DDBA 8303 Week 3 Case Source Inventory Example

Course	DDBA 8303 Qualitative and Case Study Methodology for Business Analysis Research
Week	Week 3
Paper type	Source inventory
Length	About 770 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for DDBA 8303 Week 3

Everything the Site Can Give Up, Counted Before the First Interview: A Source Inventory for a Case Study of a Specialty Sauce Maker That Lost Its Largest Grocery Account, Rating Each Source for Access, Independence and Reach

Student Name

Walden University

DDBA 8303: Qualitative and Case Study Methodology for Business Analysis Research

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title states the inventory's timing and the three ratings it applies, which together show what evidence the case can draw on.

The Case and Its Question

Harlow Kitchen, a composite family-owned maker of barbecue sauces, marinades and hot sauces in Kansas City, lost its largest grocery account in late 2025, when a regional supermarket chain of 140 stores replaced Harlow's products with its own private label. The account had made up about 31 percent of Harlow's revenue. My research question asks what strategies the owners used to replace the lost revenue in the following year. Yin (2018) recommends drawing on several sources of evidence in case research, such as documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation and physical artifacts, so that findings rest on more than one kind of account. This inventory lists every source the site can provide before any interview takes place.

What this page is doingThe inventory begins with the question, because a source is worth listing only for the part of the question it can address.

The Inventory

Table 1

Sources, Ratings and the Part of the Question Each Can Address

Source	Type	Access	Independence	Part of the question it addresses \|
Two owners (siblings)	Interview	Agreed	Low: they designed the strategies	What strategies they chose and why \|
Sales manager	Interview	Agreed	Moderate	How new accounts were pursued \|
Production supervisor	Interview	Agreed	Moderate	How the plant adjusted volume and product mix \|
Food broker who represents Harlow	Interview	Likely	High: an outside party	How buyers at other chains responded \|
Board minutes and owners' planning notes, 2025-2026	Document	Agreed, with redactions	Low: written by the owners	What was decided and when \|
Monthly sales by customer and product	Archival record	Agreed	High: produced by the accounting system	Whether and where revenue was replaced \|
Correspondence with the supermarket chain	Document	Partial: owners will share selected emails	Low: selected by the owners	How the loss unfolded \|
New product launch materials and price lists	Document	Agreed	Moderate	What the owners offered new customers \|
Weekly production planning meeting	Observation	Agreed for four meetings	Moderate	How decisions are made now \|
Trade show booth at a regional food show	Observation	Agreed	Moderate	How Harlow presents itself to new buyers \|

Access as confirmed by the owners in September; ratings explained in the text.

How Each Rating Was Assigned

Access records whether the source is available and on what terms. Independence records how far the source's content was shaped by the people whose strategies the study examines. Bowen (2009) notes that documents are produced for purposes other than research and may be incomplete or selective, so their origin matters as much as their content. The board minutes and planning notes are valuable for dating decisions, but they were written by the owners, often after the fact, and they rate low on independence. The sales records rate high, because the accounting system records every invoice whether a strategy worked or not. The broker rates high because the broker works for many manufacturers and has no stake in how Harlow's owners look.

What this page is doingEach rating is explained, since a source's independence decides how much weight it can bear when accounts conflict.

What the Inventory Shows

The inventory shows that the question's two halves are unevenly covered. What the owners did is well covered by interviews, notes and launch materials, though most of these sources come from the owners themselves. Whether revenue was replaced, and from where, is covered by one highly independent source, the sales records. The weakest coverage concerns how outside buyers responded: only the broker can speak to that, and the owners have declined to let me contact the new customers directly. Prior (2003) argues that documents should be read as products of the work they served rather than as neutral records, which applies especially to the selected correspondence with the chain.

Gaps and How They Will Be Handled

Two gaps matter. The owners will share only selected emails with the supermarket chain, so the account of how the loss happened will lean on the owners' telling. I will treat that account as one perspective and look for dates in the sales records that confirm or complicate it. And no new customer will be interviewed. I will ask the broker to describe, without naming buyers, how three or four new accounts were won, and I will report this gap in the limitations.

Sources Left Off the List

Harlow's former customer, the supermarket chain, is not on the list. Its category manager might explain why the account was lost, but contacting the chain could damage Harlow's relationship with a buyer the owners hope to win back, and the owners asked me not to. The case will therefore tell the story of the loss from Harlow's side only.

References

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Prior, L. (2003). Using documents in social research. SAGE Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

What the DDBA 8303 Week 3 instructions ask for

Week 3 asks you to inventory every source of evidence your case site can provide before you begin interviews. Restate your research question. List people, documents, archival records and occasions for observation in a table, with the type of each source. Rate each for access, whether it is available and on what terms, and for independence, how far its content was shaped by the people whose actions you are studying. State which part of your research question each source can address. Explain how you assigned the ratings. Identify which parts of the question are well or poorly covered and how you will handle gaps. Note sources you chose to leave off and why. Plan on three or four pages around a single table.

Inside the DDBA 8303 Week 3 example

The inventory opens with Harlow Kitchen's loss and the question about replacing revenue, citing Yin's range of evidence types. A ten-row table lists sources with ratings: owners low on independence, the broker high, sales records high, selected emails low and partial. A section explains the ratings, drawing on Bowen's caution that documents are produced for other purposes. The coverage section shows what the owners did is well covered, mostly by owner-produced sources, while whether revenue was replaced rests on sales records and how buyers responded rests on the broker alone, with Prior on reading correspondence. Gaps are handled by checking dates against sales records and asking the broker about accounts without names. The former customer is left off at the owners' request.

Reading the DDBA 8303 Week 3 rubric

The inventory earns credit for honest ratings. A table that rates every source as available and useful shows little; one that marks owner-written notes as low in independence and accounting records as high shows the writer understands that sources differ in how much weight they can bear. Linking each source to a part of the research question is the analytic step that shows where evidence will be strong or thin. Instructors look for a frank account of gaps and a practical plan for each. Leaving a source off deliberately, with a reason, shows judgment about relationships and ethics. Sources on documents and case evidence should frame the ratings rather than appear as decoration.

Common DDBA 8303 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Inventories often list sources without asking who produced them. For each source, ask who created it, why and whether they had a stake in how it would look. That gives you independence. Ask whether you can actually get it and on what conditions. Then map each source to a piece of your question and look for pieces covered only by sources with low independence. Plan how you will check those, often against records produced automatically. Note any source you will not use and why. If your site's sources are hard to identify, a tutor can help you brainstorm what records a business like yours keeps.

Get a DDBA 8303 Week 3 example written to your instructions

Attach the Week 3 inventory prompt and rubric, and describe the site in a few lines: its size, the decision or event at the center, and who you expect to reach. The table and its supporting sections come back in 24-48h, the first request free. Sources are listed by type and role, never under a person's name.

More DDBA 8303 papers and DBA samples

DDBA 8303 Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free DDBA 8303 Week 3 sample paper?

The source inventory and its ten-row rating table appear in full further down this page, free of charge.

What case does the DDBA 8303 Week 3 inventory support?

A specialty sauce maker's strategies for replacing revenue after losing its largest grocery account.

How is a source's independence rated?

By how far its content was shaped by the people whose strategies are studied; owner notes rate low and accounting records high.

Which part of the question is weakest?

How outside buyers responded, which only the food broker can address since new customers cannot be contacted.

Which source is deliberately left off?

The former supermarket customer, at the owners' request, to avoid harming a relationship they hope to rebuild.