| Course | MGMT 8009M Organizational Decision Making and Judgment |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Bounded rationality memo |
| Length | About 710 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 8009M Week 2
Memorandum
To: Vice President of Claims, Cobb Valley Mutual
From: Claims Operations Analyst
Date: March 9, 2026
Re: Why the monthly operations review missed the reopened-claims trend, and a proposed exception rule
The Finding
From May 2025 through December 2025, the share of closed property claims reopened within 90 days rose in each of eight consecutive months, from 4.1 percent to 7.9 percent. During the same months, the monthly operations review met eight times and discussed cycle time, backlog, staffing, customer satisfaction, litigation rate and expense per claim. The reopen rate was never discussed, because it does not appear in the review packet. No one weighed it and set it aside. It never reached the table.
Premises the Review Received
Simon (1997) argued that organizations influence decisions less by issuing orders than by supplying the premises from which decisions start: the facts, values and alternatives a decision maker takes as given. The review's premises are printed on the first page of its packet, six measures with their targets and trends. Those six measures set what the review can consider. A seventh measure, however important, is outside its premises unless someone adds it. In this sense the review worked as built; the build just left out the signal that mattered.
Channels Decide What Competes
Ocasio (1997) proposed that what managers attend to depends on the situation they are in and on the channels, procedures and communications that bring issues before them. Attention is limited, and organizations distribute it through structures such as meetings, agendas and reports. Mapping the review against that idea is instructive. The review has a fixed hour, a fixed packet built by the reporting team from a template last revised in 2021, and an agenda that follows the packet's order. Issues that appear in the packet compete for the hour. Issues that do not appear have no route in at all. The reopen rate was tracked in the quality team's own workbook, which reports to a different director and feeds no meeting the vice president attends.
Why No One Went Looking
Cyert and March (1963) described search in organizations as problemistic: managers search for solutions when performance falls below an aspiration level, and search stops when it rises above. A measure with no target cannot fall short of one. Because the reopen rate had no aspiration level on any report the review received, it could not trigger search, however far it moved. The quality team saw the rise but had no threshold telling them it was a problem large enough to escalate, and each month's increase was small.
The Rival Remedy: A Larger Dashboard
The natural response is to add the reopen rate, and perhaps a dozen other measures, to the packet. The appeal is real: more coverage would have caught this signal. But the review's binding limit is capacity, not coverage. It discusses six measures in an hour because that is roughly what an hour allows. Adding fifteen more measures does not expand the hour; it thins the attention each measure receives and pushes discussion toward whichever items the chair reaches first. A larger dashboard would likely have caught the reopen rate in May and missed something else by July.
Proposal: An Exception Rule
Any measure tracked anywhere in claims operations, including the quality workbook, receives a normal band set from its previous 24 months. When a measure stays outside its band for two consecutive months, it takes the first agenda slot at the next review, ahead of the standing six. The claims analytics manager owns the rule, maintains the bands and certifies each month which measures, if any, have triggered.
Cost
The rule displaces discussion time from the standing measures. Based on the past two years' data, an estimated four to six triggers a year would occur, each taking about fifteen minutes. That is roughly one hour a quarter of review time, plus about four hours a month of the analytics manager's time to maintain bands. The memo recommends a six-month trial, after which triggers that led to no action can be used to widen the relevant bands.
What the Memo Leaves Out on Purpose
It stops short of urging managers to watch more closely. The miss came from the review's structure, and a reminder leaves the structure unchanged.
References
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall.
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-SMJ936>3.0.CO;2-K
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). Free Press.
The Walden MGMT 8009M Week 2 instructions
Week 2 typically asks for a memo applying bounded rationality to a decision or a missed signal in an organization you know. Expect to state the finding plainly at the start, then explain it with the course readings, usually Simon and at least one later account of attention or search. The memo should place the limit in something that can be shown, such as an agenda, a report or a routine, rather than in a person's carelessness. Instructors often ask you to consider an obvious remedy and explain whether it would work. Close with a proposal that names an owner and a cost. Memo format, addressed to a real role, usually three to four pages, with APA citations for the theory used.
How the MGMT 8009M Week 2 example is put together
The memo is addressed to the vice president of claims. Its first section gives the eight-month rise and the six measures the review discussed instead. A section on premises applies Simon: the reopen rate was never weighed and dismissed because it never arrived. Ocasio's channels then move the explanation from people to the review's packet, hour and agenda, and the memo notes that the quality team's workbook fed no meeting the vice president attended. Cyert and March explain why no one searched: a measure without a target cannot fall short of one. The rival remedy, a larger dashboard, is stated and answered on capacity grounds. An exception rule with bands, a two-month trigger, an owner and an estimated hour a quarter closes it.
Where the marks sit in the MGMT 8009M Week 2 rubric
Graders first ask where the memo puts the limit. A memo that faults a manager for inattention describes a person and earns little, however well sourced. Credit climbs once the limit is placed in a structure the reader can see and the theories are applied to that structure rather than summarized. The rival remedy must be taken seriously, since more data is the reflex answer, and leaving it unanswered leaves the proposal undefended. Proposals are scored on specificity: a rule, an owner and a cost in time. Clean memo form, a first paragraph that states the finding and correct APA citations account for a smaller portion of the MGMT 8009M Week 2 marks. Memos that quantify the miss, in months and in percentage points, read as more credible.
Common MGMT 8009M Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A common misstep is writing an essay about bounded rationality with a case attached at the end. Start with the missed signal and its numbers, then bring in each theory only to explain a specific part of the miss. Look at the actual documents: the agenda, the report template, the distribution list. Ask which issues have a route into the meeting and which do not. Treat the obvious fix fairly before rejecting or modifying it. Make the proposal small enough to try and give it a trial period. Avoid closing with advice to pay more attention. If your workplace example feels too sensitive to use, a tutor can help you build a composite, and the insurer memo above lays out every section in order.
Get a MGMT 8009M Week 2 example written to your instructions
Forward the Week 2 memo prompt and rubric with a sentence on the decision setting you have in mind, and a bounded rationality memo reaches you inside 24-48h, with no charge for the first. Any workplace example stays described by type, never by name, and the memo's audience can be set to match your prompt.
More MGMT 8009M papers and PhD in Management samples
- MGMT 8009M Week 1: Process Critique
- MGMT 8009M Week 3: Framing Analysis
- MGMT 8009M Week 4: Heuristics Review
- MGMT 8009M Week 5: Decision Reconstruction
- MGMT 8009M Week 6: Group Process Case
- MGMT 8009M Week 7: Escalation Case
- MGMT 8009M Week 8: Information Flow Memo
- MGMT 8009M Week 9: Incentive Analysis
- MGMT 8009M Week 10: Debiasing Design
- MGMT 8009M Week 11: Decision Audit
- MGMT 8003M Week 2: Search Strategy Memo
MGMT 8009M Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 8009M Week 2 sample paper?
The insurer's reopened-claims memo above is the full Week 2 sample, free to read with margin notes.
What does bounded rationality mean in the MGMT 8009M Week 2 memo?
That attention and information are limited, so organizations shape choices through the premises, channels and agendas they supply.
Why did the insurer's review miss the reopened claims?
The measure was not in the review packet and had no target, so it never reached the meeting or triggered search.
Why not just add more measures to the dashboard?
The meeting's capacity is fixed, so more measures thin the attention each one gets and push other issues out.
What does the Week 2 memo propose?
An exception rule that moves any measure outside its normal band for two months to the top of the next agenda.