7P13SR- TWO- SHEET3＆4

by | Aug 8, 2025 | Homework Answsers / Business & Finance / Operations Management

 

 The entire assignment is 8,000 words, divided into 6 sections.

This task requires you to complete the secone section for me.

The "Assignment Submission Form for AS1 MN7P13SR Mar 24" is the grading rubric for this assignment. You must strictly follow the rubric to complete the work.

"MN7P13SR Work Sheet 3＆4 (Updated)" outlines the specific content that needs to be completed in this section.

The other documents are course materials and related resources that you must read before completing the assignment.

I will require unlimited revisions until the work meets the requirements.

If you cannot meet the above requirements, please do not make an offer; otherwise, I will request a refund.

Blank template for Workplan for MN7P13SR AS1

Prioritised Leaf

Research Question

Hypothesis

Data Source(s)

Data Access/ Collection

Data Analysis

1. Please refer to the relevant explanatory notes in “Example format for Workplan for MN7P13SR AS1.pdf” for the type of contents required for each column

2. Please add or delete rows in the above table as required

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with your text when preparing your actual assignment

,

Blank template for Workplan for MN7P13SR AS1

Prioritised Leaf

Research Question

Hypothesis

Data Source(s)

Data Access/ Collection

Data Analysis

1. Please refer to the relevant explanatory notes in “Example format for Workplan for MN7P13SR AS1.pdf” for the type of contents required for each column

2. Please add or delete rows in the above table as required

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with your text when preparing your actual assignment

,

Master of Business Administration

Assignment Submission Form

Module Code:

MN7P13SR

Module Title:

Building Business Insights

Assessment Title:

Assessment 1 – Business Insights Project Report

Lecturer Name:

Student ID Number:

Student Name:

Assessment due date:

30 September 2024

Student Declaration:

By submitting this assignment, I/ we confirm that I/we have not sourced or used any information from any online ‘essay’ provider nor any other third party not acknowledged in my/our assignment. I/ We declare that the work submitted is my/our own.

Students should note that the University has a formal policy on plagiarism which can be found at https://student.londonmet.ac.uk/your-studies/student-administration/rules-and-regulations/academic-misconduct/

Guildhall School of Business and Law

Feedback/Feedforward Coversheet

MN7P13SR

Building Business Insights

Academic Year 2024/25

Assessment AS1

Business Insights Project Report (80%)

8, 000 words

First Marker:

Second Marker:

Title of presentation: Consultancy Report

Assessment Criteria

Tasks

1 Marker

2 Marker

1. Definition of the problem (5 marks, 400 words)

· Summary and history of client

· Situation for client at outset of problem solving

· Business problem and set of observations/complications around the situation

· Objective (in the form of a specific, measurable and actionable problem)

· Any boundaries and constraints of the project, considering the key forces (e.g., values) acting on decision-makers

· Criteria against which successful resolution to the problem can be measured and judged

2. Disaggregation of problem structure and solution drivers (25 marks, 2000 words)

· Initial logic tree (i.e., three layer factor/lever/component tree)

· Fully-referenced commentary of logic tree

· A more complete logic tree (i.e., four-layer deductive logic, hypothesis or hybrid of the two) of

a. Solution drivers

b. Hypothesised solutions

· Fully-referenced commentary of logic tree

3. Prioritisation of solution pathways (10 marks, 800 words)

· Full 2×2 prioritisation matrix

· Fully-referenced commentary of the prioritisation matrix, concluding with a summary of the solution pathways (e.g., hypothesised solutions) that will be taken forward to be tested via analyses

4. Workplan (10 marks, 800 words)

· Full workplan for testing hypothesised solutions with:

· Solution pathway

· Research question(s)

· Hypothesised answer(s) to each research question

· Data used

· Data collection/access method

· Data analysis techniques used

5. Analysis and findings (30 marks, 2,400 words)

· ‘One day solution’ on the basis of the understanding that summarises the situation that prevails at the start of the project, the complication (i.e., what changed or what went wrong) and the current understanding of a resolution

· Summary of insights required to reach a solution to justify the forthcoming analysis

· Analysis for each research question undertaken and the findings

6. Synthesised conclusions (20 marks, 1,600 words)

· Overall picture of individual findings and insights of the problem-solving work with:

· Pyramid structure to present conclusions (i.e., governing thought) as an engaging story supported with arguments, findings, insights and facts to convince target audience of the merits of the recommended solution

· Commentary of pyramid structure

Total marks

Areas for Improvements

From First Marker

Knowledge and understanding

Analysis and evaluation

From Second Marker

Knowledge and understanding

Analysis and evaluation

Agreed Marks

First Marker’s marks/date:

Second Marker’s marks/date:

Please attach Log sheet #1 to #6

Please upload the Turnitin Report

image1.jpeg

image2.jpeg

,

Example format for Workplan for MN7P13SR AS1

Prioritised Leaf (i.e. prioritized hypothesized solution)

Research Question (i.e. question regarding how the required solution could be achieved)

Hypothesis (i.e. hypothesis related to the question regarding the reason why the prioritized solution has not been implemented)

Data Source(s)* (i.e. the data that you need to collect that is required to answer your question)

Data Access/ Collection (i.e. from where and how the data was collected)

Data Analysis (i.e. how the data was analysed)

Example: Revise AI tool to meet regulatory requirements

Example: What needs to be done to enhance the current AI tool to be able to meet regulatory requirements? OR What is preventing the company from implementing an AI tool that meets regulatory requirements?

Example: The company currently has the ability to design the AI tool to meet regulatory requirements, but has not committed the required resources to do so due to … OR The company currently lacks in-house ability to design the AI tool to meet regulatory requirements

Example: 1. Company’s current

AI tool’s specifications

2. Regulatory standards documentation and compliance guidelines issued by … ministry/agency/de partment

Example: 1. Accessing

company’s internal documentation on current AI tool’s specifications

2. Consulting with … ministry/agency/de partment, and accessing public documentation on regulatory standards

Example: 1. Comparative

analysis 2. Gap analysis

*: These are the data sources that need to be consulted in order for the required actual analyses to be performed for the subsequent chapter

(Continued from above table. This is NOT intended to be a separate table)

Example: Conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical trials

Example: What does the company need to do to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials? OR What is preventing the company from conducting extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials?

Example: The company currently has the expertise and resources to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials, but has not committed the resources to do so because of … OR The company currently lacks adequate internal resources to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials

Example: 1. Company’s current

policies on the conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials

2. Data on the resources required for conducting extensive peer- reviewed clinical trials

Example: 1. Accessing

company’s internal policy documents regarding the conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials

2. Consulting own industry’s or related industry’s sources on resources required for conducting extensive peer- reviewed clinical trials

Example: 1. Gap analysis 2. Cost-benefits

analysis 3. Financial analysis

… … … … … …

… … … … … …

… … … … … …

*: These are the data sources that need to be consulted in order for the required actual analyses to be performed for the subsequent chapter

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with your text when preparing your actual assignment

,

MN7P13SR ( Component 1):

AS1 – Business Insights Project Report (80% of module grade)

Student Name:

Student ID:

Worksheet 3 – Prioritisation of solution pathways (10%, 800 words)

2 X 2 prioritisation matrix

Fully-referenced commentary of the prioritisation matrix,

concluding with a summary of the solution pathways (e.g. hypothesised solutions) that will be taken forward to be tested via analyses

image1.jpeg

image2.jpeg

,

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with

your text when preparing your actual assignment

Illustrative example for preparing Chapter 5 for MN7P13SR AS1

(The following example is based on the project described in ”AS3 Assessment Walkthrough.pdf”

and follows on from “Example format for Workplan (for MN7P13SR AS1).pdf”)

NOTE: Briefly, this chapter requires students to analyse the available evidence (i.e. from

literature specifically about particular issues related to the solutions within the target

organisation) and describe/explain:

1. The reason or reasons for why each of the solutions (from the High Impact – High Controllability quadrant) had not been implemented yet (i.e. why the organisation did not implement the solutions even though these solutions have high impact and are highly controllable by the company) (If there are available relevant visual aids to support your arguments (e.g., graphs, infographics), you should include these to support your description/explanation) AND

2. What further action or actions the organisation need to take to implement each of these solutions

Chapter 5 – Analysis and Findings

Situation

Observation (i.e. of complications that prevents the organisation from achieving objectives)

Implication (this is summary of measures to be taken to resolve the situation, i.e. resolution

to the problem)

Example:

Situation: Techpioneer is an industry leader in the area of AI diagnostic tools and seeks to

launch a groundbreaking AI tool …

Observation: However, the introduction of this tool has been hampered by regulatory

requirements that Techpioneer has no prior experience in meeting and …

Implication: To meet regulatory requirements, Techpioneer therefore needs to …

(The above should be kept brief, i.e. 1 or 2 sentences each, because similar information would

be displayed in the content for following worksheet/chapter)

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with

your text when preparing your actual assignment

Example:

Research Question 1: What needs to be done to enhance the current AI tool to be able to meet

regulatory requirements?

In this industry, the regulator (FDA) has specified strict regulatory requirements for all relevant tools

in order to ensure the safety of the public (Source, e.g. “Regulatory standards documentation and

compliance guidelines issued by … ministry/agency/department” *). The AI tool that Techpioneer

intends to market must therefore meet relevant regulatory requirements before it can be launched.

Based on the gap analysis* undertaken of the requirements and the quality of the AI tool, the current

version of AI tool that Technpioneer plans to introduce does not fully meet the regulatory

requirements yet.

Our current hypothesis is that the company currently has the ability to design the AI tool to meet

regulatory requirements (Source, e.g. “Company’s current AI tool’s specifications” *), but has not

committed the required resources to do so because it had other more urgent priorities to attend to

that took up all the available relevant resources that could have been used to design the AI tool to

meet regulatory requirements.

When analysing the company’s projects in the relevant period (i.e. 2022 to 2024), it was found that

the company was also involved in another major project, i.e. Project A, during the relevant time period

that had overrun its original deadline due to unforeseen technical difficulties. This required much of

the company’s in-house AI design personnel to work on Project A (Source). A comparative analysis *

of the costs involved and the expected financial consequences (or this could also be regarded as a cost-

benefit analysis *) revealed that If it did not deliver this project within a revised deadline, the company

would have faced major legal issues and substantial financial penalties for delays in the completion of

the project (Source).

