Skills

Deliver a Strategy Presentation with Expert Q&A

4 weeks · 0 milestones

Present a strategic analysis or recommendation to a live audience of at least three people with relevant business or sector experience, and field substantive questions and objections in real time. The deliverable is an audio or video recording of the full presentation plus a documented Q&A log naming each objection raised and the answer given. Proof requires at least one verifier to confirm that the questions were genuine and not scripted, and that the presenter handled substantive challenge without preparation.

Part of: Business · Proves for: UG, PG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Research and Frame the Strategic Problem

2–3 weeks

Select a real organisation (public company, NGO, or employer) and define the strategic question you will address — growth stagnation, market entry, competitive response, or similar. Conduct desk research using public filings, industry reports, and competitor data to map the current situation. Produce a situation analysis document (2–3 pages) covering external environment, internal capabilities, and the central strategic tension.

Proof required

Submit your situation analysis document. It must name the specific organisation, state the strategic question in one sentence, and include an external-environment scan (at minimum: two macro forces and two competitive forces) and an internal capability assessment (at least two strengths and two constraints). Sources must be cited.

What gets checked

Strategic question is specific and answerable — not 'how to be more competitive' but 'whether to enter the EU market in 2026'
External scan uses real data (revenue figures, market share, regulatory changes) not generic observations
Internal assessment is grounded in verifiable facts about the named organisation, not assumptions

Common mistakes

Choosing a fictional or hypothetical company — the proof requires a real named organisation with public information
Situation analysis stays descriptive without identifying a genuine tension or strategic choice

Resources

What a verifier looks for

You are reviewing a strategy presentation for a specific named organisation. Your role is to challenge the presenter's reasoning, not just assess the slides.
Before the presentation: read the submitted situation analysis and note two or three areas where the evidence is thin or the logic unclear — these become your Q&A questions.
During Q&A: ask at least one question the presenter could not have rehearsed (e.g., 'What changes if the competitor they identified pivots to X?'; 'How would you advise differently if the organisation had 30% less capital?'). A prepared answer to a scripted question does not satisfy this milestone — the Q&A must be adversarial.
The presentation passes if: (a) the strategic question is answered with a clear recommendation, (b) the recommendation is supported by evidence from the situation analysis, and (c) the presenter's live responses to your challenge questions demonstrate genuine strategic reasoning, not memorised content.

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

Build and Stress-Test the Strategic Recommendation

2–3 weeks

Develop a complete strategic recommendation with supporting logic: what to do, why this option over alternatives, what resources it requires, and what the key risks are. Evaluate at least two alternative strategic options and explain why you rejected them. Build a basic implementation timeline (18–24 months) with three to five named milestones and owners.

Proof required

Submit a strategy document (4–6 pages) containing: (a) your recommendation stated in one paragraph, (b) a comparison table of at least three strategic options with evaluation criteria, (c) a risk register with at least three named risks and mitigation approaches, and (d) an implementation timeline. Document must be about the same organisation as your situation analysis.

What gets checked

Alternative options are genuine alternatives, not strawmen — each could plausibly be recommended
Risk register names specific risks (not generic 'execution risk') with quantified or described likelihood and impact
Implementation timeline assigns real roles or functions, not placeholder 'team' labels

Common mistakes

Alternative options section is perfunctory — each option gets one sentence and the comparison is not substantive
Recommendation changes the company's entire strategy when the evidence only supports a more limited conclusion

Resources

What a verifier looks for

Review the strategy document before the live presentation. Check that the options comparison table uses consistent criteria across all options — cherry-picked criteria that favour the chosen option are a red flag.
The risk register should show that the presenter has thought about what could go wrong, not just what they hope will go right. Ask: 'Which of these risks do you consider most likely to derail this strategy, and what's your early warning signal?'
A passing document has a defensible recommendation — you may disagree with it, but the reasoning chain from evidence to recommendation should be traceable.

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

Deliver Presentation with Adversarial Q&A

1–2 weeks

Present your complete strategy to an audience of at least three people — including at least one person with genuine strategy, finance, or industry expertise relevant to your chosen organisation. The presentation must be 15–25 minutes followed by at least 15 minutes of Q&A. The session must be recorded (video or audio) and a log of the key Q&A exchanges must be written up within 24 hours.

Proof required

Submit: (a) the final slide deck (PDF or link), (b) a recording or confirmed attendance record showing date, location or platform, and names of three or more attendees including the expert verifier, and (c) a Q&A log (minimum 400 words) summarising the three most challenging questions and your responses. The expert verifier must confirm they asked questions that were not shared with you in advance.

What gets checked

Recording or attendance record confirms at least one named expert attendee who can be contacted to verify their participation and that questions were not pre-shared
Q&A log records genuine challenges — questions that test the reasoning, not questions designed to confirm the presenter's view
Presenter's written responses in the Q&A log demonstrate reasoning under pressure, not just restatement of slides

Common mistakes

Verifier is a peer with no relevant expertise — 'three colleagues' who have not done strategic work do not satisfy the expert requirement
Q&A log records only favourable exchanges and omits challenges that were not well-answered

Powstik Guide

Your strategy presented and challenged by a qualified audience.

