DBAX 9104C Week 3 Two-Language Restatement Example

Course	DBAX 9104C Business Consulting Research Project Stage 4
Week	Week 3
Paper type	Findings restatement
Length	About 910 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 3

The Same Four Findings in Two Languages: Restating a Consulting Study of Why Small-Business Customers Canceled a Scheduling Software Subscription, Once in the Analysis Chapter's Terms and Once for the Customer-Success Team

Student Name

Walden University

DBAX 9104C: Business Consulting Research Project Stage 4

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the two languages and promises the findings stay the same in both, which the size check then tests.

Why Restate Twice

My consulting study examined why small-business customers canceled a subscription to an appointment-scheduling software product sold by a firm in Austin. The client's customer-success team will act on the findings, and my committee will judge them. The two audiences need different words: the team does not use "onboarding completion" or "feature adoption," and my committee needs the constructs the analysis used. The danger is that translation changes size. A finding stated carefully in the analysis chapter can grow a little in each plain-language version until it says something the evidence does not. This paper restates the four findings in both languages and checks that neither version grew.

What this page is doingThe paper names the danger first: the client version is where findings tend to grow.

The Study

The study drew on 31 interviews with owners of small businesses, salons, dental offices, tutoring centers and repair shops, who canceled between January and June of last year, plus account records for all 412 accounts that canceled in that period and a comparison group of 400 accounts that renewed. Bolton (1998) found that customers' cumulative satisfaction with a continuous service shaped how long they stayed, and the study's interviews asked owners to describe their experience from signup to cancellation.

The Restatements

Table 1

Findings in the Analysis Chapter's Terms and the Team's Terms, With the Size Check

Analysis chapter	Customer-success team	Size check: what both must carry \|
Among canceled accounts interviewed, owners most often described onboarding that ended before they used the reporting features (19 of 31)	Most former customers we spoke with, 19 of 31, said setup stopped before they learned the reports, which were why they bought	Interviewees only; 19 of 31; reporting features; strong \|
Canceled accounts were less likely than renewed accounts to have activated automated reminders in their first 30 days (34 percent versus 61 percent)	Customers who left were about half as likely to have turned on automatic reminders in their first month as customers who stayed	All 412 canceled and 400 renewed accounts; association, not cause; first 30 days \|
Owners whose businesses had two or more staff members described permissions setup as a barrier more often than sole operators (11 of 17 versus 3 of 14)	Owners with staff often found setting up who-can-see-what hard; owners working alone rarely did	Interviewees only; counts given; moderate \|
Price was named as the main reason for canceling by a minority of interviewed owners (7 of 31)	Price was the main reason for some former customers we spoke with, 7 of 31, but not most	Interviewees only; 7 of 31; minority \|

Counts from the analysis chapter; the team version keeps every count.

Checking That Nothing Grew

The first finding grew in my first team draft. It read "customers leave because setup stops before they learn the reports." That version dropped who was studied, interviewees rather than all customers; dropped the count; and turned "described" into "leave because," a causal claim the interviews do not support. The corrected version keeps all three.

The second finding is the only one based on all canceled accounts, and it is an association. My first team draft said turning on reminders "keeps customers," which claims cause. Customers who activated reminders early may have been more engaged for other reasons. The corrected version says customers who left were less likely to have turned reminders on, which a team member can read without a statistics course.

The third finding is moderate because the counts are small. The team version keeps the counts so a reader can see that.

The fourth finding needed protection in the other direction. The sales team had assumed price was the main reason customers leave. The finding is that 7 of 31 interviewed owners named price first, which is a minority. A team version saying "price was not the issue" would shrink the finding too far, since seven owners did name it. The corrected version says "some, but not most."

What this page is doingThe check is applied finding by finding, because each one could grow in a different way.

The Term Key

Table 2

Constructs and the Team's Words

Construct in the analysis chapter	Team's word	Note \|
Onboarding	Setup	Same meaning in the client's usage \|
Feature adoption	Turning on a feature	Team counts a feature as adopted when switched on, matching the study \|
Permissions configuration	Who-can-see-what setup	Team phrase from its own help pages \|
Canceled account	Former customer	Excludes accounts canceled for nonpayment, as in the study \|

Each pairing confirmed with the customer-success lead.

