Episode 49: Advice for the Upcoming Case-Solving Winter Season

Welcome to 2026. When I was teaching, the new year marked the start of 4 months of heavy travel as I travelled with my case-solving teams. There was a pattern in this travel that started in Canada, moved to the US, and finished in Europe. Why have I started with this story? It is about realising that there are many commonalities amongst the judges’ expectations at the competitions, but there were also some very different expectations.

In all competitions, judges are looking for solutions that are easy to understand. What does this mean? First and foremost, a solution must be coherent, with a clear structure that makes it straightforward to follow. Secondly, it should be well-supported by a thorough analysis that highlights key points. This area is where my teams excel, as it is a primary focus of their training. The third element is a clear understanding of how the solution will be implemented.

It is essential to communicate the solution using clear, accessible language rather than relying on jargon that fails to convey its essence. For example, as a judge and coach, I prefer specifics over vague suggestions like “the client needs to conduct market research.” I want to understand what that market research entails. I focus on adding detail to each part of the proposed solution, instead of resorting to the jargon often encountered in the classroom or, as a former coaching colleague put it, “using consultant speak.”

One of my favourite examples to illustrate this point involves Warby Parker, an online eyeglass retailer. They use yellow school buses for promotional events. While teams often recommend continuing this practice, they rarely specify what the implementation looks like or how many buses would be necessary. It is these details that allow me, as both a coach and a judge, to assess the depth of thought behind a proposal, which is an essential part of my role.

Another important note is that implementation is often a key component of scorecards and is usually ranked as the largest part of the score. Many teams present a solution where implementation comprises less than 10% of the presentation. First, ask yourself why I, as a judge, would give your team a high mark for implementation if you do not give it the importance that the scorecard suggests it deserves. Judges are looking for detail, so provide them with specifics. What are the steps? When do they happen? Who is accountable? How do you know they are happening?

What is Not Common?

In April 2024, I had a team in Budapest, Hungary, that was presenting their first case in a competition. Unfortunately, they stumbled during the Q&A session. In Canada and the USA, judges often do not challenge teams when their answers do not directly address the questions asked, especially during the response. However, this approach is quite different in Europe, where judges tend to challenge competitors during their answers if they do not address the question. They frequently persist in asking about the same issue until they receive a satisfactory answer.

This example illustrates the varying expectations that judges have. Throughout my two decades of coaching, I have observed these differences firsthand. In each city I visit, the local business climate, political landscape, and key industries influence judges, who are typically community members. As a result, their expectations can differ significantly from one location to another.

Teams often overlook the fact that they are operating in a unique environment during competitions. While the fundamental business principles remain the same, judges are often influenced by local issues and the surrounding business climate. This is why I encourage my teams to conduct research on local matters and to gain insight into what judges might deem important in their solutions. I also spend time with my teams to ensure that they take into account any corporate culture aspects relevant to the case or identified during their research.

Playing to the Judges

As you start to play to the judges’ expectations, one other thing I also hear coaches tell their teams is that they need to be loud enough for the whole room to hear them, even if it is a huge auditorium. I disagree and encourage my teams to talk to their audience, the judges, as they are the only people in the room that matter. Often, they are the only people in the room besides the coaches, and in many cases, in large rooms, they give the teams mics so the mic takes care of the volume for the others to hear them.

The Past Few Days

As the busy winter case-solving season of 2026 begins, I am excited to announce the launch of my new short podcast, the “2 Minute Mad Skills Discovery Clinic.” It will be available on YouTube, Spotify, and other popular podcast platforms, with the first episode set to be released on Thursday. Additionally, I will be sharing PDF carousels on LinkedIn a few times a week that highlight key lessons for case solvers and Mad Skills development based on the videos I have developed for my teams and classroom over the past several years. These carousels will also include information on where to find the videos.