| Course | BU 434 Business Analysis for Project Managers |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder identification and analysis |
| Length | About 810 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 434 Unit 1
Slow Quotes or Incomplete Requests? A Stakeholder Identification and Analysis for a Composite Michigan Commercial Printer Whose Sales Chief Wants a Quoting Portal
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 434: Business Analysis for Project Managers
Instructor Name
January 14, 2026
Slow Quotes or Incomplete Requests? A Stakeholder Identification and Analysis for a Composite Michigan Commercial Printer Whose Sales Chief Wants a Quoting Portal
The Business Problem
Ridgeline Press, a composite commercial printer created for this course, employs 64 people in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and printed about $11.8 million of brochures, catalogs, packaging inserts and direct mail in 2025. It received 2,140 requests for quotes that year. The average quote took 2.6 business days to send, and 31 percent of quotes became orders. In January 2026 the vice president of sales asked the operations director to buy an online quoting portal like those of large web-to-print companies, arguing that customers leave because quotes are slow.
The business analyst assigned to the request has not accepted the portal as the answer. The problem, for now, is stated only as slow quotes and a low win rate. A stakeholder is anyone who holds something that matters to that problem: knowledge the written process does not record, the power to stop a change, a working day the change will alter, or a view of what the problem is. This analysis identifies those people before any requirements are gathered, following the BABOK guide's advice that stakeholder analysis come first because it decides whose needs the later work will capture (International Institute of Business Analysis, 2015).
The Roster
Each stakeholder is recorded with four judgments rather than a title alone. The roster came from the organization chart, from following one quote from request to printed job, and from asking each person interviewed who else touches the work.
| Stakeholder | What they know that nobody wrote down | What they can stop | Where the change lands on their day | How much of the problem they have seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vice president of sales (requester, sponsor) | Which customers complained and why | Spending up to $25,000 | Little; sales reps do the daily work | Complaints, not the quote process |
| Chief financial officer | Cost of repricing after files arrive | Any spending above $25,000 | Monthly margin review | Write-offs only |
| Estimating lead and two estimators | Pricing rules, which details are always missing | Nothing formally; can slow adoption | All day: every quote passes through them | The whole quote process |
| Six sales representatives | What customers can and cannot specify | Nothing formally | Gathering specifications from customers | The customer's side |
| Four customer service representatives | Where specifications are retyped | Nothing formally | Entering accepted quotes as jobs | The handoff from quote to job |
| Prepress manager | How often files contradict the quote | Can refuse to release mismatched jobs | Checking files against job tickets | Errors after the sale |
| Plant manager | How job ticket errors disrupt press schedules | The press schedule | Only when tickets are wrong | Consequences, not causes |
| Outside contractor for the print management system | What the system can import and export | Integration work, by availability | Occasional | Technical limits only |
| Two agency customers, 22% of revenue | What they need to send and when | Can move work elsewhere | Filling in whatever is required | Their own delays |
Influence and Interest
Mitchell et al. (1997) argue that stakeholders command attention according to three attributes: power to affect the outcome, legitimacy of their claim and urgency of their concern. Placed on an influence and interest grid, with that reasoning written beside each placement, the roster divides into four groups.
High influence and high interest: the vice president of sales and the estimating lead. The vice president controls the budget for the request and has urgency, since sales targets are at stake. The estimating lead has no formal power but holds the knowledge the analysis depends on and the daily process most likely to change; in practice, a change the estimators resist will not work. High influence and lower interest: the chief financial officer and the plant manager. Both can stop or constrain the change, but neither sees quoting as their problem, so both need to be kept informed with figures they care about, such as write-offs and schedule disruptions. Lower influence and high interest: the sales and customer service representatives, whose work changes but who have no authority. Lower influence and lower interest, for now: the systems contractor, whose importance will rise sharply if integration becomes part of the solution.
People the Request Would Not Have Surfaced
The request came from sales and named a customer-facing tool, so it points toward sales and customers. Three groups would have been missed if the analysis had followed it. The prepress manager inherits every quote after it is accepted and knows how often the files customers send do not match what was quoted; in December alone, 14 jobs were repriced after files arrived. The customer service representatives retype specifications from quotes into job tickets and see where details are lost. The systems contractor, who works for Ridgeline two days a month, is the only person who knows whether the current print management system can accept data from a portal at all. Bryson (2004) recommends identifying stakeholders by working outward from the problem, not from the organization chart, because the chart lists authority while problems cross it, and each of these three sits downstream of the request rather than on its path.
Conflicting Accounts of the Problem
Three stakeholders describe the same problem in three incompatible ways. The vice president of sales says quotes are slow because estimating is slow. The estimating lead says quotes are slow because requests arrive without paper stock, quantities, finishing or delivery dates, and estimators spend most of their time chasing those details by email. The prepress manager says the bigger problem is not speed but accuracy: quotes are priced on specifications that the customer's files later contradict, and the repricing damages trust more than a slow quote does.
