| Course | DDBA 8511 Seminar in Innovation Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Structure memo |
| Length | About 610 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 8511 Week 5
Memorandum
To: Chief Executive, Ridgeline Power Equipment
From: Strategy and innovation analyst
Date: October 10, 2026
Re: Where the battery-powered robotic mower effort should sit
Recommendation
Move the robotic mower effort out of the walk-behind mower division and into a separate unit of about 14 people, reporting to you, with its own budget and the freedom to use battery suppliers and dealers the divisions do not. Keep links to the divisions through a monthly review you chair and shared access to engineering test facilities.
The Situation
Ridgeline, a composite maker of gasoline lawn mowers, string trimmers and snow throwers in Wisconsin with about 1,100 employees, sells mainly through independent dealers and two home-improvement chains. Two years ago it started work on a battery-powered robotic mower that cuts lawns on its own within a buried boundary wire. The six-person team sits inside the walk-behind mower division, which earns most of the company's profit. The prototype works, but the team has missed two milestones, and its lead says the division's processes keep pulling it back toward what the division already knows.
Why a Separate Unit
Tushman and O'Reilly (1996) argued that firms managing both incremental improvement and discontinuous change often need structurally separate units for the new work, with different processes and cultures, held together by senior leadership. The robotic mower differs from the division's products in nearly every respect the division's processes are built around. It is electric, not gasoline. It depends on software and sensors. It may sell directly to homeowners with installation, not through dealers who sell and service gasoline mowers. And it will lose money for several years. Inside the division, each difference becomes a conflict: the division's sourcing team uses engine suppliers, its sales plans assume dealers and its review process asks every project to show margin within two years.
Leonard-Barton (1992) showed that the capabilities that make a firm good at its existing products can become rigidities that block new ones. The walk-behind division's strengths, close dealer relationships, cost discipline on engines and a fast annual model refresh, are exactly what slow the robotic team. In the past year the team was told twice to source components from the division's existing suppliers to save cost, and both times the parts failed in testing.
The Case for Building Exploration Into Existing Units
The strongest alternative is what Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) called contextual ambidexterity: rather than separating exploration, an organization builds a context in which individuals in existing units divide their time between improving current products and exploring new ones. Gibson and Birkinshaw found that business units with this kind of context performed better. The argument has force here: the division's engineers know motors, blades and safety standards that the robotic mower needs, and separating the team risks losing that knowledge and creating rivalry.
Why I Still Recommend Separation
Contextual ambidexterity works best when exploration and exploitation draw on similar processes and customers, so that individuals can move between them. The robotic mower differs in technology, supply, channel and economics all at once. Asking the division's engineers to divide their time would leave the robotic work competing for attention with model-year deadlines, which the division always wins. The knowledge risk is real, so the recommendation keeps shared test facilities and a monthly review where division engineers advise.
What to Watch
Separation can create a unit that never returns to the company. If the robotic mower succeeds, it will need the division's manufacturing scale and dealers for service. The monthly review should decide, within three years, how and when the unit's products move into the company's main operations.
References
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
What the DDBA 8511 Week 5 instructions ask for
Week 5 asks you to recommend where exploratory work should sit in one organization. Describe the exploratory effort and where it sits now, with evidence of how the current arrangement helps or hinders it. Recommend either a separate unit with its own reporting line or building exploration into existing units, and state the recommendation first. Support it with research on organizational ambidexterity and on how existing capabilities can hinder new work, tying the argument to specific frictions in the organization. Present the alternative at full strength, including evidence for it, and explain why it fits this case less well. Address the risks of your choice and how to manage them. Write in memo form to a decision maker, usually in two or three pages.
How the DDBA 8511 Week 5 example is put together
The memo recommends moving the robotic mower effort into its own unit reporting to the chief executive. It describes the gasoline product lines, dealer channel and the six-person team's missed milestones. The case for separation cites Tushman and O'Reilly and lists differences in technology, supply, channel and economics, then uses Leonard-Barton to show how the division's strengths in dealers, engine cost discipline and annual refreshes slow the team, including two failed parts sourced from existing suppliers. The alternative cites Gibson and Birkinshaw's finding that contextual ambidexterity supports performance and the division's useful knowledge of motors and safety. The memo explains why that works less well here and closes with a three-year plan for reintegration.
DDBA 8511 Week 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Instructors judge the memo on the fit between recommendation and organization. A recommendation tied to specific frictions, such as sourcing rules and margin tests, earns more than one based on general theory. The alternative must be presented seriously, with research supporting it, and the explanation of why it fits less well should rest on features of this case. Credit also goes to managing the risks of the chosen structure, especially the risk that a separate unit never reconnects with the main business. Sources should be applied to the case rather than summarized. Memo format, with the recommendation first and a clear audience, is expected. Concrete details such as team size and reporting line show the recommendation is actionable.
DDBA 8511 Week 5 help from the desk
Students often recommend a separate unit because the literature praises it. Start instead by listing what the exploratory work needs that the current unit does not provide, and what the current unit provides that the work needs. If the differences are large across technology, customers and economics, separation is likely right; if small, building exploration into existing units may be better. Make the case for the option you reject honestly. Plan how the two parts will stay connected. Write to the person who decides. A tutor can help you map the frictions in your organization.
Get a DDBA 8511 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 5 memo prompt, your rubric, and the firm the memo addresses, and a structure memo arrives within 24-48h at no cost for a first request. Say whether an organization chart is expected as an exhibit. The routines described in the sample belong to its firm; your own organization's procedures are what your memo must describe.
More DDBA 8511 papers and DBA samples
- DDBA 8511 Week 1: Innovation Boundary Discussion
- DDBA 8511 Week 2: Idea Origin Case Analysis
- DDBA 8511 Week 3: Strategy Position Paper
- DDBA 8511 Week 4: Innovation Portfolio Analysis
- DDBA 8511 Week 6: Innovation Culture Appraisal
- DDBA 8511 Week 7: Partnership Value Case
- DDBA 8511 Week 8: Innovation Metric Critique
- DDBA 8511 Week 9: Business Model Analysis
- DDBA 8511 Week 10: Implementation Handover Brief
- DDBA 8511 Week 11: Innovation Synthesis Paper
- DDBA 8521 Week 5: Change History Brief
- DDBA 8307B Week 5: Group Comparison Paper
- DDBA 8303 Week 5: Case Access Discussion
- DDBA 8300 Week 5: Research Design Memo
DDBA 8511 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDBA 8511 Week 5 sample paper?
Scroll down for the complete structure memo; it is free.
What does the DDBA 8511 Week 5 memo recommend?
Moving a robotic mower team out of the gasoline mower division into a separate unit reporting to the chief executive.
Why does the current arrangement hinder the team?
The division's sourcing, dealer channel and two-year margin tests suit gasoline mowers and repeatedly pull the team back.
What is the alternative the memo argues against?
Contextual ambidexterity, in which existing staff divide time between current products and exploration.
How does the memo manage the risk of separation?
Through shared test facilities, a monthly review chaired by the chief executive and a plan to reintegrate within three years.