| Course | DDBA 8006 Contemporary Challenges in Business |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Resource fit audit |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DDBA 8006 Week 3
Ten Years of Site Records and Little Else: A Resource Fit Audit for a Family-Owned Heating and Cooling Distributor Deciding Whether to Sell Annual Maintenance Contracts to Commercial Customers
Student Name
Walden University
DDBA 8006: Contemporary Challenges in Business
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Ten Years of Site Records and Little Else: A Resource Fit Audit for a Family-Owned Heating and Cooling Distributor Deciding Whether to Sell Annual Maintenance Contracts to Commercial Customers
The Move and the Question
Owning a resource is different from holding one that makes a particular move hard to copy. Delta Comfort Supply, a composite family-owned wholesaler of furnaces, air conditioners and parts in the Memphis area, sells units and parts to contractors and to about 400 commercial building owners. Its owners are deciding whether to sell annual maintenance contracts directly to those commercial customers: scheduled inspections, filter changes and priority repair for rooftop units at offices, clinics and shops. Several local contractors already sell such contracts. This audit lists the resources the move would depend on and tests each against the resource-based criteria, asking which, if any, would make Delta's version of the move hard for a rival to imitate.
The Criteria
Barney (1991) set four tests a resource must pass before it can sustain an advantage: it must create value, few rivals may hold it, copying it must be costly, and nothing else may do the same job. Barney (1995) later added a practical question: whether the firm is organized to exploit the resource. The audit applies all five tests to each resource in the context of commercial maintenance contracts, not in general.
The Audit Grid
Table 1
Resources for Commercial Maintenance Contracts, Tested
| Resource | Valuable for this move | Rare | Hard to imitate | No close substitute | Organized to use it | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Licensed technicians (6 on staff) | Yes | No; every contractor employs them | No | No | Partly; they work warehouse and counter shifts | |
| Service fleet (5 vans) | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | |
| Dispatch and scheduling software | Yes | No; sold by several vendors | No | No | Not yet configured for contracts | |
| Supplier terms with two equipment makers | Yes; lower parts cost | Partly; two other distributors have similar terms | Partly | No | Yes | |
| Installation records tied to customer sites, 2015 to present | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No; records sit in an old database | |
Each judgment explained in the section below; records cover about 2,700 commercial units at 400 sites.
Working Through the Grid
Technicians and vans are valuable for the move, since maintenance cannot be done without them, but they fail at the second test: every contractor in the region has them. Dispatch software fails the same way; Delta's system is a common commercial product. Supplier terms are more interesting. Delta buys parts from two equipment makers at distributor prices, which would lower the cost of repairs under contract. But two other distributors in the region have similar terms, and a contractor with enough volume could negotiate close to them. Supplier terms give Delta a modest cost edge, not one that resists imitation.
The installation records pass every test except the last. For about 2,700 commercial units at 400 customer sites, Delta has a decade of records showing the model, the installation date, the warranty, the parts later sold for that unit and often the contractor who installed it. That information is valuable for maintenance contracts because it lets Delta price contracts by the actual age and repair history of each unit and stock the right parts before a technician arrives. It is rare, since no contractor has records for units others installed. It is hard to imitate: Dierickx and Cool (1989) showed that some assets can only be built up over time, through steady accumulation, and cannot be bought quickly; ten years of site-level records are exactly that kind of asset. And it has no close substitute, since a rival would have to survey each building's units from scratch.
The Organization Test
The records fail the final test. They sit in an old database that only one employee can query, and they are not linked to the dispatch software. Peteraf (1993) emphasized that a resource generates advantage only if the firm can capture its value, which requires systems and people to put it to use. Delta cannot yet do that.
What the Audit Shows
Delta has the ordinary resources to enter commercial maintenance: technicians, vans, software and good parts prices. Any capable contractor has those too, so entering on those resources alone would put Delta in direct, price-based competition. The one resource that could make Delta's offer hard to copy is its site-level records. A contract priced and planned from each unit's real history is something rivals cannot match quickly.
Implication for the Decision
The audit supports entering only if Delta first organizes the records: migrating them into the dispatch system, cleaning them and linking each to its customer site. That work, estimated at four months and about $45,000 in software and staff time, is the step that converts a dormant asset into an advantage. Without it, the move is possible but not defensible.
