DBAX 9102C Week 7 Consulting Design Options Example

Course	DBAX 9102C Business Consulting Research Project Stage 2
Week	Week 7
Paper type	Design options
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 9102C Week 7

Four Ways to Test Equipment on Moving Trucks: Design Options for a Four-Depot Moving Company, From Buying Everywhere and Comparing Years to a Staggered Rollout, Judged on What Each Could Show and What Each Would Cost the Business

Student Name

Walden University

DBAX 9102C: Business Consulting Research Project Stage 2

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title frames the designs in business terms, since the client must live with whichever one is chosen.

Designs That Must Survive the Business

A design that would satisfy a methods textbook may not survive a business that runs moves six days a week. This paper sets four candidate designs against two tests: what each could show about whether portable equipment and a two-person rule reduce lifting injuries, and what each would cost the client in money, time and disruption. The client operates four depots around Charlotte with about 22 trucks and 140 movers. Injuries are not frequent at any single depot: last year's 58 incident reports amount to roughly one a month per depot, which limits what any design can detect in a few months.

What this page is doingThe paper starts from the client's operating constraints, because a design the business cannot run is not an option.

The Candidates

Table 1

Four Designs Compared

Design	How it works	What it could show	Main weakness	Cost to the business \|
Buy for all depots, compare this year with last	Equipment and rule introduced everywhere at once	Whether injuries fell after the change	Any other change that year, such as a mild winter or new hires, would be confounded	Lowest disruption; full equipment cost at once \|
Pilot at one depot, compare with the other three	One depot adopts; three continue as before	Difference between pilot and comparison depots	Depots differ in crews, routes and reporting habits	Low; one depot's equipment \|
Staggered rollout across depots	Each depot starts at a different month, in a random order	Whether injuries fall at each depot after its start, compared with depots not yet started	Takes longer; small numbers	Moderate; equipment bought in stages \|
Observation and interviews only	Ride-alongs and crew interviews at all depots, no change introduced	How lifting happens and whether equipment would be used	No evidence on whether injuries change	Low; staff time only \|

Costs estimated with the operations manager; equipment priced at about $650 per truck kit.

Weighing the Candidates

The before-and-after design is what the owner would do without a study. Its weakness is serious: one year's injury count can rise or fall for many reasons. Collins et al. (2004) evaluated their nursing home program with this kind of before-and-after comparison, which is one reason their result cannot settle the question for the client. The single-depot pilot is cheap, but depots differ enough that a difference between them could reflect anything from crew experience to how carefully the crew leader files reports, a problem the internal records appraisal already exposed.

The staggered rollout addresses both weaknesses. Hemming et al. (2015) describe the stepped wedge design, in which clusters such as sites cross from control to intervention at different times in random order, so that every site eventually receives the intervention while comparisons are made both within and across sites. It suits a client that intends to adopt the change everywhere anyway. Its weakness is that with four depots and low injury counts, the study cannot detect a modest effect with confidence. It can, however, show whether equipment is used and whether the rule holds, which are the supporting factors the review identified.

Observation alone would answer the practical questions about use and fit but not the question the owner cares about most.

What this page is doingEach design is judged on whether its weakness can be managed, not only on what it could show.

The Likely Choice

A staggered rollout with ride-along observation built in combines the strengths of the last two designs. Each depot would begin in a randomly chosen month over four months, and observation would record equipment use and two-person lifts before and after each start. The owner gets equipment at every depot within four months, and the study gets comparisons that a year-over-year count cannot provide. Cartwright and Hardie (2012) stress checking that an intervention's supporting factors are present; the observation component does exactly that.

Why Random Order Matters Here

Randomizing the order in which depots start may seem like a formality, but it guards against a predictable bias. Left to choose, the owner would start with the depot whose crew leader is most enthusiastic, which is also the depot that files the most incident reports. An early start there would mix the effect of the equipment with the effect of a careful leader. Drawing the order from a hat in front of the four crew leaders costs nothing and removes that problem.