As such, Techpioneer chose to devote its resources to complete Project A instead of fully revising the

AI tool to meet regulatory requirements. This resulted in the AI tool that the company planned to

introduce not being able meet the regulatory requirements yet (Source).

Insight: Ultimately, the company has the ability to design the AI tool to meet regulatory requirements,

but has not committed the required resources to do so due to unforeseen circumstances that forced

it to deploy the relevant resources to another urgent project. It therefore needs to re-evaluate its

current and projected resources to revise the AI tool to meet regulatory requirements before it can

launch the tool.

Research Question 2: What does the company need to do to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical

trials?

In this industry, it is a regulatory requirement to conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical trials before

any product can be introduced into the market (Source). Techpioneer must therefore test and validate

the quality of the AI tool before it can be introduced into the market. Based on the gap analysis *

undertaken of the requirements and the absence of work done in the area by the company, it is

obvious that the Technpioneer has to conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical trials to meet the

regulatory requirements before it can market the AI tool.

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with

your text when preparing your actual assignment

Our current hypothesis is that the company has not done so is because it currently lacks adequate

internal resources to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials. A review of the company’s

internal policy documents * regarding the conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials (Source)

reveal that the company has expertise in AI design but it has no experience in developing an AI

diagnostic tool for use in healthcare (Source).

To meet this requirement, Technpioneer would therefore need to acquire the necessary expertise in

this area. One way that it could begin the process is to consult its own industry’s or related industry’s

sources on the resources required for conducting extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials (Source). This

would be followed by a cost-benefit analysis * on the most cost-effective way to acquire the resources

to conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical trials. In this respect, it is expected that no matter how it

intends to proceed, the company has the financial means to conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical

trials based on its current financial strength (Source, e.g. financial analysis of company *)

Insight: In summary, the company currently lacks adequate internal resources to conduct extensive

peer-reviewed clinical trials to meet regulatory requirements, but is expected to be able to acquire the

ability to do so. It therefore needs to evaluate the most cost-effective way to conduct extensive peer-

reviewed clinical trials and to devote the necessary resources (i.e. money, time, etc.) before it can

launch the tool.

Research Question 3: …

…

* : We realise that in real consulting projects, data sources and data analysis techniques

ultimately used may differ from those originally proposed as the project progresses, so some

small amount of leeway is allowed if the data sources and data analysis techniques of the

Workplan and those in Chapter 5 do not match completely. However, as much as possible, and

where it makes sense, please try to match the data sources and data analysis techniques that

you proposed in the Workplan with those indicated in Chapter 5.

IMPORTANT: Misrepresenting/faking information is bad practice, and you will be penalised

if caught doing so. The sources used in the analysis should therefore actually provide the

information mentioned in Chapter 5.

If the required information is not available for you to include any issue and/or solution in the

assignment, It would be far better to exclude these and include only actual events and data

even if that means you need to reduce the number of issues and/or solutions ultimately

included in the report.

In this respect, please be assured that we are more concerned with the quality of the content

of the report than with simply the quantity, i.e. number of issues (in the initial logic tree) or

number of solutions (in the complete logic tree (deductive logic or hypothesis or combination)

logic tree), which ultimately affect the number of issues in the Workplan and above analysis.

,

Example format for Workplan for MN7P13SR AS1

Prioritised Leaf (i.e. prioritized hypothesized solution)

Research Question (i.e. question regarding how the required solution could be achieved)

Hypothesis (i.e. hypothesis related to the question regarding the reason why the prioritized solution has not been implemented)

Data Source(s)* (i.e. the data that you need to collect that is required to answer your question)

Data Access/ Collection (i.e. from where and how the data was collected)

Data Analysis (i.e. how the data was analysed)

Example: Revise AI tool to meet regulatory requirements

Example: What needs to be done to enhance the current AI tool to be able to meet regulatory requirements? OR What is preventing the company from implementing an AI tool that meets regulatory requirements?

Example: The company currently has the ability to design the AI tool to meet regulatory requirements, but has not committed the required resources to do so due to … OR The company currently lacks in-house ability to design the AI tool to meet regulatory requirements

Example: 1. Company’s current

AI tool’s specifications

2. Regulatory standards documentation and compliance guidelines issued by … ministry/agency/de partment

Example: 1. Accessing

company’s internal documentation on current AI tool’s specifications

2. Consulting with … ministry/agency/de partment, and accessing public documentation on regulatory standards

Example: 1. Comparative

analysis 2. Gap analysis

*: These are the data sources that need to be consulted in order for the required actual analyses to be performed for the subsequent chapter

(Continued from above table. This is NOT intended to be a separate table)

Example: Conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical trials

Example: What does the company need to do to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials? OR What is preventing the company from conducting extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials?

Example: The company currently has the expertise and resources to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials, but has not committed the resources to do so because of … OR The company currently lacks adequate internal resources to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials

Example: 1. Company’s current

policies on the conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials

2. Data on the resources required for conducting extensive peer- reviewed clinical trials

Example: 1. Accessing

company’s internal policy documents regarding the conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials

2. Consulting own industry’s or related industry’s sources on resources required for conducting extensive peer- reviewed clinical trials

Example: 1. Gap analysis 2. Cost-benefits

analysis 3. Financial analysis

… … … … … …

… … … … … …

… … … … … …

*: These are the data sources that need to be consulted in order for the required actual analyses to be performed for the subsequent chapter

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with your text when preparing your actual assignment

,

MN7P13SR ( Component 1):

AS1 – Business Insights Project Report (80% of module grade)

Student Name:

Student ID:

Worksheet 4 – Workplan (10%, 800 words)

Workplan table

Description of workplan

image1.jpeg

image2.jpeg

,

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with

your text when preparing your actual assignment

Illustrative example for preparing Chapter 5 for MN7P13SR AS1

(The following example is based on the project described in ”AS3 Assessment Walkthrough.pdf”

and follows on from “Example format for Workplan (for MN7P13SR AS1).pdf”)

NOTE: Briefly, this chapter requires students to analyse the available evidence (i.e. from

literature specifically about particular issues related to the solutions within the target

organisation) and describe/explain:

1. The reason or reasons for why each of the solutions (from the High Impact – High Controllability quadrant) had not been implemented yet (i.e. why the organisation did not implement the solutions even though these solutions have high impact and are highly controllable by the company) (If there are available relevant visual aids to support your arguments (e.g., graphs, infographics), you should include these to support your description/explanation) AND

2. What further action or actions the organisation need to take to implement each of these solutions

Chapter 5 – Analysis and Findings

Situation

Observation (i.e. of complications that prevents the organisation from achieving objectives)

Implication (this is summary of measures to be taken to resolve the situation, i.e. resolution

to the problem)

Example:

Situation: Techpioneer is an industry leader in the area of AI diagnostic tools and seeks to

launch a groundbreaking AI tool …

Observation: However, the introduction of this tool has been hampered by regulatory

requirements that Techpioneer has no prior experience in meeting and …

Implication: To meet regulatory requirements, Techpioneer therefore needs to …

(The above should be kept brief, i.e. 1 or 2 sentences each, because similar information would

be displayed in the content for following worksheet/chapter)

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with

your text when preparing your actual assignment

Example:

Research Question 1: What needs to be done to enhance the current AI tool to be able to meet

regulatory requirements?

In this industry, the regulator (FDA) has specified strict regulatory requirements for all relevant tools

in order to ensure the safety of the public (Source, e.g. “Regulatory standards documentation and

compliance guidelines issued by … ministry/agency/department” *). The AI tool that Techpioneer

intends to market must therefore meet relevant regulatory requirements before it can be launched.

Based on the gap analysis* undertaken of the requirements and the quality of the AI tool, the current

version of AI tool that Technpioneer plans to introduce does not fully meet the regulatory

requirements yet.

Our current hypothesis is that the company currently has the ability to design the AI tool to meet

regulatory requirements (Source, e.g. “Company’s current AI tool’s specifications” *), but has not

committed the required resources to do so because it had other more urgent priorities to attend to

that took up all the available relevant resources that could have been used to design the AI tool to

meet regulatory requirements.

When analysing the company’s projects in the relevant period (i.e. 2022 to 2024), it was found that

the company was also involved in another major project, i.e. Project A, during the relevant time period

that had overrun its original deadline due to unforeseen technical difficulties. This required much of

the company’s in-house AI design personnel to work on Project A (Source). A comparative analysis *

of the costs involved and the expected financial consequences (or this could also be regarded as a cost-

benefit analysis *) revealed that If it did not deliver this project within a revised deadline, the company

would have faced major legal issues and substantial financial penalties for delays in the completion of

the project (Source).

As such, Techpioneer chose to devote its resources to complete Project A instead of fully revising the

AI tool to meet regulatory requirements. This resulted in the AI tool that the company planned to

introduce not being able meet the regulatory requirements yet (Source).

Insight: Ultimately, the company has the ability to design the AI tool to meet regulatory requirements,

but has not committed the required resources to do so due to unforeseen circumstances that forced

it to deploy the relevant resources to another urgent project. It therefore needs to re-evaluate its

current and projected resources to revise the AI tool to meet regulatory requirements before it can

launch the tool.

Research Question 2: What does the company need to do to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical

trials?

In this industry, it is a regulatory requirement to conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical trials before

any product can be introduced into the market (Source). Techpioneer must therefore test and validate

the quality of the AI tool before it can be introduced into the market. Based on the gap analysis *

undertaken of the requirements and the absence of work done in the area by the company, it is

obvious that the Technpioneer has to conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical trials to meet the

regulatory requirements before it can market the AI tool.

Note: Text in RED are explanatory notes or inserts, and are NOT to be included together with

your text when preparing your actual assignment

Our current hypothesis is that the company has not done so is because it currently lacks adequate

internal resources to conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials. A review of the company’s

internal policy documents * regarding the conduct extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials (Source)

reveal that the company has expertise in AI design but it has no experience in developing an AI

diagnostic tool for use in healthcare (Source).

