| Course | BU 345 Project Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Status report to sponsor |
| Length | About 890 words, 5 pages |
| Format | Business memo with analysis, APA 7 references |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 345 Unit 7
Memorandum
To: Grant Holloway, Owner and Sponsor
From: Jess Moreno, Project Manager
Date: May 1, 2026
Re: Canning line status for April 1 to April 30: first run still forecast June 3; decisions needed on two changes by May 6
Overall Position
The first saleable run remains forecast for June 3, but site work is behind plan and costs are slightly ahead of the work done. Two change requests need your decision by May 6.
Schedule Against Baseline
The electrical permit was issued March 26, four working days after the baseline date of March 20. The electrical upgrade is about 75 percent complete, against a plan of 100 percent by April 30, because the utility asked for a transformer review before connecting the new load. Air and CO2 lines have not started, since they follow the electrical work. The site chain had 26 days of float and now has about 16; it is not on the critical path. Labels were approved April 17, five working days after the baseline date of April 10, still well within float. The vendor confirmed on April 28 that the line ships May 11 and arrives May 13, which keeps the critical path on schedule.
Cost Against Baseline
The planned value of work scheduled through April 30 is $158,000. The earned value, the budgeted cost of the work actually completed, is $147,175. The actual cost is $147,950. Against plan the schedule variance stands at minus $10,825, an SPI of 0.93, because the electrical and air work is unfinished. The cost variance is minus $775 and the cost performance index is 0.99: an approved $1,200 rinser upgrade and small overruns on the electrical work, the floor drain and project hours, about $1,725 together, are mostly offset by a $2,150 lower deposit on the demonstration depalletizer. No contingency has been used.
| Measure | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Planned value (PV) | $158,000 | Budgeted cost of work scheduled through April 30 |
| Earned value (EV) | $147,175 | Budgeted cost of work completed |
| Actual cost (AC) | $147,950 | Spent through April 30 |
| Schedule variance (EV minus PV) | minus $10,825; SPI 0.93 | Site work behind plan; critical path unaffected |
| Cost variance (EV minus AC) | minus $775; CPI 0.99 | Slightly over on work done |
Quality
The seam micrometer and teardown tools arrived April 14 and were checked against the calibration block; both read within tolerance. The city's rough electrical inspection on April 24 passed with no corrections. No quality problems were found in the period.
Change Log
CR-01, raised April 6 by the head brewer: upgrade to an air-knife rinser for faster changeovers; cost $1,200; no schedule effect. Approved April 8 by the project manager within delegated authority.
CR-02, raised April 20 by the utility through the electrical contractor: the utility will replace the pole transformer serving the building and bill the brewery $7,900; about six working days added to the electrical work, absorbed by float. Awaiting your decision, since it exceeds $5,000 and would use contingency.
CR-03, raised April 27 by the grocery distributor through the owner: package two of the four beers in 16-ounce cans rather than 12-ounce; the vendor quotes $6,800 for change parts that would ship five working days after the line, moving the first saleable run from June 3 to June 10. Awaiting your decision, since it changes scope, budget and the first-run date.
Risks
Risk R2, the transformer upgrade, has occurred and is now CR-02. Risk R1, late delivery, has fallen with the vendor's confirmed ship date. Opportunity O1 was taken: the demonstration depalletizer was accepted on March 18, saving $4,300 on package 3.2, half of it already visible in the April deposit.
Decisions Needed From You by May 6
1. Approve CR-02, the utility transformer charge of $7,900, from contingency line C1, which holds $8,000 for this risk. Recommended: approve. Without it the utility will not connect the new load.
2. Decide CR-03, 16-ounce cans for two beers. Option A: approve now for $6,800 and a first run on June 10, raising the budget baseline to $316,150. Option B: launch June 3 in 12-ounce cans and order the change parts after launch, at the same cost with a later switch. Recommended: Option A, because the distributor has said 16-ounce cans are required for its craft section and launching in the wrong size would mean relabeling or a second launch.
Why the Report Is Built This Way
The report above is written for a sponsor who owns a brewery, not a project office, and who will read it between other duties. It therefore opens with a single sentence on the overall position and closes with the decisions, since those are the two things the sponsor must not miss. Schedule and cost are stated as numbers against the baselines set in the schedule and budget units rather than as colors or adjectives such as on track. Fleming and Koppelman (2010) note that earned value measures give an early and objective signal of trouble because they compare work done with both the plan and the spending, and the April figures show why: spending alone would suggest the project is roughly on budget, while the schedule index reveals site work falling behind.
