# Team Project Report: [Project title]

> A report structure for an MBA team project: executive summary, problem and scope, workplan, analysis, options and
> recommendation, implementation and risks, a contribution statement and an appendix, with a grading rubric and a
> quality checklist. It is for learning teams writing a graded course project, a consulting-style project for a
> company or a term-long analysis in strategy, marketing, operations or finance. A worked example for a fictional
> retailer shows the level of detail expected.
> Source basis: answer-first business writing (the pyramid structure described by Minto), hypothesis-driven problem
> solving, standard capital budgeting (NPV, IRR, payback) and multi-criteria option scoring, and research on team
> effectiveness and peer assessment (Hackman 2002; Ohland et al. 2012), written in our own words.
> Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Agree the problem statement and the report outline (Sections 1 and 3 headings) in the first week. Write the executive summary first as a hypothesis and rewrite it last as the answer.
- One deliverable lead integrates the report; every member owns at least one analysis section and reviews one section they did not write.
- Keep numbers in one model and paste them into the report from there. Every number in the text must match the exhibits.
- Use the rubric in Section 9 to self-grade the draft 48 hours before the deadline.
- Check your course's current instructions for length, format, citation style, collaboration and AI use; they override this template.
- Related templates: mba/mba-learning-team-charter, mba/mba-peer-feedback, mba/mba-case-write-up, mba/mba-field-project-report, mba/mba-capstone-project-report, mba/mba-npv-irr-card, mba/mba-business-communication-card, mba/mba-ai-use-policy-check, business/executive-summary, business/memo, finance/investment-appraisal, education/rubric
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Fill before the first draft circulates. The version number moves with every integrated draft. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [TPR-STRAT-01] |
| Course and section | [Strategy core, Section B] |
| Team | [Learning Team 4] |
| Client or sponsor (if any) | [Company, contact, confidentiality terms] |
| Deliverable lead | [Name] |
| Version | [0.1 draft / 1.0 submitted] |
| Due date | YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM |
| Word or page limit | [ ] |
| Classification | [Course use only / Client confidential] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Approvals

<!-- Guidance: Every member confirms they have read the final version and agree with the recommendation and the contribution statement. -->

| Member | Role in this report | Read final version | Agrees with recommendation | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [Deliverable lead] | [Y/N] | [Y/N] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| [Name] | [Analysis owner, Section 3.2] | [Y/N] | [Y/N] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| [Name] | [ ] | [Y/N] | [Y/N] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| [Name] | [ ] | [Y/N] | [Y/N] | YYYY-MM-DD |

## How a strong team report is built

<!-- Guidance: Read together at the kick-off. The process matters as much as the format. -->

A team report is graded on its answer, its evidence and its clarity, and readers decide within the first page whether
the team has an answer. Three habits separate strong reports from long ones.

**Answer first.** The executive summary states the recommendation and the two to four reasons for it, before any
background. Minto's pyramid principle describes this structure: a governing idea at the top, supported by a small
number of grouped arguments, each supported by evidence. A reader who stops after the first page should still know what
to do and why.

**Hypothesis-driven work.** Write a provisional answer in week one, break it into the questions that would have to be
true (an issue tree), and plan the analysis that tests each question. The hypothesis will change; the point is that
every hour of analysis is aimed at a question that affects the decision. Teams without a hypothesis tend to collect
data first and look for a story later, which produces long background sections and thin recommendations.

**One integrated voice.** A report written in pieces reads like four reports. The deliverable lead owns the storyline,
the terminology, the exhibit numbering and the consistency of numbers. Every member reviews a section they did not
write. Hackman (2002) notes that an enabling structure, clear task design and norms of conduct, is one of the
conditions that let teams perform; for a report, that structure is the outline, the owners and the integration
schedule set out in Section 2.

