ISYS90026 · Concepts In Information Systems
Case Study Analysis and Academic Writing
This is the meta-skill chapter behind every mark in ISYS90026 — it is the method used in the group case (15%), the individual case (25%) and all four essay sections of the final exam. Drawing on Ellet's Case Study Handbook, it teaches you to treat a case as a jigsaw with no single right answer, to use business theory as a lens rather than to recite it, and to write up your analysis in the What / Why / How architecture — a committed position, a theory-plus-evidence argument, and a symmetric action plan. The exam never asks you to define these terms; it rewards students who can silently apply them to an unseen business case.
What this chapter covers
- 011. What a case study is — a simulated business situation giving sufficient but unsorted information (a jigsaw), with no single right answer you must make your own meaning from
- 022. Case analysis as reasoning — act like a detective: build a logical bridge from a vague problem to a concrete solution using theory plus evidence
- 033. Theory as a lens — a framework filters out noise and tells you which facts matter; no single theory explains a whole problem
- 044. Quality over quantity — 'Analytical Alice' (a few relevant frameworks used deeply) beats 'Theory Ted' (cramming fifteen); more theories does not mean deeper analysis
- 055. The three case types — Problem (find the cause), Decision (choose and justify), Evaluation (judge performance) — read the type before you write
- 066. The What / Why / How architecture — position statement, argument, action plan — the spine of every case essay and exam answer
- 077. The Rule of Symmetry (no orphans) — every diagnosed cause needs a matching action, and no action may fix a cause you never raised
- 088. Academic writing and APA — 'pane of glass' clarity for a general audience, active voice, in-text citation versus reference list, and acknowledging AI use under FEIT policy
Structuring a persuasive decision-case analysis with Ellet's method
- +2Classify the case type. This is a decision case (an accept/decline choice), not a problem case (find a cause) or an evaluation case (judge performance). Establish context — Who (NorthStar board vs the ride-share giant), What (a 3-year data licence for $6m/yr), When/Where (now, in a contestable navigation market).
- +3WHAT — position statement. State a single committed thesis up front: NorthStar should decline the licence. Marks reward a clear thesis, one that directly answers accept/decline, and a defensible stance rather than fence-sitting. Preview the roadmap of three reasons.
- +4WHY — argument pairing theory with evidence. Pillar 1: the dataset is NorthStar's core competence (Prahalad & Hamel) and passes the inimitability test, so renting it out erodes the one thing rivals cannot copy. Pillar 2: licensing leaks the barrier to imitation — the giant gains the live feed and can reverse-engineer the collection method. Pillar 3: the $6m fee is dwarfed by the durable advantage being traded away. One mark per pillar that pairs a named theory with a specific case fact.
- +2HOW — action plan with symmetry. Map one action to each cause: monetise via a managed API that returns hazard alerts but never the raw feed (protects the competence); lock it with contracts/NDAs and rate limits (plugs the imitation leak); review in 12 months at a higher valuation (replaces the one-off fee with growing recurring revenue). Award marks for actionable, sequenced steps and for each step tracing back to a diagnosed cause — no orphans.
- +1Audience and writing. Write for a non-expert decision-maker: clear logical flow, active voice, concise, third person, with claims backed by case evidence and academic readings, cited in APA.
Key terms
- Position statement (the What)
- A sharply focused, committed direct answer to the prompt, placed at the very beginning and doubling as a roadmap of the criteria the body will prove. A thesis that offers several positions without choosing is treated as evasive and scores poorly.
- Argument (the Why)
- A logical structure proving the position is 'likely to be true', built on 3–4 robust pillars where each follows the beat topic sentence (cause + theory) → evidence (case fact) → analysis (inference of impact).
- Action plan (the How)
- Specific, chronologically sequenced steps (short-term then long-term) that bridge the argument to a desired future state, kept at the 'Master's sweet spot' — actionable but not micro-managed.
- Problem / Decision / Evaluation case
- The three case types: a problem case diagnoses why something happened (find the cause); a decision case chooses among options and justifies the choice; an evaluation case judges how well something is performing.
- Theory-as-lens
- Using a business framework like sunglasses — it filters out irrelevant information and tells you which facts to care about. No single theory explains a whole problem, so you select the lens that matches the question, name it explicitly, and use the inference step (fact → meaning) to explain what each case fact means for your claim.
- Rule of Symmetry / no orphans
- Every cause you diagnose must have a corresponding action, and you must not introduce an action for a cause you never diagnosed. An orphan cause or an orphan action both break the argument-to-action chain.
- 'Pane of glass' writing
- Ellet's clarity standard — maximum meaning for minimum reader effort: clear, concise, correct and logically organised prose in active subject–verb–object voice, written for an intelligent non-expert.
- APA citation vs reference
- An in-text author–date citation (e.g. Ellet, 2018) is the signpost in the body; the reference list entry at the end carries the full source details. You reference to give credit, let readers verify, show scholarship and avoid plagiarism — and any AI use must be acknowledged under FEIT policy.
Case Study Analysis and Academic Writing FAQ
What is this chapter actually about, and why does it matter so much?
It teaches case study analysis — the method behind the group case (15%), the individual case (25%) and all four exam essay sections. It is the highest-leverage chapter because every other framework is delivered through it: you can know all eleven frameworks and still score a pass if you write a summary instead of an argument.
What are the three case types and how do I tell them apart?
A problem case asks why something happened (diagnose the root cause); a decision case asks which option to choose and why (commit and justify); an evaluation case asks how well something is performing (judge against criteria). The verb in the prompt tells you which, and the type sets the shape of your position statement.
What is the What / Why / How structure?
It is Ellet's three-part spine of a case essay: What is your committed position stated up front, Why is the argument that proves it (3–4 pillars, each pairing theory with case evidence and inference), and How is a sequenced action plan. The conclusion only synthesises — it adds nothing new.
What is the single biggest mistake students make?
Summarising the case instead of persuading. 'What should X do?' is not an invitation to recap the facts — the marker has already read them. Close behind are hedging theses, breaking the Rule of Symmetry, framework-stuffing, and burying the position in the conclusion.
Is more frameworks always better?
No. Quality beats quantity: 'Analytical Alice' picks the two or three relevant lenses and applies them deeply, which outscores 'Theory Ted' who crams in fifteen. Graders reward relevant, deep application, not breadth — framework-stuffing actually caps your marks.
Do I have to reference and can I use AI?
Yes to referencing — use APA in-text citations tied to a reference list to give credit, let readers verify and avoid plagiarism. Any use of generative AI must be acknowledged and referenced under the faculty's policy, and assessment is deliberately designed so key skills are demonstrated in tutorials.
Exam move
Treat this chapter as the operating system for the whole subject rather than a single week's topic. For every case — coursework or exam — run the same four moves: classify the case type (problem, decision or evaluation), commit to a one-sentence position in the very first paragraph, prove it with three to four pillars that each pair a genuinely relevant framework with a specific case fact and an inference, then close with a sequenced action plan in which every diagnosed cause has exactly one matching action (the Rule of Symmetry). Resist the two temptations that sink strong students — summarising instead of arguing, and stuffing in every framework you know — and practise the discipline of 'Analytical Alice': fewer lenses, taken deeper. Finally, write it as a pane of glass (clear, concise, active voice, for a non-expert), cite in APA, and acknowledge any AI use, because key tasks are demonstrated in tutorials under the faculty's integrity policy.
