| Course | GB890 Doctoral Project I: Problem Statement and Background Research |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Problem evidence memo |
| Length | About 810 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB890 Unit 2
Three Kinds of Evidence for One Problem: A Unit 2 Problem Evidence Memo for a Bakery Safety Project
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB890: Doctoral Project I: Problem Statement and Background Research
Unit 2 Problem Evidence Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Corliss Baking Company, its plants and every figure are composite and illustrative; the regulations and studies cited are real.
Memo
To: Doctoral committee chair From: DBA candidate and corporate safety manager, Corliss Baking Company Re: Evidence that a practice problem exists in supervisors' safety communication with newcomers
The Problem, Still as a Question
Is the safety talk that Corliss shift supervisors direct at associates in their first ninety days frequent and specific enough to offset the elevated injury risk of being new to the line? The evidence below is offered to show that the question addresses a real problem, not to answer it.
Evidence One: Injury Records by Plant
Each Corliss plant keeps an OSHA 300 log of recordable injuries, those requiring medical treatment beyond first aid, time away from work or restricted duty. Over the last three years, the five plants recorded the following. Plant A recorded 31 cases over about 1.32 million hours worked, an incident rate of about 4.7 cases per 100 full-time workers. Plant B recorded 22 cases over 1.05 million hours, a rate of 4.2. Plant C recorded 38 cases over 1.41 million hours, a rate of 5.4. Plant D recorded 12 cases over 960,000 hours, a rate of 2.5. Plant E recorded 15 cases over 1.1 million hours, a rate of 2.7. The incident rate is the number of cases multiplied by 200,000 and divided by hours worked, the standard OSHA calculation.
Of the 118 cases, 63, or 53 percent, involved associates within ninety days of their placement on the line. The share was highest at Plant C, about 63 percent, and lowest at Plant D, about 33 percent. The three plants with the highest rates, A, B and C, also employ the largest share of agency temporaries.
What this evidence can show: where and to whom injuries happen. What it cannot show: why, or whether supervision differs between plants.
Checking the Totals Against a Public Record
Each plant's annual OSHA 300A summary, which totals the year's recordable cases and hours, is submitted electronically to OSHA under Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, the federal rule issued in 2016 that covers establishments of this size in food manufacturing, and OSHA publishes the submitted data. A reader can therefore check the plant totals above against a public source, though not the tenure breakdown, which comes from the logs themselves and from placement records.
Evidence Two: Observed Shift-Start Meetings
Every Corliss shift begins with a short crew meeting. Over six weeks, the candidate attended twenty-four shift starts across the five plants, four or five per plant, and recorded whether safety came up beyond the scripted stretching routine that opens each meeting. In 5 of the 24 meetings, it did: a supervisor mentioned a specific hazard, a recent near miss or a reminder directed at a newer associate. In the other 19, safety appeared only in the stretching routine.
What this evidence can show: how often safety is discussed at one recurring moment. What it cannot show: what supervisors say during the rest of the shift, and the candidate's presence may have changed what supervisors said.
Evidence Three: Near-Miss Reports
Corliss asks associates to report near misses, events that could have caused injury but did not. In the last year, the three plants with the highest injury rates submitted 9 near-miss reports in total, fewer than one per plant per quarter. Low near-miss reporting where injuries are high suggests that associates do not see reporting as expected or useful, which is consistent with weak supervisory communication about safety, though other explanations, such as an inconvenient reporting form, are possible.
The plants with the most injuries reported the fewest near misses, which is the opposite of what a working safety conversation would produce.
The Problem in the Literature
The pattern fits published evidence. Breslin and Smith (2006) found that injury risk was highest early in job tenure. Zohar (2000) found that what members of a work group jointly believed about their own supervisor's safety priorities forecast the group's later minor injuries. Neither finding shows that Corliss's problem has the same cause, but both make it plausible.
What the Evidence Cannot Establish
The evidence shows a concentration of injuries among newcomers, infrequent safety talk at shift starts and low near-miss reporting. It cannot establish that supervisory communication causes the injury pattern. Agency temporaries may differ from direct hires in experience, language or training received from the agency, and the plants differ in equipment and products. The study proposed in later units is designed to test the supervisory explanation against those alternatives.
References
Breslin, F. C., & Smith, P. (2006). Trial by fire: A multivariate examination of the relation between job tenure and work injuries. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(1), 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2005.021006
Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, 81 Fed. Reg. 29624 (2016).
