Problem scoping case study guide: evaluate 3 alternatives
A Module 4 case assignment that builds on your problem-scoping work: generate alternatives by real ideation, narrow to three, compare pros and cons in a decision table, select the best, and argue for it in full paragraphs.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 12, 2026
What makes three alternatives genuinely different?
The assignment chains onto your Module 3 problem-scoping work, and that dependency is the first thing to honor: the three alternatives must answer the problem definition and criteria you already committed to, so re-read your own SLP before generating anything. A solution that quietly redefines the problem — solving staffing when you scoped scheduling — reads as inconsistency, not creativity. The instructions then stage the work in two distinct modes. The first is divergent: brainstorm past your first idea, examine existing solutions, sketch, and generate more options than you need, because the explicit warning in the brief is DON'T SETTLE FOR YOUR FIRST IDEA. Only after categorizing that raw list do you converge on three genuinely different alternatives — three variations on one idea is the most common way submissions fail this step while appearing to complete it.
The comparison is where the template earns its place. For each of the three alternatives, work the pros and cons against the criteria from your problem scoping — feasibility, cost, time, stakeholder acceptance, or whatever you defined — rather than against free-floating intuition. Build the comparison as a decision table and insert it into the Word document as the expectations require; the table makes the trade-offs inspectable at a glance, and the assignment names it as a required element, so a prose-only comparison loses marks mechanically. Be honest about the cons of your eventual favorite: a table where one column has no drawbacks signals advocacy, and the grader is scoring analysis. When the table is built honestly, the selection falls out of the trade-off pattern it displays rather than arriving by preference, and the grader can watch it happen.
The final move is the logical argument, and the format instruction matters: full sentences and paragraphs, with the table inserted as an exhibit, not a substitute for reasoning. Structure the argument as a warranted claim — the chosen alternative best satisfies the scoping criteria because of the specific pro-and-con pattern the table shows, and its weaknesses are acceptable or mitigable for stated reasons. Name why the two rejected alternatives lost, briefly, because a selection is only persuasive against real competition. The brief tells you these analytic skills recur throughout the health sciences program and professional life, which is a quiet hint about how this is graded: the process — the scoping honored, the ideation shown, the comparison criteria-driven, the choice argued in paragraphs — is worth more marks than the particular solution you happen to land on.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Carry the Module 3 problem definition and criteria forward unchanged as the frame for all three alternatives.
- 02Run a real divergent phase — brainstorming, existing solutions, sketching — before converging on three distinct options.
- 03Compare pros and cons against the scoping criteria in a decision table inserted into the document.
- 04Select the best alternative from the table's trade-off pattern rather than by preference.
- 05Write the supporting argument in full paragraphs, including why the rejected alternatives lost.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01Three alternative solutions consistent with the Module 3 problem definition and criteria.
- 02A pros-and-cons comparison built as a decision table, inserted into the Word document.
- 03A selected alternative with a logical argument in paragraph format supporting the choice.
How should the comparison and selection be built?
The problem, restated
Open by restating the Module 3 problem definition and evaluation criteria so every later judgment has a visible standard.
Ideation to three alternatives
Show the divergent work — brainstormed list, existing solutions examined, categories formed — and present the three distinct alternatives that survived.
The decision table
Compare pros and cons per alternative against the scoping criteria, in the template's table, inserted into the document as required.
Selection and argument
Choose the alternative the table supports and argue it in paragraphs: why it best satisfies the criteria, why its weaknesses are acceptable, and why the others lost.
Where are ideation and decision methods documented?
Recommended databases
- UMass Dartmouth
- Nielsen Norman Group
- UNC Writing Center
Search sequence
- 1.Review the decision-making process steps to structure the path from alternatives to a defended choice.
- 2.Read the ideation guidance for divergent-then-convergent technique before brainstorming.
- 3.Check the brainstorming techniques for generating past the first idea.
- 4.Draft: restate the scoping, show the ideation, build the table, argue the selection.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Decision-making process
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth · 2024
The step model behind the assignment's arc — identify alternatives, weigh evidence against criteria, choose, and review — mapped almost one-to-one onto the template.
- 02
Ideation in Practice: How Effective UX Teams Generate Ideas
Nielsen Norman Group · 2018
The divergent-then-convergent discipline the brief's ideation section describes — generating widely before narrowing, exactly the anti-first-idea method.
- 03
Brainstorming
The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · 2024
Practical brainstorming technique — deferring judgment, listing, and building on ideas — for the every-idea-is-viable phase the assignment mandates.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Settling for the first idea — the brief's own capitalized warning — and dressing it as three variants.
- Generating alternatives that quietly redefine the problem instead of answering the Module 3 scoping.
- Comparing against intuition instead of the criteria the problem definition established.
- Submitting a prose-only comparison when the expectations require the decision table inserted in the document.
- Giving the favored alternative a cons column with nothing in it — advocacy instead of analysis.
- Arguing the selection without dispatching the two losing alternatives.
Submission checklist
- Alternatives trace explicitly to the Module 3 problem definition and criteria.
- Divergent phase evidenced: more ideas generated, then categorized, then narrowed to three.
- Decision table completed on the template and inserted into the Word document.
- Pros and cons honest for all three, including the chosen one.
- Selection argued in full sentences and paragraphs, with rejected options addressed.
- Submitted to the Case drop box by the module due date.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.