| Course | BU 423 Entrepreneurial Strategy |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Opportunity screen |
| Length | About 920 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 423 Unit 1
A Burst Hose, an Idle Excavator and Two Ideas Left Behind: An Opportunity Screen of Three Composite Central Iowa Ventures, Scored on Criteria Set Before the Scoring
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 423: Entrepreneurial Strategy
Instructor Name
January 14, 2026
A Burst Hose, an Idle Excavator and Two Ideas Left Behind: An Opportunity Screen of Three Composite Central Iowa Ventures, Scored on Criteria Set Before the Scoring
Three Ideas, Stated the Same Way
This screen compares three venture ideas that a founder in Ames, Iowa could start within a year, and it chooses one to carry through the rest of the course. The founder is a composite: six years as a parts and service technician at a farm equipment dealer, about $25,000 in savings and no employees. Each idea is written in one sentence of the same form, naming the buyer, the problem and the offer, so none of them arrives with more enthusiasm attached than the others.
Idea A, a mobile hose van: excavation contractors and large grain farms within an hour of Ames lose machine time when a hydraulic hose bursts, and a stocked van would build and fit the replacement at the machine. Idea B, a tool-lending membership: homeowners in the western Des Moines suburbs buy tools they use once, and a $25 monthly membership would let them borrow from about 300 tools instead. Idea C, a driveway plowing app: Ames homeowners struggle to find someone to clear a driveway after a storm, and an app would match them with local plow operators for a booking fee.
The Criteria, Fixed First
Seven criteria were written down, with what each one tests, before any idea was rated. They follow Shane and Venkataraman's (2000) point that an opportunity exists only where buyers value something enough to pay more than it costs to supply, together with the practical feasibility tests set out by Barringer and Ireland (2019). Each idea is rated from 1, weak, to 5, strong, and every rating carries a clause of evidence so it can be checked where it is made.
| Criterion | What it tests |
|---|---|
| Pain | What the problem costs the buyer each time it happens |
| Reach | Whether the founder can name and contact 20 likely buyers this month |
| Payment | Whether buyers already pay for a worse solution |
| Founder fit | Whether the founder's skills and contacts match the work |
| Capital to first sale | How much must be spent before the first customer pays |
| Seasonality | How even revenue would be across the year |
| Alternatives | How well buyers' current options already solve the problem |
The Grid
The grid below carries the three ideas across the top and the criteria down the side. Totals are out of 35, but the total is not the decision; the paragraphs that follow read the pattern of scores, since one fatal weakness can matter more than several strong cells.
| Criterion | A: Mobile hose van | B: Tool lending | C: Plowing app |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pain | 5: a burst hose stops a machine and its operator for hours | 2: a homeowner can buy or borrow the tool | 3: a blocked driveway delays work for a morning |
| Reach | 4: founder knows about 40 contractors from the dealer counter | 3: reachable through neighborhood groups | 2: plow operators are hard to find and sign |
| Payment | 4: contractors already pay dealer service trucks by the hour | 2: no sign homeowners pay to borrow | 3: people pay plow services now |
| Founder fit | 5: six years building hoses at the dealer | 2: no retail or inventory experience | 2: no software background |
| Capital to first sale | 3: about $77,000 for a stocked van | 2: tools and a storefront before any member joins | 4: a simple app built with low-code tools |
| Seasonality | 2: contractor work slows sharply in winter | 3: steady with a spring peak | 1: revenue only on snow days |
| Alternatives | 3: dealer trucks and a hose counter, rarely same-day | 1: rental counters at big-box stores | 2: existing apps and word of mouth |
| Total | 26 | 15 | 17 |
Why Two Ideas Fall
The tool library fails on payment, and that weakness is fatal rather than fixable. Its buyers already have a cheap alternative in rental counters and a free one in neighbors, and nothing in the founder's conversations suggested homeowners would pay a monthly fee to avoid buying a drill. A better location or a larger inventory would not change that; the problem is that the pain is small. Its low founder fit adds to the case, since running a lending inventory is a retail business the founder has never done.
The plowing app fails on seasonality and on reach, and the combination is also fatal. The app earns only on snow days, perhaps 15 to 25 a winter in central Iowa, and on those days every plow operator is already busy with commercial contracts, so the supply side of the market disappears at the moment demand arrives. The founder could build the app cheaply, but no amount of software solves a shortage of drivers during a storm. The idea is dropped, not parked.
Why the Hose Van Survives
Idea A scores highest on the three criteria that matter most for a first venture: the pain is large, buyers already pay for a worse solution and the founder knows the work. When a hydraulic hose bursts on an excavator, the machine stops, its operator stands idle and often a truck crew waits behind it. Today the usual fix is for someone to remove the failed hose, drive it to a dealer's parts counter, wait while a new one is built and drive back, a trip the founder watched contractors make from the other side of the counter for six years.
Its weaknesses are real but fixable. Seasonality is the largest: contractors slow down from December to February. The founder could fill winter with preventive hose inspections, when fleets are parked and owners have time to replace aging hoses before spring. Capital is the second: about $77,000 for a used van, a crimping machine and opening inventory, far more than the founder's savings, which makes funding a question for a later unit. Alternatives exist, since both local dealers run service trucks, but those trucks are booked for engine and transmission work and rarely come out the same day for a hose. Gruber et al. (2008) found that technology ventures which identified several market opportunities before entering one tended to outperform those that pursued the first they found, and a screen of three is a small version of that practice.
