DDBA 9000 Week 4 Committee Response Matrix Example

Twenty-Six Comments, Each Closed on One Line: A Review Response Matrix for a Study of How Hospital Supply Chain Managers Prevent Stockouts, With Exact Locators and Reasons for the Four Comments Not Fully Accepted

Student Name

Walden University

DDBA 9000: Doctoral Study Completion

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Twenty-Six Comments, Each Closed on One Line: A Review Response Matrix for a Study of How Hospital Supply Chain Managers Prevent Stockouts, With Exact Locators and Reasons for the Four Comments Not Fully Accepted

Preface

This matrix responds to the second committee member's review of the study of strategies hospital supply chain managers use to prevent stockouts of critical medical supplies. The review contained 26 comments. Twenty-two were accepted as written, two were accepted with modification and two were declined with reasons. Each row quotes the comment exactly, states the disposition, describes the change and gives the page and line where it can be found in the tracked copy. A clean copy is also enclosed.

Selected Rows

[after]

Table 1

Excerpt From the Response Matrix

The Declined Comments

Comment 14 suggested a survey of nurses. The research question asks what strategies managers use, and nurses' experience of stockouts, though relevant to impact, would answer a different question. Triangulation is already provided by inventory documents and member checking. Fusch and Ness (2015) noted that data saturation and triangulation can be achieved through multiple sources within a qualitative design, and the study uses documents for that purpose.

Comment 21 proposed replacing the conceptual framework. The framework was approved at the proposal stage, and the findings, especially managers' dual sourcing to reduce dependence on single suppliers, fit it closely. Replacing it now would require reanalysis without a clear gain. I have added two paragraphs explaining the fit. Yin (2018) emphasized that theory developed before data collection guides a case study's design and analysis, which is a further reason not to substitute a framework after the fact.

Modified Acceptances

For comment 18, two hospitals shared cost data and two did not, so recommendations now include cost ranges where evidence exists and say where it does not. For comment 23, the limitation was added with a note that inventory records corroborate managers' accounts.

Saturation Rationale Added

In response to comment 7, the methods section now reports that no new codes appeared in the fourth case's interview or documents. Guest et al. (2006) reported in their study that most codes emerged early, but the added rationale rests on this study's own code tracking.

Pattern in the Comments

Grouping the 26 comments shows where the draft was weakest. Nine concerned alignment between problem, purpose and population, seven concerned evidence for themes, five concerned methods detail, three concerned recommendations and two concerned formatting. The alignment comments were the most consequential, because a population mismatch between the problem statement and the purpose would have carried into every later section. Fixing the problem statement first, comment 3, resolved four other comments that depended on it, which the matrix notes in the response column for each.

Communication With the Reviewer

Before submitting, I sent the reviewer a short note explaining the two declined comments, so the reasons arrive before the matrix rather than as a surprise in it. The reviewer replied that the explanation for comment 14 was acceptable and asked to see the added framework paragraphs for comment 21, which are on page 17.

Effect on the Study's Length

The revisions added about six pages, mostly evidence for themes and the saturation table, and removed about two from an overlong literature review. The net change keeps the study within the program's guideline, and the revised table of contents is attached so the reviewer can see where sections moved.

Closing the Cycle

The reviewer can verify each change from the matrix and tracked copy without rereading the full study.

References

Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

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