| Course | MT451 Managing Technological Innovation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Technology life cycle analysis |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT451 Unit 2
Past the Bend, Short of a Crew Day: An MT451 Unit 2 Technology Life Cycle Analysis of Battery Commercial Mowing
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT451: Managing Technological Innovation
Unit 2 Technology Life Cycle Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Harlan Turf Equipment, its test course and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.
Purpose
Harlan Turf Equipment, a composite commercial mower maker in Lima, Ohio, sells gasoline zero-turn and stand-on mowers to lawn care contractors through about 400 dealers. Its leadership wants to know where battery mowing sits on its technology life cycle, and when battery mowers will meet the needs of a typical contractor crew. This analysis plots battery performance as an S-curve and reads the technology's position from the rate of improvement.
Choosing the Measure
An S-curve means only as much as the performance it tracks. Unit sales track adoption rather than capability. Pack capacity in kilowatt-hours ignores how efficiently a deck and motors use energy. The measure chosen here is acres cut per charge on a 60-inch commercial deck, because that is the question a crew foreman asks: will this machine finish the day?
The Evidence
Since 2016 Harlan's engineers have tested every battery commercial mower on sale on the company's test course, cutting tall fescue at the same height each spring. The best machine each year produced these figures: 1.5 acres per charge in 2016, 2.4 in 2018, 3.8 in 2020, 5.6 in 2022, 7.1 in 2024 and 7.6 in 2025. The course favors consistency over realism, since it has no slopes and the grass is cut at a fixed height, so field results run somewhat lower. The bias is the same every year, which makes the trend more trustworthy than any single figure.
Rates of Improvement
A technology's position on its S-curve is read from whether its gains are accelerating or slowing. Converted to gains per year between test points, battery runtime improved by 0.45 acres a year from 2016 to 2018, 0.70 from 2018 to 2020, 0.90 from 2020 to 2022, 0.75 from 2022 to 2024 and 0.50 from 2024 to 2025. Gains rose until about 2021 and have fallen since. Foster (1986) describes this pattern as the shape of every maturing technology: slow early gains while the basics are worked out, rapid gains once the approach is understood and slowing gains as it approaches its limits. The paper places battery mowing's inflection point near 2021.
Battery runtime is still improving, but each year now adds less than the year before.
Time or Effort
Foster argued that the proper horizontal axis for an S-curve is cumulative effort, such as engineering spending, rather than calendar time, because a technology can look stalled when it is only underfunded. Industry spending on battery mower development is not published, so this analysis plots against model year and acknowledges the weakness. If spending accelerated after 2021, the slowing gains would be stronger evidence of maturity; if spending fell, the slowdown might reflect investment rather than limits.
The Incumbent's Flat Line
A second line tracks the old technology on the measure buyers watch. Gasoline consumed per acre by Harlan's best 60-inch zero-turn has sat near 0.55 gallons since 2015. Anderson and Tushman (1990) describe how an established technology often improves little once a dominant design has settled, leaving room for a new one to overtake it. Gasoline mowing is not declining, but it is no longer improving on fuel use.
The Threshold
A typical Harlan customer's crew cuts about nine acres in a day across residential and commercial properties. A battery mower that cannot finish nine acres without a pack swap or a midday charge forces the crew to carry spare packs or change its routes. The chart therefore carries a horizontal band at nine acres. At the slowing rates of recent years, between 0.5 and 0.75 acres a year, battery runtime reaches the band between 2027 and 2029.
What Limits the Curve
The paper names pack weight on a stand-on frame, rather than cell chemistry alone, as the binding limit. Adding cells adds runtime but also weight, and a stand-on mower's frame, tires and turf impact set a ceiling on how much pack it can carry. A breakthrough in cell energy density would lift that ceiling; without one, gains will continue to slow.
What Could Overturn This Reading
Two developments would change the analysis. A step change in cell density, such as a commercial solid-state cell, would start a new curve rather than extend this one. And if field results diverge sharply from the test course, the threshold date would move later. Schilling (2020) cautions that S-curves are better at describing the past than predicting the future, so the paper offers a dated range rather than a year and recommends rechecking it with each spring's test.
What the Range Means for Harlan
For Harlan's planners the range is more useful than a single year would be. A battery mower launched in 2027 would reach contractors just as the curve approaches the crew-day band, early enough to build a reputation and late enough that its runtime will not be embarrassed by the next model year. A launch in 2025 or 2026 would have faced the steepest gains, when each new model made the last one look dated. Waiting until 2030 would mean arriving after the threshold, when rivals who launched earlier will already hold the contractors who switch first.
References
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604-633. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393511
Foster, R. N. (1986). Innovation: The attacker's advantage. Summit Books.
