| Course | GB730 Applied Business Research Design and Methodology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Instrument development memo |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB730 Unit 7
Every Variable Has an Origin: A Unit 7 Instrument Development Memo for the Hotel Rate Override Study
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB730: Applied Business Research Design and Methodology
Unit 7 Instrument Development Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hotel company, its systems and every field name are composite and illustrative; the methods sources cited are real.
Memo
To: GB730 instructor From: Doctoral candidate and hotel revenue analyst Re: The extraction protocol and interview guide for both phases
What the Instruments Must Answer
The study has three research questions, fixed in Unit 3. The first asks how overrides are associated with occupancy and average daily rate after adjustment for demand. The second asks how revenue managers describe the reasoning behind their decisions to override or accept recommended rates. The third asks how those accounts help explain the associations. The quantitative instrument is an extraction protocol that turns system records into a dataset; it answers the first question. The qualitative instrument is an interview protocol; it answers the second. The third question is answered by combining the two, so each instrument has to produce something the other can be matched against. The extraction carries a coded manager identifier, and the interview record carries the same code, which is what allows the comparison.
The Extraction Protocol
The unit of analysis is the hotel-night: one hotel, one arrival date. Three years at 22 hotels yields about 24,000 hotel-nights. Each variable in the protocol has five entries: its name, its source system and field, its definition, its coding rule and the known problems with it.
The predictor. A hotel-night is coded as overridden if, at any point in the 60 days before arrival, the published best available rate differed from the system's recommended rate by more than 2 percent for at least 24 hours. Both rates come from the revenue management system's rate history table, which records every recommendation and every publication with a time stamp. The 2 percent threshold excludes rounding: managers commonly publish a rate ending in 9 when the system recommends a rate a dollar or two away, and counting those as overrides would label ordinary formatting as judgment. The 24-hour minimum excludes rates changed by mistake and corrected within the day. Three further variables describe each override: its direction, above or below the recommendation; its depth, as the largest percentage gap; and its lead time, as days before arrival when it began.
The outcomes. Occupancy is the share of available rooms that were sold, with both counts taken from the property management system's nightly audit table. Rooms available excludes rooms out of order, which matters because a hotel renovating a floor would otherwise appear to have low occupancy. Average daily rate is room revenue divided by rooms sold, from the same table.
The adjustment variables. Five variables describe the demand a manager could see when deciding. Bookings on hand at fourteen days before arrival, as a share of rooms available, comes from the revenue management system's booking pace table. The system's own occupancy forecast at fourteen days comes from its forecast table, and including it is essential, since an override is a disagreement with exactly that forecast. Competitors' median rate at fourteen days comes from the rate-shopping service's export. A local event flag comes from the company's event calendar, which revenue managers maintain. Day of week and month come from the arrival date. Two further variables, group rooms blocked and the hotel's service level, describe the hotel and the business it carries.
The identifiers. Each record carries a coded hotel, a coded manager responsible for that hotel on that date and the arrival date. Manager assignment comes from the human resources system's position history, since about 30 people held revenue manager roles across the three years.
Known Problems in the Records
Three problems are documented before extraction. First, in March 2024 the revenue management system was upgraded and its rate codes renamed, so the protocol includes a crosswalk between old and new codes. Second, the rate-shopping service failed to capture competitors' rates on some nights, mostly holidays; these nights will be flagged, not dropped, and the analysis plan in Unit 9 will decide how to treat them. Third, a small number of hotel-nights show rates published directly in the booking engine, bypassing the revenue management system; these will be identified by comparing the two systems' records and coded as overrides with a separate flag.
A variable whose problems are written down before extraction can be defended; one whose problems are discovered after can only be explained.
The Interview Protocol
The interview protocol follows the phases Kallio et al. (2016) identify for developing a semi-structured guide: using previous knowledge, formulating a preliminary guide, testing it and presenting the complete guide. Castillo-Montoya (2016) adds a check that each question is aligned with a research question and phrased conversationally rather than in academic terms, and each question below was checked that way.
Seven questions are fixed now. The opening question asks the manager to describe a typical morning's work on rates, which puts the system in context before any question about overriding. The second asks the manager to walk through the last time they changed a recommended rate, including what they noticed first. The third asks about a time they considered overriding and decided not to. The fourth asks what information they use that they think the system does not have. The fifth asks how they know, afterward, whether an override worked. The sixth asks how the bonus plan figures in their decisions, if at all. The seventh asks what they would want the system to do differently.
Two questions are placeholders, to be written after the first phase. One will ask about the specific pattern the manager's records show, for example overrides concentrated on weekends or before events. The other will ask about whatever contrast the quantitative results produce between groups of managers. Leaving these blank is deliberate: in an explanatory sequential design, what the interviews ask depends on what the records showed (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), and writing these questions now would mean writing them without the results they are meant to follow.
