| Course | BUS 484 Entrepreneurship |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Opportunity assessment |
| Length | About 1,128 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 484 Module 2
Twenty-Three Office Managers and One Washing Machine in a Supply Closet: Is a Pickup Laundering Service for Small Clinics a Real Opportunity?
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
BUS 484: Entrepreneurship
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Twenty-Three Office Managers and One Washing Machine in a Supply Closet: Is a Pickup Laundering Service for Small Clinics a Real Opportunity?
Tasha Greene has supervised linen services at a Greenville, South Carolina, hospital for eleven years. Her department processes surgical gowns, scrubs and patient linens through a contracted industrial laundry, and she knows the rules for handling soiled textiles in detail. Over the past two years, three acquaintances who work in small dental and veterinary offices asked her the same question: what are they supposed to do with lab coats that come back from patient care with blood or saliva on them? Greene began to wonder whether those offices represented a business. This paper assesses whether her idea, a pickup and delivery laundering service for small clinics, is a genuine opportunity or only an interesting thought.
Where the Idea Came From
Baron (2006) argued that entrepreneurs identify opportunities largely by recognizing patterns, connecting events or trends that seem unrelated to others. Prior knowledge in an industry gives founders a richer set of patterns to draw on, and active searching increases the chance of noticing connections. Greene's case fits this account closely. Her hospital role taught her how infection control rules apply to textiles, and the repeated questions from friends formed a pattern that someone outside the field would likely have missed. She did not invent a new technology; she saw a gap between a rule she knew well and the way small offices were coping with it.
The Rule Behind the Need
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's bloodborne pathogens standard requires employers whose workers may come into contact with blood or other body fluids that could carry infection to provide protective clothing such as gowns and lab coats. The same regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030, also obliges the employer to clean, launder or dispose of that protective equipment at no cost to the employee, and contaminated laundry must be handled as little as possible and bagged where it was used (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 2024). In practice, this means a dental hygienist should not carry a soiled coat home in a gym bag. Hospitals meet the rule through large contracts. Small offices with three to fifteen clinical staff must find their own solution.
How the Interviews Were Run
Before building anything, Greene interviewed 23 office managers at dental, veterinary and dermatology practices within 20 miles of her home, reached through her network and through cold visits during lunch hours. She followed the advice of Fitzpatrick (2013) for customer conversations: ask about specific past behavior instead of hypothetical future behavior, avoid describing the idea until the end, and listen for problems people have already spent money or time trying to solve. Her core questions were how the office currently handled lab coats, who did the work, what it cost and whether anyone had complained. Only in the last few minutes did she describe the service and ask what the manager would expect to pay.
What Office Managers Described
The answers were more varied than Greene expected. Eleven offices ran a household washing machine in a supply closet or break room, usually loaded by an assistant at the end of the day. Five used a regional uniform rental company, and four of those five complained about minimum contracts, missed pickups or coats that came back the wrong size. Four managers admitted that some staff took coats home despite office policy. Three offices used disposable gowns only and had no laundering need. Fourteen managers said the current arrangement took between one and three staff hours each week, and six mentioned an inspection or a staff complaint as the reason the topic was on their minds. When asked about price, the typical expectation was between $2.00 and $3.00 per coat, picked up and returned weekly.
Scoring the Opportunity
The table scores the idea from 1 to 5 on five criteria, using the interview evidence.
The total of 19 out of 25 suggests a promising but not certain opportunity. The weakest score, competition, is also the most important to test, because the regional uniform company could lower its minimums if a new rival appeared, and office managers who already wash coats for free may not see a reason to pay.
| Criterion | Score | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Customer problem is real and recurring | 5 | Weekly laundering need; staff time and compliance worry reported by 14 of 23 |
| Customers will pay | 4 | Expected price of $2.00 to $3.00 per coat; uniform users already pay |
| Market is large enough to start | 3 | About 140 dental, veterinary and dermatology offices within 20 miles by Greene's count |
| Competition leaves room | 2 | A regional uniform company serves larger offices; home washing is the main rival |
| Founder fit | 5 | Eleven years of textile handling and infection control knowledge; clinic contacts |
Limiting the Risk
Sarasvathy (2001) described two ways founders approach a venture. Causal reasoning starts with a goal and selects the means to reach it, such as forecasting demand and raising money for a planned facility. Effectual reasoning starts with the means a founder already has, including who she is, what she knows and whom she knows, and builds the venture step by step with partners who commit along the way. A central principle of effectuation is affordable loss: the founder decides in advance how much she is willing to lose and designs each step so the loss cannot exceed it. Greene set her affordable loss at $6,000 of savings. Rather than buying industrial machines, she arranged for a commercial laundry that already serves a nursing home to process the coats under a per-pound contract, and she will use her own SUV for pickups at first.
The Decision
Greene will run a 90-day pilot with paying customers. Seven of the interviewed offices agreed to try a weekly service at $2.50 per coat, with no minimum contract, which addresses the main complaint about the uniform company. During the pilot she will track coats per week, pickup time per stop, per-pound processing cost and any missed deliveries. If at least five offices renew after 90 days and her cost per coat stays under $1.40, she will register the business and seek more clinics. If not, she will have lost less than her stated limit and learned why.
