HOW TO PREPARE AND PRESENT A WRITTTEN ANALYSIS OF A CASE
A business case is a record of a business situation actually faced by a management
decision maker, along with the surrounding facts, prejudices, and opinions upon which the
decision must be made. Case studies simulate or describe situations to allow students to
practice some of the decision-making skills required of managers. The case serves as a
catalyst to speed the process of learning by experience. You, as the analyst, should take the
position of the decision maker involved, analyze the situation presented, and answer the
question, “what would I do if I were in this situation.”
A. PREPARING YOUR CASE ANALYSIS:
The following is a list of the information you should look for, the questions you should ask
and answer, and the processes you should undertake, as you read through the case study.
(1) What are the goals of the organization or business unit, and what are the goals/interests
of the decision makers in the case?
Identification of the goals is crucial because:
(a) the goals are the basis for uncovering/identifying the “problem areas” which the case
analyst should investigate; and
(b) the goals are the “criteria” against which the relative merits of the competing solution
options should be judged.
There are often many goals, some of which may be inherently conflicting, or possibly
unattainable in the company’s circumstances. You may need to prioritize the goals; it
may be impossible to achieve all goals simultaneously
As the analyst, you may have to infer what the organization’s real goals are – if unstated
– by looking at the firm’s behaviour or past decisions/actions, or at the interests and
values of the primary decision makers.
(2) What sort of business or industry is the company in, and what are the organization’s
strategies and policies for trying to achieve its goals?
Are these strategies and policies appropriate for the circumstances?
Are the circumstances that gave rise to these strategies and policies changing?
What are the firm’s strengths? What are its weaknesses?
How does the firm finance itself? Where, or on what, is the firm spending its money?
2
(3) Identification of the “problem areas”:
A “problem area” is any situation where the firm’s goals are not being achieved or
where there is the likelihood or expectation that the firm’s goals will not adequately be
achieved unless some actions are taken or some strategies and policies are changed.
There may be more than one problem area in any given case.
This step may require analyzing the data to see how well the firm has been performing,
or achieving its goals, and whether or not it is likely to be able to keep it up in the future
as events unfold.
(4) Defining the “decision problem(s)” and associated tasks that must be performed:
Almost all cases are looking for the analyst to make or recommend a decision, possibly
after performing some task(s) (in which case, performing the task is part (or one) of the
decision problems.)
e.g., to decide or recommend which policy or course of action is the best one to help the
firm achieve its goals.
There may be several decision problems, …and there may be some logical sequencing
of these for facilitating the analysis.
A well-defined decision problem will “set up” and focus your whole analysis; a poorlydefined decision problem is bound to send your analysis off in unproductive directions.
Two cautions:
(a) Don’t mistake the “symptoms” of a problem for the real, underlying problem.
(b) The real decision problem may not necessarily be the one that is stated or implied by
the personalities in the case.
(5) What are the “givens” or constraints in the case situation?
These will put boundaries on the analysis. They may be stated in the case or dictated by
the instructor in the case assignment instructions. These may limit the solution options
that the analyst has to examine to solve the decision problem(s).
It is probably unwise to ignore, or assume away, these givens or constraints, even if
they could be circumvented in the real world.
(6) Identification and listing of the alternative courses of action or solution options for
addressing the decision problem(s).
Some of the options or possible courses of action may be set out by the personalities in
the case; others you may have to envision yourself, based on the case circumstances.
3
(7) Identify the key issues in the case:
The approach you take to the analysis, and the relative desirability of the various
solution options, may depend on the resolution of these issues.
e.g., whether a firm finances its growth with a new share issue or not, and the valuation
models it uses to price these shares, may depend on the managers’ judgment about the
issue of the efficiency of the stock market.
(8) Examine the evidence in the case – i.e., the facts about the organization, its environment,
and the valuation relationships in the market in which the firm’s shares are traded.
What do the people in the case say about the company, its environment, its performance,
its problems, its opportunities, etc.? NOTE: Their interpretations of the facts/theories
may not always be correct, however.
What does the numerical evidence indicate about the trends in the company’s
performance and whether or not it is achieving its goals? Often the real problems in a
case situation are hidden in the numbers, so you cannot skip the numerical analysis.
Extensive numerical/quantitative/empirical analysis is virtually always required in
finance cases, and your written conclusions/recommendations must clearly be based on,
and correspond with, your numerical findings.
(9) Recall (from the lectures and readings) and apply the concepts, tools, theories,
frameworks, paradigms, and past experience, which are at your disposal, to structure,
and make some sense out of, the case evidence.
These tools/concepts/theories, in combination with the evidence, may help you resolve
some of the key issues in the case … and help you to rank the attractiveness of the
solution options.
(10) Set out, for each decision problem, both (a) the set of advantages/benefits/pros and (b)
disadvantages/risks/cons/weaknesses associated with each feasible solution option.
If you make any assumptions to facilitate your analysis, be sure to identify and justify
them.