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A["Problem statement agreed with instructor or client"] --> B["Initial hypothesis and issue tree"]
  B --> C["Workplan: owners, analyses, data sources"]
  C --> D["Analysis sprints"]
  D --> E{"Hypothesis still supported?"}
  E -- "No" --> B
  E -- "Yes" --> F["Storyline and exhibit list"]
  F --> G["Integrated draft"]
  G --> H["Rubric self-grade and peer review"]
  H --> I["Final edit, contribution statement, submit"]
```

## 0. Executive summary

<!-- Guidance: One page at most. Recommendation in the first sentence. Then the reasons, the key numbers, the main risk and the next steps. Write it last, but draft a hypothesis version in week one. -->

| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Recommendation | [One sentence: what the decision maker should do] |
| Reason 1 | [ ] |
| Reason 2 | [ ] |
| Reason 3 | [ ] |
| Key numbers | [NPV, payback, market size, cost saving, with units] |
| Main risk and mitigation | [ ] |
| Next steps and timing | [ ] |

*Example.* Northfield Outdoor Co. (fictional), a mid-size outdoor-gear retailer with stores and an online shop, should
launch a rental and certified-resale programme in its 12 largest stores, starting with tents and technical jackets.
The programme fits Northfield's repair capability and its customers' stated interest in renting expensive gear, it
scores highest of three options on the team's criteria (4.0 out of 5 against 3.25 and 2.3), and the four-year case
has an NPV of USD 0.268m at a 10% discount rate, an IRR of 18.8% and a payback of 2.82 years. The main risk is volume:
if inflows are 20% below plan the NPV turns slightly negative (USD -0.026m), so the team recommends a two-store pilot
with explicit volume gates before the full roll-out.

## 1. Problem and scope

<!-- Guidance: State the decision, the decision maker, the deadline and what is out of scope. A good problem statement can be answered with a recommendation, not with "it depends". -->

| Item | Our answer |
|---|---|
| Decision to be made | [ ] |
| Decision maker | [ ] |
| Why now | [ ] |
| Success criteria the decision maker cares about | [ ] |
| In scope | [ ] |
| Out of scope | [ ] |
| Constraints (budget, time, data access) | [ ] |
| Key assumptions agreed with the sponsor | [ ] |

*Example.* Decision: whether and how Northfield should enter rental and resale. Decision maker: the chief executive and
the head of stores. Success criteria: positive NPV at Northfield's 10% hurdle rate, payback within three years, and a
measurable increase in repeat visits. Out of scope: rental of bicycles and watercraft, international stores.

## 2. Workplan

<!-- Guidance: Show the plan you actually followed, not an idealised one. Name owners. Put the integration and review dates in, because they are the ones teams forget. -->

| Workstream | Key question | Analysis | Data source | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WS-1 Customer | Do customers want to rent or buy used gear? | Survey and interviews | [Survey of 300 loyalty members] | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| WS-2 Market and competition | Who else offers this, at what price? | Competitor scan, price benchmarks | [Public websites, store visits] | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| WS-3 Operations | Can stores clean, repair and store returned gear? | Process map, capacity estimate | [Store manager interviews] | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| WS-4 Financials | Does it create value? | Cash flow model, NPV, sensitivity | [Company data, assumptions log] | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Integration | Storyline and consistency | Draft, review, edit | All | [Lead] | YYYY-MM-DD |

```mermaid
gantt
  title Example workplan (fictional dates)
  dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
  section Framing
  Problem statement and hypothesis :a1, 2027-01-11, 5d
  section Analysis
  WS-1 Customer survey and interviews :a2, after a1, 14d
  WS-2 Market and competition :a3, after a1, 10d
  WS-3 Operations capacity :a4, after a1, 12d
  WS-4 Financial model :a5, after a3, 10d
  section Integration
  Storyline and exhibits :a6, after a5, 4d
  Integrated draft and rubric review :a7, after a6, 5d
  Final edit and submission :a8, after a7, 2d
```

## 3. Analysis

<!-- Guidance: Organise by the questions in the issue tree, not by the order in which you did the work. Each subsection opens with its finding in one sentence, then the evidence and the exhibit. -->

### 3.1 Issue tree

<!-- Guidance: Each branch should be a question whose answer changes the recommendation. Mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive is the aim. -->

The example tree splits the decision into four questions; each leaf is an analysis owned by one workstream in
Section 2. Replace it with your own tree and keep it in the report so the reader sees why each analysis exists.

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  Q["Should Northfield launch rental and resale?"] --> D["Is there enough demand?"]
  Q --> C["Can Northfield deliver it well?"]
  Q --> V["Does it create value?"]
  Q --> R["Are the risks manageable?"]
  D --> D1["Customer interest and willingness to pay"]
  D --> D2["Competitor offers and prices"]
  C --> C1["Repair and cleaning capacity"]
  C --> C2["Inventory and store space"]
  V --> V1["NPV, IRR, payback"]
  V --> V2["Effect on new-gear sales"]
  R --> R1["Volume risk"]
  R --> R2["Brand and quality risk"]
```

