BUSM2568 Business Decision Making Assessment 2, 2026 | RMIT University

BUSM2568 Assessment 2 

Workbook contents

This workbook contains the following information:

• Team details
• Student instructions
• Question overview
• Question details

Student instructions – Part B

• Assessment 2 is a group assessment and consists of two parts, Part A and Part B.
• Part A was completed during your topic 7
• Part B is to be completed during your topic 9
• The assessment is to be completed in teams of four students. Students will form their own teams at the beginning of the topic 7 and topic 9 classes. You do not have to form the same team for both Part A and Part B.
• Read through the Assessment 2 Part B Workbook
• Download and save the Assessment 2 Part B Team Answer Booklet to your device.

using First Name_Surname_Assessment 2 Part B naming conventions.

• Read through the questions carefully before starting. If you are not sure of anything, please ask your lecturer.
• Decide as a team how you will work to answer the questions and which software you will use to facilitate entering your team’s answers in the allocated boxes in the answer booklet.
• Do not delete question items in the answer booklet. All questions are compulsory.
• Save your answers, ensuring you are using file naming conventions.
• Nominate a team member to upload your team’s completed answer booklet to

Canvas using the Assessment 2 Part B Canvas submission link by the end of your topic 9 class.

• Detailed submission instructions are available on Canvas.
• Check that you have submitted the correct file to the correct link.
• Submissions that do not use the Team Answer Booklet provided will not be accepted.
• Submissions made more than 10 minutes after the conclusion of the class will not be accepted.

Question Overview

Part B Kilgour’s Strategic Model

Read through the compulsory set of questions below. It is important to complete the questions as per the order below.

Question Details

After assessing the two strategic investment proposals using Kilgors’ Strategic Investment Assessment Tool , answer the following questions in your Assessment 2 Part B Team Answer Booklet regarding your team’s decisions in the simulation:

Question 1: Financial evaluation using NPV (4 marks)

Following your team’s financial evaluation (NPV) of Proposal 1 (winery in China) and Proposal 2 (luxury resort), which project would you recommend?

Show your calculations by placing screenshots of your team’s completed NPV analysis (Steps 1 and 2 of the SIAM template) in the Kilgors simulation – one for Proposal 1 and another one for Proposal 2 in the answer box provided for Question 1 in your team’s Assessment 2 Part B Team Answer Booklet (see blank sample image below).

Question 2: Risk evaluation (2 marks)

Insert a screenshot of your team’s completed assessment on ALL the non-financial factors for both proposals – Step 3 of the SIAM template (see blank sample image below).

Question 3: Non-financial evaluation with research (11 marks)

Following your non-financial evaluation in Question 2, make a recommendation for the selection of Proposal 1 or Proposal 2.

Provide reasons for why your team recommended Proposal 1 or Proposal 2.

In your answer, you should comment on four (4) non-financial factors (the nonfinancial factors must be selected from the SIAM template). For each of the four nonfinancial factors selected, make sure you comment on both projects in your answer. You should also conduct additional research and drawn on current real-life information to support your justification.

Make sure you fully reference all the sources you have used in your answer. In-text citations and a full reference list are required.

Word guide: 800 words in total, excluding references

Our team recommends Proposal 1: the investment in a portfolio of luxury holiday resorts. While Proposal 2: the acquisition of a wine business in China offers a positive Net Present Value (NPV), we believe Proposal 1 is a better fit when looking at long-term success. Using four key non-financial factors from the SIAM framework: Strategic Risk, Environmental Impact, Capabilities, and Reputation. Proposal 1 stands out as the stronger option. It plays to our company’s strengths, fits our long-term goals, and offers a more manageable level of risk.

From a strategic point of view, Proposal 1 is closely aligned with the company’s current direction. We already operate hotels in major cities across Australia and Southeast Asia. Moving into the resort business is a logical next step. Resorts and hotels share similar systems, customer expectations, and service standards. The three proposed resort locations Brazil, the Philippines, and the Caribbean are popular global destinations. Luxury travel is booming, and demand for exclusive resort experiences is expected to grow by over 7% a year until 2030 (Grand View Research, 2024). By expanding into this area now, we place ourselves in a strong position to meet this rising demand. In contrast, Proposal 2 carries greater strategic risk. The Chinese wine business is currently underperforming. It suffers from low vineyard yields, poor logistics, and underdeveloped staff. Entering agriculture and wine production also takes the company into a new industry with little overlap with our current operations. The strategy sounds attractive, but the path to success is uncertain and requires much fine-tuning.

