| Course | EDO 812 Innovation and Entrepreneurship |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Doctoral theory application |
| Length | About 1,028 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDO 812 Module 2
Same Advice, New Architecture: Theories of Innovation Applied to an Extension Service Moving From Meeting Halls to Phones
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDO 812: Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Same Advice, New Architecture: Theories of Innovation Applied to an Extension Service Moving From Meeting Halls to Phones
For a century, Plains State Extension has worked through meetings and visits. A county educator calls growers to a meeting hall in winter, walks fields in summer and answers questions by phone in between. That model is changing. Farmers now carry phones that receive weather and market data by the minute, larger operations collect soil and yield data from sensors, and families look for nutrition advice in grocery and fitness apps rather than at extension classes. The service plans five changes in response. This paper applies three theories of innovation to them to predict which the service will handle well and which may defeat it. The service, its plans and its figures are invented for this course.
Components and Architecture
Henderson and Clark (1990) argued that the familiar distinction between incremental and radical innovation missed an important category. A product, they observed, is built from components linked together in an architecture. Innovations can change the core concepts of components, the links between components or both. Incremental innovation refines both. Radical innovation overturns both. Modular innovation changes a component's core concept but leaves the architecture intact. Architectural innovation keeps the components but reconfigures how they connect.
Their central finding concerned architectural innovation. Established firms organize their communication channels, information filters and problem-solving routines around a product's existing architecture, so their knowledge of how components fit becomes embedded and partly invisible. When a competitor changes the architecture while using familiar components, established firms often fail to recognize the significance of the change, because it looks like something they already know. Studying the photolithographic alignment equipment industry, Henderson and Clark found that incumbent firms repeatedly stumbled when innovations of this kind appeared.
Competence Enhanced or Destroyed
Tushman and Anderson (1986) studied technological change across several industries and found that progress came through long periods of incremental change punctuated by technological discontinuities. Some discontinuities were competence-enhancing, building on the know-how of existing firms, while others were competence-destroying, rendering that know-how obsolete. Competence-destroying shifts tended to be introduced by new entrants and to increase uncertainty in the environment, while competence-enhancing shifts were usually introduced by existing firms and strengthened their position.
Learning From Outside
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) proposed that an organization's ability to recognize the value of new outside information, assimilate it and apply it depends largely on its prior related knowledge, which they called absorptive capacity. Because learning builds on what is already known, organizations that lack a foundation in a field struggle to use advances in it, and absorptive capacity accumulates over time through investments such as research and training. It also depends on how knowledge moves within the organization, not only on what individuals know.
Classifying the Service's Changes
| Planned change | Components changed? | Links changed? | Henderson and Clark type | Effect on educators' competence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crop-disease text alerts | Little | Little | Incremental | Enhancing |
| Soil-sensor data interpretation | Yes, new knowledge base | Little | Radical for many offices | Destroying for some, enhancing for others |
| Video replacing some county meetings | Delivery medium only | Little | Modular | Mostly enhancing |
| Shared online question service across counties | Little | Yes, questions routed to specialists, not local educators | Architectural | Destroying for the local generalist role |
| Nutrition program delivered through grocery apps | Little | Yes, a private partner now sits between educator and family | Architectural | Destroying for class-based educators |
What the Analysis Predicts
The service will handle the text alerts and video well, because they fit its existing architecture and build on educators' know-how. The soil-sensor work is radical in content and will divide the service: offices whose staff already understand data, mostly in the irrigated western counties, will absorb it, and others will not, as Cohen and Levinthal would predict.
The greatest risk lies in the two architectural changes. The shared online question service seems like a simple efficiency, since the questions and the answers are the same. But it reroutes questions away from county educators, whose relationships with local families have been the service's foundation, toward specialists who do not know those families. The grocery app partnership similarly places a private company between educator and family. Both changes alter the links in the service's architecture while leaving its components, research-based answers, untouched, and both threaten the competence on which the county role rests. Because they look familiar, leaders may approve them without seeing that they change what a county educator is. The service's own history offers a warning. When it centralized its publications office a decade ago, a change presented as saving printing costs, county educators lost the habit of writing local fact sheets with local examples, and within three years most county offices were distributing only campus-written material that families said felt distant. The components, accurate research summaries, had not changed; the links between educators and the content they shared had. Henderson and Clark's theory names exactly this pattern, and it explains why a decision that looked administrative turned out to be strategic.
