Make the functions cohere
Marketing, R&D, operations, finance, people and ESG decisions are judged as one mutually reinforcing system—not as six functional answers.[1][2]
Strategy capstone · MBA & eMBA Term 4
Business Simulationstrategy under pressure, with consequences.
A 20-session executive decision laboratory in which teams run a global technology company across Asia, Europe and the United States—integrating strategy, marketing, R&D, production, people, finance, tax and ESG while rivals move at the same time.
- Course
- MBA & eMBA · Term 4
- Format
- 20 sessions · 90 minutes each
- Decision unit
- 5–7 member management teams
Worth asking
Before the first round, make the logic visible.
Did your team win, or did a rival just lose?
If a number surprises you, was it bad luck—or a hidden assumption?
Would you make the same call if the ESG cost hit this quarter, not year five?
01 / Learning promise
Run the whole business and defend every trade-off.
The simulation makes interdependence unavoidable. A product launch can be strategically attractive and financially impossible; a stockout can validate demand and destroy value; an ESG choice can reshape both operating performance and stakeholder outcomes.
Preserve the forecast
Teams must forecast before submitting, preserve their decision logic and compare intent with the operational and financial results that follow.[1][5]
Change course deliberately
A strategy is a testable set of choices. Strong teams distinguish a weak execution signal from a broken strategic assumption and adapt deliberately.[2][3][4]
How the rounds compound
Each round removes an excuse.
The simulation is not a set of isolated contests. Every round inherits the last round's decisions, and every debrief raises the bar for what counts as a defensible choice.
Round 1 Commit to a thesis
Teams choose price, product mix and capacity with the least evidence they will ever have in the course.
Driving question
Did your team buy growth, earn it, or gamble on it?
Round 2 Meet the causal chain
Forecasts meet results. Teams must trace which numbers were caused by their own strategy, by a rival's move, or by a hidden assumption.
Driving question
Which number is an outcome, and which one was the cause?
Round 3 Defend coherence
Growth, margin, cash, risk and sustainability choices are now read as one connected system—winning on one axis while breaking another no longer counts as winning.
Driving question
Would this decision survive being read back to you as a single, connected story?
Round 4 Compress to a decision rule
Cumulative returns across teams compress sharply by the final round. The debrief stops accepting a rank as the answer and asks for the one rule that would have prevented the round's worst reversal.
Driving question
What is the one rule that would have prevented your team's worst reversal this round?
From the live sections · Round-by-round materials
The actual decks and results, ready to study.
These are the debrief decks and results workbooks from the sections as they actually ran—not illustrative examples. Download them, compare your own team's line against the cohort, and come to the next round with a sharper thesis.
Round 1
The opening round already separated the field sharply, with one team in nearly every group posting a deep loss while the leaders were decided by only a few points of TSR.
Section C
Section C ran only Universe 1 in the opening round. Grey took the early lead on cumulative TSR (35.5%), narrowly ahead of Pink and Akatsuki, even though Pink actually closed the round with the strongest cumulative earnings of the seven teams. Green's aggressive early spend produced the round's only loss and the field's weakest return, at -49.5% TSR. Universe 2 had not yet joined Section C, so there is no cross-universe comparison for Round 1.
Section D
Section D ran both universes from the very first round. Universe 1's Ochre took the early lead by combining market-share strength with credible future value, narrowly ahead of Orange and Red Rangers—Red Rangers actually posted the round's highest profit without topping TSR—while Green fell to the weakest market capitalisation of the six teams despite issuing fresh equity. Universe 2 was calmer at the top, with Grey leading on cumulative TSR (32.1%) ahead of Blue and Green, while Orange brought up the rear.
Round 2
Leadership changed hands in three of the four groups, and both sections' Universe 2 closed the round with the stronger economics.
