How to structure a business case.

A case is not a stack of slides. It is an argument that a decision-maker can follow under time pressure. The Case Competition archive in Hong Kong treats structure as a public skill: students should be able to say what the problem is, why it matters now, what they analysed, what they recommend, and what could go wrong.

Start with the decision, not the exhibit pack.

Read the prompt twice. Circle the decision owner, the time horizon, the constraint, and the success measure. If the case asks whether a fare should rise, do not begin with a history of the company. Begin with the decision: raise, hold, or redesign the fare architecture, and under what conditions.

Write a one-sentence situation, a one-sentence complication, and a governing question. This is the spine. Every later chart should answer part of that question. If a chart cannot, it is decoration.

Build an issue tree before you open Excel.

Break the governing question into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive branches. For a profitability case the first split is often revenue versus cost. For a market-entry case it is attractiveness, ability to win, and ability to deliver. For a public-service case it may be riders, reliability, finance, and political feasibility.

Do not force a famous framework onto a local problem. MTR in Hong Kong is not a generic railway. SK-II in Japan is not a generic skincare brand. The tree should use the language of the case, then borrow tools only where they sharpen a branch.

Analyse, then choose.

Good student work has a visible sequence: facts, interpretation, options, recommendation. Weak work jumps from a SWOT list to a slogan. Put two or three real options on the table, including a serious “do nothing” or “do less” option. Score them against the criteria the decision-maker actually has: cash, time, capability, risk, and stakeholder reaction.

Quantify what you can. A fare increase without a ridership effect is incomplete. A market-size number without a method is theatre. Show the formula, the assumption, and the sensitivity. Judges would rather see a transparent estimate than a false precise number.

Close with a recommendation that can be implemented.

State the action, the owner, the first 90 days, the investment, and the kill criteria. Name the two largest risks and the leading indicator for each. Leave a slide or a paragraph for Q&A so the team is not surprised by the obvious objection.

Students practising on the archive cases can apply this same spine to MTR, SK-II, Malaysia Airlines, Starbucks India, Google, and the people cases. The industries change. The need for a decision-shaped argument does not.

Read the companion notes on issue trees, recommendation slides, and how to compete.