| Course | BU 345 Project Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Project closeout file |
| Length | About 850 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 8
First Cans on June 10, $5,000 Under the Original Baseline: The Project Closeout File for a Composite Brewery's Canning Line, With Five Lessons and Four Open Items
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 345: Project Management
Instructor Name
June 24, 2026
First Cans on June 10, $5,000 Under the Original Baseline: The Project Closeout File for a Composite Brewery's Canning Line, With Five Lessons and Four Open Items
Purpose
This file closes Iron Trestle Brewing's canning line project, the invented case this course has followed since the selection record. It checks each deliverable against the acceptance condition written in the scope statement, reconciles the final date and cost to both the original and the revised baselines, records five lessons with the evidence behind them and assigns the items still open to named owners with dates. Guidance from the Project Management Institute (2017) describes closing as confirming that deliverables have been accepted, releasing resources and recording lessons for future work, and this file is organized in that order.
Acceptance of Deliverables
Each deliverable is compared with the condition set in Unit 3. One is accepted conditionally, and the condition is stated.
| Deliverable | Acceptance condition | Result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project management records | Baselines signed; final report accepted | Baselines signed March 18; this file | Accepted |
| Packaging area | Electrical inspection passed; air, CO2, drain tested | Final inspection June 1; pressure tests passed | Accepted |
| Installed line | 40 cans per minute for 30 minutes | 40 per minute on 12-ounce cans May 22; 36 per minute on 16-ounce cans June 4 | Accepted, conditional on 16-ounce speed |
| Labels and supply | Approvals for four beers; supply contract | 12-ounce approvals April 17, 16-ounce May 27; contract signed April 9 | Accepted |
| Commissioning | Three trial runs with all seams in specification | Four trials; one 16-ounce trial failed a seam check and passed after adjustment | Accepted |
| Training and procedures | Two operators each run a shift unassisted | Both operators plus the head brewer as backup | Accepted |
| First saleable run | At least 200 cases released | 214 cases released June 10 | Accepted |
Reconciliation to the Baselines
Two baselines apply. The original baseline, set in March, called for a first saleable run on June 3 at a cost of $309,350 including $21,600 of contingency. The revised baseline, set on May 5 when the sponsor approved change request CR-03 for 16-ounce cans, moved the first run to June 10 and raised the cost baseline by $6,800 to $316,150.
The first saleable run took place on June 10, on the revised date and five working days after the original date, all of the difference caused by the approved scope change. The final cost was $304,350, which is $11,800 under the revised baseline and $5,000 under the original baseline despite the added scope. Three variances explain most of the result, measured in the earned value terms used in the status reports (Fleming & Koppelman, 2010). The utility transformer upgrade, CR-02, cost $7,900 and was drawn from contingency line C1, which had been sized at $8,000 for exactly that risk. The demonstration depalletizer, taken as opportunity O1, saved $4,300 on package 3.2. Contingency lines C3, C4 and C5, together $9,100, were never needed, and line C2 had $2,200 of its $4,500 left after an extra vendor day and scrapped cans during the 16-ounce trials used $2,300. Minor excess spending, spread across wiring, drain work and management time, added $2,700, and the approved rinser upgrade added $1,200.
| Item | Original baseline | Revised baseline | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|
| First saleable run | June 3 | June 10 | June 10 |
| Cost of work | $287,750 | $294,550 | $294,150 including approved changes and overruns |
| Contingency | $21,600 | $21,600 | $10,200 used |
| Total cost | $309,350 | $316,150 | $304,350 |
Lessons, With the Evidence That Produced Them
Each lesson states what happened, what it caused and what the brewery would do differently. Kerzner (2017) observes that lessons recorded without evidence tend to become general advice that no one acts on, so each entry points to a document in this project's records.
Lesson 1. The electrical permit took 19 working days against a planned 15, because the city's review queue was longer in March. The delay used float but did not affect the finish. Next time, the permit application should be filed on the same day the purchase order is signed. Evidence: permit application and issue dates.
Lesson 2. The utility's transformer review was not part of the electrical contractor's quote, and the $7,900 charge arrived in April. The contingency covered it only because the risk had been identified in advance. Next time, the utility should be asked for a load review before the contractor's price is accepted. Evidence: CR-02 and the utility's letter of April 20.
Lesson 3. The distributor's need for 16-ounce cans surfaced in late April, after the line was ordered, adding $6,800 and five working days. The package format had been assumed rather than confirmed. Next time, packaging requirements should be confirmed in writing with the main customer before the charter is signed. Evidence: CR-03 and the distributor's email of April 27.
Lesson 4. The 16-ounce trials needed an extra vendor day to adjust the seamer. Next time, the technician's visit should be booked to cover every can size planned for the first year. Evidence: trial seam records and the vendor invoice.
Lesson 5. Weekly calls with the vendor during manufacturing gave the brewery a confirmed ship date two weeks before delivery, which allowed trials and training to be planned precisely. This practice should be kept. Evidence: call notes and the status report of May 1.
