Six kinds of evidence are weighed in this Week 3 inventory, each listed with its holder, what it can speak to, what it cannot, and whether it stands independent of the others. Searches like "ddba 8303 week 3 assignment example", "ddba8303 week 3 sample" and "ddba 8303 week 3 example" land here.
What a finished DDBA 8303 Week 3 source inventory looks like
Three to four pages, most of it a single inventory table with one row per source. The rows follow Yin's six sources of evidence: documents such as the owner's memo announcing the response plan, archival records such as a year of order and shipment data, interviews with the sales director, plant manager and two line supervisors, direct observation of the weekly production-planning meeting, participant observation where the author holds a role, and physical artifacts like the relabeled packaging made for a new retailer. Columns record who holds each source, what it can speak to, what it cannot, and whether access is confirmed, promised or doubtful. A paragraph on independence follows the table, noting that the sales director wrote the memo and will also be interviewed, so those two rows are one voice heard twice.
How a DDBA 8303 Week 3 example is structured
The inventory opens with the case statement and research question carried forward from Week 1, because a source is only useful relative to what it must help answer. The table follows and takes most of the space. After it comes a section on independence, grouping sources by who produced them, since convergence later in the term means little when two sources share an author. A coverage section maps each part of the research question to the sources able to speak to it and marks any part resting on a single row. Gaps get their own paragraph: evidence that exists but cannot be reached, such as the retailer's side of the account loss, and what the study loses without it. The inventory closes by naming the two sources the analysis will lean on hardest, with the reason for each.
One row per source
Each row names the source, its holder, what it speaks to and what it cannot. A year of shipment data can show when volume fell and recovered; it cannot say why the plant manager reordered the production schedule, and the row says so.
Access graded honestly
Confirmed, promised or doubtful, with the gatekeeper named by role. A source marked confirmed when only a verbal yes exists misleads the reader about how much the study can count on, so the grade reflects what is actually in hand.
Who produced what
Sources are grouped by author. The sales director's memo and the sales director's interview are one perspective recorded twice, and the inventory says so, because the convergence claim due in Week 7 depends on independent sources rather than repeated ones.
Question parts mapped to rows
Every part of the research question is matched to the sources able to address it. A part served only by interviews is flagged, since a case resting on one kind of evidence is the weakness this course most wants avoided.
Evidence out of reach
The retailer's reasons for dropping the account exist but sit beyond the boundary and beyond access. The inventory names that gap and its consequence: the case can describe the response, not fully explain the loss.
Where marks go in DDBA 8303 Week 3
Credit concentrates in the columns a hurried inventory leaves blank. Listing six sources earns little; saying what each cannot speak to, and who controls it, earns the analytic share, because those columns decide what the study can later claim. Markers read the independence section closely. Treating a manager's memo and that manager's interview as two confirming sources is the double count this inventory exists to expose, and spotting it here shows the convergence logic arriving early. The coverage map carries its own weight, since a question part resting on interviews alone is visible there and nowhere else. Graders also reward candor about gaps, and an inventory grading every source as confirmed reads as untested. Participant choices are checked against purposeful sampling: people included because they hold information, not because they agreed first.
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.
DDBA 8303 Week 3 questions, answered
Does every one of the six source types need a row?
No. Yin's list works as a menu, not a quota, and some cases have no physical artifacts or no role for participant observation. The inventory still names the missing types and says why they do not apply, which shows the absence was considered. What most rubrics expect is at least two kinds of evidence beyond interviews, enough for convergence to be tested later in the term.
How many interview participants should the inventory list?
As many as the question needs and the site holds, which in a single business case is often a small number of well-placed people. Patton's argument for purposeful sampling applies: participants are chosen because they are information-rich about the case, not for representativeness. The inventory explains each choice by role. A long list of peripheral names adds rows without adding evidence.
What if key documents are confidential?
Then the inventory says so and grades access accordingly. Some organizations allow a document to be read on site but not copied, or summarized but not quoted, and each condition limits how the source can appear in the report. Recording those terms now prevents a findings section built on material that cannot be shown. A doubtful source should never carry a question part alone.