Two explanations of one insourcing decision, transaction costs and capabilities, are turned into propositions and checked against a composite insurer's records in GB793's Unit 2 theory comparison memo. Searches like "gb 793 unit 2 assignment example", "gb793 unit 2 sample" and "gb793 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GB793 Unit 2 theory comparison memo looks like
Five pages, laid out as a memo to the seminar group and headed by a two-sentence summary. Section one describes the decision, drawing only on the contract file and board records: a 2017 outsourcing contract, 214 change orders over its life, a 2024 dispute over pricing for a state regulatory update, and a 2025 hire of eleven developers. Section two states three propositions from transaction cost economics, drawing on Williamson, and three from the capabilities view, drawing on Argyres's 1996 study of vertical integration. Section three lists, for each proposition, the observation in Aldine's records that would contradict it. Section four applies those tests to the file. A closing section judges which account explains more and names the single document that would decide what remains open.
How a GB793 Unit 2 example is structured
Propositions come before evidence so neither theory can be fitted to the facts after they are known. Every one takes the form of a conditional with an observable consequence: where the knowledge needed to maintain software is specific to one insurer's claims rules, disputes over contract adaptation should rise as regulation changes. Contradicting observations sit in their own section, the memo's distinctive feature and the part graders read closest. Evidence is then applied proposition by proposition. The pricing dispute supports a hold-up argument, but its timing matters: the developers were recruited from a closed insurtech firm months before the dispute, which fits a capabilities story in which Aldine insourced because it suddenly could. The closing judgment favors the capabilities account, because only it explains that timing, and states what would overturn the judgment: board minutes showing insourcing proposed before the hire became possible.
Propositions written first
Three conditional claims per theory, each tied to something observable in an insurer's records, are fixed before any evidence appears.
What would count against each
For every proposition, the memo names the record that would contradict it: generic code for transaction costs, absent in-house skill for capabilities.
Pricing a mandated update
The vendor's quote for a 2024 regulatory change looks like classic hold-up. The memo credits that reading and then checks when it happened.
A hire that came first
Developers from a closed insurtech joined months before the dispute. Only the capabilities account predicts insourcing triggered by newly available skill.
One document that would decide it
Board minutes dating the first insourcing proposal would separate the accounts. The memo names them and says which date favors which theory.
Where marks go in GB793 Unit 2
Crediting each theory with part of the decision forfeits the most, since that verdict sidesteps the comparison the unit sets. Propositions stated loosely, that transaction costs matter for make-or-buy choices, leave nothing to contradict and are flagged at once. Graders also expect the contradicting observations to be named before the evidence; memos revealing them afterward appear to have fitted theory to facts. Naming contradicting evidence that no insurer's file could contain, such as managers' private motives, leaves a test nobody could run. Summarizing Williamson from a textbook, instead of stating his conditions of asset specificity, uncertainty and frequency, weakens every later step. Ignoring timing, treating all evidence as simultaneous, misses the case's key fact. Recommendations to Aldine's managers sit outside the genre and lose a small amount.
Get a GB793 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Name the pair of theories your Unit 2 prompt puts in competition, and any case or decision attached, then include the memo instructions and rubric. The resulting memo writes each theory's propositions before touching the evidence, names what would contradict every one and reaches a judgment. An initial custom sample comes without cost, usually inside 24-48h.
GB793 Unit 2 questions, answered
Why does the memo refuse to conclude that both theories help?
Because that conclusion is almost always available and rarely informative. Two theories predicting the same outcome for different reasons can be separated only by evidence one predicts and the other does not, here the timing of the hire. The memo commits to the account that explains that evidence, while naming the document that could still reverse its judgment.
Are the Aldine Mutual figures real?
No. Aldine is a composite, with contract history and figures invented to be realistic for a regional insurer. A composite lets the memo include exactly the evidence that separates the theories. Where a section insists on a published case or a real firm, the same propositions-first structure applies, though the separating evidence may prove thinner.
Should the memo cite empirical tests of each theory?
Briefly, where they show the propositions have been tested before. This sample cites Monteverde and Teece's study of automobile components and Argyres's analysis of one firm's integration choices. Their role is to show the propositions are testable, not to settle the case, which depends on Aldine's own records, as the memo's final section makes plain.