| Course | GB730 Applied Business Research Design and Methodology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Problem and purpose memo |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB730 Unit 2
A Problem and a Purpose That Produce Each Other: A Unit 2 Memo for a Study of Revenue Management Overrides
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB730: Applied Business Research Design and Methodology
Unit 2 Problem and Purpose Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hotel company, its figures and its people are composite and illustrative; the studies cited are real.
Memo
TO: Course instructor FROM: DBA candidate, senior revenue analyst SUBJECT: Problem and purpose statements for a study of revenue management system overrides
The Problem
Broad problem. Hotel companies have widely adopted revenue management systems that recommend room rates using forecasts of demand, yet revenue managers frequently override the recommendations, and evidence on whether overrides add or lose revenue is limited. Research on algorithm aversion shows that people often reject algorithmic advice even when it outperforms them (Dietvorst et al., 2015), but also that they use algorithms more readily when allowed to adjust them slightly (Dietvorst et al., 2018). Whether hotel managers' overrides reflect valuable local knowledge or unfounded distrust has not been established.
Specific problem. Some senior revenue leaders at hotel management companies lack evidence on how revenue managers' override decisions relate to occupancy and room rates, and on the reasons managers give for overriding.
Evidence at Three Levels
Industry. Revenue management has moved from rule-based to automated systems over two decades, and practitioners have described a continuing tension between the science of forecasting and the art of judgment (Cross et al., 2009).
Organization. At the candidate's company, the revenue index compared with each hotel's competitive set fell from 104.6 to 102.5 between 2023 and 2025, while occupancy remained within a point of its earlier level. Managers overrode the system's recommended rate on about 23 percent of hotel-nights in 2025. Leadership disagrees about whether overrides explain the decline: one view holds that managers override too often and too timidly, the other that they do not override enough.
Literature. Studies of algorithm aversion have mostly used laboratory tasks with clear right answers. Field evidence from hotel revenue management, where managers may hold information the system lacks, is scarce.
The Purpose
This study, using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, will examine the relationship between revenue managers' overrides of system-recommended room rates and hotel-night occupancy and average daily rate, at hotels operated by one hotel management company in the Midwestern and Southeastern United States, and then to explore how revenue managers describe their reasons for overriding, so that the qualitative findings can help explain the quantitative results.
The Purpose, Element by Element
Each element of the purpose statement answers to the problem. Method and design, explanatory sequential mixed methods, answer the problem's two parts: whether overrides relate to outcomes, a quantitative question, and why managers override, a qualitative one, with the second used to explain the first. The predictor, override of the recommended rate, is the decision the problem names. The outcomes, occupancy and average daily rate, are the two components of revenue per available room, kept separate because an override can raise one while lowering the other. The population and setting, hotel-nights at one company's hotels, are where the specific problem was observed. The qualitative phenomenon, managers' described reasons, is the knowledge-versus-distrust question the broad problem raises.
The Trace Table
Reading across, each part of the problem produces one part of the purpose. The broad problem's uncertainty about overrides produces the study's focus on override decisions. The specific problem's lack of evidence on outcomes produces the quantitative strand on occupancy and rate. Its lack of evidence on reasons produces the qualitative strand on managers' accounts. The organizational evidence of a declining revenue index produces the setting. And the literature's lack of field evidence produces the choice of an applied study in an operating company rather than a laboratory task.
Reading back, nothing in the purpose lacks a source in the problem. Creswell and Creswell (2018) describe this alignment as the backbone of a proposal, and the trace table is a way of showing it before research questions are written.
A purpose statement that adds an element the problem never mentioned is the first crack in a proposal's alignment.
Why the Problem Presupposes Nothing
The problem is written so that either answer would solve it. If the study found that overrides associate with higher rates and no loss of occupancy, leadership would have evidence to widen managers' authority. If it found the opposite, leadership would have evidence to narrow it. If it found that some managers' overrides help and others' hurt, the qualitative strand would show what distinguishes them. A problem stated as "managers override too often" would have committed the study to one of those outcomes before it began, and the purpose would then have been written to confirm it.
What the Memo Leaves for Later
The memo does not yet state research questions, which Unit 3 will write and test against this purpose. It does not commit to a sampling plan, since the hotel-night data may cover every night at every hotel. And it does not resolve whether owners' consent will be required for access to their hotels' data, a question for the site access plan in Unit 5.