Section C
Universe 1 changed hands at the top as Harshad Mehta Gang (Round 1's Red, renamed) surged to the Round 2 lead on TSR (39.8%) and became the universe's global market-share leader, while Green clawed back roughly $833m from Round 1's loss without yet reaching the leaders and Lakshmi Chit Fund posted the steepest profit decline of the round. Universe 2 stayed with Lehman Bros. in front (48.2%), but SEBI's Watchlist emerged as the profit leader on sales up 68% and profit up over 220%, Vijay Mallya captured the universe's biggest market-share gain, and Blues Clues' position collapsed to a CCC+ credit rating. Universe 2 closed Round 2 with both the higher TSR leader and the stronger average return of the two universes.
Section D
Universe 1 saw its first change at the top: Orange overtook Ochre for the Round 2 lead even though Red Rangers held the higher current profit and Ochre the better ROCE, and no team outside the leading three broke into contention. Green's operating picture improved sharply, moving from deeply negative returns to positive ROS and ROCE and becoming the universe's volume leader, though it remained well behind the leaders on value. Universe 2 stayed with Grey in front (28.6%) ahead of Green and Blue, while Ochre's cumulative TSR turned negative (-2.9%) for the round.
Round 3
Two of the four groups saw their Round 1 leader retake the top spot, while Section D's Universe 1 produced the biggest single rank jump of the series so far.
Section C
Universe 1's leadership changed hands again as Grey reclaimed the top spot it held in Round 1, becoming what the debrief calls the round's "coherent leader" on the strength of the highest profit and an AA credit rating, even as Harshad Mehta Gang kept the higher market capitalisation. The universe's profit pool turned negative overall, swinging from +$1.00bn in Round 2 to -$0.61bn in Round 3, with Lakshmi Chit Fund posting the steepest loss. Universe 2 changed leaders too: Satyam 2.0 (Round 3's successor to Vijay Mallya) took over as TSR and profit leader from Round 2's Lehman Bros., which slipped to third, while SEBI's Watchlist held second. Universe-wide, sales grew from $11.1bn to $13.9bn even as aggregate profit fell from $3.38bn to $2.08bn.
Section D
Universe 1 saw Ochre regain the lead it held in Round 1 and lost in Round 2, while Grey produced the section's largest rank climb of the series, rising from fifth in each of the first two rounds to second on the back of strong profit, ROS, ROCE and an AAA credit rating. Universe 2 stayed settled at the top: Grey held first across all three rounds even as its TSR level declined, while The Godfathers recovered to second place and Red fell from a middle rank to last.
Round 4
Universe leadership changed hands in both sections; compression continued everywhere.
Section C
Universe 1's Big Bulls climbed from fifth to first as Green staged a sharp recovery, while Harshad Mehta Gang and Grey both slid down the table. Universe 2 saw Lehman Bros. retake the lead as Blues Clues rose from sixth to second. Both universes show cumulative TSR compressing hard by the final round, with Universe 2 still holding the stronger aggregate profit and market value of the two.
Section D
Universe 1's Red Rangers took over the lead in the final round after three rounds sitting third, while Ochre and Orange both lost ground. Universe 2 stayed calmer: Grey held first from Round 1 through Round 4, and Ochre made the section's biggest late climb, from fourth to third. Read the flow-map deck alongside the results workbook to see exactly which decisions moved each line.
Round 5
Leadership turned over in one universe of each section while the other stayed settled at the top.
Section C
Universe 1's Lakshmi Chit Fund made the round's biggest jump, climbing from seventh to fourth, while Green took over the lead from Big Bulls, which slipped to second. Universe 2 stayed calmer at the top—Lehman Bros. and Blues Clues held first and second—with SEBI's Watchlist climbing one place to fourth as T5S fell to fifth. Universe 2 closed Round 5 with the stronger economics of the two: a positive aggregate profit and average TSR against Universe 1's negative figures on both counts.
