Six internal parties appear on this DBAX 9101C map, each with the account it would give, its salience, and the point where its account collides with the sponsor's. Searches like "dbax 9101c week 5 assignment example", "dbax9101c week 5 sample" and "dbax 9101c week 5 example" land here.
What a finished DBAX 9101C Week 5 stakeholder map looks like
A table serving as the map fills three to four pages, one row per party. Rows cover the chief financial officer who sponsored the work, the warehouse night supervisor, pickers, the routing dispatcher, drivers and the inside sales team. Columns give each party's likely account of the errors, what they could observe that others could not, their stake in how the problem is framed, and a salience reading built on the power, legitimacy and urgency attributes Mitchell, Agle and Wood proposed. The accounts diverge: pickers point to substitutions entered after the pick list prints, the dispatcher to routes built before orders close, sales to customers who call late. A short section maps the parties outside the firm, mainly restaurants, and explains why they are noted but not yet consulted. A figure plots salience against distance from the sponsor's account.
How a DBAX 9101C Week 5 example is structured
The sponsor's account opens the map, because every other row is read as agreement or departure from it. Parties then appear in the order an order moves through the firm, from sales intake to picking to routing to delivery, showing where along the process each account places the fault. Each row keeps description and judgment apart: what the party would say, what they are positioned to see, and what they stand to gain or lose from a given framing. Salience follows in its own column rather than being mixed into the account. After the table, a section groups the conflicting accounts by where they place the cause, which produces three candidate locations for the problem rather than one. The map closes by stating which accounts the eventual study most needs to hear and why the sponsor's is one of them, not the only one.
The sponsor's account as the reference row
Drivers leave items off or deliver to the wrong door, in the finance office's telling. Every other row is read against this one, which keeps the map honest about whose framing the study began with.
Parties in the order an order travels
Sales intake, picking, routing, delivery. Arranging rows along the process shows that each party tends to place the fault just upstream or downstream of its own step, a pattern worth recording in itself.
Position, stake and salience kept apart
What a party would say, what it can see, and what it gains from a framing sit in separate columns. Power, legitimacy and urgency are scored last, so influence does not quietly decide whose account sounds true.
Three locations for one problem
Late substitutions, early routing and late customer calls each place the cause somewhere other than the driver. Grouping the accounts this way converts a set of disagreements into candidate explanations the question can test.
Outside parties noted, not yet heard
Restaurant customers experience every error and appear on the map with a note: their account matters, but reaching them depends on access the client has not yet granted, which Week 8 addresses.
Where marks go in DBAX 9101C Week 5
The map is graded on whether it widens the problem's ownership. A table that lists departments with their titles and a line of description each has drawn an organization chart, and it is marked that way. Credit goes to the accounts column, because stating what each party would say about the errors, and why, is what shows the sponsor's framing to be one among several. Separating position from stake earns further credit, since a party's view of a problem and its interest in how the problem is framed are different things that drafts often merge. Mitchell, Agle and Wood's attributes are marked on application: a salience column scored without reasons adds little. The grouping of accounts by where they place the cause carries analytic weight. Maps that treat the sponsor as neutral, or omit the lowest-status parties, lose ground.
Get a DBAX 9101C Week 5 example written to your instructions
Include the Week 5 prompt and rubric, the sponsor's statement of the problem, and the roles inside the organization that touch it. A stakeholder map for a comparable case, with accounts, stakes and salience readings, is drafted in 24-48h and costs nothing the first time. Parties appear only as roles, so nobody at your client can be recognized from it.
DBAX 9101C Week 5 questions, answered
Does the map require interviewing the stakeholders?
Not at Stage 1. The accounts column records what each party is likely to say, drawn from the author's engagement with the client, ordinary conversations and any documents already shared. Formal interviews are data collection and need the permissions a later stage arranges. The map is explicit about this, labeling its accounts as anticipated so no reader mistakes them for findings.
Why include parties with little power?
Because they are often closest to the problem. Pickers and drivers handle every order and see failures the finance office only counts. Salience frameworks describe whose claims managers tend to attend to, not whose accounts are most accurate, and the map uses them for the first purpose only. Omitting low-power parties would narrow the study to the explanations powerful people already prefer.
How many parties belong on the map?
Enough to cover every step where the problem could originate, which in a mid-sized firm is often five to eight. Listing every department inflates the table without adding accounts. The test for inclusion is whether a party touches the problem and could plausibly describe it differently from the sponsor. Parties that fail both tests belong in a footnote at most.