Posted: April 24th, 2025
7P13SR- ONE- SHEET6
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 6 (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.
Guildhall School of Business and Law
Feedback/Feedforward Coversheet
MN7P13SR
Building Business Insights
Academic Year 2024/25
Assessment AS3
Reflective Practice Video Presentation (10%)
First Marker:
Second Marker:
Title of presentation: Reflective Practice Video Presentation (10 minutes)
|
Assessment Criteria |
Tasks |
1 Marker |
2 Marker |
|
A recorded video using slides that reflects upon (Time limit: 10 minutes, 100 marks) |
Description of the following: |
||
|
· How the submitted elements of the portfolio meet the module learning outcomes (35 marks) |
|||
| · |
· The relevance of the experience gained within this module to future career aspirations (35 marks) |
||
|
· Development needs to meet future career aspirations that were not met on this module (30 marks) |
|||
|
Please upload the Unlisted Youtube Video link URL |
|||
|
Total marks |
|||
|
Areas for Improvements |
|||
|
From First Marker |
|||
|
Knowledge and understanding |
|||
|
Analysis and evaluation |
|||
|
From Second Marker |
|||
|
Analysis and evaluation |
|||
|
Agreed Marks First Marker’s marks/date: Second Marker’s marks/date: |
|
Please upload the Turnitin Report |
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 ” 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
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. |
· 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. |
· 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. |
· 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. |
· 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. |
· ‘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. |
· 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 |
|||
|
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 |
Worksheet 6 – Synthesised conclusions (20%, 1,600 words)
Pyramid structure (to present your conclusions (i.e., governing thought))
Commentary of pyramid structure
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 ” 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
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 ”
and follows on from “Example format for Workplan (for MN7P13SR AS1) ”)
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
MN7P13 Building Business Insights
Workshop 5: Analysis and findings
Dr. Stephen Hills
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.
image3
image4
image5
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 ”
and follows on from “Example format for Workplan (for MN7P13SR AS1) ”)
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
MN7P13 Building Business Insights
Workshop 6: Synthesised conclusions
Dr. Stephen Hills
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.
image3
image4
image5
image6
image7
image8
image9
image10
image11
MN7P13 Building Business Insights
Workshop 5: Analysis and findings
Dr. Stephen Hills
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.
image3
image4
image5
MN7P13 Building Business Insights
Workshop 3: Prioritisation of solution pathways
Dr. Stephen Hills
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.
image4
image5
image6
image7
image8
MN7P13 Building Business Insights
Workshop 2: Disaggregation of problem structure and solution drivers
Dr. Stephen Hills
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
image6
image7
image8
image9
image10
image11
MN7P13 Building Business Insights
Workshop 6: Synthesised conclusions
Dr. Stephen Hills
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.
image3
image4
image5
image6
image7
image8
image9
image10
image11
Referencing, Paraphrasing & Plagiarism
Dr. Stephen Hills
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
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
image4
image5
image6
image7
image8
image9
MN7P13 Building Business Insights
Workshop 1: Definition of the problem
Dr. Stephen Hills
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.
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.
image4
image5
image6
image7
image8
image9
image10
image11
image12
image13
image14
image15
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.