Más de 1500+
simuladores para toda tu institución.

Interactive macroeconomics simulation where students act as Chief Economic Advisor, managing aggregate demand and supply shocks through fiscal and monetary policy while observing the multiplier effect on GDP and inflation.

Step into the role of a UNDP development advisor across six rounds. Compare countries, build the HDI, diagnose the resource curse and the middle-income trap, close the savings gap, and write a synthesis report — learning that economic growth is not the same as economic development.

Apply Income Elasticity (YED) and Cross Elasticity (XED) of Demand as a FreshMart category manager navigating booms, recessions, price wars and complement shocks across five rounds.

Step into the role of the Bank of England Governor. Set Bank Rate, deploy quantitative easing, and issue forward guidance across six quarterly MPC meetings — navigating inflation surges, recessions, and currency crises while learning about transmission mechanisms and policy lags.

A behavioural economics simulation where the learner acts as a Choice Architect at the UK Nudge Unit — diagnosing cognitive biases and designing nudges that steer behaviour without removing choice.

Analisis de bienestar economico en mercados colombianos de entretenimiento en vivo. El participante asume la direccion de Boletas del Valle para medir excedentes, calcular perdida de peso muerto ante intervenciones fiscales y de precios, y disenar una estrategia regulatoria que maximice el bienestar total.

A 5-day arcade-style simulation where the learner runs Maya's Brighton Beach ice-cream stall, setting price and production under weather, cost, and competition shocks to practice reading demand, supply, and market equilibrium.

A labour-market policy experiment where students act as HM Treasury advisors, setting wage floors in competitive and monopsony markets to discover how market structure determines employment effects — exploring the Card-Krueger insight through interactive rounds

Play the government regulator of Millhaven. Set rent ceilings, wage floors and minimum unit prices over five rounds; observe shortages, surpluses, black markets and deadweight loss; and recommend a final policy mix. Aligned with AQA 7136 §3.1.5, Edexcel 9EC0 Theme 1.4, OCR H460 §2.6 and CIE 9708 §2.5.

Take the role of UK Chancellor of the Exchequer across six budgets. Pull six tax and spending levers, read the OBR forecast, and watch GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, the deficit, debt-to-GDP, public approval and bond-market confidence react round after round.

UK A-Level Economics simulation. Run a steel plant across six rounds and experience why free markets over-produce when there is pollution, then test tax, cap-and-trade, and subsidy as corrective policies.

Experience how market structure determines price and welfare by managing a pharmaceutical firm through monopoly and perfect competition phases

Advise HM Treasury as Chief Trade Economist. Read FX moves, classify drivers, forecast current-account and CPI impacts, and recommend policy across five real-world sterling scenarios.

A macroeconomics strategy simulation. As the planner of Novara, allocate resources between consumer and capital goods, move to the frontier, push it outward through investment, absorb a tech shock, and commit to a long-run growth strategy. Teaches the PPF, opportunity cost, short-run vs long-run growth, and sources of growth.

A 5-round simulation in which the learner acts as an HM Treasury inequality advisor: plotting Lorenz Curves, estimating the Gini coefficient, comparing international distributions, distinguishing income from wealth inequality, operating policy levers under the equity-efficiency trade-off, and synthesising the inequality debate.

Travel through six decades of UK macroeconomic history as economic advisor to the Prime Minister. Predict inflation and unemployment, diagnose the Phillips Curve, and recommend policy across eras — from the stable 1960s trade-off and the 1973 oil shock to Thatcher's monetarism, the Great Moderation, the post-Covid inflation surge, and the 2026 synthesis.

Step into the shoes of the UK Chief Statistician at the ONS. Classify international transactions into the correct BoP sub-accounts, interpret the UK trade deficit, judge the sustainability of portfolio-heavy financing, forecast the J-curve after a sterling depreciation, and deliver a policy recommendation to the Chancellor. Teaches BoP structure, the double-entry identity, financing-composition risk, Marshall-Lerner, and expenditure-switching vs expenditure-reducing policies.

Explore why markets under-provide public goods through a lighthouse funding game with three AI captains. Experience the free-rider problem first-hand, test voluntary cooperation, binding contracts, and private provision — then see how compulsory taxation solves the problem.

A-Level microeconomics synthesis simulation. The learner acts as a CMA analyst, classifying UK industries on the market-structures spectrum (perfect competition to monopoly), justifying placement with evidence, and recommending proportionate regulatory action.

A policy-lab simulation where the player runs a UK cross-government unit advising on merit and demerit goods. Across five rounds (flu jabs, adult education, tobacco, ultra-processed food, and gambling) the player identifies the market failure, selects an intervention tool (subsidy, tax, regulation, information campaign, ban) and sets intensity, then watches welfare, civil liberties and Exchequer cost respond. Teaches MPB/MSB and MPC/MSC, Pigouvian taxation, behavioural dimensions, and the trade-offs of government intervention.

Alternate between incumbent CEO and entrant CEO across 5 rounds to discover Baumol's contestability theory — that what disciplines firms is not competition itself but the threat of entry, and that sunk costs (not market share) are the true barrier.

Manage production across four industries — oil, strawberries, digital music, and custom furniture — and learn how Price Elasticity of Supply (PES) governs how quickly producers can respond to price changes.

Advanced A-Level economics simulation where the learner plays UK Secretary of State for Business and Trade across five trade-policy dilemmas — Chinese steel dumping, retaliation from Beijing, an India FTA, an EU wine tariff, and a strategic trade doctrine review — with live welfare-triangle reveals, stakeholder panels and a Political Capital / Export Health / Consumer Welfare tri-meter.

Advise the UK Prime Minister on a 5-year supply-side reform agenda. Choose policies from five rounds (skills, tax, infrastructure, deregulation, synthesis), shift the LRAS curve rightward, and balance fiscal cost with political feasibility.

Interactive simulation where students design causal inference strategies for 6 research questions, choosing from RCTs, difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity, instrumental variables, and synthetic control methods while evaluating internal validity, external validity, feasibility, and ethical concerns.

Interactive econometrics lab where students work through OLS, Instrumental Variables, Panel Data, and Difference-in-Differences methods to learn causal inference and identify bias in empirical analysis

Interactive exercise exploring how macroeconomic shocks reshape a country balance of payments. Students manipulate GDP growth, interest rates, exchange rates, oil prices, and tariffs across 5 country profiles (US, Germany, China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia), observe BoP account adjustments in real time, assess sustainability indicators, and trigger sudden-stop crisis scenarios to understand balance-of-payments dynamics.

Practice managing geopolitical risk across multiple Latin American markets through scenario planning, supply chain resilience, political risk insurance, government relations, and board-level risk communication as Head of Strategy for a multinational industrial manufacturer.

Simulation where participants act as the governor of the Banco Central de Quisqueda, a fictional Latin American central bank. Teams set the policy rate, choose forward guidance tone, and respond to economic shocks across 8 quarters to bring inflation to target while maintaining output stability and central bank credibility.

Simulación sobre economía cafetera colombiana donde el participante gestiona una empresa exportadora de café enfrentando ciclos de precios internacionales, variaciones cambiarias y políticas de la FNC, tomando decisiones de producción, procesamiento y exportación

Manage San Marcos, a growing Colombian city of 800,000 residents. Allocate budgets across competing priorities, choose service delivery models, and balance fiscal sustainability with citizen satisfaction and social equity across three strategic decision rounds.

Simulación de economía campesina y rural colombiana: gestión de una cooperativa cafetera del Huila frente a shocks macroeconómicos (inflación, TRM, tasas, clima y precio internacional) durante 4 rondas. Los participantes deciden precio de venta, volumen de producción, inversión en valor agregado y canal de comercialización.

Simulación avanzada en la que un equipo directivo dirige VidaSalud EPS, una aseguradora colombiana de tamaño medio, a través de cuatro trimestres críticos marcados por la reforma a la salud, la vigilancia especial de Supersalud, la crisis de cartera con IPS y la amenaza de intervención forzosa. Los participantes deben equilibrar supervivencia financiera, responsabilidad social con 1,2 millones de afiliados, y transformación proactiva hacia un modelo de Gestora de Salud y Vida.

Simulación de análisis económico aplicado: escasez de agua, cambio climático e impacto en un agronegocio colombiano. Los equipos asumen roles económicos y financieros para diagnosticar el shock, cuantificar su impacto, diseñar una respuesta estratégica e implementarla a lo largo de 4 rondas.

Simulación de 4 rondas sobre oportunidades de negocio en territorios post-conflicto colombianos. Los participantes gestionan una empresa que evalúa contexto macroeconómico, mide impacto, diseña estrategia y ejecuta inversiones en regiones en reconciliación.

Simulación que explora la economía del cuidado en Colombia, donde los participantes gestionan una empresa que debe equilibrar rentabilidad con el cumplimiento de regulaciones laborales de cuidado, formalización de trabajadores y políticas públicas

Simulación sobre oportunidades de economía digital y políticas del Ministerio TIC en Colombia. El participante dirige la transformación digital de una empresa colombiana a lo largo de 4 rondas estratégicas: análisis macroeconómico, evaluación de impacto, estrategia de respuesta e implementación.

Simulación estratégica avanzada: gestiona Lumínica Studios, un estudio de animación y VFX colombiano, frente a la apreciación del peso, la disrupción de IA generativa, la fuga de talento y la decisión crítica de invertir en IP propia (Chicha Cósmica) en un entorno de economía naranja.

Simulación avanzada sobre el rol de la educación en la productividad y el retorno de la inversión en capital humano en una empresa colombiana.

Simulation to teach economic cycle diagnosis and corporate strategy under macroeconomic uncertainty, using a Honduran manufacturing company facing mixed recession and inflation signals

Simulation where learners manage a USD 100M institutional investment portfolio across Latin American markets, navigating five macroeconomic scenarios — US contraction, LATAM inflation, Brazil fiscal crisis, commodity recovery, and political volatility — to practice tactical asset allocation, risk hedging, and macro-driven decision-making.

Gestiona una cadena de restaurantes colombiana en medio de espiral inflacionaria, presión salarial y compresión de márgenes. Negocia con sindicato, optimiza costos laborales bajo Ley 2101, reformula menú con pricing selectivo y defiende el EBITDA en 4 rondas.

Step into the role of CFO at Andina Industrial S.A., a LATAM manufacturer, and navigate six quarters of macroeconomic turbulence across Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. Manage FX risk, interest rate shocks, covenant compliance, commodity spikes, and board communication to build a resilient treasury architecture.

Simulación sobre dinámicas de oferta y demanda laboral, informalidad y política pública en el mercado laboral colombiano. El participante dirige una empresa mediana que debe balancear contratación formal, informal, salarios y capacitación a lo largo de 4 rondas con choques macroeconómicos y regulatorios.

Simulación sobre el impacto económico de la migración venezolana en el mercado laboral colombiano y la respuesta estratégica de una empresa

Simulación para explorar la toma de decisiones en minería sostenible, gestión de regalías y licencia social en comunidades colombianas

Simulación empresarial en Colombia (COP) donde los participantes dirigen una empresa manufacturera a lo largo de 4 rondas, equilibrando rentabilidad con reducción del coeficiente GINI local mediante decisiones de salarios, formación, proveedores locales, contratación inclusiva y programas sociales.

Simulación ejecutiva donde el comité C-level de Minerales Andina S.A. enfrenta la reforma tributaria 2025, la regla fiscal, la propuesta de regalías y los incentivos verdes. Cuatro trimestres para optimizar tasa efectiva, FCF y capital político.

Simulación sobre navegación estratégica de una reforma tributaria colombiana: análisis macroeconómico, cuantificación de impacto, diseño de respuesta empresarial y ejecución ante un cambio estructural en el régimen fiscal.

Simulación para analizar oportunidades y riesgos en la transición del petróleo a las energías renovables en Colombia

Simulación de análisis económico aplicado: turismo sostenible, distribución de beneficios y desarrollo regional en Colombia. Los equipos asumen roles de economista, CFO, gerente de estrategia, analista de políticas y empresario para diagnosticar el contexto turístico, evaluar el impacto económico, diseñar una estrategia de respuesta e implementarla a lo largo de 4 rondas.

Lead Meridian Holdings plc through a 3-round sustainability challenge. Allocate EUR 12M budget across 4 sites managing ecosystem health and tipping point risks. Integrate LEAP assessments, SBTN targets, and TNFD disclosure to maximize both conservation impact and avoided economic losses.

Interactive simulation where learners act as market regulators designing interventions to combat adverse selection in a used car market with asymmetric information, exploring signaling, screening, and mandatory disclosure mechanisms

Simulation where participants lead a mid-sized telecom operator through the 5G transition, making strategic decisions on capital allocation, spectrum acquisition, consumer pricing, enterprise IoT, and content partnerships while competing against three AI-controlled rivals in a LATAM market.

A five-round, advanced business-model design simulation set inside Atelier Lumière SAS, a regional French print house in Lille (founded 2009, peaked in 2017 at EUR 9.8M and 70 staff, now down to EUR 5.4M revenue, a 4% operating margin and 38 employees). Print revenue is falling ~12% a year and gross margin has compressed from 34% to 22% as clients commoditise the work. On Thursday 11 June 2026 the lead bank cuts the overdraft from EUR 600k to EUR 200k; the board issues an ultimatum — present a credible reinvented business model at the 9 July board meeting or prepare the company for sale. You play the Founder & CEO with EUR 1.8M of runway (~14 months) and the crown jewel of eight years of design files, brand assets and content for ~600 regional SMEs who now need help managing their own digital presence. Applying Denis Dauchy's 7-step discipline, you (1) DIAGNOSE why the print model is failing — a commoditised value proposition, an eroding margin and a fixed-cost drag — before redesigning anything; (2) REDESIGN the value proposition outside-in around the SME's real job-to-be-done, not around what the printing press can make; (3) CHOOSE the monetization logic deliberately (project fees, recurring subscription, platform take-rate or freemium) and model the 14-month cash curve, confronting the subscription cash trough before break-even; (4) ENGINEER operational coherence so the EUR 95k/month plant, the 38-person team and the two senior designers being courted by a Paris agency actually fit the new model; and (5) PITCH the complete, coherent model to the board and the lead seed investor, who will block a plan that merely bolts digital onto a print P&L. The scoring rewards a coherent, peer-anchored, honestly-sized pivot funded within the runway and punishes the five classic errors — redesigning without diagnosing, an inside-out value proposition, mis-modelling subscription cash flow, an incoherent operating model, and over-assuming conversion of the 600-client base. Final KPIs track Business-Model Coherence, Investor Confidence, Cash Runway in EUR, and the pivot Budget committed against the EUR 700k cap.

A four-round, advanced higher-education management simulation set inside Highveld School of Business, an accredited MBA provider in Pretoria, South Africa (≈2,600 students, ≈ZAR 480M revenue, a ~280-student flagship core course). In February 2026 a CHE/internal quality-assurance review formally flags the flagship 'Managing for Results' course: ~70% of the grade comes from a single final group project, so individual learning can't be evidenced. Pass rate is a 'healthy' 88% and completion 92%, but moderators call the result 'an artefact of group work, not evidence of individual competence' — and 41% of students report free-riding while peer-evaluation data (explaining only ~8% of variance) is collected but never used in grading. You have one term and a hard envelope: an extra ZAR 1.6M and ~600 marking/support hours per cohort, an 8-week QA deadline, or the course's NQF-credit standing goes 'under review'. Playing the programme leadership team, you (1) diagnose where individual accountability disappears — map each learning outcome to whether it is assessed at the individual or group level and name the validity gap; (2) rebalance the assessment blueprint across individual exams/vivas, individual applied/reflective work, weighted peer evaluation and a reduced-weight group project, trading validity, accountability-clarity, marking cost and completion risk inside the 600-hour budget; (3) design accountability checkpoints — an early diagnostic, a mid-course individual checkpoint, contribution tracking and an early-alert path — so a struggling individual becomes visible in week 3, not week 12; and (4) allocate the ZAR 1.6M support budget to the at-risk bottom quartile and weak competencies, then defend the redesign to the QA/accreditation panel. The math rewards constructive alignment, validity-per-marking-hour, staged early checkpoints and targeted support — and punishes the five classic errors: a single high-stakes final exam that collapses completion (92%→74%), bolting peer scores onto heavy group weighting, a beautiful 1,400-hour blueprint the faculty can't deliver, an all-summative scheme with no early checkpoints, and spreading scarce support evenly instead of where the risk concentrates. Final KPIs track Validity, Accountability Clarity, Completion % and marking-hour load.

Immersive simulation where participants act as Chief Accountant for Tienda Azul, recording 18 business events as journal entries, posting to ledgers, constructing financial statements, and interpreting financial ratios through four progressive phases.

A zero-budget engagement turnaround at Larkfield Care Services, a UK contact-centre operator. You are the new manager of Team Aurora — 60 frontline advisors with 48/100 engagement, 52% annualised turnover, and a flagship £9m energy client threatening to terminate inside a 90-day cure period. Finance has handed you a hard constraint: no pay rises, no bonus pool, no headcount. Across four rounds you diagnose why intrinsic motivation collapsed (Cable's seeking system), redesign onboarding around best-self activation, choose a strengths-based job-crafting move that loosens control without breaching the client's SLAs, and set a feedback ritual that reinforces rather than starves the seeking system. Every choice moves four KPIs — Engagement, Intrinsic-Motivation Index, CSAT/performance lift, and Voluntary Turnover — and any reach for money or tighter monitoring actively backfires, so only design-and-leadership levers recover the account. Learners discover that engagement is a work-design problem, not a pay problem.

Take the seat of Costaria's central-bank chief economist. Diagnose three concurrent shocks in AD-AS space, weigh the stabilisation-policy response for each, and confront the supply-shock dilemma every modern central bank faces. Six rounds covering the demand boom, the cost-push supply shock, monetary drift, the combined Crisis Package, and a Volcker-style re-anchoring window. Tracks inflation, expectations, output gap, unemployment, policy rate and a credibility score.

A four-round, advanced strategy simulation set inside Vossberg Mess- und Regeltechnik AG, a EUR 720M industrial-instrumentation business unit of a German engineering group in Stuttgart (3,100 staff, 16% EBIT margin ≈ EUR 115M, 84% of revenue anchored in a converging hardware core). Software-native rivals now bundle commodity sensors with subscription analytics at 60–75% gross margin while Vossberg's hardware margin (38%) erodes 2–3 points a year. On 21 April 2026 Vossberg loses its largest water-utility account (EUR 43M, 6% of revenue, a reference customer) — not on price or quality, but to an integrated sensor-plus-predictive-analytics subscription it cannot match. The group CEO gives the business-unit head two quarters and a EUR 60M two-year envelope to present an adaptation plan. Playing the BU head, you (1) read the convergence — diagnose where value is migrating (from commoditising sensors to the analytics/subscription layer), how fast the threat moves, and how much of today's EBIT is borrowed time on a lagging installed base; (2) set the explore-exploit allocation of the EUR 60M across exploit levers (hardware cost-down, margin defence, calibration-service growth) and explore levers (analytics platform, software acquisition, partner/white-label, software talent), pricing each bet's payoff, horizon and risk; (3) redesign the reporting lines — integrate Digital Ventures inside the hardware P&L, separate it into an ambidextrous unit with its own P&L and incentives, or hybridise with shared platform and sales force — and decide what the venture shares with the core and what it must not; and (4) time the pivot — set the pace of the revenue shift, the staged investment gates, and respond to a rival's acquisition that accelerates convergence, defending the plan to the board. Grounded in Nils Stieglitz's research on strategic adaptation in converging industries: structure decides whether exploration survives the gravitational pull of the core. The math rewards a balanced allocation, an ambidextrous-with-shared-assets structure, modelled value migration and a staged, signal-gated pivot — and punishes the five classic errors: over-exploiting the converging core, over-exploring and starving the cash engine, leaving the venture strangled inside the hardware P&L, over-separating it from the installed base and data that were its only edge, and mistiming the pivot. Final KPIs track Profitability (EUR M EBIT vs benchmark), Innovation-Pipeline Value, Organizational Fit, and Adaptation Speed.

Exec-band Annex 19 / RAC 219 simulation: a four-round SMS cycle on an A320neo runway excursion at Aeropuerto Antonio Nariño (Pasto). The team plays Accountable Executive, SMS Manager, COO and AIG investigator across event classification, SHELL/Reason analysis, just-culture decision under the Hudson tree, ALoSP recalibration with a leading SPI-5, and an Accountable-Executive board presentation to the chair.

Executive simulation on Colombia preparing for the 2027 ICAO USOAP-CMA validation visit. Across four rounds, players map 12 LEI findings to the 8x8 CE x PA grid, triage findings into Bucket A/B/C, defend the AeroAndes carrier sample with a bilateral risk model (IASA + EASA TCO exposure), and craft the one-page CAP and Board memo. Teaches USOAP-CMA literacy, CE-3 cascade discipline, and operator-state coherence under continuous monitoring.

