| Course | BU 423 Entrepreneurial Strategy |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Venture feasibility file |
| Length | About 1,070 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 8
Start It Only With Ten Plans Signed: A Venture Feasibility File for a Composite Mobile Hydraulic Hose Service, From the Opportunity Screen to the Loan
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 423: Entrepreneurial Strategy
Instructor Name
April 22, 2026
Start It Only With Ten Plans Signed: A Venture Feasibility File for a Composite Mobile Hydraulic Hose Service, From the Opportunity Screen to the Loan
Verdict
Fieldside Hydraulics, a van-based service that makes new hydraulic hoses on site for contractors near Ames, Iowa, is feasible on one condition: the founder should not buy the van or sign the loans until ten contractors have signed priority plan commitments that take effect at launch. With that condition met, a reasonable person with the founder's skills and savings could start this business. Without it, the venture rests on a call volume nobody has yet observed, financed by debt that assumes it. The sections below condense the work of the course into the evidence behind that verdict. The venture, the founder and every figure are composites built for the course.
The Opportunity
Three ideas were screened on seven criteria fixed before scoring. The hose van scored 26 of 35, against 15 for a tool-lending membership and 17 for a driveway plowing app, and both rivals were dropped for weaknesses judged fatal rather than fixable: buyers who would not pay for tool lending, and a plowing app whose operators vanish on the snow days it depends on. The van's own weaknesses, winter seasonality and $77,000 of opening cost, were judged fixable. Its strength is a costly problem that buyers already pay dealers to solve, handled by a founder who built hoses at a parts counter for six years.
The Customer Evidence
Fifteen conversations tested the claim that hose failures cost buyers at least half a day of machine time. Seven of nine contractors met the claim in full and four had paid a dealer truck to come out; only two of six farmers met it, since most keep spare hoses or repair their own equipment. The claim was supported for contractors and not yet for farms. The evidence is limited by its source, mostly the founder's former customers, and it showed that the problem exists, not how often a contractor would call a new supplier.
The Model and the Market
An average call earns $420 and contributes about $243 after parts, fuel and fees. A $600 yearly priority plan adds steadier revenue and winter work. The business model canvas named call volume as its riskiest block. The beachhead is 140 contractors running between three and eleven machines, all inside an hour's drive of Ames, estimated at about 1,470 serviceable hose calls a year worth about $617,000, plus plan revenue. The main rival is not another firm but the habit of driving a failed hose to a parts counter. The acquisition path, from tags on every machine to a signed plan, costs about $16,770 in the first year and is expected to yield 49 paying customers and 12 plans, with a plan customer worth about 5.8 times what it costs to acquire.
The Money
Opening costs are $77,000 and fixed monthly costs about $4,580, including a modest founder's draw. The runway sheet showed that $100,000 is needed to survive a slow first year. The recommended funding is a $50,000 SBA microloan and a $38,000 equipment loan, with $12,000 of the founder's savings, leaving $13,000 in reserve. The loans add about $1,515 a month, which lifts break-even from about 19 calls a month to about 25. Under the slow sales case the business would need the founder's reserve by January of its first year; under the faster case it ends the year with about $9,800 in the bank.
Assumptions Register
Every input the verdict rests on is listed once below and marked as given (taken from a source or quotation), derived (calculated from other entries) or chosen (a judgment the founder made and could change). Barringer and Ireland (2019) treat this kind of separation as the heart of feasibility analysis, since a reader should be able to see which numbers are facts and which are hopes.
| Input | Value | Type | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average revenue per call | $420 | Chosen | Pricing in the business model canvas |
| Variable cost per call | $177 | Given | Composite wholesale, fuel and fee estimates |
| Contribution per call | $243 | Derived | $420 minus $177 |
| Fixed costs per month | $4,580 | Chosen | Runway sheet |
| Loan payments per month | $1,515 | Derived | Funding comparison terms |
| Break-even calls per month | About 25 | Derived | ($4,580 + $1,515) divided by $243 |
| Contractors in the segment | 140 | Chosen | Assumed directory count |
| Field failures per machine per year | 2.5 | Chosen | Interview recall, untested |
| First-call rate after a visit | 35% | Chosen | Acquisition plan, untested |
| Plan renewal rate | 85% | Chosen | Acquisition plan, untested |
| Microloan ceiling and term | $50,000, 7 years | Given | SBA program limits |
| Opening costs | $77,000 | Given | Runway sheet estimates |
The register shows where the file is weakest. The inputs that decide survival, the failure rate, the first-call rate and the renewal rate, are all chosen, and none has been observed. The given entries are mostly costs, which are easier to estimate than behavior.
Three Things Most Likely to Be Wrong
First, calls may run below 25 a month in season. This is the slow case, and its cost is known: the founder's $13,000 reserve would be spent by the first spring, and the cash shortfall would reach about $11,800 by March. Should each machine fail only one and a half times a year instead of two and a half, this risk becomes the expected outcome rather than a bad year.
Second, the founder is the only technician. Two weeks of illness in October would lose about 16 calls, or roughly $3,900 of contribution, and would break the two-hour promise to every plan customer at once. A standing arrangement with a hose counter in Des Moines to build emergency hoses for pickup would reduce that cost, at the price of sharing some margin.
Third, a dealer may start its own hose truck once Fieldside proves the demand. If a rival took a third of the 1,470 serviceable calls, the roughly 300 calls a year needed to break even would become about 31 percent of what remained, rather than 20 percent. The venture's defense is the plans: a contractor with a signed plan and a tag on every machine is harder to take than one who called once.
