| Course | BU 434 Business Analysis for Project Managers |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Elicitation plan |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 434 Unit 2
Read 120 Requests Before Asking Anyone Anything: An Elicitation Plan That Tests Three Accounts of Slow Quoting at a Composite Michigan Printer
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 434: Business Analysis for Project Managers
Instructor Name
January 28, 2026
Read 120 Requests Before Asking Anyone Anything: An Elicitation Plan That Tests Three Accounts of Slow Quoting at a Composite Michigan Printer
What the Plan Must Find Out
The stakeholder analysis at Ridgeline Press, the composite Grand Rapids commercial printer used in this course, ended with three incompatible accounts of one problem. Sales leadership blames estimating speed. Estimating blames requests that arrive missing paper, quantity or finishing details. Prepress points to accuracy instead, since customers' files often contradict what was priced. The request on the table is an online quoting portal, which answers only the first account.
This plan is written before anyone is interviewed. It lists the gaps in what the analyst knows, pairs each with the technique best suited to close it, names who takes part and states what each session will produce. The BABOK guide treats elicitation as planned work, with techniques chosen for the information needed and the stakeholders involved rather than by habit (International Institute of Business Analysis, 2015). The plan runs for three weeks, from February 2 to February 20, 2026.
Gaps, Techniques and Outputs
Seven gaps are listed in the order they will be closed. Evidence that exists already, in emails and records, comes first, so that later conversations can start from facts rather than from each group's account.
| Gap | Technique | Who takes part | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do requests arrive incomplete, and missing what? | Document analysis of 120 quote requests from October to December 2025 | Analyst alone | Count of missing fields by type and by source |
| 2. Why were jobs repriced after files arrived? | Document analysis of the 2025 prepress change log | Analyst, then prepress manager to explain entries | Repricing causes, counted |
| 3. How does quoting actually run? | Observation of estimators for two full days | Estimating lead and two estimators | Timed log of every step and wait |
| 4. Why do sales reps send incomplete requests? | One-to-one interviews | Each of six sales reps, 45 minutes | Interview notes coded by reason |
| 5. What can customers specify, and when? | Interviews and a short survey | Two agency customers; survey to 150 active customers | Notes and survey tallies |
| 6. What can the current system accept? | Interface analysis | Systems contractor | List of import and export options |
| 7. Which account of the problem holds? | Facilitated workshop | All internal stakeholders from Unit 1 | Agreed problem statement draft |
Why These Techniques
Document analysis comes first because it is cheap and it tests two of the three accounts without asking anyone's opinion. If most of the 120 requests are complete, the estimating lead's account weakens; if the change log shows most repricing comes from customer file changes rather than quoting errors, the prepress manager's account strengthens.
Observation is used for the estimators rather than interviews because people describe their work as it should run, and the analyst needs to see where time actually goes, including the email chasing the estimators say consumes their day. A timed log over two days will show how much of the 2.6-day average is estimating and how much is waiting.
One-to-one interviews are used for the sales representatives because the likely reasons for incomplete requests include things a rep would not say in front of an estimator or a manager: that customers are rushed, that asking for details feels like slowing a sale, or that commission rewards sending requests fast. Davis et al. (2006) found in a review of empirical studies that structured interviews were among the most effective elicitation techniques, and these interviews follow a fixed set of questions so answers can be compared.
The survey reaches customers too numerous to interview. The workshop comes last on purpose: once the evidence exists, the three groups can argue about data rather than about each other.
Core Interview Questions
The sales representatives' interviews use these questions in the same order, each followed by "Can you give me a recent example?"
1. When a customer asks for a quote, what do you usually know about the job at that point? 2. Which details are hardest to get from customers, and why? 3. What happens when you send a request to estimating that is missing something? 4. How do you decide when a request is ready to send? 5. What would make it easier to send a complete request the first time?
Agency customers are asked when in their own process they request a quote, what they usually know about paper, quantity and finishing at that moment, and whether they would complete a detailed online form before their design is final. That last question tests the portal directly.
Questions That Stay Out of Group Settings
Some questions belong only in private, and the plan says so in advance. The estimators' views of the sales representatives' work, and the reps' views of the estimators, are asked one to one and reported in the workshop only as themes. Questions about how sales commission is calculated and whether it rewards speed over completeness go only to the vice president of sales and the chief financial officer. Customers are never asked in a group how Ridgeline's prices compare with competitors'. Individual error counts from the change log are shown to the prepress manager privately and presented to others only as totals. Wiegers and Beatty (2013) warn that elicitation sessions go wrong when participants feel blamed, and in a company where three groups already blame each other, a single careless question in the workshop could end honest participation.
Schedule and What Comes Next
Week one covers the two document analyses and the interface discussion with the contractor. Week two covers observation, the six sales interviews and the customer interviews, with the survey open all week. Week three is for coding the results and running the workshop on February 19. The outputs feed the problem definition in the next unit. If the document analysis shows something unexpected, such as requests being mostly complete, the plan will be revised before the interviews rather than carried out as written. Ridgeline Press, its staff, its customers and every number in this plan are composites for this course.