The change log records every request raised in the period, including one already approved, so that the sponsor sees the full picture of scope movement rather than only the items needing a signature. Guidance from the Project Management Institute (2017) describes integrated change control as reviewing all change requests and managing changes to deliverables and baselines, and the log applies that on a small scale. Finally, each decision is framed with options and a recommendation, because a sponsor asked only to approve or reject has less to work with than one shown the alternative. Every name and number in this report is invented for the course, and small projects of this size are a common setting for such reporting (Kerzner, 2017).
References
Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2010). Earned value project management (4th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.
Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
The Herzing BU 345 Unit 7 instructions
The Unit 7 assignment asks for a status report to the project sponsor for one reporting period. Most versions want the overall status, schedule and cost performance against the baselines, quality or scope notes, a change log, updated risks and any decisions needed from the sponsor. Many rubrics ask for earned value measures such as planned value, earned value, actual cost and the schedule and cost performance indexes. Instructors reward reports that are brief, factual and written for a busy executive. The report is often one page, sometimes with a short explanation of choices attached. Cite any earned value or change control sources in APA 7.
Inside the BU 345 Unit 7 example
The sample is formatted as a memo with a subject line that states the headline and the decision deadline. A one-sentence overall position opens it. The schedule section compares actual dates with baseline dates and explains why the critical path is unaffected. The cost section gives planned value, earned value and actual cost, with variances and indexes in a small table. Quality, change log and risk sections follow, each brief. Two decisions close the report, each with options and a recommendation. A final section explains why the report is built this way, from its opening sentence to the framing of each decision. The whole report fits on one screen.
Reading the BU 345 Unit 7 rubric
Herzing's grading for the status report commonly includes accuracy of performance measures, clarity of the status, handling of changes and the framing of decisions, along with conciseness. Performance measures earn full points when they are stated as figures against the baseline and interpreted correctly. Clarity is judged by an overall position a sponsor can read in a sentence. Change handling rewards a log with origin, effect on scope, schedule and cost, and status for every request. Decisions score highest when options and a recommendation are given. Instructors notice reports that bury bad news or use colors in place of numbers. Brevity and correct terminology complete the grade.
BU 345 Unit 7 help before you submit
The most common Unit 7 mistake is reporting status with adjectives, on track or slightly behind, instead of figures against the baseline. Another is misreading earned value, for example treating a cost index below 1 as good news. Students often write several pages when the sponsor needs one. Change requests are sometimes mentioned without their effect on cost or schedule. Many reports ask the sponsor to decide without offering options or a recommendation. Finally, report what went wrong plainly and early; a sponsor who learns of a problem in the report can act, while one who learns of it later loses trust in every report that follows. Keep a copy of each period's report so trends are visible across the project.
Get a BU 345 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 instructions and the rubric from your BU 345 classroom, plus the schedule and budget baselines the report has to measure against. We write a custom example that states position first, reports variance in figures, logs each change with its effect and closes on dated decisions. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 345 papers and project management samples
- BU 345 Unit 1: Project selection record
- 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 8: Project closeout file
- BU 433 Unit 7: Retrospective with a committed change
- BU 434 Unit 7: Future state and gap analysis
- BU 436 Unit 7: Currency and financial risk
- BU 442 Unit 7: Variance analysis with response
BU 345 Unit 7 questions, answered
How much detail belongs in a sponsor report?
Less than most drafts include. A sponsor needs the position, the variances, the changes that moved the plan and the decisions only they can take. Activity level detail belongs in a team meeting, and a report carrying it forces the reader to do the filtering the project manager was supposed to do. Length is part of the deliverable.
What if nothing went wrong in the period?
Report that in figures and use the space for what is coming. A period on plan is still one with float consumed, risks that aged and decisions approaching, and a report saying everything is fine gives the sponsor no reason to keep reading them. Say what would have to happen for the next report to look different.
Does the change log go in the report or separately?
Sections differ, so read the instructions. Where both are asked for, the report carries the changes raised in this period with their effect, and the full log lives as an appendix or its own document. Repeating every change ever raised crowds out the current position, which is the part a sponsor is reading for.
Where can I find a free BU 345 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page carries the whole BU 345 Unit 7 status report free, including the earned value table and change log. To get a report for your own project and period, send the prompt with your baselines, and a free custom report will be written, generally within two days.
What if nothing went wrong in a BU 345 Unit 7 period?
Say so briefly and still report the numbers. A sponsor needs to see performance against baseline every period, not only when there is trouble. The sample's quality section, which reports checks passed, shows how to record a good result in one or two lines.