Milestone map
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