### 3.2 Findings by question

| Question | Finding (one sentence) | Evidence | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Demand] | [ ] | [ ] | [Exhibit 1] |
| [Capability] | [ ] | [ ] | [Exhibit 2] |
| [Value] | [ ] | [ ] | [Exhibit 3] |
| [Risk] | [ ] | [ ] | [Exhibit 4] |

### 3.3 Financial analysis

<!-- Guidance: Show the cash flows, the discount rate and its source, and the result with the spreadsheet formula. Then the sensitivity that matters most. Keep the full model in the appendix. -->

*Example.* Exhibit 3: Northfield rental and resale, incremental cash flows (USD m, fictional).

| Year | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net cash flow | -1.20 | 0.30 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.60 |
| Cumulative | -1.20 | -0.90 | -0.45 | 0.10 | 0.70 |

| Measure | Result | Excel formula (cash flows in B2:F2, year 0 in B2) |
|---|---|---|
| NPV at 10% | USD 0.268m | `=NPV(10%,C2:F2)+B2` |
| IRR | 18.8% | `=IRR(B2:F2)` |
| Payback | 2.82 years | 2 full years plus `=0.45/0.55` of year 3 |
| NPV at 12% | USD 0.199m | `=NPV(12%,C2:F2)+B2` |
| NPV if inflows are 20% lower | USD -0.026m | `=NPV(10%,C2:F2*0.8)+B2` (works as entered in Excel 365; in Excel 2019 and earlier confirm with Ctrl+Shift+Enter as an array formula) |

Excel's `NPV` function discounts its first value by one period, so the year-0 outlay is added outside the function.

```vega-lite
{
  "$schema": "https://vega.github.io/schema/vega-lite/v5.json",
  "description": "Cumulative cash flow of the fictional Northfield rental and resale programme, USD m.",
  "width": 360,
  "height": 200,
  "data": {"values": [
    {"year": "0", "cumulative": -1.20},
    {"year": "1", "cumulative": -0.90},
    {"year": "2", "cumulative": -0.45},
    {"year": "3", "cumulative": 0.10},
    {"year": "4", "cumulative": 0.70}
  ]},
  "mark": "bar",
  "encoding": {
    "x": {"field": "year", "type": "ordinal", "title": "Year"},
    "y": {"field": "cumulative", "type": "quantitative", "title": "Cumulative cash flow (USD m)"},
    "color": {"condition": {"test": "datum.cumulative < 0", "value": "#c0504d"}, "value": "#4f81bd"}
  }
}
```

## 4. Options and recommendation

<!-- Guidance: Compare at least three options, including "do nothing" or the status quo. Agree weights before scoring, so the weights are not tuned to the answer you prefer. -->

| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Criterion 1] | [ ]% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| [Criterion 2] | [ ]% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| [Criterion 3] | [ ]% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| [Criterion 4] | [ ]% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Weighted score | 100% | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

*Example.*

| Criterion | Weight | A Rental and resale | B Expand e-commerce assortment | C Do nothing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPV and payback | 30% | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| Strategic fit | 25% | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Execution risk (higher score = lower risk) | 25% | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Customer evidence | 20% | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| Weighted score | 100% | 4.00 | 3.25 | 2.30 |

Excel: with weights in B2:B5 and Option A's scores in C2:C5, `=SUMPRODUCT($B$2:$B$5,C2:C5)`.

Recommendation: [state it in one sentence, then the conditions under which the team would change its mind].

*Example.* Launch Option A as a two-store pilot for six months, scale to 12 stores if the pilot reaches at least 85% of
planned rental volume, because the full-scale NPV turns negative if volume runs 20% below plan. The team would change
its recommendation if the pilot showed that rentals mainly replace sales of new gear rather than attract new customers.