These accounts cannot all be the full story, and the analysis does not yet choose among them. What they show is that the request, a portal, answers only the first account. If the estimating lead is right, a portal that lets customers submit the same incomplete information faster will not help. If the prepress manager is right, speed is the wrong target. The elicitation plan in the next unit is designed to test all three accounts with evidence. Ridgeline Press, its people and every figure in this analysis are composites written for this course.
References
Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722
International Institute of Business Analysis. (2015). A guide to the business analysis body of knowledge (BABOK guide) (Version 3). IIBA.
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
What the BU 434 Unit 1 instructions ask for
The first BU 434 unit usually asks students to identify the stakeholders around a business problem and analyze their interests and influence. Typical requirements are a short statement of the problem, a roster of stakeholders with their roles and stakes, an influence and interest assessment with reasoning, and a discussion of conflicts or differing views. Many prompts refer to salience models or power-interest grids. Instructors often want students to look beyond the requester to downstream groups, contractors and customers. The case can be composite, and using real workplace material is usually discouraged. A few pages in APA 7 with a roster table is the common shape, and the analysis should stop short of recommending a solution.
Inside the BU 434 Unit 1 example
The paper starts by describing the printer, its quoting figures and the portal request, then explains why the analyst treats the request as unproven. A roster table follows, with four columns of judgment for each of nine stakeholders rather than job titles alone. The influence and interest section groups the roster into four quadrants, explaining each placement with power, legitimacy and urgency. A separate section names three stakeholders the request would not have surfaced and explains what each holds. The closing section lays out the three accounts of the problem, from sales, estimating and prepress, shows why the portal answers only one of them, and hands the question of which account holds to the elicitation plan.
Where the points sit in the BU 434 Unit 1 rubric
Grading for the stakeholder unit usually covers identification, analysis of interests and influence, the use of a recognized framework, attention to conflict and professional presentation with APA sources. Identification earns full points when it reaches beyond the obvious requester and sponsor to people who inherit the work or hold technical knowledge. Analysis scores highest when each placement on a grid is explained rather than drawn. The framework criterion rewards applying a cited model, such as salience, consistently. The conflict criterion pays for stating how different stakeholders describe the problem and what that means for the project. Instructors also credit analyses that avoid proposing solutions this early, since the unit is about understanding the people around the problem.
BU 434 Unit 1 help before you submit
Stakeholder analyses commonly lose points by listing names and titles with no judgment about what each person knows or can stop. Another frequent problem is a power-interest grid drawn with no explanation of why anyone sits where they do. Students often identify only the people named in the request, missing downstream groups and outside contractors. Some treat customers as a single stakeholder when different customer groups need different things. Others ignore conflicting views of the problem, which are often the most useful finding. A common shortcut is accepting the requester's solution as the project's goal. Finally, including real names or internal documents from a workplace raises confidentiality issues a composite case avoids.
Get a BU 434 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 1 instructions and the rubric from your BU 434 classroom, together with whatever case or scenario your section works from. We write a custom example that fixes the problem first, builds entries around knowledge, veto and affected routine, and closes on conflicting accounts. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 434 papers and project management samples
- BU 434 Unit 2: Elicitation plan
- BU 434 Unit 3: Problem definition
- BU 434 Unit 4: Current state process model
- BU 434 Unit 5: Requirements document
- BU 434 Unit 6: Prioritization exercise
- BU 434 Unit 7: Future state and gap analysis
- BU 434 Unit 8: Traceability and validation plan
- BU 345 Unit 1: Project selection record
- BU 396 Unit 1: Risk management planning
- BU 433 Unit 1: Agile principles and fit analysis
- BU 436 Unit 1: Global project context analysis
BU 434 Unit 1 questions, answered
How is this different from a stakeholder register?
A register lists who gets which report and at what cadence, and that belongs to the planning side of a project. This unit asks a different question: who holds the knowledge, who can refuse, whose work changes, and whose version of the problem does not match. The output is an argument about people, not a distribution list, and instructors grade the reasoning.
Can I use my own workplace for the case?
Check the instructions, since some sections supply a scenario and expect it used. Where the choice is open, describing your setting in general terms is fine, but the analysis has to stand on what you write down rather than on context only you can see. Keep real names, titles and reporting lines out of it and say plainly that the case is composite.
Can I attach material from work to support this?
No. Requirements documents your employer produced, elicitation notes taken in company sessions and recordings of interviews with colleagues are the company's property and often carry other people's words without their consent to publish. A graded submission is read outside that company. Build the analysis from the assignment case and the course reading, and describe your industry in your own words instead.
Where can I find a free BU 434 Unit 1 sample paper?
The whole BU 434 Unit 1 stakeholder identification and analysis is published above for free, with the nine-person roster, the influence reasoning and margin notes. If your business problem differs, send us your prompt and a custom analysis is written at no cost, usually within two days.
How many stakeholders should BU 434 Unit 1 include?
Enough to cover everyone who holds knowledge, authority, a changing process or a view of the problem. The sample lists nine, including three the original request would have missed, which is typically where instructors award the most credit.