- Team flow map, Round 1 → Round 5Slides
- Universe 1 vs Universe 2 insightsSlides
- Universe 1 comparative debriefSlides
- Universe 1 results workbookWorkbook
- Universe 2 comparative debriefSlides
- Universe 2 results workbookWorkbook
- Integrated final workshop deckSlides
- Final reflection & participation toolkitSlides
- Team reflection questionsSlides
Section D
Universe 1 changed hands at the top: Orange climbed from third to first as Red Rangers, the Round 4 leader, slipped to second and Ochre fell to third. Universe 2 was calmer at the summit—Grey held first from Round 4 into Round 5—but HallaBol produced the round's largest swing anywhere in Section D, climbing from last place to second, while The Godfathers and Ochre both lost ground. The two universes split on quality this round: Universe 1 closed with the stronger total profit and a positive average TSR, while Universe 2's leader posted the higher individual TSR even as the universe's average TSR stayed negative.
- Team flow map, Round 1 → Round 5Slides
- Universe 1 vs Universe 2 insightsSlides
- Universe 1 comparative debriefSlides
- Universe 1 results workbookWorkbook
- Universe 2 comparative debriefSlides
- Universe 2 results workbookWorkbook
- Integrated final workshop deckSlides
- Final reflection & participation toolkitSlides
- Team reflection questionsSlides
Round 6
Both of Section C's universes changed leaders this round, while Section D's stayed exactly as Round 5 left them.
Section C
Universe 1's leadership changed hands again: Lakshmi Chit Fund, fourth after Round 5, took over the Round 6 lead as Green slipped to second and Big Bulls fell from second all the way to fifth; Grey closed the round in last place. Universe 2 saw Blues Clues overtake Lehman Bros. for the lead, with SEBI's Watchlist climbing two places to second and Lehman Bros. dropping to third, while T5S's TSR collapsed to -24.1%, the round's sharpest reversal. On aggregate economics, Universe 1 closed Round 6 with a positive average TSR (+2.6%) against Universe 2's negative average (-2.1%), even though Universe 2's aggregate profit pool—over $11bn—dwarfed Universe 1's $3.4bn.
Section D
Universe 1 was the calmest group anywhere in the course this round: Orange, Red Rangers and Ochre held exactly the same 1-2-3 order they closed Round 5 in, with Orange's and Red Rangers' TSRs separated by just 0.03 points. Universe 2 stayed with Grey in the lead for a third straight round, while Red posted the group's weakest score, closing at -15.7% TSR. Universe 1 closed with the stronger economics of the two universes this round: a higher aggregate profit ($7.4bn vs $4.7bn) and a higher average TSR (+4.1% vs +2.5%).
Before the Round 6 debrief
Ten questions every team must answer with their own workbook open.
No team may answer from memory or narrative alone. Every answer must cite a specific number from that team's own Round 6 results workbook and name the decision that produced it.
- 1
Finance
Your DCF-implied enterprise value and your multiple-based enterprise value (EV/EBITDA, EV/Sales) will not match exactly. Compute the percentage gap between the two for your team this round, and identify which single WACC input — beta, cost of debt, or gearing — explains most of that gap.
- 2
Finance
Decompose your Round 6 ROCE into operating margin (EBIT ÷ Sales) and capital turnover (Sales ÷ Capital Employed). Which of the two actually moved this round, and which specific decision of yours moved it?
- 3
Marketing
Rank your four technology segments by global market share against global average selling price. Where you hold high share at a premium price, defend why that isn't luck. Where you hold low share at a premium price, what does the gap reveal about a positioning error?
- 4
Marketing
Calculate unmet demand as a percentage of total demand in each region this round. Is it a capacity constraint, a pricing constraint, or a feature/marketing-mix constraint — and what number in your own workbook rules out the other two explanations?
- 5
Operations
Compare your in-house manufacturing cost per unit against your contract manufacturing cost per unit, by technology and region. At what cost gap does contract manufacturing stop being a capacity release valve and start being a margin leak — and were you past that line this round?
- 6
Operations
Your inventory management costs and your unplanned short-term debt both absorb the same forecasting error. Show which one absorbed more of it this round, and trace the causal chain from your demand forecast to that outcome.