Open Items and Their Owners
Four items remain open at closeout, each handed to a named owner with a date. First, the vendor will adjust the seamer to reach 40 cans per minute on 16-ounce cans; owner, Jess Moreno, project manager, with the vendor; due July 15. Second, the utility efficiency rebate for the air compressor, opportunity O2, has been filed and a decision is expected in August; owner, Grant Holloway, owner. Third, the operating procedures will be revised after the first month of production; owner, the head brewer; due July 10. Fourth, project records, including the baselines, change log and inspection cards, will be archived in the brewery's shared drive; owner, Jess Moreno; due June 30.
With these items assigned, the project team is released to normal operations, the two operators move to the packaging schedule and the line becomes part of the brewery's daily work. Iron Trestle Brewing, its people, vendors and every figure in this file are composites created for this course.
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.
What the BU 345 Unit 8 instructions ask for
The final BU 345 assignment asks for a project closeout file. Most versions want acceptance of each deliverable checked against the criteria set in the scope statement, a reconciliation of final schedule and cost with the baselines, lessons learned and a handover of open items. Many rubrics ask you to explain variances rather than simply report them, and to write lessons as specific events with causes and recommended changes. If the project was revised during the term, both original and revised baselines should appear. Instructors grade the file as the end of a real project. Expect the longest document of the course, with tables and APA 7 citations.
How this BU 345 Unit 8 example is built
The sample states its purpose and follows the order of the closing process. An acceptance table compares each of seven deliverables with its original condition and marks one as conditionally accepted. The reconciliation section explains the two baselines, reports the actual date and cost and attributes the difference to specific variances, with a table comparing all three figures. Five lessons follow, each describing what happened, what it caused, what to do next time and the document that proves it. The final section assigns four open items to named owners with dates and releases the team to operations. Every figure matches the status reports and budget sheet filed earlier.
BU 345 Unit 8 rubric: what full points look like
The rubric for the closeout file typically weighs acceptance of deliverables, the reconciliation, the lessons learned and the handover of open items. Acceptance earns full points when every deliverable is checked against its written condition, with any conditional acceptance explained. The reconciliation is judged by clear comparison with baselines and an explanation of each major variance. Lessons score highest when they are specific, supported by evidence and paired with a practical change, as the sample's are. The handover criterion rewards open items with owners and dates. Instructors also credit honest reporting of both original and revised baselines, since it shows how approved changes moved the target. A file that separates variances caused by scope changes from those caused by estimating errors shows mature judgment. Organization, tables and correct citations complete the grade.
Common BU 345 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A closeout file that merely summarizes the course instead of closing the project is the usual Unit 8 weakness. Another is reporting final cost and date without explaining why they differ from the baseline. Students often write lessons as general advice, communicate better, instead of specific events with evidence. Open items are frequently left unassigned. Some files report only the revised baseline, hiding the effect of approved changes. Finally, check that every acceptance condition matches the one written in the scope statement; changing the conditions at closeout to fit the result is exactly what instructors look for. Keep lessons short and specific so the next project manager can act on them quickly.
Get a BU 345 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 8 instructions and the rubric from your BU 345 classroom, together with the scope statement, schedule and budget the file has to close against. We write a custom example that checks acceptance conditions, reconciles to baselines, evidences every lesson and hands open items to owners. 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 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 434 Unit 8: Traceability and validation plan
- BU 436 Unit 8: Integrated global project plan
- BU 442 Unit 8: Forecast and status report
- BU 396 Unit 8: Risk report to sponsor
BU 345 Unit 8 questions, answered
Does the file have to include the earlier documents?
Read the instructions, since many sections ask for the plan and the closeout together as one submission. Where earlier work is included, repair whatever the marker flagged on it originally instead of binding it in untouched, and check that the numbers agree across the documents. Contradictions between a bound schedule and the closeout reconciliation are noticed immediately.
What if the invented project failed?
A project that overran usually makes the better file, provided the overrun is reconciled and explained. Failure gives the lessons section something to work with, and markers in many sections prefer an honest variance analysis to a composite project finishing on time and on budget for no stated reason. Say what the early warning signs were.
How personal should the lessons be?
Tie them to events rather than to feelings. A lesson saying estimates built from one comparable job came out consistently short, with the packages proving it, is worth several paragraphs of reflection on growth. If the instructions ask for a personal reflection as well, keep it separate from the project lessons so both can be graded.
Where can I find a free BU 345 Unit 8 sample paper?
The finished BU 345 Unit 8 closeout file, acceptance table through open items, is free to read above. If you need a closeout file for your own project, share your earlier documents and the final prompt, and a free custom file will be assembled for you, usually within two days.
What if my BU 345 Unit 8 project failed?
Close it honestly. Acceptance, reconciliation and lessons work the same way for a failed project, and a clear account of what went wrong often scores well. The sample reports one conditional acceptance and explains every variance rather than presenting a perfect result.