An Exec-level Especialización Administración Aeronáutica simulation. As the cabinet of a triple-certified MRO (Aerocivil RAC 145 / EASA Part-145 / FAA 145) in Rionegro, manage a Day-5 AOG on an A330-200 C-Check across four rounds: diagnose findings and the AD compliance gap, source a scarce APU FCU under time-cost-traceability tension, scope the Certificate of Release to Service, and defend an unannounced Aerocivil RAC 145 audit on Day 12. Bilingual ES/EN with English-operational technical vocabulary.

A four-round, advanced supply-chain resilience simulation set inside Volunteer Outdoor Equipment Co. (VOEC), a USD 540M mid-market outdoor-gear manufacturer in Knoxville, Tennessee, on a 38% gross / 9% operating margin. It is April 2026 and two shocks collide in one quarter: a transpacific port disruption stretches Vietnam lead times from 75 to ~115 days with wild arrival variance, while an influencer surge makes one performance tent line go viral (sell-through triples in three weeks). VOEC is simultaneously SHORT the full-margin hot SKU (fill rate 61% on the viral line, 82% overall vs a 95% target, ~USD 14M of full-margin demand unserved) and LONG USD 22M of slow basics facing 20–30% markdowns — the textbook mismatch between supply-chain design and demand type. Inventory has climbed to USD 96M against a USD 110M revolving facility already drawn to USD 98M at SOFR + 3.0%; another month at this draw triggers a covenant conversation. Playing the Logistics & Supply-Chain Director, you run the company through four rounds: (1) DIAGNOSE the portfolio — classify SKUs as functional/predictable (lean candidates) vs innovative/volatile (agile candidates) and place VOEC on Goldsby's three resilience dimensions (preparedness, alertness, agility); (2) PLAN the buffer and sourcing architecture per product family — keep cheap lean ocean sourcing for basics, add a near-shore agile source for performance SKUs, or run a dual-sourcing leagile split with a decoupling point, every choice consuming working capital; (3) DECIDE the live shock response — how much of the viral SKU to expedite by air (USD 4.20/unit vs USD 0.45 ocean), how to allocate scarce supply across channels, what to mark down now vs hold, and how much to invest in ALERTNESS (control-tower visibility, supplier early-warning, demand-sensing); and (4) RECOVER by committing a coherent resilience configuration to the board and the bank, proving the design lifts fill rate and the agility index WITHOUT breaching the working-capital line, and that it is robust to the NEXT shock, not just this one. The math rewards selective buffering matched to demand variability, a lean/agile decoupling point, a SKU-level margin test on expediting, alertness paired with agility, and durable standing capability — and punishes the five classic errors: blanket safety stock that breaches the line, one-size-fits-all lean or agile, indiscriminate air freight, agility without alertness, and a single-shock patch. Final KPIs track Fill Rate (%), Working-Capital headroom (USD M to the line), Agility Index (0–100), and Total Logistics Cost impact (USD M vs status quo).

CHRO masterclass: audit eleven HR-AI pilots, design the agent-versus-human decision matrix across HR work, and commit to vendor architecture and change-management plan defensible to the CEO, COO, CFO, Audit Committee and Workers Council.

Simulación ejecutiva C-Suite donde los participantes asignan un presupuesto de $150M en IA para Nexus Corporation, definen la estrategia de gobernanza y determinan el posicionamiento competitivo para liderar la transformación digital en LATAM.

Esp. Administración Aeronáutica simulation: lead AeroAndes Cargo through the four-week San Valentín peak from Bogotá to Miami. Stack capacity (B777F ACMI + B767-300F + B737BCF + bellies + sub-charter) against a 14,000 t target while managing cool-chain handoff discipline (CEIV Fresh, Envirotainer ULDs), DIAN canal-rojo exposure under Resolución 000089/2025, and Avianca Cargo pricing pressure. Bilingual (English-operational + Spanish regulatory).

A Level-4 strategic-alliance simulation set at Helbion Systems GmbH, a Munich-based EUR 380m industrial sensor and controls firm with a deeply control-heavy, build-it-all-ourselves engineering culture — scar tissue from an IP leak a decade ago. With the embedded-AI race accelerating, the board approves a fixed EUR 12,000,000 innovation budget and gives the R&D manager two weeks to structure Helbion's first serious co-development alliance with Cortexa AI SAS, a fast-moving Toulouse edge-AI firm a rival (Sentek) is also courting. Over four rounds you act as the alliance lead: (1) diagnose mutual dependence and set an initial trust-vs-control posture on a 0–100 dial; (2) design the governance architecture — how much core IP to expose across four tiers (interfaces only → open the core sensing models), how much budget to spend on control machinery (audits, escrow, monitoring), and how tightly to bound the IP terms (field-of-use, background/foreground split, joint-ownership rules); (3) respond to a midpoint defection — Cortexa unilaterally files a patent on a jointly-developed method, the facts genuinely ambiguous — on a spectrum from escalate/litigate/clamp-down to clarify/repair/recommit; and (4) recover the alliance and defend its ROI to a skeptical board tempted to revert to building internally. The engine operationalizes Francis Bidault's research that trust and control are not simple substitutes: the goal is the configuration that MAXIMIZES joint creativity given the risks, not minimum risk. Wrong strategies underperform on purpose — maximum control builds a safe, pointless alliance whose creativity gauge is as low as its IP-risk gauge; opening the core IP with no field-of-use limits or foreground/background split is recklessness once Cortexa can walk to Sentek; over-lawyering burns the budget that should fund engineering; clamping down on an ambiguous defection over a governance gap you yourself left blows up a salvageable alliance; capitulating signals your IP terms are unenforceable; and deliberating endlessly lets Sentek sign Cortexa to an exclusive. Track Joint Creativity Output, Trust Level, IP Risk, Alliance ROI, budget consumed by control machinery (out of EUR 12m), and the competitive clock. Teaches Bidault's trust-control-creativity model, background vs. foreground IP, relational vs. contractual governance, the real-options view of alliances, and make-vs-ally-vs-buy.

A 240-unit social-housing project in Soacha, Colombia. Engineer the VIS/VIP unit mix, subsidy stack and pre-sales plan to clear the construction-loan covenant under quota uncertainty and informal-sector demand.

Simulación avanzada donde el participante aplica la metodología de análisis costo-beneficio (CBA) para evaluar cuatro proyectos de inversión pública en Colombia, seleccionando tasas de descuento, estimando costos y beneficios, y formulando recomendaciones de política.

A four-round, advanced people-analytics simulation set inside Vértice Consultoria, a São Paulo professional-services firm (4,200 people, R$980 million revenue) whose workforce IS its product. On 16 June 2026 the CFO freezes the R$22 million HR program budget flat and gives the new HR Director 90 days to prove that ONE people-analytics-driven intervention earns its keep in R$ the CFO will recognise — or the budget is cut 15% next cycle and HR loses its seat at the table. High-performer voluntary turnover has climbed to 24% (industry norm ~15%); at R$180,000 per regretted exit and ~400 such exits a year, the firm bleeds roughly R$72 million annually — dwarfing the entire HR budget. Playing the HR Director, you (1) mine five years of people data to find WHERE the firm actually loses high performers, segmenting attrition rather than accepting the loud 'we have an engagement problem' framing; (2) choose the right, decision-relevant analytics question and ONE evidence-based intervention that addresses a cause rather than a correlation, from a firm-wide engagement program (R$6M), a manager-capability program for the weakest 20% of managers (R$3M), a project-staffing/utilisation rebalance (R$2M), and across-the-board retention bonuses (R$8M); (3) allocate within the frozen R$22M envelope, fund a measurement design (control group or staggered rollout) that lets you claim causation rather than assert it, and build a CFO-ready ROI model with a sensitivity range; and (4) commit the plan, design the manager-adoption mechanics that win skeptical line managers, set leading indicators, and defend a single-intervention focus to the CFO. The math rewards the narrow causal question, the cause-addressing intervention, a real measurement design, a focused spend and genuine manager adoption — and punishes the five classic errors: accepting the vague 'fix engagement' question, buying the symptom (retention bonuses), claiming ROI from a correlation with no measurement design, designing an elegant intervention nobody adopts, and diffusing the flat budget across all four programs so none can be proven. Final KPIs track Insight Quality, Causal Confidence, Manager Adoption and the net annual ROI in R$ millions the CFO will accept.

Run a multi-year B2B sweetener-supply negotiation through three rounds of opening anchors, counter-anchors, and reframes. Discover that the first number on the table — and the reference point around it — distorts the entire bargaining range, often by 50% or more.

MBA Track 2C capstone (slot 5/5). 90-minute war-room procedural: hybrid remedies design under concurrent CADE Phase II (day 105/240) and DG-COMP Phase II (day 22/90) on the post-signing Cárnicos del Pacífico acquisition. Three rounds (Diagnose / Design / Defend) test market definition, vertical foreclosure framing, structural-vs-behavioural remedy architecture, and dual-audience defense to Chair Manuel Beltrán-Rojas and outside counsel (Cleary Brussels + Pinheiro Neto São Paulo).

Simulación de estructuración financiera de una Asociación Público-Privada (Ley 1508/2012) para el corredor vial Tunja-Sogamoso-Yopal Tramo 2. El equipo decide modalidad APP, asigna riesgos, estructura el paquete financiero y elige el mecanismo de pago para alcanzar el cierre financiero.

Defend one of three rival political traditions before the Mesa Constituyente del Aguarales. Translate Rawls, Pettit/Skinner or Habermas into concrete constitutional articles on electoral systems, direct democracy, indigenous recognition and inviolable liberties across three rounds of debate.

A four-round, advanced organizational-development simulation set inside Daalhof Food Group N.V., a EUR 1.3 billion Nijmegen dairy and plant-based foods company with 6,200 staff, four sites and ~1,900 farmer-suppliers. Three top-down sustainability programs in five years have failed — two abandoned, the third stalling — and the workforce is exhausted: change-engagement has fallen to 41%, new-practice adoption sits below 30%, and the 2030 commitments are behind on every milestone (emissions 9% vs an 18% interim target, food waste 12% vs 25%, plant-based share 11% vs 20%). Missing the trajectory risks EUR 28M in sustainability-linked loan penalties and a EUR 95M 'net-zero supplier' listing. Playing the internal OD facilitator with a 90-day mandate, a budget of at most THREE organization-wide engagement interventions, and a fixed change budget, you (1) choose an inquiry frame — a fourth deficit/gap analysis the works council can already recite, or Danielle Zandee's appreciative, strengths-based frame that inquires into the positive core of what already works; (2) design a participative stakeholder dialogue along the appreciative-inquiry 4-D cycle (Discovery, Dream, Design, Destiny), choosing who is in the room and how to pace it without re-traumatizing a fatigued workforce; (3) select sustainability initiatives by adopted impact (impact times realistic adoption) and genuinely transfer ownership to the people who execute them rather than rebranding a top-down push; and (4) build a 12-month cadence that sustains generative momentum and pitch the restart to a CEO and works-council chair who stress-test for tokenism. The math rewards a deliberate appreciative frame, respect for the absorptive limit, real ownership transfer and a sustaining rhythm, and punishes the five classic errors — the deficit reflex, over-engaging an exhausted workforce, tokenistic participation, chasing theoretical over adopted impact, and a one-off energizing event with no rhythm. Final KPIs track Change Engagement %, Generativity, Sustainability Impact and Adoption against the three-intervention cap.

A 2-round AI-coached simulation that teaches the inverted mentorship ask. Protagonists pick three realistic mentor candidates, design a value-first specific bounded request, then draft and send the actual outreach during the session. The coach scores Specificity, Value Offered, and Ask Discipline, and gives feedback drawn from the canonical failure modes (untouchable candidates, vague value, open-ended ask, polish-forever paralysis).

Build defensible Análisis de Precios Unitarios for a Chocó civil-works tender, set the AIU stack on top, and decide a final bid that wins the tender without becoming the next bankruptcy. Players play as Constructora Andina del Cauca, a 14-year-old contractor going outside its home region for the first time.

A four-round, advanced executive-education design simulation set inside Méridien Executive Education, the leadership-development faculty group of a major European business school near Paris (EUR 19M portfolio, ~1,400 participants/year, 70 faculty). Its flagship six-month 'Leading Through Complexity' (LTC) program scored a brilliant 4.6/5 on enjoyment but its transfer-to-work rate collapsed to 41% (target ≥65%): sponsors say 'people loved it but nothing changed at work', 360-behaviour uplift is only +0.4 (target ≥+0.8), and learning-outcome attainment sits at 62% (target ≥80%). Three corporate sponsors funding EUR 1.4M of LTC revenue have put renewal on review and a rival school is winning with a more experiential model. Playing the academic director, you must re-architect the journey inside a locked calendar — 6 months, 18 contact days, 144 faculty-days — that you can only re-allocate, never extend. Across four rounds you (1) diagnose this as an APPLICATION/transfer gap, not a knowledge or training gap, ranking the five leadership outcomes and naming the structural weaknesses (no spaced practice, no on-the-job application, no outcome mapping); (2) re-sequence the modules and set the theory-to-experiential ratio, using spacing and reflection across the three intensives and constructive alignment so every module maps to an outcome; (3) allocate the 144 faculty-days and 18 contact days against the fixed envelope, deciding whether to fund the 20-faculty-day action-learning project (the single biggest transfer driver, +15 points) and what to cut to afford it, while protecting coaching and reflection time; and (4) present the re-architecture to the Dean and lead sponsor, defending engagement against the over-stretch risk (an experiential pilot once scored 3.2/5 and people stopped attending), handling faculty resistance, and committing to behaviour-change measurement at 3 and 6 months. The math rewards the discipline the concept teaches — application over more content, spacing over front-loading, funding the action-learning project, holding stretch and engagement together, and building measurement in — and measurably punishes the five classic errors. Final KPIs track Transfer-to-Work %, Engagement, Outcome Coverage, faculty-days used against the 144 cap and the EUR 1.4M sponsor block secured or lost.

MBA Insurance and ALM simulation (Track 3I opener). Players occupy the Catalina seat as CEO of AseguraVerde S.A., a Costarian insurer hit by curve inversion, USD -340M unrealised AFS loss, SCR 158% to 132%, duration gap 0.4 to 2.3y, and a CEMASA Article 47 letter. Three rounds across 90 minutes — Diagnose (Redington 1952, KRD by tenor, SII Pillar 1 walk), Design (asset reposition, Bermuda QS cession, deferred rights issue), Defend (Friday Risk Committee under no-dilution family-political constraint). The simulation rewards integration discipline across technical-actuarial, financial-orthodox, risk-pragmatic and family-political frames.

MBA-level Solvency II procedural simulation. As CRO Eduardo Carbonell-Láinez of AseguraVerde, finalise the Partial Internal Model scope, the architecture of the six IMM tests, and the Klaus-defence script for the CEMASA pre-submission meeting. Three rounds — Diagnose, Design, Defend — over a 17-day sprint. The dominant lesson: regulatory approvals are won by reducing the supervisor institutional risk, not by maximising the applicant economic benefit.

Recover a 38 km Colombian secondary corridor (Ibagué–Rovira–Roncesvalles) failing three years early. Pick the right intervention mix per segment under a binding COP 4,200M budget — sello, microaglomerado, fresado y repavimentación, or reconstrucción — and defend the corridor IRI and PCI before the October rainy season triggers a performance-bond execution.

A 4-round AI-coach-native micro that turns the freeze in fast-moving conversations into a trained reflex. The learner classifies the steamroll into one of five canonical moves, picks the right calibration (soft/medium/firm) given power gradient, frequency, and stakes, builds a clean line free of pre-cession and over-explanation, and commits to a deploy-or-prepare plan with optional ally recruitment. Builds line-readiness as a measurable score across rounds.

Bid through four canonical auction formats (English, Dutch, first-price sealed-bid, Vickrey), discover the Revenue Equivalence Theorem empirically, then design five real-world auctions for Aurelian Holdings clients across art, spectrum, Treasury bonds, procurement, and ad slots.

MBA-band tax-controversy simulation following ColExport Importaciones S.A. across the four-stage Estatuto Tributario architecture — Requerimiento Especial response, Liquidación Oficial de Revisión + recurso de reconsideración, demanda de nulidad y restablecimiento, and Consejo de Estado Sala Cuarta synthesis — with a Panamá transfer-pricing trap, the 160%-vs-50%-vs-10% sanción math, and CPACA procedural-record discipline. Bilingual ES/EN.

A four-round, advanced leadership and change-management simulation set inside Wessex Mutual, a 144-year-old UK building society (£11.4bn assets, 740,000 members, 2,300 staff) that has never made a compulsory redundancy. You are the Division Director leading the Operations & Member Services Division through 'Member First' — a board-approved transformation that closes 8 of 36 branches and reshapes 180 of the division's 600 roles. You have 120 days, a £2.4m reskilling envelope, and a trust culture on a knife-edge: baseline team trust sits at 72/100 and one resistant operations manager (22 years, 140 reports, the cultural anchor) can carry ~60% of the division with her. The twist is psychometric: your own MBTI/FIRO-B/EI profile reads decisive, task-focused and low-disclosure — precisely the style that triggers resistance in a relationship culture. The math rewards self-aware, authentic, coaching-led leadership and punishes the five classic errors: (1) skipping the self-awareness work and leading from instinct; (2) commanding the resistor and driving her opposition underground; (3) mistaking 'authentic' for 'unfiltered' blunt-and-low-empathy behaviour; (4) over-reassuring and hiding the hard truth until the closure list leaks; and (5) assuming a good launch event equals adoption while underfunding reskilling into redundancies that break the 144-year promise. Round 1 interprets the profile and commits to two EI behaviours; Round 2 diagnoses the resistant manager and chooses a coaching intervention over a directive one; Round 3 frames the change message with the right candour balance; Round 4 converts announcement into adoption and rebuilds trust under a leak. Final KPIs track Change Adoption, Team Trust, EI Alignment and Resistance reduction.

MBA-band Express simulation (Track 3A) putting participants inside the Petrolia Industrial Services Sentinela commercial team. Twelve refinery deals across LatAm — choose pricing structure (Conservative Fixed / Premium Fixed / Outcome-Based), set list price against the EVE waterfall, and respond to procurement counter-attacks while building pricing discipline across the franchise. Anchored on the Nagle and Müller five-step value-pricing process and the Hinterhuber/Liozu evidence on VBP-at-scale.

Lead the turnaround of Helix Pharma Distribution using the Balanced Scorecard framework. Allocate transformation budget across four BSC perspectives and manage the causal chain between organizational capabilities and financial outcomes over eight quarters.

Navigate AML/CFT compliance transformation as CCO of a LATAM bank. Balance effectiveness vs customer experience, manage AI bias risks, and prepare for regulatory examination across 5 critical decision rounds.

A four-round, advanced digital-financial-inclusion simulation set inside NairaReach Financial Technologies Ltd., a three-year-old Lagos fintech (1,400,000 registered users, 410,000 monthly active, NGN 38B in annual transaction value, NGN 2.9B revenue, still pre-profit at NGN 180M quarterly burn on a 14-month runway). On 9 March 2026 the impact-led board rejects management's plan to spend the next NGN 4.5B tranche acquiring more urban smartphone users and issues a 12-month mandate: reach a materially excluded segment — among Nigeria's ~38 million financially excluded adults — and PROVE the unit economics work, or the tranche is frozen and the runway expires. The trap is stark: 92% of current actives were already banked. Playing the NairaReach leadership team, you (1) DIAGNOSE which of five candidate segments truly moves the inclusion needle versus which are easy 'banking the banked' wins; (2) DESIGN the channel and agent model across app, USSD and a human agent network for a segment where only ~40% own a smartphone and ~55% live >5km from a branch, allocating an NGN 1.2B launch budget across channel build, agent recruitment, agent float/liquidity and customer education; (3) SET affordability-constrained pricing for a user earning NGN 30,000–80,000/month who rejects fixed fees, reconciling the customer fee, the NGN 15–60 agent commission and the CBN tiered-KYC limits into one coupled system; and (4) RECOVER & SCALE into a board-ready tranche pitch, projecting the KPIs over three quarters and absorbing a facilitator-injected shock without abandoning the mandate. The math rewards a genuinely excluded segment served on USSD + shared retail agents with daily float reliability, a transaction-and-float pricing model that pays the agent AND survives the customer's wallet, and tiered KYC used as an inclusion lever — and punishes the five classic errors: banking the banked, building a smartphone app for a feature-phone segment, pricing the poor directly or starving the agent, reaching real excluded users while revenue stays below cost-to-serve, and KYC over-engineering that collapses the onboarding funnel. Final KPIs track Financial Inclusion Reach (% of new users previously unbanked), Active Users, Net Contribution per active user (NGN/year vs the NGN 2,100 cost-to-serve) and Trust (agent-network and community confidence).

