program代做、代写C++设计程序

日期：2024-12-03 10:18

Project Brief: Fleet Vehicle Selection and Comprehensive Risk Analysis

This assignment presents a real-world management scenario where the data is incomplete or

uncertain, requiring you to apply your engineering expertise to make an informed decision. Your task

is to assess and recommend the most suitable vehicle type—Electric Vehicle (EV) or Petrol—for a fleet

of 10 maintenance engineers operating from a base in Liverpool.

The vehicles in question belong to the C-segment of European passenger cars, also known as

"medium-sized cars" or "compact cars" in the U.S. Your decision should be based on an analysis of

operating cost, the total cost of ownership, and environmental impact, using the data provided (based

on VW ID3 and VW Golf Hatch) and any additional information you wish to include.

You should submit:

1. A report in six sections which answer the six questions below.

2. An Excel spreadsheet containing cost model, cash-flow analysis, and the calculations or

simulation used to answer question on quantitative risk assessment.

Questions:

1. Technology assessment: Undertake a brief assessment of the current state of EV car battery

technology and how it is likely to evolve over the next 5 years focusing on: innovation, reductions

in cost, reliability, and range.

2. Cost Analysis: Use the data provided to: (i) Model the operating cost of each vehicle type over a

4-year period, include service and maintenance, and fuel/charging costs. (ii) Estimate the total

cost of ownership for both vehicle types over 4 years using a cash flow analysis. Include for

example the purchase and financing costs, operating costs, and resale revenue. This analysis

should be conducted in Excel using a discount rate of 7%.

3. Model the impact of variable uncertainty on the difference in total ownership cost between the

two vehicle types. Consider factors like annual travel distance, journey profile, fuel/charging

prices, maintenance, and depreciation. Assess cost variability and risk over the 4-year ownership

period.

4. Qualitative risk assessment of vehicle choice: (i) Identify and evaluate non-quantifiable risks, such

as future regulations, technology changes, supply chain disruptions, and user acceptance. (ii) Rank

these risks by likelihood and impact on fleet operations and business performance.

5. Environmental: Evaluate the CO2e footprint of each vehicle type over the 4-year operating period.

Compare in general terms, the overall carbon footprint of Electric Vehicles (EVs) versus Petrol

vehicles across their entire life cycle.

6. Compare the costs, environmental impact, and risk profiles of the two vehicles. Recommend to

management the most suitable vehicle type for the fleet based on your analysis, providing a clear

justification that integrates both cost and risk considerations.

7. Identify and explain key contract law principles that must be considered when negotiating

contracts with the vehicle supplier, including warranties, liabilities, and service agreements. How

might these impact the overall vehicle procurement and fleet operation? 3. Data section

(a) Purchase and operating costs

Purchase and maintenance costs

Electric vehicle (medium sized 5dr hatch)

Purchase cost £ 37,500.0

Service cost (every 30,000 km) £ 370.0

Tyres cost (every 40,000 km) £ 360.0

Petrol vehicle (medium sized 5dr hatch)

Purchase cost £ 31,000.0

Minor service (every 10,000 km) £ 150.0

Major service (every 30,000 km) £ 230.0

Tyres (every 40,000 km) £ 360.0

Financing

Deposit required 30%

Annual interest rate 5.9%

Discount rate applied by the company 7%

Estimated vehicle

depreciation EV Petrol

Year

Vehicle value as

% of initial price

Vehicle value as a

% of initial price

0 100 100

1 80 95

2 60 90

3 45 85

4 40 70

(b) Journey profiles

Mean annual distance driven Mean Standard

deviation

Mean annual distance (km) 16,093 1000

Journey profile (% distance spent in each driving condition) Mean

Standard

deviation

City 34% 10%

Main roads 31% 10%

Motorway/Dual Carriageway 35% 10%

(c) Electric Vehicle

Energy consumption (Mild weather 23 C) kWh/100km

City 11.40

Main roads 15.30

Motorway/Dual Carriageway 19.90

Energy consumption (Cold weather 0 C) kWh/100km

City 17.1

Main roads 19.6

Motorway/Dual Carriageway 23.1

`

Current cost of electricity charging £/kWh

City £ 0.30

Main roads £ 0.77

Motorway/Dual Carriageway £ 0.53

% of energy purchased from each location

Annual % increase in the cost of electricity charging

Max Min Most likely

City 10% 1% 2.50%

Main roads 10% 1% 3.00%

Motorway/Dual Carriageway 10% 1% 3.00%

(d) Petrol Vehicle

Energy consumption values (Petrol) l/100km

City 7.24

Main roads 5.59

Motorway/Dual Carriageway 4.89

Cost of petrol £/l

Petrol (average) £ 1.4

Annual % price change (energy)

