| Course | BUS-4210 Business Administration Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Final project: analytical report to the chief executive |
| Length | About 1,105 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 4210 Module 8
Report to the Chief Executive: Executing Intel's Turnaround After 2025
Student Name
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University
BUS-4210: Business Administration Capstone
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Report to the Chief Executive: Executing Intel's Turnaround After 2025
To the Chief Executive
This report assesses how well Intel is executing its turnaround strategy after fiscal 2025 and recommends priorities for 2026. It draws on the full course: Intel's mission and objectives, its industry and internal position, its competitive and diversification moves, its ethical and governance context and, above all, the tasks of strategy execution that Thompson et al. (2018) set out. All figures are from Intel's 2025 annual report (Intel Corporation, 2026).
Summary of Findings
Intel has stabilized its finances and delivered its most important technology milestone, but it has not yet proven the foundry business on which its strategy depends. Revenue was $52.9 billion, slightly below 2024. The operating loss narrowed from $11.7 billion to $2.2 billion, mainly because asset impairments fell, and the net loss was $267 million. Gross margin improved from 32.7 to 34.8 percent. Intel 18A entered high-volume manufacturing in late 2025 in Core Ultra Series 3 processors. Intel Foundry, however, lost $10.3 billion on revenue of $17.8 billion, of which $17.5 billion came from Intel's own product groups, and the company has warned that without a significant external customer for Intel 14A it may pause its pursuit of the next leading-edge nodes.
Strategic Context
Intel's strategy, as an integrated designer and manufacturer, is to regain process leadership and build an external foundry business while restoring competitive products in client and data center computing. The industry analysis is unfavorable in parts: AMD competes across the x86 range, and NVIDIA's GPU systems have captured the fastest-growing demand in AI data centers. Internally, Intel's main resources, its x86 ecosystem, U.S. manufacturing footprint and process technology, are valuable, but their competitive edge depends on execution of the process roadmap. The 2025 portfolio moves were consistent with retrenching to focus capital: Intel sold 51 percent of Altera for net consideration of $4.3 billion and kept Mobileye as a separately listed company.
Capital and Governance
Intel raised substantial capital in 2025. Under an agreement with the Department of Commerce, it received the remaining $5.7 billion of accelerated CHIPS Act disbursements, issued 275 million shares and a contingent warrant to the government, and placed 159 million further shares in escrow tied to $3.2 billion of Secure Enclave funding. SoftBank bought $2.0 billion of shares and NVIDIA $5.0 billion. These funds give the company time, but they also change its governance environment: the government's stake and the warrant, which becomes exercisable if Intel ceases to own at least 51 percent of Intel Foundry, constrain future options for the foundry and add public scrutiny. Capital spending fell from $23.9 billion to $14.6 billion and research and development from $16.5 billion to $13.8 billion, showing discipline but also less room for error.
Assessment Against the Tasks of Execution
Thompson et al. (2018) identify managerial tasks for executing strategy, including building an organization with the needed capabilities, structuring the work, allocating resources to strategy-critical activities, instituting policies and best practices, installing information and operating systems, tying rewards to achievement, instilling a supportive culture and exercising strategic leadership. Hrebiniak (2006), surveying hundreds of managers, found that the most common obstacles to implementation were inability to manage change and resistance, poor or vague strategy, unclear responsibility and accountability, and poor information sharing across units.
| Execution task | Evidence from 2025 | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Structure and leadership | Management layers reduced; new chief executive since March 2025 | Improving |
| Resource allocation | Capital spending cut to $14.6 billion; R&D to $13.8 billion; focus on 18A and 14A | Disciplined but tight |
| Capabilities | 18A in volume production; 14A depends on an external customer | Partly proven |
| Culture | Company-wide transformation for speed, accountability and technical focus | Early stage |
| Rewards and accountability | Performance-based equity for the chief executive; restructuring | Needs clear foundry milestones |
| Information and operating systems | Foundry must earn outside customers' trust in quality and yield | Unproven externally |
The pattern resembles Hrebiniak's warning about unclear accountability. The foundry's results are dominated by internal transfers, so its performance is hard to judge, and the commitment to 14A rests on an outside customer not yet secured. Execution now hinges on turning a capability Intel uses for itself into a service others will buy.
Recommendation
The chief executive should make a committed external customer for Intel 14A the explicit gate for further leading-edge investment, with a decision date announced to employees, investors and the government. Until that gate is passed, capital should prioritize yield and cost improvements on 18A, which pays off in Intel's own products whatever happens to the foundry. Foundry managers should be measured on external design wins, yield and on-time delivery, not only on internal volume, and their incentives should reflect those measures. The culture program should be tied to these concrete milestones so that speed and accountability have visible targets.
The trade-off is significant. A public gate may disappoint those who see leading-edge manufacturing as a national priority, and pausing 14A would cede process leadership for years. But committing tens of billions to a node without customers would repeat the over-investment that produced 2024's losses. A clear gate makes the choice disciplined either way.
Ethical and Stakeholder Considerations
Intel's choices affect employees, communities near its fabs and the public, whose government is now a shareholder. Workforce reductions should be handled with transparency and support, and any decision about 14A should be communicated candidly to the government and to communities that expect new plants, consistent with the textbook's view that ethical conduct and stakeholder trust support long-run strategy.
