| Course | DBAX 9104C Business Consulting Research Project Stage 4 |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Evidence and action split |
| Length | About 830 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 6
What Was Found, What the Agency Might Do and What Lies Between: Splitting Evidence From Action in a Consulting Study of Policy Renewals at an Independent Insurance Agency
Student Name
Walden University
DBAX 9104C: Business Consulting Research Project Stage 4
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
What Was Found, What the Agency Might Do and What Lies Between: Splitting Evidence From Action in a Consulting Study of Policy Renewals at an Independent Insurance Agency
Why Split Evidence From Action
A finding describes what is; an action proposes what someone should do. Getting from one to the other always requires something the evidence cannot supply: a judgment about cost, a choice between values or a decision about who acts. David Hume observed long ago that no amount of description, by itself, tells anyone what ought to be done, and a consulting report that slides from "customers who got a call renewed more often" to "the agency should call every customer" hides that step. My consulting study examined declining renewal rates at an independent property and casualty insurance agency with eleven staff in suburban Columbus. Renewal of personal auto and home policies fell from 88 to 81 percent over three years. This document sets out what the study found, what the agency might do and what each crossing between the two requires.
The Split
Table 1
Findings, Bridges and Possible Actions
| Finding | What crossing to action requires | Possible actions | |
|---|---|---|
| In the agency's records, households that received a personal call from their account manager in the 30 days before renewal renewed at 91 percent; households without a call renewed at 79 percent | A judgment that the call contributed to renewal, which the records cannot show, since managers may have called households already likely to stay | Schedule renewal calls for every household; schedule calls only for households with premium increases; send a reminder letter instead | |
| Account managers described renewal calls as the first task dropped in busy months | A decision about whose time the calls come from, and what other work moves | Assign calls to one staff member; spread calls across managers with a weekly target; automate a reminder | |
| Households with premium increases above 15 percent renewed at 64 percent | A value choice between personal service and efficiency, and a cost the study did not estimate | Call these households first; review their coverage before renewal; offer a policy review meeting | |
| Three of five departing customers interviewed said they never heard from the agency except by bill | An assumption that the three speak for others who left | Add a midterm check-in; do nothing until a larger sample is heard | |
Renewal figures from 2,140 personal-lines renewals over the last twelve months.
The Middle Column
The first entry is the most important. Households that got a call renewed more often, but account managers chose whom to call, and they may have called families they knew best, who were already likely to stay. Verhoef (2003) linked loyalty programs and similar relationship efforts to retention in a financial services setting, but with careful controls; my study had none. So the crossing from finding to action requires a judgment that the call itself matters, and the report says plainly that it is a judgment.
The second entry needs a management decision, not evidence. Who makes calls, and what work gives way, is for the agency owner to decide. The study can describe the tradeoff but not settle it.
The third entry requires a value choice. Calling every household with a large premium increase is personal service; it also takes time from new business. Rousseau (2006) holds that managing by evidence still leaves room for the manager's judgment and for what the people affected care about; the middle column marks where the last two come in.
The fourth entry rests on three interviews. Acting on it requires assuming that three people represent many, which the agency may choose to assume or not.
Why the Action Column Offers Options
The action column lists options rather than one preferred action. Block (2011) argues that a consultant serves a client best by laying out choices and their consequences, leaving the decision with the person who will live with it. For the first two findings, I do state a preference in the client report, calling households with large premium increases first and assigning the calls to one person, but the preference is labeled as mine and placed after the options.
How the Split Appears in the Final Documents
In the conclusion chapter, findings appear in the findings section, and actions in the recommendations section, with a paragraph for each recommendation naming its bridge. In the client report, the same three columns appear as a table under the heading "From what we found to what you could do." The owner said this was the first report she had received that told her what decisions were hers.
What the Split Prevents
Without the split, the report would have recommended calling every household because called households renewed more often. That recommendation would have cost the agency about 180 staff hours a year and might have changed nothing, if managers had simply been calling the households most likely to stay. The split puts that uncertainty where the owner can see it.