How the Instruments Will Be Reviewed
The extraction protocol will be reviewed by the director of information systems for field accuracy and tested on one hotel-month before the full extraction. The interview protocol will be reviewed by two revenue managers at another company, reached through the lodging association, who will read the questions and say which are unclear or would make them uncomfortable. Neither review involves collecting study data, and neither will start before the study holds approval from the university's review board.
References
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811-831. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Kallio, H., Pietila, A., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Reading the GB 730 Unit 7 instructions
Unit 7 of GB730 asks you to develop and document the instruments your study will use. Tie each instrument to the research question it answers, and show how the instruments can be matched to each other if the design is mixed. For records, write an extraction protocol: name each variable, its source system and field, its definition, its coding rule and any known problem with it. Justify any threshold or cutoff that turns raw data into a variable. For interviews, list the questions with their sources, whether a research question, prior research or a published framework, and describe the probes. Explain any question you are leaving open and why. Describe how each instrument will be reviewed or piloted, and confirm that nothing will happen before review board approval. Seven pages with appendices is a common length.
How this GB730 Unit 7 example is built
The memo opens with a header and links the two instruments to the three research questions, explaining that a shared manager code lets them be compared. The extraction protocol defines the hotel-night as the unit and then describes the predictor, the outcomes, five demand variables, two hotel variables and the identifiers, each with its field and rule. The 2 percent and 24-hour override rule is justified against rounding and quick corrections. Three known record problems are documented before extraction, and the highlighted sentence explains why. The interview protocol follows Kallio and colleagues' phases and Castillo-Montoya's alignment check, with each of the seven fixed questions described in a sentence. Two placeholder questions are explained by the design's sequence. The memo ends with reviews by the systems director and two outside revenue managers.
Where the points sit in the GB730 Unit 7 rubric
GB730 instructors award points on the instrument memo for traceability. Every variable should lead to a named field and every question to a source, and gaps in that chain cost marks. Definitions and coding rules are judged on whether another researcher could apply them identically. A justified threshold, such as the one separating an override from rounding, shows careful measurement thinking. Documenting known problems before data collection is weighted well because it shows the student knows the records. For interview protocols, the rubric looks for alignment with research questions and for a recognized framework behind the guide. Placeholder questions are acceptable when the design requires them and the memo explains why. Review and pilot plans must respect the rule that no data are collected before approval.
GB730 Unit 7 help from the desk
Many GB730 instrument memos list variables by name without saying which system field they come from or how they are coded. Thresholds are often chosen without explanation, which invites a committee to ask why. Students using records sometimes skip known data problems, then discover them after extraction. Interview guides are frequently written as a list of questions with no stated sources or alignment. Mixed designs often lack a way to link the two instruments. Some memos describe pilots that would collect data before approval. Name the field behind each variable, write the coding rule, justify each cutoff, record the known problems, source every question, link the instruments and schedule reviews after approval. Share your variable list, and we can turn it into a documented protocol.
Get a GB730 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Upload your current instruments or item list, the research questions they serve and whatever Unit 7 requires, rubric included. Returned within 24-48h, a custom memo traces each item, on the records side and the interview side alike, to a field, study or rule, defines every threshold and reports what review changed. A first memo is supplied without cost. 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 2: Problem and Purpose Memo
- GB730 Unit 3: Question Alignment Exercise
- GB730 Unit 4: Design Justification
- GB730 Unit 5: Site Access Plan
- GB730 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB730 Unit 8: Qualitative Rigor Plan
- GB730 Unit 9: Data Analysis Plan
- GB730 Unit 10: Methodology Chapter Draft
- GB720 Unit 7: Scholarly Debate Memo
- GB710 Unit 7: Stakeholder Impact Assessment
- GB701 Unit 7: Hypothesis Test Writeup
- GB700 Unit 7: Scholarly Voice Exercise
GB730 Unit 7 questions, answered
Can a GB730 study use existing records instead of a survey?
Yes, and many applied studies do. Organizational records often measure behavior more accurately than self-report can. The instrument then becomes an extraction protocol, and it needs the same documentation as a survey: definitions, sources, coding rules and known errors. Access to records requires permission, which belongs in the site access plan. Records also spare busy staff the time a survey would take.
How should interview questions be sourced?
Tie each to a research question and, where possible, to prior research or theory that suggested it. Probes can be more flexible, but the core questions should be justifiable one by one. Documenting sources protects the protocol from the charge that it was built to confirm the researcher's expectations, a concern reviewers raise often.
What does piloting involve at the proposal stage?
Usually a small trial with people similar to the intended participants, or a trial run of an extraction on a sample of records. Some programs restrict piloting before review board approval, so check your program's rules. Where piloting is not yet permitted, describe the planned pilot and state exactly what it will test.
Where can I find a free GB730 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB730 Unit 7 instrument development memo for a hotel override study, with eighteen variables traced to system fields and nine interview questions traced to their sources.
Why include the pricing system's own forecast as a control?
An override is a disagreement with the system's forecast. Holding that forecast constant compares nights the system judged alike, so differences in outcome are less likely to reflect demand the system already expected.