## 5. Implementation, risks and next steps

<!-- Guidance: A recommendation without an owner and a date is a suggestion. Name the risks that would change the answer and the early signal for each. -->

| Step | Owner (at the client or company) | Timing | Success measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

| Risk ID | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Early signal | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-01 *(Example)* | Rental volume below plan | Medium | NPV negative at 20% shortfall | Pilot weekly rentals below 85% of plan for 4 weeks | Volume gate before roll-out |
| R-02 *(Example)* | Used gear quality damages the brand | Low | Returns and complaints rise | Inspection failure rate above 5% | Certified inspection checklist, repair partner |
| R-03 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

## 6. Contribution statement

<!-- Guidance: Agree this together and keep it factual. Many courses ask for one, and some use it with peer evaluation. It protects members who did more and makes the team's process visible. Check your course's required format. -->

| Member | Main contributions | Sections drafted | Sections reviewed | Approximate share of effort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ]% |
| [Name] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ]% |
| [Name] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ]% |
| [Name] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ]% |

Use of AI tools and outside help: [state what was used, for which task, and confirm it complies with the course's rule
as of YYYY-MM-DD; see mba/mba-ai-use-policy-check]. External sources are cited in the appendix. If peer evaluation is
part of the grade, see mba/mba-peer-feedback.

## 7. Appendix

<!-- Guidance: Put detail here, not in the body. Every appendix item must be referred to from the body. -->

| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| A1 Assumptions log | [Each assumption, its value, source and date] |
| A2 Financial model | [Link or summary tables, with formulas visible] |
| A3 Survey and interview method | [Sample, questions, dates; how participants consented] |
| A4 Sources | [Full references in the course's citation style] |
| A5 Glossary | [Terms the reader may not know] |

## 8. Quality checklist

<!-- Guidance: The deliverable lead runs this 48 hours before the deadline, and a second member runs it again on the final file. -->

- [ ] The recommendation is in the first two sentences of the executive summary.
- [ ] Every section heading is a finding or a question, not a topic label.
- [ ] Every number in the text matches the exhibits and the model; totals add up.
- [ ] Units and currency are stated on every exhibit; years and periods are consistent.
- [ ] At least three options were considered, including the status quo.
- [ ] The main risk and the condition that would change the recommendation are stated.
- [ ] Assumptions have sources and dates.
- [ ] Exhibits are numbered, titled with their message and referred to in the text.
- [ ] One voice: terminology, tense and formatting are consistent.
- [ ] Length, format and citation style meet the course's current instructions.
- [ ] The contribution statement is agreed by all members.
- [ ] AI use and outside help comply with the course rule and are disclosed as required.

## 9. Grading rubric

<!-- Guidance: Use your course's rubric if it has one. Otherwise self-grade with this one: score each criterion 0 to 4, then weighted percent = sum of weight times score divided by 4. -->

| Criterion | Weight | 4 Excellent | 2 Developing | 0 Missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem framing and scope | 10% | Decision, decision maker and success criteria precise; scope justified | Problem stated but broad or partly a topic | No clear decision |
| Analysis quality | 30% | Analyses answer the issue-tree questions; correct methods; sensitivity on key drivers | Some analyses descriptive or not tied to the decision; minor errors | Analysis absent or wrong |
| Recommendation and implementation | 20% | Clear, specific, follows from the analysis; owners, timing, risks and change conditions | Recommendation present but vague or weakly supported | No recommendation |
| Evidence and sources | 10% | Data and assumptions sourced and dated; limits acknowledged | Some sources missing | Unsupported claims |
| Writing and exhibits | 15% | Answer first; exhibits carry one message each; one voice | Readable but long or topic-ordered; exhibits unclear | Hard to follow |
| Team process and contribution statement | 15% | Workplan followed; contributions clear and agreed; integration evident | Contributions listed but uneven or vague | No statement |

*Example.* A draft scored 3, 3, 4, 3, 2 and 4 on the six criteria. Weighted percent:
$10 \times \tfrac{3}{4} + 30 \times \tfrac{3}{4} + 20 \times \tfrac{4}{4} + 10 \times \tfrac{3}{4} + 15 \times \tfrac{2}{4} + 15 \times \tfrac{4}{4} = 80.0$.
Excel: `=SUMPRODUCT(B2:B7,C2:C7)/4` with weights as whole numbers in B2:B7 and scores in C2:C7. The weakest criterion,
writing and exhibits, is where the final 48 hours should go.