Run a behavioural-economics lab on yourselves, derive the Rubinstein alternating-offers equilibrium, and design Aldebran's counter-offer to a 15% price-cut demand from its largest customer — integrating game-theoretic structure (BATNA, discount factors, repeated games) with behavioural texture (inequity aversion, anchoring, fairness signalling).

A four-round, advanced social-enterprise & healthcare-strategy simulation set inside Clínicas Raíz S.A., a for-profit primary-care venture in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala (6 storefront clinics + 18 community health promoters, 48,000 patient visits in 2025, GTQ 14.4M revenue, a thin 6% EBITDA margin of ~GTQ 0.86M, 72% of revenue cash-paying uninsured patients). An impact investor has frozen a GTQ 4.0M growth tranche behind a blunt viability gate: prove you can reach MORE low-income patients, reach operational break-even within 18 months, AND earn an external ESG/social rating high enough to unlock up to GTQ 6M of blended co-financing — all within 90 days, with only 5 months of cash runway. Playing the venture's leadership team, you (1) diagnose the base-of-pyramid affordability map, decomposing the falling access index (0.52, down from 0.61) by income quintile and naming where impact-per-quetzal is highest; (2) design the low-income offer — service-bundle depth, the role of community health promoters versus clinic visits for the half of patients who live hours from a storefront, and a generics-pharmacy strategy — knowing every inclusion adds cost and access while every exclusion protects margin but pushes the poorest out; (3) make the decisive certification-and-pricing call — a third-party accreditation (costly, slow, high-trust ~GTQ 250K), a cheap self-regulation code (~GTQ 40K, weak signal) or none, AND the fee level plus a sliding-scale / cross-subsidy mix, where the demand model means a +GTQ 5 fee lifts margin ~GTQ 0.9M but prices out 6,000 of the poorest visits and a −GTQ 10 cut plus membership expands reach but needs staffing Raíz may not have; and (4) pitch the integrated 18-month viability case to the investor board, choosing how honestly to present the margin/access/ESG scorecard, how fast subsidy declines toward break-even, and whether the ESG rating drove the design or trailed it. The math rewards a community-promoter availability strategy, a credible certification, abatement of subsidy over time, and an honest scorecard — and punishes the five classic errors: raising fees for margin without modelling who drops out, underpricing into permanent subsidy with no break-even path, skipping certification to save cash, treating the ESG rating as paperwork, and designing an affordable offer with no availability strategy for remote patients. Final KPIs track Viability (GTQ M annual EBITDA impact / break-even path), the Access Index (0–100), the ESG / social rating (0–100), and Gate Risk (runway, regulatory-trust and clinic-closure exposure; lower is better).

Encode a wildcat-well prior, price three pre-drill information options against EVPI/EVII, run three sequential Bayesian updates as seismic, mud-log, and wireline evidence arrive, and defend the posterior to a frequentist CFO. Petrolia Upstream universe, Cuenca de Tortuguero deepwater Caribbean.

Federate three discipline models (architecture, structures, MEP), triage 1,140 hard clashes on a hospital-tower BIM coordination crisis, run an ICE meeting under client + STI + subcontractor pressure, and defend the BEP fix on the acta de avance.

A 4-round Express simulation in which a Colombian civil works contractor (CANORTE) faces a BIM federation crisis: 1,847 Navisworks clashes flagged six weeks before model handover on a Cucuta hospital extension. Participants triage the clash report, rebuild a 14-day recovery plan, negotiate a 5D/6D contract addendum and decide what — and how transparently — to hand over to the owner. Teaches LOD-300 contract literacy, root-cause clash triage, BEP discipline, professional disclosure and the BIM-as-source vs field-as-source tension.

Architect a Phase III oncology trial for BFG-722 (HER2-mt NSCLC) that satisfies FDA accelerated-approval, EMA centralised, and IDMC charter standards under a 9-12 month competitor lead. Three rounds: trial design, FDA+EMA dialog, IDMC charter and strategic-pivot memo.

Across nine working-group sessions, design the AI Risk Committee carve-out from Petrolia's Audit Committee. Make structural choices on scope, composition, cadence, the CAIO dotted-line, escalation thresholds, and the 2027 proxy disclosure register. Score reflects how closely the design matches the lean-and-firm Charan-Useem pattern, and how well it avoids the omnibus, cosmetic, and management-shadowing failure modes.

Practice the operational discipline of preparing the audit-committee chair for an IFRS S1/S2 dress-rehearsal sustainability-reporting briefing at SiliconAndes S.A.S. Three rounds — briefing-pack outline, Q&A prep, walking-the-room script. Prepare the executive; do not be the executive.

First board appearance as a function lead. Across four rounds — brief reconstruction, 12-minute architecture, hostile-question rehearsal, and CEO pre-alignment — calibrate detail, ownership, risk-volunteering and swimlane discipline so the room trusts you and your CEO does not regret bringing you.

A 3-round occupational-ergonomics simulation set in a 240-puesto Bogotá contact center facing 47 cervico-brachial cases and an ARL Positiva intervention deadline. Learners diagnose with quantitative methods (RULA, ROSA, NIOSH, OWAS, REBA, PSL), redesign workstations using Colombian anthropometry (Estrada/Camacho/Restrepo, INSO + DANE), and defend a positive-NPV business case against Decreto 472/2015 sanctions and prima ARL reclassification.

A four-round, intermediate leadership-development simulation set inside Wasatch Analytics Group, a Salt Lake City data-and-advisory firm ($58m revenue, 24% growth, 340 staff) where billable utilisation runs hot at 88% and an internal pulse survey just flagged that 31% of managers report 'always-on' expectations and rising exhaustion, with high-performer voluntary turnover at 17% against an 11% firm average. You play the inner judgement of Priya Raman, a newly promoted Senior Engagement Manager with seven direct reports, a flagship client (NorthPeak Retail) that has just escalated a stalled rollout into a three-week 'war-room' sprint demanding 7am daily stand-ups and 'real-time' responsiveness — and, the same evening, a two-week daycare closure and a partner who says plainly 'I can't absorb another one of these.' Priya has roughly 50 sustainable hours a week against ~70 of apparent demand: a ~20-hour gap that working harder cannot close, only boundary and delegation choices can. Across four rounds you (1) diagnose this as an identity-and-boundary problem rather than a time-management one, locating Priya on Kreiner's integration–segmentation spectrum and naming the identity ('the always-available star') at the root; (2) choose and resource a coherent set of boundary-work tactics across behavioural, temporal, physical and communicative families — closing the demand gap through credible, enforceable limits and real delegation rather than a grab-bag of good intentions; (3) perform identity work to reframe Priya's professional value from constant availability to judgement and outcomes, scripting a response to the skip-level boss's identity-laden 'compliment' and renegotiating the load at home without rejecting either relationship; and (4) sustain through the sprint under a 9pm escalation, distinguish a deliberate bounded exception from uncontrolled erosion, and convert Priya's private boundaries into a durable team norm that protects all seven reports. The math rewards person-fit (designing for Priya's real integration preference), enforceable boundaries, peer-credible identity reframing, bounded flexibility and a team-level norm — and punishes the five classic errors: time-management framing, unenforced boundaries, blunt pushback at the boss, all-or-nothing segmentation that lets the client fail, and a solo fix that ignores the team. Final KPIs track Well-being, Sprint Performance, Boundary Credibility and Team-Norm Health, with the demand-capacity gap as the binding resource.

A four-round, advanced brand & sustainable-marketing simulation set inside Café Cordillera S.A., a Costa Rican premium-coffee company in Heredia (2025 revenue CRC 9,600M, 38% gross margin, 22% contribution margin after trade, 140 employees). Its flagship Cordillera Verde already sources 100% of its green coffee from certified-sustainable Tarrazú cooperatives and pays a verified farmer premium — but consumers don't know it: aided awareness is just 31% versus a multinational rival at 58%, the brand-equity index sits at 42/100, sustainability perception is barely above the category average, and the price premium over private label has compressed from 35% to 22% as shoppers trade down. A new CMO inherits a board mandate to rebuild Cordillera Verde into the region's trusted sustainable-coffee brand within four quarters — without letting contribution margin fall below an 18% hard floor — just as the rival's high-spend 'Planet Positive' campaign grabs 4 share points on a thinner sustainability story. Playing the brand-leadership team, you (1) diagnose the brand and craft a positioning where the genuine sustainability asset is the core meaning, not a tactical footer, choosing the target segment, the point of difference and the real proof points; (2) design the campaign's claim architecture — bold broad 'eco' claims that move perception fast but invite a greenwashing complaint, versus specific verified sourcing claims that build durable trust more slowly, plus the proof mechanism and a greenwashing-risk check; (3) allocate the fixed CRC 480M media budget across TV/streaming, digital/social, retail & trade, influencer/PR and D2C performance — trading reach against conversion under the 18% margin floor, with an optional AI-personalization layer to be used as a disciplined co-pilot rather than the captain; and (4) present the integrated four-quarter plan to the board, reporting awareness, brand equity, campaign ROI and sustainability perception honestly against what CRC 480M can actually support, and defending the positioning-campaign-media logic as one coherent system. The math rewards making sustainability the brand's meaning, claiming the true 100%-certified story with verifiable specifics, an equity-building media mix that respects the margin floor, and disciplined AI use — and punishes the five classic errors: pouring everything into mass-reach TV and breaching the floor, overclaiming into greenwashing, underclaiming and wasting the real asset, bolting sustainability onto a generic position, and either ignoring or over-trusting the AI tool. Final KPIs track Brand Awareness, Brand Equity, Sustainability Perception and Contribution Margin against the 18% floor.

A four-round, intermediate brand-and-sustainability marketing simulation set inside Karst Foods d.o.o., a Slovenian food-and-beverage company whose €95M premium plant-based brand Vista sells across Slovenia, Croatia, Austria and northern Italy on an 18% price premium. On 2 June 2026 a viral consumer-watchdog post accuses Vista of “premium prices, vague green claims,” days before its autumn launch and against a transparent challenger, Polje, that publishes audited sustainability data. The brand-tracker tells the real story: warmth is strong at 72, but competence sits at 58 and morality has slid to 49 (down 9 points in two waves), while stated purchase intent has fallen from 62% to 55%. If intent is not stabilized above 60% and morality lifted before the autumn review, finance will cut the €14M marketing budget by 20% and reposition Vista to mid-tier. Playing the brand team, the learner manages Vista through Žabkar's (2022) framework — that corporate sustainability investments shape specific brand impressions (warmth, competence, morality), which in turn drive purchase intention. Round 1: diagnose which impression is the binding constraint (morality, under attack), which segment is most at risk (the under-35s), and how the chain spend → impression → intent is breaking. Round 2: plan the investment-to-impression map — choosing a sustainability initiative (third-party-audited transparency and certification move morality and competence; community/cause work moves warmth) and a communication channel, learning that communication without substance reads as greenwashing and lowers morality. Round 3: commit the €14M across substance and communication under a hard cap, discovering that ungrounded amplification triggers a greenwashing backlash and that proof must be sequenced before the message. Round 4: a journalist fact-checks the new claim and Polje cuts price 8% — the learner must show morality survives verification, defend the premium on perceived superiority rather than discounting, and present a defensible ROMI to a CFO who judges return, not reach. The math rewards targeting the binding morality constraint, mapping each euro to the impression it buys, grounding communication in verifiable substance, sequencing proof before amplification, and defending the premium on perception — and punishes the five classic errors: amplifying contested claims without substance, feeding the already-strong warmth dimension, undifferentiated green spend, price-matching the challenger, and chasing reach over ROMI. Final KPIs track warmth, competence, morality, purchase intent (%) and ROMI.

A four-round, advanced corporate-brand and crisis-communication simulation set inside Zuriel Foods Plc., a listed Nigerian FMCG (NGN 84bn revenue, 2,300 staff, #2 seasoning brand at 24% share) built since 1991 on one promise: "Nourishing Nigerian families." On Thursday 14 May 2026 a consumer influencer alleges the flagship seasoning hides an undeclared additive; the video hits 2.4M views in 18 hours, #ZurielExposed trends, two retail chains (31% of modern-trade volume) delist, week-one sales fall 22%, 89% of mentions turn negative, and the corporate-reputation tracker drops from 72 to 51 in 72 hours. The firm's own lab needs 5 days; the response must be locked first. Playing the Brand Director with a NGN 600M contingency budget, you treat the corporate brand as socially constructed (Otubanjo) and manage the coherence between projected identity, actual substance, and stakeholders' construed image. Round 1 — diagnose the crisis as a coherence failure, locating the gap between the stated 'all-natural' identity, the permitted-but-undisclosed additive (the say-do gap), and the construed image, and separating a genuine substance problem from a perception problem. Round 2 — align the identity before communicating: defend 'all-natural' and reformulate, reframe to 'safe, transparent, trusted' with full disclosure, hold and contest on facts, or reposition around heritage — and decide whether substance must change to make the new identity true. Round 3 — allocate the NGN 600M across a menu (CEO statement, independent third-party lab certification, influencer & retailer re-engagement, paid corrective advertising, a transparency microsite with batch traceability, frontline briefing), sequence it against the 5-day window, choose spokesperson and tone, and keep messages consistent across consumers, retailers, the NAFDAC regulator, employees and investors — because inconsistency itself signals evasion. Round 4 — the facilitator reveals the lab result (clean or a minor confirmed deviation) and you must hold a coherent repositioning that rebuilds reputation over a quarter without erasing 35 years of equity, then pitch the board and a skeptical journalist. The math rewards substance-before-message, credibility (certification, traceability) over reach, stakeholder coherence, calibrated response under uncertainty, and trust repair even when vindicated — and punishes the five classic errors: messaging over an open say-do gap, premature defiance, divergent stakeholder messages, buying reach instead of proof, and panic repositioning. Final KPIs: Reputation tracker (0–100), Perceived Consistency (0–100), Sales Recovery (% vs pre-crisis), and Negative Share-of-Voice (%, lower better).

Pre-call rehearsal micro-sim. In 15 minutes, design a 30-minute customer call that delivers bad news (delay, price hike, or feature kill) without burying the lede, plus a 60-minute follow-up email that becomes the surviving version inside the customer organization. Coach scores you on lead-with-the-news discipline, mitigation specificity, room-stacking avoidance, and paper-trail speed. Renewal probability moves with each decision.

A four-round, intermediate corporate-strategy simulation set inside Ibérica Materials Group (IMG), a Madrid-headquartered industrial and circular-economy materials company (EUR 2.6 billion revenue, 9,800 employees across Spain, Portugal, France, Mexico and Poland). IMG's executive committee is eleven people, one of them a woman, even though women are 44% of the workforce; the CEO has publicly committed to change that ratio within three years. A VP seat opens on 31 January 2027 and the nominations committee decides in eight weeks. You advise Marta Solé, 43, Director of the International Circular Materials division — she has grown her unit +22% yet sits THIRD on an informal three-person succession slate, behind two male peers being assessed on 'potential' while she is held to 'proven readiness'. Her starting position: sponsorship strength 3/10, network reach 40% into the committee, board presentations 1 in twelve months versus her peers' 5 and 4. Across four rounds you (1) diagnose why a top performer is third — separating real from perceived readiness and naming the single biggest gap; (2) spend a fixed pool of Marta's time and political capital on evidence-based advancement moves — converting a mentor into an active sponsor, engineering substantive board visibility, joining the cross-business steering group, claiming credit without backlash, and extending reach toward the decision-makers; (3) decide whether to take, scope or decline the EUR 180M Mexico–Poland circular-economy integration stretch assignment, and if she takes it, negotiate resources, authority, timeline and an explicit success metric so it is a credible promotion case and not a glass cliff; and (4) assemble the committee case, project the four KPIs to the decision date, and commit to a pipeline action that widens the ceiling for the women behind her. The scoring rewards the evidence base — sponsorship over mentorship, substantive over performative visibility, a structured stretch over both reckless acceptance and timid refusal — and measurably penalises the five common errors of relying on results alone, collecting mentors but no sponsors, avoiding the stretch, taking it unstructured, and treating it as one woman's individual game. Final KPIs track Promotion Readiness (perceived), Sponsorship Strength, Network Reach, and the Negotiated Outcome of the stretch.

An executive masterclass for newly-appointed BU General Managers in industrial groups. The learner steps into the seat of Mateo Cordero-Pizarro, Iberia BU GM at Norandic Industries AB, a Stockholm-listed industrial group, and across six rounds designs the first-90-day diagnostic and the ongoing operating cadence — learning to read the kontraktet (Norandic decision-rights map between Group and BU) as operating manual, not constraint. Distinguishes the BU GM seat from the CEO seat across capital, talent, strategy, culture, external voice, and equity. Avoids three classic GM failure modes: CEO-mode (ignoring the matrix), functional-head mode (deferring all to Group), and premature restructure.

A 6-round unit economics simulation in which students found one of three startups — FlowTrack (B2B SaaS), FitSpark (Consumer App), or GearSwap (P2P Marketplace) — and make sequential decisions across acquisition, revenue model, monetisation depth, retention, cost structure, and growth investment. A Month 6 external shock tests their model mid-way. The live dashboard tracks CAC, LTV, LTV/CAC, payback period, churn, gross margin, contribution margin, and runway, updating visibly after every decision. The professor selects the archetype on the engine config, students see consequences propagate through the unit economics chain in real time.

A four-round, advanced regulatory-economics and infrastructure-finance simulation set inside ARIC, a fictional Peruvian economic regulator stewarding the Lima – Junín – Huánuco transport corridor. A multilateral concessional line and a political mandate have handed ARIC a fixed co-financing budget of S/ 2,400 million to catalyse private investment this cycle. Four shovel-ready projects compete and together request S/ 5,100 million — more than double the envelope, so at least two must be cut, deferred or restructured: a flagship toll road (investor IRR 14.2%, but a traffic forecast 30% above the independent study, serving the wealthiest sub-region), an urban transit link (IRR 10.8%, social ERR 16%), a bridge-and-access package for an isolated province (the highest social return at 22% ERR, but only 8.1% investor IRR — below the 10.5% private-capital hurdle, so it will not be built without a subsidy), and a logistics terminal (IRR 12.1%). Playing the regulator through Urrunaga's lens on the regulatory economics of infrastructure, you steer four KPIs across the corridor's life: social value delivered, budget committed against the S/ 2,400M envelope, Treasury exposure (the present-value contingent liability from minimum-revenue guarantees), and renegotiation risk. Round 1: appraise and rank — separate bankability from social value, scrutinise the flagship road's inflated forecast and decide which number to regulate on, and locate where public co-financing adds genuine additionality. Round 2: allocate the fixed budget — fully fund, partially fund, defer or reject each project, with the bankable-only trap, the thin even spread and the starved social bridge as the failure modes. Round 3: structure the deal — concession length, tariff level and indexation, demand-risk allocation, and a capped-and-priced versus uncapped minimum-revenue guarantee. Round 4: defend the decision memo before a multilateral lender and the finance minister. The math rewards ranking on social return, regulating on the independent forecast, funding the high-additionality bridge with portfolio discipline, capping and pricing guarantees, and a balanced affordable tariff — and uses sticky penalty flags so the five classic errors (funding only the bankable projects, accepting the +30% forecast, uncapped guarantees, pricing purely to the hurdle, and spreading the envelope thin) cannot reach the top verdict. Final KPIs track social value, Treasury exposure, renegotiation risk and ARIC's regulatory credibility. Currency throughout is the Peruvian sol (S/).

A four-round, advanced higher-education strategy simulation set inside the Office of Executive Education at Eastbrook Business School, an AACSB-accredited private university in New Jersey. The office is a self-funded auxiliary: it earns no tuition subsidy and must cover faculty stipends, marketing, and a 28% institutional overhead out of its own revenue, returning a binding USD 1.5M contribution to the provost. Three weeks before launch the legacy USD 9,500 Management Certificate is collapsing — pre-registration is down 41% to 165 seats against a fixed institutional target of 300 — while a venture-backed online rival, LearnLadder, has just launched a fully online Mini-MBA at USD 1,900, one-fifth of Eastbrook's price, and two anchor corporate accounts (USD 2.6M, 38% of revenue) are questioning value. Playing the Associate Dean across a six-week design window, you (1) DIAGNOSE the portfolio and the threat — choose the strategic job of the new Mini-MBA and name the one advantage LearnLadder structurally cannot copy; (2) DESIGN the curriculum and format — online, hybrid, or high-touch in-person — fixing module count, faculty mix, credential, and the fully-loaded cost-per-seat and cohort scale that each format implies; (3) PRICE under the enrollment constraint — set price across the USD 3,500 / 5,900 / 8,500 band, the corporate-vs-individual mix and discount, and the marketing/CAC spend that must fill 300 seats in six weeks while clearing the USD 1.5M contribution after 28% overhead; and (4) CHOOSE THE EXPANSION MODE for the zero-budget Singapore/Shanghai mandate — export online, local partner, fly-in faculty, or license — funding it from program contribution and setting a balanced 18-month scorecard. The math rewards a differentiated, scalable design priced to hit BOTH the 300-seat and the USD 1.5M contribution targets, a self-funding expansion, and a balanced scorecard — and punishes the five classic errors: matching the rival's price into a margin trap, buying enrollment with deep corporate discounts that miss contribution, gold-plating a 25-seat fly-in flagship that cannot scale, choosing an unfunded expansion mode, and a one-number enrollment-only scorecard that ignores satisfaction and reach. Final KPIs track Enrollment vs the 300 target, Contribution (USD M) vs the USD 1.5M commitment, Differentiation/NPS, and Reach.

