| Course | LDR 309 Leading Through Change (LDR/309) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Technology integration plan |
| Length | about 1,035 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 309 Week 3
Scanning Every Barrel: Leading the Integration of a Barrel Tracking System Into a Distillery's Daily Work
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
LDR/309: Leading Through Change
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Copper Ridge Distilling, its system and its rollout are composites written for a model paper.
Copper Ridge Distilling, the composite craft distillery near Bardstown, Kentucky, examined in earlier weeks, stores about 46,000 barrels in its rickhouses, with two more rickhouses under construction. Each barrel's history, fill date, proof, grain recipe, location and movements, determines when it is ready and which product it becomes. For 15 years, warehouse crews have recorded this information in paper logs and a spreadsheet updated weekly. The system worked when the distillery was small, but audits find about 40 barrels a year misplaced or mislabeled, and federal recordkeeping for bonded warehouses requires accurate records. The expansion includes a barrel tracking system: each barrel gets a barcode tag, and workers scan it with handheld devices at every movement. Warehouse lead Ray Burton, with 22 years at Copper Ridge, told managers the crew sees the scanners as a way to watch them. This paper examines how leaders can integrate the system so it is used well.
Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use
Davis (1989) argued that whether people take up a new system turns mostly on two beliefs: that it will help them do their job better and that it will not take much effort to use. His data put usefulness ahead of convenience: workers put up with a clumsy tool that helps them more readily than a smooth one that seems to serve no purpose.
A Unified View
Venkatesh et al. (2003) compared eight models of technology acceptance and integrated them into a unified theory. Four factors predicted intention and use: performance expectancy, similar to usefulness; effort expectancy, similar to ease of use; social influence, the belief that important others think one should use the system; and facilitating conditions, the belief that organizational and technical support exists. Age, gender, experience and voluntariness moderated these effects. For example, social influence mattered more when use was mandatory, as it will be at Copper Ridge.
Implementation Climate
Klein and Sorra (1996) argued that many innovations fail not because they are flawed but because they are not implemented well. In their view, a new tool sticks when people sense that using it well is what the organization wants, helps with and recognizes, and when it does not collide with what employees care about. When an innovation conflicts with values, such as autonomy, users may comply minimally or resist.
Team Learning and New Routines
Edmondson et al. (2001) followed surgical teams at several hospitals as they learned a new, less invasive heart operation. Teams that succeeded treated adoption as a team learning process: leaders framed the change as a learning opportunity, teams practiced together, members felt safe to speak up and routines were redesigned deliberately. Teams that treated the technology as a simple plug-in struggled. New technology disrupts established routines, and teams must learn new ones together.
Users' Concerns
Interviews with nine warehouse workers revealed three concerns. First, fear of surveillance: the scanners record time and location, and workers worried managers would use the data to time their work. Second, doubts about usefulness: veterans know where barrels are and see scanning as extra steps. Third, practical issues: scanners in dim, hot rickhouses in summer, gloves and barrels stacked six high.
The crew is not afraid of the scanner; they are afraid of what management will do with the record it creates.
Applying the Models
In the terms of the unified theory, performance expectancy is low because workers do not experience the misplaced-barrel problem as their problem. Effort expectancy is uncertain because the devices have not been tested in rickhouse conditions. Social influence currently runs against the system, since respected veterans oppose it. Facilitating conditions are weak, with only a half-day training planned. The value conflict around autonomy and trust, identified by Klein and Sorra (1996), is the deepest barrier.
Integration Plan: Involve and Configure
Ray Burton and two crew members will join the vendor's configuration team to set up scanning steps, test devices in the rickhouses and choose glove-friendly scanners with lights. Their involvement makes the system fit the work and turns credible veterans into advocates.
Integration Plan: Address Trust Directly
The general manager will state in writing that scan data will be used for barrel records and inventory, not for timing individual workers or discipline, and this commitment will be part of the data policy. Workers will see the same dashboards managers see.
Integration Plan: Show Usefulness
Before launch, the crew will see the cost of misplaced barrels, including a recent case where a premium barrel aged three extra years unnoticed, and how the system will save them searching time when barrels are pulled for bottling.
Integration Plan: Team Learning
As the hospital teams studied by Edmondson et al. (2001) did, the crew will practice the new routine together for two weeks in one rickhouse before full launch, with daily short debriefs to fix problems and a norm that anyone can raise issues.
