| Course | DBAX 9104C Business Consulting Research Project Stage 4 |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 11 |
| Paper type | Final document record |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DBAX 9104C Week 11
Both Endings Side by Side for the Last Time: The Reconciliation Record Joining a Scholarly Study and Its Client Report on Keeping First-Year Donors at a Hospital Foundation
Student Name
Walden University
DBAX 9104C: Business Consulting Research Project Stage 4
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Both Endings Side by Side for the Last Time: The Reconciliation Record Joining a Scholarly Study and Its Client Report on Keeping First-Year Donors at a Hospital Foundation
What This Final Document Holds
The final submission has three parts. The scholarly study, at full length in APA style, is the governing document: if anything in the client report disagrees with it, the study is correct. The client report, four pages written for the foundation's executive director and development committee, leads with its answer and uses no theory. This reconciliation record joins them. It lists every claim in the client report beside its source in the study and the strength word each uses, and it confirms that the disclosure decisions made earlier were applied in both. The question both readers should be able to answer from their own document, without consulting the other, is the same: what does the evidence say about keeping first-year donors, and how sure is it?
The Study in Brief
The study examined why first-time donors to a regional hospital foundation in Wisconsin rarely gave a second time. Only 23 percent of 2,860 first-year donors over three years made a second gift within eighteen months. The study used the foundation's donor database, interviews with 16 donors who gave again and 12 who did not and interviews with five development staff. Sargeant (2001) found that donors' perceptions of the quality of service they receive from a charity, including how they are thanked, were linked to their loyalty, and the study asked how this foundation's practices compared. Sargeant and Woodliffe (2007), reviewing research from several disciplines on why people give, provided the framework for the interview guide.
The Reconciliation
Table 1
Client Report Claims, Study Sources and Strength Words
| Client report claim | Source in study | Strength word in study | Strength word in report | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First-year donors who got a personal thank-you note within a week gave again more often | Ch. 4, finding 1; database | "were more likely to give again (34 percent versus 19 percent)" | "gave again more often: about one in three, against one in five" | Yes | |
| The foundation's standard receipt arrived in about three weeks | Ch. 4, finding 2; database | "median 19 days" | "about three weeks" | Yes | |
| Donors who did not give again often said they did not know what their gift did | Ch. 4, finding 3; interviews | "8 of 12 non-repeat donors described" | "most of the non-repeat donors we spoke with said" | Yes | |
| A low-cost follow-up process could be tested | Ch. 5, recommendation 1 | "may increase second gifts; untested" | "could be tested for six months" | Yes | |
| Staff time is the main barrier to personal notes | Ch. 4, finding 4; staff interviews | "staff described" | "staff told us" | Yes | |
| Personal notes will raise retention to 35 percent | None | None | Removed from draft | Corrected | |
One draft claim had no source and was removed before the report was finalized.
The One Correction
An early draft of the client report said personal notes "will raise retention to 35 percent." The study never estimated that. The 34 percent figure is the second-gift rate among donors who happened to receive a personal note, and those donors may have differed in other ways: many gave at events where staff met them in person. Turning an observed rate among one group into a forecast for all donors would have promised the foundation a result the evidence cannot support. The sentence was removed, and the report now says the follow-up process "could be tested," matching the study's recommendation.
Disclosure Decisions Applied
The disclosure decisions set earlier held in both documents. The foundation is named in the client report, which goes only to it, but not in the published study, which describes "a hospital foundation in the upper Midwest." No donor is named or quoted in a way that would identify them; the three donors quoted in the study are described by giving level and year, not by gift purpose, since a specific purpose such as a memorial gift for a named unit could identify a family. Development staff are attributed by role, and the one role held by a single person is described as "development staff."
Can Each Reader Accept Their Own Ending?
A committee reader of the study finds conclusions sized to the evidence, with limits stated: one foundation, observational data, interviews with 28 donors. A board member reading the client report finds the same findings in plain words, the same uncertainty expressed as a proposal to test, and no number the study does not contain. Bansal et al. (2012) treat translation for practitioners as the point where research most often loses its substance; the reconciliation is the evidence that this translation did not lose any. The development director reviewed the client report and asked only that the test period be stated in months, which it now is.
What Happens Next
The foundation plans to test personal thank-you notes for all first-year donors for six months, starting with the next fiscal year, and to compare second-gift rates with the previous year. That test, not this study, will show whether the notes make the difference.
