Overview
Business schools use Harvard-style and teaching cases to test judgment: can you diagnose the core problem, weigh evidence from exhibits and interviews, consider alternatives and recommend a course of action with its risks? Marking rubrics usually reward that chain of reasoning far more than a page of SWOT bullets. Yet many students are taught the frameworks as a checklist and end up describing the company instead of analyzing the decision.
Our support treats each framework as a lens with a specific purpose and known limits. We work with your case, your brief and your marking criteria to help you decide which lenses belong in your report, how deep each should go and how to connect them, so that the external analysis (PESTLE, Five Forces) and internal analysis (value chain, VRIO) actually meet in a strategic conclusion.
You write the analysis. We coach you through planning, review your outline and drafts with detailed comments, and explain the concepts until you can apply them yourself, including in a timed case exam where no one can help.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Undergraduate business and management students writing their first case analysis or strategy report
- MBA and master's students facing Harvard Business School or Ivey cases with exhibits and financial data
- Students in marketing, HR, operations or international business modules whose brief names specific frameworks
- Students writing in English as an additional language who understand the case but struggle to structure the argument
- Anyone preparing for a timed case exam or group case presentation who wants to practice the reasoning
Common problems we help with
- Your SWOT lists generic points ("strong brand", "economic uncertainty") that could describe any company
- Feedback says your work is "too descriptive" or "lacks critical analysis"
- You are unsure which frameworks the case actually needs, so you have used all of them
- Your recommendations appear from nowhere, with no link to the analysis or the case evidence
- You cannot interpret the financial exhibits well enough to support or challenge the case protagonist
- You go well over the word count because frameworks take up the space the argument needed
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Reading the brief and rubric with you to identify the decision or question the case asks you to address
- Guidance on framework selection, with a rationale for using or leaving out each tool
- Coaching on external analysis: PESTLE factors that matter to this industry and Porter's Five Forces at the right industry boundary
- Coaching on internal analysis: value chain activities, resources and capabilities, and VRIO assessment with case evidence
- Help reading case exhibits: ratio analysis, trends, segment data and what they imply for the options
- Portfolio and growth tools (BCG matrix, Ansoff matrix) explained with their assumptions and limitations
- Structuring options analysis: generating alternatives, criteria for evaluation and a justified recommendation
- Implementation, risk and contingency sections that are specific rather than generic
- Detailed written feedback on your outline and draft, including argument flow, evidence use and referencing (APA or Harvard)
- Optional live session to talk through your analysis or rehearse a case presentation
Not included
- Writing your case analysis, report or presentation for submission — you remain the author and we coach and give feedback
- Completing take-home case exams or timed assessments on your behalf
- Inventing company data, market figures or interview quotes; we help you find and cite legitimate sources
- Professional consulting advice for a real business decision; this is academic support
What you receive
- Case question and framework plan
- A short note agreed with you that states the core decision, the frameworks worth using and why, and a suggested word allocation by section.
- Annotated outline review
- Comments on your outline showing where the logic from analysis to recommendation is strong, thin or missing.
- Draft feedback
- Tracked comments and a summary memo on framework use, evidence, critical depth, structure, referencing and fit to the marking criteria.
- Framework explainer notes
- Concise notes on the tools you are using, including common misuses to avoid, so you can apply them in future cases and exams.
- Coaching session (optional)
- A live walkthrough of your reasoning or a rehearsal of your case presentation, with questions a tutor or panel might ask.
How it works
Share the case and brief
Send the case, the assignment brief, rubric and any lecture slides on expected frameworks. Tell us your deadline and where you are stuck.
Define the problem
We help you frame the central question in one or two sentences and distinguish symptoms (falling sales) from causes (a weakened position in a key segment).
Plan the analysis
Together we choose the frameworks and the evidence for each, then map how each part will feed your options and recommendation.
You draft, we review
You write the analysis. We return detailed feedback on the draft, usually in one or two rounds depending on your deadline.
Final check and debrief
A last look at structure and referencing, plus a short debrief on what to carry into your next case or exam.
Strategy frameworks and when each earns its place
- SWOT
- A summary device, not an analysis. It works best at the end of your external and internal analysis, and best of all when turned into a TOWS matrix that pairs strengths with opportunities and so on to generate strategic options.
- PESTLE
- Political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental factors in the macro-environment. Useful when you prioritize the few factors that change industry economics, and weak when every letter gets equal space.
- Porter's Five Forces
- Analyzes industry attractiveness through rivalry, threat of entry, substitutes, buyer power and supplier power. It applies to an industry, not a single firm, so defining the industry boundary is the first decision.
- Value chain
- Breaks a firm into primary and support activities to locate where cost or differentiation advantage is created. Often the bridge between Five Forces and VRIO.
- VRIO
- Tests whether a resource or capability is valuable, rare, costly to imitate and supported by the organization, following Barney's resource-based view. Most useful for specific capabilities, not whole companies.
- BCG growth-share matrix
- Classifies business units or product lines by market growth and relative market share. Relevant to multi-business portfolio decisions; rarely helpful for a single-product firm.
- Ansoff matrix
- Frames growth options as market penetration, product development, market development or diversification, with rising risk. Helps generate options; it does not choose between them.
- Financial and options analysis
- Ratio analysis, break-even and simple scenario comparisons, plus weighted criteria or decision matrices to evaluate alternatives transparently.