Changing the Routine
The new routine changes more than record keeping. Moving a barrel now involves scanning the tag, confirming the new location on the device and checking for an alert if the barrel is due for sampling. The crew will decide together who scans during forklift moves, how to handle tags damaged by weather and what to do when the network drops in the far rickhouse. Writing these decisions down as a short crew guide turns a vendor's default process into the crew's own routine.
Integration Plan: Support and Recognition
A crew member trained as a super user will be available on each shift. The crew that reaches complete, accurate scanning first will be recognized at the monthly meeting.
Measures
The plan will be judged by how many barrel movements are scanned, discrepancies found in quarterly audits, time to locate barrels for bottling and crew satisfaction with the system.
Conclusion
Research shows that people adopt technology they find useful and easy, that social influence and support matter and that implementation succeeds when skilled use is expected, supported and consistent with employees' values, and when teams learn new routines together. Copper Ridge's barrel tracking system will succeed if leaders involve the crew, commit honestly about data, demonstrate usefulness and support team learning.
References
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685-716. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094828
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055-1080. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071863
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
What the LDR 309 Week 3 instructions ask
The third LDR 309 assignment typically asks students to analyze how an organization integrates new technology and to recommend leadership practices that support adoption. Expect to describe the technology and its purpose, explain models of technology acceptance and implementation, identify barriers such as perceived usefulness, ease of use, social influence, training and support, and propose a plan for rollout, training and measurement. A strong paper uses research on acceptance and implementation, considers the specific users and their concerns, recognizes that implementation often requires changes in routines and team learning and includes measures of actual use. Cite scholarly sources in APA style.
How this LDR 309 Week 3 example is built
Copper Ridge's barrel tracking system will record each barrel's fill date, proof, warehouse location and movements through handheld scanners, replacing paper logs that have lost track of about 40 barrels a year. Warehouse workers distrust it. The paper applies the technology acceptance model, which links use to perceived usefulness and ease of use, and a unified theory adding social influence and facilitating conditions. Research on implementation climate shows that skilled, supported and rewarded use predicts whether an innovation sticks, and a study of hospitals adopting a new surgical technology shows that teams which learned together and practiced new routines succeeded. The plan involves warehouse leads in configuration, shows workers what the data will and will not be used for and builds in team practice and support.
LDR 309 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
Papers on bringing in new technology are judged by how closely the acceptance research is tied to the real users and their workplace. Reviewers like to see users' own concerns quoted or summarized. Strong work explains acceptance and implementation models accurately, identifies the specific concerns of the people who will use the system and proposes actions that address usefulness, ease of use, social influence and support. Graders reward recognition that new technology changes routines and requires team learning, and attention to trust when systems collect data about work. Measures of real use, not just installation, show practical judgment. A plan that a manager could follow, with dates and responsibilities, completes a strong submission.
LDR 309 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
A common weakness here is treating the launch as a training event: show people the buttons and expect adoption. Research shows usefulness, social influence and ongoing support matter more. Address them. Another frequent problem is ignoring why users resist; in many workplaces, workers fear that new systems will be used to monitor or blame them. Ask and answer that concern directly. Some papers propose the technology without considering how routines must change around it. Map the new routine. Others measure success by go-live date rather than by use. Track scans completed, errors and workarounds. Finally, involve experienced users early, since their support persuades colleagues more than management memos.
Related LDR 309 sample papers
Other LDR 309 week samples
- LDR 309 Week 1: Project Management and Change
- LDR 309 Week 2: Workflow Management
- LDR 309 Week 4: Mentorship and Succession Planning
- LDR 309 Week 5: Adaptability and Leading Change
More BS in Business sample papers
- LDR 307 Week 3: Resource Allocation and Governance
- LDR 308 Week 3: Negotiation
- MGT 312 Week 3: Groups and Teams in Organizations
- MGT 316 Week 3: Operational Processes
LDR 309 Week 3 questions, answered
What does LDR 309 Week 3 usually cover?
It usually covers technology integration as part of leading change, including technology acceptance, implementation barriers, training, support and how leaders encourage real use of new systems.
Where can I find a free LDR 309 Week 3 sample paper?
The Week 3 technology integration plan for a barrel tracking system at a composite Kentucky distillery is shown above in full.
What is the technology acceptance model?
A model from information systems research holding that people adopt a system mostly when they expect it to help their work and expect it to be easy enough to learn.
What is implementation climate?
It is the common feeling among staff that the organization truly wants a new tool used well, backs them while they learn it and notices when they do, which helps predict whether use lasts.
How can leaders reduce resistance to new technology?
By involving users early, showing how the technology helps their work, explaining how data will be used, providing training and support and recognizing people who use it well.
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 309 week samples · All courses