Limits
The judgments of rarity rest on conversations with two contractors and Delta's own knowledge of competitors. A contractor with a large installed base of its own could hold similar records for its customers, which would weaken the rarity judgment in some parts of the market.
References
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1995.9512032192
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1511. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303
The Walden DDBA 8006 Week 3 instructions
For Week 3 you audit the resources an organization would depend on for one specific move. List each resource the move needs, then test it against the resource-based criteria: valuable for this move, rare among competitors, hard to imitate, without close substitutes and supported by the organization's ability to use it. Present the results in a grid, then explain each judgment, especially where a resource fails. Show imitability with reasoning or evidence rather than assertion, for example by explaining how long the resource took to build. Conclude by separating the resources that merely enable the move from any that could make it defensible, and say what the organization must do before the move. Cite the originating resource-based work.
How the DDBA 8006 Week 3 example is put together
The audit names the move first, then states Barney's four criteria and his later organization question. The grid follows with five resources. Prose works through the failures: technicians, vans and dispatch software are valuable but every contractor has them, and supplier terms give a modest edge two rival distributors share. The installation records pass four tests, because they let Delta price contracts by each unit's age and history, no contractor has records for units others installed, and Dierickx and Cool's point about assets built through slow accumulation explains why a rival cannot buy a decade of site data. The organization test fails, as Peteraf's emphasis on capturing value predicts. The implication prices the fix at four months and about $45,000.
Where the marks sit in the DDBA 8006 Week 3 rubric
The grid earns credit when each cell is judged for this move rather than in general, since a resource's value depends on its use. Instructors look for reasons behind failures as well as passes; a grid of ticks without explanation shows little. Imitability is the hardest criterion and draws the closest reading: claims that a resource is hard to copy must be shown, for example through time to build or uniqueness of access. The organization test is often skipped, so applying it, and finding the best resource unready, earns marks. Credit also goes to separating enabling resources from advantage-creating ones, which is the audit's real conclusion. A practical step with a cost turns the audit into advice the owners can use.
DDBA 8006 Week 3 help from the desk
Many students treat this audit like the strengths column of a SWOT and list everything the organization is proud of. Start with the move and list only what it requires. For each resource, ask whether a competitor of similar size could have it within a year. If yes, it is not rare or not hard to imitate. Look for assets built slowly from history, such as records, relationships or reputation in a niche. Then ask whether the organization can actually use the resource today. Be willing to conclude that nothing passes. Describe imitability with evidence. If you find it hard to judge rarity, a tutor can help you compare your organization with its likely rivals.
Get a DDBA 8006 Week 3 example written to your instructions
The organization, the move it is weighing and the Week 3 prompt with its rubric are what the desk works from; an audit with its grid and recommendation is back within 24-48h, the first free. Mention which form of the criteria your section uses. Every resource in the sample is constructed, and listing your organization's is your part.
More DDBA 8006 papers and DBA samples
- DDBA 8006 Week 1: Framework Choice Discussion
- DDBA 8006 Week 2: Five Forces Assessment
- DDBA 8006 Week 4: Data-Informed Pricing Post
- DDBA 8006 Week 5: TOWS Options Matrix
- DDBA 8006 Week 6: Capital Request Brief
- DDBA 8006 Week 7: Scorecard Measurement Plan
- DDBA 8006 Week 8: Applied Business Proposal
- DDBA 4990 Week 3: Structure Memo
- DBAX 9104C Week 3: Two-Language Restatement
- DBAX 9104 Week 3: Opening Chapter Rewrite
- DBAX 9103C Week 3: Disruption Record
DDBA 8006 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDBA 8006 Week 3 sample paper?
The resource fit audit for Week 3, grid and explanations included, is published lower on this page and free to read.
What move does the DDBA 8006 Week 3 audit examine?
A heating and cooling distributor's plan to sell annual maintenance contracts directly to its commercial customers.
Which resource passes the resource-based tests?
Ten years of installation records tied to specific customer sites, covering about 2,700 commercial units.
Why do technicians and vans fail?
They are valuable for the move but every contractor in the region has them, so they are neither rare nor hard to imitate.
What must the distributor do before entering?
Move the records into its dispatch system and link them to customer sites, about four months and $45,000 of work.