- 7
Strategy
Every team in your universe faced the same market this round. Identify the one decision variable — price, R&D, capacity, feature count, or marketing spend — where your value diverged furthest from the universe average, and state whether that divergence was a deliberate bet or a forecasting miss you only recognized after the results came in.
- 8
Strategy
If your cumulative-TSR rank and your single-round profit rank disagree this round, name the exact income-statement or balance-sheet line item that explains the gap between the two rankings.
- 9
Risk & Credit
Your credit rating is a function of gearing, unplanned debt, and cash coverage — not profit alone. Identify the single line item that most influenced your Round 6 rating change, and estimate what your rating would plausibly be if that one line item had stayed at its Round 5 level.
- 10
People & R&D
Look at your R&D personnel turnover alongside your R&D spending this round. If both rose together, does your own data show that spend converting into retained capability, or mostly covering the cost of replacing people who left?
Decision debrief
The learning happens when the logic is made visible.
Teams must explain what they expected, what they chose and why the result differed. A live debrief turns performance into evidence, surfaces cross-functional contradictions and gives the next round a sharper strategic thesis.
Facilitated debrief · forecast, decision, result, variance and the next adaptive move.
02 / Competitive decision loop
Decide. Observe. Diagnose. Adapt.
Each round is both a competitive event and a learning experiment. The quality of the course comes from the disciplined loop around submission—not from the leaderboard alone.
Orient
Frame
State the strategic thesis, winning aspiration and assumptions for the round.
Anticipate
Forecast
Estimate demand, rival moves, capacity, cash and material downside.
Integrate
Decide
Align product, price, promotion, R&D, production, funding, tax, people and ESG.
Commit
Submit
Run cross-checks, record rationale and complete a rotating team sign-off.
Read
Observe
Separate market outcomes, operating outcomes and financial consequences.
Explain
Diagnose
Trace variance to assumptions, choices, execution, competitors or system effects.
Renew
Adapt
Protect coherent choices, correct errors and revise the thesis when evidence demands it.
Own
Defend
Explain the decision trail, trade-offs, learning and next move under questioning.
03 / Learning outcomes
What learners should be able to do.
- LO-1
Formulate and adapt competitive strategy under uncertainty while anticipating rival moves and market evolution.
- LO-2
Integrate cross-functional decisions and explain their operational, financial and stakeholder consequences.
- LO-3
Develop a glocal strategy across regions with different preferences, economics, taxes, tariffs and constraints.
- LO-4
Lead an accountable management team, preserve a decision trail and convert round evidence into individual learning.
04 / Complete session sequence
How each stage builds on the last.
Open any stage to inspect its question, coverage, learning activity and evidence of completion.
01Foundation · Practice Round 1
Enter the decision arena
Foundation · Practice Round 1
Enter the decision arena
Driving question
What does a coherent strategy look like before the first number is entered?[1][2][3]
Topics & lenses
- Three Horizons, positioning and industry logic
- Simulation interface, company history and market outlook
- Winning aspiration, where to play and how to win
Learning in action
- Read the competitive arena and identify critical uncertainties
- Translate strategy into a first-round decision hypothesis
- Assign team roles and complete Practice Round 1
Evidence / output
One-page strategy thesis, team operating charter and Practice Round 1 submission.
02Foundation · Cross-functional nexus
See the whole enterprise
Foundation · Cross-functional nexus
See the whole enterprise
Driving question
Where do individually sensible functional decisions collide?[1]
Topics & lenses
- Demand, pricing, promotion and product features
- R&D, licensing, production and inventory
- Liquidity, capital structure, tax and transfer pricing
Learning in action
- Map causal links across the decision set
- Find two likely trade-offs and one hidden constraint
- Run a cross-functional coherence review
Evidence / output
Enterprise decision map and pre-submission coherence checklist.
03Foundation · Practice 1 debrief
Read results without making excuses
Foundation · Practice 1 debrief
Read results without making excuses
Driving question
Which outcomes came from strategy, execution, rivals or an incorrect assumption?[1][4]
Topics & lenses
- SWOT as an evidence summary
- GE–McKinsey portfolio logic
- Variance, stockouts, idle capacity and emergency debt
Learning in action
- Compare forecast, decision and realised result
- Trace one success and one failure through the system
- Identify the next round’s highest-value learning question
Evidence / output
Practice Round 1 variance bridge and after-action review.