A four-round, intermediate executive-education simulation set inside Atelier Apprend, the custom-programs unit of a Lyon business school (EUR 14M annual billings, 22 designers, 60 associate faculty, 80+ tailor-made programs a year). On 9 June 2026, three days before design lock, Nordpharm Industries — a EUR 4.2B European pharma-manufacturing group and one of your largest accounts — raises the bar mid-procurement: the flagship program for 240 mid-level operations managers across 9 sites in 6 countries must now demonstrably improve on-the-job performance, not just satisfaction, and the board wants the unproven AI personalization engine used as a visible differentiator. The EUR 3.6M, three-year framework renews ONLY if this first cohort proves transfer-to-job. The budget is fixed and tight: EUR 1.08M total, EUR 4,500 per learner, no contingency; launch in 10 weeks. Three constraints bite: a fuzzy brief (the sponsor describes the problem three contradictory ways), a poor track record (4.3/5 satisfaction but only 22% measured transfer across the last 12 programs), an AI tool that is unproven and a works-council/GDPR flashpoint, and a real format trade-off (high-touch action-learning ~EUR 6,200/learner vs scalable digital ~EUR 2,800/learner). Across four rounds you (1) SCOPE the real challenge — converge three conflicting problem statements into one sharply measurable behavior change with a success metric and an explicit out-of-scope list, discovering that a program scoped to a fog cannot prove transfer; (2) SELECT and blend the action-learning format against the EUR 4,500 ceiling so learners work on the real challenge, engineering completion without padding; (3) EMBED the AI personalization engine — adaptive pacing, coaching prompts, and the politically charged skills-diagnostic — with a GDPR/works-council consent and data design and a fallback, absorbing a mid-round event (the works council files a formal data-privacy query and the vendor reveals the diagnostic adds EUR 320/learner); and (4) PROVE the impact to a facilitator playing the CHRO and a works-council rep, with a measurement plan that evidences behavior change, a KPI target scorecard against the 22% baseline, and a one-paragraph renewal case. The math rewards a sharply scoped challenge, a transfer-driving blended format inside budget, governed AI that enhances rather than replaces action-learning, and a measurement plan that evidences behavior — and punishes the five classic errors: designing on a fuzzy brief, optimizing cost over impact, gold-plating over budget, switching on AI without governance, and measuring only reaction. Final KPIs track Transfer-to-Job rate (%), Skill Gain, Completion, and Cost per Learner (EUR).

A four-round, intermediate inclusive-leadership simulation set inside Northlight Software Ltd, a Manchester B2B SaaS firm (GBP 46M ARR, 410 staff) that doubled headcount in 24 months without renewing its 'high-talent, high-trust' culture. You are the newly promoted leader of the 12-person Payments Platform squad, the fastest-growing revenue line, in a week where three signals converge: a quarterly pulse shows belonging and psychological safety far below average for newer and under-represented members; a high-potential engineer who joined eight months ago resigns citing 'never quite fitting in'; and a written complaint reports two members were repeatedly talked over and left out of a key design decision and the after-work channel where real decisions get made. The headline belonging score is 3.4/5 — but it masks a 4.2 core versus 2.6 for newer members; psychological safety is 58/100 overall but 41 for newcomers; ~70% of meeting airtime comes from three long-tenured voices; engagement has slid to 61; and regretted attrition runs at 22% among under-18-month joiners. A GBP 3.5M payments-compliance release is due in 10 weeks, and the in-group argues there is 'no time for soft stuff.' Over one team cycle you (1) diagnose by reading past the average to the disaggregated gap and naming the three exclusionary mechanisms; (2) select and sequence genuine inclusion interventions under an effort budget, avoiding tokenism such as a public diversity celebration; (3) personally model psychological safety and resolve the live exclusion incident — including engaging the senior engineer privately rather than humiliating them publicly — while answering the delivery-pressure objection; and (4) sustain belonging as a property of the team's system with leading indicators and embedded norms. The math rewards disaggregated diagnosis, structural over performative inclusion, leader self-modelling, private correction, and treating belonging as delivery infrastructure — and measurably punishes the five classic errors: trusting the average, performative celebration, smoothing over the incident, public confrontation, and delegating belonging while the leader's own behaviour stays unchanged. Final KPIs track Newer-Member Belonging (/5), Psychological Safety (newer, 0–100), Squad Engagement (0–100) and Regretted-Attrition Risk (%).

Open your first credit card at 18 and play out 12 months of spend, statements and payments. Watch your FICO file form, learn the five-factor model, and feel the dollar gap a 100-point score swing makes on your first mortgage.

A four-round, advanced organisational-resilience simulation set inside Calderwood Logistics plc, a mid-cap UK third-party logistics group (GBP 620M revenue, 6% margin, 4,300 staff, 8 distribution centres). A 48-hour outage of the core warehouse-management system — a failed supplier update with no tested fallback — has just cost GBP 1.1 million, put a GBP 48M healthcare contract under review, and convinced the board that a decade of relentless cost optimisation has made Calderwood one of the leanest and most brittle operators in its sector. You lead the strategic-change team chartered to make the organisation genuinely resilient, on evidence rather than consultancy fashion, within a hard GBP 6 million two-year budget against a GBP 14M wish-list and a 120-day board deadline. Grounded in David Denyer's Cranfield/BSI framework, the simulation runs the dual spine of organisational resilience and evidence-based management across four rounds: (1) diagnose vulnerabilities across six domains — operational, financial, supply chain, people, cyber, culture — and distinguish the two-to-three could-kill-us existential threats (the untested WMS single point of failure foremost) from the merely costly; (2) rate the evidence behind each proposed intervention as strong, moderate or weak/vendor-driven, and refuse to fund a fashionable AI 'resilience platform' backed by a single case study; (3) build the funded portfolio within GBP 6M, balancing defensive resilience (redundancy, tested failover, continuity, insurance) against progressive resilience (sensing, adaptive capacity, learning loops, culture change) — every pound spent defensively cannot be spent progressively; and (4) commit and defend the plan to the board chair, answering the central challenge 'how is this different from the risk management we have always funded, and will it actually stop the next failure?'. The math rewards the concept-correct play — existential gaps fixed first, evidence-led funding, a genuine defensive/progressive balance, and a cultural intervention that sustains the capability — and measurably punishes the six classic errors: funding without evidence, an all-defence or all-progression portfolio, treating resilience as a one-off project, diagnosing everything as equally urgent, and ignoring the cultural root cause. Final KPIs track Resilience Score, Existential Coverage, Adaptive Capacity and Budget committed against the GBP 6M cap.

A four-round, advanced higher-education strategy simulation set inside Institut Mediterrani de Direcció (IMD-Barcelona), a private, triple-crown-aspiring business school on Avinguda Diagonal (1,900 students, €34M revenue, €2.72M operating surplus). The board has just mandated a flagship, ecosystem-built programme within one budget cycle, ring-fencing only €4,500,000 against ~€7,200,000 of competing demands. Specialised-master applications are down 11% (2,250→2,000), yield has slipped from 41% to 36%, 62% of revenue depends on degree masters, and a venture-backed micro-credential disruptor, SkillForge, has signed 14,000 mid-career learners in 18 months at one-fifth of the school's price — and is courting two of the school's largest corporate clients. Playing the Dean, you (1) DIAGNOSE the innovation ecosystem through Jordi Díaz's lens — classifying employers, alumni, public bodies, technology partners and the disruptor as asset, gap or threat — and choose the single learner segment the flagship will serve; (2) DESIGN the programme and pick a public-private partnership archetype (co-designed corporate academy, EdTech white-label platform, public-funding consortium, or build-alone), set price against SkillForge, and allocate the €4.5M across content reskilling, technology, faculty and marketing while keeping a contingency; (3) RESKILL faculty under a mid-launch shock (22 of 95 resisting, the EdTech partner demanding curriculum control, an anchor employer asking for exclusivity), protecting the degree core without letting it veto the future; and (4) LAUNCH, commit to an innovation scorecard, present a three-year sustainability path to the foundation chair and state what the school stops doing to fund the future. The scoring rewards Christensen-correct disruption response — a separate, focused, ecosystem-built engine with durable partnerships and a reinvestment logic — and punishes the five classic errors: polishing the legacy core, white-labelling for speed and surrendering brand plus 30–40% of revenue, spending the entire seed with no Year-2 bridge, ignoring reskilling, and refusing to choose a segment. Final KPIs track a Relevance Index, Ecosystem Strength, Sustainability, projected Year-1 enrolment, and budget committed against the €4.5M cap.

A four-round, advanced executive-education simulation set inside Bosphorus Executive Academy (BEA), the open-and-custom executive-development unit of a leading Istanbul business school (€14M revenue, 22% target margin, 18 program staff, 70 affiliated faculty). BEA's largest custom client — Marmara Holding, a €9bn Turkish-Gulf conglomerate worth 19% of revenue — has issued a make-or-break brief: a leadership-transformation program for 120 senior managers across two cohorts, to launch in 14 weeks, worth €1.6M. The brief is ambitious and contradictory: 'world-class faculty' against an implied price cap, 'digital-first but high-touch', and 'measurable behaviour change' the client will actually evaluate at month six. Two rival providers are bidding and only 3 of BEA's 7 marquee faculty are free in the window. Playing the Executive Development Director, you (1) decode the brief and choose backward, outcome-led design over content-first lecture-stacking; (2) architect the program — allocate the scarce marquee faculty without over-promising a roster you cannot field, and pick a residential/hybrid/online format that serves the outcomes at a deliverable cost; (3) scope, price and defend the proposal against the rivals and a mid-round procurement demand for a 12% cut plus a third cohort 'at the same rate', matching every concession to a descope; and (4) survive delivery shocks — a marquee cancellation that carries two learning outcomes, a cohort-two clash with the client's fiscal close, and a sponsor warning of 'no behaviour change yet' — then commit a Kirkpatrick Level 3–4 evidence plan for month six. The math rewards genuine, deliverable, outcome-led, margin-disciplined design and punishes the five classic errors — over-promising faculty, content-first design, buying the deal below the margin floor, unmatched price concessions, and format dogma. Final KPIs track Operating Margin %, Outcome Fit, Client Trust, and Faculty Plan integrity against the €1.6M contract and the 22% margin target.

A four-round, advanced international-management simulation set inside Helvetia Precision Group, a Swiss industrial-technology firm (CHF 2.3B revenue, 16% EBIT, 8,900 staff across 14 countries) headquartered in Winterthur. Newly public on SIX Swiss Exchange and dangerously Europe-concentrated (68% EU / 22% NA / 10% APAC), Helvetia has approved 'Horizon Asia' — a three-year plan to triple Asia-Pacific revenue from CHF 230M to CHF 690M through entries into Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia. The problem: the nine-person executive committee is 89% Swiss/German with zero Asia operating experience — the most homogeneous-ever leadership staffing the firm's biggest international bet. As incoming CEO you rebuild the top-management team under hard constraints: the committee may grow from 9 to a maximum of 12 seats, you have a CHF 18M annual senior-leadership-and-relocation budget (it funds roughly 6–7 senior moves against a wish list of 11), and the first two market entries must launch within 12 months before a competitor consolidates the region. Built directly on Ruigrok's research (FIM-HSG, St Gallen) on TMT nationality and international-experience diversity and Upper Echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason), the simulation operationalises the core finding that more internationally and experientially diverse top teams internationalise more successfully — while surfacing the boundary conditions (cohesion, decision speed, integration cost) that decide whether diversity converts into performance or friction. Across four rounds you (1) diagnose the team-strategy gap and set a target diversity profile; (2) staff the executive committee from a candidate slate of internal Europe veterans, external Asia-experienced hires of varied nationalities, and relocations — within 12 seats and CHF 18M; (3) sequence the four entries to match the team and bandwidth you actually have and invest in integration; and (4) read the 12- and 36-month results and defend your TMT design to the board against entry speed, integration cost and expansion ROI. The math rewards adding the RIGHT diversity (not the most), preserving a core of European continuity, sequencing two entries first, and integrating the team — and measurably punishes the five classic errors: the cohesion trap, diversity overload, constraint denial, simultaneous overreach, and integration neglect. Final KPIs track the TMT Diversity Index, Team Cohesion, Entry Readiness and realised Expansion ROI toward the CHF 690M target.

A four-round, advanced corporate-R&D-strategy simulation set inside Aurelis Mobility Systems, a mid-cap European electric-drivetrain supplier headquartered in Grenoble (EUR 1.9bn revenue, 9% EBIT, 6,400 staff, R&D at 7.1% of revenue across ~900 engineers and 480 patent families). The board has delivered a blunt verdict — 'our competitive advantage is migrating to technologies we do not own' — and chartered an R&D strategy reset with a EUR 220M, three-year capability-investment budget. Value is moving from Aurelis's commoditising strongholds (electric machines, thermal management — 71% of patents, prices falling 6–8%/yr) to power semiconductors and embedded control software (under 9% of patents, IP licensed in). A flagship automaker (22% of revenue) needs an integrated power-electronics-plus-software module for a platform whose sourcing decision is due in 9 months; organic build takes 4–5 years; EUR 410M of lifetime revenue is at stake. Playing the R&D Strategy Lead, you (1) diagnose the SHAPE of the knowledge base — breadth across domains and depth within each — and name the two gap domains against the value-migration map; (2) choose build / buy / partner for power semiconductors and embedded software and fund the moves from EUR 220M, weighing the EUR 140M Eindhoven acquisition, the EUR 35M controls co-development deal and the EUR 18M institute joint lab, while protecting the strongholds and explicitly funding ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY so bought knowledge is internalised, not a black box; (3) set the ecosystem posture — closed integrator, open orchestrator or hybrid — and draw the open/closed IP boundary domain by domain; and (4) face the 9-month sourcing milestone and the 36-month capability review, learning whether the module shipped in time, how much innovation output the EUR 220M bought, and whether the posture leaked crown-jewel IP or starved the firm of breadth. The math rewards capability moves matched to the clock, critical-mass funding, absorptive-capacity investment and a deliberate open/closed boundary, and punishes the five classic errors — build-everything pride that misses the 9-month deadline, acquisition without absorption, renting crown-jewel competences, naive total openness that leaks IP, and thin spreading below critical mass. Final KPIs track Knowledge Breadth, Knowledge Depth, Innovation Output (patents + module readiness) and Investment Efficiency against the EUR 220M cap.

A 30-minute lab on cold outreach for high-school students. Three rounds: pick your person and do the five-minute research, write the message that survives the 6-second scan, and handle the follow-up, the no, and the silence. Teaches the research-first / write-second discipline, the specificity test, and the calibrated etiquette of follow-ups.

A four-round, advanced operations and supply-chain simulation set inside Siam Pantry Co., Ltd., a THB 4.2 billion Thai manufacturer-distributor of instant noodles, ready-to-drink coffee and sauces that sells through a classic four-tier chain — factory → regional distribution centres → wholesalers → modern-trade and traditional retailers. End-consumer demand varies only ±6% week to week, yet factory production orders swing ±48% in normal weeks and spiked +62% after a single four-week price promotion: a textbook bullwhip effect. The company carries THB 620M of inventory at a 9% cost of capital, still suffered stockouts in 11% of outlets during the promotion, runs a 38% factory forecast error (MAPE) against a 15% best-practice target, and absorbed THB 240M of excess stock plus THB 31M of write-offs. Playing the Operations Strategist, the learner must dampen the amplification without breaching an THB 18M/year coordination-and-systems budget or dropping service. Round 1: diagnose the bullwhip — compute the variance amplification ratio tier by tier and rank its four classic causes (demand-signal processing, order batching, price-promotion swings, rationing and shortage gaming). Round 2: the core design — choose an ordering policy (independent reorder-point, smaller more-frequent orders, base-stock with order smoothing, or coordinated replenishment), an information-sharing level (none, POS-data sharing, shared forecast, or VMI/CPFR), and a promotion policy (deep periodic discounts, scheduled capacity-aware promos, or everyday-low-price), each consuming budget and changing variance, cost and service. Round 3: stress-test the design against live shocks — a viral demand spike, a lead-time disruption, and a key wholesaler refusing to share POS data — and patch it with a fallback and a shock-response rule. Round 4: present the board-and-partner scorecard, forecasting order variance, inventory cost, service level and forecast error within the THB 18M budget. The math rewards coordination and information-sharing over inventory accumulation, complementary policy-plus-information design, smoothing that stays responsive to a real surge, contingencies for non-cooperating partners, and disciplined promotion policy — and punishes the six classic errors: piling safety stock at every tier, smoothing orders without sharing demand, over-smoothing into a stockout, assuming free POS visibility, keeping deep promos that re-trigger the whipsaw, and over-spending the coordination budget. Final KPIs track factory order variance (%), inventory cost (THB M/year), service level (%) and forecast error (MAPE %).

Simulation to teach integrated business management through a coworking space startup in Santiago, Chile. Students make cross-functional decisions across marketing, operations, finance, and strategy over 3 rounds, observing how each decision affects financial performance, customer satisfaction, and competitive position simultaneously. Grounded in the Business Model Canvas, Balanced Scorecard, Value Chain, STP, and organizational structure frameworks.

Run Costa Verde Supermercados, a mid-sized regional grocer, across the four phases of a business cycle and discover why the same firm requires four very different kinds of management as the macro environment turns.

Simulación donde los estudiantes actúan como equipo de marketing digital de TiendaRico S.A.S., una microempresa de alimentos artesanales en Medellín. Deben asignar un presupuesto de COP 800,000 entre canales digitales (Instagram Ads, Google Search, WhatsApp Business, Rappi Boost), analizar KPIs de campaña (CTR, CPC, ROAS), y optimizar la estrategia para alcanzar 80 pedidos mensuales.

A four-round, advanced innovation-strategy simulation set inside Veridian Systems SAS, a Lyon-based EUR 280M manufacturer of connected industrial sensors whose value is migrating from the device it sells once to the data and predictive-maintenance analytics its 25,000 installed machines stream every day. At the Hannover trade fair a cash-rich German automation giant has just unveiled PlantSense AI — a EUR 90/machine/month predictive-maintenance subscription with no hardware margin and a 6x marketing budget — a near-replica of the platform Veridian has prototyped for 14 months but never launched. The board meets in 120 days and wants a value-capture strategy, a committed go-to-market date, a build-buy-partner decision on the analytics platform, and a defendable answer to 'what stops PlantSense from eating us alive?'. Playing the Chief Strategy Officer with a EUR 40M two-year investment envelope, you (1) diagnose where in the value chain economic value is created versus where Veridian actually captures it, naming the data/analytics layer as the defensible one and the layer most exposed to imitation; (2) decide where to innovate and how to source the capability — Build (EUR 32M, 18 months, full IP), Buy (a Paris analytics start-up, EUR 28M, 9 months, integration risk) or Partner (white-label a cloud vendor, EUR 9M plus a 35% revenue share, 5 months but cedes the data relationship) — under the envelope and the deadline; (3) design the value-capture architecture: pricing model (one-time, subscription, outcome/pay-per-uptime) and the isolating mechanisms that defend margin — patents, data network effects, switching costs, exclusive integration, brand, speed — matching each mechanism to the appropriability regime; and (4) commit a GTM date, align the sales incentives to the new model, and defend an imitation-adjusted innovation ROI to the board. The math rewards innovating where value is captured, choosing a sourcing path that is fast enough to beat imitation while keeping the data relationship, building a compounding data moat rather than over-relying on slow patents, and shipping an interim move before the 18-month build — and it punishes the six classic errors. Final KPIs track Value Captured, Defensibility, Innovation ROI (imitation-adjusted) and Investment used against the EUR 40M envelope.

Simulation where learners manage decarbonization strategy for a LATAM industrial conglomerate across 6 years (2025-2030), balancing abatement investments, compliance market obligations, voluntary offset portfolios, and strategic governance decisions to meet Science Based Targets.

Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) portfolio management game under climate change (RCP 4.5 scenario). Manage 20 global real estate assets, balance yield and climate risk, deploy adaptation and insurance strategies to protect your portfolio across 25 years (2026-2050). Based on OS-Climate physrisk data.

Six-month career arc capstone. Play Jordan Marquez from blank resume to 90-day review at Cedar & Pine Co., the 14-store outdoor-apparel retailer. Six phases — Resume, Job Search, Interview, First Day, Tough Conversations, and Negotiation — compound into a single Career Readiness Index score.

A four-round, advanced sustainable-careers and workforce-strategy simulation set inside Vlaamse TechWorks NV, an Antwerp-headquartered industrial-software and automation company (2,600 staff across Belgium, the Netherlands and a Poland delivery centre; EUR 410M revenue, 11% margin). The firm has won 'best employer' awards for pay and perks, yet voluntary turnover has climbed to 17% firm-wide and 24% among the client-holding mid-career cohort, engagement has slipped, and a confidential review finds 78% of the ring-fenced EUR 4.2M development-and-wellbeing budget flows to early-career staff — leaving mid-career employees plateaued (last meaningful development 4+ years ago, squeezed by caregiving) and senior specialists with obsolescing skills, low external employability, and rising sickness absence. The board gives the new People Lead one budget cycle to measurably improve retention, employability and wellbeing across the whole life-course, or the EUR 4.2M reverts to reactive hiring (replacement cost ~EUR 55,000 per departure, ~EUR 8.3M/year leaking out) and the works council escalates to a formal grievance. Playing the HR / People Lead, the learner designs profile-specific interventions for three worker profiles — early-career, mid-career and senior specialists — through the sustainable-careers lens of De Vos, Van der Heijden & Akkermans: a career is sustainable to the degree it preserves health (wellbeing), happiness (person-career fit and meaning) and productivity (employability and contribution), co-produced at the interface of the employee, the organisation and the labour market. The Career Sustainability Index (CSI) encodes that health-happiness-productivity triad. Round 1: diagnose each profile's breakage and locate it at the employee, organisation and/or labour-market level, quantify the turnover cost, and set the CSI baseline. Round 2: design interventions per profile — development and reskilling, job redesign and workload guardrails, internal mobility and career pathing, flexible life-stage arrangements, mentoring and knowledge-transfer roles, and external-employability support — each matched to the right interface level, resolving where employability and wellbeing reinforce versus trade off. Round 3: allocate the full EUR 4.2M under a hard ceiling, including the politically hard rebalancing away from early-career's 78% share without triggering high-potential flight. Round 4: respond to mixed mid-cycle results and a complication (works-council pressure, a competitor poaching the upskilled mid-career cohort, or a 10% budget trim), institutionalise a standing sustainable-career system, and pitch the four-KPI scorecard to the board. The math rewards interface-level matching, a life-course allocation, deliberate employability-plus-meaning investment, and rebalancing-as-redesign — and punishes the five classic errors: high-potential tunnel vision, training as a universal remedy, hoarding employability for fear of attrition, perks over paths, and zero-sum rebalancing. Final KPIs track the Career Sustainability Index, retention, employability and wellbeing.

A 4-round sports-marketing simulation: a $17M FY26 partnerships gap, two naming-rights finalists, an NIL athlete crisis, a streaming-era pricing reset, and a closing pitch. Practitioners model risk-adjusted naming-rights valuation, NIL fund discipline, MFN-clause exposure, and a defensible ROI framework across an MLS / WNBA / Power-4 multi-property portfolio.

A four-round, advanced supply-chain-finance simulation set inside Maison Velluti S.p.A., a Florence fashion-luxury house (EUR 540M revenue, 16% EBITDA, 220 suppliers, 70% Italian SMEs). The CFO demands EUR 30M of working capital freed within two quarters and has floated stretching DPO from 75 to 120 days — the cheapest cash lever and the fastest way to collapse the fragile Tuscan artisanal tier that protects 'Made in Italy' provenance. Conceria San Frediano, supplying 22% of certified leather and one of only two chrome-free, animal-welfare-certified tanneries, is six weeks from default. Two luxury clients (EUR 190M of contracts) have tightened sustainability and traceability codes the small workshops cannot self-fund (~EUR 200k upgrades each). Playing the Supply-Chain Finance Lead, you (1) diagnose the cash-and-resilience bind and refuse the blunt DPO stretch; (2) choose among supply-chain-finance instruments — reverse factoring / approved-payables finance (frees buyer cash AND pays suppliers early at the buyer's credit rating), dynamic discounting (spends cash for margin), classic factoring, or a sustainability-linked programme — and set the financing terms by supplier tier; (3) decide which suppliers to keep, develop or exit, design platform onboarding that actually reaches the EUR 200k artisanal workshops, rescue San Frediano, and finance certification through sustainability-linked rates rather than merely mandating compliance; and (4) integrate and stress-test the programme against the CFO's EUR 30M target, the client audit, and the San Frediano clock, then defend it to the board. The math rewards the positive-sum reverse-factoring + sustainability-linked + fragile-tier-inclusion play and punishes the five classic errors — blunt DPO stretch, the wrong instrument for the goal, an SCF programme that excludes the fragile tier, mandating sustainability without financing it, and treating critical suppliers as replaceable. Final KPIs track Cash Freed (€M vs the EUR 30M target), Supplier Resilience, Sustainability Readiness and effective DPO, all in EUR.

Design Costaria CO$ 2 billion poverty-reduction program. Confront the modern evidence base — cash, conditions, kind — and the design details that matter more than the binary.

Three-round MoH war-room sprint. Lucia Arevalo has 5 hours to design a blended-capitation EBAIS reform that is revenue-neutral year 1, saves USD 320M by year 3, and survives Trejos-Vidal at the Junta on Thursday, Aragon-Mejias at Hacienda, and Solana at the 14:00 cabinet. The participant must hold three frames simultaneously — payment-design (70/30 blend, base rate, risk-adjustment, P4P withhold), political-economy (90-day Asamblea clock, union conversion mechanics), and stakeholder navigation (36-month salary floor, IDB/WB trigger-clause). MBA Track 3H Healthcare and Public-Sector Strategy; sister sim to 1470 Helio Verde. Anchored on Bodenheimer-Berenson 2007, Lindenauer-Remus 2007 NEJM, World Bank 2025 Costa Rica review, and Kingdon three-streams.

Run the 24-month CEO succession arc as the sitting CEO of Helio Verde S.A. Author the slate, design the development plan, decide the external scan, and write the recommendation memo. The simulation rewards the discipline of authoring the slate without authoring the choice — the hardest discipline in the executive register. Anchor cases: Welch–Immelt, Iger–Chapek–Iger, Ballmer–Nadella, Lafley–McDonald–Lafley–Taylor.

Mariana Solis-Ramirez, CFO of Petrolia S.A., has 18 days to allocate a USD 24M AI investment envelope across nine candidate bets, define the controls and disclosure posture, and write two memos — one to the CEO, one to the audit committee. Concentration is the discipline. Democracy is the failure mode.

Simulation placing participants in the role of CFO of a LATAM mid-cap industrial group. Teams calculate WACC from first principles, evaluate five competing investment opportunities using NPV and IRR, design an optimal capital structure while monitoring a live credit rating model, and release trapped working capital — integrating all decisions into a coherent capital allocation plan.

Three chairman moments in six weeks at Vianet Comunicaciones, S.A.: a board split 4-5 on a €420M Portuguese fibre capex, a CEO succession trigger, and an Argonaut activist letter. The participant plays the chair, not the CEO. Process-quality scoring across the four chairman tools — framing, sequencing, recusal, after-the-meeting — and three failure modes: shadow-CEO, rubber-stamp, sole-channel.

A four-round, intermediate change-leadership simulation set inside Maasland Verzekeringen N.V., a Utrecht-based mid-market Dutch insurer (2,100 staff, €640M gross written premium) rolling a new low-code, team-based way of working across 18 claims and underwriting teams (≈600 people). It is 14 April 2026 and the rollout has stalled: the company repeated its historic pattern — a launch town-hall, one training session, then silence — and adoption sits at just 34% daily active use against an 80% board target, the resistance index has climbed from 28 to 51/100, engagement is down 14 points, and €410,000 of the €1.2M change budget is already spent (≈€790,000 remains) with platform-licence renewal and a CFO go/no-go in month 10. As the Change Lead reporting to the COO, the learner applies Woody van Olffen's Change Canvas logic — designing and monitoring change across the rational case, the emotional and political reality, capability building, and reinforcement — rather than announcing and assuming. Round 1 (Diagnose): separate the three root-cause gaps behind the 34% stall — the 'why' (no compelling case for change), the 'ability' (one-off training), and the 'reinforcement' (managers not modelling the behaviour) — and pick the highest-leverage stakeholders to engage first. Round 2 (Plan): design the intervention portfolio under the remaining budget by choosing intervention intensity (light comms+e-learning / medium workshops+coaching / heavy embedded agents+manager bootcamps), a communication cadence (one-off broadcast vs. sustained two-way rhythm), and the engagement order — the discovery being that front-loading line-manager enablement before frontline training bends the adoption curve more than any volume of communication. Round 3 (Decide): sequence the 12 remaining teams into waves and commit spend, choosing whether to stabilise the six struggling live teams first (rescue) or push forward (momentum), while respecting finite change-agent and coaching capacity so heavy intensity cannot be lavished on every team. Round 4 (Recover): absorb two shocks — a vocal middle-manager coalition questioning the programme in a town-hall and a regulatory deadline pulling 20% of frontline time for a month — protect adoption, convert sceptical managers into advocates, install a reinforcement mechanism (peer champions, sponsor visibility, metrics in daily routines), and defend the platform renewal to the board. The scoring rewards diagnosing the reinforcement gap, manager-first sequencing, dosage matched to readiness, rescuing early failures, treating resistance as signal, and designing reinforcement — and measurably punishes the five classic errors: broadcast bias, frontline-before-managers, uniform heavy intensity, momentum over rescue, and launch-as-success. Final KPIs track daily-active adoption (%), the resistance index (/100), engagement change (points), budget remaining (€K) and modelled time-to-embed (months).

Lead a team through sustained organisational change. Diagnose the fatigue by archetype, calibrate honesty under confidentiality, run archetype-specific retention moves on Ana and Carlos, and design an offsite that produces forward motion without lying about the situation.

MBA-band Sales Leadership simulation in which a Channel Strategy task force at CoEditor.io has 75 minutes to design a governance regime that resolves a leaked-memo channel-conflict crisis with its largest VAR partner. Diagnose the conflict (vertical, horizontal, multichannel), choose the architecture (direct-only, partner-only, hybrid with governance), and defend the recommendation in front of the Board with the practitioner-standard six-component governance regime: deal registration, MAP/MSRP discipline, segmentation, partner tiering, SPIFF discipline, channel ombuds.

A four-round, advanced leadership simulation set inside Northwind Mobility Inc., a London, Ontario child-safety and mobility manufacturer (CA$310M revenue, 1,400 staff, 9% EBIT) acquired 18 months ago by a value-oriented holding company with an aggressive cost-cutting board. Three weeks into the role, the newly promoted Division President faces a values-vs-deadline collision: the flagship next-generation convertible car seat, Aurora — carrying 40% of division growth and CA$62M of first-year revenue — is six weeks from a committed 25 November retail on-shelf date when the Head of Engineering & Quality flags that its side-impact foam passed the regulatory minimum but failed Northwind's own internal margin-of-safety standard in 3 of 40 high-temperature sled tests. A late cost-down foam substitution saved CA$1.8M but narrowed the safety margin. The seat is legal to sell yet below the brand's 'beyond the minimum' safety promise. Fixing it costs CA$4.2M and slips launch 7 weeks, missing the holiday window — an estimated CA$22M in lost first-year sales plus a likely end-cap loss. Shipping unfixed risks a CA$30–80M recall-and-reputation downside that would be existential for a safety brand. Playing the President, you must resolve the dilemma not by gut but by deliberately weighting the dimensions of leader character (Crossan's Leader Character Framework — Judgment integrating Courage, Temperance, Accountability, Justice, Humility, Integrity, Collaboration, Humanity, Transcendence and Drive). Across four rounds you (1) frame the dilemma through the character lens rather than as ship-vs-delay; (2) decide and justify the action using four named dimensions in balance, accepting an explicit trade-off; (3) hold or adapt the decision under live confrontation from a hostile board chair, the whistle-raising Head of Quality and a big-box retail buyer; and (4) read the outcome on four KPIs and separate decision quality from luck of outcome while proposing how to build character capacity. The math rewards balanced, transparent, accountable judgment and penalises the five classic errors — treating legality as the standard, delaying on a hunch with no articulable character logic, letting one dimension dominate (heroic Courage without Humility), punishing the courage of the whistle-raiser, and judging the team purely on the financial outcome. Final KPIs track Character-Balance Index, Decision-Quality Score, Stakeholder Trust and Deadline Risk.

A four-round, advanced strategy-execution simulation set inside Lumière Cosmétique S.A., a mid-market French cosmetics and personal-care manufacturer in Lyon (EUR 720M revenue, 12% operating margin, 2,100 staff). Six months ago the board approved, with fanfare, the award-winning ‘Lumière 2030’ sustainability strategy — refillable packaging, certified sourcing, a 50% Scope 1+2 cut and a clean product line worth one-third of revenue. The deck won a sustainability award; the execution rate is near zero. Of 14 flagship initiatives, 11 have not started, two are stuck in pilot, and one marketing relaunch raced ahead of the supply chain. On 11 May 2026 a non-executive director, prompted by a sustainability-linked loan covenant, asks the simple question: ‘We approved this six months ago — what has actually changed?’ You are the new Strategy & Transformation Director, handed a fixed EUR 30M change budget and 18 months to demonstrate real execution — not more strategy. Drawing on Lisa Thomas on barriers to strategy implementation, the knowing-doing gap (Pfeffer & Sutton), the execution premium (Kaplan & Norton; Sull), agency-theory incentive alignment, and value co-creation, you (1) diagnose WHY a well-formulated, well-communicated strategy produced near-zero execution, separating structural barriers (incentives, capability) from sequencing problems (initiative overload); (2) sequence the 14-initiative portfolio under the EUR 30M cap, building unglamorous foundations — eco-design capability, supplier development, incentive redesign — before the board-pleasing flagship refill range that fails without them; (3) remove the barriers — reweight manager incentives away from pure cost/volume despite the Operations Director's resistance, assign accountable owners, build the missing capability, and engage 38 suppliers and two demanding retail customers (22% of revenue) as co-creators rather than compliance targets; and (4) consolidate a quarterly-checkpointed 18-month execution plan and defend a credible barrier-removed → initiative-delivered → 2027-milestone-met chain to the board. The math rewards focus, foundation-first sequencing, incentive alignment and co-creation, and punishes the five classic errors — re-strategising instead of removing barriers, optics-first flagship funding, untouched incentives, keeping all 14 initiatives alive, and compliance-mode stakeholders. Final KPIs track Execution Rate %, Stakeholder Buy-in, Sustainability KPIs Met, and Change-Cost Efficiency against the fixed EUR 30M budget, with a 2027 loan-and-customer milestone and a near-zero-execution escalation that shelves the strategy.

A four-round, advanced executive-education and corporate L&D simulation set inside Atelier Cadence, the custom exec-ed unit of a mid-sized French business school in La Rochelle (EUR 11.4M revenue, 18 programme staff, 140 affiliated faculty, 28% average contribution margin against a 22% approval hurdle). Two years ago the unit lost a EUR 1.6M leadership academy because it was designed FOR the client, not WITH them — high satisfaction, near-zero behaviour change, contract not renewed. Now Veridian Mobilité, a EUR 2.3B French mobility-and-charging group pivoting from hardware to subscription services, invites Atelier Cadence to co-design a transformation programme for 300 managers across 6 countries, 4 languages and 3 seniority bands. The conditions punish: a hard EUR 840,000 cap the CFO claws back on overrun, a 16-week launch with first-cohort completion in 9 months, a divided steering committee (the CHRO buys behaviour change, the COO buys commercial revenue lift, the CFO buys completion and cost-per-participant), and a cheaper off-the-shelf consultancy bid that Veridian defaults to if no signature lands inside 4 weeks. Playing the Executive Education Director you (1) diagnose the REAL transformation need — dismantle legacy-P&L resistance and build services conviction — rather than order-taking the stated 'train 300 managers' request; (2) co-design the architecture under the cap using 70-20-10 logic, choosing the format mix and the co-creation mechanism that puts Veridian's own SMEs and leaders in the design room; (3) reconcile three conflicting sponsor KPIs into one balanced scorecard and defend scope against the cheaper bid; and (4) commit, build the 3/6/9-month impact-measurement plan and renewal logic, and de-risk the 16-week launch. The math rewards genuine, co-created, 70-20-10, multi-sponsor, measured design and punishes the five classic errors — order-taking, designing in-house with no co-creation, single-sponsor (usually CFO) optimisation, blowing the EUR 840k cap or buying satisfaction-only smile-sheets, and launching with no measurement. Final KPIs track Transformation Impact, Sponsor Alignment, Co-Creation Index and the contribution margin against the 22% hurdle and the EUR 840k cap.

A four-round, advanced executive-education simulation set inside Trinity Quad Executive Learning, the custom-programmes unit of a leading UK business school in Cambridge (£14.2M revenue, 32% contribution margin, NPS 71, 60% repeat revenue). On 14 September 2026, Helvern Industrial Group — a £3.8bn FTSE-250 engineering firm — signs a £680,000 custom contract to build strategic leadership capability across 90 senior managers (3 cohorts of 30) ahead of a restructuring, and wants cohort 1 live in 10 weeks. As Custom Programmes Director you must (1) diagnose the real challenge from a one-paragraph brief and three conflicting sponsor views — the CEO means post-restructuring strategic alignment, the CHRO means high-potential retention, line directors mean project-delivery discipline — before designing anything; (2) co-configure a tailored learning journey within the £680k envelope, choosing pedagogy mix, faculty from a scarcity-and-cost grid (only 2 of 5 preferred senior faculty are free; core faculty £2,200/day vs star practitioners £4,500/day), and a delivery format whose cost swings £90,000; (3) defend the price premium against procurement's £5,500/participant benchmark (27% below the £7,556 as-designed cost) and commit to or renegotiate the £68,000 (10%) impact-linked success fee; and (4) deliver cohort 1 through a faculty drop-out and patchy attendance, then design the impact-measurement approach (reaction, behaviour or results, on the Kirkpatrick ladder) that releases the success fee and decide whether to run cohorts 2–3 (worth £453,000). The math rewards diagnosing before designing, 70-20-10 journeys that embed action-learning and coaching, defending value rather than discounting, Behaviour/Results-level measurement, and treating resourcing as a quality decision — and punishes the five classic errors. Final KPIs track Diagnosis Fit, Impact Credibility, Client Trust, and contribution Margin against the £680k cap.

A four-round, advanced service-design simulation set inside Foyer Connecté SAS, a Lille-based connected-home energy service with 240,000 subscribers (€51.8M annual revenue, 34% contribution margin) hit by the 'Cold-Snap Backlash' of March 2026. A February cold snap pushed bills up despite the savings promise; monthly churn jumped from 1.8% to 3.4%, putting ~33,600 subscribers and ~€7.3M of revenue at risk, and the press ran 'L'appli qui ne fait pas d'économies'. The twist: this savings service is not manufactured and shipped — it is co-created in interaction. Value only materialises when customers integrate their own resources (honest schedules, occupancy data, acting on coaching nudges); when the interaction fails, value is actively co-destroyed (Plé & Cáceres). Diagnostics show 62% of complainers never finished onboarding and 28% rated coaching 'preachy', and a ~4,000-strong cluster is gaming the savings guarantee for €22 credits (€88,000 and rising). Playing the service-redesign team under a hard €2.0M service-ops cap and a 30% margin floor, you (1) map the customer journey and locate the two touchpoints where value is co-destroyed, naming whose resources failed — the firm's, the customer's, or the integration; (2) redesign the journey by choosing resource-integration touchpoints against the cap — a guided onboarding wizard, an honest 'comfort vs savings' expectation reset, usage-driven coaching personalisation, and a peer community — while protecting margin; (3) author the co-creation rule (firm contribution, customer contribution, failure handling) and contain the misuse cluster by enforcing, designing out, or converting the gamers; and (4) sequence a 60-day recovery plan against a second cold snap arriving in 45 days, easing onboarding friction without re-opening the co-destruction gap. The math rewards subtraction over feature-piling, designed-out risk over blanket enforcement, light-touch integration over heavy friction, and respecting the cost cap — and punishes the five classic errors: adding instead of redesigning, misdiagnosing churn as a marketing problem, punishing all 240,000 for the 4,000, friction as a cure, and ignoring the cap or the clock. Final KPIs track Co-Created Value, Co-Destruction risk, Customer Satisfaction, and Service-Ops Cost against the €2.0M cap.

