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
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?'
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
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?'
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
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.
Part of