One case, stated by unit, activity and period, opens the DDBA 8303 Week 1 memo; each exclusion that follows is argued so a reader can test where the edge falls. Searches like "ddba 8303 week 1 assignment example", "ddba8303 week 1 sample" and "ddba 8303 week 1 example" land here.
What a finished DDBA 8303 Week 1 case boundary memo looks like
Three to four pages under memo headings, with a boundary table as the centerpiece. The case statement comes first in one sentence: the contractor's residential service department, from the owner's decision to sell annual plans through the first renewal cycle. The table then runs four columns, what is inside, what sits just outside, the reason, and the evidence that would move the line. Installation crews stay out because they report to a different manager and never sold a plan; commercial accounts stay out because their contracts predate the change. Of Yin's rationales for a single case, the longitudinal one fits, since the case spans a before and an after. Baxter and Jack's options for binding a case, by time and place, time and activity, or definition and context, supply the vocabulary for each edge.
How a DDBA 8303 Week 1 example is structured
The memo reads outward from the center. Its opening sentence states the case, and a second names the research question the case exists to answer, because an edge only makes sense relative to a question. Design comes next: single case or several, holistic or embedded, with the rejected option given a paragraph of its own. Here the embedded alternative, treating each service technician as a sub-unit, is argued down because the plan decision was made and revised at the department level. The boundary table follows, then a section on the hardest edge, whichever line a skeptical reader would dispute first; for this case it is whether the call center that books appointments sits inside. A closing paragraph lists what the boundary will cost the study later, such as losing any comparison with installation.
The case in one sentence
Department, activity and period in a single line: residential service, the sale of annual plans, owner's decision to first renewal. Every later edge is measured against this sentence, so it avoids adjectives and names nothing the study cannot later observe.
A design choice argued against its rival
Single holistic case, defended against the embedded version that would treat technicians as sub-units. The memo grants what the embedded design would add, variation across technicians, and explains why the decision under study never lived at that level.
Inside, just outside, and why
The boundary table pairs every exclusion with a reason and with the evidence that would move it. Installation stays out on reporting lines; commercial accounts stay out on contract dates. A reader can dispute either on stated grounds.
The contested edge
One section takes the edge most open to challenge, the appointment call center shared with installation, and argues it both ways before deciding. Admitting that an edge was close makes the decision easier to trust than a table presenting every line as obvious.
What the boundary costs
Drawing the line here gives up comparison with the installation side and with firms that tried service plans and quit. The memo names those losses now, so the later report cannot be faulted for evidence it chose, openly, not to seek.
Where marks go in DDBA 8303 Week 1
Marks sit on the exclusions more than on the case statement. A memo that names its case clearly but lists nothing outside it has left the edge undefended, and most rubrics for this week score that as description. The reasons column carries the analytic weight: an exclusion justified by reporting lines or contract dates can be checked, while one justified by convenience or scope cannot. Graders also read the design paragraph for a rival taken seriously; asserting a single case without saying why several, or an embedded version, would serve worse leaves the method choice unargued. The contested-edge section earns distinct credit at doctoral level because it shows judgment under uncertainty. Case statements that name a topic, such as service contracts in the HVAC trade, instead of a bounded thing lose ground at once.
Get a DDBA 8303 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 1 memo prompt and its rubric, plus a sentence on the organization and the decision you have in mind. A boundary memo with its full table comes back within 24-48h, and the first one is free. Only the case needs describing, never the company's name, because every edge is argued from role, unit and date.
DDBA 8303 Week 1 questions, answered
Can the case be the author's own employer?
Often, and many DDBA cases are. The memo then carries a sentence on the author's position inside the boundary, since an insider sees some edges clearly and misses others. What changes is the argument for each exclusion: familiarity cannot be the reason a unit stays in. Describe your employer by function in the request, and the memo treats the insider role as one more edge to defend.
How narrow should a single case be?
Narrow enough that every source in the study could plausibly speak to it. Merriam treats the case as a bounded system and makes delimiting it the defining step of case study research, which in practice means one unit, one activity and a dated period. A case too narrow to yield more than a couple of informed participants fails differently, and the memo shows it clears that floor as well.
Is the boundary allowed to change later in the term?
Yes, provided the change is stated and explained where it happens. Fieldwork sometimes shows that an excluded unit shaped the decision after all, and redrawing the line on that evidence is legitimate. What costs marks is an edge that moves without a sentence admitting it. The Week 1 table becomes the record against which any later move is measured, which is why its reasons deserve care.