GB740 Unit 3 Entry and Contracting Memo Example

Course	GB740 Organizational Development
Unit	Unit 3
Paper type	Entry and contracting memo
Length	About 950 words, 6 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	MBA
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for GB740 Unit 3

An Academy or an Answer: A Unit 3 Entry and Contracting Memo for a Civil Engineering Firm

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GB740: Organizational Development

Unit 3 Entry and Contracting Memo

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Tallis Engineering, its executives and every agreement are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingOpening on two executives with different requests shows that contracting begins by deciding whose problem the work will address.

Memo

To: Chief operating officer, Tallis Engineering From: Director of project delivery and DBA candidate Date: Following our meeting of last Thursday Re: What we agreed for the organizational development project, and what is still open

Your Request in Your Words

At our meeting you said, "I want to know why we keep losing five or six points between the proposal and the final invoice, and I want to know before we set next year's budget." I have used that sentence as the definition of the project. Where this memo describes the work, it should be read as serving that question.

Two Conversations, Two Framings

Before meeting with you, I met with our chief executive, who had asked to hear about the project. He framed the problem differently. In his view, margin fade is a skills gap among project managers, many of them promoted from technical roles without training in budgeting or client management. He has announced at two all-staff meetings that the firm will launch a project manager academy next year, and he hoped the project would design it.

Your framing treats the cause as unknown. His treats it as known, with a remedy already chosen. Both views deserve a hearing, but the project cannot start from both. Block (2011) argues that a consultant who accepts a client's solution before understanding the problem has agreed to implement rather than to help, and that the moment to say so is during contracting. I told the chief executive that the diagnosis would examine skills along with other possible causes, and that if it pointed to training, an academy would follow naturally. He accepted that, though without much enthusiasm, and I think we should expect him to return to the academy when findings arrive.

What this part is doingRecording the chief executive's lukewarm acceptance now gives the memo a basis for managing his reaction later.

What You Asked of Me

You asked for four things. Findings in time for budget planning, which begins in early September. A diagnosis that covers every office, including the three legacy water offices and the two transportation offices from the earlier acquisition. Recommendations that the executive team can act on without new hiring. And regular updates, so that nothing in the final report comes as a surprise.

What I Asked of You

I asked for five things in return. Access to records for every project closed over the past two years, 212 in all, including proposal estimates, monthly cost reports, change orders and final margins, through the finance team. A firmwide survey, sent to all 640 staff with a cover note from you saying that participation is voluntary and responses anonymous. Forty interviews of up to an hour each, during working hours, with staff chosen by me rather than by office leaders. Permission to observe the weekly staffing calls in which office leaders decide who works on what. And an hour with you every second week, protected from cancellation, so that findings can be discussed as they emerge rather than presented all at once.

You agreed to all five, with one condition: survey and interview data will not be shared with office leaders in any form that could identify an individual.

What Neither of Us Promised

Three matters remain open, and I think they should stay open in writing rather than be settled by assumption.

First, the earnouts. Five principals from the acquired firms receive earnout payments tied to their offices' profit through 2027. If the diagnosis finds that office profit measures contribute to margin fade, any recommendation will touch those payments. We agreed that findings will be reported regardless, but we did not agree how recommendations affecting the earnouts will be handled. I suggest we take that to the executive team as a separate question once findings exist.

Second, my own position. I am a member of the legacy water group and report to you. If findings reflect poorly on headquarters, some will say I was biased; if they reflect poorly on the water offices, others will say I was disloyal. We agreed that a faculty adviser at the university, outside the firm, will review my interpretations before any are reported. We did not agree what happens if you and I disagree about a finding's meaning.

Third, the academy. If the diagnosis does not support it, someone will need to tell the chief executive. We did not decide who.

What this part is doingLeaving the academy question visibly open protects the candidate from being assigned that conversation by default.

The open items are not loose ends to be tidied away; they are the places where this project is most likely to fail, written down while there is still time to prepare.

The Psychological Contract

Beyond the formal terms, Schein (1999) describes an implicit contract about what kind of help the client expects. My sense is that you want a partner in diagnosis, not an expert who delivers answers. That suits the project, since the managers who must carry out any change need to see how each conclusion was reached. If that sense is wrong, I would rather know now. Cummings and Worley (2019) treat a contract as covering three things, what each side expects, what time and resources each will commit and the ground rules for working together, and the attached summary is organized under those three headings.