## Common mistakes

<!-- Guidance: Check the draft against this list before the rubric self-grade. -->

1. Background first, recommendation on page eight.
2. Topic headings ("Market overview") instead of message headings ("Demand is concentrated in tents and jackets").
3. Analysis that is interesting but does not change the decision.
4. Only one real option compared against a straw man.
5. Weights in the scoring matrix chosen after scoring, so the preferred option wins.
6. Numbers in the text that do not match the exhibits after late model changes.
7. NPV computed with Excel's `NPV` over the year-0 cash flow, which discounts the outlay by one period.
8. No sensitivity analysis on the driver that matters most.
9. Four writing styles and inconsistent terminology because nobody integrated the sections.
10. A contribution statement written by one person and not agreed by the team.
11. Undisclosed AI use or outside help where the course requires disclosure.

## Self-test

<!-- Guidance: Answer from memory, then check the Answer key. -->

1. What belongs in the first two sentences of the executive summary?
2. Why write a hypothesis in week one if it may change?
3. In the example, why is the NPV computed as `=NPV(10%,C2:F2)+B2` and not `=NPV(10%,B2:F2)`?
4. Verify the payback of 2.82 years from the cumulative cash flows.
5. Recompute Option B's weighted score.
6. What does the 20% sensitivity tell the decision maker, and how did the team respond in its recommendation?
7. Name two reasons a contribution statement helps the team.
8. A draft scores 4 on every criterion except analysis quality (2). What is its weighted percent?

## Sources and further reading

<!-- Guidance: Primary works and named textbooks. Cite your own data sources in Appendix A4. -->

- Hackman, J. R. (2002). *Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances*. Harvard Business School Press.
- Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Finelli, C. J., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz,
  H. R., and Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: development of a
  behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. *Academy of Management Learning and Education*,
  11(4), 609-630.
- Further reading (by name only): Minto, *The Pyramid Principle*; Brealey, Myers and Allen, *Principles of Corporate
  Finance* (capital budgeting chapters); Berk and DeMarzo, *Corporate Finance*; OpenStax, *Principles of Management*
  (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), chapters on teamwork and communication.

## Answer key

<!-- Guidance: Check after attempting the self-test. -->

1. The recommendation and the main reasons for it (with the key number), so a reader who stops there knows what to do
   and why.
2. It focuses the analysis on questions that affect the decision; it is tested and revised, not defended.
3. Excel's `NPV` treats its first value as arriving one period from now, so including the year-0 outlay would
   discount it; the outlay is added separately. Correct result: USD 0.268m.
4. Cumulative after year 2 is -0.45; year 3 inflow is 0.55; 0.45 / 0.55 = 0.82 of year 3, so 2 + 0.82 = 2.82 years.
5. 0.30 × 3 + 0.25 × 3 + 0.25 × 4 + 0.20 × 3 = 0.90 + 0.75 + 1.00 + 0.60 = 3.25.
6. Value depends heavily on volume: a 20% shortfall in inflows makes NPV slightly negative (USD -0.026m). The team
   recommended a two-store pilot with a volume gate at 85% of plan before full roll-out.
7. It makes contributions visible and fair (protecting members who did more) and it shows the instructor or client
   how the team worked; it can also be compared with peer evaluations.
8. 10 + 30 × 2/4 + 20 + 10 + 15 + 15 = 10 + 15 + 20 + 10 + 15 + 15 = 85.0%.

## Revision history

<!-- Guidance: One row per integrated draft. -->

| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Lead] | Outline and hypothesis executive summary |
| 0.5 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Team] | Integrated draft |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Team] | Submitted version |

## Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with common practice for business-school team projects and consulting-style reports: answer-first
writing in the manner of Minto's pyramid principle, hypothesis-driven problem solving with issue trees, standard
capital budgeting (NPV, IRR, payback) and weighted multi-criteria scoring, all general methods explained here in
original wording. The rubric is original and is not any school's official rubric; this template is not affiliated with
or endorsed by any business school or publisher. Check your course's current instructions on format, length, citation,
collaboration and AI use before submitting. Northfield Outdoor Co. and all figures in the example are fictional.
Template licence: MIT.