Implementation Timeline
The recommendation can be carried out in three steps over 2026. In the first quarter, the chief executive should announce the 14A gate and the decision date, set external design wins, yield and on-time delivery as the foundry's primary measures, and align foundry managers' incentives to them. In the second and third quarters, capital should concentrate on 18A yield improvement and on the advanced packaging that potential foundry customers value, while sales teams pursue a committed 14A customer. By the decision date, the company should either announce the customer and proceed with 14A, or pause leading-edge expansion and redirect capital to products and packaging. Either outcome should be communicated in the same way to employees, investors and the government, with the reasons stated. Progress should be reviewed by the board each quarter against the three foundry measures and the 18A yield targets.
Conclusion
Intel's 2025 execution has improved its finances and delivered 18A, but its strategy still depends on proving an external foundry business. Gating the next node on a committed customer, focusing resources on 18A, and holding the foundry accountable for outside wins would align execution with the strategy's real test.
References
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 35(1), 12-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.12.001
Intel Corporation. (2026). Annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Thompson, A. A., Peteraf, M. A., Gamble, J. E., & Strickland, A. J., III. (2018). Crafting and executing strategy: The quest for competitive advantage, concepts and cases (21st ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Reading the BUS 4210 Module 8 assignment instructions
The BUS-4210 final project is an analytical report written to a company's chief executive, worth 20 percent of the grade, drawing on concepts from the entire course; the syllabus suggests beginning soon after Module 7 starts. Choose a company facing a real strategic decision, gather current evidence from its annual report and other credible sources, and organize the report for an executive reader: purpose, summary of findings, analysis and a clear recommendation. Use the course's tools, from mission and environment to competitive strategy, diversification, ethics and execution, and support claims with research. State the trade-off of your recommendation and keep the report concise and well structured. Begin early so there is time to revise.
How the BUS 4210 Module 8 example is put together
The report addresses its reader directly and puts the findings first, as an executive would want. It integrates the course's modules in a short strategic context section, then devotes most of its space to execution, the final module, with a table assessing each task against evidence from the annual report. Research on implementation obstacles helps interpret the pattern. The recommendation is specific, a gate tied to an external customer and a date, and the trade-off is stated plainly. A section on stakeholders and ethics connects back to earlier modules, and the conclusion restates the finding and recommendation in three sentences. Read it for its order: findings first, evidence next, decision last.
Reading the BUS 4210 Module 8 grading rubric
The final report is graded out of 100. Mentors look for an executive-ready report with a clear purpose, a summary of findings, integrated use of course concepts, accurate current evidence and a specific, well-justified recommendation with trade-offs. Analysis should go beyond description to judgment, and research beyond the textbook should support key points. Tables, headings and concise writing help an executive reader, and correct APA citations are required. Reports that summarize a company's history, apply frameworks without reaching a recommendation, or recommend everything at once tend to score lower than focused, evidence-based reports. A recommendation tied to a measurable gate or milestone is especially persuasive to mentors and executives alike.
Common BUS 4210 Module 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students often write the final project as a long case summary, leaving the recommendation for the last paragraph. Another weakness is using every framework from the course mechanically instead of choosing those that bear on the decision. Our writers can prepare BUS 4210 final analytical reports on the company and question you choose. Start by stating the decision the chief executive faces in one sentence. Gather the annual report and recent filings, select the frameworks that inform that decision, and put your findings and recommendation on the first page. Then support them with analysis, name the trade-off and close with the next steps. Finally, ask whether the chief executive could act on the first page alone.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More BUS 4210 and Bachelor of Science in Business Administration sample papers
- BUS 4210 Module 1: Lululemon's Vision, Objectives and Strategy
- BUS 4210 Module 2: Molson Coors and a Shrinking Beer Market
- BUS 4210 Module 3: Nike's Resources, Value Chain and Ratios
- BUS 4210 Module 4: Dollar General's Low-Cost Strategy
- BUS 4210 Module 5: Netflix's Think-Global, Act-Local Strategy
- BUS 4210 Module 6: Honeywell's Breakup and Diversification
- BUS 4210 Module 7: Wells Fargo's Sales Scandal and Recovery
- ACC 4210 Module 5: Tax Credits and Property Transactions Assignment
- MAN 3720 Module 6: Final Project: A Marketing, Production and Supply Chain Strategy for Water Purifiers in Vietnam
- MKT 2010 Module 6: Promotional Decisions Assignment
- FIN 3010 Module 5: Break-Even and Gearing Problems
BUS 4210 Module 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free BUS 4210 Module 8 sample paper?
A complete Business Administration Capstone final project appears above: an analytical report to Intel's chief executive on executing its turnaround after fiscal 2025.
What is the BUS-4210 final project?
An analytical report addressed to a company's chief executive that draws on the entire course and makes a recommendation, worth 20 percent of the grade.
What are the managerial tasks of strategy execution?
They include building capabilities, structuring work, allocating resources, setting policies and best practices, installing operating systems, tying rewards to results, building culture and leading.
What are the common obstacles to strategy implementation?
Hrebiniak found inability to manage change, vague strategy, unclear responsibility and accountability, and poor information sharing among the most common.
How should an executive report be organized?
Purpose and summary of findings first, then analysis and evidence, then a clear recommendation with its trade-offs and next steps.