Episode 40: An Opinion: Case Solving Competitions and AI

 I continue to serve on several coaches' advisory boards for case-solving competitions. Before my retirement, I participated in numerous discussions regarding the use of AI in these competitions. To be transparent, I believe that AI has a role in case-solving, but it is essential to protect the "Mad Skills" that students develop through their participation in the process.

It's important to recognise that AI can generate impressive solutions in a short amount of time, potentially replacing many tasks that a team typically performs, including constructing the solution and creating the slide deck. However, I also understand that when these students advance into their careers, they will be using AI for various tasks, including building their solutions and preparing presentations. So, developing the rules for using AI for case-solving in case-solving competitions is important both for the simulation of "real life" and also for maintaining the skills development and learning goals of case-solving and the competitions.

Currently, competitions generally fall into a few categories concerning the use of technology:

1. No internet or AI use
2. Internet use but no AI use
3. Restrictions on AI use
4. Open AI use

As a coach and mentor, I understand that the organisers have valid reasons for implementing specific rules in their competitions. Each competition focuses on delivering a unique set of skills and learning to the participants, as it is challenging to cover every aspect. While some skills are universal, each event is designed to emphasise particular competencies.

In discussions about the role of AI in competitions, I've observed that organisers often decide on the use of AI before determining or discussing the specific skills they want to impart to the participants. Another aspect of the discussion frequently revolves around ensuring that the competition reflects "real life." As I engage in these conversations, it's interesting to note that the first question often pertains to AI usage rather than the actual goals of the competition in terms of participant development. Throughout my two decades of coaching, one reason I returned to competitions was that they consistently provided value to the development and personal growth of team members.

The goals of the competition, particularly those related to skill development, should be prioritised before addressing concerns about the use of AI. This topic arose during a recent discussion with the John Molson MBA International Case Competition Coaches Advisory Council. Their points were effectively addressed by the organiser's advisor, who noted that the competition's skill development objectives do not align with what AI can provide. So, there won't be any use of AI in the upcoming year. Although this decision may limit certain aspects of real-world simulation, it is anticipated to encourage specific skill development. Some competitions, like ENGCOMM - Engineering & Commerce Case Competition, permit the full use of AI. Interestingly, at ENGCOMM, part of the presentation must be dedicated to justifying the team's choice regarding the use or non-use of AI, as well as explaining how it was utilised.

In many competitions, there are minimal rules governing AI usage, leaving a lot of how to use AI up to the coach and the team to decide whether and how to incorporate it. I believe that the primary value of participating in case-solving is the development of critical thinking skills, creativity, organisational skills, the ability to develop a process that works for the team, etc. The use of AI can detract from these important skill developments. Despite this belief, I do allow my teams to use AI when it is allowed, but encourage them to use it to generate questions that need to be answered, rather than providing the answers themselves. I think this approach helps guide their thinking further, but does not hinder "Mad Skills" development like critical thinking and creativity. It is about finding a balance that simulates the "real world" experience with the development of the skills that case-solving is designed to deliver.

The next topic of discussion is often how to manage decision-making during competitions. In events like the John Molson MBA International Case Competition, the organisers will continue to uphold their tradition of prohibiting internet use during the resolution phase. This means that room monitors will enforce rules to ensure that teams do not have internet access during this time.

In many competitions, it primarily falls on the room monitors—whether in-person or through technology—to enforce the rules during the resolution phase, which can be actively monitored. In cases where the resolution occurs at a team's "home" location, the honesty of the teams is crucial. In these situations, the use of AI should be allowed, and decisions regarding its application should be left to the coach and the team, based on their established skill development and learning goals.

For organisers, it is important to develop regulations surrounding AI that align with the skill development and learning objectives they prioritise. The rules should also integrate well with the competition's structure and be enforceable. If the rules cannot be effectively enforced, it should be up to the teams and their coaches to decide how AI fits into their skill development and learning goals.