| Course | BU 434 Business Analysis for Project Managers |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Problem definition |
| Length | About 950 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 3
Thirty-Four Minutes of Pricing Inside 2.6 Days: A Problem Definition That Works Back From a Request for a Quoting Portal at a Composite Michigan Printer
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 434: Business Analysis for Project Managers
Instructor Name
February 25, 2026
Thirty-Four Minutes of Pricing Inside 2.6 Days: A Problem Definition That Works Back From a Request for a Quoting Portal at a Composite Michigan Printer
The Request as Received
Early in 2026 the head of sales at Ridgeline Press, the composite commercial printer in Grand Rapids used throughout this course, asked for an online quoting portal so that customers could get prices quickly, as they can from large web-to-print companies. The request arrived already phrased as a fix. This definition works backward from it: what the requester was reacting to, what is producing that, and how the problem can be stated so that it could be accepted without buying any software. It draws on the evidence gathered under the elicitation plan in February.
What the Requester Was Reacting To
The vice president's concern rests on two figures and a set of complaints. Quotes took an average of 2.6 business days in 2025, and 31 percent of quotes became orders. Several customers had told sales representatives that another printer answered faster. The customer survey supports the complaint: of 41 customers who responded, 18 said they had placed a job elsewhere at least once in 2025, and 11 of those said Ridgeline's quote arrived too late.
Those are symptoms. They are what people notice, and they are real. The analysis has to find the condition producing them, since a remedy aimed at a symptom tends to move it somewhere else.
What the Evidence Shows
Three findings from the elicitation work change the picture.
First, estimating itself is fast. Over two days of observation, estimators spent an average of 34 minutes actively pricing each quote. Most of the 2.6 days was spent waiting: the median time between an estimator's first email asking for a missing detail and the answer was 1.4 business days.
Second, most requests arrive incomplete. Of 120 quote requests from the last quarter of 2025, 71, or 59 percent, lacked at least one detail needed to price the job. Paper stock was missing in 44, delivery date in 38, finishing such as folding or binding in 31 and quantity breaks in 23. Requests from sales representatives were incomplete more often than those sent directly by customers.
Third, repricing has two separate causes. The prepress change log recorded 96 jobs repriced after files arrived in 2025, about 14 percent of 663 orders. In 58 of them the customer's final files differed from what was requested, a different page count or stock, and in 17 the estimator had guessed a missing detail and guessed wrong. The remaining 21 were estimating errors.
| Account from the stakeholder analysis | What the evidence says | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Quotes are slow because estimators are slow (sales) | 34 minutes of pricing inside 2.6 days | Not supported |
| Quotes are slow because requests are incomplete (estimating) | 59% of requests missing details; 1.4-day median wait for answers | Supported |
| The real problem is accuracy (prepress) | 96 repriced jobs; 17 from guessed details, 58 from later customer changes | Partly supported |
Working Back to the Condition
Asking why repeatedly, the method Ohno (1988) described for reaching a root cause, leads from the symptom to a condition. Quotes are late because estimators wait for missing details. They wait because requests reach them incomplete. Requests arrive incomplete because sales representatives forward them as soon as a customer asks, and the interviews explain why: five of six reps said they send requests immediately because they are judged on how quickly they respond to customers, and four said customers often ask for a price before their design is final. Nothing in the request process asks for particular details; a request is an email in any form.
Kepner and Tregoe (1965) recommend specifying a problem by what it is and also by what it is not, since the boundary often matters as much as the center. The problem is incomplete job definition at the moment of request. It is not the speed of estimating, which is fast. It is not a lack of an online channel, since customers who emailed directly sent more complete requests than reps did. And it is only partly the 58 repricings caused by customers changing jobs after a quote; those are a related but separate problem about how Ridgeline handles changes, and folding them in would blur this one.
What This Definition Leaves for Later
Two findings are set aside rather than lost. The 58 jobs repriced because customers changed their files after accepting a quote point to a separate question about how Ridgeline documents and charges for changes, and that question deserves its own definition once this one is settled. The 21 estimating errors are a quality issue inside estimating; at about three percent of orders they are real but small, and they would not explain the delay customers complain about. Recording both here keeps the prepress manager's evidence visible, so the department whose account was only partly supported can see that its data shaped the boundary of the problem rather than being dismissed.
The Problem Statement
Most quote requests reach estimating before the job is defined well enough to price. As a result, quotes wait an average of more than a day for clarifying answers, and some jobs are priced on guessed details that are later wrong. In 2025, 59 percent of sampled requests were incomplete, and 17 jobs were repriced because an estimator had to guess.