04Foundation · Practice 2 preparation
Build the dashboard
Foundation · Practice 2 preparation
Build the dashboard
Topics & lenses
- Leading and lagging indicators
- Demand and cash forecasting
- Decision journal and assumption ledger
Learning in action
- Design a team dashboard
- Create base, upside and downside forecasts
- Write explicit assumptions before Practice Round 2
Evidence / output
Forecast model, dashboard and assumption ledger.
05Foundation · Practice Round 2
Challenge the plan before submitting
Foundation · Practice Round 2
Challenge the plan before submitting
Topics & lenses
- Benchmarking and forecast revision
- Strategic fit and recurring decision errors
- Quiz 1: concepts, rules and interpretation
Learning in action
- Complete a red-team review of the proposed decisions
- Submit Practice Round 2 with rotating sign-off
- Complete Quiz 1 and log the final rationale
Evidence / output
Signed Practice Round 2 decision packet and Quiz 1.
06Diagnosis · Financial and portfolio logic
Find the profit—and the fragility
Diagnosis · Financial and portfolio logic
Find the profit—and the fragility
Topics & lenses
- Common-size financial statements
- SWOT, BCG and GE–McKinsey comparisons
- Product, region and technology economics
Learning in action
- Decompose margin, capital and cash drivers
- Compare portfolio tools against simulation evidence
- Identify one growth engine and one value leak
Evidence / output
Profit-pool map and portfolio decision memo.
07Competition · Round 1
Make the first consequential move
Competition · Round 1
Make the first consequential move
Topics & lenses
- Regional demand and price response
- Product roadmap and capacity commitment
- Liquidity resilience and competitive anticipation
Learning in action
- Forecast by region and technology
- Allocate capital against the strategy thesis
- Run the full input-validation checklist and submit
Evidence / output
Competitive Round 1 board paper and submitted decision set.
08Competition · Market evolution
Manage the product life cycle
Competition · Market evolution
Manage the product life cycle
Topics & lenses
- Technology and product life cycles
- Adoption, substitution and cannibalisation
- Industry evolution and timing advantage
Learning in action
- Build a technology migration map
- Stress-test price and feature choices by region
- Write explicit launch and exit triggers
Evidence / output
Technology roadmap with launch, migration and exit gates.
09Competition · Round 1 debrief
Turn feedback into strategy
Competition · Round 1 debrief
Turn feedback into strategy
Topics & lenses
- Competitive benchmarking
- Strategy versus operational effectiveness
- Reflection and Round 2 thesis revision
Learning in action
- Compare team position with named competitor archetypes
- Run a keep/change/stop review
- Rewrite only the assumptions invalidated by evidence
Evidence / output
Round 1 learning memo and revised Round 2 thesis.
10Competition · Round 2
Use the evidence to sharpen Round 2
Competition · Round 2
Use the evidence to sharpen Round 2
Topics & lenses
- Positioning and capability commitment
- Capacity, inventory and fulfilment
- Funding growth without hidden fragility
Learning in action
- Update demand and cash scenarios
- Challenge the decision set against strategic fit
- Submit Round 2 with rationale and sign-off
Evidence / output
Round 2 strategy-on-a-page and decision packet.
11Competition · Round 2 debrief / Round 3
Scale what works without scaling the error
Competition · Round 2 debrief / Round 3
Scale what works without scaling the error
Topics & lenses
- Repeatability, commitments and capabilities
- R&D scale, manufacturing and route-to-market
- Round 3 implementation discipline
Learning in action
- Separate structural advantage from one-round luck
- Audit bottlenecks before committing scale
- Implement and submit Round 3
Evidence / output
Capability audit, scale thesis and Round 3 submission.
