DDBA 8161 Week 6 Peer Critique Reply Example

Course	DDBA 8161 Business Strategy and Innovation for Competitive Advantage
Week	Week 6
Paper type	Peer critique reply
Length	About 420 words, 3 pages
Format	Discussion reply, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for DDBA 8161 Week 6

Week 6 Discussion: Peer Critique

Who Leaves First, What It Costs Them and What the Incumbent Does the Next Morning: A Peer Critique of a Prediction That Small Employers Will Abandon an Established Payroll Provider for a Cheaper Startup

The Contested Sentence

Rafael, your post says: "Within three years, most small employers will leave the incumbent payroll provider for the startup, because the startup charges about 40 percent less and its interface is far easier to use." I accept the price gap and the better interface; your evidence on both is solid. My questions are about who would move, what moving would cost them and what the incumbent would do.

What this page is doingThe critique quotes the classmate exactly, so the reply argues with what was said rather than a summary of it.

Who Moves First

Burnham et al. (2003) sorted switching costs into three kinds: procedural costs of time and effort, financial costs of lost benefits or new fees, and relational costs of breaking personal and brand ties. A five-person shop with no benefits integration faces mainly procedural costs, a few hours to re-enter employees and tax settings. Those firms would move first. A forty-person employer whose payroll feeds its retirement plan, health deductions and time clocks faces procedural costs measured in weeks, financial costs if tax filings go wrong in the transition and relational costs with an account manager who knows its quirks. Those employers would move last, if at all.

That sorting matters because the smallest accounts are also the ones the incumbent earns least from. A provider charging a base fee plus a per-employee fee makes several times more from a forty-person account than a five-person one. Losing many tiny accounts could leave its revenue largely intact.

What this page is doingThe critique ties the switching-cost sort to the incumbent's economics, since the accounts most likely to leave may matter least to it.

What the Incumbent Does

Chen and MacMillan (1992) found that firms respond more slowly to competitive moves when the move threatens a market they depend on less, and faster when it threatens a core market. The incumbent may therefore let the smallest accounts go and defend the larger ones, perhaps with a discounted plan for employers under ten people, bundled integration for larger ones or a migration guarantee. Porter (1980) treated switching costs as one of the barriers that protect established firms, and the incumbent can raise them deliberately, for example by deepening benefits integration.

A Narrower Prediction

Your prediction may hold for employers with fewer than ten people and no integrated benefits. For "most small employers," I would want evidence on how many fall into that group and what share of the incumbent's revenue they represent. Would you be willing to narrow the claim, or do you have data on account sizes?

References

Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K., & Mahajan, V. (2003). Consumer switching costs: A typology, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302250897

Chen, M.-J., & MacMillan, I. C. (1992). Nonresponse and delayed response to competitive moves: The roles of competitor dependence and action irreversibility. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 539-570. https://doi.org/10.2307/256486

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.

DDBA 8161 Week 6 instructions, in plain terms

In Week 6 you critique a classmate's strategic argument. Quote the specific sentence you are questioning. Say plainly what in the classmate's argument you accept and why. Then add analysis the original post lacks, using a framework or research finding, such as a typology of switching costs or evidence on how incumbents respond to entrants. Ask who would act first, what it would cost them and how others would respond. Propose a narrower or revised version of the claim if your analysis supports one. Finish with something the classmate could settle by gathering evidence. Keep the tone collegial and the critique specific. Around three hundred fifty to four hundred fifty words is typical for this reply.

Inside the DDBA 8161 Week 6 example

The reply quotes Rafael's prediction and accepts the 40 percent price gap and the better interface. A section applies Burnham and colleagues' three kinds of switching costs, contrasting a five-person shop that faces a few hours of re-entry with a forty-person employer whose payroll feeds retirement, health and time systems. It then notes that the incumbent earns several times more from larger accounts, so losing many small ones may barely dent its revenue. A section on incumbent response draws on Chen and MacMillan's finding that firms respond faster when core markets are threatened and on Porter's treatment of switching costs as barriers the incumbent can raise. A closing section offers a narrower prediction and asks Rafael for data on account sizes.

Reading the DDBA 8161 Week 6 rubric

The critique earns credit for precision and fairness. Quoting the exact sentence and accepting what is right shows the reply engages with the argument rather than a caricature. Instructors give the most weight to analysis that adds something, such as sorting customers by switching costs and connecting that to the incumbent's economics. Using research on competitive response to predict the incumbent's move shows strategic thinking beyond the original post. A narrower version of the claim is valued because it shows how the argument could be improved. The closing question should be answerable with evidence. A collegial tone matters in a peer critique; dismissive language costs marks even when the analysis is sound.

DDBA 8161 Week 6 help from the desk

Peer critiques often either agree politely or attack the whole argument. Pick one sentence, quote it and decide what you accept. Then ask the questions the post skipped: which customers or firms would move first, what moving costs them and what the incumbent would do. Use a framework to structure the answer rather than intuition alone. Think about which customers matter most to the incumbent's revenue. Offer a revised claim your analysis supports. Close by asking for evidence your classmate could actually gather. Keep it under five hundred words. A tutor can suggest which framework suits the argument you are critiquing.

Get a DDBA 8161 Week 6 example written to your instructions

Paste in the classmate post you are critiquing, if your section allows sharing it, together with the Week 6 rules and rubric, and a critique ready to post arrives in 24-48h at no cost the first time. Mention the word limit and whether a follow-up reply is required.

More DDBA 8161 papers and DBA samples

DDBA 8161 Week 6 questions, answered

Where can I find a free DDBA 8161 Week 6 sample paper?

Every word of the peer critique reply sits on this page, open to all at no charge.

What prediction does the DDBA 8161 Week 6 critique question?

That most small employers will leave an established payroll provider for a startup charging about 40 percent less.

Which employers would switch first?

Very small firms with no benefits integration, which face mainly procedural switching costs of a few hours.

How would the incumbent likely respond?

By letting the smallest accounts go and defending larger ones, which it earns far more from.

What does the critique ask the classmate for?

Evidence on how many employers fall into the small, unintegrated group and what share of the incumbent's revenue they represent.