| Course | ENT 527 Opportunity Assessment and Innovation (ENT/527) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Graduate opportunity assessment |
| Length | about 1,152 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ENT 527 Week 3
Which Idea Is Worth Pursuing? Screening Five Packaging Ventures With Evidence From Customers
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
ENT/527: Opportunity Assessment and Innovation
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The founder, her contacts, the ideas and all figures are composites written for a model paper.
Week 2 narrowed 40 ideas to five for Dana as she explored ventures around food packaging waste. This paper screens those five against evidence from customers and the wider market and chooses one to develop further.
How People Evaluate Opportunities
Haynie et al. (2009) studied how experienced entrepreneurs evaluated opportunities in a decision experiment and found that they favored opportunities that fit their existing knowledge and resources, especially resources that would be hard for others to acquire. Wood and McKelvie (2015) reviewed research on opportunity evaluation and described it as future-focused judgment: people assess what an opportunity could become, which makes evaluation vulnerable to optimism and to the evaluator's prior beliefs. Both points matter for Dana. Her experience is an asset, but it may make her favor her original idea. The screen must use evidence, not enthusiasm.
Screening Criteria
Five criteria were chosen, each scored from 1 to 5 and weighted. Customer need, 30 percent: how painful and frequent is the problem, based on interviews? Market size, 20 percent: how many potential customers in the region, and how much might they pay? Competition, 15 percent: how well do existing solutions serve customers? Economics, 20 percent: can the business plausibly earn a margin at a price customers accept? Founder fit, 15 percent: do Dana's knowledge, network and resources match what the venture needs?
Scoring the Five Ideas
Reusable container pool for produce and bakery routes. Need 5: nine of 14 interviewees described crushed and wet boxes and rejected product. Market 4: about 120 regional producers ship daily to five grocery distribution centers. Competition 3: national pallet and crate pooling firms exist but focus on large shippers and long routes. Economics 3: requires container investment and washing, but saves boxes and product losses. Fit 5: Dana knows the routes, the docks and the people. Weighted score: 4.1.
Packaging waste reporting service. Need 4: retailers' new reporting requests are real and growing. Market 4: hundreds of suppliers face them. Competition 3: sustainability software firms are entering. Economics 4: software margins are high once built. Fit 2: Dana lacks software skills. Weighted score: 3.6.
Right-sized packaging software. Need 3. Market 3. Competition 2: established packaging suppliers offer similar tools. Economics 3. Fit 2. Weighted score: 2.7.
Consolidated deliveries for small producers. Need 3. Market 3. Competition 3: regional distributors already consolidate. Economics 2: thin margins. Fit 4. Weighted score: 3.0.
Recycled corrugated brokerage. Need 2. Market 3. Competition 2. Economics 2. Fit 3. Weighted score: 2.4.
Testing the Top Two
Scores based on interviews still reflect what people said, not what they would do. Ries (2011) urges founders to treat early ventures as experiments and to test their riskiest assumptions with the smallest possible effort, measuring what customers do rather than what they say. Dana designed two quick, inexpensive tests to settle it. For the container pool, she offered six producers and two grocery distribution centers a free four-week pilot on one route each, asking them to commit dock time and staff training. For the reporting service, she built a one-page website describing the service at $150 a month and asked producers who expressed interest to sign up for a paid trial.
Results were clear and quick. Three producers and one distribution center committed to the container pilot within two weeks, and one producer offered to pay a share of washing costs. The reporting service drew 41 website visits and seven inquiries but no paid signups; producers said they would wait until retailers required the data.
Seven people asked about the reporting service; three plants and a grocery warehouse actually changed their docks for the crates.
Why the Reporting Service Fell Short
The reporting service's weak test result deserves a closer look. Producers who inquired said they agreed the data would be useful but had no deadline forcing them to pay yet. One said she would revisit it when her largest customer made reporting mandatory. That pattern, real interest without urgency, is a common reason promising ideas fail: customers recognize a problem but do not feel it sharply enough today to spend money. The idea may be early rather than wrong.
Competitors Up Close
National pallet and crate pooling companies serve large shippers on long routes with standard containers. Interviews suggest they do not serve small regional producers well: minimum volumes are high, collection is weekly rather than daily and crate sizes do not fit bakery trays. Dana's venture would compete on local service, daily collection and containers sized for regional products. If a national firm decided to target the segment, it would have scale advantages, so building strong relationships and route density quickly matters.
Rough Economics
For the container pool, Dana estimated economics for one route serving a bakery that ships 400 cases a day to one distribution center. Durable crates cost about $8 each, and a route needs about 2,000 in circulation, or $16,000. Washing and collection cost about $0.18 per trip. The bakery currently spends $0.92 per corrugated case and loses about 2 percent of product to damage. A fee of $0.55 per crate trip would save the bakery about 40 percent on packaging before counting reduced damage, while leaving Dana's venture a margin of about $0.37 per trip, enough to pay back crates in roughly four months at full volume.