MBA-level negotiation simulation. Play AME, the lead negotiator on a tri-party offshore-wind PPA in Costa Rica. Diagnose the triadic coalition structure with the v(S) characteristic-function table, design side-payments calibrated to revealed preference, sequence the bilaterals so the swing party locks last, and survive the leaked-memo crisis that detonates mid-Round 3. Built on Raiffa, Sebenius, Schelling, and Brams-Kilgour foundations.

A four-round, intermediate strategy-design and entrepreneurship simulation set inside Verdão Foods, Lda., an eight-person Lisbon plant-based ready-meals startup that has filed a €3.0M Series A with a venture fund. The plan is articulate and ambitious, but the fund's analysts have stamped it 'Strategy lacks coherence — fix or pass': the positioning, customer, channel, operations, resources and funding do not line up. The distinguishing flaw is the positioning–pricing contradiction — the plan keeps premium, chef-grade messaging while quietly modelling a 28% price cut to chase supermarket volume, so the healthy 41% gross margin silently falls toward 26% while burn (€95k/month) and the five-month runway stay the same. National rollout assumes 1,400 retail listings on one chilled line at 70% utilisation with no second site budgeted; three export markets in 18 months carry no regulatory or cold-chain cost (a ~€600k hole). Playing the strategy consultancy hired with 72 hours to spare, you transfer the coherence logic of Morais's Idea Puzzle method from research design to strategy design across four rounds. Round 1: diagnose the incoherence — hand back a surgical coherence map, not a good/bad verdict, and flag the two most damaging contradictions across Why/What/How/Who-When. Round 2: repair exactly two decisions (you cannot redesign the company on five months of runway) — align positioning with pricing by staying premium or committing honestly to mass-market, phase the channel to one line, or defer export — then re-run the ripple through margin, burn, runway and the funding ask. Round 3: prioritise the single highest-leverage realignment under the deadline, reframe the founders' export dream as deferred rather than denied to protect buy-in, and defend margin durability to the lead investor. Round 4: pitch the repaired plan to the committee and resolve its probe on residual contradictions. The math uses sticky penalty flags so the five classic errors — verdict instead of diagnosis, boiling the ocean, fixing pricing in isolation, ignoring founder buy-in, and low-leverage prioritisation — each cap the score and gate the top verdict: a plan whose core positioning–pricing contradiction is left live, or whose price was cut without re-running the chain, cannot read as fundable however well the other rounds are played. Final KPIs track plan coherence (0–100), investability, founder buy-in, and the funding need against the repaired unit economics.

A four-round, intermediate service-operations simulation set inside Biscayne Executive Learning (BEL), the custom- and open-programs unit of a Miami university business school that bills USD 14M a year delivering ~60 executive cohorts and lives or dies by its Net Learner Experience score. At 7:40 a.m. on April 13, 2026 two flagship cohorts collide: a burst pipe has knocked Room 300 — BEL's only hybrid-capable room that seats 50 — out of service for 9 days, two faculty change their availability, and the academic operations team must re-sequence faculty and facilities, allocate 3 senior + 4 junior coordinators, and hold a USD 40,000 remaining quarterly support budget while protecting a Net Learner Experience of at least 8.5/10 on BOTH cohorts. Cohort A (MeridianHealth Leadership Academy, 48 clinical managers, Day 1 in 48 hours, contractually needs the hybrid room) carries a USD 3.2M renewal the CHRO calls 'the audition'; Cohort B (Global Finance Certificate, 30 international executives mid-program) was promised Room 300 for a Thursday guest-faculty session. Playing the Academic Support Coordinator, you (1) map the collision and name the single binding constraint — the out-of-service hybrid room — before touching anything, tracing the dependency cascade rather than fixing the loudest problem; (2) re-sequence facilities and faculty, choosing the hotel suite (USD 4,200/day, USD 16,800 = 42% of the budget) vs split rooms vs virtual, flipping Cohort A to its faculty's Wednesday-morning window, and protecting Cohort B's promised room; (3) allocate scarce coordinators and the budget to protect the PORTFOLIO — resolving the overtime-risk senior coordinator (1.5x cost and fatigue risk) instead of overloading her, and not robbing Cohort B to save Cohort A; and (4) absorb a live escalation — the CHRO asks if Day 1 is handled and a junior coordinator calls in sick — with proactive client communication, a real backfill bench, and a single named decision-maker with an issue-tracking routine. The math rewards constraint-first sequencing, portfolio-balanced staffing, budget-as-portfolio thinking, and proactive recovery, and punishes the five classic errors: whack-a-mole fixing, spending blind on the hotel suite, overloading the senior coordinator, robbing one cohort to save the other, and silent operations. Final KPIs track Cohort A Experience, Cohort B Experience, Operational Resilience, and Budget committed against the USD 40,000 cap.

Micro-sim for cold outreach: write a subject line, body, and close that earn a reply. Coach drills specificity, the time-boxed micro-ask, and a single follow-up — the version that could not have been sent to anyone else.

Channel cross-border flows under DCIN-83, fix a cuenta de compensación breach, and design a defensible hedging policy for a Colombian coffee exporter with USD 9.4M of FX exposure. Bilingual (Spanish/English) UNAD ECACEN simulation.

Run Tejidos del Tequendama S.A.S., a mid-cap Bogota textile retailer with five sucursales, through Colombia's interlocking four-tax system: renta (Estatuto Tributario), IVA bimestral with prorrateo, ICA across Bogota/Cali/Medellin/Bucaramanga/Cajica, and retencion en la fuente. Then defend before DIAN Bogota Norte under a requerimiento ordinario citing Sentencia 23000 of Consejo de Estado Sala Cuarta and the February 2026 Concepto Unificado IVA. Bilingual ES/EN, four rounds, 90 minutes, Univ/MBA tax & accounting cohort.

A four-round, advanced innovation-management simulation set inside Studio Lumibec, a 620-person Montréal interactive-entertainment studio (CA$180M revenue, ~70% from one aging franchise) running on a fixed CA$36M R&D budget. The studio's real competitive edge is not its process but its three voluntary communities of practice — a rendering guild, a narrative circle and a gameplay-systems community — where craft knowledge is created and circulated and where every original hit was incubated, fuelled by 20% protected slack time. In May 2026 the flagship is sliding -12% a year, the board demands a fatter pipeline AND lower cost, and the CFO wants to scrap the slack to redeploy it onto a 9-month sequel. Playing the VP Innovation, you have one planning cycle to set the model. Round 1: diagnose where creative knowledge actually flows (the communities, not the org chart), read the leading indicators (engagement -40%, two connectors at flight risk), and judge how dependent the pipeline is on slack-born experiments. Round 2: allocate protected slack against the CFO's pressure — how much, for whom, and under what governance — discovering that slack without community structure is just unfocused free time that costs money without lifting throughput, while cutting it to zero optimises the quarter and empties the future. Round 3: split the CA$36M budget between exploiting the proven franchise and exploring original IP, confronting March's ambidexterity tension — too little exploration starves the future, a hard swing to 50/50 starves the sequel that funds everything — and decide how communities feed the funnel without being managed into committees. Round 4: build the prototype pipeline with stage-gate go/kill discipline, retain (or lose) the two senior knowledge connectors whose network value far exceeds their headcount, and commit to leading metrics over lagging ones. The model rewards stewarding communities (managing with, not over, per Cohendet), slack channelled through communities, a balanced explore/exploit split, an emergent stage-gate funnel, and retaining the connectors — and punishes the five classic errors: cutting slack to protect the quarter, ungoverned slack, over-swinging to exploration, mandating communities like project teams, and letting the connectors walk. Final KPIs track idea throughput, community engagement, time-to-prototype and a derived Innovation ROI.

Founders facing a wind-down practice the reality test, structure choice, announcement sequencing, severance design, and the off-the-bench period — turning a company close into the foundation of the next decade.

Two countries discover that even when one is better at everything, both gain from specialising and trading according to comparative advantage. Then they confront the distributional politics — who inside each country wins, who loses, and which compensation mechanism preserves the larger pie.

A four-round, advanced leadership and organizational-behavior simulation set inside Meridian Cardiac Systems, LLC, a USD 310M medical-device firm in Plymouth, Minnesota (19% EBITDA, 1,150 staff). You are the newly promoted General Manager of the 140-person Clinical Operations unit — a beloved, slow, craft-driven team that has posted 98%+ customer satisfaction for eleven straight years but has never scaled a process, published a metric, or operated under an external SLA. Corporate just won a national contract and handed you a mandate to grow supported devices from 40,000 to 120,000 in eighteen months: throughput must climb from ~3,300 to ~10,000 monitoring cases/month, under a 24-hour clinical-response SLA (USD 25,000 per breach, capped USD 1.5M/yr) and FDA 21 CFR 820 complaint-handling exposure — without losing the two senior engineers who personally hold 30% of the top hospital relationships. Using the Competing Values Framework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh; Cameron & Quinn), the OCAI diagnostic, and Quinn's eight competing managerial roles, you (1) diagnose the unit's current and preferred culture across Clan, Adhocracy, Market and Hierarchy and name the gaps as imbalance rather than deficiency; (2) set a deliberate position on the two CVF tensions — flexibility vs control and internal vs external — by allocating a 100-point leadership-attention budget and choosing concrete moves, knowing over-rotation to Market/Hierarchy breaks the clan and staying purely Clan/Adhocracy misses the throughput gap and triggers SLA penalties; (3) build a leadership role portfolio that spans competing quadrants — demonstrating behavioral complexity — under live pressure from the CEO, the two key engineers, and an escalating near-miss adverse-event report, while deliberately keeping the non-negotiable regulatory control; and (4) present and recover a sequenced 90-day plan when a mid-quarter signal shows satisfaction slipping from 98% to 91% and throughput still 20% short — recalibrating the balance rather than whipsawing it. Spend is bounded by a USD 2.0M transition budget the “just hire 120 people” path will blow. The math rewards both/and balance and punishes the five classic errors — pathologizing the culture, over-rotating to control, comfortable same-quadrant role selection, announce-and-move-on, and whipsawing on the first bad signal. Final KPIs track Culture Fit, Throughput Readiness, Stakeholder Trust, and Role Balance.

A four-round, advanced emerging-market strategy simulation set at Sari Wangi Nusantara (SWN), Indonesia's home-grown leader in home and personal care (Rp4,2 triliun revenue, 13% EBITDA, 34% national laundry share, 480.000 warung relationships). On 4 May, a top-three global multinational, Continental Brands (≈USD 70 billion), announces full-scale entry into SWN's core laundry and haircare categories — a national modern-trade listing, a USD 120M (≈Rp1,9 triliun) launch war chest roughly 6× SWN's A&P, and a mass brand priced 12% below SWN. SWN has just Rp350 miliar of deployable capital and 120 days before the modern-trade launch. Playing the CEO and board, you apply Dawar & Frost's 'Competing with Giants' framework: (1) map each category on the two axes — how globalised the competitive pressure is and how transferable SWN's local assets are — and honestly mark the warung network and local product fit as the non-transferable moat; (2) choose a competitive posture per category (Defend the local stronghold, Dodge into defensible niche/value space, Partner/Contend) and set the laundry pricing response, resisting the price-war trap of matching the giant where its scale is strongest; (3) allocate the scarce Rp350 miliar across protecting warung distribution, local R&D, a modern-trade beachhead and at-risk talent — and decide a go/no-go on Continental's lucrative co-distribution partnership that would arm the rival inside SWN's one moat; and (4) interpret the 18-month outcome and pitch the board a survival-and-growth strategy that institutionalises local advantage and expands the playbook into adjacent categories and ASEAN. The math rewards concentrating force on non-transferable local advantage and punishes the five classic errors — fighting the price war, defending everywhere, abandoning the warung moat, arming the rival via partnership, and ignoring the talent raid and modern-trade slotting squeeze. Final KPIs track National Share %, Moat Strength, EBITDA Margin % and Capital Committed against the Rp350 miliar cap.

A four-round, advanced executive-education simulation set inside Meridian Infrastructure Group Ltd, a Melbourne-headquartered diversified infrastructure operator (6,800 staff, AUD 3.1B revenue, 31% EBITDA margin, super-fund owners) mid-way through a once-in-a-generation operating-model change — decarbonising energy assets, absorbing two acquired water utilities, and standing up an integrated control centre, all at once. After 'Project Confluence' failed (two technically outstanding senior leaders escalated a politically charged regulatory-and-community trade-off rather than holding the tension — costing six weeks and a regulator's goodwill), the board's verdict is blunt: 'We don't have a strategy problem. We have a senior-leadership-complexity problem.' As Leadership-Development Director you are handed a hard, no-contingency budget of AUD 2.4M (~AUD 20,000 per leader) to lift the 120 senior leaders from a complexity-readiness baseline of 2.4/5 toward a board-set target of 3.6/5, with a credible 12-month read-out as the deadline. Playing across four rounds you (1) diagnose the gap as a developmental capacity for complexity (per Floris) rather than a skills/training gap, and segment the cohort instead of going one-size-fits-all; (2) design a costed intervention mix within the AUD 2.4M cap that resolves breadth-versus-depth and weights the 70-20-10 logic toward challenging experience and relationships over formal content — resisting the prestige AUD 38,000 external AMP that would blow the budget; (3) allocate scarce executive coaching (a 6-session, AUD 9,000 engagement that only covers 40 of 120 leaders at behaviour-changing depth) under an explicit, defensible rule, extend reach with peer-coaching circles, and hold the line against a sponsoring line executive who lobbies for their own people; and (4) specify a measurement model that evidences observable behaviour change on live trade-offs — not happy-sheets or self-report — connects leading to lagging indicators, embeds a manager-reinforcement sustain mechanism, and survives a board pitch. The math rewards a developmental diagnosis, a 70-20-10-weighted design inside budget, depth-over-dilution coaching under a rule held under pressure, and a transfer-and-sustainment measurement model — and punishes the five classic L&D errors: treating development as training, breaking the budget for prestige, diluting coaching to be 'fair', abandoning the allocation rule to a lobbying sponsor, and measuring satisfaction instead of transfer. Final KPIs track Complexity-Readiness (toward 3.6/5), Budget committed against the AUD 2.4M cap, Time-off-the-job load against a transformation-tolerable envelope, and Board Credibility for the 12-month read-out.

A numerical-playground lab where teens manipulate inputs of compound interest — start age, contribution, rate, fees — to develop felt intuition for exponential growth, the cost of waiting, and the frictions that erode the textbook outcome.

Crisis simulation of a Colombian 4G toll-road concession (SPV) facing a 38% traffic shortfall, DSCR in technical default, fiscal-rule cuts to vigencias futuras, and a stalled consulta-previa segment. Across four rounds — diagnosis, ANI otrosí negotiation, lender refinancing table, and Senate testimony — teams rebuild DSCR, equity IRR, political viability and contractual defensibility, navigating MEC doctrine, fuerza mayor, project-bond credit enhancement and the Ruta del Sol II precedent.

Express simulation 858 (UNAD ECACEN, bilingual). A 12-storey marine-coastal tower in Puerto Colombia returned a 28-day cylinder break of 18.4 MPa on a 28 MPa specification. Teams play the resident engineer / QC lab / procurement triad across four rounds: diagnose the cylinder result, choose between demolish / re-rate / strengthen, lock the steel certification (NTC 2289 vs ASTM A706) and the next pour protocol, and brief the EOR and owner with a defensible service-life number. Trains the separation of strength from durability under chloride exposure, the 0.85·f c investigation threshold, and the discipline of paper-trail under NSR-10.

Two-round audit of recent professional conferences. Round 1: brutally honest cost-benefit per event (cost, days lost, people met, ideas implemented, verdict). Round 2: design 3-5 if-then attendance rules and test them against this year pipeline of possible events. Teaches conference ROI, pre-defined goal discipline, 7-day follow-up, rule-based default vs. inertia, time-as-cost.

A four-round structured reset for working professionals two to six weeks past a visible loss. Separates the factual update from the identity contraction, runs a five-fact competence audit, builds an architectural identity sentence, and schedules a 30-day climb of small wins, one graded re-entry, and one identity-repair conversation — anchored by a named witness and a Day-30 deliverable.

A four-round, advanced corporate-sustainability simulation set inside Verano Alimentos S.A., a fictional Brazilian food & beverage company (R$3,4 bilhões revenue, 7 plants, ~5.800 employees, ~2.300 smallholder suppliers). On 11 March 2026 a respected NGO accuses Verano of greenwashing and supply-chain labour problems; the hashtag trends, the internal brand-trust index has already fallen from 72 to 61/100, and two retail customers worth 22% of revenue (~R$750M) threaten to delist premium SKUs within 45 days unless they see a credible, verified remediation plan. Playing the new Sustainability Manager with a hard R$28M annual budget (fully addressing everything would cost ~R$52M, forcing prioritisation), you (1) diagnose and prioritise stakeholders through a materiality lens — choosing the most material issue (water/effluent and deforestation-linked sourcing) over the loudest one (retail/consumer PR); (2) allocate the R$28M across candidate CSR initiatives — water-treatment retrofit, smallholder traceability & fair-sourcing, rider-welfare, and a cheap-but-photogenic community programme — concentrating on substantive, value-creating spend rather than thin philanthropy; (3) set the reporting scope, framework (glossy comms vs GRI), assurance level (none / limited / reasonable) and boundary (own operations vs full supply chain), trading credibility against exposure; and (4) integrate the plan into a board-and-retailer pitch, choosing calibrated, evidence-bounded claims over the overclaim that re-triggers the backlash. The math encodes the five Common Errors — salience over materiality, thin photogenic spend, substance without assurance, selective disclosure, and overclaiming in recovery — so each wrong strategy measurably underperforms. Final KPIs track Stakeholder Value Index, Brand Trust recovery (toward 72), Reporting Credibility, and Budget committed against the R$28M cap.

Decide repair-vs-rebuild for Edificio Las Acacias (Bucaramanga, 1996, 24 apartments). Read carbonation, half-cell, RCPT and crack-width data; specify CFRP, epoxy class and surface preparation; defend the plan to a copropiedad assembly under NSR-10 Title A.10.

A 12,400 m² institutional build is six weeks from acta de recibo final when one mampostería subcontractor produces a 114% NCR spike. Decide stop-work vs accept-with-rework vs escalation, run the overdue ISO 9001 internal audit, negotiate a CAPA with the interventoría, and defend a single COPQ KPI to the steering committee.

Three-round Colombian civil-works simulation. Run an acta parcial under unit-price contract: classify mayores cantidades vs. obras no previstas, reconstruct a bitácora gap, apply price-adjustment indexing, and hold the line on compliance under CFO cash-flow pressure. Bilingual ES/EN.

Resource-leveling and crew-design simulation. Resolve a 6-week mason-capacity peak on a 14-floor residential tower in Bucaramanga by trading off hiring, overtime and Sunday work — minimizing total cost while protecting the contractual finish date and the bank milestone.

A 700-seat hall, a viral band, and four prices on the table. Students set a face-value ticket price under a municipal lease cap, choose a secondary-market policy, and visualise who captures the surplus — fans, promoter, artist, scalper, or platform — and where deadweight loss appears. Aha moment: total welfare barely moves across policies; the distribution shifts dramatically.

Simulación de adopción del Catálogo Integrado de Hacienda Pública (CHIP) en Hospital San Roberto, una ESE de nivel III en Cali, Colombia. El participante gestiona la transición contable de NGAIP a CHIP, priorizando red flags contables, reconociendo provisiones y depreciaciones bajo IPSAS, y comunicando cambios a reguladores y stakeholders.

Cierre trimestral de una entidad descentralizada del orden nacional bajo PAC restringido, transmisión CHIP y auditoría Contraloría. Los equipos reconcilian saldos contables, priorizan pagos bajo PAC reducido, transmiten formularios CGN2005_001 y defienden tres pilares ante la Contraloría Delegada del Sector Agropecuario.

Simulación de proceso contractual completo de obra civil municipal bajo Ley 80/1993 y Decreto 1082/2015: modalidad de selección, estudios previos, pliego, adjudicación, equilibrio económico y defensa ante veeduría, Procuraduría y Contraloría.

