| Course | MAN-4350 Project Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Written assignment 2: portfolio management and project selection |
| Length | About 1,059 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | B.S. in General Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MAN 4350 Module 2
A Sorting Line, Solar Panels, a Freezing Tunnel or an Online Shop: How a Blueberry Cooperative Chose One Project From Four
Student Name
B.S. in General Management, Thomas Edison State University
MAN-4350: Project Management
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
A Sorting Line, Solar Panels, a Freezing Tunnel or an Online Shop: How a Blueberry Cooperative Chose One Project From Four
Last fall the board of Mullica Valley Growers, a composite cooperative of thirty-eight blueberry farms near Hammonton, New Jersey, had four capital proposals in front of it and room in its budget and its line of credit for about $2.5 million of new investment. This assignment reconstructs how the proposals were compared, first with a weighted scoring model and then with discounted cash flow measures, and explains why the board approved the optical sorting and packing line as a single project rather than funding several smaller ones. I prepared the comparison as the cooperative's operations coordinator.
The Four Candidates
Project A was the optical sorting machine, automated clamshell filler and expanded cooling room, costing $2.4 million. Project B was a rooftop solar array on the packing house and cold storage building, costing $1.1 million. Project C was an individually quick frozen (IQF) tunnel that would freeze soft and surplus berries for sale to bakeries and processors, costing $1.3 million. Project D was a direct-to-consumer program with an online shop, farm-stand kiosks and refrigerated home delivery in summer, costing $350,000.
Each answered a real need. Supermarket buyers had complained about soft fruit; electricity bills for cooling had risen sharply; a share of each crop was sold at low prices to juice processors; and several members wanted the cooperative's brand to reach consumers directly.
Why Use More Than One Selection Model
Pinto (2019) divides selection methods into nonnumeric approaches, such as checklists and sacred cows, and numeric ones, including scoring models and financial models such as payback, net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). Each has blind spots. Financial models capture money well but miss strategic value that is hard to price, while scoring models capture strategy but depend on judgment in the weights and scores. Cooper et al. (1999) found that companies relying only on financial methods had some of the poorest portfolios, and that those with the best results used several methods, with strategy driving the choices. The board therefore asked for both.
Weighted Scoring Model
The board's executive committee agreed on five criteria and their weights before any project was scored, so that the weights could not be bent toward a favorite. The criteria were fit with buyers' quality demands (30 percent), financial return (25 percent), risk, scored so that lower risk earns more points (20 percent), relief from the shrinking seasonal labor pool (15 percent) and how evenly the benefit reaches all members (10 percent). Each project was scored from 1 to 5 on each criterion.
The sorting line scored highest at 4.30 of a possible 5, mainly because it addressed both the buyers' complaints and the labor shortage, which together carry 45 percent of the weight. It scored only 2 on risk, since it involved new technology, a tight installation window and a power upgrade. The freezing tunnel came second at 3.25. The solar array and the direct-to-consumer program scored 2.10 and 2.05, respectively; both were sound ideas that did little for the two problems members cared about most.
| Criterion (weight) | A: Sorting line | B: Solar | C: Freezing tunnel | D: Direct to consumer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buyer quality fit (0.30) | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Financial return (0.25) | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Risk, lower is better (0.20) | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Labor relief (0.15) | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Benefit to all members (0.10) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Weighted score | 4.30 | 2.10 | 3.25 | 2.05 |
Financial Analysis
The bookkeeper and I estimated annual net cash benefits over a ten-year life and discounted them at 8 percent, the rate on the cooperative's equipment loans. The sorting line would replace about sixty hand sorters for an eight-week season of ten-hour days, six days a week, at $17.50 an hour, saving $504,000, and would cut rejected loads and buyer claims by an estimated $106,000, for $610,000 a year net of the service contract. Its NPV was about $1.69 million, its IRR about 21.9 percent and its payback just under four years.
The freezing tunnel's added margin on soft fruit, about $230,000 a year, produced an NPV of about $243,000 and an IRR of 12.0 percent. The direct-to-consumer program, at $60,000 a year, returned an NPV of about $53,000. The solar array, saving roughly $150,000 a year, had a slightly negative NPV of about minus $93,000 over ten years, although its panels would last longer and federal tax credits could change the result. Payback periods ranged from 3.9 years for the sorting line to 7.3 years for solar.
Both models therefore pointed the same way, which gave the board more confidence than either would alone. The estimates were uncertain, especially the labor savings, so I also tested the sorting line with savings 30 percent lower; its NPV stayed positive at about $465,000.