Sensitivity of the Economics
The estimate depends on a few assumptions. If crate losses reach 3 percent a month, replacement costs cut the margin per trip by about a third. If washing costs rise to $0.25 per trip because volumes are lower than expected, margin falls to about $0.30. If the bakery's product damage falls by half with crates, its savings rise further, which may justify a higher fee. The pilot is designed to measure exactly these numbers.
The Choice
The reusable container pool for produce and bakery routes scores highest, has the strongest customer evidence and fits Dana's knowledge and network. The reporting service remains interesting; if retailer requirements tighten, it could become a second product built on the same customer relationships.
What Would Change the Decision
Dana would stop or rethink if pilot crates go missing at rates above 3 percent a month, if the distribution center finds handling crates slower than breaking down boxes or if producers decline to pay after the pilot.
Next Test
The four-week pilot on four routes, starting next month, will measure crate loss, washing cost per trip, handling time at the dock and damage rates compared with boxes. Its results will shape the venture concept in Week 6.
Conclusion
A weighted screen grounded in interview evidence and research on opportunity evaluation narrowed five ideas to two, and quick tests that asked customers to commit resolved the choice. The container pool has real demand, workable economics and a strong fit with its founder. The reporting service waits as a possible second product.
References
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & McMullen, J. S. (2009). An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 337-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00824.x
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business.
Wood, M. S., & McKelvie, A. (2015). Opportunity evaluation as future focused cognition: Identifying conceptual themes and empirical trends. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 256-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12053
What the ENT 527 Week 3 instructions ask
The third ENT 527 paper asks MBA students to assess business opportunities. Common tasks include defining criteria such as customer need, market size, competition, profit potential, risk and fit with the founder, applying a screening tool or feasibility analysis to several ideas, gathering evidence from customers or secondary research and recommending which opportunity to pursue. Some versions ask for a customer discovery plan or minimum viable product. Use the ideas developed earlier, support each judgment with evidence rather than opinion and cite research on opportunity evaluation in APA. Recommend one opportunity, explain what evidence would change your mind and describe the next test you would run.
How this ENT 527 Week 3 example is built
Our worked paper screens five ideas around food packaging waste: a reusable container pool for produce and bakery routes, a packaging waste reporting service, right-sized packaging software, consolidated deliveries for small producers and a recycled corrugated brokerage. Research shows that people judge opportunities partly by whether they have the resources and knowledge to exploit them, and that evaluation is a future-focused judgment open to bias. A weighted screen on need, market, competition, economics and fit puts the container pool and the reporting service on top. Quick tests follow: a landing page and pilot offers to six producers and two grocers. The container pool wins three pilot commitments; the reporting service draws interest but no payment. The paper selects the container pool and states what would change that decision.
ENT 527 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
Graduate graders reward opportunity assessment grounded in evidence. Strong papers define criteria with reasons, apply them consistently to several ideas and support scores with data from customers and research. Credit goes to testing the leading ideas with real buyers, to rough economics with stated assumptions and to awareness of bias in evaluating one's own ideas. Graders also value a clear statement of what would change the recommendation. Graders also look for economics rough enough to be quick but detailed enough to show whether the idea can pay. Specific evidence, organized comparison and APA citations of opportunity research complete a strong paper.
ENT 527 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
Opportunity papers often score ideas on intuition and choose the founder's favorite. Base scores on evidence, such as customer interviews, market data and pilot responses. Another frequent gap is treating stated interest as demand; people say they like ideas they will not pay for. Test willingness to pay or commit. Students also skip economics; estimate price, costs and volume roughly to see whether the idea can make money. Some papers ignore the founder's fit and resources, which research shows shape whether an opportunity is right for a particular person. Include them. Finally, say what you will test next, how long it will take and what result would make you stop.
Related ENT 527 sample papers
Other ENT 527 week samples
- ENT 527 Week 1: The Entrepreneurial Mindset
- ENT 527 Week 2: Generating Ideas
- ENT 527 Week 4: Intrapreneurship
- ENT 527 Week 5: Social Entrepreneurship
- ENT 527 Week 6: Venture Concept
More MBA sample papers
- DAT 565 Week 3: Visualizing Data
- ECO 535 Week 3: Pricing Information Goods
- ENT 588 Week 3: Prototypes and Testing
- FIN 571 Week 3: Valuing a Business
ENT 527 Week 3 questions, answered
What does ENT 527 Week 3 usually cover?
It usually covers assessing business opportunities: criteria such as need, market, competition, economics and fit, screening tools, customer evidence and choosing an opportunity to pursue.
Where can I find a free ENT 527 Week 3 sample paper?
Posted above is the full ENT 527 Week 3 screen of five packaging ventures, with margin notes, free.
What is the difference between an idea and an opportunity?
An idea is a possible product or service; an opportunity is an idea for which there is evidence of real customer need, a reachable market and a way to make money.
How can you test demand before building a business?
By asking potential customers to commit something, such as a pilot, a deposit or a signed letter of intent, rather than only asking whether they like the idea.
Why does founder fit matter in opportunity assessment?
Because opportunities differ in the knowledge, networks and resources they require, and founders are more likely to succeed with opportunities that match what they have.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All ENT 527 week samples · All courses