This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ased on the company doing something different instead of basing
scenarios on if the company does not take action
Setting up “straw man” alternatives, i.e., alternatives that clearly will not be chosen as the
recommend course of action
Missing or underdeveloped exploration of the disadvantages for each alternative
Making a “multi-part” alternative, e.g., “invest in new widget technology while expanding
our market for gadgets in India.”
Putting elements of a desired course of action into both alternatives, thus violating the
“mutually exclusive” rule, e.g., 1) start the new business and go international, and 2) go
Missing or underdeveloped statement(s) of decision-criteria
Missing or underdeveloped justification for the recommended course of action
Missing or underdeveloped discussion why the other alternatives are not preferred
GEB Guide to Conducting Case Analyses—Spring Page of Missing or underdeveloped clearly stated and specific goals, objectives, and expected results, e.g.,
time, financial, market share, organization structure, etc. Please note: this is the most common of all
errors in case analyses.
Not considering organizational reality when specifying action plan, e.g., the plan clearly goes
against organizational culture, organization cannot afford it, etc.
Not including the results of financial findings as the foundation of your recommendation
Implementation/Action Plan Section—the Most Important Section of the Paper!
Putting the onus on the company to do your work, i.e., stating that the organization should
set up a task force/committee to explore an issue further/make a decision—remember, you
are the consultant coming up with the plan…
Lack of sufficient explanation—why this course of action?
Over-reliance on soft implementation details instead of clear implementation details—
whom? how? how soon? costs? responsibilities?
View Full Document
- Spring '10