| Course | BU 345 Project Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Project selection record |
| Length | About 920 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 345 Unit 1
A Canning Line, a Patio or a Cooler: A Project Selection Record for a Composite Dayton Brewery, Scored Against Criteria Defined Before the Candidates
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 345: Project Management
Instructor Name
January 21, 2026
A Canning Line, a Patio or a Cooler: A Project Selection Record for a Composite Dayton Brewery, Scored Against Criteria Defined Before the Candidates
The Firm and Its Constraint
Iron Trestle Brewing is a composite craft brewery in Dayton, Ohio, built for this course. It employs 14 people and brewed about 6,200 barrels in 2025. Roughly 60 percent of its beer is sold on draft to bars and restaurants, 25 percent is poured in its own taproom and 15 percent is sold in cans. The cans are filled by a mobile canning company that brings its equipment to the brewery twice a month. That arrangement is the constraint that started this discussion. A regional grocery distributor has offered to carry four of Iron Trestle's beers across 60 stores if the brewery can supply cans every week, and the mobile canner cannot add dates. The owner has about $320,000 available from savings and an equipment loan for one major project in 2026, and three candidates are competing for it.
The Three Candidates
Candidate A is an in-house canning line. The brewery would buy and install a five-head filler and seamer rated at about 40 cans per minute, with a depalletizer, rinser and conveyors, in the unused back third of its warehouse. It addresses the grocery offer directly and would end the dependence on the mobile canner. The vendor's quote and the electrician's estimate put the work at about $310,000 over roughly three months. The owner would sponsor it, and the operations manager would run it.
Candidate B is a taproom patio expansion, adding 60 outdoor seats, a covered bar and heaters. It addresses the taproom's crowding on summer weekends, when the brewery turns people away. The architect's rough estimate is $140,000 over about four months, largely dependent on a zoning variance. The taproom manager would sponsor it.
Candidate C is a walk-in cold storage expansion, doubling the brewery's refrigerated space for kegs. It addresses the fact that the brewery sometimes stores full kegs off-site at a rented cooler. The refrigeration contractor quoted $95,000 over about six weeks. The head brewer would sponsor it.
The Criteria, Defined Before Scoring
Four criteria were agreed with the owner before any candidate was rated, each on a scale of 1 to 5. Strategic fit measures how directly the project serves the brewery's stated goal for 2026, growing packaged sales, where 5 means the project is necessary for that goal and 1 means it is unrelated. Financial return measures the estimated payback period, where 5 means under three years and 1 means over seven. Execution risk measures how likely the project is to finish near its budget and date given what the brewery controls, where 5 means low risk. Operational burden measures the strain on daily operations during the project, where 5 means little disruption. Guidance from the Project Management Institute (2021) describes project selection as aligning a portfolio of work with organizational strategy and value, and Kerzner (2017) recommends weighted scoring so that criteria of unequal importance are not treated equally. Strategic fit and financial return are therefore weighted double.
The Scoring
The table rates each candidate with a short reason in every cell, then applies the weights. Payback estimates come from the owner's projections of added gross margin in each case and should be read as rough figures.
| Criterion (weight) | A. Canning line | B. Taproom patio | C. Cold storage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic fit (x2) | 5: required to supply the grocery distributor weekly | 2: grows taproom sales, not packaged | 3: supports kegs, indirectly helps packaging |
| Financial return (x2) | 4: about 3.5-year payback from grocery margin and saved canning fees | 3: about 5-year payback, seasonal | 4: about 3-year payback from ending off-site rental |
| Execution risk (x1) | 3: long equipment lead time and electrical work | 2: zoning variance uncertain | 4: routine contractor work |
| Operational burden (x1) | 3: warehouse work around brewing schedule | 4: taproom stays open, yard work | 2: cold room offline for two weeks |
| Weighted total | 24 | 16 | 20 |
The Selection
Candidate A, the in-house canning line, is selected and will be carried through the rest of the term. It scores highest because it is the only project that answers the brewery's strategic goal directly, and its financial return is close to the best. Its weaknesses are real and will shape the planning units: the equipment has a long manufacturing lead time, the electrical service may need upgrading and the work must fit around a brewing schedule that cannot stop. Candidate C, cold storage, scored second and remains a strong project for 2027, particularly if packaged volume grows and keg storage pressure eases. Candidate B depends on a zoning decision outside the brewery's control and was the weakest on the criteria that mattered most.
Flyvbjerg (2014) found that large projects routinely exceed their budgets and schedules because early estimates are optimistic, and small projects are not immune. The selection therefore treats the canning line's $310,000 estimate and three-month duration as figures to be tested in the planning units, not promises.
The selection also considered doing nothing. Keeping the mobile canner would cost nothing now but would leave the grocery offer unanswered, and the distributor has said it will fill the shelf space with another brewery's beer by summer if Iron Trestle cannot commit. Doing nothing therefore has a real cost, even if it does not appear in the table.
