Evaluate Strategic Options for a Real Organisation

Proof required

Submit a strategic context document (two to three pages) covering: the specific strategic question stated in one sentence, a situation analysis using a recognised framework (PESTLE, Porter's Five Forces, or equivalent), the organisation's key constraints and competitive advantages, and a statement of what the chosen strategic option must achieve.

What gets checked

• The strategic question is specific enough that two people reading it independently would agree on what a good answer looks like
• The situation analysis cites real data sources — financial reports, market data, or documented competitive intelligence — not generalised industry observations
• The framing explicitly rules out at least one class of strategic options and explains why

Common mistakes

• Framing the question so broadly that virtually any option could be justified — 'how should we grow?' is not a strategic question
• Situation analysis based on assumptions rather than cited data, making the downstream evaluation unverifiable

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the candidate to state the strategic question in one sentence, then ask 'what would a bad answer look like?' — if they cannot answer, the framing is too vague
• Probe one data point in the situation analysis: 'where does this number come from?'
• Challenge the constraint framing: 'why is this a constraint rather than something you could change?'
• Ask whether the framing was reviewed or validated with anyone inside the organisation before finalisation

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

Proof required

Submit a strategic options analysis document covering: at least three distinct options each described in one to two paragraphs; a structured evaluation against four to six consistent criteria; a risk and assumption table for each option; and a clear recommendation with the explicit reasoning for preferring it over the next-best alternative.

What gets checked

• Three options are genuinely different strategic directions — not variations of the same approach with different timelines
• Evaluation criteria are consistent across all options and were defined before evaluating the options
• The recommendation explicitly addresses why the top alternative was rejected

Common mistakes

• Designing one preferred option and two straw men that are clearly inferior — the evaluation then teaches nothing
• Evaluation criteria that change between options, making comparison meaningless

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the candidate to argue the strongest case for the option they did not recommend — can they do it compellingly?
• Check the evaluation criteria: were they defined before or after the options were generated?
• Probe the recommendation: 'what would have to be true for the second-ranked option to be the right answer?'
• Ask which assumption, if wrong, would change the recommendation — is the candidate aware of its sensitivity?

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

Proof required

Submit: the final strategic options document; a written review session record with the reviewer's credentials, at least three specific challenges raised including at least one alternative scenario, and your written responses; and a revision log showing what changed in the analysis or recommendation and why.

What gets checked

• Reviewer has direct experience in strategic option evaluation at organisational level — not a general management background without strategy work
• At least one 'what if' scenario was posed and the candidate provided a specific reasoned response — not 'that's a good point, I'd need to think about it'
• The revision shows that a substantive element of the analysis was updated, not just wording

Common mistakes

• Choosing a reviewer who is very senior but unfamiliar with structured strategic analysis — they may offer useful opinions but cannot challenge analytical rigour
• Treating pushback on the recommendation as validation rather than re-examining the underlying assumption

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the reviewer has direct experience with strategic option evaluation, not just senior management generally
• Pose a specific scenario: 'the market assumption underlying your recommendation is wrong by 30% — what then?'
• Ask whether the candidate held their position or revised it under challenge — and whether that was the right call
• Check the revision log: did the update address the root of the challenge or reframe the same conclusion?

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