References
Davis, A., Dieste, O., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., & Moreno, A. M. (2006). Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. In 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (pp. 179-188). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2006.17
International Institute of Business Analysis. (2015). A guide to the business analysis body of knowledge (BABOK guide) (Version 3). IIBA.
Wiegers, K., & Beatty, J. (2013). Software requirements (3rd ed.). Microsoft Press.
What the BU 434 Unit 2 instructions ask for
BU 434 Unit 2 asks students to plan how requirements information will be gathered. Prompts generally want the gaps in current knowledge, the techniques chosen for each gap, the participants in each session, the outputs expected and a schedule. Many instructors ask students to justify technique choices, for example interviews versus observation or workshops, and to include sample questions. Some ask how sensitive topics will be handled. The plan should be written before any elicitation happens and should connect to the stakeholder analysis from Unit 1. A concise document in APA 7 with a technique table is typical. Strong submissions explain what each technique will produce and how the plan will change if early findings surprise the analyst.
Inside the BU 434 Unit 2 example
The plan opens by restating the three competing accounts of the problem from Unit 1 and the portal request. A seven-row table pairs each gap with a technique, participants and output, ordered so existing documents are analyzed before anyone is asked for an opinion. A reasoning section explains why document analysis, observation, one-to-one interviews, a survey and a final workshop were chosen, citing research on elicitation effectiveness. Core interview questions for sales representatives and customers are printed in full. A section lists questions that stay out of group sessions and who hears the answers. The plan ends with a week-by-week schedule and a statement that it will be revised if the first document analysis contradicts expectations.
Where the points sit in the BU 434 Unit 2 rubric
Elicitation plan rubrics at Herzing generally reward identification of information needs, appropriate technique selection, stakeholder involvement, planned outputs and logistics, alongside writing and sources. Information needs earn credit when stated as specific gaps rather than broad topics. Technique selection scores highest when each choice is justified by the kind of information needed and the people involved. Stakeholder involvement is judged on whether the right people attend each session and whether sensitive dynamics are considered. The outputs criterion rewards stating what each session will produce. Logistics earn full points with a realistic schedule and sequence. Instructors also value plans that anticipate change, since elicitation often reveals that the original questions were the wrong ones.
BU 434 Unit 2 help: mistakes that cost points
Elicitation plans often lose points by listing techniques, interviews, surveys and workshops, without linking any to a specific gap. Another common problem is scheduling group workshops first, which lets the loudest department set the agenda before evidence exists. Students frequently forget existing documents and records, which are cheaper and more objective than opinions. Some plans include no questions at all, or questions that invite agreement with a solution. Others put sensitive questions, such as views of colleagues, into group settings where honest answers are unlikely. A plan with no outputs gives no way to tell whether a session succeeded. Finally, ignoring the stakeholder analysis from the previous unit leaves the participant choices unexplained.
Get a BU 434 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send us the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric posted in your BU 434 classroom, plus the case your section is working from. We write a custom example that opens on unknowns, pairs every technique with a gap, argues the sequence and checks coverage. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 434 papers and project management samples
- BU 434 Unit 1: Stakeholder identification and analysis
- 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 2: Charter and stakeholder register
- BU 396 Unit 2: Risk identification workshop output
- BU 433 Unit 2: User stories with acceptance criteria
- BU 436 Unit 2: Communication and handoff plan
BU 434 Unit 2 questions, answered
How many techniques should the plan use?
Whatever the instructions specify comes first. Beyond that, the number is less graded than the fit: three techniques each answering a different kind of unknown reads better than six chosen to look thorough. Observation catches what people do without noticing, documents show what was agreed, interviews reach reasoning. If two of your methods would surface the same thing, drop one and say why.
Does the plan include the actual questions?
Usually not, and the instructions decide it. The plan states what a session is for and what it should produce; a full question set turns the document into an instrument and buries the reasoning being graded. If your section wants sample questions, a short indicative set per session is normally enough, clearly labeled as illustrative rather than presented as a completed protocol.
Can I plan sessions with people at my job?
Talking to colleagues is your own work and nobody else should draft those conversations for you, so if your section expects real sessions, run them yourself. What cannot come along is the material: requirements documents held by your employer, elicitation notes from internal sessions and any recording of an interview. Describe the setting generically and keep the company's own paperwork out of the submission.
Where can I find a free BU 434 Unit 2 sample paper?
A complete BU 434 Unit 2 elicitation plan is free on this page, including the gap and technique table, the printed interview questions and margin notes. For your own case, share the assignment and we draft a free custom plan, generally within 48 hours.
Should BU 434 Unit 2 include interview questions?
Usually yes. The sample prints five core questions for sales representatives and the key questions for customers, each asking about past examples. Instructors use the questions to judge whether the technique will produce evidence rather than opinions.