To meet this requirement, Technpioneer would therefore need to acquire the necessary expertise in

this area. One way that it could begin the process is to consult its own industry’s or related industry’s

sources on the resources required for conducting extensive peer-reviewed clinical trials (Source). This

would be followed by a cost-benefit analysis * on the most cost-effective way to acquire the resources

to conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical trials. In this respect, it is expected that no matter how it

intends to proceed, the company has the financial means to conduct extensive, peer-reviewed clinical

trials based on its current financial strength (Source, e.g. financial analysis of company *)

Insight: In summary, the company currently lacks adequate internal resources to conduct extensive

peer-reviewed clinical trials to meet regulatory requirements, but is expected to be able to acquire the

ability to do so. It therefore needs to evaluate the most cost-effective way to conduct extensive peer-

reviewed clinical trials and to devote the necessary resources (i.e. money, time, etc.) before it can

launch the tool.

Research Question 3: …

…

* : We realise that in real consulting projects, data sources and data analysis techniques

ultimately used may differ from those originally proposed as the project progresses, so some

small amount of leeway is allowed if the data sources and data analysis techniques of the

Workplan and those in Chapter 5 do not match completely. However, as much as possible, and

where it makes sense, please try to match the data sources and data analysis techniques that

you proposed in the Workplan with those indicated in Chapter 5.

IMPORTANT: Misrepresenting/faking information is bad practice, and you will be penalised

if caught doing so. The sources used in the analysis should therefore actually provide the

information mentioned in Chapter 5.

If the required information is not available for you to include any issue and/or solution in the

assignment, It would be far better to exclude these and include only actual events and data

even if that means you need to reduce the number of issues and/or solutions ultimately

included in the report.

In this respect, please be assured that we are more concerned with the quality of the content

of the report than with simply the quantity, i.e. number of issues (in the initial logic tree) or

number of solutions (in the complete logic tree (deductive logic or hypothesis or combination)

logic tree), which ultimately affect the number of issues in the Workplan and above analysis.

,

Module Handbook

Module Title:

Building Business Insights

Module Code:

MN7P13

Module Leader:

Prof KOH Kee Lee

Dr. Bing Wong

Session: 2024/2025

Teaching period: Spring, March 2024

Pre-requisites: 120 credits gained at Level 7

Canvas URL: http://Stanfort.instructure.com

1. Teaching team

Details of staff teaching on the module

Name

Role

Office and office hours

Email

Prof. Koh Kee Lee

Dean, EDP

Level 11, Stanfort Academy

[email protected]

Dr Bing Wong

Senior Lecturer

Level 11, Stanfort Academy

[email protected]

2. Module Summary and Description

This module provides you with the opportunity to work on specific management and business issues that organisations are facing. Utilising your problem-solving skills and competences of handling and managing business challenges. Starting from problem identification and concluding with solution related recommendations, thus encouraging research into real world business and management issues impacting organisations.

Building Business Insights brings together the learning processes from the whole MBA programme. It encourages the synthesis of knowledge, theories and skills developed in the modules during the previous terms in order to provide realistic solutions to contemporary business and management challenges.

Module Aims

This applied module aims to allow students to:

· Integrate their prior knowledge into an in-depth investigation of specific management and business problem or issue and present the results

· Facilitate the identification of topical issues in the business/management area of interest

· Assimilate theories and concepts drawn from different areas and the wider business/management literature

· Develop and implement strategies in data collection, analysis, synthesis and in building compelling arguments

· Apply reflective practice, ensuring models and concepts can be used effectively in the critical evaluation of your performance.

· Synthesise knowledge, experience and reflective practice to continually develop professional skills and competences

Module Learning Outcomes

On successful completion of the module, students will be able to:

1. Demonstrate the different approaches to business/management issue(s) in the context of their chosen area to be investigated, with the use of appropriate evidence-based information and theory.

1. Discuss and critically evaluate the different perspectives of related evidence-based and theoretical literature including appropriate referencing from diverse sources.

1. Demonstrate acumen in the design, planning, selection and collection of evidence in investigating the chosen issue using primary and/or secondary data as deemed appropriate

1. Communicate effectively including your collection of evidence in the form of reports using appropriate formats in a well-structured report

1. Utilise reflective practice techniques to critique your performance and identify improvements.

1. Demonstrate the development of independent and self-managed learning

Learning Resources

Core Text

Conn C., McLean R., (2019) Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything, John Wiley & Son

Other Texts

In addition to the core text for this module, students will be expected to draw upon a wide range of knowledge from reading already undertaken throughout their programme and research contextual to their topic under investigation

Robson, C. (2016). Real World Research. 4th Ed, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2019) Research Methods for Business Students. 8th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

Pacer, W., (2019) Research Methods: Concepts and Connections, 2e, Worth Publishers

Journals

· Harvard Business Review

· Journal of Management Inquiry

· International Studies of Management and Organisation

· British Journal of Management

To pass the module you must achieve an overall minimum mark of 50%. If you pass the module on re-assessment, the component you resit will be capped at a pass mark level of 50%

7

6. Assessment

A portfolio made up of the following three components:

Component 1, AS1 – Business Insights Project Report (80% of module grade)

This report should take the style of a consultancy report, rather than an academic article, making extensive use of infographics and other visuals.

1. Definition of the problem (5%, 400 words):

· Describe the client for whom you are solving a problem, locating them within their industry. Identify the decision-maker within the client organisation who is the primary audience for your project report.

· A short description of the situation that prevails for your client at the outset of problem solving (i.e., the state of affairs that sets up the problem).

· A set of observations or complications around the situation that creates the tension or dynamic that captures the problem (i.e., what changed or what went wrong that created the problem), which should be fully evidenced via data from your client.

· In the form of an objective (e.g., to reclaim market share), define a specific and actionable problem (i.e., what are we trying to solve?).

· Identify any boundaries and constraints of the project, considering the key forces (e.g., values) acting on decision-makers.

· Identify the criteria against which successful resolution to the problem can be measured and judged.

NB: You should use your problem definition worksheet as a basis for this section, but should not present your problem definition worksheet.

2. Disaggregation of problem structure and solution drivers (25%, 2000 words):

· Use an initial logic tree (i.e., factor/lever/component) to break the problem into component parts or issues to illustrate and define the basic structure of the problem (e.g., causes of the problem).

· This should be evidence-based, using a combination of credible industry and academic literature, evidence and theory, covering the problem generally and the problem in the context of your client.

· Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the logic tree, concluding with a summary of the insights gained. It is expected that this logic tree will have three layers.

· Using the basic problem structure logic tree as a guide to locate further industry and academic literature, evidence and theory on the problem component parts of issues, produce a more complete logic tree (i.e., deductive logic or hypothesis) of the drivers of the problem solution, which help us to see potential pathways to solve the problem (e.g., hypothesised solutions).

· Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the logic tree, concluding with a summary of the insights gained. It is expected that this logic tree will have four layers.

3. Prioritisation of solution pathways (10%, 800 words):

· Using a prioritisation matrix, identify the potential pathways to solve the problem (e.g., hypothesised solutions).

· From the more complete logic tree, prioritise the ‘leaves’ that have the biggest impact on the project and which you can most affect to find the critical path to solving your problem, pruning the tree to remove the ‘leaves’ that are not on the critical path to solving the problem.

· Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the prioritisation matrix, concluding with a summary of the solution pathways (e.g., hypothesised solutions) that will be taken forward to be tested via analyses.

4. Workplan (10%, 800 words):

· Starting from the prioritised solution pathways (e.g., hypothesised solutions) of the more complete logic tree, describe the workplan by which you tested your solution pathways (e.g., hypothesised solutions) via analyses, so to be able to reach a conclusion on the solution to the problem.

· For each solution pathway identify the research questions that guided the testing of each solution pathway and, in a chunky workplan table, identify your hypothesised answers to your research questions, the data you used, how accessed or collected your data and the data analysis techniques you used.

5. Analysis and findings (30%, 2,400 words):

· Commence by presenting your ‘one day solution’ on the basis of your understanding ahead of your analysis, summarising the situation that prevails at the start of your project, the complication (i.e., what changed or what went wrong) and your current understanding of a resolution.

· The situation and complication may have evolved from original definition of the problem.

· Summarise what insights are still required to reach a solution, so to justify the forthcoming analysis.

· Sequentially working through each of your research questions, present the analysis you undertook and the findings. Wherever possible, visually present your findings (e.g., graphs, infographics).

· For each research question, clearly state the insights that have been gained.

NB: It is not required that you will need to undertake primary data collection (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups) or highly sophisticated analysis (e.g., regression modelling, thematic analysis), but you may feel these methods are critical to solve your problem. If so, discuss with your supervisor ahead of commencing such work.

6. Synthesised conclusions (20%, 1,600 words):

· Draw together the individual findings and insights of your problem-solving work into an overall picture.

· Using a pyramid structure, present your conclusions (i.e., governing thought) as an engaging story supported with arguments, findings, insights and facts to convince your audience of the merits of your recommended solution.

· Provide a commentary of your pyramid structure.

Word count: 8,000 words (excluding contents, figures, references and appendices).

Component 2, AS2 – Reflective Practice Report (10% of portfolio grade)

A report that reflects upon your learning journey in undertaking your business insights project covering the following:

1. The challenges you faced during the development of your Business Insights project

2. How you sought to overcome these challenges.

3. What you learned and how what you learned would manifest in doing something differently if faced with similar challenges again in the future.

Word count: 1,000 words (excluding references)

Component 3, AS3 – Reflective Practice video presentation (10% of portfolio grade)

A recorded video using slides that reflects upon your accomplishments and future needs covering the following:

1. How the submitted elements of the portfolio meet the module learning outcomes.

2. The relevance of the experience gained within this module to your future career aspirations.

3. Development needs to meet your future career aspirations that were not met on this module.

You should submit your slides along with a YouTube link to your video to the Turnitin folder.

Time limit: 10 minutes recorded

A step by step on how to create an Unlisted Video

UNLISTED VIDEO:

Private videos will not come up  in Google results,  YouTube results or your channel. 

