Case Study Report: Precision Agriculture Investment
Deadline: 1 Week Before Semester Ends
Students (in groups) are required to write a report and discuss the solution for the case study according to the respective title given. Students also need to present the solution and submit the report a week before the semester ends.
Select ONE (1) case study below to discuss in your report (Title 1).
| No | Case Study |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Case Study 1: Renewable Energy Investment for a Manufacturing Plant Options: Solar Panels (RM 500,000) vs Wind Turbines (RM 750,000). Consider annual maintenance, annual energy savings, lifespan (25y vs 20y), CO2 reduction. Evaluate NPV, IRR, sensitivity analysis, payback period. |
| 2 |
Case Study 2: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Automation in a Production Line Investment: Robotic Arms (RM 1,000,000) + Conveyor Systems (RM 500,000). Savings: RM 300,000/year labor. Maintenance: RM 50,000/year. Productivity +20%. Straight-line depreciation over 10 years. Evaluate ROI, Break-Even Point, risk analysis and mitigation. |
| 3 |
Case Study 3: Economic Feasibility of a New Product Launch Fixed cost RM 2,000,000; variable cost RM 500/unit; price RM 1,000/unit. Sales: 5,000 (Y1), 10,000 (Y2), 15,000 (Y3). Marketing/distribution RM 500,000/year. Evaluate Break-Even Point, Profit Margin, NPV, IRR; assess pricing/sales scenarios. |
Regardless of the case study selected in 2.1, you must study the mandatory situation below and perform the required Engineering Economics analysis (After-Tax, 10-year life).
A large Malaysian food manufacturing conglomerate is considering a major investment in sustainable food production to secure its supply chain. The proposal involves establishing an automated, climate-controlled vertical farming system within a dedicated warehouse near its existing processing facility.
Objective: Maximum yield with minimum resource waste ("Green Engineering").
System: Hydroponics + LED lighting managed by robotic arms and sophisticated sensors.
| Parameter | Value (RM) |
|---|---|
| Initial Investment (I) | 2,500,000 |
| Annual Operating Exp (E) | 150,000 |
| Specialized Labor (L) | 50,000 |
| Annual Revenue (R) | 800,000 |
| Salvage Value (S) | 300,000 |
| MARR (After-Tax) | 12% |
| Tax Rate (t) | 24% |
| Project Life | 10 Years |
| Depreciation Method | Straight-Line (0 terminal BV) |
Write a clear background and objectives for the project.
Explain the case(s) clearly with sketches/drawings where appropriate.
Select appropriate methods and justify with equations (typed format).
Compute the 10-year after-tax cash flow and justification metrics.
Summarize findings and show understanding of results.
Provide correct referencing and supporting documents.
| Group | Members | Group Link (from PDF) |
|---|---|---|
| Group ___ | Name 1, Name 2, Name 3 | Open group spreadsheet link |
Use this link to find your group and confirm member names.
Maximum 10 pages (excluding appendices).
| Marks | Criteria | 5 marks | 4 marks | 3 marks | 2 marks | 1 mark |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Report Format (5 marks) | ||||||
| Report Format (5 marks) |
1. Satisfy all the report format below ✓ Format (Font, spacing) ✓ Cover page (UiTM logo, student name, ID, lecturer name) ✓ Table of Content, List of Figures, etc. |
Satisfy ALL the format stated | Do not satisfy one of the formats stated | Do not satisfy two of the formats stated | Do not satisfy three of the formats stated | Do not satisfy four or more of the formats stated |
| Content (35 marks) | ||||||
| Objectives & Introduction (5 marks) | 2. Objectives & Introduction (Background of the project) | Clear objectives + complete background for the selected case (2.1) and the mandatory scenario (2.2); scope, assumptions, and required economic terms are stated correctly. | Objectives/background are strong but missing 1 minor element (e.g., assumption, scope, or link to 2.1/2.2). | Basic objectives/background provided but missing major context (e.g., unclear problem statement, weak linkage to data/requirements). | Very limited/unclear background; objectives do not match the case requirements or include incorrect statements. | No meaningful background/objectives provided, or mostly incorrect. |
| Application / Problems / Case Study (5 marks) |
3. Application/Problems/Case Study Write in section if more than one case study and explain in summary what the cases are about. Include 2D or 3D drawing where appropriate. |
Selected case (2.1) is explained clearly and structured; mandatory scenario (2.2) context is accurate; required 2D/3D visuals (when applicable) are complete with captions and explanations; strong insight into the issue(s). | Good case explanation and structure; minor gaps in visuals/captions or case summary; insight is present but can be strengthened. | Some correct information but missing key details (e.g., unclear case selection, weak linkage to requirements, incomplete visuals/captions); explanation is wordy or lacks insight. | Mostly text without clear main points; case/problem not clearly described; visuals missing or not explained. | Insufficient or irrelevant case/problem content. |
| Method & Justification (15 marks) |
4. Selection of Method and Justification ✓ Include element of Cost Terminology, WBS, etc. (5 marks) ✓ Analyze using Cost Estimation Techniques (5 marks) ✓ Include interest justification (i.e., Compound interest, PW, FW, AW, Tax, etc.) (5 marks) |
All required elements are complete and correctly justified with typed equations: cost terminology + 3-level WBS, estimation technique(s), depreciation/tax setup, ATCF table, PW & AW/CR, IRR/payback, and breakeven/risk linkage (as required). | Appropriate methods and correct workflow but missing 1 required element/technique (e.g., AW/CR, breakeven, or clear tax/depreciation justification). | Some correct methods but missing 2 required elements/techniques; justification is partial and equations/cash-flow logic are not consistently shown. | Limited methods used; major elements missing (e.g., no ATCF table or no PW/AW/IRR justification); weak/incorrect justification. | No meaningful method selection or justification provided. |
| Conclusions (5 marks) | 5. Conclusions | Clear decision supported by results (PW/AW/IRR vs MARR, payback, breakeven/risk); summarizes key drivers and limitations/assumptions. | Conclusion is stated and mostly supported, but missing one important link (e.g., does not clearly tie metrics to decision). | General conclusion with weak support; missing several major points (risk, assumptions, or key metric justification). | Very brief conclusion without support from analysis. | No conclusion provided. |
| References & Appendices (5 marks) | 6. References & Appendices | Correct reference format and all sources are cited in-text; appendices include clear calculations/tables (ATCF, PW/AW/IRR), WBS, and figures with captions. | Mostly correct formatting; a few references not cited or some appendix items incomplete. | Inconsistent reference format and/or weak citation practice; appendices exist but are poorly organized or missing key evidence. | References listed but not cited in report; appendices missing most supporting work. | No references provided or incorrect format; no meaningful appendices. |
Tip: keep equations typed and consistent (PW, FW, AW, IRR, MARR, depreciation, tax) to match the “method & justification” rubric.