What the Comparison Shows the Client

Laying out the options showed the owner that the quickest design answers the least. That conversation mattered more than the table: the owner now sees the staggered rollout as buying the same equipment in a slightly different order, not as delaying it for research.

References

Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press.

Collins, J. W., Wolf, L., Bell, J., & Evanoff, B. (2004). An evaluation of a "best practices" musculoskeletal injury prevention program in nursing homes. Injury Prevention, 10(4), 206-211. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2004.005595

Hemming, K., Haines, T. P., Chilton, P. J., Girling, A. J., & Lilford, R. J. (2015). The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: Rationale, design, analysis, and reporting. BMJ, 350, Article h391. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h391

What the DBAX 9102C Week 7 instructions ask for

In Week 7 you weigh design options for testing the most promising intervention at your client. Start from the client's operating constraints. Identify at least four designs, including the one the client would choose without a study. In a table, describe how each works, what it could show, its main weakness and its cost to the business. Weigh each on whether its weakness can be managed. Identify the likely choice and explain how it combines strengths. Explain any feature, such as random ordering, that protects against a predictable bias. Close by describing what the comparison showed the client about the trade-off between speed and what a design can answer.

Inside the DBAX 9102C Week 7 example

The paper starts from six-day operations and roughly one incident per depot per month. A table compares four designs. A section shows the year-over-year option cannot separate causes, citing Collins and colleagues' before-and-after evaluation, and that a single-depot pilot is confounded by depot differences. A section presents the staggered rollout, citing Hemming and colleagues, and its low power. Observation of the conditions the equipment needs is added next, with Cartwright and Hardie as the rationale. A section explains drawing depot order in front of crew leaders. A closing section reports the owner seeing the rollout as the same purchase in a different order. The table's cost column uses the operations manager's figures, so the owner can check them, and each weakness is stated in a phrase the owner would use.

Reading the DBAX 9102C Week 7 rubric

Faculty value designs judged against the client's real constraints. A table with costs to the business alongside what each design shows carries the most weight. Including the client's default option and explaining its weakness shows realism. Citing design literature for the chosen approach demonstrates grounding. Building in measures of supporting factors shows integration with the review. Explaining protections against bias shows methodological care. Helping the client see the trade-off shows consulting skill. Comparisons that ignore operating constraints, omit costs or choose a textbook design the client cannot run fall short. Putting the client's default design in the first row, and explaining its weakness in plain terms, is often what persuades a client to accept a stronger one. Cost figures drawn from the client's own estimates add credibility.

DBAX 9102C Week 7 help: mistakes that cost marks

Ask your client what they would do if there were no study, and put that in the table first. Then list designs that add comparisons in stages, by site or over time. For each, estimate what it costs in money, staff time and disruption, using the client's own numbers. Ask how often your outcome occurs; rare outcomes limit what any short study can detect, which may push you toward measuring process as well. Many students propose designs that look strong but would stop the business, or settle for the client's default without explaining its weakness. A staggered design is often a good middle path. Our writers can help you estimate costs and power for each option.

Get a DBAX 9102C Week 7 example written to your instructions

Whatever limits the client has stated on time, access or data belong in the request, beside the Week 7 prompt, its rubric and the unknown carried from Week 6. The constraint ledger and survival verdicts come back in 24-48h, a first request free. Limits can be paraphrased by type, keeping the client anonymous throughout the draft and every exchange about it.

More DBAX 9102C papers and DBA samples

DBAX 9102C Week 7 questions, answered

Where can I find a free DBAX 9102C Week 7 sample paper?

You can read the design options paper below without paying.

Which designs does the DBAX 9102C Week 7 paper compare?

Buying everywhere and comparing years, a one-depot pilot, a staggered rollout and observation alone.

Why is the year-over-year comparison weak?

Other changes during the year cannot be separated from the equipment.

What design is likely chosen?

A staggered rollout across depots with observation built in.

Why is depot order randomized?

To avoid starting where the most diligent crew leader works.