| Course | BU 442 Cost and Time Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Variance analysis with response |
| Length | About 800 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 442 Unit 7
Three Gaps Pass the Threshold, One Moves the Finish Date: A Variance Analysis With Response for a Composite Fort Wayne Shared Kitchen at Day 80
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 442: Cost and Time Management
Instructor Name
June 3, 2026
Three Gaps Pass the Threshold, One Moves the Finish Date: A Variance Analysis With Response for a Composite Fort Wayne Shared Kitchen at Day 80
From Numbers to Decisions
Last week's earned value calculation for the Food Works kitchen project, a composite case built for this course, found a cost variance of -$25,811 and a schedule variance of -$144,700 at day 80. Those totals are made of package-level gaps of very different importance. This analysis tests each gap against thresholds set when the baseline was approved, traces the gaps that pass to a cause in the work rather than in the arithmetic, and attaches a corrective action with a named owner. Fleming and Koppelman (2010) describe thresholds as the device that keeps earned value from burying managers in variances, by directing attention to the few that exceed agreed limits.
The Thresholds
Four thresholds were written into the baseline in March. A cost variance is investigated when it is worse than -5 percent of the package's earned value and larger than $5,000; both conditions must hold, so that small packages do not trigger reviews over trivial sums. A favorable cost variance larger than 10 percent and $5,000 is also investigated, since an underrun can mean work was skipped or credited too early. A schedule gap on a critical path package is investigated if the package is more than two working days late. A schedule gap on a package with float is investigated when it uses more than half of the package's remaining float.
| Package | Cost variance | Percent of earned value | Schedule position | Crosses a threshold? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Design | -$3,500 | -5.1% | Complete | No: under $5,000 |
| 2.1 Demolition and abatement | -$5,800 | -13.8% | Complete | Yes: cost |
| 3.1 Electrical | -$12,200 | -17.2% | About 10 days behind, 35 days of float | Yes: cost; schedule within limit |
| 3.2 Plumbing | -$8,500 | -8.9% | Finished 6 days late on the critical path | Yes: cost and schedule |
| 3.3 Mechanical | +$4,000 | +3.0% | Complete | No: below 10% |
| 4.1 Hood fabrication | $0 | 0% | About 9 days behind, 45 days of float | No: uses under half of float |
| 5.1 Interior | +$1,500 | +8.1% | Started 6 days late, critical | Yes: schedule, caused by plumbing |
| 7.0 Project management | -$1,311 | -2.3% | Level of effort | No |
Tracing Causes in the Work
Demolition overran by $5,800 because the floor tile mastic, untested when the estimate was made, contained asbestos. About 1,900 square feet needed abatement instead of simple removal. This was an identified risk; the estimate's pessimistic value for demolition assumed exactly this case. The overrun is a risk that occurred, not a failure of performance.
Electrical overran by $12,200 and is running about ten days behind because the electric utility required the new service entrance on the alley side of the building rather than the street side shown in the design. The change added trenching and about 90 feet of underground conduit, and the utility's crew could not set the new meter until its scheduled date. The transformer, the larger risk in the estimate, proved adequate.
Plumbing overran by $8,500 and finished six days late because the excavation for the grease interceptor struck an old concrete footing from the hardware store's former loading dock. Saw-cutting and removal took three days and the plumbing inspection had to be rescheduled, which took three more. Because plumbing is on one of the two critical paths, interior construction started six days late, and so did everything after it. This is the only gap that moves the finish date, from day 135 to day 141 if nothing is done.
In each case the cause is in the building or in a third party's requirements, not in the arithmetic or the crediting rules. Kerzner (2017) warns that variance analysis often stops at restating a number as a sentence; each explanation above names a physical event that could have been observed on site.
Why the Cost Overruns Are Not a Trend
Three cost overruns in a row can look like a pattern of poor estimating. The causes say otherwise. Each came from a condition hidden in the building or a requirement set by an outside party, and each was either named as a risk in the estimate or fell within its pessimistic range. None came from crews working more slowly or materials costing more than quoted, the kinds of cause that would repeat in the packages still to come. That distinction matters for the forecast in the next unit, because a cost index built from one-time events should not be projected across the remaining work. The PMBOK guide asks that variance analysis determine the cause and degree of each variance and decide whether corrective or preventive action is needed (Project Management Institute, 2017), and the answer here is mostly preventive: test earlier, and check old site records before digging.
Corrective Actions and Owners
Each gap that crossed a threshold receives an action, an owner and a date.
| Gap | Action | Owner | By | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demolition overrun | Charge to contingency against the recorded abatement risk; test all remaining finishes before any future demolition | Project manager | May 29 | $5,800 from contingency |
| Electrical overrun and delay | Approve change order for the alley service, including remaining conduit; weekly call with the utility's coordinator; escalate if the meter date passes day 100 | Project manager with electrical contractor | June 5 | $14,500 from contingency |
| Plumbing overrun | Charge to contingency against the sewer and site risks | Project manager | May 29 | $8,500 from contingency |
| Six-day critical slip | Add a second interior crew for eight days to recover four days; start walk-in installation in the finished cooler area before the rest of the interior is complete to recover two more | General contractor's superintendent | Crew on site June 1 | $6,800 from contingency |
The two schedule actions together are expected to return the finish to day 135. Starting the walk-in installation early changes a finish-to-start dependency into a partial overlap, which is safe because the cooler area's walls and floor are finished first; the superintendent confirmed the sequence. Contingency used so far totals $35,600 of $90,000, with the building systems risks now largely past. Two favorable or small variances, mechanical and design, need no action, but the mechanical underrun was checked to confirm that all rooftop units were set and tested, not credited early. Food Works and all of its figures belong to this course's composite case.