(11) Evaluate the solution options or alternative courses of action:
This involves weighing the pros and cons of each option and selecting the one which is
likely to lead to the greatest degree of goal fulfillment for the firm or decision maker(s).
Don’t introduce any new evidence at this stage.
4
(12) Make and defend your recommendation(s) with respect to each decision problem:
i.e., why is it a good choice? …. Presumably because it helps the firm or persons
involved achieve its/their goals … draw the linkages between the recommended action
and superior goal achievement as clearly as you can for the reader.
Why is it superior to the other feasible options?
What could go wrong if the firm follows your recommendation? … and what should
the firm do to avoid or mitigate these risks?
Come to a decision – don’t sit on the fence – and state it clearly.
(13) Outline a plan for implementing your recommendation and monitoring its success.
B.
ORGANIZING AND COMPOSING YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION:
(1) In the first paragraph of your case write-up, provide a brief background synopsis of
the case setting, including the general evidence, symptoms, or events which have alerted
the analyst and/or case personalities to the fact that the environment is changing or
something is going wrong which requires attention – in other words, what has driven us
to analyze this case? The synopsis should also describe the origin, history, and nature of
the company and its markets, as well as its ownership structure and any challenges that
may impact/complicate the case analysis.
(2) In the second paragraph (or set of paragraphs), state what you believe are the important
goals of (a) the organization and (b) the key decision-makers in the case – that is, the
goals by which the relative attractiveness of the solution options will be judged – and
defend your identification of these goals by citing the evidence on which your
identification is based. This evidence may be in the form of statements that have been
made in the case, observations of past behaviour or decisions, and/or reasonable, logical
deductions from the case evidence, particularly evidence about the interests and
motivations of the key decision-makers.
State and defend ALL the goals you uncover, because the more legitimate goals you
identify, the greater the number of “action→goal-achievement” linkages you can cite to
support your recommendation.
Don’t confuse means (to achieve) some end/goal with ultimate organizational goals
(which are valid in their own right and not merely as means to some higher-order goal).
For example, “to choose the optimal debt policy” is NOT an end/goal but rather a task
that is undertaken to (a) maximize the market value of the firm and/or (b) preserve (i) the
ownership control of some shareholder group and/or (ii) the autonomy of managers.
5
(3) After your “goals section”, state what you believe are the decision problems in the case
in whatever sequence or hierarchy you feel is logical (for analysis) or easiest for the
reader to follow. The decision-problem definitions should be phrased in such a way that
the strategy, policy, or action recommendations flow naturally from them.
(4) Either immediately after or within the “decision-problem” discussion, list (with
appropriate detail) the feasible solution options that were seriously considered and
evaluated by you to address each decision problem. These must conform with any
constraints given in the case.
(5) Briefly, but clearly and concisely, state your (upfront) recommendation (re: choice of
action or policy) to address each decision problem, citing only the one or two most
important supporting reasons. (The full explanation and defence of your
recommendation – and why it is superior to other options – comes after your “analysis
section” where you have uncovered and examined the pros and cons of all the competing
solution options.)
NOTE: The five items above should ideally all appear on the 1-1.5 pages of your written
submission. In particular, you should state your final recommendation(s) upfront, rather
than keep it/them a mystery from your reader until the end of the analysis.
(6) List any key facts in the case that must be taken into account during the analysis or
evaluation of the solution options. Those that have already have been covered in the
background synopsis need not be repeated. Also list and justify any assumptions that
you made (when case evidence, deemed necessary, is absent) to facilitate your analysis.
(7) Describe the conceptual and data analyses you have performed and the theories and
tools you used in sufficient detail that the reader can evaluate the relevance and
reliability of your findings and conclusions. In other words, lead the reader through your
analysis, point-by-point, stating and justifying the analytical frameworks employed, any
assumptions you made and why, and the evidence that you relied upon.
If your analyses are set out in exhibits, refer the reader to these exhibits at the
appropriate places in your textual discussion. Explain and incorporate the
findings/conclusions of your exhibits within your textual discussion.
6
(8) Defend/justify your recommendations (one at a time):
(a) Ultimately, explain how/why your recommended policy or course of action will go
further to achieving the firm’s goals than doing nothing or adopting any of the nonchosen solution options. The linkages between (i) alternative actions → (ii) likely
alternative outcomes → (iii) relative goal achievement, must be explicit and clear.
(b) Acknowledge and deal with the weaknesses and risks associated with your
recommendation(s).
(c) Make sure the statement of your recommendation is consistent with the way you
have defined the associated decision problem.
(d) Check that, in defending your recommendation, you are not making or introducing
some hidden assumptions that you have not previously identified and justified.
(e) Do not introduce new case evidence in the “recommendations section”.
(9) Where appropriate, follow your “recommendation section” with the outline of a plan for
implementing your chosen recommendation and monitoring its subsequent success.
Frequently, the case will not provide adequate information to do this properly – in which
case just make a quick stab at the key points to consider at the implementation stage.
