MGMT 8910M Week 5 Progress Memo Example

Course	MGMT 8910M Dissertation Development Process
Week	Week 5
Paper type	Progress memo
Length	About 570 words, 4 pages
Format	Memo, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Management
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MGMT 8910M Week 5

Memorandum

To: Course Instructor, MGMT 8910M

From: Doctoral student, PhD in Management

Date: February 25, 2026

Re: Planned and produced pages, Weeks 2 to 4, and one change to the plan

Planned Against Produced

The dissertation studies how owners of independent yoga studios set and change class prices. Three studios agreed in principle to take part. Over three weeks I planned eighteen pages and produced nine.

Table 1

Planned and Produced Pages, Weeks 2 to 4

Week	Planned task	Planned pages	Produced pages	Gap
2	Problem statement revision; site agreements sent	4	4	0
3	Literature review: pricing in small service firms	7	3	4
4	Literature review: owner decision-making; site visit 1	7	2	5
Total	~	18	9	9

Produced pages are counted from the draft history in the shared document, which records the date of every saved change.

What this page is doingThe table opens the memo, because the gap in pages is the fact every later paragraph has to explain.

First Stated Cause: The Late Site Agreement

I attributed part of the shortfall to the late return of a site agreement. That cause holds up. I sent agreements to all three studio owners on February 2. Two returned them within four days. The third owner returned hers on February 23, three weeks later, after two reminder emails; the dated email trail is attached. Because the first site visit was to be at her studio, Week 4's planned visit could not happen. That accounts for the visit, but it accounts for none of the missing pages, since the literature review did not depend on the visit.

Second Stated Cause: Waiting for Feedback

I also reported that I was waiting for feedback on the problem statement before continuing. That cause does not hold up. The instructor's feedback arrived on February 6, in Week 3. The draft history shows that between February 6 and February 20 I revised the problem statement four times, while the subsection on pricing in small service firms, planned for Week 3, received three pages and was then left. I was not waiting for feedback. I was acting on it, repeatedly, on a section that had already been accepted with minor changes, instead of moving to the next planned piece.

What this page is doingThe memo checks the author's own explanation against the draft history, which is where the second cause fails.

The Binding Constraint

Goldratt and Cox (1984) held that a single bottleneck sets the ceiling on a system's output, and that effort spent elsewhere leaves that ceiling where it was. Applied here, the constraint on my output was not the site delay, which affected only the visit, and not the feedback, which arrived on time. It was the rewriting loop: each round of feedback triggered another revision of an already-acceptable section, and every hour spent there was an hour not spent on new pages. Steel (2007) found that procrastination is associated with low confidence in completing a task and with tasks that feel aversive; rewriting a familiar section felt productive and safe, while starting the literature review did not.

One Change to the Plan

From Week 5, the problem statement is frozen until the full proposal is assembled in Week 11. Feedback on it will be logged, not acted on, and addressed in one pass during assembly. Gollwitzer (1999) found that if-then plans tying a goal to a set moment and place help people follow through; the frozen section and the log are meant to make the decision about what to work on each session before the session starts, rather than in the moment when rewriting feels easier.

References

Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (1984). The goal: Excellence in manufacturing. North River Press.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

MGMT 8910M Week 5 instructions, in plain terms

The fifth week asks for a short progress memo to your instructor. Open with a table comparing planned and produced pages for the weeks so far, with the gap for each. Then take each cause you would give for a shortfall and test it against evidence: emails, file histories, calendars. Give each cause a verdict, holds or does not hold, and explain. Identify the single constraint that actually limited your output, using a framework such as the theory of constraints if it helps. Close with one change to your plan that addresses that constraint. The memo should be about two pages. Be candid; the point is to find what limits your progress, not to justify it.

How this MGMT 8910M Week 5 example is built

The studio memo opens with a four-row table: 18 pages planned, 9 produced, the gap concentrated in Weeks 3 and 4. The first cause section dates the third owner's agreement to three weeks after the others and concludes that it explains the missed visit but none of the missing pages. The second cause section compares the feedback's arrival date with the draft history and finds four revisions of an accepted section. The constraint section applies Goldratt and Cox, adding Steel's finding that tasks feeling aversive invite delay. The final section freezes the problem statement until Week 11, logs new feedback for one later pass and cites Gollwitzer on implementation intentions.

Where the marks sit in the MGMT 8910M Week 5 rubric

The test of each cause is weighed most heavily. Graders reward memos that check explanations against dated records and are willing to reject their own. The planned-versus-produced table should be accurate and sourced. Identifying a single binding constraint, with reasons, shows the analysis the assignment calls for; listing many causes without ranking them earns less. The change to the plan must follow from the constraint identified. Candor counts: a memo that admits an unflattering cause and acts on it outscores one that attributes everything to others. Memos without numbers, that accept every stated cause, or that propose several unrelated changes fall into the middle band. An attached record, such as the email trail here, turns a claim about a delay into evidence.

Common MGMT 8910M Week 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Pull up your file history, email and calendar before writing; memory is kind to us about why we fell short. List every reason you would give a colleague for the gap, then find evidence for or against each one. Be prepared to find that your best excuse is true but irrelevant to the pages. Ask what you were actually doing in the hours you meant to write. That answer often reveals the real constraint. Then propose one change, specific enough that you will know next week whether you made it. Keep the memo short and factual. A tutor can help you read your own records honestly, and the yoga studio memo above shows both causes tested.

Get a MGMT 8910M Week 5 example written to your instructions

Paste the Week 5 prompt and rubric along with a rough account of what you planned since the schedule was set and what you produced. A memo sorting real causes from convenient ones is back inside 24-48h; the first sample is free. Its studio study is fictional, so the verdict on your own reasons is yours to reach.

More MGMT 8910M papers and PhD in Management samples

MGMT 8910M Week 5 questions, answered

Where can I find a free MGMT 8910M Week 5 sample paper?

The yoga studio progress memo is printed in full above, table and both cause tests included.

What shortfall does the MGMT 8910M Week 5 sample report?

Nine pages produced against eighteen planned over Weeks 2 to 4.

Which stated cause holds up?

The late site agreement, which delayed the visit but not the pages.

What is the binding constraint?

A loop of rewriting an already accepted problem statement after each round of feedback.

What change closes the memo?

The problem statement is frozen until assembly, with new feedback logged for one later pass.