References
Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2010). Earned value project management (4th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.
Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
What the BU 442 Unit 7 instructions ask for
BU 442 Unit 7 asks students to analyze the variances found in an earned value calculation and respond to them. Common requirements include thresholds for investigation, a test of each variance, root causes for those that exceed thresholds, corrective actions with owners and dates, and a note on whether favorable variances were checked. Many instructors ask students to set thresholds if the case gives none and to explain their choice. Causes should be traced to events in the work, not restated arithmetic. Actions should be specific enough to carry out, with the cost of each response shown against contingency. A threshold table and an action table, explained in APA 7, are typical, and strong submissions separate one-time events from trends.
How the BU 442 Unit 7 example is put together
The analysis starts with the earned value totals and explains why thresholds are needed. A section states four thresholds set at baseline, and a table tests each package against them, including one that passes the percentage test but not the dollar test. A causes section traces the three cost overruns to specific site conditions and a utility requirement, and shows that only the plumbing delay reaches the finish date. A section argues that the overruns are not a trend. An action table assigns each gap a response, owner, date and cost. A closing paragraph explains how the schedule recovery works, how much contingency has been used and why the favorable mechanical variance was verified.
Where the points sit in the BU 442 Unit 7 rubric
Variance analysis rubrics usually weigh the threshold design, the testing of variances, root cause analysis, the quality of corrective actions and overall judgment, with writing and APA. Threshold design earns full credit when thresholds are stated in advance and combine percentage and dollar tests. Testing is judged on whether every package is checked, including favorable ones. Root cause analysis scores highest when causes are physical events, not restated numbers. Corrective actions earn points when they have owners, dates and costs. The judgment criterion rewards distinguishing one-time events from trends and identifying which gaps affect the finish date, since instructors want to see priorities, not a list.
BU 442 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Variance analyses commonly lose points by explaining a variance with the variance itself, such as costs were higher than planned. Another frequent problem is investigating every gap with equal effort, burying the ones that matter. Students often ignore favorable variances, which can signal early crediting. Some propose actions without owners or dates. Others miss the difference between schedule gaps in float and gaps on the critical path. Many treat all overruns as trends, which inflates later forecasts. Finally, thresholds invented after seeing the variances look designed to produce a particular answer; stating that they were set at baseline answers that concern before an instructor raises it.
Get a BU 442 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 7 instructions with the BU 442 rubric, plus the baseline, the earned value results and any threshold your section fixes. We write a custom example that screens on thresholds, traces each gap to a cause in the work, tests the progress data itself and pairs every finding with an owned action. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 442 papers and project management samples
- BU 442 Unit 1: Estimating methods paper
- BU 442 Unit 2: Cost estimate with basis
- BU 442 Unit 3: Work breakdown and durations
- BU 442 Unit 4: Network diagram and critical path
- BU 442 Unit 5: Budget and contingency
- BU 442 Unit 6: Earned value calculation
- BU 442 Unit 8: Forecast and status report
- BU 433 Unit 7: Retrospective with a committed change
- BU 434 Unit 7: Future state and gap analysis
- BU 436 Unit 7: Currency and financial risk
- BU 345 Unit 7: Status report to sponsor
BU 442 Unit 7 questions, answered
How do I choose thresholds if the instructions do not give any?
Set them from the case rather than from a habit, and say what they are based on. A gap large enough to matter to the sponsor described in the assignment is one anchor; a gap larger than the estimating error you claimed in an earlier unit is another and reads well because it links the two. State both a money figure and a proportion, since either alone misbehaves at one end.
Should favorable variances be investigated too?
Yes, and skipping them is a common way to lose part of the criterion. An account under budget may mean work was done more cheaply, or it may mean the work has not started and the progress reading is wrong. A favorable gap that turns out to be a measurement problem is worth more in the write-up than a straightforward overrun.
What makes a corrective action strong enough to score?
It has to change something specific and be startable by a named person. Rescheduling an element onto a chain with float, moving a portion of work to a cheaper resource, or releasing contingency against the element it was raised for are all actions. Add what you expect the response to do to the account and by when, so a later unit can check whether it worked.
Where can I find a free BU 442 Unit 7 sample paper?
The BU 442 Unit 7 variance analysis with response is free to read in full on this page, with the threshold test, causes, action table and margin notes. For different variances, email the prompt and a custom analysis follows free, typically within two days.
Should favorable variances be investigated in BU 442 Unit 7?
Large ones should. The sample investigates favorable variances above 10 percent and $5,000, since an underrun can mean work was skipped or credited early. Its mechanical underrun fell below that threshold but was still checked.