| Course | MT497 Bachelor's Capstone in Organizational Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Access and scope proposal |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT497 Unit 2
Who Agreed, What Is Studied and How Far: An MT497 Unit 2 Access and Scope Proposal for Caldwell Run
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT497: Bachelor's Capstone in Organizational Management
Unit 2 Access and Scope Proposal
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Caldwell Run, its staff, its director and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.
Organization
Caldwell Run is a nonprofit, open-admission animal shelter serving a mid-sized county under an intake contract that obliges it to accept every stray and surrendered animal the county brings. Of the roughly 4,600 animals arriving each year, about 1,900 are dogs. Its 41 paid staff work in five departments: animal care, which runs the kennels; adoptions; a behavior program staffed by one coordinator and two part-time assessors; a small veterinary clinic; and the front desk. Several hundred volunteers walk dogs, socialize cats and help at adoption events. The profile stops there, because the diagnosis needs nothing more about the shelter's history or fundraising.
Presenting Problem
The executive director describes the problem in these terms: adoption and animal care do not communicate. Three figures support that view. The average length of stay for dogs has risen from 11 days to 19 days in two years. In the last quarter, seven dogs were returned within thirty days for behavior the adopters said they had not been told about. Turnover among kennel attendants reached about 52 percent last year.
This proposal records the problem in leadership's words and treats it as a starting hypothesis, not a finding. Harrison (2005) warns that a consultant who accepts the client's framing at the outset tends to confirm it, and the study is designed so that the diagnosis can land somewhere else if the evidence points there.
The presenting problem is where the study starts, not where it must end.
Questions the Study Will Answer
Three questions guide the work. First, where along the path from intake to adoption does information about a dog's behavior slow down or disappear? Second, which arrangements, whether skills, reporting lines, tools or shared beliefs, best explain the delay? Third, what change, aimed at the level the evidence identifies, would shorten length of stay and reduce behavior returns without adding staff? The questions are deliberately open about cause. None of them assumes that communication between the two departments is the root of the problem, although the answer may turn out that way.
Why a Diagnosis Rather Than a Fix
The director's first request was for a communication workshop for both teams. This proposal asks instead for time to diagnose, for two reasons. A workshop assumes the cause is how people talk to each other, and if the cause lies in where notes are stored or who decides a dog is ready, the workshop would cost staff time and change nothing. And a study that involves kennel and adoption staff in describing the problem tends to produce changes both sides accept. Schein (1999) describes this as helping the client see the problem for themselves rather than handing them an answer, and it is the approach the proposal follows. The workshop is not rejected; it is held until the evidence shows whether it fits.
Scope
The study follows dogs only. Behavior notes matter far more in dog placements than in cat placements, where returns for behavior are rare, and the complaint concerns dogs almost entirely. Three areas are excluded, each for a reason. The clinic is excluded because it neither writes nor reads the behavior notes at issue. Cat adoptions are excluded because their path from intake to adoption runs through different staff. The county's animal control officers are excluded because they deliver animals but do not take part in the decisions after intake. The study covers the path of a dog from the kennel to an adopter's home: intake, behavior assessment, listing, matching and the thirty days after adoption.
Access
The executive director has agreed in writing to the study, and the agreement is in Appendix A. Fourteen people have agreed to an interview: four kennel attendants, two kennel leads, four adoption counselors, the behavior coordinator, the front desk lead, the adoption manager and the animal care manager. Three volunteers who walk and promote dogs have also agreed. All 38 staff in the departments involved will be invited to an anonymous survey.
Leadership will release four kinds of records: monthly length-of-stay reports for dogs from the shelter software for the past two years, returns with their recorded reasons, the edit history of the behavior notes spreadsheet, and summaries of exit interviews with departing staff. The animal care manager will supply the first two by Unit 4, and the director the last two by Unit 5. Nothing requires staff to produce new work, which was a condition of the director's agreement.
The Writer's Dual Role
I work weekend shifts as an adoption counselor, which gives me access but also a stake. My colleagues on the adoption side are easier for me to reach and may be more candid with me, while kennel staff may see me as part of the problem. Three safeguards address that risk. A second interviewer, a classmate who has completed human subjects training, will conduct the interviews with adoption staff. I will not interview anyone I work with directly on weekend shifts. And every later unit will flag any judgment where my role might color the reading. Block (2011) describes a consultant's first task as stating openly what they bring to an engagement, and this section does that.
Confidentiality
No individual will be named in any submitted paper. Any survey figure will describe at least five people, and a role filled by one person will never be quoted. Interview notes will be stored under codes on a personal drive, not on shelter systems. The draft consent script in Appendix B is read before each interview, and anyone may decline or stop at any point.
Timetable
Unit 3 reviews research on the problem area. Unit 4 chooses a diagnostic model. Unit 5 sets out the interview guide, survey and records plan. Interviews and the survey run during Units 5 and 6. Unit 7 delivers the diagnosis, Unit 8 an intervention design, Unit 9 a change management plan, and Unit 10 a consulting report to the director and board.
