| Course | DDBA 4990 Business Essentials |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Operations note |
| Length | About 780 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DDBA 4990 Week 6
Six Hours of Work, Nineteen Days of Waiting: An Operations Note Following One Kitchen Order Through a Custom Cabinet Shop and Finding the Spray Booth That Sets the Pace for Everything Else
Student Name
Walden University
DDBA 4990: Business Essentials
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Six Hours of Work, Nineteen Days of Waiting: An Operations Note Following One Kitchen Order Through a Custom Cabinet Shop and Finding the Spray Booth That Sets the Pace for Everything Else
Why Follow One Order
Delay has an address in every production process, and a custom cabinet shop is no exception. Larkin Custom Cabinets, a composite shop of 18 people in the suburbs of Minneapolis, quotes kitchens at six weeks from signed drawing to installation and has delivered late on 40 percent of jobs this year. The owner believes the shop needs another cabinetmaker. This note follows one typical order, a 22-cabinet kitchen in painted maple, through the shop using a week of job tickets, and records at each step how long the work took and how long it waited before the step began.
The Process Map
The order spent about 65 hours being worked on and 19 working days waiting. Nearly half the waiting, nine days, happened in front of the spray booth.
Table 1
One Kitchen Order, Step by Step
| Step | Working time | Waiting time before the step | What it waited for | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quote and deposit | 2 hours | none | Customer visit | |
| Shop drawing | 5 hours | 3 days | Drafting queue, one drafter | |
| Cutting (CNC router) | 6 hours | 2 days | Router schedule | |
| Assembly | 22 hours | 1 day | Cut parts staged | |
| Finishing (spray booth, prime, two coats, cure) | 14 hours | 9 days | Booth availability | |
| Installation | 16 hours | 4 days | Install crew calendar | |
| Total | about 65 hours | 19 working days | | |
From job tickets for order 2611, week of September 14, with waiting counted in working days.
Walking the Order Through
The quote and drawing moved quickly. Cutting waited two days for the router, which runs one shift and was busy with another kitchen. Assembly started the next morning, and two cabinetmakers finished the boxes and doors in under three days. Then the parts stopped. The shop has one spray booth, and every painted or stained piece passes through it at least three times: primer, first coat, second coat, each followed by a cure. On the day the order reached finishing, the booth already had parts from five other jobs waiting, stacked on carts along the wall. The order waited nine working days for its turn, then spent about two days in the booth. Installation followed four days later, waiting for the crew's next opening.
Why the Booth Governs the Shop
Little (1961) proved a relationship that holds for almost any steady process: the average number of jobs inside equals the rate at which jobs leave multiplied by the average time each one spends inside. Turned around, if a station finishes jobs at a fixed rate, the more work piles up in front of it, the longer each job sits there. The booth completes about three kitchens' worth of parts a week. The carts along the wall held about five kitchens' worth when the order arrived. Five divided by three is a little under two weeks, which matches the nine working days the order waited. Hopp and Spearman (2008) show how a single heavily used station can dominate the lead time of a whole line, and the booth does exactly that here: it is the only step where work arrives faster than it leaves.
What This Means for the Owner's Plan
Hiring another cabinetmaker would speed assembly, which is not where orders wait. Faster assembly would send parts to the booth sooner, making the stack along the wall taller and the wait in front of the booth longer. Goldratt and Cox (2004) told this story in novel form: improvements anywhere except the constraint add inventory without adding output. At Larkin, assembly already outpaces finishing.
Recommendations
Three changes would attack the booth directly, in rising order of cost. First, schedule the booth by job rather than by first-come parts, so that one kitchen's parts move through all three coats together instead of waiting between coats behind other jobs. Second, run the booth for a second shift three nights a week, using one finisher on overtime, which would raise its weekly capacity by about half. Third, if those changes do not bring waits in front of the booth under three days, price a second booth. The owner should not add a cabinetmaker until the booth keeps up.
What the Note Does Not Show
One week of tickets for one order is a snapshot. The waiting figures for other weeks may differ, especially in spring when kitchen orders peak. The note also does not include the time customers take to approve drawings, which the shop does not record. A month of tickets across all jobs would confirm whether the booth is the constraint year-round.
References
Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2004). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement (3rd rev. ed.). North River Press.
