| Course | BU 345 Project Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Charter and stakeholder register |
| Length | About 860 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 2
Authorized to Spend Up to $5,000 Without Asking: A Project Charter and Stakeholder Register for a Composite Brewery's In-House Canning Line
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 345: Project Management
Instructor Name
February 4, 2026
Authorized to Spend Up to $5,000 Without Asking: A Project Charter and Stakeholder Register for a Composite Brewery's In-House Canning Line
Project Charter
Project name: Iron Trestle Brewing in-house canning line. Sponsor: Grant Holloway, owner. Project manager: Jess Moreno, operations manager. Date of authorization: February 4, 2026. Iron Trestle Brewing is the composite Dayton, Ohio craft brewery that selected this project in Unit 1.
Authority of the Project Manager
The project manager is authorized to issue purchase orders and approve changes within the approved budget up to $5,000 per item without further approval; any single change above $5,000, any use of contingency and any change to the first production date require the sponsor's written approval. The project manager may assign brewery staff to project work for up to 20 hours a week in total, coordinated with the head brewer so that brewing is not interrupted. The project manager is the single point of contact for the equipment vendor, the electrical contractor and the city's building department, and signs acceptance of the installed line on the brewery's behalf.
In the language of the Project Management Institute (2021), a charter is what formally starts a project and hands its manager the right to commit the organization's people and money. A charter that names a manager but not the limits of that manager's authority leaves every purchase and every change to be negotiated as it arises, which is exactly what slows small projects.
Business Case
The brewery holds a standing offer from a grocery distributor: shelf space for four beers across 60 stores, conditional on weekly can deliveries. The mobile canning service the brewery uses today can come only twice a month and charges a per-can service fee. An in-house line removes that bottleneck, lets the brewery accept the grocery offer and ends the canning fee on existing packaged volume. The owner's projections estimate that the grocery business and the saved fees together would repay the investment in about three and a half years. If the project is not done, the grocery offer lapses and packaged sales stay capped by the mobile canner's calendar.
The business case is kept to one paragraph because the sponsor already knows the brewery's finances; its job is to record why the project was authorized so that later decisions can be tested against it.
Objectives
The project will meet four objectives, each written so that anyone can tell later whether it happened. First, a canning line rated at 40 cans per minute will be installed and will pass the vendor's site acceptance test. Second, the first saleable run of canned beer will be completed by June 3, 2026. Third, total project cost, including contingency, will not exceed $309,350. Fourth, in the three trial runs before the first saleable run, every double-seam check will fall within the can manufacturer's specifications, and dissolved oxygen in filled cans will be at or below the brewery's quality target.
High-Level Scope, Assumptions, Constraints and Milestones
In scope: purchase and installation of the canning line and its conveyors, electrical and utility work in the packaging area, label design and federal label approval, operator training and trial runs through the first saleable batch. Out of scope: new beer recipes, taproom changes, negotiation of the grocery distribution contract and purchase of cans beyond the first order.
Assumptions: the vendor's quoted 10-week manufacturing lead time holds; the existing electrical service can be upgraded within the building; the brewery's current beers need no recipe changes for cans. Constraints: the budget of $309,350; brewing must continue during the project; the warehouse lease prohibits changes to the building's exterior. Milestones: purchase order signed, March 4; electrical permit issued, March 20; label approvals received, April 10; line delivered, May 13; acceptance test passed, May 22; first saleable run, June 3.
Stakeholder Register
The register lists every party the project touches, with the interest each holds, its influence over the project and the person responsible for communicating with it. Influence is rated high, medium or low. Freeman (1984) counted as a stakeholder anyone able to influence an organization's goals or touched by the pursuit of them, and the register applies that definition to the project rather than to the brewery as a whole, which is why it includes parties such as the mobile canner that the project will affect without their consent.
| Stakeholder | Interest in the project | Influence | Communication owner and method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grant Holloway, owner and sponsor | Return on investment; meeting the grocery offer | High | Project manager; weekly status note, approvals in writing |
| Head brewer and cellar staff | Brewing schedule protected; beer quality in cans | High | Project manager; Monday production meeting |
| Two staff selected as line operators | Training, new duties, possible pay change | Medium | Project manager; one-on-one before training |
| Canning line vendor | On-time payment; smooth installation | High | Project manager; weekly call during manufacturing |
| Electrical contractor | Clear scope; site access | Medium | Project manager; site meetings |
| City building department | Permit compliance and inspection | High | Electrical contractor, with project manager copied |
| Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau | Label compliance | High | Owner; online label application |
| Can and lid supplier | Contract volume and delivery schedule | Medium | Project manager; purchasing email |
| Grocery distributor | Launch date and supply reliability | High | Owner; monthly call |
| Mobile canning company | Loss of a regular customer | Low | Owner; courtesy call before the last booked date |
| Building landlord | Lease compliance; floor and drain work | Medium | Owner; written notice before slab work |
Using the Register
Two entries deserve attention beyond the table. The federal label approval sits with the owner rather than the project manager, because the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau's online application is tied to the brewery's permit, and a delay there would hold the first saleable run regardless of the equipment. The mobile canning company has low influence but has served the brewery for three years; a courtesy call keeps the relationship intact in case the new line needs backup during its first months. Mitchell et al. (1997) argued that managers attend to stakeholders according to their power, legitimacy and urgency, and the register's influence ratings follow that logic: the building department and federal regulator rate high because they can stop the work. No real brewery, person or quote is described here.
