| Course | DBAX 9101 Business Research Project Stage 1 |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Feasibility sketch |
| Length | About 750 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DBAX 9101 Week 9
Can This Study Actually Be Done: A Feasibility Sketch for Four Case Studies of Late Payment Strategies, Checking Access to Owners, Documents, Time, Ethics Review and the Researcher's Own Position
Student Name
Walden University
DBAX 9101: Business Research Project Stage 1
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Can This Study Actually Be Done: A Feasibility Sketch for Four Case Studies of Late Payment Strategies, Checking Access to Owners, Documents, Time, Ethics Review and the Researcher's Own Position
Why Check Feasibility Now
Ambition fails quietly in doctoral work. A study can be well framed and well aligned and still collapse when the data it assumed turn out to be unreachable. This sketch checks each resource the study depends on: participants, documents, time, ethics approval and my own position as an insider in the industry. For each it names the risk and a fallback.
The Resources the Study Needs
Table 1
Feasibility Check
| Resource | What is needed | Current status | Risk | Fallback | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants | Owners of four eligible firms | Six possible owners identified through the regional contractors' association; two have agreed informally | Owners decline when asked to share financial documents | Recruit from a second association chapter in a neighboring region | |
| Interviews | One 60-minute interview per owner, plus a follow-up | Owners prefer early mornings or after 5 p.m. | Scheduling during peak construction season | Schedule during the winter slowdown | |
| Documents | Aging reports, sample contracts, payment correspondence | Two owners willing in principle | Documents withheld as confidential | Rely on interviews plus publicly available contract templates | |
| Time | About 14 months from proposal approval to final study | Working full time | Delays in ethics review or recruitment | Begin recruitment groundwork during proposal stage | |
| Ethics approval | Approval from the university's review board | Not yet submitted | Concerns about my insider position | Exclude my employer's firm and its direct competitors | |
Status as of the end of Week 9; figures and names withheld.
The Researcher's Position
My twelve years as an estimator give me easy access to owners and a working knowledge of their vocabulary. They also create two risks. Owners who know my employer may hesitate to describe disputes with general contractors my firm also works with. And I may hear what confirms my own experience and miss what contradicts it. To address the first, I will exclude my employer and its direct competitors from the sample. To address the second, I will keep a reflective journal during data collection and ask a classmate outside construction to review my coding of the first two interviews.
Will Four Cases Be Enough
The number of cases is a feasibility question as well as a methodological one. Guest et al. (2006) reported that, among interviews with a fairly homogeneous group, nearly all themes had surfaced by the twelfth interview and the most important by the sixth. My study has four owners, with interviews, follow-ups and documents for each. Fusch and Ness (2015) argue that saturation depends on the richness of the data as well as the number of participants, and recommend using several data sources to reach it. Combining interviews with documents for each firm gives the study several kinds of evidence per case. If new strategies are still emerging after the fourth case, I will add a fifth from the reserve list.
The Weakest Point
The weakest point is documents. Owners guard financial records closely, and aging reports reveal which general contractors pay slowly, which could harm relationships if disclosed. If only one or two owners share documents, the study will lean more heavily on interviews. I will offer to redact contractor names and to let owners review any excerpt before it appears in the study. Yin (2018) notes that case study findings are more convincing when supported by multiple sources, so this risk matters to the quality of the findings, not only to their quantity.
Cost and Tools
The study's direct costs are small: transcription for about eight hours of interviews, mileage to four firms within an hour's drive and qualitative coding software available through the university. The larger cost is my own time. I have blocked two evenings a week and alternate Saturdays for the study, and my employer has agreed to let me shift hours during interview weeks. If the schedule slips, the first thing to give will be the follow-up interviews, which can move to video calls, rather than the document review, which carries more of the corroboration the study needs.
Decision
The study is feasible as designed if at least four eligible owners agree to interviews and at least two agree to share documents. Both conditions look achievable from current contacts. I will confirm them in writing before submitting the proposal for ethics review, and I will keep the reserve list current in case an owner withdraws partway through the study or sells the firm before interviews end.
