This Victoria Chemicals PLC (B): The Merseyside and Rotterdam Projects case study is part of a series of cases. This case study deals with a project review of a planned improvement of a polypropylene production plant. The executives of the company must decide on either mutually exclusive projects.
​Robert F. Bruner
Harvard Business Review (UV1194-PDF-ENG)
August 29, 2008
Case questions answered:
Case study questions answered in the first solution:
- How do the two projects (Merseyside and Rotterdam) compare on the basis of Victoria Chemicals PLC’s investment criteria? What might account for the differences in rankings? Are they mutually exclusive?
- Is it possible to quantify the value of potentially adding Japanese technology to the Merseyside project? How, if at all, does this flexibility affect the economic attractiveness of the project?
- Which project should James Fawn propose to the chief executive officer and the board of directors?
Case study questions answered in the second solution:
- Why are the Merseyside and Rotterdam projects mutually exclusive?
- How do the two projects compare on the basis of Victoria Chemicals’ investment criteria? What might account for the differences in rankings?
- Is it possible to quantify the value of potentially adding Japanese technology to the Merseyside project? How, if at all, does this flexibility affect the economic attractiveness of the project?
- What are the differences in the ways Elizabeth Eustace and Lucy Morris have advocated for their respective projects? How might those differences in style have affected the outcome of the decision?
- Which project should James Fawn propose to the chief executive officer and the board of directors?
Not the questions you were looking for? Submit your own questions & get answers.
Victoria Chemicals PLC (B): The Merseyside and Rotterdam Projects Case Answers
This case solution includes an Excel file with calculations.
You will receive access to two case study solutions! The second is not yet visible in the preview.
1. How do the two projects (Merseyside and Rotterdam) compare on the basis of Victoria Chemicals PLCs’ investment criteria? What might account for the differences in rankings? Are they mutually exclusive?
In Victoria Chemicals PLC (A), I changed the inflation rate to 3%. However, I noticed that in the Rotterdam Project analysis, the inflation rate was 0% while the discount rate remained at 10%.
To remain consistent, I changed my inflation rate back to zero. By doing this, my NPV, IRR, and EPS went down. The payback period would actually be 5.26, which went up (I screenshotted my graph before I calculated the payback period). So, the payback period also went up.
One thing that accounts for the differences in ranking done by Victoria Chemicals PLC would be the fact that the Rotterdam project slowly increases new output rather than having the new output maxed out in year one.
The construction downtime is another factor that accounts for the differences in ranking. The Merseyside project accounts for 1.5 months of construction, while the Rotterdam project accounts for many months over 3 different years of construction.
As far as mutual exclusivity, this question is a bit complicated. It seems that if the Rotterdam project is chosen, then the Merseyside project could not be chosen (making them mutually exclusive).
However, if Victoria Chemicals PLC chooses the Merseyside project, there is an opportunity to implement the technology from the Rotterdam project in the future (making them not mutually exclusive). So I would say both yes and no.
Unlock Case Solution Now!
Get instant access to this case solution with a simple, one-time payment ($24.90).
After purchase:
- You'll be redirected to the full case solution.
- You will receive an access link to the solution via email.
Best decision to get my homework done faster!
Michael
MBA student, Boston
Best decision to get my homework done faster!