Unlisted means your  video will not show  in any search results or your channel. Only those who know the link can watch the  video. You can share the link with anybody including those who are not  YouTube registered users.

YouTube, a social networking website, gives every Web surfer the opportunity to share their videos with a wide audience. If you run a small business, you can use YouTube to share product information, promotional videos and even training videos with anyone, anywhere in the world. In some cases, you might not want your videos to be quite so accessible, and you may decide to limit certain videos to a few employees or other users.

By default, YouTube makes every video you upload public; however, you can make a video unlisted and share it only with specific people who have the link to the video.

You can make a video unlisted when you upload it, or you can change a previously uploaded video to unlisted.

Make a Video Unlisted When Uploading

1. Navigate to the YouTube website and sign in to your account.

2. Click "Upload" at the top of the screen.

3. Click "Select Files From Your Computer" and select the video you want to upload. The video begins uploading automatically and the Video Options screen appears.

4. Click "Unlisted" and your choice will be applied to the video as it uploads. Give the YouTube link for the video (on the left side of the screen) to the people who are authorized to view the video.

Make a Video Unlisted After Uploading

1. Navigate to YouTube and sign in to your account.

2. Click your screen name in the upper right corner of the browser window. Click "Video Manager" from the drop-down menu.

3. Click "Edit" under the video that you want to make unlisted.

4. Click "Unlisted" and then click "Save Changes." Give the YouTube video link, which is located directly under the "Unlisted" button, to the people who are authorized to view the video.

All three components must be submitted.

Component 1, AS1 due on 30 September 2024

Component 2, AS2 due on 30 October 2024

Component 3, AS3 due on 30 November 2024

Supervision

You are expected to attend one-to-one meetings with your supervisor throughout the duration of the module, at the following points:

1. Start of the project: To review your submission from MN7027 Business Problem Solving and the feedback received and to agree initial work to be undertaken.

2. Definition of the problem: To review your completed draft of your definition of the problem section, identify required changes and agree next steps to be taken.

3. Disaggregation of problem structure and solution drivers: To review your completed draft of your disaggregation of problem structure and solution drivers section, identify required changes and agree next steps to be taken.

4. Prioritisation of solution pathways: To review your completed draft of your prioritisation of solution pathways section, identify required changes and agree next steps to be taken.

5. Workplan: To review your completed draft of your workplan section, identify required changes and agree next steps to be taken.

6. Analysis and findings: To review your completed draft of your analysis and findings section, identify required changes and agree next steps to be taken.

7. Synthesised conclusions: To review your completed draft of your synthesised conclusions section, identify required changes and agree next steps to be taken.

NB: It is the responsibility of the student to initiate each of these supervisory meetings. The student needs to send the supervisor a completed draft of each section, from which the supervisor will respond with a proposed meeting time to be agreed with the student.

8

Business Insights Report Grading Rubric

Definition of the problem (5%)

Disaggregation of problem structure and solution drivers (25%)

Prioritisation of solution pathways (10%)

Workplan (10%)

Analysis and findings (30%)

Synthesised conclusions (20%)

Distinction (70% plus)

A completely clear and succinct description of a complicated problem background.

A highly specific and actionable problem presented as an objective. A clearly bounded project with excellent awareness of the client’s needs. A highly specific and measurable success criteria.

Highly logical disaggregation of problem into components or issues, which provides excellent insight to the problem that was not available prior to disaggregation.

Disaggregation that is connected to and fully informed by both industry and academic literature.

Highly logically building upon the basic problem structure logic tree, a fully-evidenced and referenced more complete logic tree that substantially advances thinking on the problem towards drivers of the problem solution, identifying highly clear and practical pathways to solve the problem.

Exceptional analysis of solution drivers to objectively determine which will have the biggest impact on the problem and which can be actively managed. Highly logical pruning of ‘leaves’ of your final logic tree to establish a critical part to solving the problem.

Highly clear links between solution pathways, research questions, fact gathering and critical analysis. Highly clear procedure by which you will rigorously access data. Highly clear procedure by which you will rigorously analyse data. Highly appropriate selection of analysis tools to answer research questions.

A highly insightful ‘one day solution’ that clearly establishes the insights still required to solve the problem.

Having accessed highly valid data, highly rigorous execution of data analysis. Highly logical translation of findings into business insights that contribute to solving the problem.

Exceptional analysis to identify the critical findings and insights for solving the problem.

Exceptional synthesizing of critical findings and insights into an overall picture using the pyramid structure.

A governing thought completely supported by arguments, findings, insights and facts.

Merit (60%-69%)

A clear and succinct description of a complicated problem background.

A specific and actionable problem presented as an objective. A clearly bounded project with good awareness of the client’s needs. A specific and measurable success criteria.

Logical disaggregation of problem into components or issues, which provides good insight to the problem that was not available prior to disaggregation.

Disaggregation that is partly connected to and informed by both industry and academic literature.

Logically building upon the basic problem structure logic tree, a fully-evidenced and referenced more complete logic tree that substantially advances thinking on the problem towards drivers of the problem solution, identifying clear and practical pathways to solve the problem.

Very good analysis of solution drivers to objectively determine which will have the biggest impact on the problem and which can be actively managed. Logical pruning of ‘leaves’ of your final logic tree to establish a critical part to solving the problem.

Clear links between solution pathways, research questions, fact gathering and critical analysis. Clear procedure by which you will rigorously access data. Clear procedure by which you will rigorously analyse data. Appropriate selection of analysis tools to answer research questions.

An insightful ‘one day solution’ that clearly establishes the insights still required to solve the problem.

Having accessed valid data, rigorous execution of data analysis. Logical translation of findings into business insights that contribute to solving the problem.

Excellent analysis to identify the critical findings and insights for solving the problem.

Excellent synthesizing of critical findings and insights into an overall picture using the pyramid structure.

A governing thought supported by arguments, findings, insights and facts.

Pass (50%-59%)

Reasonable description of a problem background.

A problem presented as an objective. A bounded project with a success criteria.

Reasonable disaggregation of problem into components or issues, which provide some insight to the problem that was not available prior to disaggregation.

Disaggregation that attempts to connect to both industry and academic literature.

Logically building upon the basic problem structure logic tree, a fully-evidenced and referenced more complete logic tree that somewhat advances thinking on the problem towards drivers of the problem solution, identifying pathways to solve the problem.

Reasonable analysis of solution drivers to determine which will have the biggest impact on the problem and which can be actively managed, but with some errors. Pruning of ‘leaves’ of your final logic tree to establish a critical part to solving the problem, but with some errors.

Somewhat unclear links between solution pathways, research questions, fact gathering and critical analysis. Somewhat unclear procedure by which you will rigorously access data. Somewhat unclear procedure by which you will rigorously analyse data. Not selecting the most appropriate analysis tools to answer research questions.

A ‘one day solution’ that establishes the insights still required to solve the problem.

Having accessed data, execution of data analysis. Translation of findings into business insights that contribute to solving the problem.

Reasonable analysis to identify important findings and insights for solving the problem.

Reasonable synthesizing of critical findings and insights into an overall picture using the pyramid structure.

A governing thought not fully supported by arguments, findings, insights and facts.

Fail (49% and below)

An unclear description of a problem background.

A vague problem presented as an objective.

Disaggregation of problem into components or issues, but which provides no additional insight to the problem beyond what was available prior to disaggregation.

Use of irrelevant industry and academic literature

that do not drive problem solving.

Attempt to build upon the basic problem structure logic tree, an evidenced and referenced more complete logic tree but which does not meaningfully advance thinking on the problem towards drivers of the problem solution, establishing only unclear pathways to solve the problem.

Flawed analysis of solution drivers which fails to determine which will have the biggest impact on the problem and which can be actively managed. Flawed pruning of ‘leaves’ of your final logic tree, failing to establish a critical part to solving the problem.

Unclear links between solution pathways, research questions, fact gathering and critical analysis. Unclear procedure by which you will rigorously access data. Somewhat unclear procedure by which you will rigorously analyse data. Flawed selection of analysis tools that do not robustly answer research questions.

A ‘one day solution’ that does not clearly establish the insights still required to solve the problem.

Limited access to valid data with only superficial analysis. Business insights identified, but not based upon findings.

Flawed analysis to identify findings and insights for solving the problem.

Flawed synthesizing of critical findings and insights into an overall picture using the pyramid structure.

A governing thought not fully supported by arguments, findings, insights and facts.

8

image1.jpg

,

MN7P13 Building Business Insights Workshop 5: Analysis and findings

Dr. Stephen Hills

1

Analysis and findings

The seven-steps process

How do you define a problem in a precise way to meet the decision maker’s needs?

How do you disaggregate the issues and develop hypotheses to be explored?

How do you prioritize what to do and what not to do?

How do you develop a workplan and assign analytical tasks?

How do you decide on the fact gathering and analysis to resolve the issues, while avoiding cognitive biases?

How do you go about synthesizing the findings to highlight insights?

How do you communicate them in a compelling way?

Step 5: Conduct critical analyses

5. Analysis and findings (30%, 2,400 words)

Commence by presenting your ‘one day solution’ on the basis of your understanding ahead of your analysis, summarising the situation that prevails at the start of your project, the complication (i.e., what changed or what went wrong) and your current understanding of a resolution.

The situation and complication may have evolved from original definition of the problem.

Summarise what insights are still required to reach a solution, so to justify the forthcoming analysis.

Sequentially working through each of your research questions, present the analysis you undertook and the findings. Wherever possible, visually present your findings (e.g., graphs, infographics).

For each research question, clearly state the insights that have been gained.

NB: It is not required that you will need to undertake primary data collection (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups) or highly sophisticated analysis (e.g., regression modelling, thematic analysis), but you may feel these methods are critical to solve your problem. If so, discuss with your supervisor ahead of commencing such work.

Commence by presenting your ‘one day solution’ on the basis of your understanding ahead of your analysis, summarising the situation that prevails at the start of your project, the complication (i.e., what changed or what went wrong) and your current understanding of a resolution. The situation and complication may have evolved from original definition of the problem. Summarise what insights are still required to reach a solution, so to justify the forthcoming analysis.

One-day answers

Crisp and concise.