Conclusion
Greene's idea passes the first test of an opportunity: small clinics have a real, recurring problem created by a federal rule and by the practical difficulty of washing coats in a supply closet, and many would pay to solve it. Her background gives her an advantage in seeing and meeting the need. Competition and the habit of free in-house washing remain open questions. A short, paid pilot that risks only what she can afford to lose is the right way to answer them.
References
Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs "connect the dots" to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104-119. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873412
Fitzpatrick, R. (2013). The mom test: How to talk to customers and learn if your business is a good idea when everyone is lying to you. CreateSpace.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Bloodborne pathogens, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030 (2024). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-Z/section-1910.1030
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-263. https://doi.org/10.2307/259121
Reading the BUS 484 Module 2 assignment instructions
Aspen's catalog frames BUS 484 around how ventures come into being and what predicts their success, and a second module paper typically asks students to assess an opportunity rather than simply describe an idea. Follow the Module 2 instructions your instructor posts in the classroom; this example interprets them as an evidence-based assessment of one idea. Explain where the idea came from and why the founder was in a position to see it. Identify the customer and the problem in specific terms. Gather evidence from real or plausible customers, and describe how you asked so the reader can judge whether the answers are trustworthy. Score the idea against stated criteria instead of offering a general impression. Address risk, including what the founder could lose. Reach a decision, which may be to proceed, to change the idea or to drop it.
How the BUS 484 Module 2 example is put together
The opening introduces Tasha Greene, a hospital linen supervisor whose daily work with soiled textiles helped her notice that small clinics had no good laundering option. Baron's account of opportunity recognition as pattern recognition explains why her experience mattered. A section on the OSHA bloodborne pathogens standard sets out the employer's duty to clean protective clothing at no cost to staff. The interview section follows Fitzpatrick's rule of asking what people have actually done instead of what they think, and the findings section reports what 23 office managers described, including washing machines in supply closets and coats taken home. A five-row table scores the problem, willingness to pay, market size, competition and founder fit. Sarasvathy's effectuation and the idea of affordable loss lead to a pilot design, followed by a conclusion.
Reading the BUS 484 Module 2 grading rubric
An instructor reading an opportunity assessment mostly wants to know whether the problem is real, whether evidence supports the claims, whether the analysis is organized around criteria and whether the conclusion follows. In this example the problem rests on a federal standard and on what customers reported doing, not on what the founder hoped they would say. The interview method is described in enough detail that an instructor can see the questions were neutral. Each score in the table has a reason written beside it, so the total is traceable. Baron, Sarasvathy and Fitzpatrick are used for distinct purposes, and the OSHA regulation is cited by its section of the Code of Federal Regulations. The paper earns credit for judgment by naming the weakest criterion, competition from a regional uniform company, and planning a test that addresses it.
BUS 484 Module 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Many Module 2 drafts describe an idea enthusiastically and then call it an opportunity without testing it. The difference lies in evidence that customers have the problem and will pay to solve it. Another common error is reporting interviews in which the student asked people whether they liked the idea; polite answers prove little. Ask what people do now, what it costs them and what they have tried. Be honest about competitors, including the option of doing nothing. If you use a scoring table, explain each score. Keep the founder's own background in the analysis, since experience and contacts are part of what makes an idea workable for one person and not another. When the evidence is mixed, say so, and choose a small test rather than forcing a yes or no that the data cannot support.
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 Aspen University 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.
More BUS 484 and Business Administration sample papers
- BUS 484 Module 1: Entrepreneurs and the Economy
- BUS 484 Module 3: Feasibility Analysis
- BUS 484 Module 4: Business Model Canvas
- BUS 484 Module 5: Competitive Analysis
- BUS 484 Module 6: Financing a New Venture
- BUS 484 Module 7: Legal Form and Launch
- BUS 484 Module 8: Business Plan and Pitch
- BUS 320 Module 8: Small Business Marketing Plan
- BUS 305 Module 8: Team Communication and Culture
- BUS 495 Module 8: Managing Across Borders
- BUS 499 Module 7: Recommendations and Implementation
BUS 484 Module 2 questions, answered
What does BUS 484 Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's BUS 484 moves next to recognizing and assessing opportunities, so a paper that tests an idea with evidence and reaches a decision is typical. Follow your classroom instructions on length and format.
What is the difference between an idea and an opportunity?
An idea is a thought about a product or service; an opportunity exists when customers have a real problem, will pay to solve it and can be reached profitably.
How should I interview potential customers?
Ask about what they currently do, what it costs and what they have tried, rather than whether they like your idea, and avoid describing your product until the end.
Where can I find a free BUS 484 Module 2 sample paper?
The full assessment is shown above: a pickup laundering service for small clinics, tested through 23 interviews and scored against five criteria in a table, with a pilot decision.
What is affordable loss?
An idea from effectuation research: instead of forecasting returns, a founder decides how much she can afford to lose and designs the first step so the loss cannot exceed it.