Appendices
Appendix A, the director's access letter, confirms permission for interviews, a survey and the four record sets listed above, subject to the confidentiality terms in this proposal. Appendix B, the consent script, explains the study's purpose, that participation is voluntary, how notes will be stored and that no one will be named.
References
Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer.
Harrison, M. I. (2005). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models, and processes (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Addison-Wesley.
Reading the MT 497 Unit 2 instructions
For Unit 2, MT497 asks you to name the organization, the presenting problem and who has agreed to take part. Profile the organization only as far as the study needs. State the problem in leadership's own words and mark it as a starting hypothesis rather than a finding. Set the scope with reasons for each exclusion, so the later diagnosis stays manageable. Be specific about access: the leader who authorized the study, the roles that agreed to interviews, the records you will receive and when. If you work there, treat your position as a risk and list the safeguards. Explain how confidentiality will be protected, and attach the permission letter and a consent script as appendices. A timetable tied to the remaining units closes the proposal.
How this MT497 Unit 2 example is built
Caldwell Run's proposal opens with a short profile of the shelter's five departments. Leadership's framing and its three figures follow, under a highlighted line that the presenting problem is where the study starts. A section of three open questions avoids assuming the cause, and a section on why a diagnosis comes before the requested workshop cites Schein on helping clients see problems themselves. Scope keeps dogs and excludes the clinic, cats and county officers with a reason each. Access lists fourteen interviewees by role and four record sets with suppliers and dates. The dual role section names three safeguards, citing Block, and confidentiality rules precede a unit by unit timetable and two appendices summarized at the end.
Where the points sit in the MT497 Unit 2 rubric
Feasibility is what instructors test hardest. Agreement from someone able to authorize the study, named roles that will participate and documents actually promised all read as a study that can happen, while a hope to speak with some employees does not. Recording the presenting problem as leadership frames it, while marking it as unconfirmed, is rewarded, since a diagnosis that is free to move is the point of the exercise. Scope decisions are weighed on their reasons. A writer who studies their own workplace is expected to name the conflict and how it will be managed. Confidentiality terms stated in advance protect both participants and the grade. Appendices with a signed letter and consent wording usually finish the points available.
Common MT497 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Proposals often state the problem as the writer believes it to be rather than as leadership presented it, which commits the study to a conclusion in week two. Another frequent issue leaves scope open, so the diagnosis later tries to cover every department. Access sections tend to list hoped-for interviews without any confirmed participants or dates. Students who work in the organization sometimes ignore that fact or mention it without any safeguard. Confidentiality is sometimes reduced to a promise to keep things private. Before submitting, check that the presenting problem is in quotation or close paraphrase with its source, that every exclusion has a reason, that each record has a named supplier, and that the permission letter is signed by someone with authority.
Get an MT497 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Choosing the organization you will diagnose this term? Tell us which people will sit for interviews, what leadership says the problem is, your own role there and what your Unit 2 prompt and rubric require. Your proposal, with scope and ethics mapped, comes back in 24-48h, and a first draft of this kind costs nothing. 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 MT497 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT497 Unit 1: Complaint Diagnosis Board Post
- MT497 Unit 3: Literature Review
- MT497 Unit 4: Diagnostic Model Rationale
- MT497 Unit 5: Data Collection Plan
- MT497 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT497 Unit 7: Organizational Diagnosis
- MT497 Unit 8: Intervention Design
- MT497 Unit 9: Change Management Plan
- MT497 Unit 10: Consulting Report
- MT494 Unit 2: Client Selection Proposal Memo
- MT483 Unit 2: Order Types and Margin Exercise
- LI410 Unit 2: Self-Assessment Interpretation
- MT482 Unit 2: Financial Statement Linkage Exercise
MT497 Unit 2 questions, answered
Whose permission is enough for Unit 2?
Someone with genuine authority over the area you will study, typically a director, owner or senior manager. A supervisor's casual agreement may not cover interviews with other departments. Get it in writing if possible, even by email, and describe exactly what you will do so the permission covers the whole study.
Is studying my own workplace a conflict of interest?
It can be, but it is common and usually acceptable if handled openly. Say what your role is, identify where it could bias what people tell you or what you conclude, and describe specific safeguards, such as not interviewing direct peers or subordinates. Instructors tend to credit honesty about the position more than distance from it.
How narrow should the scope be?
Narrow enough that you can gather evidence from several sources within a few units. One department, one process or one boundary between two groups is usually more manageable than a whole organization. Write down what is excluded and why, which protects the later diagnosis from drifting into areas you never studied.
Where can I find a free MT497 Unit 2 sample paper?
The full MT497 Unit 2 proposal is on this page, scoping a study of a composite animal shelter's dog adoptions with access, safeguards for the writer's dual role and a timetable.
Why does the MT497 Unit 2 sample study dogs only?
Behavior notes shape dog placements far more than cat placements, and the complaint concerns dogs almost entirely, so narrowing the scope keeps the evidence focused.