A finished MGT-805 Topic 7 divisional redesign proposal example, creating a precision guidance division, naming four new blind spots it opens and assigning each a measure someone outside the division watches. Searches like "mgt 805 topic 7 assignment example", "mgt805 topic 7 sample" and "mgt-805 topic 7 example" land here.
What a finished MGT-805 Topic 7 divisional redesign proposal looks like
Equal space goes, in the finished proposal, to what the division fixes and what it breaks. It creates a precision guidance division of about 310 people, figures composite, holding software and receiver engineering, subscription sales and renewals, and customer support, with its own profit and loss. Grain handling and irrigation remain functional, linked by product integrators. Four blind spots the change opens are then named. Electronics expertise shared across all three lines will drift as division engineers stop working beside the others. Dealers will face two contacts for one farm. Receivers sold with grain equipment will raise transfer disputes. And, following Mintzberg's argument that performance control pushes divisions toward machine bureaucracy, quarterly targets may squeeze the experimentation software development needs. Each blind spot receives a measure and a watcher outside the division.
How an MGT-805 Topic 7 example is structured
The problem comes first, the renewal decline and the release calendar, stated briefly because earlier analysis established both. The design follows: the division's boundary, what moves into it, what stays shared and its reporting line to the chief executive. What the division will see better, renewals, release timing and subscriber complaints, comes next with a measure for each gain. The four blind spots take the longest section, each described with the mechanism that creates it rather than a label. Watch measures follow in a table, one per blind spot, each owned outside the division where possible, since a unit rarely reports its own blindness well. The strongest objection, that a division this small cannot carry its overhead, is answered by setting duplicated support roles against the renewal revenue at stake. The proposal closes by stating which of the four costs it accepts permanently and which it expects to reduce.
The division's boundary drawn
Software and receiver engineering, subscription sales and renewals, and customer support move into a division of about 310 people with its own profit and loss.
What the division will see better
Renewals, release timing and subscriber complaints gain one owner, and each expected gain is paired with the measure that will show whether it arrived.
Four blind spots with their mechanisms
Drifting electronics expertise, doubled dealer contacts, transfer disputes over receivers and squeezed experimentation are each traced to the structural change that produces them.
Performance control and software work
Mintzberg's argument that divisions under output control drift toward machine bureaucracy warns that quarterly targets may crowd out the experiments subscription software depends on.
Watchers placed outside the division
Each blind spot's measure goes to an owner beyond the division where possible, since a unit seldom reports clearly on what its own design hides.
The overhead objection priced
Duplicated finance, planning and human resources roles are costed against the revenue each recovered renewal point brings, and the division covers them within its second year.
Where marks go in MGT-805 Topic 7
A redesign that lists only its gains leaves the organization to discover the costs after the change, and the course treats that omission as the central error. Naming blind spots as labels, such as silos or duplication, without the mechanism that produces each leaves a reader unable to judge how serious they are. Papers that move all three product lines into divisions ignore the earlier evidence that grain handling and irrigation meet few of the conditions a self-contained unit needs. Summarizing Mintzberg's divisionalized form as decentralization loses his warning about what performance control does to the divisions themselves. Watch measures reported by the division alone rely on the unit least placed to see its own gaps. Without the overhead objection answered in figures, the proposal leaves its most obvious challenge for the reader to raise.
Get an MGT-805 Topic 7 example written to your instructions
Send the MGT-805 Topic 7 instructions, your section's rubric and any organization, prior analysis or case the assignment supplies. A custom example comes back in 24 to 48 hours, written to them, with the redesign drawn, gains paired with measures, each new blind spot traced to its mechanism, watchers assigned and the overhead objection answered. The first one is free.
MGT-805 Topic 7 questions, answered
What is Mintzberg's divisionalized form?
One of Henry Mintzberg's structural configurations, in which a central headquarters oversees semi-autonomous units, usually organized by market, and coordinates them mainly through standardized outputs such as performance targets. He argued that this control tends to push the divisions themselves toward machine bureaucracy, favoring predictability over innovation. The example treats that tendency as one of the costs the new division must watch.
Why name the blind spots a redesign creates?
Because every structure trades one set of visible problems for another, and a proposal listing only gains invites the organization to be surprised later. Naming the new blind spots, with their mechanisms, lets leaders decide in advance whether to accept each cost and who will watch for it. The example assigns every blind spot a measure and an owner outside the division.
Why keep two product lines functional?
Because the case for a self-contained unit rests on conditions those lines do not share. Grain handling and irrigation change slowly, depend on the same plant, and gain more from engineering depth than from speed. Splitting them into divisions would duplicate capability without bringing the benefit, so the proposal applies the divisional form only where the work's interdependencies and pace justify its overhead.