A four-round, advanced management-accounting and control-systems simulation set inside Nordveld Industrial Supplies B.V., a Rotterdam-based B2B distributor of bearings, seals, fasteners and fluid-power parts — €410M revenue, 6.5% operating margin (€26.6M), 720 staff including a 95-strong field sales force, serving 3,400 active business customers across the Benelux and western Germany. A new private-equity owner has set a board target of lifting operating margin from 6.5% to 9% in two years and hired you as Group Controller to make the numbers tell the truth and change behaviour. The catch: Nordveld manages margin only at the gross level by product line, the sales force is paid 80% on revenue and 20% on gross margin, cost-to-serve is invisible to reps, and a first-cut analysis shows the bottom 20% of the top-200 accounts are unprofitable at the operating level, destroying ~€6.5M a year masked by gross-margin reporting. Built on Michael Corbey's management-accounting and control framework, the simulation drills four disciplines. Round 1 — Diagnose: run a customer-profitability / cost-to-serve analysis, build the whale curve, locate the loss-making tail, identify the few cost-to-serve drivers (order frequency, expedited freight, returns) that explain most of the leak, and show how revenue-based commission rewards the wrong customers. Round 2 — Measure: replace 40+ scattered volume metrics with a focused 6–8 KPI scorecard across financial, customer, process and learning perspectives, each with a target, the behaviour it should drive and its gaming risk — and resist the operations team's gameable 'orders shipped' KPI (Goodhart's law). Round 3 — Pay & Reallocate: re-base sales variable pay from revenue toward customer profitability with a transition mechanism, and segment the loss-making tail into reprice / redesign / develop / exit using customer lifetime value — spending a €1.2M change budget on retraining, a rep transition guarantee and pricing-system changes, all while a repriced mid-tail customer threatens to leave. Round 4 — Recover & Defend: time advances one to two quarters and you present to the PE board whether the new control system durably changed behaviour, with the realized operating margin, a goal-congruence score, the CLV of retained accounts, the revenue trend and budget variance. The scoring rewards loading true cost-to-serve, a focused causally-linked scorecard, a phased pay re-base, CLV-aware portfolio surgery and fixing the information system: month-end close and allocation — and measurably punishes the five classic errors: firing the whole tail and under-absorbing fixed cost, re-basing pay overnight and triggering rep flight, building gameable volume KPIs, keeping 40 metrics that focus no one, and repricing without fixing slow closes and arbitrary allocation. Final KPIs track operating margin (% toward the 9% target), the goal-congruence score (/100), retained-customer CLV and budget variance against the €1.2M.

A four-round, advanced corporate-strategy simulation set inside Helvetia Climatec AG, a CHF 480 million Swiss premium-HVAC manufacturer in Zug (11% EBIT, 1,650 staff, 240,000 installed units, 1,200 independent installers, CHF 38M capped R&D). On 5 May 2026 a global consumer-technology platform launches a hardware-agnostic energy operating system — it will “own the home’s energy brain” — and two Swiss utilities bundle it. This is textbook technological convergence (Hacklin): the boundaries between HVAC manufacturing, energy retail and software platforms dissolve, and value migrates from the hardware box to the energy-and-data layer (smart-home OS, dynamic tariffs, demand response, predictive maintenance). The premium hardware margin is projected to compress from 11% toward 6–7%, roughly CHF 20–24M of EBIT at risk. Playing the Head of Strategy, you run the arc diagnose → reconfigure → choose-ecosystem → reallocate-and-defend. Round 1: map where value is migrating, name which asset is defensible (the 240,000 installed units and installer trust) versus exposed (hardware margin), and quantify the EBIT exposure — the defend-the-box reading is the first trap. Round 2: reconfigure the business model toward recurring revenue — climate-as-a-service anchored on the installed base (the modelled path), versus a hollow software-company pivot with no defensible asset, versus simply building a better box — while managing the cannibalization of the 1,200 installers who are also the distribution moat against the platform. Round 3: pick the partner ecosystem before the founding-partner tier closes — component supplier inside the dominant platform (fast but locks in commoditization unless the customer relationship is contracted), a utility-led open alliance, a proprietary Helvetia OS (full control, resource-fragile under the cap), or a European manufacturer coalition — and build a contingency for a key utility threatening to go exclusive with the rival. Round 4: reallocate the fixed CHF 38M R&D budget toward software, connectivity and energy-services (≈CHF 14M) funded only by cutting legacy hardware — a breach of the cap or a refusal to cut is a paper reallocation — then defend the plan to an activist-leaning board on group-EBIT grounds, not a software narrative. The math uses sticky, run-defining penalty flags so the five classic errors — defending the box, narrative without asset, lock-in blindness, an over-ambitious proprietary platform, and paper reallocation — measurably underperform and cannot reach the top verdict, while a clean reconfigure-onto-the-installed-base playthrough can. Final KPIs track value-capture share of the migrating layer (%), group EBIT (CHF M), recurring revenue (CHF M) and ecosystem strength / disruption resilience (0–100).

Draft a CEO-COO operating contract in 60 minutes with CEO Andrés Vargas-Quesada at Petrolia S.A. Negotiate a 12-domain decision-rights matrix — capital allocation thresholds, SVP veto, customer escalations, public voice, board prep, regional GM accountability, M&A, crisis response — with the discipline that exactly one party Decides per cell. Survive four stress-test scenarios (Friday customer crisis, cabinet departure, press question, capex defense) drawn from the Cook-Jobs, Sandberg-Zuckerberg, Iger-Staggs, and Schmidt-Page-Brin partnership canon. The contract is short because it is meant to be held in the head, not consulted in the binder.

MBA capstone simulation in cooperative governance. As GM Joaquín Mendoza-Quirós of a USD 920M Costarian agricultural cooperative with 14,200 worker-member-owners, design an architecture that absorbs USD 120M of new capital, reverses a 56-year-old average member age, and avoids demutualisation drift — across eight architectural-refinement weeks before the August Assembly. Tune Mondragón five-tier governance, preferred-non-voting cap, member-only window, member contribution drive, under-35 quota and Watchdog blocking power, while holding Lucía (Board President), Antonio (Watchdog President), and INFOCOOP (regulator) within the Cooperative Law 4179 envelope.

Design a policy package for Costaria to deliver its Paris NDC of -30% emissions by 2035. Choose between carbon tax, cap-and-trade, or a hybrid; calibrate price, coverage, revenue use, border adjustment, and clean-tech R&D subsidy. Discover that the right answer is not tax-vs-cap — it is the policy mix.

Minister Lucia Arevalo has 18 months to reform Costaria's national health system. Choose between four canonical architectures — status-quo-plus, Beveridge single-payer, Netherlands-style regulated competition, or Singapore-style consumer-directed — and sequence the operational levers (strategic purchasing, supply-side capacity, labor concessions, private-insurance policy, fiscal phasing) that determine whether reform actually lands. An MBA-band Track 3H simulation grounded in real OECD comparator data and the iron-triangle of access, cost, and quality.

A four-round Industry-Verticals MBA simulation that compresses the first ten days of an IDB-financed solar+storage RFP into a bid/no-bid memo, win-theme architecture, integrity due-diligence on a yellow-flagged local partner, and a gate-review with the CEO. Practice the disciplines that decide which bids win before the technical proposal is even written.

Write a cover letter for a real seasonal retail posting at Birch & Bolt Outfitters, get scored 0 to 20 by an AI rubric on hook, fit, specificity, and close, and revise to ship-ready in four 15-minute rounds.

A four-round corporate-innovation simulation set inside Maison Lumière S.A., a 134-year-old French cookware house in Lyon (EUR 410M revenue, 9% EBIT) whose flagship Cocotte Classique has fallen 6% a year for four years. The board has just killed the studio's safe 'Cocotte 2027' line extension and given the 22-person innovation studio EUR 180,000 and 21 days to pitch a genuinely improbable, category-creating idea — or be shut. Playing the intrapreneur team, you apply Sylvain Bureau's Art Thinking ('creating the improbable with certainty') and Schumpeterian creative destruction across four moves: (1) Reframe the brief instead of polishing the answer — refusing 'a better Dutch oven'; (2) Choose and run a disruptive provocation that generates improbable rather than merely novel concepts, while protecting them from next-quarter feasibility filters; (3) Decide what to destroy — naming the SKU, process, margin or heritage product to cannibalise, and honestly booking the EUR 8–12M year-one displacement while turning 'improbable' into a deliverable prototype with proof points; and (4) Pitch the reframe→provocation→destruction→prototype arc to a heritage-protecting board chair and an external investor, securing buy-in for the EUR 3.2M studio budget. The math rewards the disciplined Art Thinking arc — reframing before ideation, suspending feasibility during divergence, naming destruction openly, pairing audacity with credibility, and winning an internal sponsor before the room — and punishes the five classic errors: polishing instead of reframing, novel-but-safe ideas that destroy nothing, killing the improbable too early, hiding the cannibalisation, and vision without delivery. Final KPIs track Improbability, Certainty, Sponsor Buy-in and the remaining pitch budget in EUR.

A four-round, advanced corporate-finance and family-business simulation set inside Grupo Alimentos Bárcena, S.A. de C.V., a Guadalajara packaged-food manufacturer (MX$4,200M revenue, MX$588M EBITDA, 1,150 staff) owned across two generations through a family holding. On Tuesday 9 June 2026 three value-creating opportunities arrive at once — a U.S. retailer's 1,400-store listing chief among them — and the cash to fund them does not: deployable cash is only MX$120M. Playing the CFO, you have until the Family Council vote on Friday 27 June to create value (EVA/NPV at a 13.5% peso WACC) without breaking the 2.5x net-leverage covenant or the 46-year unbroken MX$180M dividend that a four-cousin, dividend-dependent branch will fight to protect — on threat of forcing a MX$900M buyout. Round 1 diagnoses value and liquidity: you establish that the firm creates value yet can only deploy MX$120M against MX$90–240M options, and you read the leverage headroom under the 2.5x cap. Round 2 chooses ONE investment — the MX$240M Querétaro line (highest NPV but above the MX$200M Council-approval threshold and unfundable from cash alone), the MX$180M Texas co-packer (faster U.S. access, integration risk), or the MX$90M Guadalajara automation (lowest risk but too small to serve the listing, exposing a MX$60M chargeback/de-listing penalty if the listing is won then under-served). Round 3 structures the financing mix — bank term loan, non-family private placement, a dividend cut, or a sale-and-leaseback of the Guadalajara plant — modelling pro-forma leverage, WACC, ownership, the dividend, and the governance approvals required. Round 4 wins the Council vote before the independent board member (who asks about value) and the dividend-dependent branch (who asks about income). The math rewards charging every option for its cost of capital (EVA discipline), protecting covenant headroom, pricing the family's control preference and the dividend compact, and serving a won listing — and punishes the five classic errors: highest NPV with no funding or approval path, spending the entire covenant cushion, cutting the dividend unilaterally, growing EBITDA while destroying value, and under-serving the U.S. listing. Final KPIs track EVA (MX$M), NPV (MX$M), the Liquidity Ratio, and Family Governance Fit.

A four-round, advanced fashion/luxury simulation. You are the newly promoted Creative Director of Maison Lievre, a mid-tier Parisian ready-to-wear house (EUR 88M revenue, 11% EBIT) where a private-equity fund just took 60% and installed a commercially aggressive CEO. The founder's grandson — you — has a fixed runway slot on 2 March at Paris Fashion Week, a hard EUR 2.4M collection budget, and a split mandate the role has never had to hold at once: runway acclaim AND a measurable lift in sell-through. Last season earned a Vogue rave but only 38% full-price sell-through (segment healthy is 65–70%), pushing 42% of the line into margin-destroying markdown. The board now wants ≥62% sell-through, ≥3 tier-1 editorial placements, and the 4 anchor department-store doors (22% of wholesale) kept on side. Across four rounds you (1) set the creative thesis and a deliberate novelty mix targeting 'optimal newness' rather than maximal novelty or maximal safety; (2) allocate the EUR 2.4M as a portfolio across novelty tiers, decide show-vs-product spend, and protect a contingency for the atelier's warned 18% overrun; (3) choose an explicit, defensible design-evaluation method (curatorial single-vision vs cross-functional panel vs data-anchored scoring) and resolve the Head of Design conflict over the radical show-anchor look — valuing it on portfolio editorial pull, not standalone margin; and (4) read the season result against the dual mandate and propose a repeatable creativity-evaluation and creative-governance model. The math rewards optimal newness, portfolio budgeting with a real contingency, defensible cross-functional/data-anchored evaluation, keeping the statement look as the line's signal, and an honest governance answer — and punishes the five classic errors: maximising novelty to win the show, over-correcting to safe carry-overs, committing the full budget with no contingency, selecting by feel, and cutting the show anchor on its sell-through number alone. Final KPIs track Full-Price Sell-Through %, Brand Heat (editorial pull and novelty), and Creative Governance (a repeatable, defensible process), against the EUR 2.4M cap.

A four-round, advanced entrepreneurship & creative-industries simulation set inside Filo Studio S.r.l., a Milan direct-to-consumer fashion startup (19 employees, EUR 2.8M Year-3 revenue at 70% D2C / 20% wholesale / 10% collaborations, a 140,000-strong engaged community, 100% domestic). In one week a celebrity wears its signature knit (traffic 9×, a EUR 180k drop sells out in 48h, ~EUR 320k of demand lost to fixed capacity), an ultra-fast-fashion retailer copies the knit at one-sixth the price, and the lead investor makes the second EUR 800k tranche of a closed EUR 1.4M seed conditional on a reshaped, less founder-dependent business model AND a credible internationalization plan within six weeks — runway falls from 11 to 5 months if the tranche is withheld. A ring-fenced EUR 600k knowledge-and-capability budget (it cannot buy inventory) must be invested where capability compounds. Playing the founding team, you (1) diagnose the genuinely defensible creative assets — design signature, the 140k community, low-waste know-how, traceability — versus the easily copied product, and the model's three constraints (capacity-bound drops, founder dependence, domestic-only); (2) reshape the business model away from capacity-limited drops toward licensing, a membership/community model, a designer platform, B2B creative services and/or made-to-order, set a target revenue mix, and systematize the design signature so it survives without the founders touching every piece; (3) choose an internationalization entry mode — digital-first export, wholesale via foreign multi-brand retailers, licensing/partnership, showroom/agent into a fashion capital, or a joint venture — picking the mode whose knowledge and network/social-capital requirements the firm can leverage or efficiently acquire (Pirolo's lens); and (4) allocate the EUR 600k knowledge budget across capability buckets (senior commercial/design-ops hires, design-system & IP, market knowledge & localization, partnership/network development, community-platform tooling) and pitch the integrated pivot to unlock the EUR 800k tranche, setting balanced 18-month KPIs across revenue mix, market-entry ROI, brand equity and knowledge-asset utilization. The math rewards capturing value from the defensible, founder-independent assets, an entry mode matched to the firm's knowledge and network, and a compounding-capability budget — and punishes the documented errors: scaling the copyable viral product into a price war it cannot win, keeping every design routed through the founders, choosing high-control owned expansion with no local buyers or market knowledge, spending the ring-fenced knowledge budget on marketing or inventory, licensing the signature broadly until the community feels the brand sold out, and setting revenue-only KPIs that hide eroding brand equity. Final KPIs track Defensible Scalability, Brand Equity (community), Internationalization Readiness and the EUR 600k Knowledge-budget compounding — and the runway that decides whether the tranche unlocks.

Decide rationally between a $40K–$300K credential and the alternative bundle that competes with it. Score signaling, learning, and community honestly; price the counter-bundle; choose go / downgrade / skip / wait.

MBA Track 3E crisis-comms simulation. The CCO designate, General Counsel and CEO of CoEditor.io have fourteen minutes since a security researcher tweeted that customer documents are exposed. Three rounds — Diagnose, Design, Defend — exercise the four-step diagnostic frame (Coombs SCCT), the six designed artefacts (posture, statement, sequence, CEO appearance ladder, do-not-say list, cadence calendar), and the legal-floor / trust-ceiling negotiation under fact mutation. Built against J&J Tylenol, Maersk NotPetya, Southwest 2022 (positive references) and BP Deepwater Horizon, Boeing MAX, United 3411, Equifax 2017 (negative references).

Practice external crisis communications under a 2-hour vacuum clock. Across 4 rounds you will sequence stakeholders, draft a defensible 150–250 word holding statement, design same-facts-different-framing channel variants, correct misinformation without amplification, and commit to a structural hour-72 change with named accountability. Built on Coombs SCCT and Lukaszewski crisis-comms practitioner standards.

A 4-round director-level simulation: diagnose a same-day internal crisis, choose audience and informal-leader sequencing, draft an opening 90 seconds that names the hard thing, pick the right medium ladder and 4-stage message architecture, and commit to a 48-hour follow-up plan. Coaches against the most common errors — wrong-medium first touch, passive ownership language, false certainty, skipping informal leaders, empathy-only or operations-only, and disappearing after the first comm.

A four-round, advanced corporate-finance and M&A simulation. You lead M&A at Hexagone Matériaux SA, a Euronext-listed €2.1B French specialty-materials group (17% EBITDA margin, €357M; net debt 1.8x EBITDA) under a board mandate to enter Central/Eastern Europe by acquisition and a net-zero-by-2040 commitment that ties its cost of capital to its ESG profile. The target is PolnaChem Sp. z o.o., a profitable founder-owned Polish specialty-coatings producer (€60M EBITDA). Its owners want 8.5x EBITDA (≈ €510M); comparable European coatings deals trade at 6.5–7.0x. The target carries a +40% carbon-intensity gap, two sites without EU-aligned permits (≈€45M remediation capex over three years), and a trust differential — the founder personally holds the top customer relationships and a low-trust integration historically destroys 20–30% of synergy. A rival bidder is circling and the board caps post-close leverage at ≤2.5x EBITDA (an all-cash 8.5x bid hits 2.7x, breaching the ceiling). Hexagone's last cross-border deal failed precisely because the team priced on financials alone and was blindsided by ESG liabilities and a collapse of trust; the board has now made ESG and trust diligence mandatory in the investment case. Round 1 — Screen & diligence: run the two mandated lenses (ESG: permits, carbon, remediation, transition risk; trust: founder dependency, retention risk, cultural distance) against the rival's clock, and read the findings for what the financials don't show. Round 2 — Price the bid: adjust the valuation explicitly for ESG (remediation capex, transition risk, the green cost-of-capital effect) and trust (a 25% synergy haircut), then set a disciplined walk-away and an opening bid — a premium over comps is only justified by realisable synergy, and crossing your own walk-away is the winner's curse. Round 3 — Structure under the financing constraint: choose the cash/equity mix to stay under the 2.5x ceiling, an earn-out tied to ESG-compliance and customer-retention milestones, a founder lock-in with enhanced reps-and-warranties, and whether to use a sustainability-linked facility (≈35 bps margin benefit). Round 4 — Recommend to the investment committee and react to a live rival escalation to 8.7x: hold, raise, or walk, and defend the integrated case (price, ESG-and-trust adjustments, structure, financing cost, completion probability) together. The model rewards diligence-as-value-protection, ESG-and-trust-adjusted pricing, walk-away discipline, structuring within the leverage ceiling, and the use of sustainability-linked finance — and punishes the five classic errors via sticky penalty gates: financials-only pricing, the winner's curse, ignoring founder dependency, breaching the financing ceiling, and skipping diligence for speed. Final KPIs track Deal NPV (value created, €M), completion probability (%), post-close leverage (× EBITDA) and an ESG-&-trust risk index. Winning the asset and creating value are not the same thing.

Recover a four-country bioceanic corridor under fiscal, customs and indigenous-rights pressure — close the US$ 96M financing gap, sign the Rumichaca interoperability protocol, settle the Putumayo consulta previa, and lock one defensible commitment for the COSIPLAN ministerial.

A four-round, advanced higher-education strategy and international-programme-design simulation set inside Atlantique Business School (ABS), a triple-accredited French grande école in Nantes. On 14 September 2026 the board greenlights “Programme Atlantique Global” — a 14-month Executive Master in International Management, co-delivered with foreign partners, on a fixed €1.2M design-and-launch budget, breaking even at 45 paying executives (at €32,000 tuition) by cohort 2. Playing the Programs Director, you must build a credible international programme while navigating an unusual coopetition web: Lumière École de Management in Lyon is simultaneously ABS's rival for French candidates and its partner in a shared Singapore recruitment office. Round 1 (Diagnose): articulate the programme's value proposition, decide which capability — pricing, candidate pipeline, faculty IP — ABS must keep in-house, and rank three imperfect partners on a fit rubric (a prestige US school demanding €9,000/student, a strong-fit Singapore school, a high-demand Brazilian school with an accreditation gap). Round 2 (Plan): choose a partner architecture and draw the coopetition boundary with Lumière — which assets to pool and which to wall off — inside the €1.2M envelope, while pricing the Brazil accreditation risk. The cheapest path, full co-ownership, is also the one that most erodes ABS's defensible position. Round 3 (Decide): reconcile French, partner and learner calendars, embed cross-cultural pedagogy by design rather than translation, and set an enrolment target the cohort P&L breaks even on — at the conservative 45, not the optimistic 58. Round 4 (Recover): assemble the accreditation documentation package against the December 2026 deadline and present a go/no-go to the Dean. The scoring wires the concept's five common errors into sticky, run-defining penalty flags: brand chasing (prestige without modelling the €9,000/student share), ceding the coopetition boundary (full co-ownership leaks pricing and pipeline — the headline anti-pattern that gates the top verdict), export-not-design (low cultural alignment caps enrolment below break-even), ignoring accreditation timing (a Brazil rejection sinks €740K and slips the launch a year), optimistic enrolment (break-even built at the top of the demand range), and under-investment (one weak partner plus thin spend). Final KPIs track budget committed (of €1.2M), projected enrolment (vs the 45-student break-even), cultural alignment (/100), competitive-core protection (/100) and cost per student (€).

