Skills

Complete an Integrated Business Case Analysis

16 weeks · 0 milestones

Produce a multi-domain analysis of a real organisation facing a complex strategic challenge — addressing strategy, finance, operations, and people dimensions in a single coherent document of at least 3,000 words. The analysis must demonstrate genuine integration: the financial implications of the strategic options must be modelled, the operational capacity to execute must be assessed, and the people and change management dimensions must be addressed. Proof requires review by at least two practitioners from different disciplines who confirm the analysis is non-trivial and that the integration is genuine rather than four separate sections glued together. The revision log must document substantive pushback absorbed.

Part of: Business & Management · Proves for: PG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Select a Real Business Challenge Requiring Multi-Disciplinary Analysis

1–2 weeks

An integrated case analysis applies multiple business disciplines to a single real business problem. Select a real, documented business challenge — a turnaround, a strategic pivot, a market entry, or a major operational failure — where financial, strategic, operational, and organisational factors all contributed to the outcome. Define the analytical framework you will apply and the disciplines you will integrate.

Proof required

Submit: (a) a case brief (minimum 600 words) describing the real business challenge, its timeline, and its outcome, with at least three distinct public sources, and (b) an analytical plan identifying the four or five business disciplines you will integrate (e.g. competitive strategy, financial analysis, organisational behaviour, operations, marketing) and why each is relevant to this specific challenge.

What gets checked

Case is real and well-documented — not a hypothetical
At least three distinct public sources confirm the case facts
Four or five disciplines identified — not just two

Common mistakes

Selecting a widely analysed teaching case (Kodak, Nokia, Blockbuster) — the analysis will be derivative; choose a less analysed real case
Disciplines identified without explaining their relevance to the specific challenge

Powstik Guide

A case brief and a plan for which disciplines to apply.

Steps

Shortlist three real cases that are not classic teaching cases.
Pick the one with at least three public sources.
Write the timeline: trigger, key decisions, outcome.
Name four or five disciplines that clearly shaped the outcome.
For each, write one line on why it matters here.

Template

Case brief
Company and years:
What happened (timeline):
Outcome:
Sources (at least three):
1.
2.
3.

| Discipline | Why it matters in this case |
|------------|-----------------------------|

What gets sent back

A famous teaching case like Kodak or Blockbuster.
Fewer than three public sources.
Disciplines listed with no link to this case.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the case selection: 'Why this case? What do you expect to find through your integrated analysis that existing coverage of this case has not already revealed?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Conduct the Integrated Analysis Across All Identified Disciplines

4–6 weeks

Conduct a full integrated analysis of the business challenge applying each identified discipline. The integration is the critical element: show how factors from different disciplines interacted — how financial pressures constrained strategic options, how organisational culture resisted operational change, how competitive dynamics altered the financial projections. The analysis must produce a coherent causal account of the outcome.

Proof required

Submit an integrated case analysis (minimum 3,000 words) covering: (a) disciplinary analysis for each of the four or five disciplines with specific evidence, (b) cross-disciplinary integration section (minimum 500 words) explaining how factors from different disciplines interacted and reinforced each other to produce the outcome, and (c) a counterfactual analysis: what different decision at what point in time, supported by your analysis, might have changed the outcome?

What gets checked

Cross-disciplinary integration is genuine — not five separate analyses concatenated
Counterfactual is specific — not 'better leadership could have changed the outcome'
Analysis cites specific evidence for causal claims — not assertion

Common mistakes

Analysis describes what happened without explaining why — an integrated case analysis must identify causal mechanisms
Counterfactual is a generic 'they should have innovated' claim without showing the specific decision path the analysis reveals was available

Powstik Guide

A causal case analysis with a grounded counterfactual.

Steps

Analyse each discipline with its own evidence.
Draw the links: which pressure constrained which choice.
Ask 'why' until you reach a decision someone made.
Pick one decision point and one realistic alternative.
Show what evidence suggests the alternative would change.

Template

Cause map (one row per link)
| Factor (discipline) | → affected | How we know |
|---------------------|------------|-------------|

Counterfactual
Decision point (date, who decided):
Alternative that was available then:
Evidence it would have changed the outcome:

What gets sent back

A narrative of events with no causes.
A counterfactual like 'they should have innovated'.
An integration section under 500 words.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the causal account: 'You argued that financial pressure caused the company to cut R&D, which led to the competitive disadvantage — but their competitors also faced financial pressure in the same period and did not cut R&D. How does your analysis account for that?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present Integrated Analysis to a Business Professional

1 week

Present the integrated case analysis to a business professional with relevant industry or functional expertise (strategy consultant, senior executive, business school faculty) who will challenge at least two of your causal claims or counterfactuals.

Proof required

Submit: (a) a 500-word executive summary of the case analysis with the most important lessons, (b) Q&A log from the review session (minimum 400 words with at least two challenges and responses), and (c) attendance record with reviewer name and credentials.