Building Absorptive Capacity
Three actions follow. First, the service will place a data specialist in each of six regions to work alongside county educators on sensor projects, building the related knowledge Cohen and Levinthal describe instead of sending answers from campus. Second, educators from offices that have absorbed data work will be paired with those that have not. Third, before approving either architectural change, the service will map who talks to whom now and after the change, and redesign the online question service so that local educators stay in the loop and receive every question from their county. The grocery app partnership will go forward only if the agreement guarantees that families can reach their county educator from within the app, keeping the old link alive inside the new architecture.
Conclusion
The theories reveal what the service's plans hide. Henderson and Clark show that the most dangerous changes are architectural ones that reroute relationships while keeping familiar content; Tushman and Anderson show whose competence each change builds or destroys; Cohen and Levinthal explain why readiness differs across counties. Leading these changes well means protecting the links that make the county role valuable while building the knowledge to use new tools.
References
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439-465. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392832
What the EDO 812 Module 2 instructions ask for
Module 2 of EDO 812 covers theories of innovation, and students are typically asked to apply one or more of them to an organization facing change and to draw implications for leadership. Your Aspen classroom's Module 2 directions govern; the extension service here is invented. Present each theory accurately, from its original source. Classify the organization's innovations or changes using the theories. Identify which changes the organization is likely to handle well and which it is likely to mishandle, and why. Propose leadership actions that follow from the analysis, and support each claim with journal articles cited in APA 7 style, preferring the original theorists to later summaries.
How the EDO 812 Module 2 example is put together
Plains State Extension plans five changes: a crop-disease text service, soil-sensor data interpretation for farmers, video replacing some county meetings, a shared online question service staffed by specialists across counties and a nutrition program delivered through grocery store apps. Henderson and Clark (Administrative Science Quarterly) supply the four-way classification by changes to components and to the links between them. Tushman and Anderson (Administrative Science Quarterly) sort the changes by whether they enhance or destroy educators' competence. Cohen and Levinthal (Administrative Science Quarterly) explain why county offices with staff trained in data are better placed to use sensor research. The classification finds the text service incremental, the sensor work radical for some offices, video modular and the online question service and the grocery app partnership architectural, because they rewire who talks to whom. The plan builds absorptive capacity through regional data specialists and paired learning.
Reading the EDO 812 Module 2 grading rubric
Doctoral application papers earn credit when theories are presented from their sources and applied with precision, producing insight the reader would not have had otherwise. This example classifies each planned change using Henderson and Clark's two dimensions rather than labeling all of them disruptive, and the classification yields a non-obvious finding: the most dangerous changes are architectural, not technological. Tushman and Anderson add the question of whose competence each change rewards or destroys, and Cohen and Levinthal explain unequal readiness across county offices. The recommendations follow directly from these findings and acknowledge that some offices will need more support than others.
Common EDO 812 Module 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Theory papers on innovation often label every change as disruptive or radical. Use a classification with clear dimensions and apply it change by change. Another weakness is discussing technology without discussing the organization's existing knowledge and relationships, which is where these theories find the real risks. Cite original articles, not secondary summaries. Recognize that the same change can affect different units differently. Avoid recommendations such as more training without saying what knowledge must be built, by whom and in which units. Finally, show what the theory reveals that common sense would miss, since that is the reason to use it.
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 Aspen University 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.
More EDO 812 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDO 812 Module 1: Defining Innovation and Entrepreneurship
- EDO 812 Module 3: Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations
- EDO 812 Module 4: Entrepreneurship and Opportunity
- EDO 812 Module 5: Corporate Entrepreneurship
- EDO 812 Module 6: Leadership for Innovation
- EDO 812 Module 7: Systems and Structures That Sustain Innovation
- EDO 812 Module 8: An Innovation Leadership Plan
- EDO 818 Module 4: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Behavior
- EDN 814 Module 2: Programmatic vs Institutional Review
- EDN 820 Module 5: Choosing an Improvement Method
- EDN 810 Module 6: Leading Organizational Change
EDO 812 Module 2 questions, answered
What does EDO 812 Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDO 812 covers theories of innovation in this module, so applying them to an organization facing change and drawing leadership implications is typical. Read your classroom prompt.
What is architectural innovation?
Henderson and Clark's term for innovation that reconfigures how existing components link together, which can defeat established firms whose knowledge is built around the old links.
What is the difference between competence-enhancing and competence-destroying change?
Tushman and Anderson's distinction between technological shifts that build on existing know-how and those that make it obsolete.
Where can I find a free EDO 812 Module 2 sample paper?
There is one above, free to read: theories of innovation applied to an invented extension service's move to digital advice.
What is absorptive capacity?
Cohen and Levinthal's term for an organization's ability to recognize, assimilate and apply outside knowledge, which depends on related knowledge it already has.