Next Steps

With your agreement, I will send a one-page summary of these terms to the chief executive, start the records request with finance next week and draft the survey for your review. The attached summary lists each agreement and each open item.

References

Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2019). Organization development and change (11th ed.). Cengage.

Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Addison-Wesley.

Reading the GB 740 Unit 3 instructions

Unit 3 in GB740 asks you to write the memo that follows your contracting conversation with a sponsor. Address it to the sponsor and quote their request in their own words. If more than one leader framed the problem, describe each framing and explain which the project will serve and why. List what the sponsor asked of you and what you asked of the sponsor, including access to data, time and people, as specific items. Record any conditions attached. Then set out what was not agreed, since unresolved matters are where projects often fail. Describe the implicit expectations about your role, such as expert or partner, and invite correction. End with next steps. Four pages with a short summary of agreements attached is typical. Cite the consulting literature where it shapes a decision in the memo.

How the GB 740 Unit 3 example is put together

The memo opens with a header and the sponsor's sentence about losing five or six points before the budget. The section on two conversations sets the chief executive's skills framing against the sponsor's open question and uses Block to explain why the project cannot start from a chosen solution. The sponsor's four requests and the candidate's five follow, each as a labeled item, with the sponsor's condition on confidentiality. Three open items are explained in turn: the earnout payments through 2027, the candidate's own position in the water group and the academy announcement. The highlighted sentence treats those items as the project's weak points. Schein's psychological contract and Cummings and Worley's three parts of a contract close the memo before the next steps.

GB740 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points

In GB740 the contracting memo earns points for precision about the relationship. Quoting the sponsor's request exactly gives the work a definition both sides can check. Instructors give significant weight to handling competing framings honestly, since many projects have more than one executive with a stake. Requests in both directions should be specific enough to be kept or broken, with counts and times rather than general cooperation. Recording what was not agreed is often a separate rubric line and rewards candor. Attention to the implicit contract shows understanding of the consultant's role. Confidentiality terms must say who sees what. Citations to Block and Schein should support decisions in the memo, not sit in a background paragraph.

GB740 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points

A frequent weakness in GB740 Unit 3 memos is reporting only what the sponsor wants, as if contracting ran one way. Others accept a remedy the client has already announced, which turns the project into implementation before any diagnosis. Requests are often vague, such as support from leadership, so nobody can tell later whether they were met. Students tend to leave out unresolved issues to make the memo look tidy. Internal consultants frequently skip the question of what happens when a finding implicates the sponsor. Quote the request, weigh any rival framing, list specific asks both ways, record conditions, name the open items and invite correction of your role. Tell us about your sponsor meeting, and we can draft the memo that records it.

Get a GB740 Unit 3 example written to your instructions

Tell us who requested the change work in your organization, what they said in their own words and where you sit relative to them. Include the Unit 3 prompt with its rubric. A custom entry and contracting memo, structured on Block's wants and offers and fitted to your situation, comes back within 24-48h, free the first time. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More GB740 papers and MBA samples

GB740 Unit 3 questions, answered

Is the Unit 3 memo the same as a consulting agreement?

Not quite. An agreement lists terms; a contracting memo records, more often than not, the conversation that produced them, including what each party wanted and what remained unresolved. Some sections ask for both. Where only the memo is required, it still states the agreements clearly, since a reader should be able to tell what was decided.

What if the sponsor has not agreed to anything yet?

Many candidates write this memo before the real conversation happens, as a plan for it. The memo can then record intended wants and offers, anticipated objections and the questions the candidate will raise. Sections generally accept this form when the instructions allow a proposed rather than completed contract.

How should internal candidates handle confidentiality?

Specifically. State who will see raw data, who sees only aggregated findings, how small groups are protected from identification and where interview notes are kept. Promises of full anonymity in a small office are not credible and readers notice. A realistic commitment, stated precisely, reads as more ethical than a generous one.

Where can I find a free GB740 Unit 3 sample paper?

This page carries a full GB740 Unit 3 entry and contracting memo for a civil engineering firm, recording two executive framings, requests in both directions and three matters left open.

What are wants and offers in contracting?

They are Block's terms for what each party needs from the work and what each will provide. Listing both for client and consultant makes the agreement mutual and shows where expectations differ.