| Course | MT451 Managing Technological Innovation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Disruption case analysis |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 7 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 5
One Newcomer Climbed, One Cut Better: An MT451 Unit 5 Disruption Case Analysis Applying Christensen Strictly
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT451: Managing Technological Innovation
Unit 5 Disruption Case Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Harlan Turf Equipment, Ridgeway Cordless, Calder Mowers and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.
The Definition as Four Tests
Christensen et al. (2015) restated what disruption means after two decades of the word being used for any successful newcomer. A disruptive entrant starts where incumbents are not looking, either among their least demanding customers or among people not buying at all. Its product is worse at entry on what the mainstream market values most. Incumbents have good reasons to ignore it, usually because the business it wins is less profitable than their own. And it moves upmarket over time until mainstream customers defect.
The case turns that definition into four tests, applied to each newcomer in the same order. Where did the entrant start? How did its product compare on mainstream measures at entry? Did incumbents have reason to ignore it? Has it moved upmarket since? An entrant is called disruptive only if it passes all four. The same article warns that not every successful challenger is disruptive, citing Uber, which entered the mainstream taxi market with a product many riders already preferred; the case keeps that caution in view.
The Market
Harlan Turf Equipment, whose battery decisions run through every unit of this course, builds gas-powered zero-turn and stand-on machines for commercial cutting crews and sells them through roughly 400 dealers. Two newcomers have taken share from Harlan and its established rivals in recent years.
Newcomer One: Ridgeway Cordless
Ridgeway Cordless is a composite cordless tool brand known for drills and saws sold in home centers. Around 2015 it began selling a 21-inch battery push mower for homeowners, a segment commercial mower makers did not serve.
Test one, starting position: it started below the commercial market entirely, among homeowners. Pass.
Test two, product at entry: on what contractors value, acres cut per charge, durability and service, Ridgeway's early machines were far worse than commercial gas mowers. Its first riding mower managed under an acre per charge. Pass.
Test three, reason to ignore: Ridgeway's 52-inch battery zero-turn, launched in 2024, sells at $11,900 against about $16,500 for a comparable gas machine. Margins on it are thin, and the customers it wins, small crews running one to three mowers, buy few machines and demand discounts. Harlan's managers could reasonably decide it is not worth chasing. Pass.
Test four, movement upmarket: Ridgeway moved from 21-inch push mowers to riding mowers to a commercial-width zero-turn in about nine years, and runtime climbed from under an acre to about five acres per charge. Among small crews, its share of new mower purchases rose from 0.5 percent in 2023 to 4 percent in 2025. Pass.
Ridgeway follows the pattern Christensen (1997) described in steel, where mini-mills began with rebar, the lowest-margin product integrated mills were glad to give up, and then moved up product by product until they made sheet steel.
Ridgeway entered where commercial makers were glad not to compete and is climbing toward where they earn their profits.
Newcomer Two: Calder Mowers
Calder Mowers is a composite maker of premium gasoline stand-on mowers. It entered in 2018 at $19,800 a unit, sold through the same dealers as Harlan, and won share on cut quality and operator comfort. Its share of commercial mower sales in Harlan's region rose from 9 percent in 2021 to 15 percent in 2025.
Test one, starting position: Calder entered at the top of the market, among the most demanding contractors, through incumbents' own dealers. Fail.
The remaining tests confirm the verdict. Calder's product was better at entry on what contractors value, not worse. Incumbents had every reason to fight it, since it took their most profitable customers. Calder did not need to move upmarket; it started there.
Calder is a successful sustaining innovator: it beat incumbents by making a better product for their best customers. That matters for Harlan's response. Christensen's argument is that incumbents usually win sustaining battles, because they have the resources and motivation to match a better product. Harlan can answer Calder by improving its own stand-on mowers.
The Verdict Table
The verdict table records each test for each entrant. Ridgeway passes all four and is called disruptive. Calder fails the first test and is called sustaining. Beside each result sits the evidence for it, so an objection can target one judgment, such as Ridgeway's starting position, instead of the overall verdict.
The Incumbent's Dilemma
The danger for Harlan lies in the reasoning that makes Ridgeway easy to ignore. Margins on an $11,900 battery mower sold to small crews sit far below those on Harlan's gas lines. Harlan's dealers prefer selling $16,500 machines to fleets. Every budget review will rank Ridgeway's segment last. That is exactly the logic Christensen described: incumbents make sensible decisions to serve their best customers and leave the low end to the entrant, until the entrant's product is good enough for the mainstream.
Unit 2 showed battery runtime approaching a full crew day between 2027 and 2029. If Ridgeway reaches that threshold with a machine priced well below gas, mid-size contractors, Harlan's core customers, will have reason to switch.
Recommendation
Christensen's work suggests that an incumbent rarely answers disruption from inside its existing business, because that business's processes and profit expectations reject the low-margin opportunity. The case recommends that Harlan form a separate unit, with its own profit targets and permission to sell through channels other than its dealers, to build a low-price battery mower for small crews. Schilling (2020) notes that such units need protection from the parent's resource allocation rules to survive their first years. Harlan's main business should meanwhile answer Calder directly, with a better stand-on mower for its dealer network.
