Skip to main content
On this page

Super Project - Case Solution

Richard F. Vancil and Harold E. Wyman | Harvard Business Review ( 112034-PDF-ENG ) | June 18, 2002 (Revision: 2023-09-25)
Abstract:

This Super Project case study shows the importance of incremental analysis in deciding on capital investment projects.

Case Questions Answered

  • What are the incremental cash flows for General Foods to use in evaluating the Super Project? In particular, how should management deal with issues such as:a) Test market expenses?b) Overhead expenses?c) Erosion of Jell-O contribution margin?d) Allocation of charges for the use of excess agglomerator capacity?
  • What insights does sensitivity analysis give into your decision? Which variables is your decision most sensitive to? Could reasonable variation in these variables change your decision?
  • How attractive is the Super Project in strategic and competitive terms? What potential risks and benefits does General Foods incur by either accepting or rejecting the project?

This case solution includes an Excel file with calculations that will be available after purchase.

This case solution includes an Excel file with calculations.

1. What are the incremental cash flows for General Foods to use in

evaluating the Super Project? In particular, how should management deal with issues such as:

a) Test market expenses?

b) Overhead expenses?
c) Erosion of Jell-O contribution margin?
d) Allocation of charges for the use of excess agglomerator capacity?

In evaluating the Super Project, the management of General Foods should deal with issues such as a) Test market expenses, b) Overhead expenses, c) Erosion of Jell-O contribution margin, and d) Allocation of charges for the use of excess agglomerator capacity.

The Test market expenses should not be included in the cash flows because they are a sunk cost and not incremental.

The overhead expense should be included in the analysis by estimating the expansion of the project will increase its portion of the market. It will require extra capital and labor to sustain demand.

To get the overhead expense, you subtract profit from the facilities used basis from fully allocated for the six-year average to get a $90/year overhead expense in years 5-10.

We must also include the erosion of Jell-O sales as a negative cash flow in the analysis. The cannibalization will have a negative effect on the profitability of Jell-O, and if this is not included, the NPV will be overestimated.

The excess capacity for the agglomerator would not be included. The expense of the building was already covered when estimating the cost for Jell-O, meaning it would be double-counted if included. Also, revenue for the alternative uses would have been added, and not the cost of PP&E.

2. What insights does sensitivity analysis give into your decision?

Which variables is your decision most sensitive to? Could reasonable variation in these variables change your decision?

The Sensitivity Analysis provides you with information on how the different variables affect…

Preview Only — Unlock Full Content Below

Complete Case Solution

Get immediate access to the full, detailed analysis

  • Comprehensive answers to all case questions
  • Detailed analysis with supporting evidence
  • Instant digital delivery (PDF format)
Buy Full Case Solution

Secure payment • Instant access

By clicking, you agree to our Terms of Use, Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Agreement and Privacy Policy