12Responsibility · ESG integration
Put ESG inside the value chain
Responsibility · ESG integration
Put ESG inside the value chain
Driving question
How do environmental, social and governance choices change strategy—not decorate it?[1][5]
Topics & lenses
- CO₂, energy and water efficiency
- Labour policy and governance
- Stakeholder value, investment and trade-offs
Learning in action
- Trace ESG choices through operations and financial outcomes
- Compare short-run cost with long-run risk and capability
- Define a material ESG position for the company
Evidence / output
ESG value-driver map and materiality-backed decision statement.
13Competition · Round 3 debrief / Round 4
Explain performance to the board
Competition · Round 3 debrief / Round 4
Explain performance to the board
Topics & lenses
- Board reporting and causal explanation
- Round 3 debrief
- Round 4 decision integration
Learning in action
- Build a concise performance bridge
- Defend one underperforming decision under questioning
- Submit Round 4 with an explicit counterfactual
Evidence / output
Board dashboard, causal narrative and Round 4 submission.
14Integration · Strategy reset
Reconnect choices to the growth horizon
Integration · Strategy reset
Reconnect choices to the growth horizon
Driving question
Is the portfolio balancing today’s engine, emerging growth and future options?[2][3]
Topics & lenses
- Three Horizons review
- Industry logic and positioning
- Quiz 2: integration and application
Learning in action
- Allocate initiatives across the three horizons
- Test the portfolio against the winning aspiration
- Complete Quiz 2 and document the reset
Evidence / output
Three-horizon portfolio map, strategy reset and Quiz 2.
15Competition · Round 4 debrief / Round 5
Choose under accumulated consequences
Competition · Round 4 debrief / Round 5
Choose under accumulated consequences
Topics & lenses
- Path dependence and strategic commitment
- Cumulative shareholder return and ROCE
- Round 5 capital allocation
Learning in action
- Audit inherited constraints and remaining degrees of freedom
- Prioritise value creation over leaderboard chasing
- Submit Round 5 with board-level sign-off
Evidence / output
Commitment map, capital allocation memo and Round 5 submission.
16Diagnosis · Decision quality
Correct recurring forecast errors
Diagnosis · Decision quality
Correct recurring forecast errors
Topics & lenses
- Benchmarking and forecast calibration
- Stockout and inventory mirror errors
- Funding, transfer pricing and input validation
Learning in action
- Run a forecast accuracy review
- Conduct a pre-mortem on the next decision set
- Upgrade the team checklist from observed failures
Evidence / output
Decision-quality audit and revised submission checklist.
17Competition · Round 5 debrief / Round 6
Make the final competitive commitment
Competition · Round 5 debrief / Round 6
Make the final competitive commitment
Driving question
What is the strongest defensible move given the team’s position and remaining time?[1][2]
Topics & lenses
- Endgame strategy and competitor response
- Profit, ROCE, TSR and ESG balance
- Round 6 execution
Learning in action
- Define endgame priorities and non-negotiables
- Red-team downside and liquidity
- Submit Round 6 with complete decision trace
Evidence / output
Endgame board memo and Round 6 submission.
18Synthesis · Final round debrief
Audit the strategy across time
Synthesis · Final round debrief
Audit the strategy across time
Topics & lenses
- Round 6 and total-course performance
- Strategic consistency and adaptation
- Counterfactuals and subsequent-cycle decisions
Learning in action
- Build a six-round strategy timeline
- Identify pivotal choices and plausible counterfactuals
- Re-run one future cycle as a disciplined thought experiment
Evidence / output
Cumulative performance bridge and strategy timeline.
19Synthesis · Reflective review
Separate team performance from personal learning
Synthesis · Reflective review
Separate team performance from personal learning
Driving question
What did the firm learn—and what did each manager learn about their own judgment?[5]
Topics & lenses
- Shareholder value and stakeholder value
- Team process, conflict and leadership
- Decision habits and transferable insight
Learning in action
- Conduct a structured team after-action review
- Compare peer evidence with self-assessment
- Draft the reflective report with claims tied to decisions
Evidence / output
Team after-action review and individual evidence-backed reflection.
