| Course | DDBA 8522 Seminar in Sustainability |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Internal proposal |
| Length | About 580 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DDBA 8522 Week 10
Memorandum
To: Chief Financial Officer, Riverbend Medical Center
From: Director of Facilities and Sustainability
Date: October 12, 2026
Re: Heat-recovery chiller project, structured for the 2027 to 2029 capital plan
The Request
I request approval for a heat-recovery chiller project at Riverbend Medical Center, structured so that it is roughly cash-neutral during the 2027 to 2029 capital plan. The project would capture waste heat from the hospital's cooling system and use it to heat water and buildings, replacing about 60 percent of the natural gas the boilers now burn. Its total cost is about $4.2 million. Its savings, about $610,000 a year, would pay back the full cost in about seven years, which on its own would not compete with projects that pay back within your three-year horizon. The proposal therefore reshapes the costs.
How the Costs Are Reshaped
Three sources reduce the hospital's outlay during the plan period. The regional utility offers an incentive of about $650,000 for heat-recovery projects that reduce gas use. A federal tax credit for energy property, available to tax-exempt organizations as a direct payment, is estimated at 30 percent of eligible costs, about $1.1 million, received in the year after installation. The remaining $2.45 million would be financed through a ten-year energy services agreement in which a contractor installs the equipment and is repaid from guaranteed savings. Under that structure, annual payments to the contractor are about $350,000 for ten years, less than the expected savings of $610,000, so the project produces a small positive cash flow from its first full year.
What This Means for the Capital Plan
Over 2027 to 2029, the hospital's net cash position from the project is roughly neutral: the incentive and tax credit offset design and project management costs borne directly, and savings exceed contractor payments. After the agreement ends in 2037, the full savings accrue to the hospital for the remaining life of the equipment, about 15 more years. Slawinski and Bansal (2015) described how organizations tend to favor projects whose returns arrive in the planning period over those whose returns arrive later; this structure is designed to fit the planning period without giving up the later returns. Graham and Harvey (2001) found that financial officers commonly rely on payback alongside discounted measures, and on a payback basis the hospital's own outlay is recovered within the plan.
Who Carries the Risk Afterward
The energy services contractor carries the main performance risk for ten years: if savings fall short of the guarantee, the contractor pays the difference. After 2037, the hospital carries the risk that the equipment underperforms or that gas prices fall, reducing savings. The facilities department would carry operational responsibility throughout, including training staff to run the heat-recovery system. The risk that the federal credit's rules change before the hospital claims it would fall on the hospital in 2028; I propose treating the credit as contingent and showing the plan without it as well, in which case the project is still cash-positive from its second year but not neutral in the first.
Why This Matters Beyond the Numbers
The hospital's system has committed to cut its direct emissions in half by 2035. Bansal and DesJardine (2014) argued that sustainability depends on firms' willingness to invest in returns that arrive over long horizons. This project contributes about a fifth of the reduction the hospital needs, and its structure allows it to be approved within the plan by which your office is judged.
References
Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127013520265
Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001). The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. Journal of Financial Economics, 60(2-3), 187-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(01)00044-7
Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531-549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0960
Reading the DDBA 8522 Week 10 instructions
Week 10 asks you to write an internal proposal for a sustainability investment whose returns arrive after the decision maker's planning horizon. Open with the request and how it fits the reader's measure, such as a three-year capital plan. Describe the project, its cost, savings and payback. Show how outside funding and financing structures, such as incentives, tax credits or performance contracts, reshape cash flows to fit the planning period. Translate the result into the reader's terms. Name who carries each risk during and after the financing period, and present a case without any uncertain funding source. Explain why the project matters to the organization's longer-term commitments. Cite research on financial decision making and time in sustainability. Write in memo form, about three pages.
How this DDBA 8522 Week 10 example is built
The memo requests approval and explains that the project's seven-year payback cannot compete on its own. A section reshapes costs: a utility incentive, a direct-pay tax credit of 30 percent and a ten-year energy services agreement with annual payments of about $350,000 against savings of about $610,000. A section shows the 2027 to 2029 position roughly neutral, citing Slawinski and Bansal on planning-period bias and Graham and Harvey on payback's role. A risk section assigns performance risk to the contractor for ten years, post-2037 risk to the hospital and the tax credit risk to a contingent case that still turns cash-positive in year two. Bansal and DesJardine tie the project to a 2035 emissions commitment.
DDBA 8522 Week 10 rubric: what earns full marks
Credit rests on writing for the actual decision maker. A proposal that argues lifetime value to a reader judged on three-year results misses the point; one that reshapes costs to fit that horizon and translates results into the reader's measure earns most. Instructors check that funding sources are realistic and that the arithmetic is consistent. The risk section carries significant weight: naming who bears performance, price and policy risk, and when, shows honesty. Presenting a case without uncertain funding shows prudence. Linking the project to organizational commitments adds strategic context. Sources should support the reasoning about decision makers' horizons. Memo format with the request first is expected.
Common DDBA 8522 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Sustainability proposals often fail because they argue to the wrong measure. Find out how your reader is evaluated and over what period, then shape the project's cash flows to fit, using incentives, credits or performance contracts where available. Show the numbers in the reader's terms. Be explicit about who carries each risk and when. Include a version without any funding you are not sure of. Keep the memo short and put the request first. Link the project to commitments the organization has already made. A tutor can help you model the financing structure. Ask the reader's office which measure matters most before drafting.
Get a DDBA 8522 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 10 prompt, your rubric and the project your section is proposing, along with the reader it must address if that is specified; a finished proposal arrives within 24 to 48 hours, and the first costs nothing. Organizations other than hospitals, a university or a manufacturer, work just as well.
More DDBA 8522 papers and DBA samples
- DDBA 8522 Week 1: Sustainability Claim Discussion
- DDBA 8522 Week 2: Sustainability Definition Paper
- DDBA 8522 Week 3: Transition Burden Analysis
- DDBA 8522 Week 4: Investment Horizon Brief
- DDBA 8522 Week 5: End-of-Life Supply Chain Trace
- DDBA 8522 Week 6: Pledge Timing Peer Critique
- DDBA 8522 Week 7: Renewable Indicator Critique
- DDBA 8522 Week 8: Phasedown Policy Analysis
- DDBA 8522 Week 9: Commitment Reversal Case
- DDBA 8522 Week 11: Net-Zero Position Paper
- DDBA 8524 Week 10: Herzberg Evidence Critique
- DDBA 8521 Week 10: Adoption Evidence Plan
- DDBA 8511 Week 10: Implementation Handover Brief
- DDBA 8307B Week 10: Results Reporting Drill
DDBA 8522 Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDBA 8522 Week 10 sample paper?
The capital project proposal appears complete on this page, open to every reader.
What project does the DDBA 8522 Week 10 proposal argue for?
A $4.2 million heat-recovery chiller at a hospital that would replace about 60 percent of boiler gas use.
How is the project made to fit a three-year plan?
A utility incentive, a federal tax credit and an energy services agreement make the period roughly cash-neutral.
Who carries the risk?
The contractor guarantees savings for ten years; the hospital carries equipment and gas price risk afterward.
What if the tax credit does not come through?
The project is still cash-positive from its second year, though not neutral in the first.