MGMT 8805M Week 4 Response Memo Example

Course	MGMT 8805M Agile and Disruptive Innovation Management
Week	Week 4
Paper type	Response memo
Length	About 590 words, 4 pages
Format	Memo, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Management
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MGMT 8805M Week 4

Memorandum

To: Chief Executive Officer, Brightwater Medical Imaging

From: Corporate Strategy Staff

Date: March 9, 2021

Re: Response to Pocketsound handheld ultrasound

Recommendation

We recommend responding now, with a handheld product developed and sold by a separate unit that does not report to the cart business. Waiting until Pocketsound reaches our core segments would leave us responding from a position we can no longer defend.

What this page is doingThe memo is dated at the decision point, so every fact in it is one the company could have known then.

The Entrant

Pocketsound launched its handheld probe in 2019 at $2,000 plus a $400 yearly subscription. It has sold an estimated 9,000 units, mostly to primary care practices and ambulance services that have never bought from us. Its January 2021 software release added guidance for untrained users, and three of our emergency department customers have told sales representatives that they are trialing it.

Our Own Figures

Emergency departments provide 14% of our revenue at a 38% gross margin, against 61% or more in radiology and cardiology. Our 2021 plan directs 85% of engineering spending to cardiology and radiology platforms. On every internal measure, the handheld market looks unattractive: Pocketsound's whole revenue is smaller than our service contract income in a single region.

Saw and Declined, or Did Not See?

Two readings explain why we have not responded. In the first, we saw the threat and declined it rationally. Christensen and Bower (1996) found that established firms allocate resources toward the customers who already pay them, so investment in technologies those customers do not want loses every internal comparison. Our engineering budget fits that pattern exactly.

In the second reading, we did not see it. Henderson and Clark (1990) argued that established firms can fail to recognize innovations that change how a product's components fit together, because their communication channels and information filters were built around the old product architecture. A handheld is that kind of change: the probe, processing and display that our carts integrate are split between a probe and a consumer tablet. Our competitive intelligence reports through 2020 classified Pocketsound under "consumer devices," which suggests our filters sorted it out of view.

The evidence favors the first reading for senior management and the second for the product organization. The executive team discussed Pocketsound twice in 2020 and decided it served other customers; the product teams, by contrast, benchmarked it against carts and dismissed it on image quality.

What this page is doingThe memo weighs two explanations for inaction because they imply different fixes, and it decides between them on the company's own records.

Why a Separate Unit

Both readings point to the same remedy. If our allocation process starves the project, it needs its own budget; if our product teams cannot see the threat, it needs people who judge it on its own terms. Gilbert (2005), studying newspapers facing online media, found that perceived threat led firms to commit resources but also made their routines more rigid, so that new ventures were run like the old business. A separate unit with its own targets is the way to get the commitment without the rigidity.

Cost and Risk

The unit would need about $14 million over two years. The main risk is that our own handheld takes sales from our emergency department carts. We judge that Pocketsound will take those sales anyway.

What Would Change This Recommendation

If emergency departments trialing Pocketsound return to renewing cart contracts at the usual rate over the next two quarters, the handheld would be a complement rather than a substitute, and a smaller partnership, such as reselling Pocketsound alongside our carts, would cost less than building a unit. We will report the renewal figures to you in September.

References

Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199603)17:3<197::AID-SMJ804>3.0.CO;2-U

Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803920

Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549

Reading the MGMT 8805M Week 4 instructions

In Week 4 you address an incumbent's leadership in memo form, at the moment it had to decide how to respond to an entrant. Date the memo at the decision, and use only facts available then. Open with a recommendation in two sentences: hold position or respond, and why. Describe the entrant's product, price and customers, then the incumbent's own figures on where margin and growth sat. Weigh two explanations for the incumbent's inaction, that it saw the threat and declined it or that it did not see it, using research on resource allocation and on architectural innovation. Decide between them on evidence and show how the decision shapes the response. Include cost and risk. Three to five pages is typical.

How this MGMT 8805M Week 4 example is built

The sample's recommendation calls for a separate handheld unit. An entrant section gives Pocketsound's launch price, estimated units and the three emergency departments trialing it. Brightwater's figures follow: emergency departments at 14 percent of revenue and 38 percent margin, and 85 percent of engineering spending on premium platforms. A section weighs Christensen and Bower's finding that resources follow existing customers against Henderson and Clark's account of information filters, citing competitive intelligence that filed Pocketsound under consumer devices. The memo concludes executives saw and declined while product teams did not see. Gilbert's study of newspapers supports a separate unit. Cost, risk and a renewal test that would change the recommendation close the memo.

Reading the MGMT 8805M Week 4 rubric

Graders look for a memo that reads as if written at the decision date. Facts from after that date cost marks. The recommendation should appear in the first lines and be specific. The entrant and incumbent sections need figures, ideally from the incumbent's own reporting. The heart of the memo is the decision between saw-and-declined and did-not-see; strong memos use evidence to decide, and some find, as the sample does, that the answer differs by level of the organization. The recommendation must follow from that decision. Accurate use of the research and a stated cost and risk complete strong work. Memos that describe the theory at length or recommend a response without explaining the inaction score in the middle.

MGMT 8805M Week 4 help: mistakes that cost marks

Begin by fixing the date and listing what the company could have known then: entrant prices, sales estimates, customer comments and internal plans. Avoid hindsight, which readers notice quickly. Look for evidence of whether leaders discussed the entrant; meeting minutes, plan documents and intelligence reports often show it. If they discussed it and decided against acting, the resource allocation reading fits; if the entrant never appears in their documents, the recognition reading fits. Then ask what remedy each reading implies. Keep the memo short and direct, as a staff memo would be. Our tutors can help you separate the two readings and find dated evidence, and the Brightwater memo above models the whole format.

Get a MGMT 8805M Week 4 example written to your instructions

Share the Week 4 memo prompt, the rubric, and the incumbent and date your section fixed, and a matched memo arrives in 24-48h with the first one free. If your instructor names the audience, the board or a division head, include that too. Treat the sample's dated sources as a starting list rather than a finished search.

More MGMT 8805M papers and PhD in Management samples

MGMT 8805M Week 4 questions, answered

Where can I find a free MGMT 8805M Week 4 sample paper?

The Brightwater response memo above, dated March 2021, is the Week 4 sample in full.

What does the MGMT 8805M Week 4 sample recommend?

Responding now with a handheld product developed and sold by a separate unit outside the cart business.

What did Christensen and Bower find?

That established firms allocate resources toward customers who already pay them, starving technologies those customers do not want.

What did Henderson and Clark argue?

That firms can miss innovations that change how components fit together, because their information filters follow the old architecture.

Did Brightwater see the threat?

The memo concludes senior executives saw it and declined to act, while product teams did not see it as a threat.