| Course | BU 506 Leading Change and Operational Excellence |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Improvement design |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 506 Unit 4
Cartons Calculated Once, the Lot Flag Carried Through: An Improvement Design for the Special-Order Handoff at a Composite Columbus Flooring Retailer
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 506: Leading Change and Operational Excellence
Instructor Name
February 2, 2026
Cartons Calculated Once, the Lot Flag Carried Through: An Improvement Design for the Special-Order Handoff at a Composite Columbus Flooring Retailer
Scope of the Redesign
Unit 3 traced 17 of the 27 material problems found at staging to one root cause. At the showroom handoff, people convert floor areas to cartons manually and carry lot requirements in their heads, because the system offers neither a carton calculation nor a dye lot field. This design changes only the steps that cause implicates, steps 1 to 4 and step 6 of the process walk in Unit 2. Manufacturer lead times, freight, staging order and installer scheduling are unchanged, and the 18 late orders caused by manufacturers shipping late are outside this design.
The redesign applies mistake-proofing in the sense Shingo (1986) gave the idea: rather than inspecting for errors after they happen, change the step so the error is hard to make in the first place.
Current and Redesigned Steps
Steps 5, 7, 8 and 9 are unchanged.
| Step | What happens now | What happens instead |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Order capture | Consultant writes the order on a paper form and converts room measurements to square feet | Consultant enters the order on a simplified order-capture screen in the business system while the customer is present; the screen converts square feet to cartons using the current carton size and the waste allowance set by the installation manager for each product type, and sets a lot flag automatically for products marked lot-sensitive |
| 2. Order entry | Administrator keys the paper order at end of day and converts to cartons from a price sheet | Administrator reviews each captured order the same day, about 2 minutes, checking accessories such as transitions and stair nosing; no re-keying |
| 3. Buyer review | Buyer checks quantities and emails the showroom about lot requirements | Buyer reviews the order; the lot flag and calculated cartons are already on it |
| 4. Purchase order | Buyer adds any lot note by hand | The purchase order prints the lot requirement automatically |
| 6. Receiving | Receiving counts cartons against the purchase order | Receiving counts cartons and, for flagged orders, records lot numbers on arrival and reports a mixed lot the same day |
| New: carton table upkeep | Carton sizes live on price sheets at each showroom | Purchasing updates one carton table within 2 business days of receiving a new manufacturer price sheet |
Options Considered and Rejected
Three alternatives were considered. Having the buyer double-check every carton count would catch some errors, but it adds work at a third handoff and finds errors after they are made rather than preventing them. Hiring a dedicated order-entry clerk would concentrate expertise but keep the same handoff, and its cost, roughly one full-time salary, is out of proportion to 17 late orders in six weeks. Asking manufacturers to ship single lots on every order is outside our control and unnecessary, since only about four in ten special orders involve lot-sensitive products. A new quoting software package was also mentioned in the consultation sessions; it may be worth considering later, but the existing business system can support the order-capture screen with modest configuration.
How the People Doing the Work Were Involved
Before anything was settled I held two 30-minute sessions, on January 28 and 29, with the four showroom administrators, three sales consultants, the buyer and the receiving clerk. I presented the Unit 3 findings and a first draft of the design, then asked what would go wrong. The design changed in four ways as a result.
The administrators asked to keep a same-day review step. My draft removed them from the order entirely, and they pointed out that they catch accessories and special cases that a calculator would miss. Consultants said that some in-home measurements happen in basements with no signal, so a paper fallback is allowed if the order is entered before the consultant leaves the showroom that day. The buyer asked that purchasing, not the showrooms, own the carton table, since purchasing receives the price sheets first. Receiving asked for the lot flag to print in large type on the purchase order so it cannot be missed during a busy morning.
Lam et al. (2015) found that employee commitment to continuous improvement depends partly on whether employees see their input shaping the change. The four changes above are the evidence that it did.
Predicted Effect on the Baseline
The design targets 17 late orders from the baseline period: 10 caused by carton conversion and 7 by missing lot instructions. I expect it to prevent all 7 lot-instruction problems and about 7 of the 10 conversion problems, since a calculator still depends on a correct carton table and correct square footage. Those 14 orders, if on time, would raise install-ready on time from 70.9 percent (144 of 203) to about 77.8 percent (158 of 203). Earlier lot checks at receiving should also shorten the delay on the remaining mixed-lot orders by about 3 business days, because the problem is found on arrival rather than at staging. Liker (2004) argues that problems should be made visible at the point they occur; moving the lot check to receiving does that.
The prediction does not include any change in manufacturer timing, and a spring measurement period may look better than the late-autumn baseline for seasonal reasons. Unit 8 will need to separate those effects.
Costs
Configuration of the order-capture screen and the carton table is estimated at about 12 hours of the business system vendor's time, roughly $1,800 at a typical consulting rate; this is a labeled estimate, not a quoted price. Consultants will spend about 5 more minutes per order, administrators about 12 fewer, and receiving about 3 more minutes per flagged order. The net change in staff time is close to zero; the larger costs are the training and the transition, which Units 5 and 6 address.