The statement names no software. It could be addressed by a required checklist, a different way of judging sales response, a form that will not submit without key fields, a portal, or some combination; the choice belongs to later units. It is measurable, so any solution can be tested against the share of complete requests and the waiting time. And it tells the vice president of sales something useful: speeding up estimators would change almost nothing, while getting complete requests to them could cut most of the delay. A well-formed problem statement expresses the need independently of any solution (International Institute of Business Analysis, 2015), and this one is written to meet that test. Every person, request and number at Ridgeline Press was invented for this course.
References
International Institute of Business Analysis. (2015). A guide to the business analysis body of knowledge (BABOK guide) (Version 3). IIBA.
Kepner, C. H., & Tregoe, B. B. (1965). The rational manager: A systematic approach to problem solving and decision making. McGraw-Hill.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Productivity Press.
The Herzing BU 434 Unit 3 instructions
In Unit 3, BU 434 asks students to define a business problem clearly and separately from any solution. Common requirements include restating the original request, identifying symptoms and underlying causes using a technique such as five whys or a fishbone diagram, supporting the analysis with evidence, and writing a concise problem statement. Many prompts ask students to show what is outside the problem as well. Instructors typically expect the statement to be measurable and free of any product name. If the case supplies only a request, students work backward from it and label any assumptions. Submissions are usually brief, formatted in APA 7, with at least one table or diagram showing how the evidence supports the definition.
How this BU 434 Unit 3 example is built
The paper begins with the request as received and explains why it is treated as a symptom-level fix. It then describes what the requester was reacting to, using survey results. The evidence section presents three findings from the elicitation work, and a table tests each department's account against them. A root-cause section asks why in sequence and uses interview findings to explain why requests are sent incomplete, then draws the boundary of what the problem is and is not. The problem statement follows, naming the condition, its effect and its size. A short section records two related issues, customer file changes and estimating errors, set aside for their own analysis. The close explains why a statement with no product named is more useful.
Reading the BU 434 Unit 3 rubric
Problem definition rubrics usually score the separation of problem from solution, the analysis of root causes, the use of evidence, the quality of the problem statement and presentation. Separation earns full credit when the student shows the original request is a solution and explains why that matters. Root-cause analysis is judged on whether the chain of reasoning is supported by facts rather than assumption. The evidence criterion rewards data drawn from elicitation, such as samples, observations or records. The problem statement scores highest when it is specific, measurable and names no technology. Instructors also credit papers that define boundaries, because a problem statement that includes everything gives the project no focus.
BU 434 Unit 3 help before you submit
The most common mistake on this unit is restating the requested solution as the problem, for example the company lacks an online portal. Another frequent issue is a root-cause chain built on opinion, with no evidence at any step. Students often stop at the first cause, which is usually another symptom. Some write problem statements that are too broad to measure, such as communication is poor. Others ignore stakeholders' conflicting accounts rather than testing them. Many papers skip the boundary, so the problem quietly expands to cover everything wrong in the organization. Finally, a statement that names a tool or vendor limits the options later units can consider and usually costs points.
Get a BU 434 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 3 instructions and your BU 434 rubric, along with the request or scenario your section supplies. We write a custom example that quotes the request, separates symptom from cause, marks evidence apart from assumption, and lands a statement with no product in it. The first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 434 papers and project management samples
- BU 434 Unit 1: Stakeholder identification and analysis
- BU 434 Unit 2: Elicitation plan
- 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 3: Scope and work breakdown document
- BU 396 Unit 3: Qualitative analysis and scoring
- BU 433 Unit 3: Backlog with prioritization basis
- BU 442 Unit 3: Work breakdown and durations
BU 434 Unit 3 questions, answered
What if the case only gives me the request?
That is the usual starting point and it is workable. The case will contain more than the request itself: complaints, a process description, numbers in an exhibit, a comment from someone who disagrees. Read those as symptom evidence, build the chain from them, and mark clearly where you had to assume. An assumption you flag is fine; an assumption presented as a finding is not.
Do I need a five whys diagram?
Only if the instructions call for one. Any structured method works provided the reasoning shows: a why chain, a fishbone, a simple table of layers. What gets graded is whether each level follows from the one above and whether you were honest about which links rest on evidence. A neat diagram covering a chain nobody could check scores worse than plain prose that argues.
Could I write this about a problem at my employer?
In general terms, and only in general terms. What you may not bring across is the paperwork: the requirements documents the company holds, the notes taken in internal elicitation sessions, any interview recording. Write the situation as a composite, change what identifies it, and say in the paper that it is constructed. The reasoning is what earns the points, not the provenance of the facts.
Where can I find a free BU 434 Unit 3 sample paper?
You can read the full BU 434 Unit 3 problem definition above for free, including the evidence tables, the root-cause reasoning and margin notes. If your case differs, forward the instructions and a custom problem definition is written without charge, typically within two days.
Can I use five whys for BU 434 Unit 3?
Yes, if each answer rests on evidence. The sample asks why in sequence but supports every step with observation, samples or interviews, then adds an is and is not boundary so the problem does not expand.