Three to five ideas, a defined set of screening criteria with weights or thresholds, a scored comparison, and a paragraph explaining why the winner won and the others did not. Searches like "busi 4002 week 2 assignment example", "busi4002 week 2 sample" and "busi 4002 week 2 example" land here.
What a finished BUSI 4002 Week 2 opportunity screen looks like
Most submitted screens run two to four pages and are built around a table. Rows are the candidate ideas, named concretely enough to be different from one another, and columns are the criteria: startup capital required, access to customers, skills already held, regulatory burden, time to first revenue. Cells hold ratings on a stated scale, not adjectives. Above the table sits a short section defining each criterion and saying why it belongs there, and below it sits the interpretation, where the totals are read and the selected idea is named. A rejected idea gets a sentence apiece explaining what killed it. Title page and references follow APA, and the table carries a numbered caption because Walden rubrics in business courses check table formatting.
How a BUSI 4002 Week 2 example is structured
The build runs in one order. Ideas are generated first and pinned down second, because an idea stated as mobile car detailing cannot be screened while mobile detailing for fleet vehicles at office parks can. Criteria come next, and the defensible ones are tied to constraints the writer actually faces: available capital, hours per week, licensing that applies in the state. Each criterion gets a scale and, where the rubric asks for it, a weight reflecting how much that constraint really binds. Scoring follows, done one criterion at a time across all ideas rather than one idea at a time, which is what keeps the ratings comparable. Interpretation closes the document, and strong versions include a sentence on what the scoring would have to change for a rejected idea to win.
Candidate ideas stated to a testable grain
A screen can only rate what has an edge to it. Lawn care becomes seasonal lawn maintenance contracts for rental property managers, and suddenly capital, customer access and competition all have answers. Screens that list vague categories produce ratings nobody can defend, and the table ends up scoring the writer's mood rather than the ideas.
Criteria drawn from binding constraints
Strong criterion sets read like a portrait of a real situation: capital that stops at a stated figure, twenty hours a week, no commercial kitchen, no license for regulated work. Each criterion earns its place with a sentence saying which limit it stands for, and criteria that could not eliminate anything get cut before the table is drawn.
A scale with defined anchors
Numbers mean something only when the document says what they mean. A five-point scale gets anchors written out, so a three on capital is a stated dollar band and not a feeling. Anchored scales also make the ratings arguable, which is the point; a reader can disagree with a specific placement instead of dismissing the whole table.
Ratings supported where the stakes are highest
Every cell does not need a citation, but the ones driving the outcome do. Where a demand rating or a capital rating decides the winner, a footnote or an inline source shows where the number came from. This is the habit the rest of the term keeps testing, and Week 2 is where it first has somewhere to live.
The decision paragraph does real work
After the totals, the finished screen explains the result in prose: which criterion separated the top two candidates, what the runner-up would have needed, and whether the winner survives on a narrow margin or a wide one. A screen that simply announces the highest score has skipped the analysis it was assigned to perform.
Where marks go in BUSI 4002 Week 2
Most of a grader's attention lands on the criteria section, because that is where a screen is honest or is not. Criteria invented to fit the preferred idea are visible immediately, usually as a criterion that only one candidate could possibly satisfy. Full marks go to a set that names a real constraint, applies to every candidate, and would have selected a different idea under different conditions. The scoring band checks internal consistency: identical evidence rated differently across two rows loses points even when the totals look reasonable. A separate band covers the decision paragraph, which has to explain the outcome rather than restate the totals. Formatting bands cover the table caption, APA references for any market figures used in the ratings, and page limits, which several sections enforce strictly.
Get a BUSI 4002 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 prompt with the rubric and the desk builds the screen to it, first sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours. Prescribed criteria columns get used as written; where the choice is left open, the sample argues for the set it adopts. Weighted and unweighted versions are both available.
BUSI 4002 Week 2 questions, answered
How many ideas should a screen compare?
Three is the common floor and five the practical ceiling. Fewer than three leaves nothing to compare and the exercise collapses into advocacy for one idea; more than five spreads the evidence so thin that no rating gets support. Whatever the count, the ideas have to be genuinely different from each other, since three variations on the same business make the comparison meaningless.
Do the criteria have to be weighted?
Only if the prompt says so. Unweighted screens are perfectly defensible when the criteria matter roughly equally, and adding arbitrary weights to look rigorous is worse than leaving them off. If weights are required, each one needs a stated reason: capital weighted heaviest because that is the limit most likely to stop the venture before it starts.
What if the idea I want to pursue loses?
That is a usable result and several instructors reward it. The screen can select the highest scorer, then close with a short paragraph saying which criterion sank the preferred idea and what would have to change. What loses points is quietly adjusting a rating so the favorite wins, because an inconsistent cell is easy to spot next to the others.