Bansal et al. (2012) describe how findings change meaning as they pass from researchers to practitioners, which is why a term key agreed with the client is worth the hour it takes.

Lemon and Verhoef (2016) describe customer experience as built across many touchpoints over time rather than at one moment, and the term key keeps that perspective from being lost in translation: "setup" in the team version means the same span of first contacts that "onboarding" covers in the analysis.

What Both Versions Leave Out

Neither version says that fixing setup will cut cancellations by a particular amount. The study did not estimate that, and a number would be the first thing the team remembered.

Next Step

Before the report goes out, the customer-success lead will read the team column without the other two and tell me what she thinks each finding means. If her reading matches the size check, the translation held.

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

Bolton, R. N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer's relationship with a continuous service provider: The role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17(1), 45-65. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.1.45

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69-96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420

The Walden DBAX 9104C Week 3 instructions

For this week you restate your findings for two audiences, your committee and the client team that will act on them. Put each finding in the analysis chapter's wording, then in the client's language, and add a size check naming what both versions must carry: who was studied, the period, the count or estimate, whether the finding is an association and how strong it is. Report any place where a client draft grew, through a dropped qualifier, a causal verb or a lost count, and any place where it shrank. Provide a term key that pairs each construct with the client's everyday word, confirmed with someone at the client. Close by saying what neither version claims. A table is the natural form for the restatements.

How this DBAX 9104C Week 3 example is built

The paper opens by naming the danger of growth in translation, then describes the study and cites Bolton on satisfaction across a continuing service. The main table restates four findings: 19 of 31 owners describing setup that ended before they used reports; reminders activated in the first 30 days by 34 percent of canceled accounts against 61 percent of renewed ones; permissions setup as a barrier for owners with staff; and price as the main reason for only 7 of 31. A checking section works through each, including a first team draft that said turning on reminders "keeps customers." A term key pairs onboarding with setup and feature adoption with turning a feature on. Bansal and colleagues and Lemon and Verhoef support the key, and a final check involves the customer-success lead.

Where the marks sit in the DBAX 9104C Week 3 rubric

Instructors judge this restatement on whether the client version stayed the same size. A plain-language finding that has lost its count, its population or its association language has changed the finding, and graders compare the columns directly. The size check column earns heavy credit because it makes the comparison explicit. Credit also goes to catching shrinkage as well as growth, since a finding stated too weakly misleads as much as one overstated. The term key is valued when it is confirmed with the client rather than invented, because a word that means something different inside the organization can change a finding silently. Explaining what neither version claims, such as a promised reduction in cancellations, shows the writer anticipates how clients read.

Common DBAX 9104C Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The trap is writing the client version from memory of the finding rather than from the analysis chapter's sentence. Copy each finding exactly, then translate one element at a time: population, measure, count, verb. Keep counts in the client version even when they feel technical; a team can read 19 of 31. Watch for causal verbs creeping in, such as keeps, drives and causes. Check findings that disagree with the client's assumptions for the opposite problem, being stated so softly they vanish. Ask someone at the client what their everyday words mean before using them. Leave out any number you did not estimate. If you would like help building the size check, our consultants can draft the three columns from your chapter with you.

Get a DBAX 9104C Week 3 example written to your instructions

Include the Week 3 prompt and rubric, your findings as the analysis chapter states them, and a word on who at the organization will read the client version. Parallel restatements with a size check and term key arrive in 24-48h, the first without charge. The subscription firm in the sample is fictional, so no detail of your organization is needed.

More DBAX 9104C papers and DBA samples

DBAX 9104C Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free DBAX 9104C Week 3 sample paper?

Scroll down for all four findings in both languages, with the size check and term key; there is no fee.

What study does the DBAX 9104C Week 3 paper restate?

A study of small-business owners who canceled a scheduling software subscription, using 31 interviews and records for 812 accounts.

How did the first finding grow in the team draft?

It dropped who was studied and the count, and changed described to a causal claim that customers leave because of setup.

Why does the price finding need protection?

The sales team assumed price drove cancellations; 7 of 31 owners named it, a minority but not zero, so neither too strong nor too weak will do.

What is the term key for?

It pairs each construct with the team's word, such as onboarding with setup, confirmed with the customer-success lead.