Common framework misuses (and what markers look for instead)
Frameworks lose marks when they are used as templates to fill rather than questions to answer. The patterns below show up again and again in case feedback, and each has a straightforward fix once you know what the tool was designed to do.
- SWOT as the analysis: a list of internal and external points with no evidence or implication. Fix: derive each point from your earlier analysis and state its "so what" for the decision.
- Opportunities that are really strategies ("expand into Asia"). Fix: opportunities are external conditions; the expansion is an option you evaluate later.
- PESTLE with six equal paragraphs. Fix: rank factors by impact on this industry and discuss two or three properly.
- Five Forces applied to a company rather than an industry, or with the industry defined too broadly. Fix: state the boundary (for example, premium coffee shops in urban UK) and justify it.
- VRIO applied to vague assets like "good management" or "brand". Fix: specify the capability, such as a proprietary supply network, and show evidence for each criterion.
- BCG matrix drawn for a firm with one product, or with market share guessed. Fix: use it only for genuine portfolios and label estimates as estimates.
- Ansoff used to justify a recommendation already chosen. Fix: use it to generate options, then compare them against explicit criteria.
From analysis to recommendation
A strong case report reads like an argument: here is the problem, here is what the environment and the organization tell us, here are the realistic options, here is why one is better, and here is how to implement it and what could go wrong. We help you build that spine first and then fit frameworks to it.
We encourage recommendations that are specific (who does what, by when, with what resources), consistent with the case constraints (budget, timeline, stakeholder positions shown in the case), and honest about trade-offs. Where the case includes financial exhibits, we help you use the numbers to test feasibility instead of reproducing tables.
Using sources beyond the case
Some briefs forbid outside research; others expect industry data, academic strategy literature or company filings. We check which applies, then help you find credible sources such as annual reports, industry association data and peer-reviewed strategy articles, and cite them correctly. When a case is set in the past, we remind you to analyze with the information available at that time unless the brief says otherwise.
Group case projects
In group reports, the joins between sections often show: one member's PESTLE contradicts another's Five Forces, and the recommendation ignores both. We can review the integrated draft for consistency of argument, terminology and referencing, and suggest how the team can divide analysis without fragmenting it. Each member remains responsible for their own contribution under your course rules.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative feedback excerpt: turning a SWOT into an argument
A fictional second-year student analyzed a mid-sized regional bakery chain facing new discount supermarket competition. The excerpt shows the type of comment we return on a draft; the case and figures are invented.
What the draft did
The SWOT listed "loyal customers" as a strength and "competition" as a threat, with no link between them and no evidence from the case exhibits.
Our comment
Exhibit 3 shows repeat-purchase rates falling from 62% to 48% in stores within one mile of a discounter, but holding steady elsewhere. That suggests loyalty is location-dependent, which is a sharper and better-evidenced point. Consider a TOWS pairing: could the chain's in-store baking capability (a strength you have evidenced in the value chain section) support a differentiation response in exposed stores?
Why it matters
The rubric awards the top band for "analysis clearly driving recommendations". Linking each SWOT item to evidence and an implication lets your later options section build on it instead of starting over.
Illustrative example with an invented company and invented figures. Real feedback responds to your case, brief and rubric.
What you’ll need to provide
- The case study text and exhibits (or the reference if it is a published teaching case your institution licenses)
- The assignment brief, word limit and marking rubric
- Any required frameworks, reading list or lecture materials
- Your notes, outline or draft, at whatever stage they are
- Your referencing style and any group-work arrangements
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Length and complexity of the case, including volume of financial exhibits
- Number of feedback rounds and whether you want written feedback only or live sessions
- How many frameworks and sections your brief requires
- Whether outside research sources need to be located and evaluated
- Individual versus group project review
Turnaround depends on
- The stage your work is at: planning support can start immediately, draft feedback needs a draft
- Length of the draft and number of review rounds you want before your deadline
- Availability of the case materials and brief at the start
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Which frameworks should I use for my case?
It depends on the question. An entry decision benefits from Five Forces and PESTLE; a question about sustaining advantage calls for value chain and VRIO; a portfolio or resource-allocation question may justify BCG. If your brief mandates specific frameworks, use them, but make each one answer part of the case question. We help you decide and explain the choice in your report.
Will you write the case analysis for me?
No. You write it, and we coach you through planning and give detailed feedback on your drafts. This keeps the work yours, which also matters because case courses often end with a timed case exam or class discussion where you have to reason on your own.
My case is a Harvard Business School case. Can you work with it?
Yes, provided you share the materials you have legitimately purchased or been given by your course. We do not distribute case texts or teaching notes.
Can you help with the financial exhibits?
Yes. We explain how to calculate and interpret the ratios or projections relevant to your question, and how to present them concisely. For deeper valuation or modeling, see our financial modeling and valuation support.
My tutor says my work is too descriptive. What does that mean in a case analysis?
Usually that you have reported what the case says instead of what it means. Critical analysis asks why something is happening, how important it is compared with other factors, and what it implies for the decision. Our feedback marks descriptive passages and suggests the analytical question each one should answer.
What do you need from me to get started?
The case, the brief, the rubric and your current notes or draft. If your lecturer has specified frameworks or reading, include those too, so feedback matches what your markers expect.