| Course | LDR 307 Leadership Strategy and Decision Making (LDR/307) |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Innovation and contingency strategy |
| Length | about 1,049 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Business |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 307 Week 5
Electric Coaches, Rideshare Vans and a Driver Shortage: Innovation, Contingency Planning and an Entrepreneurial Strategy for an Omaha Motorcoach Company
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
LDR/307: Leadership Strategy and Decision Making
Week 5 Final Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Prairie Star Coach Lines, its scenarios and its plans are composites written for a model paper.
Four papers have taken the invented Prairie Star operator through a series of choices: how to decide on a fleet purchase, how to redesign its business model, how to allocate resources and govern itself and how to restore reliability. Each analysis looked at the next year or two. This final paper looks further ahead. Three forces could reshape the market within a decade: app-based services that book vans and small buses for groups of 10 to 20 at low prices, electric coaches that change costs and refueling and a long-term shortage of drivers with commercial licenses. The paper reviews research on disruption, entrepreneurship and continuity planning and presents a strategy with scenarios, contingency plans and new ventures.
What Counts as Disruption
Christensen et al. (2018) traced the intellectual history of disruptive innovation theory and clarified its core: disruption occurs when an entrant offers a simpler, cheaper or more convenient product to overlooked or low-end customers, gains a foothold and then improves until it attracts mainstream customers, while incumbents focus on their most profitable customers. They noted that the term has often been misused to describe any major innovation, and that not every new technology disrupts.
Applying the Test
Group van apps fit the pattern partly. They serve small groups, such as a family reunion or a 12-person office outing, that Prairie Star has largely ignored because a 56-seat coach is too costly for them. If van services improve and add larger vehicles, they could move upmarket toward school teams and church groups. Electric coaches, by contrast, are a sustaining innovation: they improve the existing product for existing customers and favor established operators with capital. The driver shortage is not an innovation at all but a structural threat.
Entrepreneurial Orientation
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) clarified entrepreneurial orientation as including autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness, and argued that its link to performance depends on the environment and the organization. Firms need not score high on every dimension; the right mix varies.
Strategy in Hostile Environments
Covin and Slevin (1989) studied small manufacturing firms and found that in hostile environments, with intense competition and harsh conditions, firms with an entrepreneurial strategic posture, combined with organic structures, tended to perform better, while in benign environments a more conservative posture did as well. The motorcoach market, with a driver shortage and new competitors, is becoming more hostile, which favors a more entrepreneurial posture for Prairie Star.
Continuity and Contingency
Herbane (2010) reviewed the history of business continuity management and described its evolution from disaster recovery focused on information technology toward an organization-wide discipline that identifies critical activities, assesses threats and prepares responses to keep operating through disruption. The broader view fits a transport company whose critical activities depend on drivers, vehicles, fuel and reputation.
Prairie Star cannot predict which future will arrive, but it can decide now what it will do when each one starts to show.
Three Scenarios
Scenario A, steady market: charter demand grows slowly, drivers remain scarce but available at higher wages and van apps stay small. Scenario B, van apps move upmarket: by year five, app-based operators with 25- and 35-seat buses win a significant share of school team and group trips. Scenario C, severe driver shortage: wages rise sharply and the company cannot staff more than 40 coaches.
Contingency Plans
For a driver shortage, the trigger is losing more than eight drivers net in a year; responses include raising wages and sign-on bonuses from the reserve set in Week 3, expanding the training program from Week 3 and retiring older coaches rather than replacing them. For a major accident, the plan assigns roles for passenger care, communication with families and media, regulators and insurers and an independent review. For a fuel price spike, the trigger is diesel above a set price for two months; responses include fuel surcharges written into charter contracts and route consolidation on the shuttle.
Venture 1: A Small-Group Van Service
Rather than wait to be disrupted, Prairie Star will launch its own service for groups of 8 to 20, using six leased 15-passenger and executive vans, bookable online with instant quotes. Vans require drivers with lighter licenses, widening the hiring pool. The venture will be tested for one year with a budget of $250,000 and judged on bookings, margins and whether van customers later book coaches.
Venture 2: An Electric Coach Pilot
Prairie Star will apply for state and federal clean transportation grants to fund two electric coaches for the airport shuttle, where routes are short and predictable. The pilot tests costs, range in Nebraska winters and customer response before any wider commitment.
Integration With Earlier Work
The decision process from Week 1 governs both ventures, with alternatives, data and decision dates. The business model work from Week 2 shapes van pricing and shuttle changes. The allocation criteria and advisory board from Week 3 approve funding. The quality project from Week 4 protects the reputation that makes any new service credible.
What the Owners Must Do Differently
The strategy asks the owners to change habits as well as plans. They will spend one meeting each quarter on the future rather than daily operations, delegate more daily decisions to managers and accept that some ventures will fail. An entrepreneurial posture, as Covin and Slevin (1989) describe it, depends on leaders who treat small failures as learning rather than as reasons to stop trying.