A Portfolio Decision
Project selection is also a portfolio question: which combination of projects best serves the organization's strategy within its limits (Meskendahl, 2010). With about $2.5 million available, the board could fund the sorting line alone, or the freezing tunnel, solar array and online program together for $2.75 million, which would exceed the limit. Even a combination of B, C and D within budget would have delivered less value than A and would have left the buyers' complaints and the labor shortage unsolved.
Cooper et al. (1999) describe three portfolio goals: maximizing value, keeping a balance of risk and type, and aligning with strategy. Funding only Project A concentrates risk in one large effort, which is a real weakness. The board accepted that risk because the strategic need was urgent, and it reduced the imbalance by keeping the freezing tunnel on a short list for the following year, when the sorting line's savings could help pay for it. The direct-to-consumer idea was handed to a member committee to pilot at low cost through the farm stands.
Conclusion
The weighted scoring model and the financial measures agreed that the optical sorting line was the strongest of the four proposals, and a sensitivity test showed that the ranking survived a large error in the savings estimate. Viewing the choice as a portfolio decision made the board's trade-off visible: it accepted concentrated risk in exchange for solving its two most pressing problems, and it planned the next projects rather than dismissing them.
References
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1999). New product portfolio management: Practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(4), 333-351. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1640333
Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 807-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.007
Pinto, J. K. (2019). Project management: Achieving competitive advantage (5th ed.). Pearson.
What the MAN 4350 Module 2 instructions ask for
Module 2 of MAN-4350 covers portfolio management and project selection and serves the course objectives on the significance of project management and on analyzing approaches to project selection. The written assignment is one of six, each worth an equal share of the 30 percent that written work contributes. Expect to compare candidate projects using the selection models in Pinto's chapter, which range from checklists and scoring models to payback, NPV and IRR, and to explain how portfolio thinking changes the decision. Use realistic numbers and show the calculations, since the methods only mean something when they are applied. If you lack real figures, state your assumptions openly and keep them consistent across every candidate, so the comparison stays fair.
How the MAN 4350 Module 2 example is put together
The sample introduces a capital limit and four candidates that each meet a real need, which makes selection a genuine trade-off. Before any scoring it explains why two kinds of model are used, citing research on portfolio practices. The scoring section fixes criteria and weights first, presents a table and explains which weights drove the result. The financial section shows where the savings figure comes from, reports NPV, IRR and payback for each project and tests the leader against a 30 percent shortfall. The portfolio section checks combinations within the budget and explains how the board handled concentrated risk. Notice that the projects not chosen are given a future rather than dropped, which is how real portfolios are managed.
Reading the MAN 4350 Module 2 grading rubric
MAN-4350 written assignments receive a numerical grade from 0 to 100. Mentors reward correct use of selection models, with weights and assumptions stated and calculations that can be checked. Comparing numeric and nonnumeric methods, or scoring and financial models, shows judgment rather than mechanical application. Treating the decision as part of a portfolio, with attention to strategy, balance and resource limits, meets the objective on analyzing selection approaches. Support from the textbook and peer-reviewed research, clear headings, accurate APA style and correct grammar complete a strong paper. A short table of scores and a second of financial results let the mentor check the work quickly.
MAN 4350 Module 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often present a scoring model without explaining where the weights came from, or set the weights after scoring, which invites bias. Another frequent problem is reporting an NPV without the discount rate, the cash flows or the life assumed. Some papers pick a winner and stop, missing the portfolio question of what happens to the projects not chosen. Add a simple sensitivity test to show the result holds up, for example cutting the largest benefit by a quarter or a third and recalculating. If your workplace has its own capital requests, our writers can help turn them into a MAN 4350 project selection assignment.
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 MAN 4350 and B.S. in General Management sample papers
- MAN 4350 Module 1: Project Context Written Assignment
- MAN 4350 Module 3: Leadership and Teams Written Assignment
- MAN 4350 Module 4: Scope and Risk Written Assignment
- MAN 4350 Module 5: Scheduling and Cost Written Assignment
- MAN 4350 Module 6: Control and Closeout Written Assignment
MAN 4350 Module 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MAN 4350 Module 2 sample paper?
The complete second written assignment for Project Management is above: four proposals at a blueberry cooperative compared by weighted scoring, NPV, IRR and payback, then judged as a portfolio, with references.
What project selection models does Pinto describe?
Nonnumeric models such as checklists and sacred cows, and numeric models including simplified and weighted scoring, payback, discounted measures such as NPV and IRR, and real options models.
Why fix the weights before scoring projects?
Agreeing on criteria and weights first prevents the scores from being bent toward a favorite project after the fact.
What is project portfolio management?
Choosing and balancing a set of projects so that together they maximize value, keep risk and type in balance and fit the organization's strategy within its resource limits.
How many written assignments are in MAN-4350?
Six, one per module, together worth 30 percent of the final grade alongside discussions, case studies and a three-part final project.