Stating what you know about your problem at any point in the process helps to clarify:

What understandings are emerging.

What unknowns still stand between the answers and us.

One-day answers convey our current best analysis of the situation, complications or insightful observations and our best guess at the solutions, as we iterate between our evolving workplans and our analysis.

This helps us to divert resources to areas where we have the biggest gaps in problem solving and shut down analysis that is not taking us anywhere.

As analysis findings come in, we can refine our one-day answers and begin to synthesize our evidence into more complete stories.

Structuring one-day answers

Situation: A short description of the situation that prevails at the outset of problem solving. The state of affairs that sets up the problem.

Observation or complication: A set of observations or complications around the situation that creates the tension or dynamic that captures the problem. What changed or what went wrong that created the problem.

Implication or resolution: The best idea of the implication or resolution of the problem that you have right now. At the beginning this will be rough and speculative. Later it will be a more and more refined idea that answers the question “What should we do?”

One-day answers: What they are not

Case: Hardware company one-day answer

Case: Hardware company one-day answer

Situation: Herchinger is a dominant player with a long and successful history in one region and seeks to expand.

Observation or complication: A new competitor, Home Depot, has emerged with a warehouse superstore model that is growing faster due to lower pricing made possible by sourcing economies of scale, lower cost logistics and higher asset productivity.

Implication or resolution: To remain competitive via lower pricing Herchinger needs to quickly reform its inventory management and logistics systems and to develop lower-cost sourcing models.

Sequentially working through each of your research questions, present the analysis you undertook and the findings. Wherever possible, visually present your findings (e.g., graphs, infographics). For each research question, clearly state the insights that have been gained.

Simple analysis

Good problem solvers have a toolkit for fact gathering and analysis.

Starting with rules of thumb, summary statistics and heuristics to understand the direction and magnitudes of relationships.

We can structure and resolve many analytic issues with rules of thumb, summary statistics and straightforward heuristics.

Rules of thumb are shortcuts in analysis that we can quickly apply to answer a question.

Summary statistics are calculations that provide a summary of data, e.g. Mean average.

Heuristics are any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation.

All three help to size the different elements of the problem to determine the critical and efficient path in further analysis.

Simple analysis

Start all analytic work with summary statistics and heuristics that help you see the size and shape of your problem levers.

Rules of thumb can serve as useful short cuts.

Simple question-based analysis grounded in the literature can lead you to a solution.

Root cause and 5-Ways can help you identify fundamental causes of problems that then lead to a solutuion.

Sophisticated analysis

You may be faced with a complex problem that really does require a robustly quantified solution:

Have you adequately framed the problem you face, and the hypothesis you want to test, so that it’s clear you do need more firepower?

Is there data available to support using an advanced analytic tool?

Which tool is the right one for your problem?

Is there user-friendly software available to help you use some of these tools?

Sophisticated analysis

RCTs are the gold standard for determining cause and effect, but where these are not possible you might be able to use a natural experiment or model causes using regression.

Regression can also be used to predict an outcome by constructing a model with observed data and inputting hypothetical data.

Game theory encourages you to think through different scenarios depending on the move of a competitor.

Bayesian statistics calculate probability of something under different conditions.

Conclusions

Conclusions

One day answers clarify where you are and what work is left to do.

Start all analytic work with summary statistics and heuristics that help you see the size and shape of your problem levers.

To get to a solution for many complex problems may require sophisticated analytic tools.

To do this you need to understand your research question and the nature of your data.

image4.emf

image6.png

image7.png

image8.png

,

MN7P13 Building Business Insights Workshop 5: Analysis and findings

Dr. Stephen Hills

1

Analysis and findings

The seven-steps process

How do you define a problem in a precise way to meet the decision maker’s needs?

How do you disaggregate the issues and develop hypotheses to be explored?

How do you prioritize what to do and what not to do?

How do you develop a workplan and assign analytical tasks?

How do you decide on the fact gathering and analysis to resolve the issues, while avoiding cognitive biases?

How do you go about synthesizing the findings to highlight insights?

How do you communicate them in a compelling way?

Step 5: Conduct critical analyses

5. Analysis and findings (30%, 2,400 words)

Commence by presenting your ‘one day solution’ on the basis of your understanding ahead of your analysis, summarising the situation that prevails at the start of your project, the complication (i.e., what changed or what went wrong) and your current understanding of a resolution.

The situation and complication may have evolved from original definition of the problem.

Summarise what insights are still required to reach a solution, so to justify the forthcoming analysis.

Sequentially working through each of your research questions, present the analysis you undertook and the findings. Wherever possible, visually present your findings (e.g., graphs, infographics).

For each research question, clearly state the insights that have been gained.

NB: It is not required that you will need to undertake primary data collection (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups) or highly sophisticated analysis (e.g., regression modelling, thematic analysis), but you may feel these methods are critical to solve your problem. If so, discuss with your supervisor ahead of commencing such work.

Commence by presenting your ‘one day solution’ on the basis of your understanding ahead of your analysis, summarising the situation that prevails at the start of your project, the complication (i.e., what changed or what went wrong) and your current understanding of a resolution. The situation and complication may have evolved from original definition of the problem. Summarise what insights are still required to reach a solution, so to justify the forthcoming analysis.

One-day answers

Crisp and concise.

Stating what you know about your problem at any point in the process helps to clarify:

What understandings are emerging.

What unknowns still stand between the answers and us.

One-day answers convey our current best analysis of the situation, complications or insightful observations and our best guess at the solutions, as we iterate between our evolving workplans and our analysis.

This helps us to divert resources to areas where we have the biggest gaps in problem solving and shut down analysis that is not taking us anywhere.

As analysis findings come in, we can refine our one-day answers and begin to synthesize our evidence into more complete stories.

Structuring one-day answers

Situation: A short description of the situation that prevails at the outset of problem solving. The state of affairs that sets up the problem.

Observation or complication: A set of observations or complications around the situation that creates the tension or dynamic that captures the problem. What changed or what went wrong that created the problem.

Implication or resolution: The best idea of the implication or resolution of the problem that you have right now. At the beginning this will be rough and speculative. Later it will be a more and more refined idea that answers the question “What should we do?”

One-day answers: What they are not

Case: Hardware company one-day answer

Case: Hardware company one-day answer

Situation: Herchinger is a dominant player with a long and successful history in one region and seeks to expand.

Observation or complication: A new competitor, Home Depot, has emerged with a warehouse superstore model that is growing faster due to lower pricing made possible by sourcing economies of scale, lower cost logistics and higher asset productivity.

Implication or resolution: To remain competitive via lower pricing Herchinger needs to quickly reform its inventory management and logistics systems and to develop lower-cost sourcing models.

Sequentially working through each of your research questions, present the analysis you undertook and the findings. Wherever possible, visually present your findings (e.g., graphs, infographics). For each research question, clearly state the insights that have been gained.

Simple analysis

Good problem solvers have a toolkit for fact gathering and analysis.

Starting with rules of thumb, summary statistics and heuristics to understand the direction and magnitudes of relationships.

We can structure and resolve many analytic issues with rules of thumb, summary statistics and straightforward heuristics.

Rules of thumb are shortcuts in analysis that we can quickly apply to answer a question.

Summary statistics are calculations that provide a summary of data, e.g. Mean average.

Heuristics are any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation.

All three help to size the different elements of the problem to determine the critical and efficient path in further analysis.

Simple analysis

Start all analytic work with summary statistics and heuristics that help you see the size and shape of your problem levers.

Rules of thumb can serve as useful short cuts.

Simple question-based analysis grounded in the literature can lead you to a solution.

Root cause and 5-Ways can help you identify fundamental causes of problems that then lead to a solutuion.

Sophisticated analysis

You may be faced with a complex problem that really does require a robustly quantified solution:

Have you adequately framed the problem you face, and the hypothesis you want to test, so that it’s clear you do need more firepower?

Is there data available to support using an advanced analytic tool?

Which tool is the right one for your problem?

Is there user-friendly software available to help you use some of these tools?

Sophisticated analysis

RCTs are the gold standard for determining cause and effect, but where these are not possible you might be able to use a natural experiment or model causes using regression.

Regression can also be used to predict an outcome by constructing a model with observed data and inputting hypothetical data.

Game theory encourages you to think through different scenarios depending on the move of a competitor.

Bayesian statistics calculate probability of something under different conditions.

Conclusions

Conclusions

One day answers clarify where you are and what work is left to do.

Start all analytic work with summary statistics and heuristics that help you see the size and shape of your problem levers.

To get to a solution for many complex problems may require sophisticated analytic tools.

To do this you need to understand your research question and the nature of your data.

image4.emf

image6.png

image7.png

image8.png

,

MN7P13 Building Business Insights Workshop 3: Prioritisation of solution pathways

Dr. Stephen Hills

1

Prioritisation of solution pathways

The seven-steps process

How do you define a problem in a precise way to meet the decision maker’s needs?

How do you disaggregate the issues and develop hypotheses to be explored?

How do you prioritize what to do and what not to do?

How do you develop a workplan and assign analytical tasks?

How do you decide on the fact gathering and analysis to resolve the issues, while avoiding cognitive biases?

How do you go about synthesizing the findings to highlight insights?

How do you communicate them in a compelling way?

Step 3: Prioritise the issues, prune the tree

3. Prioritisation of solution pathways (10%, 800 words)

Using a prioritisation matrix, identify the potential pathways to solve the problem (e.g., hypothesised solutions) from the more complete logic tree that have the biggest impact on the project and which you can most affect to find the critical path to solving your problem, pruning the tree to remove the ‘leaves’ that are not on the critical path to solving the problem.

Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the prioritisation matrix, concluding with a summary of the solution pathways (e.g., hypothesised solutions) that will be taken forward to be tested via analyses.

Prioritising problems and pruning logic trees

Good problem solving is as much about what you don’t do as what you do.

Good prioritization of your problem solving work makes your problem solving more efficient.

Solutions come faster with less work – you do not need to work on components of the problem that are not important in solving the problem.

Although we want our initial logic trees to be collectively exhaustive so that we have all the parts, we should not retain components of the problem that:

Are not important in solving the problem.

Are difficult or impossible to influence or affect.

