An MBA 699 final project exit strategy plan: the recommendation, a comparison of four exit routes, the rationale for the preferred buyer type, preparation steps, process timeline, workforce and communication plan, risks, and decision points for the board. Searches like "mba 699 module 7 assignment", "mba699 module 7 final project exit strategy plan" and "mba 699 module 7 example" land here.
The MBA 699 Module 7 example, in full
Exit Strategy Plan for Prairieview Life Sciences: Recommendation to the Board of Directors
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
MBA 699: Strategic Opportunity Management
Module Seven Final Project
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Exit Strategy Plan for Prairieview Life Sciences: Recommendation to the Board of Directors
Recommendation
The guiding coalition recommends that the board authorize a limited sale process aimed first at global contract manufacturers seeking U.S. capacity, with a biotechnology buyer kept in the process as a competitive alternative, to begin once two quarters of improved manufacturing retention have been recorded. We expect this route to deliver the owners' liquidity within the two-year window at a value that reflects Prairieview's approved processes and regulatory record, while giving employees and clients the best chance of continuity. The board would retain three decision points at which it can stop the process.
The Owners' Goals
The founding family and outside investors asked for three things: to realize the value of their holdings within two years, to achieve a fair price for a business built over three decades and to leave the company in hands that will sustain it. The last goal is not sentiment. Prairieview's clients depend on it to supply approved medicines, and its 1,480 employees include a scientific and quality core that took years to build. An exit that achieves a high price but loses clients or people would fail the second and third goals together.
Exit Routes Compared
Table 1 compares the four routes on the owners' criteria.
Table 1
Comparison of Exit Routes
| Route | Likely value | Certainty and timing | Continuity for employees and clients | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sale to a strategic contract manufacturer | High | Good; 10 to 12 months | Good; plants kept, local leaders retained | Recommended |
| Sale to a biotechnology company | Highest | Good | Weak; client conflicts and absorption risk | Competitive alternative |
| Sale to private equity | Moderate | Good | Good near term; debt and resale later | Fallback |
| Public offering | Uncertain | Poor; market dependent, partial liquidity | Good | Not recommended |
| Remain independent | Not realized | Not applicable | Good | Baseline if bids fall short |
Note. Composite assessment by the guiding coalition.
Why a Strategic Contract Manufacturer
The industry analysis showed that Prairieview's most valuable assets are its seven approved commercial processes, its inspection record and its process development team, and that these are the resources a buyer cannot easily build. A global contract manufacturer lacking U.S. capacity would value all three, would not compete with Prairieview's clients and would likely keep the plants running under local leadership. In the buyer research, this profile scored highest on weighted criteria, ahead of a biotechnology buyer that would likely pay more but would absorb the plants and drive away several clients.
The evidence on acquisition outcomes supports choosing fit over the highest headline price. A meta-analysis of post-acquisition performance found that acquisitions on average did not improve buyers' financial results (King et al., 2004), and research on how value is created after a deal stresses the transfer and preservation of capabilities rather than the transaction itself (Haspeslagh & Jemison, 1991). A buyer whose plan depends on keeping Prairieview's capabilities intact is the buyer most likely to pay for them and least likely to destroy them. Sellers in earlier research weighed fit and rapport with buyers alongside price for similar reasons (Graebner & Eisenhardt, 2004).
Preparation Before Marketing
The company should not be marketed until the attrition trend has turned. Manufacturing turnover of 20.4 percent, and the overtime cycle that feeds it, is the finding that would most reduce a buyer's price. The retention program, four-week published schedules, overtime caps, a float pool of trained operators, mentors for new hires and a published career path, addresses the causes employees gave in exit interviews, which placed schedules ahead of pay. Allen et al. (2010) noted that retention efforts work best when aimed at the actual causes of turnover rather than at pay alone. The target is manufacturing attrition below 15 percent on an annualized basis for two consecutive quarters.
In parallel, the finance team will complete a quality of earnings review and data room, the quality team will commission an outside mock audit, and the general counsel will map every client contract requiring consent to a change of control. Retention agreements for the 50 critical scientists and quality leads will be signed before any buyer is contacted.
The Sale Process
Once preparation is complete, the road map runs 44 weeks in seven phases: preparation, confidential outreach to about a dozen parties, nonbinding indications, management meetings and due diligence, final bids, regulatory review and client consents, and closing. The investment bank will run outreach and bidding; the guiding coalition will lead management meetings; the board approves the shortlist, the final agreement and the decision to close. Keeping at least two strategic bidders active through final bids protects price even though the coalition has a preferred profile.
People and Communication
Employees will be told of the sale on the day of signing, by their own supervisors, before any public statement, and will then receive weekly updates and access to a question line until closing. The approach follows the finding that honest, frequent and specific communication after a merger announcement reduced uncertainty and prevented the decline in employee attitudes seen where such communication was absent (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). Final bids must state how long the buyer will guarantee production jobs, with 18 months as our minimum, and whether plant leaders stay for the first year; bids will be compared on those terms as well as price.
Principal Risks
The coalition's risk register identifies eight risks with triggers and prepared responses. The three most serious are a leak before signing, which could set off departures; a quality finding in due diligence, which could end the process; and refusal of change-of-control consent by commercial clients, which could remove much of the value. The mock audit, confidentiality protocol and early client conversations are designed to reduce each. The coalition has also agreed in advance on when it would advise stopping: if every bid falls under the board's floor, if no bidder will guarantee production jobs, or if two or more commercial clients withhold consent.
Decision Points for the Board
The board will decide at three points. First, after two quarters of the retention program, whether the attrition trend justifies starting the process. Second, after indications of interest, which bidders to shortlist and whether values support continuing. Third, after final bids, whether to sign. At each point, remaining independent for another year while continuing to improve operations is a legitimate choice, and the board should treat it as such rather than as a failure.
Conclusion
Prairieview is worth most to a buyer that needs what it has spent decades building. The plan asks the board to prepare the company before selling it, to choose a buyer for fit as well as price, and to carry its employees through the change with honesty. If the board approves, the retention program begins this month and the first decision point falls in about six months.
References
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2010.51827775
Graebner, M. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). The seller's side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 366-403. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131440
Haspeslagh, P. C., & Jemison, D. B. (1991). Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal. Free Press.
King, D. R., Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., & Covin, J. G. (2004). Meta-analyses of post-acquisition performance: Indications of unidentified moderators. Strategic Management Journal, 25(2), 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.371
Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 110-135. https://doi.org/10.2307/256304
How this MBA 699 Module 7 example is structured
The plan opens with the recommendation and the conditions attached to it. The options comparison follows so the board sees what was rejected and why. Preparation, process and the people plan explain how the sale would be carried out, and the final sections set out risks and the moments when the board can stop or change course.
Get MBA 699 Module 7 written to your instructions
Send the MBA 699 final project brief, its rubric and your three graded milestones. An exit strategy plan that brings your capstone work together comes back within 24 to 48 hours; the 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 699 Module 7 questions, answered
What does the MBA 699 final project include?
The final project typically brings together the capstone's analyses into an exit strategy plan for the board, covering the options considered, the recommended path and buyer, the timeline, risks and contingencies, and how employees and other stakeholders will be managed through the change.
Why compare exit routes if a sale seems obvious?
A board has a duty to consider alternatives, and the comparison shows why the recommended path is better than the others on the owners' own criteria. It also gives the board a fallback if the preferred route fails.
Why do many acquisitions disappoint buyers?
Research across many studies has found that, on average, acquisitions do not improve the buyer's financial performance, with outcomes depending heavily on factors such as integration, culture and retention. Sellers who show they have addressed those factors can make their company more attractive.