PMG 525 — Solara Southwest Decision Simulation

Monday morning · Week 6 · PMG 525

MH

Marcus Hill — Chief Financial Officer

To: You (Project Analyst) · 7:48 AM

Re: SCEI Project Recommendation — Questions before Thursday's meeting

Thanks for circulating your recommendation on Friday. I've reviewed the analysis and have some concerns I'd like to address before we present to the executive team.

Your recommendation for Project B is $2.3M more expensive than Project A over the 3-year horizon. I understand the sustainability argument, but I need you to make a stronger financial case — or we're going to have a difficult conversation in the room on Thursday.

A few specific questions:

1. What is the projected ROI differential between A and B, and over what timeframe does B break even?
2. Have you modeled the risk-adjusted cost? Project A's lower upfront cost looks different if we factor in its higher implementation risk.
3. What happens to your recommendation if we only have 80% of the projected funding?

I'm not saying no. I'm saying you need to anticipate these questions Thursday or we'll lose the room.

Marcus Hill · CFO, Solara Southwest · ext. 2204

Your Decision Brief (excerpt) — submitted Friday

SCEI Project Recommendation: Option B — Sustainable Impact Path

Criteria	Project A	Project B (Recommended)
3-Year Cost	$4.1M	$6.4M
Community Impact Score	62/100	89/100
Sustainability Rating	Moderate	High
Implementation Risk	High	Moderate
Strategic Alignment	68%	91%

Your decision

Marcus wants a stronger financial case before Thursday. How do you respond?

You have 48 hours before the executive presentation. Choose your approach carefully — this will shape how the rest of the project unfolds.

Wednesday · 2 days later

✓

Strong move — you came prepared

You built the full financial model. The ROI analysis shows Project B breaks even at Year 4 and outperforms A by $1.1M over a 10-year horizon. The risk-adjusted cost analysis actually flips the comparison — once you factor in Project A's higher implementation risk, the effective cost gap drops to $900K. Marcus reads the model Wednesday night and sends a brief reply: "This is what I needed. See you Thursday."

ER

Elena Rodriguez — Chief Sustainability Officer

To: You · Wednesday 4:15 PM

Thursday prep — heads up on a wrinkle

Glad the financial case is coming together. One thing to flag before Thursday: I've heard David Chen may push back on the 4-year break-even timeline. He tends to want strategic wins that are visible within the current planning cycle (2 years).

Worth having a response ready. The community impact numbers might carry more weight with him than the long-term ROI.

Elena Rodriguez · CSO, Solara Southwest

New development

Elena just flagged that David Chen may challenge the 4-year break-even. How do you prepare for Thursday?

Tuesday afternoon · Pre-meeting

✓

Good instinct — you read the room before entering it

Marcus agrees to a Tuesday afternoon call. It turns out his concern isn't really the cost — it's that he doesn't want to be surprised in front of the CEO. Once you walk him through the risk-adjusted cost comparison and the long-term ROI, his tone shifts. He asks you to prepare one slide specifically on the 80% funding scenario so he can address it proactively if it comes up. You leave the call with an ally instead of a skeptic.

MH

Marcus Hill — CFO

To: You · Tuesday 5:30 PM

Thursday — let's make sure this lands well

Good call today. I'll support the recommendation Thursday if you include that funding sensitivity slide. One other thing — David Chen tends to want to see near-term strategic wins. The 4-year break-even may get pushback from him. Worth thinking about how you frame the community impact in year one and two.

Marcus Hill · CFO

New development

Marcus is now on your side, but flags that David Chen may challenge the timeline. How do you handle it?

Tuesday evening · Scope revision

⚠

It worked for Thursday — but at a cost

You revised Project B's scope, trimming the solar installation coverage from 3 communities to 2 and reducing the battery storage component. The cost gap drops from $2.3M to $900K. Marcus is satisfied. The presentation goes smoothly and Project B gets approved. But Elena Rodriguez pulls you aside afterward: "I saw the revised scope. We gave up the third community. That's 1,400 households that won't have access. We need to talk about how we get that back."

⚡

Consequence — carries into PMG 527

PMG 527 Six months into execution, community advocates are publicly criticizing the project for excluding the third community. Elena is pushing to restore original scope. Marcus is pushing back on cost. You're now managing a stakeholder conflict that started with this revision — and you're the one who made the call.

Your decision

Elena wants to restore the third community's coverage. How do you respond right now?

Thursday · Executive Presentation

✓

Project B approved — with conditions

The executive team approves Project B. David Chen is satisfied after you walk through the community milestones in Years 1 and 2. Marcus supports the recommendation and handles the funding sensitivity question himself. The CEO asks one question: "Who owns the stakeholder relationships with the three communities?" You didn't have an answer ready. Maya Torres steps in and says she'll assign a community liaison. It worked — but note what you didn't have ready.

Reflection — Decision Analyst lens

You built the financial case. But the question that almost tripped you was about people, not numbers. What does that tell you about what a project recommendation needs to include?

Marcus's real concern wasn't the cost — it was about not being surprised. How did knowing that change your approach?

You wore the Decision Analyst hat today. In PMG 527, you'll inherit the consequences of this approval as Project Leader. What assumptions in this recommendation might create problems in execution?

🔭

Looking ahead — PMG 526

PMG 526 Project B is approved. Your next role: Strategy Director. You'll need to build the value case — defining what success actually looks like and how Solara will know if this project delivered what it promised. The assumptions you made today will follow you there.

Thursday · Executive Presentation

⚠

Approved — but with unresolved tension in the room

The revised scope gets approved easily from a financial standpoint. But during the presentation, a community liaison on the executive team asks why Community 3 was removed from the original proposal. The room gets awkward. Elena stays quiet. You explain it was a cost optimization. The project is approved, but the CEO asks Maya Torres to schedule a follow-up review of the scope decision within 90 days.

Reflection — Decision Analyst lens

You solved Marcus's problem but created Elena's problem. In project management, is that a win?

The 90-day scope review is now on your calendar. How will you prepare for it, and who do you need to bring into that conversation?

You optimized for financial defensibility. What other values were in play that your decision matrix didn't fully capture?

⚡

Consequence carrying into PMG 526 & 527

PMG 526 As Strategy Director, you'll need to define how "value" is measured — including community impact. The third community is a gap in your value case. PMG 527 Community advocates have gone public. You're managing a stakeholder conflict that traces back to this decision.

Module complete

🌞

Solara Southwest · PMG 525

Module 1 complete

You navigated your first high-stakes recommendation at Solara Southwest. The decisions you made here — and the stakeholder dynamics you created — will follow you into PMG 526 and 527.

Your Solara Southwest Dossier — Progress

Portfolio artifacts collected

✓ Earned	Project Selection & Decision Brief	PMG 525 · Module 1
Upcoming	Strategic Value Case	PMG 526
Upcoming	Integrated Leadership Dossier	PMG 527