Case: Saving pacific salmon

Prioritization 2×2 matrix

Vertical axis: Potential scale of impact – whether or not the factor is important in solving the problem

Horizontal axis: Ability to influence the factor – whether or not it is possible to affect the factor (low to high).

Case: Climate change and the cost curve

Case: Climate change and the cost curve

Climate change is an imminent threat to all of humanity and is often thought about using the cleaving frame of Mitigate/Adapt, which contrasts policy efforts to reduce harm from a causal factor (e.g., climate change) with efforts to adapt to the factor.

Elements include reduce harm, address harm, and resilience.

Another way that climate change can be though about is using the cleaving frame of Supply/Demand, which addresses questions such as ‘can we get more?’ versus ‘how can we use less?’

This can be operationalised using a cost curve.

A cost curve can be applied to visualize the returns from (below the line), or the costs of (above the line) reducing CO2 emissions.

The potential solutions are then ordered from left to right with furthest left representing highest returns and the furthest right representing the highest costs for reducing CO2 emissions.

Case: Climate change and the cost curve

Case: Climate change and the cost curve

Just do it now – it makes sense!

There are lots of potential actions for which there are positive returns for individuals and private companies.

With these, quick progress can be made against the problem via education and supporting tax credits for the investment costs.

Largely nature’s solutions and agricultural practices

There are another group of actions in the agricultural and land use space, e.g. reforestation, avoided deforestation, degraded land recovery where there are no positive returns, but investment costs are low so governments should invest in these to reduce CO2 emissions.

Invest in new technology and markets

Longer term actions that will require substantial private and social investment in new technology and markets.

Conclusions

Conclusions

Good prioritization of your problem solving work makes your problem solving more efficient.

Do not work on components of the problem that are not important in solving the problem.

Do not work on components of the problem that are difficult or impossible to influence or affect.

Focus your early efforts on the big levers you can pull.

image5.emf

image7.png

image8.png

image9.png

image10.png

image11.png

,

MN7P13 Building Business Insights Workshop 2: Disaggregation of problem structure and solution drivers

Dr. Stephen Hills

1

Disaggregation of problem structure and solution drivers

The seven-steps process

How do you define a problem in a precise way to meet the decision maker’s needs?

How do you disaggregate the issues and develop hypotheses to be explored?

How do you prioritize what to do and what not to do?

How do you develop a workplan and assign analytical tasks?

How do you decide on the fact gathering and analysis to resolve the issues, while avoiding cognitive biases?

How do you go about synthesizing the findings to highlight insights?

How do you communicate them in a compelling way?

Step 2: Disaggregate the issues

Types of logic trees

Early in the process we start with factor/level/component trees to help us define basic problem structure.

Later in the process we move to hypothesis trees, deductive logic trees or decision trees, depending on the nature of the problem, so to drive analysis or action.

MECE: Logic trees should have branches that are…

Mutually Exclusive The branches of the tree don’t overlap, or contain partial elements of the same factor or component. The core concept of each trunk or branch of the problem is self-contained, not spread across several branches.
Collectively Exhaustive Taken as a whole, the logic tree contains all of the elements of the problem, not just some of them. Missing parts could lead to missing solutions to the problem.

2. Disaggregation of problem structure and solution drivers (25%, 2000 words)

Use an initial logic tree (i.e., factor/lever/component or inductive logic) to break the problem into component parts or issues to illustrate and define the basic structure of the problem (e.g., causes of the problem).

This should be evidence-based, using a combination of credible industry and academic literature, evidence and theory, covering the problem generally and the problem in the context of your client.

Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the logic tree, concluding with a summary of the insights gained. It is expected that this logic tree will have three layers.

Using the basic problem structure logic tree as a guide to locate further industry and academic literature, evidence and theory on the problem component parts of issues, produce a more complete logic tree (i.e., deductive logic, hypothesis or decision) of the drivers of the problem solution, which help us to see potential pathways to solve the problem (e.g., hypothesised solutions).

Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the logic tree, concluding with a summary of the insights gained. It is expected that this logic tree will have four layers.

Use an initial logic tree (i.e., factor/lever/component or inductive logic) to break the problem into component parts or issues to illustrate and define the basic structure of the problem (e.g., causes of the problem). This should be evidence-based, using a combination of credible industry and academic literature, evidence and theory, covering the problem generally and the problem in the context of your client. Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the logic tree, concluding with a summary of the insights gained. It is expected that this logic tree will have three layers.

Problem disaggregation

Any problem of real consequence is too complicated to solve without breaking it down into logical parts that help us understand the drivers or causes of the problem.

We need to take the problem apart in a way that helps us to see potential pathways to solve it.

Taking the problem apart to see all of its parts clearly also allows us to determine what not to work on:

The problem components or issues that are too difficult to change (i.e., that can be actively managed).

The problem components or issues that don’t impact the problem sufficiently.

Factor/lever/component logic tree

Structures for seeing elements of a problem clearly.

Schemas that provide a visual mental map of the different levels of a problem.

Clear logic of relationships linking component parts of the problem to each other.

Factor/lever/component logic tree

At the start of this step, when you are able to state your problem clearly but don’t yet have a detailed understanding of it, you should employ the simplest kind of logic tree.

Start with the most obvious elements that make up a problem – components that can help focus data gathering.

A logical first disaggregation can usually be achieved with a small amount of Internet research.

Literature reviews and theoretical frameworks

A literature review (e.g. Google Scholar search) of the facets of the problem will provide insight into the different ways that a problem can be broken up.

Using knowledge from the literature you can develop a theoretical framework of the drivers or causes of the problem.

From this we can develop hypotheses of pathways to the solution – our evidence-based predictions of potential pathways to a solution that we can go on to test.

Using the basic problem structure logic tree as a guide to locate further industry and academic literature, evidence and theory on the problem component parts of issues, produce a more complete logic tree (i.e., deductive logic, hypothesis or decision) of the drivers of the problem solution, which help us to see potential pathways to solve the problem (e.g., hypothesised solutions). Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the logic tree, concluding with a summary of the insights gained. It is expected that this logic tree will have four layers.

Hypothesis logic tree

After a literature review and other in-depth research, it is possible to refine a logic tree and transition from a simple factor/lever/component logic tree to a hypothesis tree – predictions of solutions that need to be tested.

Deductive logic trees

Appropriate for when you have a very clear idea of the problem structure, which is logically or mathematically coherent.

Use deductive reasoning (a.k.a. top-down reasoning) that argue from general rules or principles to conclusions via more specific data and assertions.

General statement: All LMU MBA students need a minimum of a 2.2 for an honours degree (or equivalent) to enter the programme.

Specific observation: Priyanka is a LMU MBA student.

Deductive conclusion: Priyanka has a minimum of a 2.2 for an honours degree (or equivalent).

Deductive logic trees are constructed similarly, with a problem statement that may sometimes be expressed in quantities, and branches that are typically logically or mathematically complete, so that the components add up to the desired objective of the problem statement.

You can use this kind of tree when you know a lot about the logical structure of a problem and especially when the cleaving frame is inherently mathematical.

Pacific Salmon Case: From initial component tree to refined hypothesis tree

Initial factor/lever/component logic tree

A rudimentary factor/lever/component logic tree was developed to get a hold of the problem – to get a grasp of all the elements and relationships that defined the problem space.

For several days (not weeks) undertook readings about the Salmon problem and talked to experts in salmon conservation.

Just enough initial research to generate a first-cut tree, which would then act as a guide to make further research more efficient.

Factor/lever/component logic tree

The big levers that affect salmon and the secondary tertiary layers of the problem without judgment of importance or magnitude of levers or which could be actively managed (i.e., affected by the grant funding).

Hypothesis logic tree

Better organized.

Mutually exclusive & collectively exhaustive.

Focuses analysis on both specific regions & intervention types.

Initial hypotheses to push for some early outcomes (i.e., achieve some traction).

Nursing Case: Deductive logic tree

Case: Improving nursing-related patient outcomes

Focuses attention on the key drivers of nursing numbers and skill levels, moving from general rules or principles to conclusions via more specific data and assertions.

Data and analysis were used to determine which levers were most powerful in improving patient outcomes and which were cost-effective to address.

After 12 years of investment, more than 4.5k registered nurses were added, nursing school curriculums improved, bloodstream infections and readmission rates reduced and 1k lives saved a year from sepsis.

Case: Improving nursing-related patient outcomes

Nurses provide at least 90% of patient care in hospitals.

Over 100k lives a year are lost in the USA from mistakes in patient care in hospitals.

There is a substantial shortage of nurses, resulting in more patients per nurse (or fewer nurses per patient).

For each patient added per nurse, mortality rates increase.

Deductive logic tree: Improving nursing outcomes

This problem is suited to a deductive logic tree because it is logically complete:

Increasing number of skilled new nurses

Improving skills and practices of current nurses

…adds up to the desired outcome.

Conclusions

Conclusions

Problem disaggregation provides us with manageable chunks to work on and allows us to begin to see the structure of the problem.

Start with simple factor/compoenent/lever logic trees when you are starting out and don’t know a lot.

Use those to guide your research then move on to more complete logic trees using hypothesis, deductive and decision trees.

Your logic tree structures should be both mutually exclusive (i.e., no overlapping branches) and collectively exhaustive (i.e., no missing branches).

image5.emf

image7.png

image8.png

image9.png

image10.png

image11.png

image12.png

image13.png

,

MN7P13 Building Business Insights Workshop 6: Synthesised conclusions

Dr. Stephen Hills

1

Synthesised conclusions

The seven-steps process

How do you define a problem in a precise way to meet the decision maker’s needs?

How do you disaggregate the issues and develop hypotheses to be explored?

How do you prioritize what to do and what not to do?

How do you develop a workplan and assign analytical tasks?

How do you decide on the fact gathering and analysis to resolve the issues, while avoiding cognitive biases?

How do you go about synthesizing the findings to highlight insights?

How do you communicate them in a compelling way?

Step 6: Synthesise findings from the analysis

Step 7: Prepare a powerful communication

6. Synthesised conclusions (20%, 1,600 words)

Draw together the individual findings and insights of your problem-solving work into an overall picture.