What gets checked

Executive summary states the most important lessons with rationale — not just recaps what happened
Q&A log shows challenges to causal claims or counterfactuals
Reviewer has relevant industry or business analysis expertise

Common mistakes

Executive summary summarises the case rather than drawing analytical conclusions
Reviewer without business case analysis experience

Powstik Guide

Your case analysis, tested by a business professional.

Steps

Write the summary as lessons, not a retelling.
Mark your weakest causal claim before the session.
Book a strategy consultant, senior executive or business faculty.
Ask them to challenge two causal claims or counterfactuals.
Log each challenge and your answer.

Template

Review session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and years of experience:

Challenge 1 (a causal claim or counterfactual):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Change I made after the session:
Reviewer's overall view (their words):

What gets sent back

A summary that retells the case.
A reviewer without case analysis experience.
Fewer than two challenges logged.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the most central causal claim: 'You attributed the failure to the organisational culture resisting change — but can you show the mechanism? What specific decisions were made differently because of cultural resistance, and what would different decisions have required?'
Provide written confirmation (minimum 150 words) of your credentials and the challenges raised.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

MBA Core Competencies →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Select a Real Business Challenge Requiring Multi-Disciplinary Analysis

1–2 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Case is real and well-documented — not a hypothetical
At least three distinct public sources confirm the case facts
Four or five disciplines identified — not just two

Common mistakes

Selecting a widely analysed teaching case (Kodak, Nokia, Blockbuster) — the analysis will be derivative; choose a less analysed real case
Disciplines identified without explaining their relevance to the specific challenge

Powstik Guide

A case brief and a plan for which disciplines to apply.

Steps

Shortlist three real cases that are not classic teaching cases.
Pick the one with at least three public sources.
Write the timeline: trigger, key decisions, outcome.
Name four or five disciplines that clearly shaped the outcome.
For each, write one line on why it matters here.

Template

Case brief
Company and years:
What happened (timeline):
Outcome:
Sources (at least three):
1.
2.
3.

| Discipline | Why it matters in this case |
|------------|-----------------------------|

What gets sent back

A famous teaching case like Kodak or Blockbuster.
Fewer than three public sources.
Disciplines listed with no link to this case.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the case selection: 'Why this case? What do you expect to find through your integrated analysis that existing coverage of this case has not already revealed?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Conduct the Integrated Analysis Across All Identified Disciplines

4–6 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Cross-disciplinary integration is genuine — not five separate analyses concatenated
Counterfactual is specific — not 'better leadership could have changed the outcome'
Analysis cites specific evidence for causal claims — not assertion

Common mistakes

Analysis describes what happened without explaining why — an integrated case analysis must identify causal mechanisms
Counterfactual is a generic 'they should have innovated' claim without showing the specific decision path the analysis reveals was available

Powstik Guide

A causal case analysis with a grounded counterfactual.

Steps

Analyse each discipline with its own evidence.
Draw the links: which pressure constrained which choice.
Ask 'why' until you reach a decision someone made.
Pick one decision point and one realistic alternative.
Show what evidence suggests the alternative would change.

Template

Cause map (one row per link)
| Factor (discipline) | → affected | How we know |
|---------------------|------------|-------------|

Counterfactual
Decision point (date, who decided):
Alternative that was available then:
Evidence it would have changed the outcome:

What gets sent back

A narrative of events with no causes.
A counterfactual like 'they should have innovated'.
An integration section under 500 words.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the causal account: 'You argued that financial pressure caused the company to cut R&D, which led to the competitive disadvantage — but their competitors also faced financial pressure in the same period and did not cut R&D. How does your analysis account for that?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present Integrated Analysis to a Business Professional

1 week

Proof required

What gets checked

Executive summary states the most important lessons with rationale — not just recaps what happened
Q&A log shows challenges to causal claims or counterfactuals
Reviewer has relevant industry or business analysis expertise

Common mistakes

Executive summary summarises the case rather than drawing analytical conclusions
Reviewer without business case analysis experience

Powstik Guide

Your case analysis, tested by a business professional.

Steps

Write the summary as lessons, not a retelling.
Mark your weakest causal claim before the session.
Book a strategy consultant, senior executive or business faculty.
Ask them to challenge two causal claims or counterfactuals.
Log each challenge and your answer.

Template

Review session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and years of experience:

Challenge 1 (a causal claim or counterfactual):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Change I made after the session:
Reviewer's overall view (their words):

What gets sent back

A summary that retells the case.
A reviewer without case analysis experience.
Fewer than two challenges logged.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the most central causal claim: 'You attributed the failure to the organisational culture resisting change — but can you show the mechanism? What specific decisions were made differently because of cultural resistance, and what would different decisions have required?'
Provide written confirmation (minimum 150 words) of your credentials and the challenges raised.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.