Max Min Most likely

Petrol 5% 1% 2.50%

Guidance covering the suggested content and grading criteria for each objective

Questions Assignment objectives Good

50+

Very good

60+

Exceptional

70 +

Q1 Technology

assessment.

(Use a maximum of

250-300 words for this

section excluding any

Appendices).

20 marks

A brief assessment of the

current state of EV car

battery technology and

how it is likely to evolve

over the next 5 years

focusing on: innovation,

reductions in cost,

reliability, and range.

A reasonable understanding of EV

technology trends. Limited

discussion on cost reductions,

reliability, and range

improvements, with few specific

examples or evidence.

Surface analysis with general

statements. Limited detail on

how technological advancements

will impact cost, reliability, or

range.

Good understanding of EV

technology trends. Discusses cost

reductions and improvements in

reliability and range with some

specific examples or evidence. A

solid analysis with clear

connections between technological

advancements and expected

outcomes in cost, reliability, and

range. Some insights into the

impact on the EV market.

Comprehensive understanding of EV

technology trends. Provides detailed

discussion on expected cost reductions

and significant improvements in

reliability and range, supported by

specific examples and evidence.

In-depth analysis with clear, logical

connections between technological

advancements and their impact. Strong

insights into how these changes will

drive wider EV adoption and reshape the

market.

Q2 Cost Analysis

20 marks

Use of data to: (i) Estimate

the total cost of each

vehicle type over a 4-year

period, including purchase

costs, service and

maintenance, and

fuel/charging costs. (ii)

Present the results for

each vehicle type as a

cashflow.

Basic estimation of total cost of

ownership with some errors or

omissions. Simple comparison of

running costs. Basic cash flow

provided but may be

disorganised or difficult to

interpret. Lacks visual clarity.

Minimal interpretation of results

with little insight into

implications or decision-making.

Good estimation of total cost of

ownership. Assumptions are mostly

clear and reasonable. Accurate

comparison of running costs with

an analysis of potential savings.

Methodology is mostly logical.

Organised cash flow with some

visual representation. Solid

interpretation of results with some

insights into financial implications

and decision-making.

Excellent estimation of total cost of

ownership, including all relevant factors.

Assumptions are well-justified and

clearly explained. Thorough and

accurate comparison of running costs,

with a detailed analysis of potential

savings. Methodology is logical and easy

to follow. Detailed and well-organised

cash flow with clear visual aids (e.g.,

tables, charts). Presentation is

professional and easy to interpret.

Insightful interpretation of results, with

strong analysis and well-considered

recommendations for decision-making.

Impact of variable

uncertainty

10 marks

Model the impact of

variable uncertainty on

the difference in total

ownership cost between

the two vehicle types.

Consider factors like

annual travel distance,

journey profile,

fuel/charging prices,

maintenance, and

depreciation. Assess cost

variability and risk over

the 4-year ownership

period.

Reasonable attempt at modelling

and assessing the impact of

uncertainty but it may contain

errors or lack detail in exploring

the range of outcomes or

probability distribution. Some

analysis of risk, with a basic

discussion of cost variability.

Conducts a reasonable attempt at

modelling uncertainty with a clear

range of outcomes. Methodology is

reasonably accurate. Provides a

solid analysis of risk, discussing cost

variability. Offers some insights

into the financial risk associated

with each vehicle type.

Executes a detailed and accurate

modelling, exploring a comprehensive

range of possible outcomes. The

methodology is robust and clearly

presented. In-depth analysis of risk, with

a detailed understanding of cost

variability. Provides strong insights into

the risk profiles of different vehicle

types and their implications for decisionmaking.

