Method, design and the refused alternative share this memo: a correlational design is chosen for DDBA 8300's trade-show study, and the multiple-case option is named, credited and turned down. Searches like "ddba 8300 week 5 assignment example", "ddba8300 week 5 sample" and "ddba 8300 week 5 example" land here.
What a finished DDBA 8300 Week 5 design memo looks like
Three to four pages in memo form, written for a committee chair and organized under design headings. The method paragraph states the choice in one sentence: a quantitative correlational design using a survey of marketing managers at member firms of a machinery manufacturers' association. A design paragraph explains why correlation rather than an experiment, since no firm can be assigned to run pre-show outreach. The rejected option follows under its own heading. A multiple-case study would show how managers decide which shows are worth a booth and what they mean by a qualified lead, and the memo grants that both are interesting. Hypotheses are written so the data could contradict them, in the spirit of Popper's falsification criterion: outreach predicts qualified leads beyond booth spend. Variables, their sources and the planned multiple regression close the memo.
How a DDBA 8300 Week 5 example is structured
The memo runs from the question to the choice to the refusal, and then to the machinery. The research question sits first, carried unchanged from the earlier audit, because every design claim that follows is tested against its key words: predicts, beyond, qualified. The method sentence comes next, then the design paragraph, which weighs correlation against a quasi-experiment and explains why no credible comparison group exists among firms that already decide their own outreach. The refused option gets the third section and the most careful prose. It states what the case design would deliver, why that delivery does not answer this question, and under what different question it would have won, namely one asking how managers define lead quality. Hypotheses, variables with their measurement sources, and the analysis plan follow in compact form. The memo ends on what the chosen design gives up.
The choice in one sentence
Quantitative method, correlational design, survey of marketing managers at association member firms. Stated before any justification, the sentence gives the committee a fixed target, so each reason that follows has something fixed to answer to.
Why not an experiment
Firms choose their own pre-show outreach, and no researcher can assign it. A quasi-experiment would need firms that changed practice at a known date, and the association's records show none. Correlation is the honest ceiling, and the memo says so.
The case design, credited and refused
Four firms studied closely would reveal how managers pick shows and define a qualified lead. The memo grants that value, then shows the question asks whether outreach predicts leads across firms, which close study of four cannot estimate.
Hypotheses that could fail
Outreach predicts qualified leads beyond booth spend; the null says it adds nothing. Written as a claim the data could contradict, the hypothesis follows Popper's criterion rather than a prediction phrased to survive any result.
What the choice gives up
The survey will rely on managers' own lead counts and definitions, which vary by firm. The closing paragraph names that measurement cost and notes that the refused case design would have exposed it.
Where marks go in DDBA 8300 Week 5
Graders open the design section looking for the rejected option, and its absence is marked before anything else. A memo naming only the chosen method invites the committee's most predictable question at the defense, and the week exists to answer it on paper first. Credit for the refusal depends on fairness: a case design dismissed as merely subjective has been caricatured, while one credited with what it would reveal and then shown to answer a different question has been argued down. The experiment paragraph earns its share by explaining why assignment is impossible here, rather than asserting that correlation is simpler. Hypotheses are checked for falsifiability and for alignment with the question's wording. The closing cost paragraph separates strong memos from the rest, because a choice that admits no loss has not yet been weighed.
Get a DDBA 8300 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 5 design prompt and rubric, your research question as it stands, and the tradition you expect to choose. A design memo that states the choice, argues down the refused option and names its own costs is back inside 24-48h; the first costs nothing. The memo's study concerns a parallel industry, which keeps the design section of your proposal yours to write.
DDBA 8300 Week 5 questions, answered
How long should the paragraph on the rejected design be?
Long enough to state the rejected design at its best, usually one substantial paragraph. It should say what that design would reveal, why the question does not need that revelation, and what different question would have favored it. Shorter treatments read as a formality. Longer ones start to argue for the design you declined, which leaves a reader unsure which one the memo actually chose.
Should the memo reject more than one alternative?
Name the main rival in full and mention others briefly. The main rival is usually the other tradition, since that is the choice this course asks you to defend. Designs within the chosen tradition, such as a quasi-experiment beside a correlational survey, deserve a sentence or two each. A full catalog of every refused design belongs in the alternatives appendix later in the term, not here.
Is a correlational design weaker than an experiment for a DBA study?
Weaker for causal claims, and often the only design a business setting allows. The memo's job is to match the claim to the design: a correlational study can show that outreach predicts leads after accounting for booth spend, and cannot show that adding outreach would produce more leads. Stated at that strength, a correlational design is fully defensible, and committees see many of them.