OUTLINE FOR CASE ANALYSIS AND REPORTS

1. Source Problems:

This is a general statement of the underlying, fundamental problem or core issue. It is important to distinguish between symptoms of the problem, and the problem itself. Frequently the source problem precedes the current problems in the case. (one short paragraph)

(medical example: tonsillitis)

2. Secondary Problems:

These are more specific, current and observable problems and derive from the source problem. They frequently are the problems immediately evident in the case. Do not write three sections: all problems should be listed under short or long term. (Three quarters of a page).

(medical example: fever, loss of appetite, cough)

Short Term:

Current problems of recent origin, which can be solved within a period of months without major commitments of capital, technology, finance or managerial effort.

(business example: overstocking, high prices, labour shortage)

2.1

2.2

2.3

Long Term:

Problems which have existed for years, and which involve long-term trends in the internal or external environment. They will reuire solutions spread over a period longer than, say, a year, and may demand major allocations of capital, technology, finance and managerial effort.

(business example: obsolete products, out-pf-date production process technology, lack of adequate plant capacity)

2.4

2.5

3. Analysis:

Case facts which are crucial to the problems as defined are called “evidence”. They should not be mere repetition of case facts, but should rather reflect the processes of evaluation, synthesis, careful interpretation and insight. The analyst should “read between the lines”. This might involve the calculation of financial rations, trend lines, growth rates, etc. in order to reorganise data to yield not-so-obvious facts. These “new” facts can be used as case evidence in support of problem definitions and proposed solutions. Economic, financial and marketing data should be analysed. Theory, concepts, models and research evidence should be used as key to open the case. “Course language” should be integrated with “case language”. High marks require skilful integration of concepts and case evidence. This section should comprise 50% of the report. (three pages)

4. Criteria of Evaluation: Goals (Objectives/Performance Targets/KPI’S/Decision Criteria), and Their Time Frames.

Clear, concise statement of the goals, standards, targets or objectives that the analyst will use to measure the effectiveness of alternatives considered. Alternatives are tested against these criteria to assess their effectiveness in solving the problem. This is a statement of what you want to accomplish; alternatives describe how you plan to accomplish it. These are decision rules or decision criteria. Examples: a 10%return on investment by 2012; a 25% share of the medium car market segment by 2011; elimination of industrial strikes for at least a two-year period. Criteria should look like table 2.3 Some Typical Business Objectives in Hofer’s reference at ECMS. (half page)

5. Alternatives:

A comprehensive listing of all major feasible courses of action open to the decision-maker. The analyst should avoid repetition and duplication. Usually all available options can be reduced to five or six alternatives. Usually all available options can be reduced to five or six alternatives. These must be viable, practical and realistic. They need not be mutually exclusive, i.e. the analyst may opt for two or even three of these alternatives in her final recommendations. It is essential to decide who the decision –maker will be, and the likelihood that she will take the action recommended by the analyst. These alternatives must be fully developed into one paragraph strategy statements as per Hofer and Schendel’s (p42-44) characteristics, explained in table 2.8 Characteristics of Effective Strategy Statement in Hofer’s reference at ECMS. (three quarters of a page)

Short Term:

5.1

5.2

5.3

Long Term:

5.4

5.5

6. Recommended Strategy:

This is the action you propose to solve the problem identified in (1.0) and (2.0) and is selected from the range of alternatives presented. It must be restated. It is acceptable to cut and paste from section 5.0 (one or two paragraphs)

Short Term:

6.1

6.2

Long Term:

6.3

7. Justification of Recommendations:

In this section, the analyst demonstrates why the alternative selected is the most effective in attacking the problem, and why the other alternatives were rejected. Evidence (from section 3.0) is used to support the recommendations and to reject the actions not accepted. It should be shown how and why recommended action will meet the criteria of evaluation, and thus solve the problem, and how and why the rejected strategies will fail or be less effective. Short term solutions should be related to short term problems and long term proposals to long term problems.

In this discussion, the analyst should describe e the risks and opportunities, costs and benefits, and strengths and weaknesses of each alternative, and thus build a convincing case in favour of the decision he is recommending. Furthermore, it is essential to scrutinise all alternatives to ascertain whether the adoption of a particular solution to solve the problem, will create a new problem. To earn high marks it is essential to draw on research evidence or theory to argue for the strategic choice. (one and a quarter pages)

8. Implementation, Control and Follow-up:

In this concluding section, the analysis should list the clear, specific steps to be taken to adopt the proposed solution. What obstacles may be expected, and how should these be overcome? What policy or organisation changes are indicated? What controls are needed to avoid a recurrence of the problem in the future? For example, if the action recommended is to retrench 50 assembly line workers, what union reaction can be expected and what contingency plans are available to deal with obstacles that could arise during implementation of decisions? (two paragraphs)