| Course | DDBA 8161 Business Strategy and Innovation for Competitive Advantage |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Portfolio memo |
| Length | About 640 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DDBA 8161 Week 7
Memorandum
To: Chief Technology Officer, Brightwater Coatings
From: Strategy analyst, DBA student consultant
Date: October 9, 2026
Re: Allocating the 2027 development budget across five projects
Recommendation
Fund three of the five projects and decline two. Put about 55 percent of the $3.2 million development budget into the automotive co-development program, 30 percent into the corrosion-resistant primer for marine equipment and 15 percent into the plant-solvent recovery project. Decline the low-odor architectural coating and the faster-curing floor finish, because a larger rival known for following quickly could copy each before it paid back.
The Rule
An even split would give each project the same chance. But the projects differ in how long they would protect their returns. Brightwater's main competitor, a national coatings company with three times its research staff, has followed every successful Brightwater product of the past decade within one to three years. Mansfield et al. (1981), studying innovations across several industries, found that imitators could typically copy a new product at about two thirds of the innovator's cost and in about two thirds of the time. Lieberman and Montgomery (1988) argued that first movers keep an advantage only through mechanisms such as technological leadership, preemption of scarce assets or buyer switching costs; otherwise followers catch up. The memo therefore ranks each project by the difference between its payback period and the rival's estimated time to copy a successful result.
The Projects
Table 1
Five Projects, Payback and Time to Imitate
| Project | Budget requested | Payback | Rival's time to copy | Gap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automotive co-development with two customers | $1.75 million | 4 years | 6 or more years | +24 months or more | |
| Corrosion-resistant marine primer | $0.95 million | 2.5 years | 3 years | +6 months | |
| Plant-solvent recovery system | $0.48 million | 2 years | Not applicable; internal cost saving | Not applicable | |
| Low-odor architectural coating | $0.70 million | 3 years | 1 year | −24 months | |
| Faster-curing industrial floor finish | $0.60 million | 3.5 years | 2 years | −18 months | |
Payback from the finance team's models; time to copy from the rival's past response times and the technical team's estimates.
Why the Automotive Program Leads
The automotive program has the longest payback but the largest positive gap. The coating will be developed jointly with two vehicle makers and validated in their plants over two years. The rival could analyze the finished coating, but it could not replace Brightwater in those customers' approved-supplier lists without its own multi-year validation. Teece (1986) argued that when a product is easy to imitate, the returns flow to whoever holds the complementary assets; here, the complementary asset is the customers' qualification process, which Brightwater would hold and the rival would not.
The Primer and the Recovery System
The marine primer has a small positive gap. Its chemistry is harder to reverse-engineer than most, and Brightwater would reach payback just before the rival could copy. The solvent recovery system is not exposed to imitation at all, since it lowers Brightwater's own production costs, and it pays back in two years.
Why Decline Two Promising Projects
The low-odor coating is a good product and would sell. But it uses a resin system the rival already works with, and the technical team expects a copy within a year. Brightwater would spend three years earning back the investment and face a cheaper rival product for two of them. The floor finish has the same problem on a slightly longer clock. Neither is a bad idea; each is a bad bet against this particular rival.
Risks
Estimates of the rival's time to copy are judgments, not measurements. If the rival is slower than its record suggests, the low-odor coating would look better. The automotive program concentrates more than half the budget in one bet with a long payback. Brightwater should review the gaps each year as the rival's behavior and the projects' progress change.
References
Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090706
Mansfield, E., Schwartz, M., & Wagner, S. (1981). Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. Economic Journal, 91(364), 907-918. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232499
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2
What the DDBA 8161 Week 7 instructions ask for
Week 7 asks for a memo allocating one budget across several projects using an argument about imitation. State the allocation at the top. Explain the rule you used, such as comparing each project's payback period with the time a specific rival would need to copy a success, and support it with research on imitation and first-mover advantage. Present the projects in a table with budget, payback, estimated time to copy and the gap. Justify each funded project by what slows the rival, not only by its return, and explain why promising projects are declined. Note risks, especially the uncertainty of imitation estimates and concentration of funds. Address the memo to the executive who decides. Four pages with one exhibit is common.
How the DDBA 8161 Week 7 example is put together
The memo opens by recommending 55, 30 and 15 percent splits across three projects and declining two. A section sets the rule: Brightwater's rival has followed past products within one to three years, Mansfield and colleagues found imitators copy at about two thirds of the innovator's cost and time, and Lieberman and Montgomery list the few mechanisms that keep first movers ahead. The table lists five projects with budgets, payback, time to copy and gaps. The automotive program is justified by customers' multi-year validation, which Teece would call a complementary asset. The marine primer's chemistry slows reverse engineering, and solvent recovery is an internal saving. Two declined projects are explained as good products but bad bets. Risks close the memo.
Where the marks sit in the DDBA 8161 Week 7 rubric
Instructors look first for a clear allocation and a rule that produces it. A memo that ranks projects only by return misses the week's point; one that weighs return against imitation time shows strategic reasoning. Estimates of time to copy earn credit when grounded in the rival's record or technical reasoning, and research on imitation should support the logic. Justifying funded projects by what slows the rival is the core analytic step. Declining good projects with reasons shows discipline. A table that makes the gaps visible helps the decision maker. Acknowledging that imitation estimates are judgments, and that concentration carries risk, demonstrates balance. The memo should read as advice to a specific executive.
DDBA 8161 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost marks
The usual mistake is allocating by expected return alone. For each project, estimate the payback period and the time your strongest rival would take to copy it if it succeeded, using the rival's past behavior. Subtract and rank. Then ask what specifically would slow the rival for each project: customer qualification, hard chemistry, data or relationships. Projects with negative gaps may still be worth doing for other reasons, but say so. State the allocation in percentages and dollars. Admit which estimates are soft. A tutor can help you build the payback and imitation table for your own portfolio.
Get a DDBA 8161 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 7 memo prompt, the rubric and the project list you were given, and a portfolio memo with its imitation exhibit is returned within 24-48h, with the first one free. When the case identifies the competitor, include what it says about that firm's past responses.
More DDBA 8161 papers and DBA samples
- DDBA 8161 Week 1: Advantage Brief
- DDBA 8161 Week 2: Industry Structure Discussion
- DDBA 8161 Week 3: Three-Band Resource Audit
- DDBA 8161 Week 4: Business Model Map
- DDBA 8161 Week 5: Innovation Critique
- DDBA 8161 Week 6: Peer Critique Reply
- DDBA 8161 Week 8: Foreign Entry Analysis
- DDBA 8161 Week 9: Build or Buy Memo
- DDBA 8161 Week 10: Strategy Measurement Plan
- DDBA 8161 Week 11: Strategy Defense Paper
- DDBA 8151 Week 7: Pilot Intervention Plan
- DDBA 8006 Week 7: Scorecard Measurement Plan
- DDBA 4990 Week 7: Income Statement Walkthrough
- DBAX 9104C Week 7: Client Deliverable Memo
DDBA 8161 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDBA 8161 Week 7 sample paper?
The portfolio memo and its five-project table are reproduced lower on this page, free for anyone to read.
How does the DDBA 8161 Week 7 memo rank projects?
By the gap between each project's payback period and the time a fast-following rival would need to copy a success.
Which project gets the most funding?
The automotive co-development program, because customer validation would keep the rival out for six years or more.
Why decline the low-odor coating?
It pays back in three years, but the rival could copy it within one, leaving two years of competition before payback.
What are the memo's main risks?
Imitation times are judgments, and more than half the budget sits in one long-payback project.