Using a pyramid structure, present your conclusions (i.e., governing thought) as an engaging story supported with arguments, findings, insights and facts to convince your audience of the merits of your recommended solution.

Provide a commentary of your pyramid structure.

Sythesising results and telling a great story

These final two steps are the culmination of your problem solving project and should provide a solution to your problem.

They are your conclusions and should be an engaging story supported with facts, analyses and arguments that convince your audience of the merits of your recommended solution.

Synthesising findings

Synthesis of your data gathering and analysis.

Synthesis: Combining components or elements to form a connected whole.

As you move to final synthesis, draw together the individual findings of the work on each branch of your logic tree into an overall picture.

Represent each of your findings in the form of pictures or graphics that highlight the insights that emerged from your work.

Telling compelling stories

Once you have synthesized your findings into a series of convincing graphics, the final step is to structure a compelling communication for your audience.

Return to your problem definition worksheet and remind yourself:

What problem are we trying to solve?

Has the problem evolved during project (e.g., as new information comes to bear? If so, how?

Did the boundaries change (e.g., to allow for a more creative solution)? If so, how?

What are the key criteria for success? These should be explicitly reflected in our story.

Pyramid structure

The pyramid structure helps us to show clearly how each element of our argument is supported by data and analysis.

At the very top level is our lead or governing statement of the problem.

Final one-day solution – your latest situation-observation-resolution statement.

Using insights from your synthesis stage, fill in supporting arguments that back up your top-level answer.

Structure options

Choose an appropriate structure depending on the nature of your answer and your audience.

Case: Hechinger Draft Storyline

Case: Hechinger Draft Storyline

The following example looks at the complete narrative for Hechinger.

It draws together evidence from the analysis phase into a synthesis of the findings and then tells the story: Hechinger needed to change its business model quickly to address the competitive threat of Home Depot.

The whole story is on a single page with the governing thought and call to action at the top.

Resolution – situation – observation.

Underneath are the three major arguments that underpin the governing thought.

Then underneath these are the supporting arguments and data that provide the proof for the need for action and the formula for change.

1

2

3

1 – Home Depot Advantage

2 – Sales and Operating Income

3 – Store Openings

Draft Storyline

1983 – 1988

Case: Oilco

Case: Oilco

Recommendation was for the refinery business to cut costs substantially and become a modest growth, niche operation.

Communicated via a revealed approach – did not lead with the resolution.

Case: Oilco

Using a decision tree final storyline structure, you can provide evidence for each yes/no branch in your tree, slowly working the decision maker toward your solution.

You reveal the answer, rather than leading with it.

Revealed compelling competitor data, layer by layer, so to get comfortable with difficult conclusions.

Conclusions

Conclusions

Synthesis brings together all the separate pieces of your analytic work in a way that highlights your insights.

Revisit your original problem definition and answer your decision maker’s question – what should I do? – in a compelling way that motivates action.

Use the logic tree pyramid structure to organise a compelling story.

The pyramid structure helps to structure arguments and support into a powerful story.

Your final one-day answer structure (leading with resolution, then situation and observation) can be used as the governing thought of your narrative.

Try several storyline structures to see which are most clear and compelling, such as a decision tree format to reveal the answer step-by-step.

image4.emf

image6.png

image7.png

image8.png

image9.png

image10.png

image11.png

image12.png

image13.png

image14.png

,

Referencing, Paraphrasing & Plagiarism

Dr. Stephen Hills

1

Referencing

Referencing Defined

Referencing is the process of acknowledging sources, such as books, journals, magazines, newspapers and websites.

Referencing sources demonstrates research undertaken and reinforces arguments.

Using a wide range of sources is strong academic practice.

Not required for common knowledge.

London Metropolitan University. (2023). Referencing. Retrieved from https://student.londonmet.ac.uk/library/subject-guides-and-research-support/referencing-and-copyright/referencing/

In-text Citations (APA)

According to Deacon (2013), the traditional medical model has been criticized for treating mental health issues in the same way as physical ailments using medication. Moreover, this model emphasizes a siloed approach to treatment that fails to identify and treat the physical and social problems associated with mental illness (Deacon & McKay, 2015). Accordingly, there is a growing push to treat mental health holistically with social and emotional wellbeing and physical health (Naylor, et al., 2016; Ohara-Hirano, et al., 2004; Pasquali, et al., 1989) and in a way that removes the stigma associated with accessing mainstream mental health treatments (Brodie, et al., 2011). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of an intentionally designed intervention that aims to holistically treat mental health, social and emotional wellbeing, and physical health using the sport/activity of boxing.

End-of-text Citations (APA)

Brodie, I., Goldman, R., & Clapton, J. (2011). Mental health service transitions for young people. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.

Deacon, B. J. (2013). The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research. Clinical psychology review, 33(7), 846-861.

Deacon, B. J., & McKay, D. (2015). The biomedical model of psychological problems: A call for critical dialogue. Lancet, 16, 2-3.

Naylor, C., Das, P., Ross, S., Honeyman, M., Thompson, J, & Gilburt, H. (2016). Bringing together physical and mental health: A new frontier for integrated care. Kings Fund. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/physical-and-mental-health

Ohara-Hirano, Y., Kaku, T., Hirakawa, T., Noguchi, Y., Hirata, N., Shinkoda, H., … & Ohki, M. (2004). Uterine cervical cancer: a holistic approach to mental health and it's socio-psychological implications. Fukuoka igaku zasshi= Hukuoka acta medica, 95(8), 183-194.

Pasquali, E. A., Arnold, H. M., & DeBasio, N. (1989). Mental health nursing: A holistic approach. CV Mosby.

Frequently seen referencing errors

Web links as in-text citations and end-of-text references.

In-text citations without an end-of-text references.

End-of-text references without in-text citations.

Mix and match citation and reference styles.

In-text citation for a word, e.g. Global warming (Smith, 2016) is….

No citation for a statement of fact, which is not common knowledge.

Hanging in-text citations within brackets, e.g. An in-text citation without an end-of-text references is a common referencing error. (Hills, 2023)

Paraphrasing

Quotations vs. Paraphrasing

Quotation: Using someone else’s words

Hills (2023) told the students “If you use someone else’s words on a word-for-word basis, you need to use quotation marks and an in-text citation” (p. 1).

Paraphrasing: Explaining someone else’s idea in your own words

Hills (2023) explained the requirement of using quotation marks and a citation when directly quoting someone else.

Group Exercise: Unacceptable vs. Acceptable Paraphrasing

In groups, read the acceptable and unacceptable examples of paraphrasing.

What makes the examples unacceptable or acceptable?

Plagiarism

Plagiarism Defined

“Plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or original (but not common knowledge) material without acknowledging its source” (Council of Writing Program Administrators, 2003, p. 1).

Typical Examples Include:

Using another's work from print, web, or other sources without acknowledging the source;

quoting from a source without citation;

using facts, figures, graphs, charts or information without acknowledgement of the source.

Common Craft. (2010). Plagiarism. Retrieved from http://www.commoncraft.com/video/plagiarism

Plagiarism Spectrum

Which of these types are most frequent?

Which of these types are most problematic?

Turnitin. (2012). Plagiarism spectrum: Tagging 10 types of unoriginal work. Retrieved from http://turnitin.com/assets/en_us/media/plagiarism_spectrum.php

Plagiarism Spectrum

Clone, CTRL-C and Mashup are most frequent and problematic, but in a different order (Turnitin, 2012).

Turnitin. (2012). Plagiarism spectrum: Tagging 10 types of unoriginal work. Retrieved from http://turnitin.com/assets/en_us/media/plagiarism_spectrum.php

Implications of Plagiarism

The goal of higher education is to expand our current knowledge of a particular discipline through “understanding, augmenting, engaging in dialogue with, and challenging the work of others” (Council of Writing Program Administrators, 2003, p. 4).

However, plagiarising or using ideas that are not your works against this goal and harms the individual through evasion of independent thinking and intellectual conversations (Council of Writing Program Administrators, 2003).

Strategies to Counter Plagiarism

Students to be taught planning skills so to be less tempted to plagiarise under pressure

Student voice to be empowered

Students to understand importance of evidencing their arguments

Students to be taught how to locate evidence

Students to be taught how to reference their evidence

Students to be taught how to use and read outputs from plagiarism software to improve their writing

Universities to hold students accountable for plagiarism

Universities to have efficient systems for reporting and dealing with plagiarism

References

References

Common Craft. (2010). Plagiarism. Retrieved from http://www.commoncraft.com/video/plagiarism

Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2003). Defining and avoiding plagiarism: The WPA statement on best practices. Retrieved from http://wpacouncil.org/positions/WPAplagiarism.pdf

London Metropolitan University. (2023). Referencing. Retrieved from https://student.londonmet.ac.uk/library/subject-guides-and-research-support/referencing-and-copyright/referencing/

Turnitin. (2012). Plagiarism spectrum: Tagging 10 types of unoriginal work. Retrieved from http://turnitin.com/assets/en_us/media/plagiarism_spectrum.php

image5.emf

image7.png

image8.png

image9.png

image10.png

image11.png

image12.png

,

MN7P13 Building Business Insights Workshop 6: Synthesised conclusions

Dr. Stephen Hills

1

Synthesised conclusions

The seven-steps process

How do you define a problem in a precise way to meet the decision maker’s needs?

How do you disaggregate the issues and develop hypotheses to be explored?

How do you prioritize what to do and what not to do?

How do you develop a workplan and assign analytical tasks?

How do you decide on the fact gathering and analysis to resolve the issues, while avoiding cognitive biases?

How do you go about synthesizing the findings to highlight insights?

How do you communicate them in a compelling way?

Step 6: Synthesise findings from the analysis

Step 7: Prepare a powerful communication

6. Synthesised conclusions (20%, 1,600 words)

Draw together the individual findings and insights of your problem-solving work into an overall picture.

Using a pyramid structure, present your conclusions (i.e., governing thought) as an engaging story supported with arguments, findings, insights and facts to convince your audience of the merits of your recommended solution.

Provide a commentary of your pyramid structure.

Sythesising results and telling a great story

These final two steps are the culmination of your problem solving project and should provide a solution to your problem.

