Preliminary NPV analysis shows that the company should confidently pursue the introduction of the new product (Taste Good) to the market. This is because it is a low risk project with a high Internal Rate of Return (170%). Project Enjoy has an IRR of 62%. The cash flows pertaining to Project Taste Good are good. Additionally, the payback period is satisfactory (1.57 years) compared to Project Enjoy payback period of 2.14 years? The company does not provide critical information to enable the consultants to weigh the other project under consideration adequately. However, Taste Good project has a high NPV of 3,840,046.34, which further underscores the viability of the project. Project Taste Good has a high Accounting Rate of Return of 23.48% and a Profitability Index of 1.92. Taste Good Project General Milk Plc intends to introduce a new brand of chocolate milk called ‘Taste Good’. After the managements’ team meeting in which our consultancy was sought, the following is an analysis regarding the viability of the capital expenditure towards development of this product. There are two options in consideration. The other option involves development of the current brand ‘Enjoy’ into various markets in Asia and the Far East. This paper appraises the former project using Net Present Value Analysis and compares the results with what the Marketing Manager Emma Perry proposes: expansion of the ‘Enjoy’ Brand. Explanation of the NPV Analysis Results NPV Analysis results in a positive NPV of 3,840,046.34. This indicates that the management can undertake this project. An NPV that is greater than zero means that the project is viable. Additionally, during the period in which the project will be implemented, the company will register the following undiscounted cash flows. Table 1: Cash Flows of Taste Good Project Year 1        Year 2        Year 3        Year 4        Year 5       1,030,220.00  1,146,967.40  1,271,887.12  1,405,551.22  2,134,838.42  This indicates that the project is quite good with great returns on capital. It also indicates that General Milk Plc will not have problems with cash flows even in the initial stages of the project. In comparison to the other option, unveiling this new brand looks like a more promising option. Table 2 below shows comparison of the two projects’ cash flows (Chapman, Hopwood & Shields, 2006). Table 2: Comparison of Project’s Cash Flows Projects’ Cash Flows                       Year 1        Year 2        Year 3      Year 4      Year 5      Project ‘Taste Good’  888,120.69    852,383.62    814,844.2   776,273.4   1,016,424.3 Project ‘Enjoy’       1,600,000.00  1,600,000.00  500,000.00  500,000.00  500,000.00   As shown in Table 2 above, Project ‘Taste Good’ has a better return in terms of cash flows compared to Project ‘Enjoy’. While the first project indicates cash flows that are relatively stable over time, the second indicates cash flows that decline too fast. The graph below indicates that in each year of the project’s lifetime, ‘Taste Good’ project records better cash flows. Figure 1: Comparison of Cash flows. As figure one above indicates, there is relative stability in the cash flows recorded by Project Taste Good as compared to Project Enjoy. This follows that it would be too hard to determ