Mark 43 Case Questions and Answers

1) As per Christensen’s categories, All the customers who are “under

satisfied” might show interests in the Mark43 RMS as the underserved
market segments for the most demanding customer who need really
fantastic technology.
2) No, the Mark43 software is not a disruptive innovation.
3) No, because Mark 43’s RMS software utilized the opportunity to target a
large market of police department that seemed ripe for disruption (case
page 4). Mark 43’s Cobalt with RMS software is essential for law
enforcement as anytime police do anything; they generate a report which
is Mark43’s primary unit of work and their software did not disrupt
anyone’s business model to call it as a disruptive innovation as they had
an IP patented technology.
This new patented technology offering for police department shall not be
easily satisfiable as they should meet enormous requirements in order to
satisfy the customer and call it as disruptive. In the case, Mark43 took
more than 6 months to identify all of MPD’s requirements in order to get
the department sign off on the feature set (case page 6) which shows that
MPD is not such customer who is easily satisfiable and hence, new
technology offering for not easily satisfiable customers is not disruptive.

4) No, Mark43 is not a radical innovation.

5) Yes, Mark43 is an architectural innovation.
6) Two typical options to Mark43 for overcoming the liability of newness
and overcoming the failure as a newcomer in general context is explained
as below:
1- Estimate and calculate the overall financials and cost burdens: It is very
important for any startup company like Mark43 to estimate and come
up with required amount of financial costs it requires. As explained in
case, Mark43 adopted a per user-based pricing which reflected a
 discount of roughly 30% relative to the annual amortized costs of other
incumbents RMS software. (case page 9)
2- Surrounding and engaging with efficient knowledgeable ecosystem: It
is crucial to connect, support, encourage and engage with ability to connect
with and engage with specified and focused resources of knowledge which
shall improve our probability to become successful. In the case, Mark43 CEO
Scott had four enormous abilities such as delivering with quality, leadership,
implementing ideas and evaluating new ideas with original vision. (case page
13). Mark43 was also surrounded by deeply introverted young team of
engineers who had extraordinary technical abilities and who are very talented
(case page 12).
7) First customer of Mark43 i.e the DCPD gave them a chance to prove
themselves and reach their mission to build better software for law
enforcement (case page 10). DCPD wanted a better RMS software as their
software was slow and wasn’t intuitive. Mark43 took up this challenge
and wanted to prove DCPD how fast a startup could move compared to
the big companies. DCPD MVP for law enforcement had 1100
requirements and it couldn’t Mark43’s software until it could handle
every imaginable use case. (case page 6). DC deployment made them
attract and gain VC’s and from some well renowned investors funding.
When initially working to meet DC deadlines with a team of fifteen they
were shielded by the founders from customer demands, politics and from
the vagaries of startup decisions (case page 10) being as a small start up
company.
8) Yes, Mark43 should bid on the LAPD RFP.
9) Yes, because Mark43’s bid on LAPD RFP can achieve their vision of making
efficient software for law enforcement to dominate all over the US
markets, by partnering with firms like BigFour which shall push them
above their weight and make them learn a lot (case age 13) and financial
consequences of earning $30 million in next several years from LAPD
stand strongly with teece words on strong appropriation having a
patented technology in place.
10) I would assign 66% probability for commercial success for Mark43.