Review Points
The owners and advisory board will review the scenarios each year, watching indicators such as van app activity in Omaha, driver hiring and wage trends and electric coach prices, and will decide whether to expand, adjust or end each venture.
Conclusion
Research distinguishes true disruption from sustaining innovation, shows that entrepreneurial postures help in hostile environments and treats continuity planning as an organization-wide discipline. For Prairie Star, group van apps are a potential disruption best met by a small venture of its own, electric coaches are an opportunity to test carefully and the driver shortage requires firm contingency triggers. Together with the decision, business model, resource and quality work of earlier weeks, these steps give the company a strategy for both the next season and the next decade.
References
Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., & Palmer, J. E. (2018). Disruptive innovation: An intellectual history and directions for future research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1043-1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12349
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100107
Herbane, B. (2010). The evolution of business continuity management: A historical review of practices and drivers. Business History, 52(6), 978-1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2010.511185
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568
What the LDR 307 Week 5 instructions ask
LDR 307 typically ends with a strategic plan that pulls the whole course together that addresses innovation and creative disruption, contingency planning and entrepreneurship, along with decision making, business models, resource allocation and quality from earlier weeks. Expect to identify potential disruptions, assess threats and opportunities, develop scenarios or contingency plans for major risks and propose entrepreneurial initiatives with ways to test them. A strong paper uses research on disruption, entrepreneurial orientation and continuity planning, applies it to the organization's real situation, balances long-term vision with short-term actions and shows how the strategy draws on earlier analyses. Use APA format.
How this LDR 307 Week 5 example is built
Three forces could reshape Prairie Star's market within a decade: app-based services that book vans for small groups at low prices, electric coaches that change fleet costs and refueling and a shortage of commercial drivers that already limits growth. The paper reviews the history of disruptive innovation theory to judge whether group van apps truly threaten the core charter business, research on entrepreneurial orientation to show how proactive, innovative firms perform and research on small firms in hostile environments to adjust that stance to risk. Business continuity research shapes contingency plans for a driver shortage, a major accident and a fuel price spike. The strategy combines three scenarios, contingency triggers, a small-group van venture and an electric coach pilot, tied to the course's earlier plans.
LDR 307 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go
The closing strategy paper is judged on how well it joins the course together, how far ahead it looks and how believable it is. Reviewers expect a small company's plan to fit a small company's means. High marks require a clear analysis of potential disruptions supported by research, contingency plans with specific triggers and responses, entrepreneurial initiatives tested before full commitment and connections to earlier work on decisions, business models, resources and quality. Graders reward balance between bold opportunity and prudent risk management, and recognition that not every new technology is disruptive. Measures and decision points for each initiative show that the plan can be managed. Tight prose aimed at owners and figures that match from section to section round it out.
LDR 307 Week 5 help: mistakes to avoid
A frequent slip in these closing papers is calling every new technology disruptive. Research defines disruption more narrowly, as innovations that start by serving overlooked or low-end customers and then move upmarket. Test whether a threat fits. Another common weakness is contingency planning in vague terms, such as be prepared for a recession. Name specific triggers and responses. Some students propose many ventures at once, which a small company cannot fund or staff. Choose one or two and test them. Others forget the earlier weeks and write a new plan. Show how the decision process, business model, resource allocation and quality work support the strategy. Finally, set review dates, since strategy under uncertainty must be revisited.
Related LDR 307 sample papers
Other LDR 307 week samples
- LDR 307 Week 1: Strategic Decision Making
- LDR 307 Week 2: Business Model Analysis and Design
- LDR 307 Week 3: Resource Allocation and Governance
- LDR 307 Week 4: Quality and Efficiency Improvement
More BS in Business sample papers
- LDR 305 Week 5: Ethical Leadership Practices
- LDR 306 Week 5: Performance Improvement Plan
- MGT 312 Week 5: Conflict, Change and a Recommendation to Management
- MGT 316 Week 5: Managing With a Global Mindset
LDR 307 Week 5 questions, answered
What does LDR 307 Week 5 usually cover?
It usually covers innovation and creative disruption, contingency planning and entrepreneurship, often in a final strategic plan that integrates the course's work on decisions, business models, resources and quality.
Where can I find a free LDR 307 Week 5 sample paper?
The final strategy for a composite Omaha motorcoach company facing van apps, electric coaches and a driver shortage is free to read above.
What is disruptive innovation?
Disruptive innovation describes products or services that begin by serving low-end or overlooked customers with simpler, cheaper offerings and then improve until they challenge established firms.
What is contingency planning?
Contingency planning prepares responses to possible events, such as losing key staff or facing a supply shock, by setting triggers, actions and responsibilities in advance.
What is entrepreneurial orientation?
It is a firm's tendency toward innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking, autonomy and competitive aggressiveness in pursuing new opportunities.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All LDR 307 week samples · All courses