References
Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208679
Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on customer retention and customer share development. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.4.30.18685
The Walden DBAX 9104C Week 6 instructions
Week 6 asks for a document that separates your findings from the actions they might support. In one column, state findings only, with the evidence behind each. In another, list possible actions, usually more than one per finding. Between them, name what each crossing from finding to action requires that the evidence cannot supply: a causal judgment, a cost estimate the study lacks, a value choice or a decision about who acts. Explain the bridges entry by entry, saying who should make each judgment. If you state a preferred action, label it as yours and place it after the options. Describe how the split will appear in your conclusion chapter and client report. Literature on evidence-based management or consulting helps here.
How the DBAX 9104C Week 6 example is put together
The document opens with the gap between is and ought, then describes the agency and its 2,140 personal-lines renewals. The table holds four findings: the call-renewal difference, renewal calls as the first task dropped in busy months, 64 percent renewal among households with premium increases above 15 percent and three of five departed customers who heard from the agency only by bill. The middle column is explained in prose: the call finding needs a judgment about selection, since managers may have called loyal households, and Verhoef's controlled study shows what this one lacks; the staffing finding needs the owner's decision; the premium finding needs a value choice, framed with Rousseau. Block supports offering options. A closing section estimates that calling every household would cost about 180 staff hours a year.
Reading the DBAX 9104C Week 6 rubric
The middle column is where the marks are. A split that lists findings and actions without naming what lies between them has reorganized the report without adding judgment. Instructors reward bridges that are specific: a selection problem in the data, a cost not estimated, a choice between values, a decision belonging to a named role. Explaining who should make each judgment shows respect for the client's authority. Credit also goes to offering several actions per finding and labeling any preference as the consultant's. Showing how the split appears in both final documents ties the exercise to the deliverables. A concrete estimate of what an unexamined recommendation would have cost, such as staff hours, demonstrates why the split matters.
DBAX 9104C Week 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often write the action column first and then find findings to fit. Reverse that: write the findings column from your analysis chapter, then brainstorm actions, then ask for each pair what you would have to assume or decide to get from left to right. Common bridges are causal assumptions from observational data, costs you did not measure, tradeoffs between values and authority that belongs to someone else. Name the person who should make each decision. Resist listing one action per finding; options help the client. If you prefer an option, say so separately and say why. A tutor can help you identify the bridges, which are easy to miss in your own work.
Get a DBAX 9104C Week 6 example written to your instructions
Share the Week 6 prompt and rubric, the findings your study produced, and the actions the organization is weighing, sketched in outline. A three-column split with its bridge entries comes back inside 24-48h, and the first request carries no fee. The agency in the example is fictional; your organization need not be named or described in any detail.
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 7: Client Deliverable Memo
- DBAX 9104C Week 8: Disclosure Decisions
- DBAX 9104C Week 9: Independence Rehearsal
- DBAX 9104C Week 10: Two Contribution Statements
- DBAX 9104C Week 11: Final Reconciliation Record
- DBAX 9104 Week 6: Limitations Section
- DBAX 9103C Week 6: Findings Section
- DBAX 9103 Week 6: Results Section Paper
- DBAX 9102C Week 6: Remaining Unknowns Statement
DBAX 9104C Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBAX 9104C Week 6 sample paper?
The three-column split and the entry-by-entry explanation of each bridge appear in full below, with no charge to read them.
What study does the DBAX 9104C Week 6 split come from?
A study of falling policy renewals at an eleven-person independent insurance agency, where renewals dropped from 88 to 81 percent.
Why can't the call finding go straight to an action?
Managers chose which households to call and may have called those already likely to renew, so the call's effect is a judgment.
What is a bridge entry?
The judgment, cost, value choice or decision about who acts that the evidence cannot supply when moving from a finding to an action.
Does the document state a preferred action?
Yes, for two findings, but labeled as the consultant's preference and placed after the options.