ENGR 301 Engineering Management Principles and Economics

Direct answer: ENGR 301 is one of ten named courses in Concordia's Engineering Core, worth 3 credits of the core's 30.5. The programme notes in the 2026-2027 calendar reduce other core courses for some programmes, but none of the notes read removes ENGR 301.

The 2026-2027 Undergraduate Calendar describes the course as an introduction to project delivery systems, project management principles, cost estimating, planning and control, plus company finances, interest, time value of money, discounted cash flow, project evaluation in private and public sectors, depreciation methods, business tax regulations, decision trees and sensitivity analysis (Concordia University, 2026a). Its components are a 3 hour lecture and a 1 hour tutorial per week, and the entry has no prerequisite line, unlike neighbouring courses such as ENGR 311 and ENGR 361.

The Engineering Core totals 30.5 credits: ten named courses worth 27.5 credits plus 3 credits of humanities and social sciences electives (Concordia University, 2026b). Some programmes drop other core courses, for example Computer and Software Engineering skip ENGR 391, but none of the notes read here removes ENGR 301.

The reason is accreditation. Engineers Canada (2025) states graduate attribute 11 as "An ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including project, risk, and change management into the practice of engineering and to understand their limitations." Read that last clause as a hint, because a good answer names the limits of an analysis as well as its result. For an adjacent programme requirement, see the ENGR 201 guide.

Direct answer: Most failures come from reading the wording: a rate that is quoted per year while payments fall every month. Convert the rate to the payment period first. Nicholls, Lewis and Eschenbach (2014) say a slight change in wording can dramatically change the intended interpretation of a problem.

Nicholls et al. (2014) wrote that such problems are "often presented in textual format (the dreaded 'word problem' format) where a slight change in the wording can dramatically alter the intended interpretation." The same authors add that the mathematics is not complex but the concepts "do require time to absorb" (Nicholls et al., 2014). Their paper shares teaching experience and has no sample, so read it as expert observation, not a measured error rate.

Here is the illustration. A loan pays $1,000 at the end of each month for 12 months, and the nominal rate is 12% per year compounded monthly. The correct monthly rate is 12% / 12 = 1%, giving a present worth of $11,255. A student who pastes 12% into a 12-period annuity formula gets $6,194, which is 45% too low. The effective annual rate of the 12% nominal case is (1.01)^12 - 1 = 12.68%, which is why nominal and effective rates must never be swapped.

Source: MAAS worked calculation with invented figures, checked by hand.

Draw the time value of money diagram with every arrow on the same period before you write any formula.

Direct answer: Not on every topic. Kauffmann, Wilck and Lynch (2015) compared self-assessment with exam results for 171 US students and found overconfidence on equivalence, uniform series and present worth, but underconfidence on depreciation and taxes and on inflation.

Kauffmann et al. (2015) studied three course sections taught by three instructors at two universities: 28, 27 and 116 students, so n = 171, each assessed on 8 learning outcomes (1,368 observations). Exam answers were scored from 1 to 4. Self-ratings were higher than results for equivalence (p < 0.001), uniform series (p = 0.001) and present worth (p < 0.001), and lower for depreciation and taxes (p < 0.001) and inflation (p < 0.001). Rate of return showed no gap (p = 0.826).

Among students who scored 3 or 4, self-ratings on rate of return averaged 4.39 (n = 135) against 3.72 (n = 36) for those who scored 1 or 2 (p < 0.001). The authors noted that "Outcomes 7 and 8 are covered last; thus, the students may not feel as confident" (Kauffmann et al., 2015). That is their comment on the pattern and not a test of cause.

Kauffmann et al. (2015) sampled US students, not Concordia students, so do not read the figures as a forecast for ENGR 301. The practical message is narrower. Topics you feel sure about are the ones to test with a past problem under time pressure, and depreciation and tax steps, where students underrated themselves, are worth a second look before you decide to skip them.

Direct answer: Tax depreciation in Canada is claimed as capital cost allowance (CCA), a declining-balance claim on the undepreciated balance of an asset class at a rate set by tax rules, not by the asset's life. Straight-line depreciation divides cost evenly over a chosen life.

The calendar lists "depreciation methods" and "business tax regulations" as separate topics (Concordia University, 2026a), and the second one is where after-tax cash flows come from. The capital cost allowance system groups assets into classes, so your notes will give a class rate and any restriction on the first year's claim. Use the rate your tutorial gives, not a rate from a general website.

The illustration below uses a hypothetical 30% rate on a $100,000 asset, only to show the shape. Year one claims $30,000 and leaves $70,000. Year two claims 30% of $70,000, which is $21,000, leaving $49,000. Year three claims $14,700. A straight-line schedule over five years would claim $20,000 every year, so the declining method gives larger early deductions and a smaller tax bill sooner.

Source: MAAS arithmetic with an invented rate and asset cost, not a CRA class rate.

State which method your answer uses, because Kauffmann et al. (2015) found depreciation and taxes was a topic where students rated themselves lower than their results.

Direct answer: Use incremental IRR when two projects are mutually exclusive and cost different amounts. Plain IRR can rank the cheaper project first even when the larger project has the higher net present value, so test the extra investment against your minimum acceptable rate.

Take two projects over 3 years. Project A costs $100 and returns $60 a year, with an IRR of 36.3%. Project B costs $250 and returns $130 a year, with an IRR of 26.0%. Plain IRR prefers A. At a 15% minimum rate the present worth is $37.0 for A and $46.8 for B, so B wins on value. The extra $150 returns $70 a year, with an incremental IRR of 18.9%. That is above 15%, so choose B. At a 20% minimum rate the increment fails, and A is the better choice. This is a MAAS illustration with invented amounts.

For the internal rate of return definition, check your textbook, but notice what practice looks like. Graham and Harvey (2001) surveyed chief financial officers and received 392 replies from about 4,440 firms, a 9% response rate. They found 74.9% "always or almost always" used net present value and 75.7% used IRR. Large firms used NPV more than small firms, with scores of 3.42 against 2.83. Their abstract notes that "Large firms rely heavily on present value techniques and the capital asset pricing model" (Graham & Harvey, 2001). It is a US survey of beliefs, not Canadian practice or student results.

Eschenbach and Lewis (2011) argue that students "should be able to use tables, calculators, and spreadsheets", so build the cash flow in a spreadsheet and check it by hand.

Direct answer: Decision trees weigh outcomes by probability, sensitivity analysis asks how far an input can move before the choice flips, and earned value compares work done with cost spent. No source read here measures student errors on these, so the examples below are MAAS illustrations.

Illustration: a project costs nothing up front, pays $200,000 with probability p and loses $50,000 otherwise. At p = 0.6 the expected value is 0.6 x 200,000 - 0.4 x 50,000 = $100,000. The break-even probability solves 200,000p - 50,000(1 - p) = 0, so p = 0.2. That number is the sensitivity answer, and it tells a manager how wrong the probability estimate can be before the decision changes. Look up decision tree notation in your notes.

On project management, Jääskä, Kujala and Aaltonen (2023) tested a game for teaching earned value with 39 university students, and 31 completed the survey. More than 70% agreed or strongly agreed on each of 4 learning outcomes, with a mean of about 4.0 out of 5. The measure is perceived learning, not exam scores. Their abstract explains why a game was tried: "Teaching EVM is challenging as the method may appear theoretical, mathematical, and disconnected from the uncertainty of real-life projects" (Jääskä et al., 2023). Practise earned value management on a small table of planned and actual costs.

For the management side in a business school setting, see the MGMT3002 guide and the FNCE370 corporate finance guide.