DDBA 8303's second deliverable profiles the organization holding the case: its form, size, structure and recent history, rendered closely enough that an outsider could picture the unit under study. Searches like "ddba 8303 week 2 assignment example", "ddba8303 week 2 sample" and "ddba 8303 week 2 example" land here.
What a finished DDBA 8303 Week 2 site profile looks like
Three to five pages of continuous prose with one organizational chart as an exhibit. The profile opens on ownership and governance, since a cooperative answering to a volunteer board behaves differently from a bank answering to shareholders. Size appears in ranges rather than exact figures, assets and headcount both, which keeps the credit union unidentifiable without making it vague. The middle section walks through the lending office as a visitor would meet it: the underwriters' room, the queue of applications forwarded from branches, the weekly call where approvals are reviewed. History enters only where it bears on the case, chiefly the consolidation two years earlier. Stake's distinction between intrinsic and instrumental cases explains why this organization matters: it is studied for what it shows about centralized approval, not for its own sake.
How a DDBA 8303 Week 2 example is structured
Movement is from the outside in. Governance and ownership lead, then size and market, then the structure of the unit inside the boundary, so a reader meets the case already knowing what surrounds it. Each paragraph answers a question a stranger would ask on arrival, who decides, who reports to whom, what a normal week looks like, and nothing a stranger would not need. History is compressed to the dated events that shaped the lending office. A short section on the author's relationship to the site follows, because a profile written by an employee and one written by an outsider see different things. The profile ends by restating the boundary in concrete terms, now that the reader can picture where it runs: the lending office and the eleven branch managers who once approved loans, and nothing further.
Governance before size
A cooperative owned by its members and overseen by a volunteer board decides differently from a stock bank. The profile states that first, because every later description of how approvals work depends on whom the office ultimately answers to.
Figures in ranges
Assets, members and staff appear as bands rather than exact counts. Ranges keep the credit union from being identified through public financial filings while still telling a reader whether to picture a small institution or a regional one.
The unit as a visitor meets it
Rooms, queues and routines are described in the order someone arriving would encounter them. Thick description in Geertz's sense means context that lets a reader interpret what people do, so each detail is chosen because a later finding will lean on it.
History that bears on the case
Only the consolidation of approvals, its date and the reasons given at the time. Earlier mergers and the founding story stay out unless the analysis needs them, since a profile that retells the whole past blurs the boundary set in Week 1.
The author's position
Employee, former employee, member or stranger: the profile says which, and what that position makes easy or hard to see. Readers judge a description partly by who produced it, and stating the position plainly removes a question they would otherwise raise.
Where marks go in DDBA 8303 Week 2
Graders test the profile with a simple question: could someone who has never set foot there picture the lending office and the people in it? Profiles that open with the credit union sector, national membership totals and regulatory history spend their pages on context the case does not need and land in the middle band. The unit-level description carries the most weight, particularly routines and reporting lines described concretely enough to anchor later findings. Disguise is marked as well: exact asset figures or a named town can identify a small institution, and doctoral readers treat that as an ethics lapse rather than a style issue. Credit also follows the stated rationale for studying this site, instrumental or intrinsic, and a final share goes to the closing restatement of the boundary.
Get a DDBA 8303 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk what kind of organization holds your case and which unit sits inside the boundary, then attach the Week 2 prompt and rubric. The site profile is drafted in 24-48h, free as a first sample. Real names never appear in it; a comparable organization is described in ranges and roles, and anything identifying stays with you.
DDBA 8303 Week 2 questions, answered
How much industry background belongs in a site profile?
A paragraph at most, placed where it explains something about the site. That credit unions are member-owned matters here because it shapes governance; national membership trends usually do not. Background that could sit unchanged in a profile of any organization in the sector is a sign the profile has drifted from the case. Keep the pages for the unit your reader has to picture.
Should the organization be disguised in the profile?
In almost every case, yes. Pseudonyms, figures given as ranges and locations described by region rather than by town keep a small organization from being recognized. Review boards generally expect that care wherever a site could be identified, and a course paper is a sensible place to practice it. Disguise works best when it changes identifiers and leaves the operational detail intact.
Can the profile draw on the organization's own website and reports?
Yes, though citing them by title would identify the site, so most profiles describe them generically: the annual report, the published strategic plan, the member newsletter. These sources show how the institution presents itself, which may differ from how the lending office works day to day, and the profile notes that difference where it appears. Promotional wording repeated as fact weakens the description.