The Condition
The condition in the verdict is designed to test the weakest inputs before money is committed. Ten signed plan commitments would show that contractors will choose a new supplier in advance, not just in an emergency, and together they would bring about $6,000 in fees and, on the acquisition plan's assumptions, about 80 calls a year before a single tag is hung. Kerr et al. (2014) argue that the value of an early experiment lies in what it lets a founder stop doing cheaply, and this one costs a few weeks of visits rather than a van and two loans. Spinelli and Adams (2016) describe the best early ventures as those that shift risk off the founder as evidence accumulates, and the condition does exactly that. If ten plans cannot be signed within about eight weeks of visits, the honest conclusion is that the problem is real but not yet a business, and the founder should keep the savings.
References
Barringer, B. R., & Ireland, R. D. (2019). Entrepreneurship: Successfully launching new ventures (6th ed.). Pearson.
Kerr, W. R., Nanda, R., & Rhodes-Kropf, M. (2014). Entrepreneurship as experimentation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.25
Spinelli, S., & Adams, R. (2016). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
The Herzing BU 423 Unit 8 instructions
The final unit of BU 423 asks students to combine their earlier work into one feasibility analysis and decide whether the venture should go ahead. Common requirements include an executive summary or verdict, condensed sections on the opportunity, the customer, the business model, the market and the finances, a list of key assumptions, a risk assessment and a final recommendation. Many instructors expect earlier feedback to be addressed rather than pasted in unchanged. A negative or conditional conclusion is acceptable when the evidence supports it. Length is often five to eight pages with tables in APA 7. What matters most is that each section feeds the verdict, so a reader can see how the decision follows from the evidence gathered during the term.
Inside the BU 423 Unit 8 example
The file puts its verdict first, including the condition of ten signed plans. Four condensed sections follow for opportunity, customer evidence, model and market, and money, each carrying only its conclusion and the numbers behind it. An assumptions register lists twelve inputs with value, type and origin, and a short paragraph notes that the chosen inputs are the ones that decide survival. The risk section prices three threats: low call volume, the founder as the only technician, and a dealer copying the service. The last section explains why the condition is a cheap test of the weakest assumptions, what signing ten plans would bring in, and what the founder should do if the plans cannot be signed within about eight weeks.
Where the points sit in the BU 423 Unit 8 rubric
The feasibility file is usually graded on the clarity of the verdict, the integration of earlier work, the treatment of assumptions, the risk analysis and the overall writing and APA quality. The verdict criterion rewards a direct answer given early, with any conditions stated. Integration earns full points when sections are condensed and connected, not pasted from earlier submissions. Assumptions score highest when their status is clear, fact, calculation or judgment, and when the weakest are identified. The risk criterion pays for pricing each risk and linking it to specific inputs rather than listing generic dangers. Many instructors weight the recommendation heavily, and they reward a condition or test that could change the answer, since that shows the student treats feasibility as evidence rather than advocacy.
Common BU 423 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Final files commonly lose points when they paste earlier units together without condensing them, producing a long document with no clear decision. Another frequent problem is burying the verdict at the end, or avoiding one. Students often list assumptions without saying which are facts and which are guesses, hiding where the analysis is weakest. Risk sections tend to name generic threats, competition or the economy, with no cost or link to the venture's numbers. Some files ignore earlier feedback, carrying the same errors forward. Others reach a positive verdict despite weak evidence in one section. Finally, a file with no condition or next step treats the decision as final, when the best feasibility work says what would change the answer.
Get a BU 423 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 8 instructions with the BU 423 rubric and the earlier unit work the file has to gather. We write a custom example that opens with the verdict, condenses each section to its conclusion and figures, registers every assumption once and closes on what would change the answer. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 423 papers and business management samples
- BU 423 Unit 1: Opportunity screen
- 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 231 Unit 8: Market entry recommendation
- BU 242 Unit 8: Improvement recommendation
- BU 245 Unit 8: Professional correspondence portfolio
- BU 302 Unit 8: Applied behavior case file
BU 423 Unit 8 questions, answered
Can I reuse my earlier unit submissions?
Nearly every version of this assignment expects it, and building forward is what a closing file is for. Repair whatever lost points the first time rather than carrying the same defect through, and rewrite each section for its place in the file instead of pasting it. A section still arguing to the prompt it was written for is what a marker spots first in assembled work.
What if the venture turns out not to be feasible?
Write that verdict and defend it. A file concluding no, with the evidence that produced the conclusion and the condition under which the answer would change, demonstrates more than a yes assembled by ignoring the weak sections. Rubrics in many sections reward the reasoning rather than the outcome, and an honest negative is easier to argue than an optimistic yes.
How long should the file be?
As long as the instructions say, and no longer. Where a page count is set, the discipline is in what gets condensed: conclusions and load bearing figures stay in the body while the working moves back. Where no length is given, a reader should be able to reach the verdict, the evidence for it and the risks without hunting.
Where can I find a free BU 423 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page carries the entire BU 423 Unit 8 venture feasibility file at no cost, including the verdict, the assumptions register, the priced risks and margin notes. If your venture reached a different conclusion, tell us the prompt and a custom file is assembled free, usually within two days.
Can BU 423 Unit 8 conclude that the venture is not feasible?
Yes. A negative or conditional verdict is acceptable when the evidence supports it. The sample reaches a conditional yes and states that if ten plans cannot be signed, the founder should keep the savings, which instructors tend to credit as honest analysis.