Hopp, W. J., & Spearman, M. L. (2008). Factory physics (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Little, J. D. C. (1961). A proof for the queuing formula: L = λW. Operations Research, 9(3), 383-387. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.9.3.383
What the DDBA 4990 Week 6 instructions ask for
Week 6 asks for a short operations note on one process at one firm. Map the process as a sequence of steps and, for each step, record how long work actually takes and how long it waits before the step begins, using real records where you can. Walk one typical order or customer through the map. Identify the step whose capacity limits the whole process and explain why, using a basic operations concept such as Little's Law. Consider what the firm is currently planning to do about delays and whether it addresses the limiting step. Recommend changes in order of cost, starting with scheduling or staffing at the bottleneck before capital spending. Say what your data cannot show. A process table and two to three pages of prose usually suffice.
How the DDBA 4990 Week 6 example is put together
The note opens with the owner's belief that the shop needs another cabinetmaker, then lays out a six-step table built from job tickets for one order in September. A walk-through follows the kitchen from a two-day router wait to assembly finished in under three days, then nine working days on carts beside the spray booth before two days inside it. The analysis applies Little's result: a booth finishing about three kitchens a week with about five queued implies close to two weeks of waiting. Hopp and Spearman's account of heavily used stations and Goldratt and Cox's novel explain why faster assembly would lengthen the queue. Three remedies follow in rising cost: job-based booth scheduling, a part-time second shift and, if needed, a second booth.
Reading the DDBA 4990 Week 6 rubric
Instructors look for two figures at every step, working and waiting, because a map showing only work time hides where delay lives. Walking one order through the map earns credit since it makes the bottleneck concrete. The heaviest weight goes to the identification of the constraint and the reasoning behind it; applying Little's Law correctly, with the numbers worked, shows understanding rather than name-dropping. Credit also goes to testing the firm's own plan against the analysis, here hiring for a step that is not the constraint. Recommendations should start at the constraint and rise in cost. A note that names the limits of one week's tickets and suggests a longer sample shows sound judgment about evidence.
Common DDBA 4990 Week 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The common mistake is recording only how long tasks take. Ask instead how long work sits between steps; that is usually where the days go. Pull a week or two of job tickets, time stamps or logs and calculate both figures for each step. Follow one real order rather than averaging everything. When you find the longest queue, check whether that station is busy nearly all the time; if so, it is likely the constraint. Use Little's Law in plain words with your own numbers. Test the firm's planned fix against your map before recommending anything. Start recommendations with cheap scheduling changes. Our writers can help you turn raw job tickets into a process table.
Get a DDBA 4990 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Include the Week 6 prompt, the rubric and whatever process your section described, or name a product you know well. A process map with measured times, a named constraint and a focused recommendation arrives in 24 to 48 hours, and the first sample costs nothing. Unless your scenario supplies real times, the ones used are illustrative.
More DDBA 4990 papers and DBA samples
- DDBA 4990 Week 1: Firm Profile
- DDBA 4990 Week 2: Ethics Brief
- DDBA 4990 Week 3: Structure Memo
- DDBA 4990 Week 4: Staffing Analysis
- DDBA 4990 Week 5: Segmentation Brief
- DDBA 4990 Week 7: Income Statement Walkthrough
- DDBA 4990 Week 8: Funding Comparison
- DDBA 4990 Week 9: Information Systems Memo
- DDBA 4990 Week 10: Market Entry Note
- DDBA 4990 Week 11: Capstone Synthesis
- DBAX 9104C Week 6: Evidence and Action Split
- DBAX 9104 Week 6: Limitations Section
- DBAX 9103C Week 6: Findings Section
- DBAX 9103 Week 6: Results Section Paper
DDBA 4990 Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDBA 4990 Week 6 sample paper?
The complete Week 6 operations note, process table and walk-through included, is available lower on this page for nothing.
What process does the DDBA 4990 Week 6 note map?
One painted maple kitchen order through a custom cabinet shop, from quote to installation.
Where does the order wait longest?
In front of the single spray booth, nine working days of the order's 19 days of waiting.
How does Little's Law help?
With about five kitchens queued and three finished a week, the booth's queue implies roughly two weeks of waiting per kitchen.
Why not hire another cabinetmaker?
Assembly is not the constraint; faster assembly would only add parts to the queue in front of the booth.