Schilling, M. A. (2020). Strategic management of technological innovation (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
What the MT451 Unit 2 assignment asks for
For MT451 Unit 2, the task is to place a technology on its life cycle, usually as an S-curve, and draw a forecast from where it sits. Choose the performance measure first and defend it, since the curve means only as much as what it tracks; a measure buyers actually ask about is stronger than an engineering figure. Date every data point and state its source and its bias. Read the technology's position from its rate of improvement, not from the shape of a chart alone. Foster's point about plotting against effort rather than time deserves a paragraph, even if effort data are missing. Track the incumbent technology on the same buyer measure. A threshold that matters to customers turns the curve into a forecast, which should be given as a dated range with its main limit named.
How the MT 451 Unit 2 example is put together
Harlan's analysis opens by explaining who wants to know and why. A section rejects unit sales and kilowatt-hours as measures and chooses acres per charge, the foreman's question. Six dated test-course figures follow with their bias toward consistency. Gains per year are then computed, and the inflection is placed near 2021, citing Foster; a highlighted line notes that each year now adds less than the last. A short section admits effort data are missing. Gasoline's flat fuel line comes next with Anderson and Tushman on settled designs. The nine-acre band turns the curve into a forecast of 2027 to 2029. Pack weight on a stand-on frame is named as the binding limit. A section on what could overturn the reading cites Schilling, and a final section turns the range into a launch window for Harlan.
MT451 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
Graders in this unit reward a defended choice of measure before anything else, because an S-curve drawn on the wrong measure answers the wrong question. Dated evidence with stated sources and bias earns credibility marks. The analysis credit goes to reading position from rates of improvement, with a gains table or equivalent, rather than from a curve's apparent shape. Including the incumbent technology on the same measure shows the student understands that a new technology's threat depends on the old one's limits. A customer-relevant threshold, with a forecast given as a range, is often what separates strong papers from adequate ones. Naming what could overturn the forecast shows judgment. Foster's effort axis is a common marking point even when only acknowledged. Clear charts or tables that a reader can check carry presentation marks in MT 451.
MT451 Unit 2 help from the desk
The commonest Unit 2 problem is a hand-drawn S-curve with no data and a claim that the technology is in its growth phase. Another is choosing a measure because data exist, such as unit sales, which tracks adoption rather than capability. Students often give a forecast as a single year with no reasoning. The incumbent technology is frequently left off the chart, so the reader cannot see whether the new one is gaining. Bias in the data source is rarely mentioned. Some papers define the S-curve at length and never apply it. Before submitting, compute the improvement between each pair of data points. If those gains are rising, the technology is before its bend; if falling, after it. That one table usually supports a stronger placement than any description of the curve.
Get an MT451 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Name the technology your Unit 2 analysis will place, or the one the prompt assigns, and attach the instructions and rubric. A sample returns in 24-48h with a performance measure argued for, dated evidence plotted and converted to rates, and a crossing forecast as a range. Your first custom sample is free. 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 MT451 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT451 Unit 1: Innovation Adoption Board Post
- MT451 Unit 3: Adoption Analysis
- MT451 Unit 4: Standards Battle Case
- MT451 Unit 5: Disruption Case Analysis
- MT451 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT451 Unit 7: Intellectual Property Memo
- MT451 Unit 8: Stage-gate Review
- MT451 Unit 9: Collaboration Strategy Brief
- MT451 Unit 10: Innovation Strategy Report
- MT450 Unit 2: Fountain Pen Brand Audit
- MT438 Unit 2: Order Data Quality Audit
- MT437 Unit 2: Warehouse Flow Map
MT451 Unit 2 questions, answered
What if no one publishes performance data for my technology?
Look for proxies the industry itself tracks, such as trade magazine test results, manufacturer specifications by model year, or government testing programs, and cite each with its year. If you assemble figures yourself, explain how, and label any composite values. A modest dataset with a clear method is stronger than a smooth curve drawn from impressions.
Should the S-curve plot performance against time or against effort?
Foster's original argument put cumulative effort, such as research spending, on the horizontal axis, since improvement depends on investment rather than on the calendar. Time is easier to find and often acceptable. If you use time, say so, and note that a surge or cut in spending could bend the curve for reasons unrelated to the technology's limits.
How precise should the forecast crossing date be?
A range is more honest than a single year. Base it on the recent rate of improvement and on what happens if that rate keeps slowing, and name the limit that could stop progress sooner. MT451 graders generally reward a forecast that states its assumptions over one that sounds certain, and a range invites exactly that kind of statement.
Where can I find a free MT451 Unit 2 sample paper?
The full MT451 Unit 2 analysis is on this page, plotting battery mower runtime from 2016 to 2025 and forecasting when it reaches a full crew day.
Where does the MT451 Unit 2 sample place the inflection point?
Near 2021, when annual gains in acres per charge peaked at 0.90 before slowing to 0.50 by 2025.