20Synthesis · Individual viva
Defend the decision trail
Synthesis · Individual viva
Defend the decision trail
Driving question
Can each learner explain the firm’s choices, consequences and next move without hiding behind the team?[2][5]
Topics & lenses
- Strategic synthesis
- Individual accountability
- Transfer to managerial practice
Learning in action
- Present the firm’s strategic arc in a concise close
- Complete an individual viva using live decision evidence
- State one durable practice and one unresolved question
Evidence / output
Final reflective report, viva record and personal transfer commitment.
05 / Practice studios
Practice produces work that can be reviewed.
Each studio asks learners to take a concrete action and submit evidence of what they did.
Global decision room
Teams integrate regional forecasts, product choices, R&D, production, logistics, funding, tax, people and ESG before every submission.
Evidence · Signed decision packet + assumption ledger
Round debrief lab
Forecast-to-actual bridges reveal whether variance came from an assumption, a choice, execution, rivals or the simulated system.
Evidence · Variance bridge + after-action review
Board challenge
A board-style review forces concise causal explanation, visible trade-offs and a defensible allocation of scarce capital.
Evidence · Dashboard + board memo
Individual decision defence
The viva tests whether every learner can reconstruct the strategy and reason independently from team evidence.
Evidence · Decision trace + viva
06 / Evidence of learning
Assessment built around the work.
Learners are assessed through preparation, action, reflection and evidence from several tasks—not a single test.
10%
Participation & peer evaluation
Prepared contribution, functional ownership, constructive challenge, reliability and evidence of team citizenship.
Method · Observation + confidential peer evidence
15%
Quiz 1
Simulation rules, foundational strategy, cross-functional logic and interpretation of practice-round evidence.
Method · Closed-book individual quiz
15%
Quiz 2
Integrated application of growth, positioning, portfolio, forecasting and competitive decision logic.
Method · Closed-book individual quiz
35%
Simulation performance
Cumulative shareholder return 15%, ROCE 10%, final-round profit 5% and ESG performance 5%.
Method · Objective platform metrics · group
10%
Reflective report
A causal, evidence-backed account of strategy, pivotal choices, team learning, limitations and counterfactuals.
Method · Written synthesis
15%
Individual viva
Independent defence of decisions, results, rules, cross-functional implications and transfer to practice.
Method · Oral examination using live evidence
07 / Safeguards & integrity
Clear boundaries for responsible work.
Clear boundaries protect people, learning quality and the legitimacy of the evidence produced.
- G-01
No collusion across firms
Teams may learn from public results but may not share confidential decisions, coordinate market moves or misrepresent submissions.
- G-02
Saved-decision verification
Every round ends with input validation, saved-submission confirmation and a rotating sign-off so participation is auditable.[1]
- G-03
AI must remain source-bounded
AI may interrogate authorised course rules and team data; it may not invent platform logic, fabricate causal evidence or replace individual judgment.[5]
- G-04
Use more than the leaderboard
Performance metrics are combined with quizzes, logs, peer evidence, reflection and viva so polished narrative or a lucky round cannot stand alone.[5]
- G-05
Trace every recommendation
Reports distinguish facts, calculations, assumptions and counterfactuals; causal claims must point back to decisions and results.
- G-06
Individual accountability
Every manager must understand the whole firm, not only a functional silo, and be ready to defend the integrated decision set.[1]
08 / References
Research behind the design.
- [1]Cesim (n.d.). Cesim Global Challenge: Strategy and International Business Simulation. Cesim Oy.
- [2]Lafley, A. G., & Martin, R. L. (2013). Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works. Harvard Business Review Press.
- [3]Baghai, M., Coley, S., & White, D. (1999). The Three Horizons of Growth. McKinsey & Company.
- [4]Ghemawat, P., & Rivkin, J. W. (1998). Creating Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business School.
- [5]AACSB International (2026). Global Standards for Business Education. AACSB International.