| Course | PJM-7210 Project Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Written assignment 1: modern project management and project selection exercises |
| Length | About 888 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PJM 7210 Module 1
Must-Do, Should-Do and Could-Do: Project Selection Exercises for a Water Authority With a Lead Line Deadline
Student Name
Master of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University
PJM-7210: Project Management
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Must-Do, Should-Do and Could-Do: Project Selection Exercises for a Water Authority With a Lead Line Deadline
These exercises apply Module 1 of Larson and Gray (2018) to Ramapo Valley Water Authority, a composite public water utility serving about 18,000 customer accounts in Bergen County, New Jersey. The authority's board must choose among four capital requests for the next five-year plan with limited borrowing capacity and staff. Each exercise is answered in turn, with calculations shown.
Exercise 1: Is the Lead Line Program a Project?
Larson and Gray (2018) define a project as a complex, nonroutine, one-time effort limited by time, budget, resources and performance specifications, designed to meet customer needs. Replacing the authority's estimated 1,200 lead service lines fits each part of that definition. It has a defined end, the replacement of the last line before the regulatory deadline; it is nonroutine, since crews normally repair breaks rather than replace lines systematically; it has a budget of about $14.4 million at an estimated $12,000 per line; and its specifications are set by regulators and by the requirement that the whole line, including the customer-owned portion, be replaced.
That last specification matters for performance, not only for compliance. Trueman et al. (2016) sampled more than 100 homes and found that full replacement cut lead levels by more than half within three days, whereas partial replacement more than doubled lead release from household plumbing in the short term, and six months later 27 percent of first-draw samples still exceeded the federal action level. A project that replaced only the utility's portion would technically finish but fail its purpose.
Exercise 2: Sorting the Requests
Larson and Gray (2018) recommend classifying projects as compliance or emergency (must-do), operational and strategic before scoring them, so that mandatory work is not forced to compete with discretionary investments on financial grounds. The four requests sort as follows.
| Request | Cost | Category |
|---|---|---|
| Lead service line replacement, 1,200 lines | $14.4 million over four years | Compliance: must do |
| Advanced metering infrastructure (smart meters) | $4.5 million | Strategic |
| Solar canopy at the treatment plant | $2.2 million | Operational |
| Customer billing system replacement | $1.1 million | Operational |
The lead line program goes into the plan first. The remaining three compete for what is left of the authority's capacity, estimated at $5.5 million over five years after the lead program is funded.
Exercise 3: Weighted Scoring
The board's selection criteria and weights are alignment with the authority's strategic plan (0.35), financial return (0.25), risk, where lower risk earns a higher score (0.20), and benefit to customers (0.20). Smart meters score 5, 5, 3 and 4, for a weighted score of 4.40, because they support the strategic goal of reducing water loss, pay back strongly and let customers see leaks quickly. The solar canopy scores 3, 3, 4 and 3, for 3.20, and the billing system 2, 4, 4 and 3, for 3.10. The scoring places smart meters clearly first.
Exercise 4: Financial Analysis
At the authority's 5 percent borrowing rate, the smart meters, costing $4.5 million and saving about $620,000 a year over a 15-year life through reduced meter reading, earlier leak detection and recovered revenue, have a net present value of about $1.94 million and a simple payback of about 7.3 years. The solar canopy, saving about $240,000 a year in electricity over 20 years, has an NPV of about $791,000 and a payback of about 9.2 years. The billing system, saving about $150,000 a year over 10 years, has an NPV of only about $58,000 and a payback of about 7.3 years.
Payback alone would rank the meters and billing system equally, which shows why Larson and Gray (2018) treat it as a crude screen: it ignores what happens after payback and the time value of money. NPV separates them clearly.
Exercise 5: The Recommended Portfolio
With $5.5 million of discretionary capacity, the authority can fund either the smart meters ($4.5 million) and the billing system ($1.1 million), totaling $5.6 million and slightly over capacity, or the smart meters alone with $1.0 million in reserve. The recommendation is to fund the lead line program and smart meters now and to defer the billing system and solar canopy to the next plan. The meters also support the lead program: their data help identify service addresses and track customer-side plumbing work, so the two projects reinforce each other. Meskendahl (2010) argues that a portfolio succeeds when its selection follows business strategy, and this combination does so: both funded projects serve the authority's strategic goals of safe water and lower water loss.