The design also carries a risk that should be stated with its costs. A calculator is only as good as its carton table, and the baseline found three conversion errors caused by a manufacturer changing its packaging. If the table is not kept current, the redesign will turn a scattered error into a systematic one, wrong on every order for that product until someone notices. That is why carton table upkeep appears as a new step with an owner and a deadline, and why Unit 7 will need a control that watches it.
References
Lam, M., O'Donnell, M., & Robertson, D. (2015). Achieving employee commitment for continuous improvement initiatives. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(2), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2013-0134
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.
Shingo, S. (1986). Zero quality control: Source inspection and the poka-yoke system. Productivity Press.
The Herzing BU 506 Unit 4 instructions
Unit 4 of BU 506 asks students to redesign the part of the process their cause analysis implicated. Expect to present the design step by step against the current process, say for each altered step who performs it, what triggers it and what it produces, show the options you considered and rejected, describe how the people doing the work were consulted and what changed as a result, and predict the effect on the baseline measure. The design should change only what the cause analysis supports. For a composite or hypothetical case, consultation can be described as planned. Actual vendor quotes from your employer stay out; use labeled estimates for costs.
How the BU 506 Unit 4 example is put together
Scope comes first: the paper restates the root cause, lists which steps change and which stay as they are, and introduces mistake-proofing. A six-row table sets each current step beside its redesigned version, including a new step for keeping the carton table current. A rejected-options section weighs a buyer double-check, an order-entry clerk, a single-lot rule for all orders and new software. The consultation section reports two sessions and the four changes they produced, linked to Lam and colleagues on commitment. A prediction section works from 17 targeted orders to an expected rate, and the costs section adds staff minutes, a labeled configuration estimate and the risk of a stale carton table.
BU 506 Unit 4 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for the improvement design generally credits scope control, step-level specificity, alternatives, involvement of the people doing the work, a predicted effect and stated costs, plus APA. Scope control earns full credit when the design changes only what the cause analysis implicates and marks the rest unchanged. Specificity rewards each step described by actor, trigger and output. Alternatives score when they are real options with reasons for rejection. Involvement is judged on evidence that consultation changed something, not merely that it occurred. The predicted effect earns points when it is quantified against the baseline with its assumptions stated. Costs and risks are often the tie-breaker between strong and excellent designs.
BU 506 Unit 4 help before you submit
Improvement designs lose marks when they describe a new process in the abstract rather than step by step against the current one. Another frequent gap is a design that fixes problems the cause analysis never found. Writers often list consultation without saying what it changed, which reads as a box ticked. Predictions are sometimes missing or unrealistically large, claiming the whole gap will close. Costs taken from an employer's real vendor quotes raise confidentiality issues. Mistake-proofing ideas are strong, but only when tied to the error they prevent. If your design feels vague, our writers can help you rebuild it as a current-versus-new table for your own process.
Get a BU 506 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Attach your BU 506 Unit 4 instructions and rubric, together with the cause analysis and the baseline the assignment carries forward from earlier units. We write a custom example that sets proposed steps against current ones, marks what stays, carries rejected options with reasons, records consultation and predicts movement against the measure. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 506 papers and MBA samples
- BU 506 Unit 1: Process selection and baseline
- BU 506 Unit 2: Process walk and waste analysis
- BU 506 Unit 3: Root cause analysis
- BU 506 Unit 5: Change approach and resistance
- BU 506 Unit 6: Implementation plan
- BU 506 Unit 7: Control plan
- BU 506 Unit 8: Results and sustainment report
- BU 530 Unit 4: Self-assessment with limits
- BU 531 Unit 4: Risk appetite statement
- BU 502 Unit 4: Conflict episode analysis
- BU 525 Unit 4: Critical role identification
BU 506 Unit 4 questions, answered
How much of the process should the design change?
As little as the cause analysis justifies. A redesign touching three steps and defending each one scores better than a wholesale replacement nobody could implement. Scope creep also breaks the measurement, since a process changed everywhere cannot show which alteration produced the movement. Keep the change tied to the cause you established and say what you deliberately left alone.
Do I have to consult people if the process is hypothetical?
Then write the consultation as part of the case and be explicit that it is constructed. Say who would be asked, in what order, what they would likely raise and how the design would answer it. Sections care that you designed with the operators rather than at them, and a clearly labeled case version demonstrates the same reasoning as a real one.
Can I include the actual costs my company was quoted?
No. Vendor quotations, license fees, internal rates and configuration details are commercial information belonging to your employer, and some of it is covered by agreement with the supplier. Describe the kind of cost the change carries, give the numbers as composite case material labeled that way, and the design argument holds up exactly as well.
Where can I find a free BU 506 Unit 4 sample paper?
The BU 506 Unit 4 improvement design is free to read here in full, with the current-versus-new table, rejected options, consultation changes and margin notes. If your process differs, send the prompt and a design for your case comes back free, usually inside 48 hours.
How much should a BU 506 Unit 4 design predict?
Only what the cause analysis supports. The sample targets 17 late orders, expects to prevent about 14, and predicts a rise to about 77.8 percent rather than claiming every late order will disappear.