" earns little. A conditional recommendation is fine if it names the condition and the trigger. 9. **Implementation as a to-do list.** "Train staff, monitor results" without owners, dates or cost. 10. **Exhibits nobody cites,** or numbers in the text that no longer match the exhibits after an edit. 11. **Over the limit.** Many courses stop reading at the limit or deduct marks. 12. **Undisclosed AI use** where the course requires disclosure, or AI-generated analysis you cannot explain in class. ## 11. Self-test 1. Why is the executive summary written last but placed first? 2. In the Northfield case, what is the baseline, and why is it not "zero cost"? 3. Recompute option B's year-1 after-tax cash flow from Exhibit 3 inputs. 4. Why does option A's NPV improve so much between 10% and 15% growth? 5. What is wrong with the exhibit title "Financial analysis"? Rewrite it for Exhibit 4. 6. Which single assumption should Okafor test first for option B, and how? 7. A teammate wants to add a two-page Porter five forces analysis of the outdoor retail industry. What do you say? 8. Under the rubric in section 6, a paper scores 3 on every criterion. What is its total? 9. Give two things that belong in the appendix rather than the body. 10. State the change-of-mind condition for the Northfield recommendation in one sentence. ## Sources and further reading - Christensen, C. R., Garvin, D. A., and Sweet, A. (eds.) (1991). *Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership*. Harvard Business School Press. - Ellet, W. (2018). *The Case Study Handbook: A Student's Guide*, revised edition. Harvard Business Review Press. - Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1999). *Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions*. Harvard Business School Press. - Keeney, R. L. (1992). *Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking*. Harvard University Press. - Further reading (by name only): Minto, B., *The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking*; Berk and DeMarzo, *Corporate Finance*; Brealey, Myers and Allen, *Principles of Corporate Finance*. - In this library: academic/finance-case-analysis for long-form finance cases, mba/mba-npv-irr-card for the capital-budgeting method, mba/mba-business-communication-card for writing style. ## Answer key **Self-test.** 1. The reader decides in the first paragraph whether your argument is credible; you can only summarise an argument once you have finished it. 2. The baseline is continuing to send overflow orders to the 3PL at USD 13.10 each. It is not zero cost because overflow exists anyway (1.10m forecast orders against 0.95m capacity in year 1). 3. Overflow 0.15m orders. 3PL cost 0.15 x 13.10 = 1.965; option cost 0.35 + 0.15 x 12.40 = 2.21; pre-tax saving 1.965 - 2.21 + 0.90 = 0.655. After tax: 0.655 x 0.75 + 0.48 x 0.25 = 0.491 + 0.12 = 0.611 (USD m). 4. A has high fixed cost and a large investment but saves USD 5.50 per overflow order, so its value scales with overflow volume, which grows faster than total orders because capacity is fixed. 5. It describes the content, not the conclusion. Better: "Ship-from-store wins below 12.3% growth; the second centre wins above it." 6. The USD 0.90m margin benefit from selling end-of-season stock at full price. Test it with a five-store pilot that measures full-price sell-through before rollout, and show the NPV with the benefit set to zero. 7. Only if it changes the recommendation. The decision is an operations investment; industry structure is context, so one sentence at most. 8. Each criterion earns 3/4 of its weight: 0.75 x 100 = 75 out of 100. 9. Any two of: the full assumption list, the year-by-year calculation with formulas, detailed sensitivity tables, data cleaning notes. 10. "If online orders grow faster than about 12% a year for two consecutive quarters, we will re-open the second fulfilment centre option." **Discussion questions (teaching note).** 1. Decision: how to handle online orders above in-house capacity over the next five years. The right baseline is the realistic status quo, the 3PL for all overflow, which is why Exhibit 3 shows incremental savings against it. 2. A has high fixed and investment costs and a low variable cost, so its NPV rises steeply with overflow volume (Exhibit 4). The five-year horizon also cuts off the later years when overflow is largest; only the USD 1.5m salvage stands in for the value after year 5, which biases the comparison against A. A strong paper says so. 3. Without the margin benefit, B's pre-tax saving in year 1 would be 0.655 - 0.90 = -0.245, negative. Most of B's value rests on the benefit, which is an estimate from a director with an interest in the outcome. Confidence should be moderate until a pilot confirms it: with the benefit set to zero, B's NPV is USD -2.2m. 4. That growth will stay above roughly 12% a year for five years, or that the centre has value after year 5 well beyond its USD 1.5m salvage, or that faster delivery raises demand enough to add revenue not in the model. 5. As in the worked excerpt in section 8: the action, the comparison with numbers, and the robustness to the growth forecast. ## Revision history | Version | Date | Author | Change | |---|---|---|---| | 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | Decision question, criteria and exhibit plan | | 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | Full draft with exhibits | | 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | Submitted version | ## Standard and licence note Structure aligned with the case method as described in the case-teaching literature (Christensen, Garvin and Sweet 1991; Ellet 2018) and with general decision-analysis and capital-budgeting practice (incremental cash flows, NPV and IRR, sensitivity and weighted multi-criteria scoring). The text, rubric, mini-case and exhibits are original and written for this collection; no published case, teaching note or school material is reproduced, and the template is not affiliated with or endorsed by any business school or case publisher. Northfield Outdoor Co., its people and all figures are fictional. Check your course brief and your school's academic integrity and AI-use rules before you use it. Template licence: MIT.