Exercise 6: The Project Manager's Role
Larson and Gray (2018) emphasize that project managers must manage both the technical side of projects, scope, schedules and budgets, and the sociocultural side, people, politics and communication. On the lead line program the sociocultural side is unusually demanding. Full replacement requires entering private property and coordinating with homeowners, landlords and municipal permit offices, so the project manager's success will depend as much on community communication and negotiation as on scheduling crews.
Conclusion
Sorting requests into must-do, operational and strategic categories keeps a mandatory, health-critical program from competing on financial grounds with discretionary investments. Among the discretionary projects, weighted scoring and NPV agree that smart meters deserve funding first. Full lead line replacement, supported by research on lead levels, defines what success means for the authority's largest project.
References
Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2018). Project management: The managerial process (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
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
Trueman, B. F., Camara, E., & Gagnon, G. A. (2016). Evaluating the effects of full and partial lead service line replacement on lead levels in drinking water. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(14), 7389-7396. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01912
Reading the PJM 7210 Module 1 assignment instructions
PJM-7210 requires four written assignments built from selected end-of-chapter exercises, worth 24 percent of the grade together, six discussions, two synchronous events in the third and seventh weeks, a five-question essay midterm on the first two modules, and a team project built on the textbook's appendix. Module 1 covers modern project management and project selection. Work each exercise in order, show every calculation and add a sentence on what the result means, because the syllabus asks you to analyze and apply what you learned, not just compute. If the textbook's exercises refer to a company or data set, use those exactly; if your mentor allows a workplace example, keep the same organization across all exercises so the answers build on each other.
Inside the PJM 7210 Module 1 example
The exercises share one organization so that definitions, categories, scores and financial measures connect. The first exercise tests a real kind of project against the textbook definition and uses research to show why performance specifications matter. Requests are sorted before scoring, as the textbook recommends, and a weighted scoring model and discounted cash flow measures are applied with all inputs stated. A portfolio exercise works within a capacity limit, and the last exercise addresses the sociocultural side of the project manager's role. Every number can be traced to a stated assumption, and each exercise ends with a recommendation or a lesson for the board, which is how chapter exercises become management analysis.
PJM 7210 Module 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Each PJM-7210 exercise set earns a grade on a 100-point scale, awarded for correct application of the textbook's concepts and models, calculations shown step by step with correct results, and interpretations that turn numbers into decisions. Recognizing the limits of a measure, such as payback, and the role of mandatory projects in a portfolio shows depth. Answers labeled by exercise, APA references and tidy tables round out the mark. Mentors also credit answers that link selection to strategy and capacity, since the course treats project selection as a portfolio decision rather than a series of isolated choices. Neat tables make calculations easy to verify.
PJM 7210 Module 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often present scoring models without weights or criteria agreed in advance, or treat compliance projects as if they had to earn a high financial score. Others give NPV answers without the discount rate or cash flow assumptions. Label each exercise, show your inputs, interpret each result and connect the selection to the organization's strategy and capacity. Our writers can prepare PJM 7210 exercise solutions for the chapters your module assigns. Keep your units consistent, state the discount rate and project life for every NPV, and remember that a scoring model is only as credible as the criteria and weights behind it. Interpret every result in one plain sentence a board member would understand.
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 PJM 7210 and Master of Business Administration sample papers
- PJM 7210 Module 2: Midterm Essay Assignment
- PJM 7210 Module 3: Resources and Crashing Exercises
- PJM 7210 Module 4: Final Project Plan and Status Report
- MKM 7000 Module 3: Value Delivery Challenge Questions
- GSM 7300 Module 6: Final Paper: Strategic Entrepreneurship
- NEG 7310 Module 5: Midterm: Emotion, Communication and Power in a Compressor Dispute
- SOP 7200 Module 1: Operations Strategy Problems
PJM 7210 Module 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PJM 7210 Module 1 sample paper?
The first Project Management exercise set is reproduced above: a water authority's project definition, classification, weighted scoring, NPV and payback, and portfolio choice, worked in full.
How do Larson and Gray define a project?
As a complex, nonroutine, one-time effort limited by time, budget, resources and performance specifications, designed to meet customer needs.
Why separate mandatory projects before scoring?
Compliance and emergency projects must be done regardless of financial return, so scoring them against discretionary projects would distort the selection.
Why is payback considered a weak selection measure?
Payback ignores everything after the money comes back and treats future dollars as if they were worth as much as today's, so two very different projects can score the same.
What does the PJM-7210 midterm cover?
Modules 1 and 2, through five essay questions worth 20 percent of the grade.