| Course | MGT 726 Emerging Managerial Practices (MGT/726) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Doctoral analysis of practice transfer |
| Length | about 1,163 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | DBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 726 Week 3
Why the Iowa Plant's Best Practice Stalled in Pune and Monterrey: Evaluating and Adapting Practices Across Sites
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MGT/726: Emerging Managerial Practices
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Cedar Valley Instruments and all details are composites written for a model paper.
Cedar Valley Instruments, a composite instrument maker headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, introduced a daily problem-solving system at its home plant three years ago. Teams meet at the start of each shift around a board showing quality, delivery and safety measures, raise problems and assign quick fixes, while supervisors coach operators on root-cause analysis. Defects fell by a third within a year. The company then rolled out the system to its plants in Monterrey and Pune. A year later, the meetings happen, but defect rates have barely moved. A practice that works brilliantly in one plant can become an empty ritual in another, because what was copied was the visible routine rather than what made it work. This paper analyzes why and how Cedar Valley should transfer practices.
The Problem With Best Practices
The phrase best practice suggests a universal solution. Research and experience show that practices are embedded in context: people, skills, relationships and other routines. A practice that is best in one setting may be poor in another.
Research on Internal Stickiness
Szulanski (1996) studied the transfer of best practices within firms and found that the main barriers were not motivation but knowledge-related factors: the recipient's lack of absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity about why the practice works and an arduous relationship between source and recipient. Transfers were sticky because practices depended on tacit knowledge that did not travel easily.
How Practices Vary as They Diffuse
Ansari et al. (2010) argued that practices are adapted as they spread to fit technical, cultural and political conditions in adopting organizations. Adaptation can increase fit but can also lead to low-fidelity, low-extensiveness versions that keep the label while losing substance.
Diagnosing the Transfer: Absorptive Capacity
In Pune and Monterrey, supervisors had little training in root-cause analysis, and many were promoted for technical skill. The system assumes supervisors can coach. Without that capacity, meetings report problems but rarely solve them.
Diagnosing the Transfer: Causal Ambiguity
Iowa leaders described the system's success in terms of its visible parts, the boards, the meetings and the measures. Interviews suggest the real driver was supervisors spending an hour each shift on the floor coaching operators, a part not written into the rollout guide because Iowa leaders took it for granted.
Diagnosing the Transfer: Relationships
The rollout was led by a corporate team that visited each plant for two weeks. Local managers felt the system was imposed and had no ongoing support from Iowa supervisors who had used it, so questions that arose after the corporate team left went unanswered for weeks. The relationship between source and recipient was thin.
Cultural and Institutional Factors
Differences in hierarchy expectations, language and labor practices may matter. In some settings, operators may be less comfortable raising problems in front of supervisors. These are tendencies, not certainties, and local managers should interpret them rather than corporate staff applying stereotypes.
Core and Adaptable Elements
The core elements are daily problem visibility, rapid escalation, supervisor coaching on root causes and follow-up on fixes. Without all four, the meetings become reporting sessions rather than problem-solving ones. Adaptable elements include meeting length and format, board design, language, measures specific to each plant and how problems are raised, for example through anonymous cards where speaking up is difficult.
Was the Original Success Caused by the Practice?
Before transferring further, Cedar Valley should check whether Iowa's improvement came from the system or from other factors. The Iowa plant also replaced an aging inspection system and hired a new quality manager at the same time. Comparing lines that adopted the system earlier with those that adopted later suggests the system contributed, but not all of the gain. Overstating a practice's effect at the source raises expectations that recipient sites cannot meet.
Evidence-Based Evaluation
Rousseau (2006) argued that management decisions should rest on the best available evidence rather than on what is popular or familiar. Applied to practice transfer, this means asking what evidence shows a practice works, under what conditions and with what local data, before spreading it. Cedar Valley's rollout skipped these questions, relying on Iowa's headline result. A short evidence review, including the comparison of early and late adopting lines, would have revealed the importance of coaching before the rollout began.
What Monterrey and Pune Got Right
Not everything failed. Monterrey's teams added a weekly review with suppliers that solved recurring component defects, an adaptation Iowa had not tried. Pune's engineers built a digital version of the board that made problem tracking visible to remote quality staff. These local innovations show that adaptation can improve a practice, and the company should spread them back to Iowa, turning transfer into exchange.
The Role of Plant Leadership
Plant managers set expectations that determine whether a practice is taken seriously. In Iowa, the plant manager attended problem-solving meetings daily for the first three months. In the other plants, managers delegated the system to quality staff. Leadership presence signals priority and gives supervisors permission to spend time coaching.
Evaluating an External Practice
Leaders also want to copy a peer company's skills-based staffing model, which assigns work by verified skills rather than job titles. Evidence on the model is mostly from technology firms. Cedar Valley will evaluate it with the same lens: what is the core, what evidence supports it and how would it fit plants with certified roles and union-like labor councils in Mexico?
A Disciplined Transfer Process
The revised process will identify core elements with evidence from the source site, train recipient supervisors in coaching before launch, pair each plant with an Iowa mentor supervisor for six months, involve local teams in adapting non-core elements and pilot on two lines before plant-wide rollout.