The Life Cycle It Fits
The canning line suits a predictive life cycle: the team settles scope, dates and cost up front and then moves through phases in a set order. The deliverable is a physical installation with a fixed sequence: permits before electrical work, electrical work before hookup, hookup before testing. The requirements are known and unlikely to change, and rework is expensive once equipment is set in place. An adaptive life cycle, with short iterations and evolving scope, suits work whose requirements are uncertain, such as software, and would add little here (Project Management Institute, 2021). Two parts of the project, label design and operator training, may be revised as they go, but they sit inside a plan that is otherwise fixed. The brewery, the three candidates and every estimate here are invented for teaching.
References
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
BU 345 Unit 1 instructions, in plain terms
The opening unit of BU 345 asks students to pick the single project every later unit will plan. Typical prompts want a short description of the organization and the need, two or three candidate projects, a set of selection criteria defined before scoring, a scored comparison and a justified choice. Many rubrics also ask which project life cycle the chosen project fits, predictive, adaptive or hybrid, and why. Instructors prefer a project large enough to need a real schedule and budget but small enough to plan in detail. Composite organizations are usually allowed if identified as such. Expect a two- to three-page decision document with a scoring table, formatted in APA 7 with the course text cited for any selection method.
How this BU 345 Unit 1 example is built
The sample opens with the brewery's size, sales mix and the constraint that prompted a project: a grocery distributor wants weekly cans and the mobile canner cannot provide them. Three candidates follow, each with a problem, a rough cost from a quote or estimate and a sponsor. The criteria section defines four criteria with scales anchored at both ends and explains why two are weighted double, citing sources on selection and weighted scoring. A table scores each candidate with a reason in every cell and totals the weighted scores. The selection section names the canning line, notes the runner-up for next year, admits the chosen project's risks and even considers doing nothing. The last section argues for a predictive life cycle.
Reading the BU 345 Unit 1 rubric
Herzing's criteria for the selection record typically weigh the definition of selection criteria, the quality of the comparison, the justification of the choice and the life cycle discussion, with writing as a smaller criterion. Criteria earn full points when each is defined in words before it is applied and has a scale a reader can interpret. The comparison is judged by consistent scoring with reasons, not bare numbers. Justification rewards a choice that follows from the scores and acknowledges the chosen project's weaknesses. The life cycle criterion looks for a reasoned match between the project's characteristics and the approach. Instructors also credit mention of the alternative of doing nothing and a clear statement that the case is composite.
BU 345 Unit 1 help before you submit
The most common Unit 1 mistake is choosing the project first and writing criteria that guarantee it wins. Another is scoring candidates with numbers alone, leaving no reasons an instructor can evaluate. Students often pick a project too small to need a schedule, such as organizing a single event, or too large to plan in one term. Criteria are sometimes vague, such as best for the company, with no scale. Many papers skip the life cycle question or answer it with a definition instead of a reason. Finally, remember that the rest of the course depends on this choice; a project with real dependencies, outside parties and a budget will make every later unit easier to write well.
Get a BU 345 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 1 instructions and the rubric from your BU 345 classroom, with any list of approved project types your section supplies. We write a custom example that defines criteria first, describes three candidates at equal length, prices the ones it rejects and names the life cycle. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 345 papers and project management samples
- BU 345 Unit 2: Charter and stakeholder register
- BU 345 Unit 3: Scope and work breakdown document
- BU 345 Unit 4: Schedule and dependency chart
- BU 345 Unit 5: Budget baseline sheet
- BU 345 Unit 6: Risk response table
- BU 345 Unit 7: Status report to sponsor
- BU 345 Unit 8: Project closeout file
- BU 436 Unit 1: Global project context analysis
- BU 442 Unit 1: Estimating methods paper
- BU 396 Unit 1: Risk management planning
- BU 433 Unit 1: Agile principles and fit analysis
BU 345 Unit 1 questions, answered
Can I use a project from my job?
Many sections encourage it, and a real piece of work makes the rest of the term easier. What cannot come with it is anything the employer owns: budget figures, vendor quotes, staffing costs and internal approval documents. Describe the work at the level you could describe it to a stranger, replace the numbers with composite ones, and note that substitution in a sentence.
How big should the term project be?
Small enough that a work breakdown will fit on a page later, large enough to need a schedule at all. A project with four tasks gives the middle units nothing to sequence, while a plant relocation buries a beginner in detail no single term can carry. Something a handful of people would deliver over a few months usually sits in the right range.
Does the life cycle choice actually matter?
It matters more than it looks. A predictive life cycle commits the plan to scope defined up front, which is what the later scope and schedule units will hold the writer to, while an adaptive one changes what a baseline even means. Name the approach in this first document and hold to it, because changing it quietly at the budget unit undoes the earlier work.
Where can I find a free BU 345 Unit 1 sample paper?
The full BU 345 Unit 1 selection record is published above for free, with its scoring table and margin notes. If you are choosing among different candidate projects, describe them in your request along with the prompt, and a free custom record will be written, usually within two days.
Does BU 345 Unit 1 need weighted criteria?
Not always, but weighting helps when criteria differ in importance. The sample weights strategic fit and financial return double and explains why. If you use equal weights, say so and justify it, since instructors look for a reason behind the scoring method.