1. Problem recognition, definition and
evaluation
An
entrepreneur is considering investing in different projects for the purpose of generating
additional streams of income in 2013. He has identified four different projects
that can be set up in 2013 to achieve his objective of additional income. The
objective of this write up is to determine whether each of the four projects being
considered by the entrepreneur is individually economically viable.
2. Development of the feasible
alternatives
The four projects being considered by the
entrepreneur are:
(i)
Set up a Training School
(ii)
Set up a Recruitment Agency
(iii)
Set up a Clothing Store
(iv)
Set up a catfish farm
3. Development of the outcomes for each
alternative
A review of literature revealed that some of the
methods that can be used to evaluate the economic viability of a project are:
- The Present Worth of the project, which should be greater than zero (PW>0)
- The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of the project, which should be greater than the MARR, i.e. the Minimum Attractive Rate of Return
4. Selection of criteria
The projects will be evaluated using two techniques i.e.
Present Worth (PW) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) methods. In the PW method,
all cash inflows and outflows expected from the project are discounted to their
present values using an appropriate interest rate called the MARR, i.e. the
Minimum Attractive Rate of Return. The assumed MARR for this entrepreneur is 20%.
The IRR method solves for the interest rate that
equates the equivalent worth of an alternative’s cash inflows to the equivalent
worth of the cash outflows(3). The resultant interest rate is called
the Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
Table
1 - Analysis of Alternatives (Dollars)
5. Analysis and comparison of the
alternatives
Table
2. Present Worth (PW) of Projects
Although the Clothing Store is projected to have the
highest market value at the end of 5 years, it has a negative PW. It is
therefore not economically viable. Based on the computations of present worth
the Training School, Recruitment Agency and Fish Farm are all economically
viable.
Table
3. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of Projects
Using the IRR method, the Clothing Store has a IRR
of 33% which is higher than the minimum appropriate rate of return of 20%, as
shown in Table 3 above. It is therefore economically viable based on this
method.
6. Selection of the preferred
alternative
Based on the two different methods used in
evaluating the projects, the following table shows the list of projects in
order of economic viability from the most viable to the least.
Table
4. Projects by Economic Viability
7. Performance Monitoring & Post
Evaluation of Result
It will be useful to also evaluate the projects
based on other qualitative factors such as initial investment required versus
availability of funds, skills required, etc.
8. References
- Manshu (2010, November 23). What is IRR and how is it calculated? One Mint. Retrieved from: http://www.onemint.com/2010/11/23/what-is-irr-and-how-is-it-calculated/
- Obukoeroro J. (2011). Project Economics as a Tool for Evaluation of Viability of Projects: A Case of Palm Oil Milling Plant. Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering and Sciences (2,6), pp. 307-318
- Sullivan, W. G., Wicks, E.M., & Koelling, C.P. (2012). Engineering Economy (15th ed.) (pp 200-221) New Jersey, NJ. Pearson Higher Education, Inc.
AWESOME, Folakemi!!! Nice case study.
ReplyDeleteFor future blog postings, I would like to see you do the following:
1) Show us how you arrived at the MARR of 20%. That should NOT be a number you guess at, but a number you calculated. (See Engineering Economy, pages 181 and pages 526-532.
Also, you used the PW and IRR method, but what about ERR? Or Break Even Analysis?
Great case study and I would like to see you expand on this excellent blog posting to include the items identified above.
Keep up the good work!! (But I really need to see an accurate and updated status report on the papers this week!!!!) Be sure to eliminate those who have dropped out (Lagos Shell Team)
Thanks!!!
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete