Case Study Resources
Video 1 of 2, Scene 1 of 3
Introduction & The CharterQuest Case Study Methodology
Video 1 of 2, Scene 2 of 3
Marking Grid and Assessment Criteria
Video 1 of 2 Scene 3 of 3
Board Report Structure
Video 2 of 2
Suggested knowledge areas for the analysis of the Mobile Telecommunications Industry: The MCOM Case Study 2016
The CFO 2019: The Volkswagen AG
The CFO Case Study Pack for 2019 comprise a background as applicable to both The CFO (and CFO Junior) Case Study Competition.
| The CFO 2019 Background | Download |
| The CFO 2019 Preseen Information |
Download
|
| The CFO (Global) Case Study |
Download
|
| The CFO Junior (Continental) Case Study |
Download |
Notes:
3rd Edition of The CFO Junior Version
4th Version of The CFO Global Case Study
The CFO 2018: AB InBev
The CFO Case Study Pack for 2018 comprise a background as applicable to both The CFO (and CFO Junior) Case Study Competition.
| The CFO 2018 Background | Download |
| The CFO (Global) Case Study |
Download
|
| The CFO Junior (Continental) Case Study |
Download
|
Notes:
2nd Edition of The CFO Junior Version - first Continental Version
3rd Version of The CFO Global Case Study
The CFO Global
The CFO Global 2017
| Team |
|
|
|
|
The CFO Junior 2017
| Tea |
|
|
|
|
2016 (Only CFO Global as CFO Junior Only Started in 2017)
| Team |
|
|
|
|
Examining Board's Marking Guide for the 2017 main Case Study
2016 : Sample Examining Board's Comments
Examiner's Report - Sample 1
Examiner's Report - Sample 2
Examining Board’s Marking Guide for the 2019 main Case Study
Examining Board’s Marking Guide for the 2018 main Case Study
Examining Board’s Marking Guide for the 2017 main Case Study
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2016: Sample Examining Board’s comments
Examiner's Report - Sample 1
Examiner's Report - Sample 2
Top 6 & Top 3 Presentations
Prior to the competition, the judges would have familiarised themselves with the case study, model answer and applied their minds to the main issues facing the case company and distinguishing the symptoms from the underlying problems. Each judge working as part of a collective, delivers on the mandate by individually compiling brief notes (for subsequent sharing and feedback), and scoring each team on 'style and substance' around 6 Key Performance Areas (KPA 1, KPA 2 - to- KPA 6) per the 'live presentation marking grid' below.
For the semi-finals, an average weighted score per team will then be derived and extra credits assigned per the following rules: "The top 3 winners (of stage 2 -the public votes) get 5%, 3% and 1% average weighted score to their credit respectively, going into Stage 3: Semi-Finals.
The Chief Judge will accordingly, ensure the applicable percentage (5%, 3%, 1%, or 0%) is then added be to the average weighted score of the team before the final team ranking is done to produce the Top 3 of the 6 teams.
For the finals, the best team, produced by ranking these Top 3 teams using a similar weighted averaging method (but without the public vote credit) is determined.
Should consensus not be reached (for either the semi-finals or finals), the Chief Judge and Deputy will seek consensus between them, failing which the Chief Judge will have a casting vote!
Download the Live Presentations Grid.
Top 6 Promo Video Marking Grid
The Promo Videos submitted by the Top 20 teams are evaluated against the following grid. (Only the selected best 6 will contest the public votes stage. Others may or may not be used in other social media initiatives or, in The CFO TV Series)
Live Presentation Marking Grid
Prior to the competition, the judges would have familiarised themselves with the case study, model answer and applied their minds to the main issues facing the case company, AMANGO GROUP PLC, and distinguishing the symptoms from the underlying problems.
Each judge working as part of a collective, delivers on the mandate by individually compiling brief notes (for subsequent sharing and feedback), and scoring each team on 'style and substance' around 6 Key Performance Areas (KPA 1, KPA 2 - to- KPA 6) per the 'live presentation marking grid' below.
For the semi-finals, an average weighted score per team will then be derived and extra credits assigned per the following rules: "The top 3 winners (of stage 2 -the public votes) get 5%, 3% and 1% average weighted score to their credit respectively, going into Stage 3: Semi-Finals.
The Chief Judge will accordingly, ensure the applicable percentage (5%, 3%, 1%, or 0%) is then added be to the average weighted score of the team before the final team ranking is done to produce the Top 3 of the 6 teams.
For the finals, the best team, produced by ranking these Top 3 teams using a similar weighted averaging method (but without the public vote credit) is determined.
Should consensus not be reached (for either the semi-finals or finals), the Chief Judge and Deputy will seek consensus between them, failing which the Chief Judge will have a casting vote!
Welcome to our case study competition resources section. We have compiled pertinent technical information on the past editions of The CFO Case Study Competition ‐such as past case studies, sample reports and powerpoint slides from the best teams, video submissions, and the various marking grids we use to evaluate your submission at various stages of the competition.
We thought making this available will help you appreciate how we evaluate your work, in case you were to enter
You are welcome to send us your comments on the contents of this site at [email protected]