Steps

Put your recommendation on the first slide.
Invite at least three people, one with real experience.
Ask them to push hard on your assumptions.
Log each question and your answer.

Template

Review session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (your recommendation):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

What I will change because of this session:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who doesn't meet the stated bar.
Notes without the reviewer's name and role.
Fewer than three attendees.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

You are the named expert verifier for this presentation. You must attend in person or via video call — an asynchronous written review does not fulfil this role.
Before the session: confirm with the submitter that your questions will not be shared in advance. Prepare at least two questions based on your own reading of the strategy document, not questions the presenter suggested.
Your written confirmation must state: your professional background relevant to assessing this strategy, the date and platform of the presentation, and confirmation that your Q&A questions were not pre-disclosed. Sign or send this confirmation to the submitter by email or message so they can include it as proof.
The milestone is complete if the presenter demonstrates coherent real-time reasoning when challenged — not if you agree with their recommendation.

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

Part of

Prove Your Business Strategy Chops →MBA Core Competencies →Business Administration Electives: Consulting and leadership →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Research and Frame the Strategic Problem

2–3 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Strategic question is specific and answerable — not 'how to be more competitive' but 'whether to enter the EU market in 2026'
External scan uses real data (revenue figures, market share, regulatory changes) not generic observations
Internal assessment is grounded in verifiable facts about the named organisation, not assumptions

Common mistakes

Choosing a fictional or hypothetical company — the proof requires a real named organisation with public information
Situation analysis stays descriptive without identifying a genuine tension or strategic choice

Resources

What a verifier looks for

You are reviewing a strategy presentation for a specific named organisation. Your role is to challenge the presenter's reasoning, not just assess the slides.
Before the presentation: read the submitted situation analysis and note two or three areas where the evidence is thin or the logic unclear — these become your Q&A questions.
During Q&A: ask at least one question the presenter could not have rehearsed (e.g., 'What changes if the competitor they identified pivots to X?'; 'How would you advise differently if the organisation had 30% less capital?'). A prepared answer to a scripted question does not satisfy this milestone — the Q&A must be adversarial.
The presentation passes if: (a) the strategic question is answered with a clear recommendation, (b) the recommendation is supported by evidence from the situation analysis, and (c) the presenter's live responses to your challenge questions demonstrate genuine strategic reasoning, not memorised content.

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

Build and Stress-Test the Strategic Recommendation

2–3 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Alternative options are genuine alternatives, not strawmen — each could plausibly be recommended
Risk register names specific risks (not generic 'execution risk') with quantified or described likelihood and impact
Implementation timeline assigns real roles or functions, not placeholder 'team' labels

Common mistakes

Alternative options section is perfunctory — each option gets one sentence and the comparison is not substantive
Recommendation changes the company's entire strategy when the evidence only supports a more limited conclusion

Resources

What a verifier looks for

Review the strategy document before the live presentation. Check that the options comparison table uses consistent criteria across all options — cherry-picked criteria that favour the chosen option are a red flag.
The risk register should show that the presenter has thought about what could go wrong, not just what they hope will go right. Ask: 'Which of these risks do you consider most likely to derail this strategy, and what's your early warning signal?'
A passing document has a defensible recommendation — you may disagree with it, but the reasoning chain from evidence to recommendation should be traceable.

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

Deliver Presentation with Adversarial Q&A

1–2 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Recording or attendance record confirms at least one named expert attendee who can be contacted to verify their participation and that questions were not pre-shared
Q&A log records genuine challenges — questions that test the reasoning, not questions designed to confirm the presenter's view
Presenter's written responses in the Q&A log demonstrate reasoning under pressure, not just restatement of slides

Common mistakes

Verifier is a peer with no relevant expertise — 'three colleagues' who have not done strategic work do not satisfy the expert requirement
Q&A log records only favourable exchanges and omits challenges that were not well-answered

Powstik Guide

Your strategy presented and challenged by a qualified audience.

Steps

Put your recommendation on the first slide.
Invite at least three people, one with real experience.
Ask them to push hard on your assumptions.
Log each question and your answer.

Template

Review session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (your recommendation):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

What I will change because of this session:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who doesn't meet the stated bar.
Notes without the reviewer's name and role.
Fewer than three attendees.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

You are the named expert verifier for this presentation. You must attend in person or via video call — an asynchronous written review does not fulfil this role.
Before the session: confirm with the submitter that your questions will not be shared in advance. Prepare at least two questions based on your own reading of the strategy document, not questions the presenter suggested.
Your written confirmation must state: your professional background relevant to assessing this strategy, the date and platform of the presentation, and confirmation that your Q&A questions were not pre-disclosed. Sign or send this confirmation to the submitter by email or message so they can include it as proof.
The milestone is complete if the presenter demonstrates coherent real-time reasoning when challenged — not if you agree with their recommendation.

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