References
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Cross, R. G., Higbie, J. A., & Cross, D. Q. (2009). Revenue management's renaissance: A rebirth of the art and science of profitable revenue generation. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50(1), 56-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965508328716
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018). Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Science, 64(3), 1155-1170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643
The Purdue Global GB730 Unit 2 instructions
The Unit 2 memo in GB730 asks you to write the study's problem and purpose and to prove they belong together. State a broad problem in your industry and narrow it to a specific problem for a defined group of leaders. Support the problem with evidence from the industry, from your organization and from the research literature, keeping those levels separate. Then write one purpose statement carrying the method, the design, the variables or central phenomenon, the population and the setting. Break the purpose into its elements and show where each one comes from in the problem. A trace table, or a paragraph that does the same job, is expected in most sections. Explain why your problem does not assume its answer. Note what the memo leaves for later units, such as research questions and access.
How the GB 730 Unit 2 example is put together
The memo opens with a header and states the broad problem with Dietvorst's two studies on algorithm aversion. The specific problem follows in a single sentence. Evidence comes in three labeled parts: Cross and colleagues on the art and science of revenue management, the company's own index decline and 23 percent override rate, and a literature mostly drawn from laboratory tasks. The purpose statement names an explanatory sequential design, overrides as the predictor, occupancy and average daily rate as outcomes and managers' reasons as the qualitative focus. An element by element section and a trace table tie each part back to the problem, and the highlighted sentence warns about elements with no source. The memo then shows three possible findings, each of which would answer leadership's question, and lists what Units 3 and 5 still have to settle.
Reading the GB730 Unit 2 grading rubric
Points in the GB730 problem and purpose memo follow alignment above everything else. A specific problem that names who lacks what evidence is weighted more heavily than an eloquent broad problem. Evidence earns credit when it is separated into industry, organizational and scholarly levels, with a figure from the actual workplace. The purpose statement is checked element by element: method, design, variables, population and setting must all be present, and none can appear without a source in the problem. Showing that link in a table or traced paragraph is where many instructors place the largest share of marks. A neutral problem, one that does not presuppose the result, is judged separately. Accurate APA 7 citations for the methods text and the studies supporting the problem close out the grade.
Common GB730 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB730 Unit 2 drafts write a problem that already contains its answer, such as managers override too often, and then design a study to confirm it. Another common slip is a purpose statement that adds a variable or a population the problem never mentioned. Students often blur the broad and specific problems into one long paragraph. Organizational evidence is sometimes left out because it feels informal, yet it is what makes an applied doctoral problem real. The trace table gets skipped when time runs short, which removes the evidence of alignment the instructor is grading. Write the specific problem in one sentence, gather three levels of evidence, build the purpose from its parts, trace each part back and test whether every finding would answer the problem. Tell us your workplace problem and we can draft a matched pair for it.
Get a GB730 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Share the topic, any problem and purpose drafts that exist and the Unit 2 memo guidance with its rubric. A custom memo, ready within 24-48h, pairs a problem that presupposes no answer with a purpose derived from it, element by element, alongside a trace table proving the match. No payment is asked for the first. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB730 papers and MBA samples
- GB730 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB730 Unit 3: Question Alignment Exercise
- GB730 Unit 4: Design Justification
- GB730 Unit 5: Site Access Plan
- GB730 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB730 Unit 7: Instrument Development Memo
- GB730 Unit 8: Qualitative Rigor Plan
- GB730 Unit 9: Data Analysis Plan
- GB730 Unit 10: Methodology Chapter Draft
- GB720 Unit 2: Policy Instrument Analysis
- GB710 Unit 2: Issue Brief
- GB701 Unit 2: Descriptive Summary Exercise
- GB700 Unit 2: Article Critique
GB730 Unit 2 questions, answered
How long should a GB730 problem statement be?
Usually 250 to 400 words, though sections vary. Length matters less than containing the parts: the problem itself, evidence at scholarly and organizational levels, what is unknown and why it matters. A problem statement running to several pages is usually a literature review in disguise, and instructors tend to ask for it to be cut back.
Can the purpose statement change later?
Yes, and it usually does, but every change has to travel through the chain. If the design shifts from mixed to quantitative in Unit 4, the purpose statement and research questions change with it. Keeping the trace table current makes those revisions visible rather than leaving mismatches for a committee to discover at proposal.
Does the problem need a gap in the literature?
Applied doctorates often frame the problem around a business need, with the literature showing what is known and unknown. A gap statement helps, but it should follow from the business problem rather than replace it. Saying nobody has studied this exact firm is not a gap; saying research has not examined overrides of algorithmic price guidance is.
Where can I find a free GB730 Unit 2 sample paper?
A complete GB730 Unit 2 problem and purpose memo is on this page, built around a hotel company's falling revenue index and its managers' overrides, with a trace table linking each purpose element to the problem.
What is the difference between a broad and a specific problem?
The broad problem describes an issue across an industry or field. The specific problem narrows it to a defined group, here senior revenue leaders at hotel management companies, and names exactly what they lack.