References
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
DBAX 9101 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
Week 9 asks you to sketch the feasibility of your study. Explain why feasibility belongs in Stage 1. In a table, list each resource your study needs, such as participants, interviews, documents, time and ethics approval, with current status, the main risk and a fallback. Discuss your own position as a researcher and how it affects access and credibility. Address whether your planned sample is likely to be enough, citing research on saturation. Identify the weakest point in the plan and how you will protect against it. Budget costs and time. Close with a decision stating the conditions under which the study is feasible and how you will confirm them before seeking ethics approval.
How this DBAX 9101 Week 9 example is built
The paper opens by warning that studies fail on access long after approval. A table covers five resources with status, risk and fallback. A section treats the author's insider position as a feasibility issue and sets three safeguards. A section asks whether four cases suffice, citing Guest and colleagues and Fusch and Ness, and plans a fifth if needed. A section names documents as the weakest point and offers redaction and owner review, citing Yin. A section budgets transcription, mileage, software and evening hours. A closing decision makes the study feasible if four owners agree to interviews and two to documents, confirmed in writing before ethics review. The table marks which items are confirmed and which are only informal promises.
Where the marks sit in the DBAX 9101 Week 9 rubric
Faculty value candor about risk above optimism. A table with a fallback for every resource carries the most weight. Treating the researcher's own position as a feasibility and credibility issue shows maturity. Using saturation research to judge sample size demonstrates methodological grounding. Identifying the single weakest point, rather than listing generic risks, shows judgment. A realistic budget of time and money shows planning. A decision stated as conditions that can be confirmed turns the sketch into a commitment. Sketches that assume access, ignore insider bias or treat sample size as self-evident are judged incomplete at this stage. Naming the resource whose loss would end the study, and planning around it first, is what distinguishes a working sketch from a hopeful one.
DBAX 9101 Week 9 help from the desk
List every resource your study depends on, then ask, for each, what you have now, what could go wrong and what you would do instead. If you have no fallback, the risk is real. Ask how your job or relationships affect who will talk to you and what they will say. Read one or two studies on saturation before defending your sample size. Then find your single weakest point; it is usually documents or participants. Many students write feasibility as a list of reasons the study will succeed, which tells a committee nothing. Others discover access problems only after approval. Confirm the key conditions in writing early. Finding the weak point in a plan you wrote is hard, and our writers can look for it with you.
Get a DBAX 9101 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Include the Week 9 prompt and rubric and your current research question. A feasibility sketch for a similar study, both tables and the narrowing argument between them, returns within 24-48h; there is no charge for the first. It prices requirements for that neighboring study, so the hours and access your own work needs are still yours to estimate.
More DBAX 9101 papers and DBA samples
- DBAX 9101 Week 1: Topic to Problem Discussion
- DBAX 9101 Week 2: Problem Candidates Comparison
- DBAX 9101 Week 3: Problem Evidence Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 4: Study Boundary Statement
- DBAX 9101 Week 5: Significance Argument Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 6: Purpose Statement Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 7: Research Question Draft
- DBAX 9101 Week 8: Framework Fit Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 10: Stage 1 Peer Critique
- DBAX 9101 Week 11: Assembled Stage 1 Document
- DBAX 8151 Week 9: Practice Implications Paper
- DBAX 8101 Week 9: Plain-Language Study Summary
- DBAX 8006 Week 9: Sourced Peer Responses
DBAX 9101 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBAX 9101 Week 9 sample paper?
You can read the feasibility sketch and its resource table below without any fee.
What resources does the DBAX 9101 Week 9 sketch check?
Participants, interviews, documents, time and ethics approval.
How is insider bias handled?
By excluding the employer and its competitors, keeping a journal and having early coding reviewed.
Will four cases be enough?
Likely, with several data sources per case and a fifth case in reserve.
What is the weakest point?
Access to financial documents such as aging reports.