(10) If not already covered in your “analysis section”, briefly discuss the non-chosen
solution options associated with each decision problem in terms of their likely impact
on the firm and/or the key interested parties, and why these options are inferior to the
chosen/recommended option in terms of overall goal achievement.
(11) Do not include a summary at the end of the presentation – this is almost always
repetitive and is unnecessary for presentations of under 10 pages.
(12) If there is more than one decision problem in the case, try to sequence them in some
logical order and then deal with them one at a time. That is, complete the explanation,
analysis, and justification for your recommendation for the first decision problem
before going onto the second decision problem, etc.
(13) After the first draft of your presentation is prepared, check it for internal consistency
among decision problems, arguments, supporting evidence, conclusions, and recommendations. Check to see that all your statements or assertions make sense and are
consistent with the rest of your arguments. Identify vague, flowery statements and
either delete them or make them specific. Identify any unexplained and undefended
7
assertions and either delete them or justify them. You should also find and correct
spelling mistakes, faulty sentence construction, and other omissions or mistakes.
(14) I shall place a premium on logical, consistent, and well-thought-out analyses.
Conclusions and recommendations that are not clearly and logically tied back to the
realities of the case situation and the assumptions of the analyst are worth very little.
Students will be rewarded for using the data provided in the cases to perform
numerical analyses or provide numerical illustrations, where appropriate, to clarify
their verbal analyses and strategy choices and/or buttress their conclusions. (Pointless
number-pushing, however, will be penalized.) Supporting exhibits, illustrations,
charts, etc. must be clearly labelled and identified. Basically, put yourself in the
position of having to prepare a report for your harried boss, where your future
promotion is dependent upon his perception of the insightfulness, relevance, and
digestibility of your analysis and recommendations.
(15) Attend the class when the case is taken up. The fact that you were up all night
preparing the case is not, in my view, a valid reason for skipping the class. If you
cannot attend the class, you might consider, as a courtesy, e-mailing a note to this
effect to the professor. To crystalize your learning from doing all the work on the case,
you need to hear how the professor “unwraps” and addresses the case issues in class.
NOTE: Plagiarism from published works or each other (which is surprisingly easy to
identify) is dishonest and unacceptable. Students found guilty of plagiarism will be
penalized severely. To avoid plagiarism you should identify the sources of
borrowed quotations, ideas, numerical computations, etc.
C. DEVELOPING/FOCUSING THE DISCUSSION OF THE CASE IN CLASS:
This is the primary responsibility of the instructor. However, by paying attention to the
questions the instructor poses in class and their sequencing, students may gain some useful
insights into how to reduce complex cases down to manageable size and how to “crack” or
solve the cases.
D. COMMON MISTAKES IN PREPARING AND PRESENTING CASE ANALYSES:
(1) Mistaking the symptoms of a problem for the real underlying problem.
(2) Failure to state at least one recommendation for addressing each of the decision problems.
8
(3) Proffering a recommendation for which there is no associated, previously-identified
decision problem.
(4) Failure to defend a recommendation or solution choice by reference to its expected impact
on the achievement of the goals of the business unit or organization and the decisionmakers involved.
(5) Making bald assertions without any supporting logic, analysis, or empirical evidence,
when any of these kinds of support is readily available from the case material.
(6) Introducing assumptions into the analysis which are not derived from, supportable from,
or reasonable in the light of, the facts of the case simply to make the analysis more
manageable.
(7) Inventing solution options which have not been identified as possible or available in the
case in order to avoid having to make a difficult choice among the options which the case
identifies as available or possible.
(8) Recommending some average of the available solution options, or bits and pieces of all
available options, in order to avoid having to make a difficult choice among the available
or possible options.
(9) Failure to evaluate whether the recommended choice or course of action is superior, in
terms of likely overall goal attainment, to other available and feasible choices or courses
of action.
(10) “Turning a blind eye” to the disadvantages or risks associated with one’s recommended
course of action, instead of acknowledging them and discussing how they may be avoided
or mitigated in the implementation of the recommended plan.
(11) Failure to check whether or not the models, theories, concepts, and paradigms used to
structure and make sense of the evidence in the case are applicable in the circumstances of
the case.
(12) Inclusion of exhibits with no apparent connection to the case analyst’s written
commentary or argument. It is up to the case analyst, and not the reader, to draw the
connection between each exhibit (numerical) finding and the recommendation it supports.
If a piece of numerical analysis is not useful for evaluating the solution options, then it
should not be reported.
(13) Failure to acknowledge and deal constructively with “inconvenient” evidence or evidence
that seems to weaken the case for the chosen recommendation or course of action.
9
(14) Basing one’s analysis on the facts revealed and decisions known to have been taken in
reality subsequent to the time setting of the case but which were not known to the decision
makers at the time of the case situation.
(15) Failure to dig deeply enough into the case information to see through the camouflage and
uncover the real issues and problems in the case situation.
(16) Failure to see the case situation in a sufficiently broad context.
(17) Failure to complete the analysis – not only must one identify what has gone wrong, but
one must formulate an action plan to rectify the situation for a complete analysis.