Custom Build — Architect Summit Grid's Executive Programme

A four-round, advanced executive-education strategy simulation set inside Wasatch Executive Learning, the custom and open-enrolment unit of a top-30 U.S. business school in Salt Lake City (USD 14.2M revenue, 22% contribution-margin floor, 35 internal faculty, a 25-strong external bench at 1.5x day-rates). On 2 March 2026, Summit Grid Utilities — a USD 6.4B regional energy company and your largest prospective anchor client — issues an RFP for a custom leadership programme for 220 mid-level operations managers leading a grid-modernisation and decarbonisation transition. The ask says 'leadership training'; the client's own engagement-survey data says unclear decision rights and weak cross-functional coordination. The constraints bite: a hard USD 1.8M budget ceiling (about USD 8,180 per participant, ~26% below Wasatch's typical USD 11,000 custom blended price), a signed blueprint due in 18 days and the first cohort live in 90, only 2 of 35 academics with energy-transition depth (both committed through Q2), and a Kirkpatrick Level 3-4 impact commitment that is auditable and reputationally expensive to miss. This is a bake-off against two rivals for a 3-year, ~USD 6M preferred-provider master agreement. Playing the Executive-Education Director you (1) separate the presenting request from the demonstrated capability gap and commit to honest Level 3-4 measures; (2) architect the blueprint — objectives, format mix across in-person, live-virtual and blended-with-digital, cohort waves, and the transfer mechanism that earns the Level 3 promise; (3) allocate the scarce faculty pool against the USD 1.8M ceiling, build the engagement P&L and decide go / scale / no-go; and (4) pitch and defend needs-alignment, projected impact, delivery feasibility and the renewal logic to a sceptical COO and CHRO. The math rewards a diagnosed, transfer-designed, deliberately-margined, feasible bid and punishes the five classic errors — designing to the request not the gap, format-by-default, margin blindness, an impact promise with no transfer mechanism, and an over-engineered blueprint that misses the 18-day deadline. Final KPIs track Needs Alignment, Impact Credibility, Contribution Margin % and budget committed against the USD 1.8M cap.