DBAX 9101C Week 5 Client Stakeholder Map Example

Course	DBAX 9101C Business Consulting Research Project Stage 1
Week	Week 5
Paper type	Stakeholder map
Length	About 770 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 9101C Week 5

Who Sees the Digital Shortfall From Where: A Stakeholder Map for a Printing Client, Rating Each Party's Power, Legitimacy and Urgency and Naming Whose View the Sponsor's Office Cannot See

Student Name

Walden University

DBAX 9101C: Business Consulting Research Project Stage 1

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title stresses viewpoint, since the map's purpose is to show how the problem looks from places the sponsor does not stand.

Who Sees the Digital Shortfall From Where: A Stakeholder Map for a Printing Client, Rating Each Party's Power, Legitimacy and Urgency and Naming Whose View the Sponsor's Office Cannot See

Why Map Stakeholders

A problem looks different from each place in an organization. From the vice president of sales' office, slow digital revenue looks like a salesforce problem. From the controller's desk it may look like a pricing problem, and from the press room like a scheduling problem. A consulting study that hears only from its sponsor will reproduce the sponsor's view. This paper maps the people who affect or are affected by the shortfall in digital service revenue at my client, a commercial printer in Milwaukee, and rates each on the three attributes Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed for judging stakeholder salience: the power to sway the outcome, the legitimacy of the claim and how urgent the concern feels.

What this page is doingThe paper explains that a problem looks different from each office, which is why the map comes before data collection.

The Map

Table 1

Stakeholders in the Digital Revenue Shortfall

Stakeholder	Power	Legitimacy	Urgency	How they see the problem \|
President and owner	High	High	Moderate	Survival of the firm; return on the press investment \|
Vice president of sales, the sponsor	High	High	High	Salespeople lack digital selling skill \|
Seven salespeople	Moderate	High	Moderate	Their contacts do not buy digital; pay favors print \|
Digital services manager	Low	High	High	Jobs arrive late and poorly specified \|
Controller	Moderate	High	Low	Margins on services are thin once postage is counted \|
Customer service representatives	Low	Moderate	Low	Handle digital orders without clear pricing guidance \|
Print buyers at customer firms	Moderate	High	Low	Buy printing on price and reliability \|
Marketing managers at customer firms	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Rarely contacted by the firm \|

Ratings are the author's judgments from kickoff conversations and early interviews; they will be revisited after data collection.

What the Map Shows

The sponsor and the president dominate on power, which means their view will shape what the firm does with any findings. Two groups hold legitimate and urgent concerns but little power: the digital services manager, who handles each digital order from quote through shipment, and the salespeople, whose account of the problem differs from the sponsor's. Their views are most at risk of being lost.

Marketing managers at customer firms are the most important outsiders. They are the likely buyers of campaigns, and almost no one at the client talks to them. Tuli et al. (2007) found that solutions succeed when suppliers understand the customer's requirements across several roles; the map suggests the client knows only one role at most of its accounts.

The controller is easy to overlook because the concern is not urgent, but the controller sets commission rates and has data on service margins that bear directly on the compensation explanation.

What this page is doingThe paper reads the map for the views the sponsor is least likely to hear.

Implications for Data Collection

The map changes the interview plan. Beyond the sponsor and the salespeople, the study will interview the digital services manager and the controller, and will seek at least three customer contacts, including two marketing managers. Ulaga and Reinartz (2011) found that successful hybrid offerings depended on capabilities spread across the firm, including service delivery and pricing, not only on sales; the interview plan now reaches those capabilities.

Managing the Sponsor's Expectations

The vice president commissioned the study and expects it to address sales capability. Hearing from the controller about margins, or from the digital services manager about late job specifications, may produce findings the vice president did not expect. I have told the vice president that the study will interview these stakeholders and why, and the vice president agreed, provided the salespeople are not told the study is about their performance.

Stakeholders Who Disagree With Each Other

The map also shows where stakeholders' views collide. The vice president and the salespeople give opposite causes, and both hold power over how the findings are received. The controller and the digital services manager disagree about whether services are underpriced or overpriced: the controller sees thin margins after postage, while the manager hears customers call the quotes expensive. These disagreements are not obstacles to the study; they are some of its most useful data. Each interview will ask the person to respond to the other views in neutral terms, without naming who holds them, so the study can see whether the disagreement is about facts or about interpretation.

Limits of the Map

The ratings reflect a few weeks of contact and my own judgment. Mitchell et al. (1997) note that salience changes over time; a stakeholder with low urgency now may become urgent if a finding affects them. I will update the map after the first round of interviews.

References

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247

Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: From product bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.3.001

Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine goods and services successfully. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0395

Reading the DBAX 9101C Week 5 instructions

Week 5 asks you to map the stakeholders in your client's problem. Explain why the problem looks different from different places in the organization. Identify everyone with a hand in the problem or a stake in its outcome, including people outside the client firm. Rate each on power, legitimacy and urgency using a published framework, and record how each sees the problem. Read the map for the views your sponsor is least likely to hear and for disagreements between stakeholders. Explain how the map changes your data collection plan. Describe how you will manage your sponsor's expectations if other stakeholders' views lead to unexpected findings. Close by noting the map's limits and when you will revisit it.

How this DBAX 9101C Week 5 example is built

The paper opens by contrasting how the shortfall looks from sales, finance and production. A table rates eight stakeholders using Mitchell and colleagues and records their views. A section identifies the digital services manager and salespeople as legitimate but low-power voices and customers' marketing managers as the key outsiders, citing Tuli and colleagues. A section adds the controller and customers to the interview plan, citing Ulaga and Reinartz. A section treats disagreements between sales leaders and staff, and between the controller and the digital manager, as data. A section reports the sponsor's agreement. A closing section notes that salience will shift. The ratings are labeled as the author's own judgments from early conversations, with a date for revisiting them.

Reading the DBAX 9101C Week 5 rubric

Faculty value a map that reveals views the sponsor cannot see. Rating each stakeholder on published attributes, with reasons, carries the most weight. Including outsiders such as customers shows breadth. Identifying low-power, high-legitimacy voices demonstrates judgment about whose view is at risk. Treating disagreements as data shows analytical maturity. Linking the map to concrete changes in the interview plan shows that the map does work. Managing the sponsor's expectations shows consulting skill. Maps that list only internal staff, rate stakeholders without reasons or leave the data collection plan unchanged are judged incomplete. A plan to revisit the ratings after the first interviews shows the map is treated as a working tool. Short reasons for each rating, rather than bare labels, let a reader question the judgment.

DBAX 9101C Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks

Start by listing everyone who touches the problem, then everyone who feels its effects, including customers and suppliers. For each, ask how much they could change the outcome, how legitimate their stake is and how pressing it feels to them. Write one sentence on how each would describe the problem. Look for people whose views differ most from your sponsor's, especially those with little power. Many students map only the people their sponsor introduced, which reproduces the sponsor's view. Others draw elaborate diagrams that change nothing about the study. Let the map decide who you interview. Our writers can help you rate stakeholders and turn the map into an interview plan.

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.

More DBAX 9101C papers and DBA samples

DBAX 9101C Week 5 questions, answered

Where can I find a free DBAX 9101C Week 5 sample paper?

The stakeholder map and its ratings table appear below, free to every reader.

Which framework rates the stakeholders in the DBAX 9101C Week 5 map?

Power, legitimacy and urgency from Mitchell and colleagues.

Whose views are most at risk of being lost?

The digital services manager's and the salespeople's.

Who is the most important outsider?

Marketing managers at customer firms.

How did the map change the study?

The controller and customer contacts were added to the interviews.