17 October 2026 · 8 min read
Formats tell you the skeleton; examples show you the flesh. Nepali students searching for a thesis proposal example usually find either foreign samples that do not match TU/PU/KU expectations, or a bare format with no filled content. This page gives a complete example proposal built for a Nepali master's context - an MBS-style management topic at TU - with notes after each section explaining what the section is doing and why a committee would accept it. Use it as a model for shape and depth, not as text to copy: committees run proposals through Turnitin, and a copied sample flags instantly.
"Factors Influencing the Adoption of Mobile Banking among Small Business Owners in Bharatpur Metropolitan City" - a proposal submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Studies, Faculty of Management, Tribhuvan University.
Why this title works for a Nepali committee: it names the variables (adoption of mobile banking), the population (small business owners), and the setting (a specific municipality, not "Nepal"). Committees at TU routinely send back titles like "A Study on Mobile Banking in Nepal" because one student with one semester cannot study Nepal. Narrowing to Bharatpur makes the study physically possible.
The example introduction runs three paragraphs. First, context: mobile banking usage in Nepal has grown rapidly since the pandemic, with Nepal Rastra Bank reporting continued growth in transaction volumes. Second, the tension: adoption is uneven - urban consumers have taken it up faster than the small retailers and service providers who would benefit most from digital payments. Third, the gap: most Nepali studies measure consumer-side adoption in Kathmandu Valley; merchant-side adoption in secondary cities is barely studied. The paragraph ends by pointing directly at the study.
Note the discipline: three paragraphs, no history of banking from the Rana era, no definitions of "banking" from a dictionary. Committees read dozens of proposals; an introduction that takes two pages to reach the point signals a writer who has not read the field.
Example: "Despite national growth in mobile banking, small business owners in secondary cities such as Bharatpur report low and inconsistent adoption for business transactions. Existing Nepali studies examine consumer adoption in Kathmandu Valley and do not explain merchant-side decisions elsewhere. Without merchant-side evidence, banks and local governments cannot design interventions that actually reach small businesses. This study assesses the level of mobile banking adoption among small business owners in Bharatpur Metropolitan City and identifies the factors associated with adoption and non-adoption."
Four sentences, four jobs: the problem, the gap, why it matters, what the study does. That mapping is what the committee's checklist looks for first.
Three objectives, each with a matching question, each answerable with a survey. Five or six objectives at proposal stage tells the committee the study will never finish; one vague objective ("to study mobile banking") tells them nothing.
The proposal-stage review is a sketch of 400-700 words organised by theme: technology adoption theory (TAM and UTAUT as the standard frames), mobile banking adoption studies in South Asia, Nepali consumer-side studies, and the missing merchant-side and secondary-city evidence. Each theme closes with what is established and what is missing - and the final gap is this study. The single most common reason Nepali proposals return for revision is a literature review written as "Sharma (2075) found... Thapa (2078) found..." - an author list, not an argument. Organise by idea.
Compare this with the version that gets sent back: "The study will use descriptive research design. Primary data will be collected through questionnaire. Data will be analysed by using SPSS." The first version can be evaluated - the committee can see the population is reachable, the number has a basis, and each objective has a technique. The second cannot.
The example timeline runs month by month from proposal approval to final submission across one semester, with the fieldwork window in months two and three and a buffer month before submission - Nepali academic calendars slip, and a timeline that ends exactly on the submission date reads as already failed. The budget is modest and itemised in NPR: stationery and printing, local travel for fieldwork, refreshments for enumerators if used. References are APA 7th (the Faculty of Management default) and include only sources the review actually cites.
Related tools and reading:
If your proposal has already been sent back, the fix is usually structural rather than more writing. Assignment Nepal can review your draft against your department's format and mark exactly where the objectives, methods and scope stop agreeing. Message us on WhatsApp at +977 9768768340.
Tell us what you need checked and when it is due. Your document is checked without being stored in any student-paper repository, so the check never counts against your real submission. The reports come back with what each match means, not just a percentage.