Cost of the Failed Rollout
The first rollout cost about $600,000 in consultant time, travel and training, and produced little improvement. A second attempt with mentoring and supervisor training will cost about $900,000 over a year. If it delivers half of Iowa's improvement, reduced scrap and warranty costs would repay it within two years. Recognizing the sunk cost of the first attempt, leaders should judge the second on its expected value, not on frustration with the first.
Measuring Transfer Success
Measures include defect rates, time to close problems, supervisor coaching hours and employee surveys on comfort raising problems. These distinguish real adoption from ceremonial adoption.
Propositions for Research
The analysis suggests propositions: transfers that include supervisor coaching capability will outperform transfers of visible routines alone; mentor pairing between sites will reduce stickiness; and adaptation of non-core elements will improve outcomes while adaptation of core elements will reduce them.
Conclusion
Cedar Valley's problem-solving system stalled abroad because the transfer copied the visible routine but not the supervisor coaching that made it work, and because recipients lacked capacity and support. Research on stickiness and diffusion explains the failure. Identifying core elements, building capacity, strengthening relationships and adapting the rest give future transfers a better chance.
References
Ansari, S. M., Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 67-92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.1.zok67
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208679
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171105
What the MGT 726 Week 3 instructions ask
Week 3 of MGT 726 has DBA candidates analyze how organizations judge, move and reshape practices labeled best. Common requirements include critiquing the idea of a universal best practice, reviewing research on knowledge and practice transfer, analyzing barriers such as absorptive capacity and relationships, discussing fidelity versus adaptation, applying the analysis to a real or composite case and recommending a transfer process. Some prompts ask students to examine cross-cultural transfer. Use peer-reviewed research, diagnose barriers with evidence, distinguish essential from adaptable elements and cite sources in APA format. Where possible, separate effects of the practice itself from effects of the people who championed it.
How this MGT 726 Week 3 example is built
A daily problem-solving system that cut defects by a third in Iowa produced little change in Pune and Monterrey, and the paper explains why. Research on internal stickiness shows that transfer fails because of the recipient's absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity about why a practice works and difficult relationships between source and recipient. Research on diffusion shows that practices change as they spread, sometimes improving fit and sometimes losing their core. The diagnosis finds that the transfer copied meeting formats but not supervisors' coaching role. The paper identifies core elements, plans local adaptation with plant teams and evaluates a competitor's practice before adopting it.
MGT 726 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
Strong practice-transfer papers question the idea of universal best practices and use research to diagnose why transfers succeed or fail. Faculty credit accurate use of concepts such as absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity and arduous relationships, attention to how practices vary as they diffuse and a clear distinction between core and adaptable elements. Cross-cultural considerations, handled without stereotypes, add depth, and so does attention to the source site's responsibility, since transfers often fail because the people who understand a practice best are not involved in teaching it. A transfer process with pilots and measures demonstrates application. Careful wording and APA-compliant references finish the paper, and faculty notice when writers test whether a source practice's success was really caused by the practice.
MGT 726 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
Students often assume a practice that worked somewhere will work anywhere if copied faithfully. Explain why that fails. Another frequent gap is blaming the receiving site for resistance without examining the source's role. Look at relationships and support. Students also adapt practices so much that the active ingredient disappears. Identify the core first. Avoid cultural stereotypes when explaining differences across countries. Use evidence from the sites. Plan pilots and measures. Finally, check whether the original success was caused by the practice or by other factors, such as a strong plant manager. Use local data from each site to see whether the practice is producing results or only activity. Plan follow-up support after the rollout team leaves, since that is when practices most often fade.
Related MGT 726 sample papers
Other MGT 726 week samples
- MGT 726 Week 1: Emerging Managerial Practices
- MGT 726 Week 2: Organizational Agility
- MGT 726 Week 4: Designing High-Performance Teams
- MGT 726 Week 5: Global Communication Strategies
- MGT 726 Week 6: Creativity and Adaptive Approaches
- MGT 726 Week 7: Research on Management Innovation
- MGT 726 Week 8: Integrative Scholarly Paper
More DBA sample papers
- BUS 721 Week 3: Enterprise Resource Planning
- BUS 733 Week 3: Resources and Capabilities
- FIN 711 Week 3: Venture Financing Needs by Stage
- MGT 711 Week 3: Platforms and Digital Markets
MGT 726 Week 3 questions, answered
What does MGT 726 Week 3 usually cover?
It usually covers evaluating and adapting best practices: critiques of universal best practice, research on knowledge transfer and stickiness, fidelity versus adaptation, cross-cultural transfer and a process for transferring practices.
Where can I find a free MGT 726 Week 3 sample paper?
This page contains a complete doctoral analysis of practice transfer across three plants, with notes on the research. Share your prompt to receive a complimentary draft.
What is internal stickiness in knowledge transfer?
Difficulty in transferring knowledge or practices within a firm, often caused by the recipient's limited absorptive capacity, ambiguity about why a practice works and weak relationships between source and recipient.
Should organizations copy best practices exactly?
Not always. Research suggests practices vary as they diffuse; adaptation can improve fit, but changing the core elements that make a practice effective can undermine it.
What is absorptive capacity?
An organization's ability to recognize the value of new knowledge, assimilate it and apply it, which depends on existing knowledge, skills and routines.
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 MGT 726 week samples · All courses