They are your conclusions and should be an engaging story supported with facts, analyses and arguments that convince your audience of the merits of your recommended solution.

Synthesising findings

Synthesis of your data gathering and analysis.

Synthesis: Combining components or elements to form a connected whole.

As you move to final synthesis, draw together the individual findings of the work on each branch of your logic tree into an overall picture.

Represent each of your findings in the form of pictures or graphics that highlight the insights that emerged from your work.

Telling compelling stories

Once you have synthesized your findings into a series of convincing graphics, the final step is to structure a compelling communication for your audience.

Return to your problem definition worksheet and remind yourself:

What problem are we trying to solve?

Has the problem evolved during project (e.g., as new information comes to bear? If so, how?

Did the boundaries change (e.g., to allow for a more creative solution)? If so, how?

What are the key criteria for success? These should be explicitly reflected in our story.

Pyramid structure

The pyramid structure helps us to show clearly how each element of our argument is supported by data and analysis.

At the very top level is our lead or governing statement of the problem.

Final one-day solution – your latest situation-observation-resolution statement.

Using insights from your synthesis stage, fill in supporting arguments that back up your top-level answer.

Structure options

Choose an appropriate structure depending on the nature of your answer and your audience.

Case: Hechinger Draft Storyline

Case: Hechinger Draft Storyline

The following example looks at the complete narrative for Hechinger.

It draws together evidence from the analysis phase into a synthesis of the findings and then tells the story: Hechinger needed to change its business model quickly to address the competitive threat of Home Depot.

The whole story is on a single page with the governing thought and call to action at the top.

Resolution – situation – observation.

Underneath are the three major arguments that underpin the governing thought.

Then underneath these are the supporting arguments and data that provide the proof for the need for action and the formula for change.

1

2

3

1 – Home Depot Advantage

2 – Sales and Operating Income

3 – Store Openings

Draft Storyline

1983 – 1988

Case: Oilco

Case: Oilco

Recommendation was for the refinery business to cut costs substantially and become a modest growth, niche operation.

Communicated via a revealed approach – did not lead with the resolution.

Case: Oilco

Using a decision tree final storyline structure, you can provide evidence for each yes/no branch in your tree, slowly working the decision maker toward your solution.

You reveal the answer, rather than leading with it.

Revealed compelling competitor data, layer by layer, so to get comfortable with difficult conclusions.

Conclusions

Conclusions

Synthesis brings together all the separate pieces of your analytic work in a way that highlights your insights.

Revisit your original problem definition and answer your decision maker’s question – what should I do? – in a compelling way that motivates action.

Use the logic tree pyramid structure to organise a compelling story.

The pyramid structure helps to structure arguments and support into a powerful story.

Your final one-day answer structure (leading with resolution, then situation and observation) can be used as the governing thought of your narrative.

Try several storyline structures to see which are most clear and compelling, such as a decision tree format to reveal the answer step-by-step.

image4.emf

image6.png

image7.png

image8.png

image9.png

image10.png

image11.png

image12.png

image13.png

image14.png

,

MN7P13 Building Business Insights Workshop 1: Definition of the problem

Dr. Stephen Hills

1

Definition of the problem

The seven-steps process

How do you define a problem in a precise way to meet the decision maker’s needs?

How do you disaggregate the issues and develop hypotheses to be explored?

How do you prioritize what to do and what not to do?

How do you develop a workplan and assign analytical tasks?

How do you decide on the fact gathering and analysis to resolve the issues, while avoiding cognitive biases?

How do you go about synthesizing the findings to highlight insights?

How do you communicate them in a compelling way?

Step 1: Define the problem

A tool for defining problems: The problem definition worksheet

Decision makers

Success criteria

Key forces acting on the decision makers

Time frame for resolution

Boundaries/constraints

Accuracy necessary

1. Definition of the problem (5%, 400 words)

Describe the client for whom you are solving a problem, locating them within their industry. Identify the decision-maker within the client organisation who is the primary audience for your project report.

A short description of the situation that prevails for your client at the outset of problem solving (i.e., the state of affairs that sets up the problem). A set of observations or complications around the situation that creates the tension or dynamic that captures the problem (i.e., what changed or what went wrong that created the problem), which should be fully evidenced via data from your client.

In the form of an objective (e.g., to reclaim market share), define a specific and actionable problem (i.e., what are we trying to solve?).

Identify any boundaries and constraints of the project, considering the key forces (e.g., values) acting on decision-makers. Identify the criteria against which successful resolution to the problem can be measured and judged.

NB: You should use your problem definition worksheet as a basis for this section, but should not present your problem definition worksheet.

Describe the client for whom you are solving a problem, locating them within their industry. Identify the decision-maker within the client organisation who is the primary audience for your project report.

Who makes a good client?

A high profile organisation for whom there is a lot of readily available information.

An existing or former employer for whom you know a lot about their business.

An organistaion with whom you have personal connections, such as family or friends in senior positions, who are willing to share information with you.

Where can I find ideas for a client and business problem?

BBC News Business or business sections of other credible news outlets.

A short description of the situation that prevails for your client at the outset of problem solving (i.e., the state of affairs that sets up the problem). A set of observations or complications around the situation that creates the tension or dynamic that captures the problem (i.e., what changed or what went wrong that created the problem), which should be fully evidenced via data from your client.

What makes a good business problem?

“Problem solving is decision making when there is complexity and uncertainty that rules out obvious answers, and where there are consequences that make the work to get good answers worth it.”

Conn & McLean (2018)

A problem for which there is complexity and uncertainty that rules out obvious answers.

A problem for which, if solved, there are consequences that make the work to get good answers worth it.

Define problems with sufficient scope and at the highest-level

Narrowly scoped projects make for fast problem solving, but provide limited space for creative and novel solutions, employing only conventional conceptions of a problem.

Breakthrough ideas are more challenging with old models and old framing of problems.

Target your problem solving efforts at the highest level at which you can work, rather than single business units because what makes sense for single business unit may not make sense for the company overall.

WeWork Net Loss & Revenue

WeWork Costs

WeWork Capacity

WeWork Occupancy

WeWork Income per Desk

WeWork Breakeven Curve: Rate vs. Occupancy

Monthly desk rate would have to increase by 61% with occupancy remaining stable

With occupancy returning to pre-covid peak (+18%), monthly desk rate would need to rise by 37%

A further restructuring of costs

In the form of an objective (e.g., to reclaim market share), define a specific and actionable problem (i.e., what are we trying to solve?).

Characteristics of good problem statements

Outcomes focused: A clear statement solved, expressed in outcomes, not outputs.

Specific and measurable wherever possible.

Clearly time-bound.

Designed to explicitly address decision-maker values and boundaries, including the accuracy needed and the scale of aspirations.

Structured to allow sufficient scope for creativity and unexpected results— too narrowly scoped problems can artificially constrain solutions.

Solved at the highest level possible, meaning for the organisation as a whole, not just optimised for a part or a partial solution.

SMART – specific, measurable, action oriented, relevant, and timely.

SMART Goals – specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.

20

Identify any boundaries and constraints of the project, considering the key forces (e.g., values) acting on decision-makers. Identify the criteria against which successful resolution to the problem can be measured and judged.

Problem Definition

Crystal clear definition of the problem you are solving is essential. A quote from Einstein:

“If I had an hour to solve a problem, I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.” 

Einstein believed the quality of the solution you generate is in direct proportion to your ability to identify the problem you hope to solve.

You need to be very clear about the boundaries of the problem

the criteria for success

the time frame

The level of accuracy required.

Pitfalls and common mistakes

Weak problem statements: Vague problem statements that are not specific in terms of:

Establishing what is required to make a decision on solving the problem

The action that will follow the problem being solved

Constraints of the problem-solving

Time frame and level of accuracy required for the problem to be solved

Case: Reversing the decline in Wild Pacific Salmon

Reversing the decline in Wild Pacific Salmon: The Client

Wild Atlantic Salmon had seen huge declines from mismanagement that caused large-scale ecosystem harm and community economic losses.

Wild Pacific Salmon now under pressure from human development in land use and fisheries management approaches that negatively affect salmon numbers and salmon habitats.

Importance: Wild Pacific Salmon are an apex species critical element in the northern rainforest ecosystems, a substantial biomass in their own rights, which have a massive impact of freshwater and marine ecosystems.

The client were a new foundation committed to a long-term model of philanthropy, focusing and funding a few initiatives fitting the following criteria:

Initiatives with measurable outcomes.

Initiative that are important and really matter.

Initiatives where the foundation’s unique contribution mattered.

Initiatives that over time would contribute to a portfolio effect – building off and supporting each other.

The project team could have up to 15 years to work on the problem with substantial financial resources.

Reversing the decline in Wild Pacific Salmon: Problem Constraints

Quick results.

Measurable ecosystem-level outcome improvements over time.

Grassroots advocacy campaigns and large-scale direct policy efforts were undesirable and, therefore, off limit.

Problem Definition Worksheet Example

Counting fish: Evolution of the problem statement

The foundation was committed to initiatives with measurable outcomes, which it was initially felt fit with tackling the declining number of Wild Pacific Salmon.

However, there are five different species in several different regions and some species are doing well in some places, others not so well.

Overall numbers go up and down throughout the year due to ocean conditions.

It is highly challenging to measure the number of Wild Pacific Salmon and to determine the impact of an initiative to reverse the decline of Wild Pacific Salmon.

However, the functioning of the North Pacific Salmon ecosystem is more measurable – looking at their food availability and habitat.

As such, the problem statement evolved to reflect this.

Problem Statement Evolution

Conclusions

Conclusions

Defining the problem well is the starting point for great problem solving because a well-defined problem is a problem half solved.

Problem definition requires understanding the boundaries of the problem, the timeframe for solution, the accuracy required and any other forces affecting the decision.

Take an opposing view to test the robustness of the problem statement.

Bring creativity into problem definition by reframing the problem.

Sharpen your problem statement as you learn more about the problem.

image5.emf

image7.png

image8.png

image9.png

image10.png

image11.png

image12.png

image13.png

image14.png

image15.png

image16.png

image17.png

image18.png

Order a similar assignment, and have writers from our team of experts write it for you, guaranteeing you an A

Order Solution Now