Route-level measures and a failure result fixed in advance: that is what the DDBA 8161 measurement plan for Week 10 sets against one laundry's density strategy. Searches like "ddba 8161 week 10 assignment example", "ddba8161 week 10 sample" and "ddba 8161 week 10 example" land here.
What a finished DDBA 8161 Week 10 measurement plan looks like
One measurement table and one boxed paragraph fill three to four pages. The table holds four measures: hotels per route mile, cost per pound delivered, the share of hotels retained in any quarter after a rival cuts price, and the rival's own route density where it can be estimated from public truck counts and contract announcements. Each carries a baseline, a target and a review month. The boxed paragraph is the falsification statement: if the national rival matches price and the laundry loses more than a stated share of hotels within two quarters while its cost per pound stays below the rival's estimate, the claim that density protects the firm is wrong. A method section cites Priem and Butler's charge that resource arguments risk tautology.
How a DDBA 8161 Week 10 example is structured
The plan opens by restating the strategy as a causal claim with two links: density lowers cost, and lower cost lets the firm hold hotels when a rival cuts price. Each measure in the table tests one link, which is why only four appear. The method section follows and explains the design choice. Priem and Butler argued that resource-based claims can become circular when advantage is inferred from the performance it is meant to explain; measuring density and cost directly, rather than reading advantage off profit, keeps the plan clear of that objection. Ray, Barney and Muhanna's case for measuring at the level of business processes supports the same move. The falsification box comes next, set apart so it cannot be softened later. Collection costs and the owner of each measure close the plan.
Two links, stated
Density lowers cost; lower cost holds hotels when price falls. Writing the strategy as a chain with two links tells the reader exactly what the measures must test, and why a profit figure alone would not.
Four measures, each tied to a link
Hotels per route mile and cost per pound test the first link. Retention after a rival's price cut and the rival's own density test the second. A measure that tested neither was cut from an earlier draft.
Advantage measured below profit
Priem and Butler's tautology objection is answered by design: density and cost are observed directly. Profit appears in an appendix as context, never as proof that the advantage exists.
The boxed falsification
A stated share of hotels lost within two quarters of a rival's price match, with cost still below the rival's, would show the strategy wrong. The box names who reads the result and when.
Estimating the rival's routes
Truck counts at major hotels, contract announcements and hiring notices give a rough picture of the national firm's density. The plan labels those estimates as indirect and says how much weight they carry.
Where marks go in DDBA 8161 Week 10
A measurement plan earns its grade here by being able to return bad news. A table of profit, revenue growth and customer satisfaction tracks activity and success but cannot reveal that the strategy was mistaken, and graders tend to score that kind of plan as adequate however neat it looks. Credit concentrates on the falsification statement: a threshold, a period, a triggering event and the rival named. The link between each measure and a step in the causal claim earns separately, so an orphan measure costs points. Engaging the tautology critique with a real design consequence scores well; citing it as a warning and then measuring profit anyway scores poorly. Owners, baselines and collection costs are expected on every row.
Get a DDBA 8161 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 10 prompt and rubric along with the strategy you stated in earlier weeks, and a measurement plan with its falsification statement comes back inside 24-48h, free if it is your first. Flag it if your section wants a scorecard layout, and list any measures your firm already reports so the plan can sit beside them.
DDBA 8161 Week 10 questions, answered
Why not measure the strategy by profit?
Because profit can rise for reasons unrelated to the strategy, such as a hotel boom, and can fall while the strategy works. A plan that reads advantage from profit cannot tell those apart. Measuring the mechanism directly, here density and cost, lets profit serve as context. Your rubric may still ask for financial measures, and they can sit beside the mechanism measures.
What makes a result falsifying rather than merely disappointing?
A falsifying result contradicts the causal claim itself. Losing hotels during a recession is disappointing; losing them after a rival's price cut while the firm still holds a cost edge shows that the cost edge did not protect it, which is what the strategy claimed. The plan writes that difference down before any data arrive.
Is a balanced scorecard acceptable here?
It can hold the measures if your section requires one. The risk is that its four perspectives invite a measure in each box whether or not it tests the strategy. The example uses a single table tied to two causal links. A scorecard version would keep that discipline by leaving boxes empty rather than filling them with measures that cannot fail.