MMT2 is IT Strategic Solutions, listed in the WGU catalog under the CCN ITM 6000 and carrying four competency units. The catalog names three activities: identifying strategic opportunities and emerging technologies, technology strategy, and gap analysis. The third is the container for the other two. A gap analysis has three fixed parts, current state, target state and the distance between them, and a submission that skips or softens either end has nothing left to analyze. Students lose aspects here far more often for a vague current state than for a weak grasp of any technology, which is good news, because a current state is something you can simply decide to write properly.
Both ends, in writing, before anything else
The current state has to be specific enough to be wrong. Name the systems, the data holdings, the integration arrangements, the skills present, the processes that depend on manual effort, and the constraints on capital and attention. If your current state could describe any organization of that size, no gap you identify afterwards will be defensible.
The target state has to be tied to what the business is trying to become rather than to a technology fashion. Write it as capabilities: the organization can serve a customer without re-keying data, can answer a question about demand within a day rather than a month, can absorb a twenty percent volume increase without adding staff. Capabilities are testable. Product names are not.
Then the gap becomes the interesting part. For each capability in the target state, say what is missing: technology, data, process, skills, governance or money. Naming the category matters, because a gap that is really a skills gap will not be closed by buying software, and a rubric asking you to recommend a strategy is checking whether you noticed.
Working from the scored aspects: the gap ledger as a budget
If your task is assessed by a performance assessment, take the aspects your evaluator scores and turn them into a gap ledger, then size the document from the ledger.
Here is the arithmetic. Suppose your analysis identifies six gaps and the rubric holds nine scored aspects, of which four are about the gaps themselves, three are about emerging technology and strategic opportunity, and two are about the roadmap and governance. Price a fully written gap at 280 words: current position, target position, the category of the gap, the consequence of leaving it open, and the option or options for closing it. Six gaps is 1,680 words. Give the three opportunity and technology aspects 350 each, which is 1,050, because assessing an emerging technology properly requires evidence, a fit argument and a maturity judgment. Give the roadmap and governance aspects 400 each, which is 800. The document lands near 3,530 words, and the gap ledger has become both the outline and the checklist.
Any gap you cannot write to 280 words is probably not a gap, it is an observation. Cutting it is better than padding it, because a ledger of four real gaps analyzed properly outscores eight thin ones every time.
Anatomy of a gap ledger row
| Field | What goes in it | The soft version that loses marks |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | What the organization needs to be able to do, stated as an action with a measure | A technology named instead of a capability |
| Current position | What exists now, specifically, including workarounds people rely on | A statement that the current system is outdated |
| Target position | The state that satisfies the capability, with a measure attached | Modernized, improved, streamlined |
| Gap category | Technology, data, process, skills, governance or funding | Every gap treated as a technology gap |
| Consequence of inaction | What it costs to leave the gap open, quantified where possible | A general statement about competitiveness |
| Options | At least two ways to close it, including do nothing where honest | A single option presented as the answer |
| Recommendation | The chosen option, why it wins, and what it costs | A preference stated without comparison |
| Sequence position | Where it falls in the roadmap and what it depends on | A list of initiatives with no order |
Evidence craft when the subject is emerging technology
Emerging technology is the part of this course where confident writing is easiest and evidence is hardest, so it is worth a deliberate method. For any technology you assess, answer four questions in order. What problem does it solve, stated without the vendor's language. What evidence exists that it solves it at organizations resembling yours. What would have to be true internally for it to work here, covering data, skills and integration. And what is the cost of being early, including the cost of being wrong.
Maturity deserves an explicit judgment rather than an implied one. Say plainly whether the technology is proven in production at scale, proven in narrow use, or promising and unproven, and say what evidence supports that placement. An honest unproven judgment with a small pilot recommendation reads as strategic competence. Treating an unproven technology as settled reads as marketing.
Source discipline matters more here than almost anywhere else in the degree, because the accessible material is overwhelmingly produced by sellers. Attribute analyst and vendor claims as claims, look for practitioner and peer-reviewed evidence for effects, and prefer sources that report failures alongside successes. Use APA unless your task names another style, and date every claim about a technology's state, because that state moves.
What separates Competent from a return
WGU requires at least a 2 in every scored aspect for a performance assessment task to pass, and this course returns most reliably on the current state. A vague current state produces gaps that cannot be verified, options that cannot be costed and a roadmap with no starting point, so a single weak section takes several aspects down with it.
The second frequent return is the unsequenced roadmap. Listing initiatives is identification; ordering them by dependency, capacity and value is strategy, and the aspect that uses the word strategy is asking for the second. Say what has to happen first and why, and name the constraint that sets the pace, whether that is capital, skills or a system that must be replaced before anything else can move.
Performance assessment work at WGU can be revised and resubmitted without a grade penalty, so a return is a repair list. Fix the named aspects, then re-read the ledger, because a change to one gap's recommendation usually changes the sequence somewhere.
Six mistakes that cost time in MMT2
- A current state that could be anyone. The foundation of the whole analysis, and the most commonly rushed section.
- Target states written as products. Capabilities are testable; product names are not.
- Every gap classed as technology. Skills, data, process and governance gaps do not close by purchasing anything.
- Emerging technology chosen for novelty. Fit and evidence beat interest, and the fit argument is what is scored.
- Roadmaps with no dependencies. An unordered list of initiatives is not a strategy.
- No cost of inaction. Without it, every recommendation is optional and nothing has urgency.
How we work this course with you
Send the course code and your task instructions and you get back a current-state template built for your organization or scenario, a gap ledger with categories assigned, an evidence pass on any emerging technology you plan to assess, and drafting support that keeps the roadmap sequenced by dependency. You rewrite it in your own voice before anything reaches an evaluator. If an objective assessment appears anywhere in your plan, preparation is the whole of what we offer. Objective assessments at WGU are proctored and we keep clear of them: no sitting, taking or assisting while one is open, and no request for or possession of your portal credentials.
Questions MMT2 students ask
Which emerging technologies should I write about?
How far into the future should the roadmap reach?
How do I assess a technology I cannot test or pilot?
Building the MMT2 gap analysis?
Send the ITM 6000 task instructions and your organization or scenario. A current-state template and a gap ledger come back.
Where MMT2 sits in WGU's programs
The July 2026 catalog places this code in 1 current WGU program. Open a program page for the complete standard path and term positions. The live Degree Plan remains authoritative after transfer credit, substitutions, and mentor planning.
The assessments, one by one
The public catalog does not publish this course's PA/OA identity or task count. WGU Tutors publishes at most one PA manual per course and only from a WGU-controlled public rubric. Until that source exists, PA help begins from the student's real Course of Study and OA support remains preparation only.