Q4. Qualitative Risk

Assessment

10 marks

Qualitative risk

assessment of vehicle

choice: (i) Identify and

evaluate non-quantifiable

risks, such as future

regulations, technology

changes, supply chain

disruptions, and user

acceptance. (ii) Rank these

risks by likelihood and

impact on fleet operations

and business

performance.

A basic qualitative assessment of

non-quantifiable risks, including

future regulations, technological

changes, supply chain

disruptions, and user acceptance.

The identification of risks may be

somewhat superficial, with

limited detailed analysis. While

risks are recognised, they may

not be thoroughly assessed. The

impact and likelihood of risks are

described in general terms,

lacking specific examples or indepth

analysis. A simple ranking

of with limited justification or

explanation for the assigned

rankings.

Qualitative Risk Assessment:

Performs a solid qualitative risk

assessment, identifying and

evaluating key non-quantifiable

risks such as future regulations,

technological changes, supply chain

disruptions, and user acceptance.

The analysis is detailed and

thorough.

Risks are assessed with clear

descriptions of their potential

impact and likelihood, supported

by specific examples or data where

applicable.

A logical ranking of risks based on

their likelihood and potential

impact. The rankings are generally

well-justified, with explanations.

A comprehensive qualitative risk

assessment, thoroughly identifying and

evaluating non-quantifiable risks such as

future regulations, technological

advancements, supply chain disruptions,

and user acceptance. The assessment is

detailed and well-supported by relevant

examples. An in-depth evaluation of

each risk, offering insightful analysis of

their potential impacts and likelihood.

The analysis is enriched with specific

examples and reflects a strong

understanding of the risks involved.

Provides a well-structured and logical

ranking of risks based on their likelihood

and potential impact.

Q5. Environmental

Impact

10 marks

Evaluate the CO2e

footprint of each vehicle

type over the 4-year

operating period.

Compare in general terms,

the overall carbon

footprint of Electric

Vehicles (EVs) versus

Petrol vehicles across their

entire life cycle.

An assessment of the CO2e

footprint, with consideration of

emissions. The analysis may lack

depth, and the data used may be

general or not well-explained.

Demonstrates an understanding

of the key concepts.

A thorough evaluation of the CO2e

footprint. The analysis is largely

accurate, supported by specific

data or examples. A strong

understanding of the concept of

cradle-to-grave carbon footprint,

including the CO2e produced

during use with clear and detailed

explanations.

A detailed evaluation of the CO2e

footprint. The analysis is well-supported

by specific data, examples, and a robust

comparison between vehicle types. It

demonstrates an in-depth

understanding of the cradle-to-grave

carbon footprint.

Q6. Recommendation

10 marks

Compare the costs,

environmental impact,

and risk profiles of the two

vehicles. Recommend to

management the most

suitable vehicle type for

the fleet based on your

analysis, providing a clear

justification that

integrates both cost and

risk considerations.

Delivers a simple

recommendation for the most

suitable vehicle type, with

minimal justification. The

recommendation may not fully

integrate cost and risk

considerations.

Presents a well-reasoned

recommendation for the most

suitable vehicle type, integrating

both cost and risk considerations.

The justification is clear and

effectively supports the choice.

Delivers a well-justified

recommendation for the most suitable

vehicle type, integrating considerations

of cost, environmental impact, and risk.

The rationale is clear, persuasive, and

grounded in thorough analysis.

Q7. Contract law

20 marks

Identify and explain key

contract law principles

that must be considered

when negotiating

contracts with the vehicle

supplier, including

warranties, liabilities, and

service agreements. How

might these impact the

overall vehicle

procurement and fleet

operation

Comprehensive explanation of

contract law principles.

Thorough, clear, and accurate

description of warranties,

liabilities, service agreements,

and payment terms.

Demonstrates deep

understanding of how these

principles apply to procurement.

Good understanding of contract

law principles. Descriptions are

mostly accurate but may lack depth

or detail. Solid understanding of

how key contract terms relate to

procurement.

Basic understanding of contract law

principles. Limited or vague explanations

of warranties, liabilities, and service

agreements. Some application to vehicle

procurement is evident but not fully

developed.