Week 1 of MGMT 8805M is an argued post testing one incumbent's prized advantage against a cheaper entrant that could make it worthless, followed by replies. Searches like "mgmt 8805m week 1 assignment example", "mgmt8805m week 1 sample" and "mgmt 8805m week 1 example" land here.
What a finished MGMT 8805M Week 1 discussion post looks like
At three hundred words or a little more, the opening post puts its firm in the first line: a regional bank's branch network, a textbook publisher's faculty relationships, an equipment maker's certified service engineers. The advantage is described by what it lets the firm charge for. Then the test arrives. The strong version asks whether mainstream customers already receive more of that performance than they can use, because overshooting is the condition the theory needs before a cheaper offer can take hold. Christensen (1997) supplies the mechanism; Barney (1991) supplies the rival view that an inimitable resource protects the firm. The post argues where the two part company, usually at substitution. Two replies follow, each a paragraph, each asking a classmate what evidence would show their advantage overshooting.
How a MGMT 8805M Week 1 example is structured
Position first, stated as a claim about one firm: this advantage survives a cheaper entrant, or it does not, and here is why. The advantage is then specified, with the price premium or retention figure that shows customers pay for it, sourced to a filing or trade report. A test section follows. It sets the performance the firm supplies against what its median customer uses, and names the lower tier of buyer for whom the gap is widest. Sources sit where the argument needs them, one for the disruption mechanism and one for the resource view it contests. A short concession names what would change the verdict. Replies appear beneath as separate labeled pieces, each quoting the classmate's claim before pressing it. APA references close each part.
An advantage priced, not praised
The post shows the premium customers pay for the advantage, or the retention it buys, with a source. An advantage nobody has priced cannot be shown to lose its value when a cheaper offer appears.
Overshooting as the test
The theory needs mainstream customers to be getting more than they use. Posts that skip this check call every low-priced rival disruptive, which is the reading the course sets out to retire.
The resource view as rival
An inimitable asset can still become worthless if buyers stop needing what it delivers. Setting Barney's criteria beside Christensen's mechanism shows which protection fails and why, and that comparison is where the post reaches a doctoral register.
A verdict that could lose
The concession names the evidence that would reverse the call, such as a low-end entrant already failing to hold customers. Without it the post reads as a prediction nobody can check.
Replies that test a classmate's advantage
Each reply asks what share of that classmate's customers are overserved and what data would show it. Agreement with an extra example moves nothing in a thread built to argue.
Where marks go in MGMT 8805M Week 1
Credit in the opening week follows the test more than the topic. A post that names a firm and applies the overshooting condition to evidence collects the analysis points, while a post that calls a rival disruptive because it is cheaper collects only participation, since price alone is not the mechanism. Scholarly support is weighed by placement: the Christensen citation should explain a step in the reasoning, and the resource-based rival should be stated fairly enough that a reader could side with it. Replies are graded separately in most sections, often by a posting deadline as well as by substance, and the substantive credit goes to replies that change what a classmate has to prove. How the post and reply blocks divide the total differs by classroom.
Get a MGMT 8805M Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 1 discussion prompt with its rubric and reply rules, and a sample thread comes back in 24-48h, free the first time. Name the firm you plan to test, or ask for one, and give the reply count and deadline. The advantage you pick has to be yours; the test transfers, the verdict does not.
MGMT 8805M Week 1 questions, answered
Does the Week 1 post need a firm that has already been disrupted?
No, and a live case often argues better. A firm whose advantage is still intact lets the post make a forward claim someone could dispute, while a finished collapse invites hindsight. Where an older case is chosen, the post should draw on sources dated before the collapse, so the test uses what managers could have known at the time.
Can the post conclude that the advantage is safe?
Yes, provided the argument is built rather than assumed. Showing that mainstream customers still use every increment of the performance on offer, and that no lower tier is being served poorly, is a legitimate finding. Instructors tend to reward a well-evidenced no over a fashionable yes, because the course exists partly to stop the word disruption being applied loosely.
How much theory belongs in a discussion post this early?
Enough to make the test explicit and no more. A source for the mechanism and a source for the rival view usually carry a three-hundred-word post, provided each does work inside a sentence. A reference list of six attached to a post that never applies any of them reads as padding, and classmates will reply to the argument rather than the list.