| Course | BU 434 Business Analysis for Project Managers |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Future state and gap analysis |
| Length | About 640 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 7
Eleven Gaps: Five to Build, Three to Learn, Three to Renegotiate: A Future State and Gap Analysis for How an Invented Grand Rapids Printer Turns Quotes Into Jobs
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 434: Business Analysis for Project Managers
Instructor Name
April 22, 2026
Eleven Gaps: Five to Build, Three to Learn, Three to Renegotiate: A Future State and Gap Analysis for How an Invented Grand Rapids Printer Turns Quotes Into Jobs
From the Baseline to a Future State
The current state model of quote-to-job at Ridgeline Press, the invented Grand Rapids printing company followed since January, found four waits, three rekeys, two repeated checks and two workarounds across sixteen steps. The requirements document and prioritization exercise then set out a structured quote request to be built in two releases. This analysis draws how the work would run once both releases are in place, aligns each future step against the current step it replaces, and turns every difference into something that has to be built, learned or renegotiated. Hammer (1990) warned that automating an existing process tends to preserve its faults at higher speed, so the future state is designed from the problem definition rather than by adding a form to the old steps.
The future state does not fix everything. Two problems found earlier stay outside it by decision, and they are named at the end rather than left out.
The Future State, Aligned to the Current One
Each future step is placed beside the current steps it replaces or keeps.
| Future step | What happens | Replaces current steps |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | Customer, or rep on the customer's behalf, submits the structured request; it cannot be sent without the required details or a Not sure description | 1, 2 |
| F2 | Request appears in the estimating queue as a record with every field filled | 3, 7 |
| F3 | Requests marked Needs advice go to the estimating lead, who phones the customer | New |
| F4 | An estimator's question reaches the customer directly, copying the rep, and the answer is filed on the record | 5, 6 |
| F5 | Estimator prices the job; quotes over $10,000 are reviewed by the lead | 8, 9 (unchanged) |
| F6 | Quote goes to the customer and the rep together | 10 |
| F7 | Customer accepts by a link in the quote email | 11 |
| F8 | Accepted quote becomes a job ticket with the same values | 12 |
| F9 | Prepress compares files with the job ticket and the original request | 14 |
| F10 | A mismatch is raised with the customer by customer service, rep copied | 15 |
| F11 | Plant scheduler still copies stock and quantity by hand onto the press board | 16 (unchanged) |
The Gaps and What Each Requires
Every difference between the two states is listed as a gap and classified. Build means something must be made or configured. Learn means people must work differently. Renegotiate means an agreement, measure or policy must change, which no software can do.
| No. | Gap | Type | Owner | Rough effort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Structured request form with required fields and Not sure path (FR-1, FR-2) | Build | Web developer | About 3 weeks |
| G2 | Direct clarification messages with rep copied (FR-5) | Build | Web developer | About 1 week |
| G3 | Record created in estimating module; job ticket created from accepted quote (FR-4, FR-6) | Build | Systems contractor | About 8 contractor days |
| G4 | Rep status list (FR-7) | Build | Web developer | About 1 week |
| G5 | Acceptance link in the quote email, not in the requirements document | Build | Web developer | About 2 days |
| G6 | Reps completing the form with customers on the phone | Learn | Sales manager | One session, then coaching |
| G7 | Estimators working from the queue, not the inbox, and no longer guessing missing details | Learn | Estimating lead | Two weeks of side-by-side use |
| G8 | Estimating lead handling Needs advice calls, estimated at four to six a day | Learn | Operations director | Adjust lead's review duties |
| G9 | How reps are measured on response time | Renegotiate | Vice president of sales | Decision needed before launch |
| G10 | Who may contact customers directly | Renegotiate | Vice president of sales with estimating lead | Written agreement |
| G11 | Retiring the estimators' guess spreadsheet | Renegotiate | Operations director | Policy change |
The Gaps That Decide Success
The five build gaps are the most visible and the least uncertain. The three renegotiation gaps decide whether the build succeeds. Reps are currently judged on how fast they respond to customers, and five of six said that is why they forward incomplete requests at once. If that measure stays, reps will be tempted to tick Not sure on every field to submit quickly, and the form will produce complete-looking requests that are empty. G9 asks the vice president of sales to measure response time from the first complete submission instead. G10 matters because sales representatives at many printers regard customer contact as theirs, and F4 has estimators writing to customers directly; without an agreement, reps may route questions back through themselves and restore the delay. G11 retires a workaround that estimators consider helpful, which needs to be stated as policy rather than left to habit.
The analysis also found one gap that the requirements missed: G5, the acceptance link. The current model showed customers accepting by email, which then has to be matched to a quote by hand, and the requirements document had not addressed it. It is added as a proposed FR-9 for the sponsor's approval. Dumas et al. (2018) describe this kind of discovery as a normal result of aligning future and current models step by step, since gaps between models expose requirements a list alone does not.