What Would Change the Verdict
The verdict on Ridgeway rests on evidence that could change. If Ridgeway's commercial zero-turn stalls at about five acres per charge and its share among small crews levels off, the climb will have stopped short of the mainstream, and the threat would be smaller than the case argues. If Ridgeway begins selling through commercial dealers and pricing near gas machines, it would be leaving the low end behind, which would confirm the disruptive path but also make it a direct competitor that Harlan's main business could fight. The case therefore recommends tracking three figures each season: Ridgeway's runtime on Harlan's test course, its share among small crews and its share among mid-size contractors. A rise in the third would be the clearest sign that the climb has reached Harlan's core customers.
References
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44-53.
Schilling, M. A. (2020). Strategic management of technological innovation (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Reading the MT 451 Unit 5 instructions
MT451 Unit 5 asks whether a newcomer to a market is disruptive in Christensen's sense, applied strictly. State the definition from Christensen's own work, ideally the 2015 restatement, and turn it into tests: where the entrant started, how its product compared on mainstream measures at entry, whether incumbents had reason to ignore it and whether it has moved upmarket. Apply the same tests in the same order to each entrant you examine. A contrast between a disruptive and a sustaining entrant often teaches more than one case alone. Use a reference pattern, such as mini-mills, to check your reading. The incumbent's response belongs at the end, connected to why ignoring the entrant seems sensible. Strong papers also say what evidence would change the verdict. Seven pages with a definition box, two trajectory charts and a verdict table is typical.
How the MT 451 Unit 5 example is put together
The Harlan case opens by restating Christensen's definition and converting it to four tests, with the 2015 article's caution about Uber. The market is introduced briefly. Ridgeway then faces all four tests in order, each marked pass with its evidence, and the mini-mill example from Christensen's 1997 book confirms the pattern; a highlighted line describes the climb from where incumbents were glad not to compete. Calder faces the same tests and fails the first, entering at the top through incumbents' dealers. A verdict table records each result and its evidence. A section on the incumbent's dilemma explains why Harlan's budget reviews will rank Ridgeway last, linking to the Unit 2 runtime threshold. The recommendation, with Schilling on protecting new units, separates the response to Ridgeway from the response to Calder, and a final section names three figures to track.
Reading the MT451 Unit 5 grading rubric
In disruption cases the grader checks first whether the definition is applied as a test or used as a label. Papers that call every successful newcomer disruptive lose most of the analysis marks, while papers that run each entrant through explicit criteria earn them. Citing Christensen's own work, especially the 2015 restatement, is expected. Comparing a disruptive entrant with a sustaining one shows the student can tell them apart. A reference pattern used to check the reading demonstrates depth. Instructors reward explaining why incumbents rationally ignore disruptors, since that logic is the heart of the theory. Recommendations should differ for the two kinds of entrant. Naming evidence that would overturn the verdict shows mature judgment. Trajectory charts and a verdict table let the grader confirm each step.
Common MT451 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Weak Unit 5 analyses label a newcomer disruptive because it grew fast or used new technology, without checking where it started. Another common error treats a premium entrant that beat incumbents on quality as disruptive. Students often spend pages retelling Christensen and a single line on the actual entrant. The incumbent's reasons for ignoring the entrant are frequently missing, which leaves the recommendation unexplained. Recommendations tend to say the incumbent should innovate, without saying how the response should be organized. Few papers say what would change the verdict. Before submitting, write your four tests as questions and answer each with one piece of evidence for every entrant. If any answer is a guess, find data or say so. If both entrants pass all four, check whether your tests are strict enough.
Get an MT451 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Name the newcomers in question, or the case you were assigned, and add the rubric. Back within 24-48h: the definition stated and sourced, each entrant run through the same tests, and a verdict table showing where any claim of disruption holds or fails. Flag any source that already calls one of them disruptive. First custom samples cost nothing. 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 2: Battery Mowing Life Cycle Analysis
- MT451 Unit 3: Battery Mower Adoption Analysis
- MT451 Unit 4: Blu-ray Standards Battle Case
- 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 5: Pen Brand Architecture Review
- MT438 Unit 5: Grass Seed Forecast Accuracy
- MT437 Unit 5: Pick Method Comparison
MT451 Unit 5 questions, answered
Is every newcomer that beats incumbents a disruptor?
No. In Christensen's sense, disruption describes a path: a foothold among the least demanding customers or among non-consumers, an offering that begins behind on the attributes the core market cares about, and steady improvement until that market moves across. A newcomer that wins with a better product aimed at the incumbents' best customers is a sustaining innovator, however successful it becomes.
Which source should I cite for the definition?
Christensen's own work is the standard reference: The Innovator's Dilemma for the original theory, and the 2015 Harvard Business Review article with Raynor and McDonald, which restated the definition and discussed common misuses. Check whether your course text frames it differently, and cite the version you apply so the grader can hold your analysis to it.
What should the incumbent do if the entrant is disruptive?
Christensen's work generally suggests that responding inside the existing business fails, because its cost structure and customers pull resources toward the high end. A separate unit with its own cost structure and profit expectations is the usual recommendation. Your analysis should weigh that against the firm's circumstances rather than treating it as automatic.
Where can I find a free MT451 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page holds the full MT451 Unit 5 analysis, testing two composite mower market entrants against Christensen's definition and recommending a separate unit.
Why is Calder Mowers not disruptive in the MT451 Unit 5 sample?
It entered at the top of the market at $19,800 through incumbents' own dealers and won on quality, so it fails the first test of starting where incumbents were not looking.