1Define the Problem First
Many answers analyse the wrong problem. Before options and recommendations, state precisely what decision needs to be made and why it matters.
Framing the Decision
- State the core decision or question the case requires you to resolve.必考
- Identify the objectives and constraints — what success looks like and what limits apply.
- Note the key stakeholders whose interests the decision affects.比較
- Avoid drifting into a general discussion of the topic; stay on the specific decision.易錯
Framing
Write one sentence that captures the decision, e.g. 'The question is whether to adopt X given constraint Y.' It anchors the whole answer and prevents drift.
2Lay Out the Options
Good analysis compares realistic options rather than defending one from the start. Setting out two or three genuine alternatives creates the frame for weighing.
Presenting Alternatives
- Identify two or three realistic options, including the status quo where relevant.必考
- Describe each option neutrally before evaluating, so the comparison looks fair.
- Ensure options are genuinely distinct, not straw alternatives set up to be dismissed.易錯
- Keep options feasible within the case's constraints.
Option design
Including the 'do nothing' option is often smart: it forces you to show why change is warranted, which strengthens your eventual recommendation.
3Analyse Against Criteria
Evaluate each option against a consistent set of criteria — such as effectiveness, cost, feasibility and fairness. Consistent criteria make your comparison rigorous and transparent.
A Criteria-Based Comparison
- Choose relevant criteria up front — effectiveness, cost, feasibility, fairness, risk.必考
- Apply the same criteria to every option so the comparison is even-handed.比較
- Support each judgement with evidence from the materials, not assertion.
- Surface the trade-offs — the option strong on one criterion may be weak on another.易錯
Rigour
A short comparison structured around criteria reads as far more rigorous than paragraphs of loose pros and cons. Name your criteria explicitly.
Illustrative criteria grid (original)
| Criterion | Option A | Option B |
|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness | High impact but slow | Moderate but quick |
| Cost | Higher upfront cost | Lower cost |
| Feasibility | Politically harder | Easier to implement |
A simple grid like this is an illustration only — build your own from the case materials.
4Weighing Systematically
Weighing is more than listing pros and cons. It means judging their relative importance and how they interact, so the comparison yields a direction rather than a stalemate.
How to Weigh Well
- Judge the relative weight of each benefit and cost, not just their existence.必考
- Consider likelihood and magnitude — a small chance of a large harm may outweigh a certain small gain.比較
- Trace second-order effects and unintended consequences, not just immediate results.
- Be explicit about the trade-off you are accepting when you favour one option.易錯
Decision heuristic
When two options seem balanced, ask which risks are reversible. Favouring the option whose downside can be corrected is a defensible tie-breaker.
5Mapping Stakeholder Impact
Every option distributes gains and losses differently. Mapping who is affected, and how, exposes fairness concerns and political feasibility that raw cost-benefit misses.
A Stakeholder Lens
- List the main stakeholders and how each option affects them.必考
- Note the distributional impact — who bears the cost and who reaps the benefit.比較
- Identify vulnerable groups whose interests deserve particular weight.
- Consider feasibility and acceptance — even a sound option can fail if key groups resist.易錯
Stakeholder mapping
A brief stakeholder map — who gains, who loses, how strongly they feel — often reveals the real obstacle to a technically sound option. Address it directly.
6Acknowledging Risk and Uncertainty
Real decisions are made without complete information. Strong answers acknowledge uncertainty and build in ways to manage it, rather than pretending the data settles everything.
Handling the Unknown
- Acknowledge gaps and uncertainty in the evidence rather than overstating confidence.必考
- Prefer options that are robust across plausible scenarios, not just optimal in one.比較
- Suggest ways to mitigate risk — phasing, monitoring, or contingency measures.
- Do not let uncertainty become an excuse to avoid a decision.易錯
Managing risk
Proposing a pilot, a review point or a phased rollout shows administrative maturity: it lets you recommend action while managing the risk of being wrong.