The Customer the Next Unit Must Test
The surviving idea is stated as a customer and a current behavior, not as a product. The customer is the owner or shop foreman of an excavation or site-work contractor, or the operator of a large grain farm, within about an hour of Ames, whose machine stops when a hose fails. What they do now is remove the hose, drive it to a parts counter, wait and drive back, losing from half a day to a full day of machine time. Whether that description is true, and for which of the two groups, is not yet known; the screen used the founder's memory of the parts counter, which is evidence but not proof. Unit 2 will test it in conversations with both groups.
The founder, the three ideas, every rating and all figures in this screen are composites built for this course.
References
Barringer, B. R., & Ireland, R. D. (2019). Entrepreneurship: Successfully launching new ventures (6th ed.). Pearson.
Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2008). Look before you leap: Market opportunity identification in emerging technology firms. Management Science, 54(9), 1652-1665. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0877
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
What the BU 423 Unit 1 instructions ask for
Unit 1 of BU 423 usually asks for two to four venture ideas, a consistent set of criteria, a rating of every idea against every criterion and a reasoned choice of one idea to develop through the course. Criteria commonly cover the size of the customer's problem, whether buyers can be reached and will pay, the founder's own fit, the money needed to start and the strength of existing alternatives. Many prompts want a grid or table plus a paragraph per idea. Some allow a real idea the student hopes to start, others require a composite. The chosen idea should be stated in terms of a customer and a problem, since the following units test exactly that. A length near three pages is typical, with APA 7 citations to the textbook and at least one outside source.
How the BU 423 Unit 1 example is put together
The sample states all three ideas in one sentence of identical form, buyer, problem and offer, so none arrives with extra enthusiasm. A two-column table lists the seven criteria with what each tests. The grid follows, ideas across the top, criteria down the side, and every cell carries a rating from 1 to 5 plus a clause of evidence. A short paragraph warns that totals do not decide by themselves. The tool library and the plowing app are then worked through, the first failing on payment and the second on seasonality combined with vanishing drivers on snow days. The hose van comes last, with its fixable weaknesses named, and the paper closes on who has the problem, what they do about it today and what Unit 2 must confirm.
Where the points sit in the BU 423 Unit 1 rubric
Herzing's grading for the screen typically rewards clearly defined criteria, consistent ratings supported by evidence, a comparison that actually weighs the ideas, a justified choice and clean APA formatting. The criteria earn full points when each one says what it tests and when they appear before any scoring. Ratings are judged on whether a reader can see the reason behind each number. The comparison criterion pays for treating the rejected ideas seriously, since a screen that only discusses the winner has compared nothing. The justification scores best when it separates weaknesses that can be solved from those that end an idea. Instructors also credit a closing statement framed around the customer rather than the product, because it shows the student understands what the rest of the course will test.
BU 423 Unit 1 help: mistakes that cost points
The screen loses points most often when the criteria are written after the ideas, so they happen to favor the student's preferred idea. A second common problem is two weak ideas set up to lose against one favorite, which makes the comparison hollow. Ratings without evidence leave the grid unverifiable, and totals treated as the decision ignore a single fatal weakness hiding in a strong score. Students also describe the chosen idea as a product, listing features, instead of naming the customer and what that customer does today. Market figures stated as facts about the world, rather than labeled assumptions, draw questions. Finally, an idea drawn from an employer's confidential plans does not belong in a class paper, however familiar the student is with it.
Get a BU 423 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 1 instructions and the rubric posted in your BU 423 classroom, with any idea list the assignment supplies. We build a custom example that fixes the criteria first, scores every idea on evidence, works the rejections and names the customer behind the survivor. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 423 papers and business management samples
- BU 423 Unit 2: Customer problem validation record
- BU 423 Unit 3: Business model canvas write-up
- BU 423 Unit 4: Beachhead market definition
- BU 423 Unit 5: Customer acquisition path plan
- BU 423 Unit 6: Startup cost and runway sheet
- BU 423 Unit 7: Funding option comparison
- BU 423 Unit 8: Venture feasibility file
- BU 421 Unit 1: Competitive priorities brief
- BU 106 Unit 1: Business environment discussion
- BU 217 Unit 1: Ethical frameworks overview
- BU 231 Unit 1: Global environment overview
BU 423 Unit 1 questions, answered
How many ideas does the screen need?
Enough that the criteria can separate them, which in most sections means three or four. Two ideas usually produce a winner before the grid is drawn, and a dozen turns the document into a list. Meet whatever number the instructions set. If they do not, include one idea you expect to fail on a criterion you care about, because that row is where the screen earns its marks.
Can I screen an idea I actually want to start?
Yes, and it usually produces better work, so long as the screen stays capable of rejecting it. Write the criteria before you write the ideas, and let the one you like take a low rating where it deserves one. A screen clearing its author's favorite on every criterion reads as advocacy, and graders in many sections mark the reasoning rather than the outcome.
Where do the numbers in the grid come from?
From the case you build, and one line should say so. A rating taken from published industry material needs the citation attached. A rating you settled on yourself needs a clause of reasoning instead. What no assignment accepts is a demand figure written as though somebody had measured it. Keep the ventures composite, keep the scale plausible, and label every assumption where it appears.
Where can I find a free BU 423 Unit 1 sample paper?
The full BU 423 Unit 1 opportunity screen is on this page at no cost, including its criteria table, the scored grid and margin notes. If your ideas or criteria differ, pass along the assignment and a free custom screen can be written around your ventures, usually inside two days.
How many criteria should a BU 423 Unit 1 grid use?
Five to eight is common. The sample uses seven, each with a one-line test, which is enough to separate three ideas without turning the grid into a checklist. Fewer than five tends to miss either the founder's fit or the capital needed to start.