When we look at environmental impact, both projects involve risks, but the wine project faces bigger challenges. Proposal 2 is located in the Ningxia region of China, which has a dry climate and limited access to water. This makes wine production more difficult, especially as climate change increases pressure on the area (Reuters, 2023). These problems directly affect the core of the business of growing grapes and making wine. While the resort project in Proposal 1 involves building in sensitive environments like beaches and islands, these risks can be managed through sustainable design. Many global brands, such as Six Senses and Banyan Tree, have shown that eco-friendly resorts are possible (UNEP, 2022). By learning from these models, our company can reduce harm and even help protect the local environment.

In terms of capabilities, Proposal 1 is a much better fit. Our company already knows how to run premium hotels. Resorts are larger and in more remote locations, but they require the same skills: customer service, facility management, and delivering high-end guest experiences. These are things we do well. We can also adapt our current staff and systems to fit the resort model. On the other hand, Proposal 2 requires a big leap. Winemaking, farming, and managing supply chains are all new areas for us. The current business needs serious improvement, and we do not yet have the knowledge or talent to turn it around. It would take a lot of training, hiring, and investment before we could be competitive in this space.

Reputation is another area where Proposal 1 shows more promise. High-end resorts in exotic locations have the potential to boost our brand. Guests often share their experiences online through photos, videos, and reviews. This kind of marketing can help us grow our presence in the global travel market. Proposal 2 offers less reputational upside. The current wine business does not produce high-quality products. If we fail to improve it quickly, it could damage our image. Selling average wine under a premium

brand name is a risk we cannot afford. Poor product quality spreads fast in today’s digital world, and it could hurt our reputation across all divisions.

In conclusion, while Proposal 2 may look stronger on paper due to its positive NPV, Proposal 1 is the smarter long-term choice when considering non-financial factors. It supports our current strategy, aligns with our strengths, and offers less environmental and reputational risk. With the luxury travel market growing, now is the right time to invest in resorts. We already have the people, systems, and knowledge to make it work. Therefore, our team recommends choosing Proposal 1 as the better and safer option for the future.

References:

Grand View Research 2024, Luxury travel market report, Grand View Research, viewed 27 March 2025, https://www.grandviewresearch.com/.

Harvard Business Review 2023, Why ESG matters in tourism, Harvard Business Review, viewed 27 March 2025, https://hbr.org/.

Reuters 2023, China’s wine regions face climate risk, Reuters, viewed 27 March 2025, https://www.reuters.com/.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2022, Sustainable tourism and island ecosystems, UNEP, viewed 27 March 2025, https://www.unep.org/.

Question 4: Final recommendation (1 mark)

Following your thorough analysis of the financial and non-financial information in questions 1-3 above, what is your team’s final recommendation to the Board of Directors. Briefly justify your team’s recommendation.

After looking at both the financial and non-financial parts of the two proposals, our team recommends choosing Proposal 1, investing in a group of luxury holiday resorts.

Proposal 2, which is the wine business in China, shows a small profit on paper. But it also has many risks. It needs a lot of fixing, and our company does not have experience in wine-making, farming, or managing deliveries.

Proposal 1 has no profit right away, but it offers strong long-term benefits. It fits well with our current hotel business. We can use our current skills and teams. It also helps us grow our brand in the fast-growing luxury travel market.

This project has fewer risks for the environment and our reputation. It is easier for us to manage and grow.

In summary, Proposal 1 is safer, smarter, and more suited to our company.

We recommend that the board approve Proposal 1.

Question 5 Leadership and Teamwork (2 marks)

Provide a brief overview of how your team completed this assessment.

Include in your overview a reflection on what your team did well and aspects that your team could have done better.

Our team worked together and completed this assessment collaboratively. To ensure each member contributes to this assignment, we divided the tasks and worked on it separately. Once we’ve completed our part, we cross-checked each other’s part for potential error or further improvements that can be made. We communicated well and listened to each other’s suggestions and inputs, incorporating them into the assignment for better overall quality. Discussions were made with no bias and it was conducted fairly, to make sure that everyone’s idea was put into consideration. However, we were tight on time and did not manage to do the last check before submission. We believe

that if we have better time management, such an issue would not have occurred.

Detailed submission instructions are available on Canvas.

Please read these carefully and check that you have uploaded the correct file to the correct link.

Submissions made more than 10 minutes after the conclusion of the class will not be accepted.

The post BUSM2568 Business Decision Making Assessment 2, 2026 | RMIT University appeared first on Singapore Assignment Help.