| Course | MT460 Management Strategy and Policy |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Strategic alternatives memo |
| Length | About 810 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT460 Unit 5
Recurring Pods Over a Bigger Top Line: An MT460 Unit 5 Strategic Alternatives Memo
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT460: Management Strategy and Policy
Unit 5 Strategic Alternatives Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Sprigwell Gardens, its options and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.
Memo Header
To: Chief Executive Officer, Sprigwell Gardens. From: Strategy Analyst. Date: February 9, 2026. Subject: Choosing among three growth directions for 2026 to 2028.
Recommendation
Sprigwell should launch a seed pod subscription, sold through the app and through independent retailers, and should not build a sub-$80 garden for the national chains. The subscription offers less three-year contribution than the cheap garden, about $31 million against $38 million, but it fits the company's lasting resources, needs modest capital, can be scaled back if it disappoints and strengthens rather than strains the retailer network.
Criteria, Set Before the Options
Five criteria were set and weighted before any option was scored. The two strongest strategies from the Unit 4 TOWS matrix, built with the pairing method Weihrich (1982) proposed, inform the first criterion. Fit with the Unit 3 audit carries 30 percent, because a direction that does not use Sprigwell's two lasting resources, the retailer network and the grow data, would compete on ground where rivals are equal. Three-year contribution carries 25 percent, since the company must still earn a return. Capital required, reversibility and channel conflict carry 15 percent each: capital because Sprigwell's borrowing capacity is limited, reversibility because a direction that cannot be unwound magnifies the cost of being wrong, and channel conflict because the retailers are a lasting resource that a careless direction could damage.
Three Directions
A seed pod subscription: owners receive pods on a schedule set by the grow data, at about $14 a month. Estimated three-year contribution is $31 million on capital of $6.8 million for the platform, packaging and retailer program.
A built-in under-cabinet garden sold through kitchen designers and remodelers: estimated three-year contribution of $24 million on capital of $11.5 million for engineering, tooling and certification.
A sub-$80 countertop garden built for the two national chains: estimated three-year contribution of $38 million on capital of $4.2 million for tooling.
The Scoring Matrix
Scores ran from 1, weak, to 5, strong, for every criterion and direction. The subscription scored 5 on fit, since it uses both the data and the retailers; 4 on contribution; 4 on capital; 4 on reversibility; and 3 on channel conflict, since direct shipping could take pod sales from retailers unless retailers share in it. Its weighted total is 4.15.
The built-in line scored 3 on fit, 3 on contribution, 2 on capital, 4 on reversibility and 5 on channel conflict, since kitchen designers are a new channel that competes with no one. Its total is 3.30.
The sub-$80 garden scored 1 on fit, since it uses neither lasting resource; 5 on contribution; 5 on capital; 3 on reversibility; and 1 on channel conflict, since it would deepen dependence on the chains and undercut independent retailers on price. Its total is 2.90.
The option that earns the most money scores lowest, because it builds the business on the two chains the industry analysis warned about.
Why Fit Weighs Most
Porter (1996) describes strategy as activities chosen to support each other, and that rivals find whole systems far harder to copy than single moves. The subscription connects the app, the data, the pods and the retailers into one system. The cheap garden is a single move any import seller can match.
What Would Change the Answer
The sub-$80 garden would win if both chains committed in writing to three years of shelf space and to no store-brand garden, which would remove its main risk. The subscription would lose its lead if a sixty-day trial shows fewer than 45 percent of trial subscribers still subscribed at the end, since the contribution estimate assumes stronger retention. And the built-in line would rise if kitchen remodeling demand, which fell in 2023 and 2024, recovers faster than forecast. Each condition can be checked within a quarter.
Appendix: Contribution Arithmetic
Subscription: subscribers are estimated at 60,000 in year one, 125,000 in year two and 175,000 in year three, about 360,000 subscriber-years. At $168 a year and a 51 percent contribution margin after retailer commissions, shipping and pods, contribution is about $31 million. Built-in line: about 40,000 units over three years at about $600 contribution each, about $24 million. Sub-$80 garden: about 1.9 million units at about $20 contribution each, about $38 million. All three estimates assume no cannibalization of Sprigwell's existing gardens, which flatters the sub-$80 garden most. Rumelt (2011) warns that a strategy should be judged by whether it addresses the critical challenge identified in the diagnosis, and the challenge Unit 2 identified was dependence on the chains, which only the subscription reduces.
References
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.
Rumelt, R. P. (2011). Good strategy bad strategy: The difference and why it matters. Crown Business.
Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS matrix: A tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2), 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(82)90120-0
Reading the MT 460 Unit 5 instructions
The Unit 5 memo in MT460 compares strategic alternatives and recommends one to a senior executive. Put the recommendation at the top in a short paragraph. Set and weight the criteria before describing any option, with a sentence explaining each weight, so the reader can see the choice was not reverse-engineered. Describe each alternative in parallel form with its estimated contribution and capital need. Score every alternative on every criterion and show the totals. Explain why the winner wins, especially if it is not the option with the most revenue. Include a section on what would change the answer, naming conditions that could be checked. An appendix should show how the financial estimates were built and where they might flatter an option. About four pages in memo format, with a criteria table and a scoring matrix, is common for this assignment.
How this MT460 Unit 5 example is built
Sprigwell's memo opens with a header and a recommendation that admits the subscription earns less than the cheap garden. The criteria section sets five weights with a reason each, drawing on the Unit 4 TOWS strategies built with Weihrich's method. Three directions are described with their contribution and capital. The scoring matrix follows criterion by criterion, under a highlighted line explaining why the most profitable option scores lowest. A section on fit cites Porter's view of activities that support each other. The page on what would change the answer names three checkable conditions: written shelf commitments from the chains, trial retention below 45 percent and a faster remodeling recovery. The appendix builds each estimate from units and margins, notes that ignoring cannibalization flatters the cheap garden and closes with Rumelt on addressing the critical challenge.
MT460 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
Alternatives memos are graded on whether the method is fair and the recommendation follows from it. Instructors credit criteria set and weighted before options appear, with reasons. Parallel descriptions of each option make comparison possible. A complete scoring matrix with visible totals earns method marks. Explaining why the recommended option wins, especially against an option with more revenue, shows judgment. A section on what would change the answer, with checkable conditions, is a frequent marking point and shows intellectual honesty. Financial estimates in an appendix, with their assumptions and weaknesses stated, let the grader verify the logic. Leading with the decision respects how a chief executive reads. Course readings on strategy should support the weighting, especially the weight given to fit.
MT460 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Weak Unit 5 memos describe three options at length and then choose one with little explanation. Another frequent problem sets criteria after scoring, which makes the method look rigged. Students often weight every criterion equally without saying why. Financial estimates tend to appear without arithmetic. Many memos recommend the largest revenue option by default. What-would-change sections are rarely included. Before submitting, cover your recommendation and look only at your criteria and weights. If a reader could predict your winner from the weights alone, explain why those weights fit the company's situation. Then add at least one condition under which a losing option would win, and check that it could be tested within a quarter.
Get an MT460 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Share the Unit 5 instructions, the assigned company or case study, any options your section mandates, and the rubric. The memo returned fixes weighted criteria before the options, gives each direction its strongest case with numbers, and spells out which test result would overturn its choice. First custom sample free; expect it within 24-48h. 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 MT460 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT460 Unit 1: Strategic Refusal Board Post
- MT460 Unit 2: Five Forces Industry Analysis
- MT460 Unit 3: VRIO Resource Audit
- MT460 Unit 4: SWOT and TOWS Analysis
- MT460 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT460 Unit 7: Corporate Strategy Case
- MT460 Unit 8: Implementation Plan
- MT460 Unit 9: Balanced Scorecard
- MT460 Unit 10: Strategic Case Analysis
- MT459 Unit 5: Package Attention Study
- MT455 Unit 5: Discounting Habit Coaching Plan
- MT453 Unit 5: SPIN Discovery Question Set
- MT451 Unit 5: Mower Disruption Case Analysis
MT460 Unit 5 questions, answered
How many alternatives should an MT460 memo compare?
Three is the common number and often the one the prompt sets. Two can make the comparison look like a yes or no decision, and more than four usually thins the analysis of each. Some sections also expect a do-nothing baseline, which is useful because every option should have to beat the cost of standing still.
Where do the criteria come from?
From the analysis already done and from the firm's own constraints. Fit with the resources your audit rated rare, capital the balance sheet can support, reversibility and risk to existing channels are typical. Stating them before describing the options, and explaining each weight, lets a reader trust that the scoring was not built around the answer you preferred.
Does the memo need financial estimates?
Usually yes, even rough ones, because a claim that one direction earns more needs a figure behind it. Put the assumptions in an appendix so a grader can follow the arithmetic line by line. Estimates that are clearly reasoned and labeled as estimates read better than precise-looking numbers with no visible source behind them.
Where can I find a free MT460 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page prints the full MT460 Unit 5 memo comparing a seed pod subscription, a built-in kitchen line and a sub-$80 garden for a composite garden maker.
Why does the highest-revenue option lose in the MT460 Unit 5 sample?
The sub-$80 garden uses neither of the company's lasting resources and deepens its dependence on the two chains, so it scores 2.90 despite about $38 million of contribution.