What "with solution" actually asks of you
A strategic management case study with solution ends in a commitment. Standard analysis assignments stop at diagnosis — what is wrong, why, through which framework. The solution variant demands one more move: pick among live alternatives and own the pick, with conditions and costs attached. That is why the marking rubric usually reserves a visible slice of the grade for the recommendation itself, not just the reasoning that leads to it.
The rest of this page builds toward that final move. The skeleton generator below assembles the outline; the five steps explain the logic in order; the worked outline shows the logic filled in.
Build a solution skeleton in three selects
Choose the case's focus, the analytical lens your course expects, and your level. The generator assembles an outline you can copy into your notes and rewrite in your own voice. It is a starting structure, not a finished argument — the case facts still have to come from you.
Worked-solution skeleton generator
100% private — runs in your browserPick a focus and a lens, then build. Nothing you select leaves this page.
The five steps from analysis to recommendation
Solutions fail in predictable places: the analysis never connects to a decision, or the options are straw men. These five steps keep the chain intact.
Map the decision before the frameworks
Who decides, by when, and what is reversible. "The board must choose this quarter whether to close the second plant" gives every framework a job. A framework applied to "the company's situation" produces description, not strategy.
Evidence the situation with one lens, done well
Pick the lens the decision actually needs and fill it with case facts — figures, dates, named constraints. Two frameworks done thoroughly beat five listed with one bullet each. The generator above adjusts the analysis section to whichever lens you choose.
Generate options that could genuinely happen
Three is the working number: the status quo plus two live alternatives. An option is real when it names an action, a rough cost and a consequence. "Improve marketing" is a wish. "Open a flagship store in the capital district, funded by closing the two weakest outlets" is an option.
Test the options against stated criteria
Money, capability, risk and timing are enough for most cases — say what your criteria are before you score. This is where the solution earns the word: an evaluation the reader can retrace, option by option, instead of adjectives.
Commit, with conditions and a first phase
One recommended option, written as a sentence a manager could act on, plus the conditions that would change your mind and the first 90 days. A recommendation nobody could reverse is a plan nobody would approve.
A worked mini-outline, filled in
The table below shows the structure carrying real weight. The running example is an illustrative regional grocery chain squeezed by a discount entrant — constructed for teaching, not a real company, with invented figures clearly treated as such.
| Section | What goes in it (illustrative grocery case) |
|---|---|
| Executive summary | The discount entrant now undercuts the chain on 200 staple lines; recommend a focused-value response, not a price war. Two numbers: the margin gap and the basket share at risk. |
| Situation analysis (Five Forces) | Buyer power is rising — shoppers cross-check staples on price; supplier power is stable; the entrant's store format caps its fresh-food range. One force, buyer power, drives the decision. |
| Core problem | The chain cannot win a whole-basket price war with a leaner cost base. It can win the top-up and fresh trip. |
| Options | (a) Match prices on staples across all stores; (b) reposition around fresh, local and service in the six suburban stores; (c) close two marginal stores and fund a loyalty-price scheme on 80 staples. |
| Evaluation | Against margin, capability and risk: (a) spends cash the case shows the chain lacks; (c) trades footprint for pricing firepower but risks signal value; (b) fits demonstrated shopper behavior. |
| Recommendation | Option (b), with a condition: if the entrant's third store opens inside twelve months, revisit (c). First 90 days: retrain floor teams, reset two aisles per store, track basket size weekly. |
| Risks and controls | Perception that prices rose — mitigate with the loyalty scheme's headline items and store-level price checks. |
| References | The case itself plus the frameworks cited per your style guide. |
Six frameworks, and when each one earns its place
Frameworks are tools, not sections to fill for their own sake. Tap each card to see what it is for and the one question it answers best. When your case needs a full SWOT or a scored Five Forces pass, our SWOT analysis generator and Porter's Five Forces generator build them interactively — both export text you can paste into your draft and rewrite.
SWOT
Tap to flip
Five Forces
Tap to flip
PESTLE
Tap to flip
Value chain
Tap to flip
Portfolio matrix
Tap to flip
Balanced scorecard
Tap to flip
Say it like a decision
The recommendation paragraph is where solution grades are won and lost. Hedge everything and the marker reads a summary; commit and the marker reads a strategist. Same illustrative grocery case, two versions:
The chain could possibly consider repositioning towards fresh food, although matching prices on staples might also be an option worth exploring. Further research into shopper preferences may be beneficial before a final decision is made.
What went wrong: four hedges in two sentences, no criteria, no condition, no first move. Nothing here could be graded as a solution.
Recommendation: reposition the six suburban stores around fresh, local and service — the segment where the entrant's format is weakest. Do not enter a staple price war: the case's cost base cannot fund one. Condition: if a third entrant store opens within twelve months, put the two-store closure and loyalty-pricing option back on the table. First 90 days: reset two aisles per store, retrain floor teams, and track weekly basket size as the early signal.
Why it works: one option, a stated reason, a condition that shows the thinking is contingent, and a measurable first move. The marker can disagree with the call — and grade it.
Where solution marks quietly leak
- Solving the stated symptom. The case says "sales are falling"; the real decision is about margin mix, channel or cost. Ask what a board would actually debate before you frame the problem.
- Framework bingo. Five frameworks, each with three generic bullets, none connected to a decision. If a framework does not change your recommendation, cut it or deepen it.
- Straw-man options. "Do nothing" dressed as an option, or an extreme no one would pick. Both make the evaluation section read as theatre.
- Recommendations without a price tag. Every option costs something — cash, focus, capability or time. If the case never learns what yours costs, the evaluation cannot rank it.
Want a second pair of eyes on the whole chain?
If your analysis reads fine but the recommendation still feels thin, a quoted, deadline-bound writer can pressure-test the logic from decision to first phase — or draft the full solution for you to rework and defend.
Frequently asked questions
What does "with solution" actually mean in the assignment?
It signals that the deliverable ends in a recommended course of action, not a diagnosis. You still analyse — usually more rigorously — but the analysis exists to justify a choice among alternatives. Expect the rubric to grade the recommendation and its justification as a distinct block.
How many options should the solution section present?
Three works in nearly every case: the status quo plus two live alternatives. Fewer than three makes the evaluation thin; more than five spreads the same word budget too thin to evaluate anything properly. Quality of comparison beats quantity of boxes.
Should the final recommendation be a single option or a blend?
Commit to one primary option. Blends read as evasion because they avoid the trade-off the case was built to create. You can phase a recommendation or attach conditions — that shows judgment — but the marker should be able to tell, in one sentence, what you would do.
How long should a strategic management case solution be?
Briefs commonly range from 2,000 to 3,500 words at undergraduate level and run longer at MBA level, but the rubric rules. If the recommendation block carries a quarter of the marks, it should get roughly a quarter of the words — not the last hundred.
Which framework should lead the analysis?
The one that matches the decision: industry-level choices suit Five Forces, inside-the-firm choices suit the value chain, broad environmental shifts suit PESTLE, and positioning calls suit SWOT. The skeleton generator above pairs a lens with each focus type so you can see the logic before committing.
Was this guide useful?