| Course | MGMT 8815M Managing by Design Theory |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Peer reply |
| Length | About 510 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 8815M Week 9
Week 9 Discussion: Reading a Solution Backward
What Problem Does Your Solution Assume? Two Peer Replies That Restate a Classmate's Shift-Swap App and Another's Benefits Chatbot as the Problems Each Presumes, Offer a Rival Frame From the Classmate's Own Details and Ask a Question Evidence Could Settle
Response to Marisol
Marisol, your proposal is an app that shows hotel housekeepers which shifts are open for swapping. If that is the answer, the problem it assumes is that housekeepers cannot see who might trade with them. That is a reasonable reading, and the app would solve it well.
Your own post, though, supports a second reading just as strongly. You mention that every swap at the Riverside property needs the housekeeping manager's approval, and that the manager approves swaps only after checking that each room attendant keeps her weekly room quota. If approvals are where swaps fail, the problem is not visibility but a rule that makes many swaps impossible before anyone looks for a partner. The app would then show more open shifts that still could not be traded. Schön (1983) distinguished setting a problem from solving it, and argued that the setting step decides which features of a situation we treat as relevant. Your post set the problem around information; the approval rule suggests it might be set around permission.
My question is one your scheduling records could answer. Over the last three months, how many swaps were requested and denied, compared with how many were never requested at all? If denials are rare, your framing holds and the app is the right design. If denials are common, the approval rule deserves a look before the app is built.
Response to Gareth
Gareth, your design is a chatbot that answers benefits questions for the 900 employees at the Kelso plant. The problem it assumes is that employees cannot find answers in the benefits guide and need a faster way to ask.
A detail in your post points to a different problem. You note that the plant changed insurers last year and that the new plans have names like "Choice Plus 2500" and "Core HSA 3400" that do not appear anywhere on employees' pay stubs, which still show the old plan names. If most questions are some form of "which plan am I on, and is it the one in the guide," the trouble lies in two documents that disagree. A chatbot trained on the guide would answer questions about plans employees cannot match to their own records. Paton and Dorst (2011) described reframing as a negotiation in which the designer questions the brief the client brought; your brief came from HR, and HR's guide may be where the problem starts rather than where it ends.
Could you check the HR inbox for the last open enrollment period and count what share of questions concern plan names or which plan an employee holds? Dorst (2015) argued that a new frame proves its worth when it opens responses the old one hid; here, fixing the pay stub label would cost far less than a chatbot, if the count supports that frame.
References
Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.
Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6), 573-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.002
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
The Walden MGMT 8815M Week 9 instructions
For the Week 9 discussion you answer two classmates, each of whom posted a proposed solution. In each reply, begin by restating the classmate's solution as the problem it presumes, in one sentence. Then offer a rival frame that the classmate's own details support equally well, drawing on something already in their post rather than on your own experience. End on a question that records within the classmate's reach could settle. Use one source in each reply to name the move you are making. Do not critique the solution's features, cost or usability; this week is about the problem underneath the solution. Keep the two replies of similar length, roughly a page between them.
How the MGMT 8815M Week 9 example is put together
Marisol's reply restates her swap app as an answer to housekeepers being unable to see who might trade. Her own mention of the manager's room-quota approval becomes the rival frame: perhaps swaps fail on permission, not visibility. Schön's account of problem setting names the move, and the reply asks how many swaps were denied compared with never requested. Gareth's reply restates his chatbot as an answer to employees who cannot find information, then uses his note about new plan names missing from pay stubs to suggest two documents that disagree. Paton and Dorst on renegotiating a brief and Dorst's frame innovation support it, and the reply asks him to count enrollment questions about plan names.
Where the marks sit in the MGMT 8815M Week 9 rubric
Credit rests mainly on the one-sentence restatement, which shows whether you can see the problem inside a proposed solution. The rival frame must come from the classmate's own details; frames imported from outside earn less because the classmate cannot test them. The closing question is judged on whether evidence could actually answer it, so questions of opinion score lower. Each source should name a specific move rather than decorate the reply. Tone counts: replies should invite the classmate to widen their frame, not defend it. Replies that grade the solution's features, that praise without analysis or that pose questions with no route to an answer fall into the lower range, as does a pair of replies of very unequal length.
MGMT 8815M Week 9 help: mistakes that cost marks
Read each classmate's post twice: once for the solution, once for details they mention in passing, such as rules, approvals, documents or schedules. Those details are where rival frames usually hide. Write the restatement as a conditional: if the answer is this, then the assumed problem is that. Phrase your rival frame as a possibility, not a correction. Make your final question specific enough that a count or a record would answer it. Keep each reply to about half a page. Avoid commenting on whether the solution would work. If you would like feedback on whether your rival frames are fair to the classmate, a tutor can read them, and the Marisol and Gareth replies above repeat the move on two cases.
Get a MGMT 8815M Week 9 example written to your instructions
Two classmate solutions are needed for this one, copied from the thread, together with the Week 9 reply instructions and the participation rubric. Replies that reconstruct each solution's tacit frame return inside 24 to 48 hours, a first request being free. Classmate names become placeholders before any drafting begins, and nothing else from the thread is used.
More MGMT 8815M papers and PhD in Management samples
- MGMT 8815M Week 1: Discussion Post
- MGMT 8815M Week 2: Problem Framing Brief
- MGMT 8815M Week 3: Field Research Memo
- MGMT 8815M Week 4: Reframing Analysis
- MGMT 8815M Week 5: Prototype Critique
- MGMT 8815M Week 6: Concept Brief
- MGMT 8815M Week 7: Service Blueprint Memo
- MGMT 8815M Week 8: Design Critique
- MGMT 8815M Week 10: Implementation Memo
- MGMT 8815M Week 11: Design Argument
- MGMT 8825M Week 1: Discussion Post
- MGMT 8805M Week 9: Peer Reply
- MGMT 8725M Week 9: Retention Analysis
- MGMT 8705M Week 9: Instrument Review
MGMT 8815M Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 8815M Week 9 sample paper?
Both replies, to Marisol and to Gareth, are reproduced above with margin notes.
What move does the MGMT 8815M Week 9 sample make?
It restates each classmate's solution as the problem it assumes, then offers a rival frame from their own post.
What rival frame does the reply to Marisol offer?
That swaps fail because a manager's room-quota approval blocks them, not because staff cannot see partners.
What question closes the reply to Gareth?
What share of open enrollment emails asked about plan names or which plan an employee holds.
Should a Week 9 reply comment on the solution's features?
No; the replies concern the problem beneath each solution, so features and costs are left alone.