PastPaper.workedSolution
### Quantitative Calculations
#### Option A (Semi-automated assembly line)
* **Payback Period**:
* Cumulative cash flow:
* Year 1: $40,000
* Year 2: $80,000
* Year 3: $110,000
* Payback occurs in Year 3. Remaining cost to recover after Year 2 = \($100,000 - $80,000 = $20,000\).
* Fraction of Year 3 = \(\frac{20,000}{30,000} = 0.67\) years.
* **Payback Period = 2.67 years** (or 2 years and 8 months).
* **Average Rate of Return (ARR)**:
* Total cash flow = \($40,000 + $40,000 + $30,000 + $30,000 = $140,000\).
* Total net profit = \($140,000 - $100,000 = $40,000\).
* Annual net profit = \(\frac{$40,000}{4 \text{ years}} = $10,000\).
* ARR = \(\left(\frac{$10,000}{$100,000}\right) \times 100 = 10\%\).
#### Option B (Fully automated assembly line)
* **Payback Period**:
* Cumulative cash flow:
* Year 1: $40,000
* Year 2: $100,000
* Year 3: $190,000
* Year 4: $300,000
* Payback occurs in Year 4. Remaining cost to recover after Year 3 = \($200,000 - $190,000 = $10,000\).
* Fraction of Year 4 = \(\frac{10,000}{110,000} = 0.09\) years.
* **Payback Period = 3.09 years** (or 3 years and 1.1 months).
* **Average Rate of Return (ARR)**:
* Total cash flow = \($40,000 + $60,000 + $90,000 + $110,000 = $300,000\).
* Total net profit = \($300,000 - $200,000 = $100,000\).
* Annual net profit = \(\frac{$100,000}{4 \text{ years}} = $25,000\).
* ARR = \(\left(\frac{$25,000}{$200,000}\right) \times 100 = 12.5\%\).
---
### Qualitative Analysis
#### Option A
* **Pros**: Cheaper initial capital requirement ($100,000 vs $200,000), reducing financial risk. Faster payback period (2.67 years vs 3.09 years), which is excellent for liquidity. High staff retention (keeps all 5 skilled workers), safeguarding organizational morale and maintaining labor stability. Zero downtime means no immediate revenue or client loss.
* **Cons**: Lower ARR (10% vs 12.5%) and lower overall profitability over the 4-year cycle ($40,000 total net profit vs $100,000). Might limit GD's long-term capacity to scale up if demand grows further.
#### Option B
* **Pros**: Higher long-term return with an ARR of 12.5% and substantially higher net profit ($100,000). Offers greater efficiency and scale economies once operational, aligning with long-term expansion goals.
* **Cons**: High capital requirement of $200,000. Redundancy of 5 skilled workers may ruin labor relations, cause strikes, and damage GD's ethical 'eco-friendly' brand image. A 4-week complete production shutdown could severely impact short-term revenue and customer relationships.
### Final Recommendation
Students may recommend either option, provided the choice is justified using both quantitative and qualitative evidence:
* *If recommending Option A*: Focus on lower risk, faster payback, protection of the workforce (ethical brand image), and the avoidance of a damaging 4-week shutdown.
* *If recommending Option B*: Focus on higher profitability (ARR of 12.5%) and greater capacity to fulfill long-term market demand, arguing that initial friction and installation downtime are short-term hurdles for a long-term strategic advantage.
PastPaper.markingScheme
**[9–10 marks]**
* Both quantitative indicators (Payback and ARR) are accurately calculated for both Option A and Option B (with working shown).
* The response provides a balanced, detailed discussion of both options, integrating relevant qualitative context (staff morale, brand reputation, production shutdown impact).
* A clear, fully justified recommendation is made, directly addressing the trade-offs between short-term risks and long-term gains.
* Proper business terminology is used throughout.
**[7–8 marks]**
* Quantitative indicators (Payback and ARR) are calculated (with minor arithmetic errors, or one metric missing).
* The discussion of both options is good, with some integration of qualitative context.
* A recommendation is provided, though the justification may lack some depth.
**[5–6 marks]**
* Some quantitative calculations are attempted, but there may be multiple errors.
* The response is mostly descriptive or biased towards one option, with limited qualitative integration.
* The recommendation is basic or weakly justified.
**[3–4 marks]**
* Minimal quantitative calculations are attempted, or they are incorrect.
* The discussion is highly limited, superficial, or unstructured.
* No clear recommendation is provided.
**[1–2 marks]**
* Superficial or fragmented response showing little understanding of investment appraisal or business context.
* No calculations are present.