An MBA 620 Module 8 executive summary in memo form: the recommendation and conditions up front, the key evidence from each stage of the analysis, a comparison table, risks, and the measures the board should monitor after closing. Searches like "mba 620 module 8 assignment", "mba620 module 8 final executive summary" and "mba 620 module 8 example" land here.
The MBA 620 Module 8 example, in full
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors, Meridian Airways (composite)
From: [Student Name], Strategy and Performance Analysis
Date: [Date]
Re: Recommendation to acquire Prairie Connect, subject to three conditions
Recommendation
I recommend that Meridian pursue the acquisition of Prairie Connect rather than Coastline Air, provided three conditions are met before closing: a price reduction or seller contribution reflecting the cost of renewing Prairie's aging fleet, a review of overlapping Midwest routes with antitrust counsel, and a labor integration framework agreed with the unions. Failing those three conditions, the right course is to make no acquisition this year.
Why Prairie
The acquisition's purpose, set in the strategic plan, is to add routes that feed Meridian's hubs, strengthen reliability for business travelers and protect the balance sheet. Prairie fits that purpose better. On the balanced scorecard, it scored 4.08 out of 5 against Coastline's 3.76, and it led under every alternative weighting tested (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). Coastline is the more profitable airline and would be cheaper relative to its earnings, but its advantages rest on low costs and low pay that integration would erode, and its reliability has declined for eleven straight quarters. Prairie's customers, reliability and workforce fit Meridian's strategy, and its main weakness, an old fleet, is one Meridian can address.
Table 1 summarizes the comparison.
Table 1
Summary Comparison of the Acquisition Targets
| Measure | Coastline Air | Prairie Connect |
|---|---|---|
| Weighted scorecard score | 3.76 | 4.08 |
| Operating margin | 7.8% | 5.1% |
| Estimated hub feed | 22% | 38% |
| On-time arrivals | 76%, declining | 83%, stable |
| Pilot and mechanic turnover | 14% | 9% |
| Total risk score | 95 | 76 |
| Highest risk | Labor integration (20) | Fleet replacement (16) |
| Price as a multiple of operating income | 16.0 | 18.1 |
Note. Composite figures from the supporting analyses.
Key Risks
The largest risks are fleet replacement costs, route overlap and labor integration. Fleet costs can be priced into the deal once firm aircraft quotes are obtained. Route overlap could draw regulatory scrutiny, since research on earlier airline mergers found fares rose on routes where competitors combined (Kim & Singal, 1993), and some slots may need to be divested. Labor integration is the risk most likely to derail any airline combination, which is why the framework agreement is a condition rather than a post-closing task. I also recommend treating integration cost and synergy forecasts as ranges, since acquisition teams tend toward optimistic estimates.
What the Analysis Showed at Each Stage
Each stage of the analysis added a different kind of evidence. The balanced scorecard translated the board's purpose into ten measures, so the choice rested on strategy rather than on revenue or price alone. The performance comparison showed that the two airlines' financial results were driven by different operating models: Coastline's by low costs and full planes on leisure routes, Prairie's by business fares and reliability. The risk assessment showed that Coastline's biggest risks would undermine the very advantages that made it attractive, while Prairie's could be priced and planned for. The dashboard made one pattern impossible to miss, Coastline's steady decline in on-time performance, and exposed Prairie's vulnerability to higher fuel prices because of its older aircraft. Taken together, the evidence points to Prairie, but it also explains why the price must come down: the fleet renewal Prairie needs is a real cost that its current earnings do not reflect.
How the Board Will Know It Is Working
The scorecard used to choose Prairie should become the integration scorecard, reviewed by the board quarterly on the decision dashboard. For the first year, the board should expect four things: close to a third of Prairie's passengers connecting to Meridian's hubs, at least four in five flights arriving on time, fewer than one in eight pilots and mechanics leaving, and a combined balance sheet that stays within its debt limits while integration costs stay near 45 million dollars. If reliability or turnover moves the wrong way, the board will see it months before it reaches the income statement. Performance measurement works best when the same measures connect the decision to its results (Neely et al., 1995).
What We Would Give Up
Choosing Prairie means forgoing Coastline's stronger current profitability and its attractive leisure network in the Southeast. If leisure travel continues to grow faster than business travel, that choice will look costlier in hindsight. The board should also recognize that the recommendation depends partly on estimates, especially hub feed and integration cost, that will be refined in due diligence; if Prairie's hub feed estimate falls well below 30 percent, the case weakens considerably and should be revisited before signing.
Decision Requested
I ask the board to authorize management to proceed to final due diligence and negotiation with Prairie Connect on the three conditions above, and to report back with the negotiated terms before signing. The supporting scorecard, performance evaluation, risk register and dashboard are attached for directors who want the detail behind each figure.
References
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.
Kim, E. H., & Singal, V. (1993). Mergers and market power: Evidence from the airline industry. American Economic Review, 83(3), 549-569.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(4), 80-116. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510083622
How this MBA 620 Module 8 example is structured
An executive summary must stand alone, so the memo leads with the decision requested and the reasons in brief. The supporting evidence follows in order of importance, with one table comparing the targets. Conditions, risks and post-closing measures come last, each short enough for a board member to act on without reading the full analysis.
Get MBA 620 Module 8 written to your instructions
Share your MBA 620 final project guidelines and rubric along with your milestones. An executive summary that turns your analysis into a board-ready recommendation comes back within 24 to 48 hours; your first is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
MBA 620 Module 8 questions, answered
What does the MBA 620 final project require?
The final project usually calls for an executive summary drawing together the course's analysis of the scenario, such as balanced scorecard results, performance evaluation, risk assessment and data analysis, and advising senior leaders on what to do.
How long should an executive summary be?
Long enough to state the recommendation, the key evidence, the conditions and the next steps, and short enough that a busy executive can read it in a few minutes. It should make sense without the supporting report, with details placed in attachments.
Why include post-closing measures in an acquisition recommendation?
Many acquisitions fail to deliver their expected value, often because integration problems go unnoticed until they reach the financial results. Agreeing in advance on the measures that will show whether the acquisition is on track lets the board act early.