References
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
What the BU 345 Unit 2 instructions ask for
For Unit 2, students write a project charter and build a stakeholder register for the project chosen in Unit 1. Most versions want the charter to name the project, sponsor and manager, state the manager's authority, give a business case, list measurable objectives and outline scope, assumptions, constraints and milestones. The register should list each stakeholder with their interest, influence or power, and the person responsible for communicating with them. Many rubrics reward a charter that reads like a real authorization document. Instructors often check whether objectives are measurable and whether the register includes outside parties such as regulators and suppliers. A few pages with a table, in APA 7, is typical.
How the BU 345 Unit 2 example is put together
The sample opens with the charter header: project name, sponsor, manager and date. A separate authority section sets money limits, staff time and signing rights, then explains why vague authority slows small projects. The business case fits in one paragraph written for the owner. Four objectives are written so completion can be checked later, including a date, a cost ceiling and seam quality. Scope, exclusions, assumptions, constraints and six milestones follow. The stakeholder register is an eleven-row table with interest, influence and communication owner. A closing section explains two entries in more depth, the federal label approval and the mobile canner, and links the influence ratings to research on stakeholder salience.
BU 345 Unit 2 rubric: what full points look like
The rubric for this unit usually assesses the completeness of the charter, the clarity of authority and objectives, the quality of the stakeholder register and professional presentation. Completeness earns full points when every standard charter element appears. Authority is judged by specific limits rather than a general statement that the manager leads the project. Objectives score best when each can be verified later, with a number or a date. The register is judged by coverage of internal and external parties, sensible influence ratings and a named owner for each relationship. Instructors frequently reward stakeholders students forget, such as regulators, landlords or a displaced supplier. A clean table and correct APA citations complete the grade.
BU 345 Unit 2 help before you submit
The most frequent Unit 2 weakness is an authority section that says the project manager is responsible for the project without saying what that person may approve. Another is objectives like improve efficiency that cannot be checked later. Students often write a long business case that reads like a sales pitch instead of a short record of why the work was approved. Stakeholder registers commonly list only internal staff and miss regulators, suppliers or neighbors. Some registers rate everyone as high influence, which gives the manager no guidance. Finally, name a communication owner for each stakeholder; a register without owners is a list of names, not a plan for managing relationships.
Get a BU 345 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric from your BU 345 classroom, plus the project you carried forward from Unit 1. We write a custom example that states authority plainly, puts the case in sponsor language, keeps assumptions and constraints apart and registers the awkward parties. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 345 papers and project management samples
- BU 345 Unit 1: Project selection record
- 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 434 Unit 2: Elicitation plan
- BU 436 Unit 2: Communication and handoff plan
- BU 442 Unit 2: Cost estimate with basis
- BU 396 Unit 2: Risk identification workshop output
BU 345 Unit 2 questions, answered
Who should the sponsor be if the project is invented?
Give the role rather than a person: the operations director who owns the budget line, the partner who signs off capital under a stated amount. A named individual adds nothing a marker can grade and creates a problem if the name belongs to somebody real. State the role, the authority it carries and the point where that authority stops.
How many stakeholders belong in the register?
Follow any count the instructions give, and otherwise let the project decide. A dozen rows on work four people deliver looks padded, while three rows on a project crossing two departments has missed most of it. The test is whether a party can affect the project, or be affected by it, in a way somebody would have to manage.
Does the charter need a budget number?
Most sections want an order of magnitude rather than an estimate, since the estimating work belongs to the cost unit. Give a range, say what it rests on, and mark it as preliminary. What matters here is that the sponsor's approval covers a figure, so the baseline built later has something to be measured against.
Where can I find a free BU 345 Unit 2 sample paper?
The complete BU 345 Unit 2 charter and register can be read above at no cost. When your project differs, send the prompt and a sentence or two about the work, and a writer will build the charter and register around it free, commonly inside 48 hours.
Does the BU 345 Unit 2 charter need a budget number?
Most rubrics expect at least a ceiling. The sample sets a total of $309,350 including contingency as an objective and a constraint. A detailed budget comes later, but the charter should tell the manager how much the sponsor has authorized.