ICAG L3 Strategic Case Study common mistakes
ICAG L3 Strategic Case Study · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Spending the first 30–40 minutes reading the case and writing notes without producing any answer text, then running out of time and leaving the final requirement (often the valuation or recommendation) half-finished.
The case is long and dense, so candidates try to 'understand everything first'. Because marks are awarded per requirement and later requirements often carry the highest weight, an unfinished final section is the single largest source of lost marks.
What to do instead
Work to a fixed minute budget written on the answer sheet before reading (e.g. 20 min reading, then allocate the remaining time pro rata to requirement marks, reserving 10 minutes for review). Start writing the first requirement within 25 minutes regardless of whether the analysis feels complete, and never leave a requirement blank - a bullet-point skeleton of a conclusion still earns professional-skills and application marks.
Writing a generic PESTEL or SWOT list with no numbers, no case-specific evidence and no link to the decision the board actually faces.
Candidates memorise frameworks from earlier studies and use them as a comfort zone. Listing factors feels productive and is easy to write, but it demonstrates knowledge recall rather than application to this organisation.
What to do instead
For every environmental point, force the sentence pattern 'factor → quantified impact on this company → so what for the decision'. Cap the model at three or four factors that genuinely drive the outcome, each supported by a case figure, and delete any point that cannot be tied to a specific requirement.
Recommending a strategy without evaluating alternatives, and without stating the criteria (financial return, strategic fit, risk, feasibility) used to choose between them.
Candidates spot one attractive option early and spend the rest of the answer justifying it. Evaluation feels like hedging, so it gets skipped under time pressure.
What to do instead
Always present at least two real options plus the do-nothing baseline in a short comparison table scored against three or four named criteria, then commit to one recommendation with the reason the rejected option lost. Marks come from the comparison, not from the option chosen.
Producing a net present value or valuation as a single number with no sensitivity, no discussion of the discount rate used and no statement of what would change the answer.
Candidates treat the calculation as the deliverable and stop when the spreadsheet balances, forgetting that the board needs to know how robust the figure is.
What to do instead
After the base case, always add a short sensitivity paragraph: the two or three assumptions that drive the result (growth rate, margin, WACC, terminal value), a rough swing in the outcome for a plausible change in each, and a one-line conclusion on whether the decision survives the downside. State explicitly how the discount rate was derived and whether it reflects the project's risk or the company's.
Presenting calculations as bare workings with no interpretation - figures appear in the answer but never in the argument, and the recommendation is not built on them.
Candidates separate 'doing the numbers' from 'writing the report', often putting workings in an appendix and then writing a qualitative answer that ignores them.
What to do instead
For each calculation, write one sentence of meaning immediately after it ('the project adds X of value, which is Y% of current market capitalisation, so it is material to the share price'). Ensure every number in the appendices is referenced at least once in the body and that the final recommendation cites the key figures.
Ignoring stakeholder and governance dimensions - no analysis of board composition, shareholder expectations, lender covenants, regulator or employee interests - and treating the decision as purely financial.
Candidates with a finance background default to the numbers, and governance content feels like soft filler compared with a valuation.
What to do instead
Before writing the recommendation, list the five key stakeholders, what each wants, and what each can do to block or enable the plan. Check the proposal against lender covenants and any regulatory constraint explicitly, and add a short section on how the board should govern and monitor the decision after approval.
Missing or misusing the professional-skills marks: no report format, no executive summary, no headings matched to the requirements, and no explicit judgement or conclusion.
These marks are perceived as automatic, so candidates focus only on technical content and write in continuous prose that mirrors the order they thought of things rather than the order of the requirements.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed report template every time: addressed to the named recipient, one-paragraph executive summary with the recommendation up front, a heading per requirement in the requirement's own words, and a clear 'Conclusion and recommendation' section. Practise under timed conditions until the structure is automatic so it costs no thinking time in the exam.
Recommending a financing or investment structure that breaches a stated constraint - covenant headroom, dividend policy, target gearing, or the entity's stated risk appetite - because the constraint was noted during reading but not carried into the analysis.
Under time pressure candidates hold the case facts in working memory only, and constraints mentioned early in the case are forgotten by the time the financing question is answered.
What to do instead
In the first five minutes, extract every hard constraint (covenant ratios, dividend cover, maximum gearing, capital budget ceiling, regulatory limits) into a short 'constraints box' on the answer sheet, and test every recommendation against that box before writing the conclusion.
Treating ethical and professional issues as a paragraph of generalities ('the company should act ethically and consider its reputation') rather than identifying the specific threat, the affected parties, the applicable safeguards and a recommended course of action.
Candidates lack a structured way into ethics questions and fall back on vague assertions that earn no application marks.
What to do instead
Use a fixed four-step structure: identify the specific ethical threat and who is harmed; identify who is pressuring whom and why; state the safeguards available (escalation, disclosure, independent review, declining the engagement); and give a clear recommended action with its commercial consequence. Anchor each step to a named individual or fact in the case.
Making an unqualified recommendation that ignores implementation - no phasing, no funding plan, no key risks with mitigations, no milestones or KPIs to monitor success.
Candidates stop at 'what to do' because 'how to do it' feels like a separate topic, and implementation detail is the first thing cut when time runs short.
What to do instead
Reserve the last section of every answer for a compact implementation table: immediate actions, 12-month milestones, funding source, top three risks with a mitigation each, and two or three KPIs with target values. Even five lines of this converts a theoretical answer into a decision the board could act on.