What the Future State Leaves Unfixed
Two problems remain by decision. The plant scheduler's rekeying at F11 is unchanged, because linking the scheduling board would need a separate system change and the plant manager reported few errors from it; it should be observed before anything is done. The 58 repricings of 2025 that followed customers altering their own files are not addressed; F10 shortens the relay but does not change Ridgeline's change order policy, which the problem definition set aside as a separate problem. Stating both keeps the sponsor from expecting the new process to cure them. The BABOK guide describes a gap analysis as a comparison of current and future capabilities that identifies what must change (International Institute of Business Analysis, 2015), and naming what will not change is part of drawing that comparison honestly. The printer, its people and its numbers were all invented for the course.
References
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2018). Fundamentals of business process management (2nd ed.). Springer.
Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don't automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104-112.
International Institute of Business Analysis. (2015). A guide to the business analysis body of knowledge (BABOK guide) (Version 3). IIBA.
BU 434 Unit 7 instructions, in plain terms
BU 434 Unit 7 asks students to design the future state of a process and analyze the gaps between it and the current state. Typical requirements include a future process model, a step-by-step comparison with the baseline, a list of gaps with the change each requires, ownership and some estimate of effort, and a discussion of what remains unresolved. Many instructors ask students to classify gaps, for example into technology, people and policy changes. Cost figures are helpful but often optional. The future state should address the problem defined earlier rather than simply automate the current process. The analysis usually runs to a few APA 7 pages with an alignment table and a gap table as its core.
Inside the BU 434 Unit 7 example
The paper starts by summarizing the baseline and the chosen solution, then cites the warning against automating an old process. A table aligns eleven future steps with the current steps they replace or keep. An eleven-row gap table classifies each difference as build, learn or renegotiate and assigns an owner and effort. The next section explains why the renegotiation gaps, sales measures, customer contact rights and the retired guess spreadsheet, decide whether the built parts succeed, and records a new requirement discovered through alignment. The last section names the plant rekey and customer-driven repricing as problems left unfixed and explains why stating them protects the sponsor's expectations.
BU 434 Unit 7 rubric: what full points look like
Gap analysis rubrics generally score the future state design, alignment with the current state, identification and classification of gaps, ownership and effort, and honesty about limits, together with writing quality. The future state earns credit when it addresses the defined problem rather than digitizing old steps. Alignment is judged on whether each future step is linked to what it replaces. Gap identification scores highest when gaps include people and policy changes as well as technology. Ownership and effort reward realistic assignments. The limits criterion pays for stating what the future state will not solve. Instructors also credit analyses that find requirements the earlier document missed, since that shows the comparison was done carefully.
BU 434 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Future state analyses often lose points by listing only technology gaps, as if software alone changes how people work. Another frequent problem is a future state that simply automates the current steps, keeping waits and handoffs intact. Students often skip the alignment step, making it impossible to see which current problems each change addresses. Gaps without owners tend to be ignored. Some papers promise that the future state fixes everything, which undermines credibility. Others describe policy or measurement changes vaguely, such as align incentives, without naming who decides. Finally, failing to notice requirements missing from the earlier document suggests the comparison was done at a glance rather than step by step.
Get a BU 434 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 instructions and the rubric your BU 434 classroom posts, plus your baseline model and requirement set if the section builds on earlier work. We write a custom example in matching notation, with a gap table by difference, effort named in kind, and assumptions stated. No charge for the first custom sample, back inside 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 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 8: Traceability and validation plan
- BU 396 Unit 7: Monitoring and review plan
- BU 433 Unit 7: Retrospective with a committed change
- BU 345 Unit 7: Status report to sponsor
- BU 436 Unit 7: Currency and financial risk
BU 434 Unit 7 questions, answered
Does the gap analysis need cost figures?
Only if the instructions ask for them and the case supplies a basis. Where it does not, describe the gap in kind and in relative size: a configuration change against a rebuild, an afternoon of training against a new role. A reader can work with that. A dollar figure you invented is worse than no figure, because it invites questions the paper cannot answer.
Should the future state fix everything?
Rarely, and saying so is part of the analysis. Some problems fall outside the scope you set, some depend on decisions the sponsor has not made, and some are not worth the change they would require. Name those explicitly and give the reason. A proposal that admits three problems remain, with a sentence on each, reads as considered rather than incomplete.
Can I base the future state on a change we made at work?
The general shape of a change you lived through is part of what you know, and you can write from that understanding. The artifacts are separate: internal requirements documents, elicitation notes and interview recordings from that work are the employer's and stay there. Recast the situation as a composite, say so in the paper, and make the case argue on its own evidence.
Where can I find a free BU 434 Unit 7 sample paper?
The BU 434 Unit 7 future state and gap analysis is published free on this page, including the alignment table, eleven classified gaps and margin notes. If your process or solution differs, share your assignment and a custom analysis is drafted free, normally within two days.
Does BU 434 Unit 7 need cost figures?
Rough effort is usually enough unless the prompt asks for costs. The sample gives each gap an effort estimate in days or weeks and an owner, which lets the sponsor plan without a full budget.