Major Case Presentation: Analyze A Business Case From An Int ✓ Solved

Major Case Presentation: Analyze a business case from an int

Major Case Presentation: Analyze a business case from an integrated perspective using CBK content. Central theme clearly developed showing depth and understanding of CBK content. Clearly identifies problem(s) in case. Integrate multiple components of a business and apply critical thinking to solve integrated business scenarios. Present decisions and recommendations with specific examples and theories from prior CBK courses; ensure organization and APA citations in the presentation slides.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how to approach a major case presentation from an integrated, CBK-centered perspective. The task requires synthesizing knowledge across core business domains—strategy, finance, operations, marketing, information systems, and governance—into a coherent analysis that identifies a central problem, uses rigorous critical thinking, and yields actionable recommendations. This assignment aligns with expectations for Saint Leo University’s GBA-398 course, which emphasizes an integrated view of the organization and the application of cross-disciplinary CBK content to real-world business decisions (Porter, 1985; Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2017). By structuring the analysis around a central theme and supporting claims with established CBK concepts, the paper models how practitioners connect theory to practice in complex decision contexts (Kaplan & Norton, 1992).)

Integrated Case Analysis: Framing the Central Problem

The central problem in any major case presentation should be clearly stated and framed for cross-functional consideration. In an integrated analysis, the problem typically reflects tensions among strategic objectives, financial viability, operational feasibility, and risk exposure. For example, a mid-sized manufacturing firm facing supply chain disruption must decide whether to diversify suppliers, increase inventory buffers, or reconfigure the product mix. Each option has implications for cost structure, customer service, and long-term competitiveness. The central theme, therefore, is the articulation of a cohesive approach that harmonizes strategy, finance, operations, and risk management to sustain value creation (Porter, 1985; Wheelen & Hunger, 2017).)

CBK Content Integration: Linking Theory to Case Realities

Integrated case analysis requires drawing on multiple components of business knowledge (CBK) to justify decisions. Strategy concepts inform the choice of competitive positioning and resource allocation; financial analysis frames the affordability and risk-adjusted returns of each option; operations considerations address supply chain resilience, capacity constraints, and process improvements; marketing and customer insights explain demand implications; and governance and information systems frameworks assess risk, controls, and data-driven decision support. Foundational works in strategic management emphasize how firms achieve competitive advantage by aligning resources with external opportunities (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2017). In parallel, risk management standards such as ISO 31000 provide a structured approach to identifying, analyzing, and treating risk across the organization (ISO, 2018). The COSO ERM framework further integrates governance, strategy setting, and performance to ensure that risk considerations are embedded in decision processes (COSO, 2017). Finally, modern risk analyses benefit from quantitative approaches like the FAIR methodology, which translates information risk into measurable loss magnitudes and event frequencies (Caralli et al., 2010; FAIR Institute, 2020).)

Critical Thinking and Synthesis: Building a Well-Integrated View

Critical thinking in an integrated case means evaluating assumptions, testing competing hypotheses, and balancing short-term pressures with long-term value. A robust analysis identifies underlying assumptions about supplier reliability, demand volatility, and cost structures, then interrogates those assumptions using evidence from multiple CBK domains. For instance, a scenario analysis might compare a “do nothing” path with diversification, vertical integration, or technology-enabled process reengineering, assessing each option’s impact on cash flow, risk exposure, and strategic fit. The literature on critical thinking emphasizes the importance of evidence-based reasoning, the explicit articulation of presumptions, and the use of multiple perspectives to strengthen conclusions (Paul & Elder, 2006). By applying these principles, the analyst achieves a more credible, well-reasoned recommendation rather than a single-discipline conclusion that might overlook cross-functional consequences (Senge, 1990).)

Decisions, Recommendations, and Supporting Evidence

Recommendations should be grounded in CBK content and demonstrate the integration of multiple business components. A typical decision package might include: diversification of suppliers to reduce dependence on single-source risk, paired with strategic inventory buffers to preserve service levels; a financial plan that weighs capital expenditures against anticipated cash flows and risk-adjusted return; a revised operating model that improves throughput while maintaining quality; and a governance mechanism to monitor performance and risk indicators. Each recommendation should be supported by specific CBK concepts, such as Porter’s competitive forces framework for strategic relevance, Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard for performance measurement, and COSO/ISO guidance for risk governance (Porter, 1985; Kaplan & Norton, 1992; COSO, 2017; ISO, 2018). In-text evidence may include hypothetical data illustrations, scenario analyses, and references to prior CBK coursework to demonstrate continuity and learning transfer (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2017).)

Examples, Theories, and Reflections on Prior CBK Courses

Building on prior CBK courses, the analysis should reference established theories and case-based insights. The Fifth Discipline emphasizes learning organizations and systems thinking, which is relevant when evaluating how interconnected departments respond to disruption (Senge, 1990). Resource-based view theory highlights the strategic value of unique internal capabilities in sustaining competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Additionally, managerial decision-making under uncertainty benefits from quantitative risk methods, including scenario analysis and probabilistic modeling; these approaches are consistent with risk-management frameworks like COSO and ISO 31000 (COSO, 2017; ISO, 2018). The integration of these theories with practical evidence strengthens the persuasiveness of the final recommendations and demonstrates the student’s ability to apply CBK concepts across domains (Porter, 1985; Mintzberg, 1973).)

Conclusion

A successful major case presentation delivers an integrated view of the organization, anchored in CBK content and reinforced by critical thinking. By clearly stating the central problem, linking evidence across strategic, financial, operational, and risk dimensions, and offering coherent recommendations, the analysis provides decision-makers with a holistic understanding of the case and actionable steps. The use of established frameworks—COSO ERM, ISO 31000, FAIR, Porter’s competitive strategy, and the balanced scorecard—helps ensure that the solution is well-supported, practically implementable, and aligned with best practices in modern management (COSO, 2017; ISO, 2018; FAIR Institute, 2020; Porter, 1985; Kaplan & Norton, 1992).)

References

  • Caralli, R., Allen, J., Brown, C., & Wilson, R. (2010). The Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR) Guide. © The Open Group / FAIR Institute.
  • COSO. (2017). Enterprise Risk Management—Integrated Framework. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
  • ISO. (2018). ISO 31000:2018, Risk Management Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review.
  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. Free Press.
  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
  • US NIST. (2012). SP 800-30 Rev. 1: Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2017). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization (12th ed.). Cengage.
  • Drucker, P. F. (1954). The Practice of Management. Harper & Row.
  • Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper & Row.

Related Assignments