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587-596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.587
What the GB890 Unit 2 assignment asks for
Unit 2 in GB890 asks you to write a memo presenting the evidence that your practice problem exists. Address it to your committee chair and restate the problem as a question. Present each kind of evidence separately, with figures tied to identifiable sites and periods. For records, show how any rate is calculated. Explain how a reader could verify figures against a public source where one exists. For observations, describe how many you made and how, and note how your presence could have affected them. Label each source with the conclusions it supports and those it leaves untouched. Connect the pattern to published research without claiming the research proves your explanation. Close by listing what the evidence cannot establish and what alternative explanations remain. About five pages with a plant-by-plant table and a separate observation tally is a common format for this memo.
How the GB 890 Unit 2 example is put together
The memo restates the question and presents the five plants' recordable cases, hours and incident rates, explaining the 200,000-hour formula. It notes that 63 of 118 cases involved newcomers and that the highest-rate plants employ the most agency temporaries. A section explains that each plant's 300A summary is submitted electronically under the 2016 federal rule and published, so totals can be checked. The shift-start tally reports safety beyond the stretching routine in 5 of 24 meetings, with the observer effect noted. Near-miss reporting, nine reports in a year at three plants, is read cautiously, and the highlighted sentence states the contrast. Breslin and Smith and Zohar connect the pattern to research, and the memo closes on alternatives such as agency training and equipment differences.
Reading the GB890 Unit 2 grading rubric
GB890 instructors grade the problem evidence memo on verifiability and restraint. Figures tied to identifiable sites, with calculations shown, earn significant credit. Pointing to a public source against which totals can be checked is especially valued. Each source should be labeled for what it can and cannot show, and memos that let one source carry the whole argument lose marks. Observations must be described with their number and method, and the possible influence of the observer acknowledged. Connecting the pattern to research shows the problem matters beyond one site. Listing what the evidence cannot establish, including alternative explanations, demonstrates the judgment a committee looks for. Memo format and APA 7 citations complete the grade.
GB890 Unit 2 help from the desk
Many GB890 problem memos present a single impressive figure without saying how it was calculated or where a reader could check it. Others mix evidence types together so that the strength of each is unclear. Students frequently treat their own observations as neutral, without considering how being observed changes behavior. Near-miss counts are often read as simple good or bad news. Research is cited as if it proved the local explanation. Alternatives are rarely listed. Present each source separately, show calculations, point to public records, describe observation methods and their limits, label what each source can show, connect cautiously to research and name the alternatives. Bring your records and observations, and we can help organize the memo.
Get a GB890 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Name the records bearing on your problem that your employer holds, and mark which ones you have leave to use. Add the Unit 2 memo instructions and rubric. A custom memo built around those sources, ranked by how independently a reader could check each one, comes back within 24-48h, and the first is free. 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 GB890 papers and MBA samples
- GB890 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB890 Unit 3: Search Documentation
- GB890 Unit 4: Closest Study Appraisal
- GB890 Unit 5: Literature Synthesis
- GB890 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB890 Unit 7: Conceptual Framework Draft
- GB890 Unit 8: Purpose Statement Exercise
- GB890 Unit 9: Source Appraisal
- GB890 Unit 10: Background Chapter Draft
- GB815 Unit 2: Direction Feasibility Memo
- GB794 Unit 2: Consumer Study Critique
- GB793 Unit 2: Theory Comparison Memo
- GB500 Unit 2: Management Concepts Analysis
GB890 Unit 2 questions, answered
What counts as local evidence for a GB890 problem?
Records tied to an identifiable organization or site: logs, internal reports, published filings, documented observations, or reported experience gathered with permission. National statistics can frame the problem but cannot show it exists where you work. The strongest memos combine at least one source a reader could verify independently with internal records adding the detail public sources leave out.
Should the memo use real company figures?
Only with permission and at a level of disclosure your organization accepts. Many candidates present approximate or rounded figures, or describe the site without naming it, and say so in the memo. The sample brackets its composite values for that reason. What matters to the reader is that the figures could be checked by someone with appropriate access, not that they appear in full.
Is a low near-miss count good or bad news?
It is ambiguous, and the memo should say so. Few reports can mean few hazards, a workforce that does not report, or a form nobody can find. Treating the number as proof either way overreaches. Pairing it with another source, such as observed hazards or the injury pattern, helps show which reading is more plausible without claiming to settle it.
Where can I find a free GB890 Unit 2 sample paper?
A complete GB890 Unit 2 problem evidence memo is on this page, presenting injury records, observed shift-start meetings and near-miss reports for a bakery group's safety problem.
How is an OSHA incident rate calculated?
Multiply the number of recordable cases by 200,000, the hours 100 full-time employees work in a year, and divide by the total hours worked. The result is cases per 100 full-time workers.