References
Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O'Brien, J. (2012). Bridging the research-practice gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0140
Sargeant, A. (2001). Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(2), 177-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12204
Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Gift giving: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(4), 275-307. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.308
The Walden DBAX 9104C Week 11 instructions
To finish the stage, you submit your complete scholarly study, your client report and a record that reconciles them. State which document governs if they differ. List every claim in the client report beside its source in the study, quoting the strength word each uses, and mark whether they match. Record any correction you made. Confirm that earlier disclosure decisions were applied consistently in both documents, giving examples. Explain whether each reader could accept their own ending without consulting the other. Note any changes the client requested and whether they affected findings. Close with what happens next for the client. The record is typically a few pages, with a table carrying the claim-by-claim comparison.
How this DBAX 9104C Week 11 example is built
The record first explains the three-part submission and names the study as governing. A brief summary gives the 2,860 first-year donors, 23 percent repeat rate and 28 donor interviews, with Sargeant on donor loyalty and Sargeant and Woodliffe framing the interview guide. The six-row table compares claims and strength words, from "one in three, against one in five" to "staff told us." A section explains the one correction, the 35 percent forecast, noting that donors who received notes often met staff at events. Disclosure decisions are confirmed: the foundation unnamed in the published study, donors described by giving level and year, a single-holder role described generically. A section on each reader's acceptance cites Bansal and colleagues, and the record ends with a planned six-month test.
DBAX 9104C Week 11 rubric: what earns full marks
The reconciliation is graded on completeness and on whether it found anything. A table covering every client report claim, with strength words quoted from both documents, shows the comparison was actually made. A correction recorded and explained is strong evidence of a real check, especially when it removes a forecast the study never estimated. Instructors weigh the disclosure confirmation because publication is irreversible. Naming which document governs prevents confusion if differences remain. Credit also goes to showing that each reader can accept their own ending: the committee finds sized conclusions and limits, the client finds the same findings in plain words and a test rather than a promise. Client changes should be reported and shown not to touch findings.
DBAX 9104C Week 11 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students sometimes treat the final document as a formatting task. The reconciliation record is the last chance to catch a client report that says more than the study. Copy every sentence of the client report that makes a claim into a table, find its source in the study and quote both strength words. Look especially for forecasts, causal verbs and rounded figures that changed meaning. Check disclosure decisions against both documents, including quotations and role descriptions. Name the governing document plainly. Report what the client asked to change. End with the client's next step rather than a summary. If assembling the three parts feels overwhelming, our consultants can help you build the reconciliation table from your two documents.
Get a DBAX 9104C Week 11 example written to your instructions
Forward the Week 11 requirements and rubric, a summary of your conclusions and recommendations, and the form your program requires for the client document. A complete example package, study, client report and reconciliation record, returns in 24-48h, and a first request costs nothing. Both documents describe a fictional foundation from start to finish.
More DBAX 9104C papers and DBA samples
- DBAX 9104C Week 1: Two-Audience Discussion
- DBAX 9104C Week 2: Coherence Read Log
- DBAX 9104C Week 3: Two-Language Restatement
- DBAX 9104C Week 4: Recommendation Trace
- DBAX 9104C Week 5: Recommendation Cut Record
- DBAX 9104C Week 6: Evidence and Action Split
- DBAX 9104C Week 7: Client Deliverable Memo
- DBAX 9104C Week 8: Disclosure Decisions
- DBAX 9104C Week 9: Independence Rehearsal
- DBAX 9104C Week 10: Two Contribution Statements
- DBAX 9104 Week 11: Final Assembly Record
- DBAX 9103C Week 11: Stage 3 Field Report
- DBAX 9103 Week 11: Stage 3 Report Paper
- DBAX 9102C Week 11: Consulting Stage 2 Package
DBAX 9104C Week 11 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBAX 9104C Week 11 sample paper?
Further down you will find the whole reconciliation record, claim table and correction included, free to read.
What study does the DBAX 9104C Week 11 record close?
A consulting study of first-year donor retention at a hospital foundation, where only 23 percent of new donors gave again within eighteen months.
Which document governs if the two endings differ?
The scholarly study, because it was checked against the evidence; the client report must match it.
What correction did the record make?
It removed a sentence forecasting retention of 35 percent, which the study never estimated.
How were donors protected in the published study?
Donors are described by giving level and year, not gift purpose, and the foundation is not named.