Diagnose, respond to, and operate around the canonical 'it is complicated' engineering email. Three rounds — Diagnose, Respond, Operate — built on PagoCosta's Marina/Diego artefact: classify the four signal channels (technical claim, risk flag, clarification request, political signal); compose a forced-choice-frame reply that avoids the yes/no demand and the deferral; design a standing operating cadence that survives three stress-tests.

A four-round, intermediate emerging-leader simulation set inside Aldgate Advisory, a London-headquartered risk and regulatory advisory firm (1,350 people, GBP 198M revenue, a 3-day hybrid model with a Manchester hub and ~30% fully distributed staff). It is Monday 9 March 2026 and you are eight weeks into your first people-management role. Priya — a 28-year-old senior analyst, one of your two highest performers, one of two women in a nine-person team, staffed on a GBP 1.2M client account — sends a flat message after a missed promotion cycle: "I've been thinking about whether this is really for me." She has gone quiet in standups, declined the last two office days, and a peer mentions she has been talking to a recruiter — whose call lands in five working days, the same week as a client deadline. Losing her costs ~GBP 95,000 and exposes the account renewal. Aldgate's exit interviews keep surfacing the same pattern: talented people leave not over pay, but over a quiet sense of being on the wrong path — a career-regret signal new managers were never equipped to read. Round 1: weigh the evidence and diagnose the ambiguous signal (pay, relationship, mood, or a career-regret/identity signal), name the single most important unknown to test, and read your own thin credibility. Round 2: decide how to show up — channel and setting (a quick virtual call, a message, or a deliberate in-person Manchester-hub day), timing inside the five-day window (parking it behind the client deadline closes the window), the design of a structured stay conversation, and what the wider team reads into your response. Round 3: choose a development action that fits the diagnosed root cause — role re-crafting (the low-cost, identity-based lever), a coaching referral, a vague follow-up, or a compensation/promotion-timeline offer (the transactional over-correction) — and run the feasibility check on what an eight-week leader can authorise versus escalate to the skip-level director and People Partner. Round 4: present a 90-day adjustment-and-credibility plan with leading indicators, rebuild credibility with the whole team, and connect retaining a high-potential woman to the firm's leadership-pipeline goal. The math rewards diagnosing before acting, deliberate presence, an identity-fit response, and credible commitment within real authority — and punishes the five classic errors: acting before diagnosing, a transactional fix for a meaning problem, default-virtual avoidance, prioritising the urgent client deadline over the closing window, and over-promising beyond authority. Final KPIs track regret-signal resolution (0-100), Priya's stay probability (%), leader credibility (0-10) and authority/spend used (GBP). Drawn from Budjanovcanin's research on career adjustment, occupational regret and identity-based leadership.

A Level-4 open-innovation strategy simulation set at Aurena Group AG, a Hamburg-based EUR 2.6bn consumer-products firm whose public crowdsourcing platform “Aurena Open” has 180,000 contributors but a pipeline gone incremental. The board wants the next challenge to surface and fund a genuinely distant, category-breaking idea — yet the firm has a documented habit of filtering out exactly those ideas. Over four rounds you run the open-innovation funnel and discover the central paradox of crowdsourcing (Dahlander & Piezunka): the binding constraint is not idea generation but ATTENTION. Round 1 — diagnose where in the funnel distant ideas die and define a working measure of idea distance. Round 2 — frame the crowdsourcing call: a narrow on-brand prompt yields 4,000 tidy near ideas; an open provocative prompt yields fewer but far more distant submissions at the cost of triage difficulty; incentives and submission format (free-form vs templated) further shape volume vs novelty. Round 3 — allocate the binding attention budget: only 120 of the 4,000 submissions can be deeply reviewed (3%). Choose the triage mechanism (crowd-vote ranking favours the familiar; homogeneous expert cherry-picking reproduces “looks-like-us” narrowing; a deliberate distance-aware mechanism protects attention for outliers), the share of the 120 slots quarantined for high-novelty outliers, and the diversity of the review panel — each changes the distant-idea capture rate. Round 4 — allocate the EUR 6,000,000 development budget across a safe near idea (EUR 4M credible case, low novelty) and a distant idea (EUR 20M upside, high uncertainty, lukewarm sponsor), deciding whether to stage/pilot the moonshot (real-options de-risking) and how hard to win over the reluctant sponsor. The engine encodes the real tensions so wrong strategies underperform: a narrow call caps the distant ideas that can ever enter; crowd-vote or homogeneous-expert triage with no reserved slots drops the capture rate to ~4%; funding only the near idea defeats the board mandate; betting the whole EUR 6M unstaged on the moonshot risks the budget and the EUR 4M/year platform. Tracks Distant-Idea Capture Rate, Average Novelty of the reviewed pool, Suggestions Deeply Reviewed, Innovation Value (EUR), Budget Allocated, and Platform Status. Teaches distant vs local search, attention as the scarce resource to be budgeted, absorptive capacity and diverse reviewers, and real-options funding of novelty.

Three-round CSRD program-management simulation: as Lucia Romero-Gallego, CSRD program manager at Petrolia, you have 89 days to file the firm first ESRS-aligned sustainability statement. Practice the double-materiality methodology (Adams, Schaltegger), the data-gap triage discipline (Mahoney, Hopwood/Unerman/Fries), the ESRS 2 narrative craft (Eccles & Krzus, EFRAG IG 3), and the senior-peer voice that says no to greenwashing first and yes to defensibility second.

A 28-employee metalmecánica PYME in Bogotá restructures: four terminations under different legal architectures, three new hires under three contract modalities, a prolonged work-injury, and a MinTrabajo inspection. Apply the Código Sustantivo del Trabajo as the operating manual of a real SME — bilingual delivery (ES/EN).

A four-round, advanced knowledge-and-innovation-management simulation set inside Atelier Numérique S.A., a 1,600-engineer French engineering-and-technology services firm in Toulouse (EUR 210M revenue, 11% margin) that grew by acquisition into rigid, project-siloed business units. After a EUR 4.2M rail-signalling loss — caused by a real-time-determinism problem the Toulouse aerospace group had already solved and archived eighteen months earlier — the CEO appoints a Head of Innovation & Knowledge with a EUR 1.2M annual budget, a 5%-of-engineers'-time cap, and 12 months to demonstrably accelerate organisational learning without disrupting billable delivery. The firm re-invents ≈30% of new-project hours (≈EUR 11M/year of recoverable waste), its tacit expertise lives in three near-retiring senior architects, and a previous top-down 'Knowledge Management' portal earned 9% compliance. Through Dupouët's lens of community dynamics, Wenger's communities of practice, the SECI tacit/explicit model and absorptive capacity, you (1) map the knowledge flows and classify domains by tacitness and breadth, deciding which need cultivated communities versus codified hierarchy; (2) allocate the EUR 1.2M across structural options — communities of practice, a codified repository, expert directories, rotation/shadowing, an internal conference and digital tools — matching structure to knowledge type without repeating the repository reflex; (3) cultivate engagement and legitimacy — resource community coordinators, ring-fence billable time and defend it when a delivery director demands the 5% be cut to 2%, secure sponsorship without over-formalising the community into bureaucracy, and draw the retiring architects' tacit knowledge into circulation before they leave; and (4) commit a 12-month learning architecture with quarterly KPI checkpoints and pitch the CEO a credible structure-to-outcome chain. The math rewards genuine, cultivated, well-matched community-and-hierarchy design and punishes the five classic errors — the repository reflex, mandating communities into existence, one model for all knowledge, no protected time, and caving to delivery pressure. Final KPIs track Knowledge-Sharing & Reuse Rate %, Community Engagement, Innovation Output and Value Recovered against the EUR 11M waste.

MBA-track cross-cultural negotiation lab. The pod runs the same USD 6.3M SaaS contract through Mitsuyama Trust Bank (Tokyo), Hartmann-Schreiber Maschinenbau (Stuttgart) and Grupo Aramburu Varejo (São Paulo). Three rounds — Diagnose, Design, Defend — apply Hofstede, Trompenaars, Meyer and Brett to read culturally-loaded yes/no signals, design three deal-specific scripts and a meta-protocol, and defend the recommendation to CEO, CFO and Country GMs.

A four-round, advanced governance and conduct-risk simulation set inside Bank Pertiwi Berhad, a RM 92 billion Kuala Lumpur commercial bank regulated by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM). Three years ago the bank lifted fee income 28% with steep individual sales incentives and a public league table — and, unnoticed, rebuilt the exact conditions that produce mis-selling scandals. On 16 March 2026 internal audit flags the early signature of systematic mis-selling at 18 top-of-league-table branches: ~2,400 customers possibly sold credit-protection insurance without consent, RM 14–22M remediation exposure, 41% of sellers reporting target pressure (up from 19%) and an 8% speak-up rate. The board meets in two weeks; BNM has not been told. Playing the Chief Governance Officer, you steer the response through Elsa Satkunasingam's lens — that controls alone do not prevent misconduct, and rules layered on a toxic culture push it underground rather than ending it. Round 1: diagnose symptom or system — bad apples, a control gap, or a bad barrel — read the 8% speak-up rate (suppressed signal, not reassurance), and estimate how many of the 192 un-flagged branches share the risk. Round 2: design the response across two levers, controls and culture, and decide the sequencing — the rules-only trap leaves the misconduct-risk index high. Round 3 (the core): commit four decisions — keep, scrap or redesign the incentive scheme (scrapping costs 8–10 points of fee growth); self-report, investigate-then-report, or hold disclosure to BNM (concealment turns a RM 14M remediation into a RM 30M enforcement action when BNM discovers it independently); hold the frontline only or the whole system accountable; and provision customer remediation. Round 4: a complication lands — a journalist, a BNM thematic review and a whistleblower emailing the board chair — and you brief the board, where the honest one-sentence diagnosis must name the incentive culture rather than 'a few bad apples'. The math wires the concept's five common errors as sticky, run-defining penalties: bad-apples framing caps culture health, rules-only floors the misconduct-risk index near 78, concealment collapses compliance and board confidence, wholesale over-correction caps fee growth, and a sanitised brief caps board confidence — so no single good round can wash out a headline anti-pattern, and a blind click-through of the error-leaning defaults cannot win. Final KPIs track the misconduct-risk index (lower is safer), compliance standing, board confidence and culture health.

A four-round, advanced executive-education design simulation set inside Instituto Cumbre de Alta Dirección (ICAD), the exec-ed arm of a Monterrey private university billing ~MXN 210M/year, AACSB-accredited and preparing an EQUIS review. On Tuesday 14 April 2026 a MXN 60-billion industrial group signs a custom "Leading Enterprise Transformation" program for 35 directors with a hard launch on Monday 1 June and committee sign-off due Friday 8 May. The design must be locked in seven weeks under four binding constraints: a 96 contact-hour envelope (12 days × 8h, cut from a 140h scope — 44h must go), six contractually-required learning outcomes (strategy execution, financial acumen, leading change, customer/market, digital, personal leadership), only 9 of 28 core faculty free in the window with the two strongest change professors already committed, and an assurance-of-learning audit trail where an outcome that is taught but never assessed is an audit failure — with 20% of ICAD's fee tied to a post-program outcome assessment and a rival business school already pitching the client. Playing the program design team, you (1) DIAGNOSE the brief — frame the constraints as one joint system, read the coverage matrix to find gaps and redundancies, and confirm the hours math against the 96h cap; (2) SEQUENCE & SELECT modules to fit 96 hours into a deliberate foundations → application → integration → personal-leadership arc rather than a playlist of good sessions; (3) set the FACULTY-vs-PRACTITIONER delivery mix without strip-mining the two star professors or hollowing out qualified-faculty coverage, and design ASSESSMENTS that evidence each outcome (pre/post diagnostic, applied project on the client's real transformation, faculty-graded deliverable); and (4) DEFEND the design to the quality-and-accreditation committee chair with the client CHRO in the room. The math rewards a coherent, assessment-aligned design that clears all four KPIs at once — and punishes the five classic errors: coverage over capacity (blowing the 96h cap), a playlist with no arc, star-faculty overload, outcomes taught but never assessed, and practitioner-everywhere staffing. Final KPIs track Outcome Coverage %, Faculty Utilization, Participant Satisfaction and Accreditation Compliance.

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.

A four-round, advanced executive-education simulation set inside Lakeshore Executive Education, the custom-programmes unit of a top-ranked North American business school in Ann Arbor, Michigan ($38M revenue, 90 faculty, 71 NPS — but only a 38% proposal win rate). On 5 October 2026 Aurora Health Networks, a $9B hospital system with a new CEO, issues an RFP with a 3-week clock: develop 180 senior clinical and operational leaders who 'manage budgets but cannot lead change.' You play the Exec-Ed Director against two rival schools, with a fixed $1,200,000 budget (~18 faculty-days, 2 residency weeks), a 4-month launch deadline, a 9-month run, four cohorts of ~45, a 30% margin floor, and a 3-year, $4,000,000 renewal riding on Year-1 evidence. Across four rounds you (1) scope the REAL challenge — translate the wish-list 'strategy, finance, innovation, resilience' into the single diagnosed need (competent operators who have never led change through others) rather than building four content tracks; (2) design the learning architecture backward from outcomes, choosing the experience-to-content ratio with 70-20-10 logic and immersive-residency principles, plus a four-wave cohort plan; (3) allocate the $1.2M and 18 faculty-days across marquee tenured faculty ($22k/day) vs professors of practice ($9k/day), a bespoke change-leadership simulation ($60k), an action-learning project, and a coaching pool ($450/hour) while protecting a 30% margin and faculty sustainability; and (4) set Kirkpatrick L3/L4 success metrics — change-readiness pre/post, a live improvement project per leader, manager-observed behaviour, a target NPS — and pitch the CEO, who probes for over-promising and unverifiable metrics. The math rewards diagnosis-first, experience-weighted, margin-protected, L3/L4-contracted design and punishes the five classic errors: designing from the wish-list, curriculum over-stuffing, prestige over pedagogy, smile-sheet metrics, and winning at the expense of delivery. Final KPIs track Client-Needs Fit, Budget Utilisation & Margin, Learner Impact, and NPS against the 71 benchmark.

A four-round, intermediate executive-education simulation set inside Biscayne Executive Learning (BEL), the custom-programs unit of a Miami business school billing $14M a year on a 28% contribution margin, where 64% of revenue is repeat business. MeridianHealth — a 9,000-employee hospital network and BEL's second-largest account ($1.9M over three years) — issues an urgent, over-scoped brief: design and deliver a leadership program for 48 newly promoted clinical managers, live in 8 weeks, for no more than 4 classroom days, under a hard $280,000 ceiling. The one-page brief lists 11 desired topics that would cost ~$410,000 to build fully; a national competitor is quoting a polished off-the-shelf academy at $240,000; and a 5-year, $3.2M master-services renewal in Q4 hinges on whether this 'audition' cohort feels genuinely built for the client. Playing the Custom Programs Lead, you (1) decode the brief — separating the client's stated wants from the underlying business problem (clinical experts failing as first-time managers, driving retention and patient-safety risk) and prioritizing the 11 topics to a core 3–4 via backward design; (2) configure the program from a module library under the iron triangle of scope, time and cost — choosing formats, build-vs-reuse, and resolving the faculty gap (wait for the marquee name, substitute, or partner externally) inside the ≤4-day and ≤8-week caps; (3) price the engagement — building the cost stack, choosing a pricing posture (match the competitor at $240K, hold at $280K with a differentiation argument, or phase the deal), and protecting a ≥25% contribution margin while distinguishing cutting price from cutting cost from cutting scope; and (4) defend the proposal to the CHRO, handling the topic-drop, the $40K price gap and the timeline objections without giving away margin or over-promising. The math rewards backward-designed, on-time, profitable, genuinely customized programs and punishes the five classic errors — topic-stuffing all 11, pricing to win below the margin floor, premium price with no differentiation, over-promising the 8-week timeline against faculty lead-times, and one-off margin-squeezing that forfeits the $3.2M renewal. Final KPIs track Contribution Margin %, Client Fit, Renewal Probability and Deliverability against the $280K ceiling, the 4-day cap and the 8-week window.

A four-round, advanced executive-education design simulation set inside Meridian Executive Learning, the custom-programmes unit of a London business school (GBP 14.2M revenue, 22% margin, 38 client engagements, a 140-strong contracted-faculty pool). Meridian is admired for design quality but only 41% of its clients can evidence behaviour change and renewals sit at 58%, below the 70% benchmark. A flagship bid is in play: Halford Industrial, a GBP 2.1B engineering group, has issued an RFP to develop 220 newly promoted mid-level managers on a board-set, non-negotiable GBP 480,000 budget — GBP 2,182 per head — with delivery in 10 weeks, proposals due in 3, and three competitors bidding. The sponsor's renewal of the GBP 1.4M three-year account is gated on measurable behaviour change at a 90-day checkpoint. Playing Meridian's programme director, you architect the bid across four rounds. Round 1: separate the stated need (finance, strategy, communication modules) from the diagnosed business challenge (managers not making cross-functional decisions or holding accountability — a behaviour problem) and write a measurable target-outcome statement. Round 2: choose the delivery format — fully residential (~GBP 3,400/head, premium but unaffordable at 220), blended digital-plus-workshop (~GBP 1,900/head, balanced), or self-paced digital with coaching (~GBP 950/head, weakest on behaviour) — reconcile it to the 18 available top-faculty days, and allocate the GBP 480,000 envelope across design, delivery, faculty and measurement. Round 3: engineer Kirkpatrick / Phillips Level 3-4 measurement (the ~GBP 45,000 evidence build) and the 70-20-10 workplace-application mechanism that makes behaviour actually shift, defending the content-versus-measurement trade-off. Round 4: pitch the architecture to the board sponsor, defend what was not funded, project the four KPIs and commit to the 90-day evidence checkpoint that earns renewal. The math rewards diagnosing the real need, an affordable in-budget format, funded measurement and built-in application, and credible outcome-setting — and punishes the five classic errors: order-taking to the RFP brief, picking premium residential and blowing the budget, cutting measurement to add content, content without workplace application, and optimising for satisfaction (Level 1) when renewal is gated on behaviour (Level 3). Final KPIs track needs-alignment score (%), projected behaviour change (%), client satisfaction (%) and budget adherence.

A four-round, advanced executive-education and professional-services simulation set inside the Centre for Business Excellence (CBE-Adriatic), the exec-ed arm of a leading Central-European business school in Ljubljana, Slovenia. In 2025 the centre ran 71 programs for 38 corporate clients, generating EUR 6.8M at a 34% blended contribution margin, drawing on a pool of 45 faculty and practitioners whose senior time is its scarcest resource. On 3 February 2026 NovaBank Group issues an RFP for a 12-month leadership-and-digital-transformation program for 90 managers, with a possible multi-year extension and an indicated budget of EUR 540,000. As Centre Director you must scope a proposal that wins the client and protects both margin and faculty capacity. The catch: NovaBank's full wish list — fully residential delivery, 1:1 executive coaching, a digital-learning platform, and embedded transformation consulting — costs out at a 19% margin (four points below the board's hard 30% floor) and consumes 34 star-faculty days when your two most-requested professors have only 18 and 22 days left, with three other live deals and a loyal EUR 180,000 repeat sustainability client competing for the same calendar. Round 1: read the brief and separate NovaBank's underlying objective (build digital-ready leaders) from its specified solution, costing the wished-for bundle and mapping the capacity conflict. Round 2: the core decision — choose delivery format (residential / blended / largely online), faculty mix (star-professor vs adjunct and external-consultant days), and consulting add-on depth, assembling an architecture that clears the 30% margin floor, fits available star-faculty days, and still delivers a credible, client-fit solution priced against the EUR 540,000 budget. Round 3: resolve a live squeeze as procurement pushes for more star face-time at the same budget and the repeat client confirms it needs its program on overlapping dates — substitute faculty, trade concessions for term or volume, and make the call on the repeat-client conflict weighing client lifetime value. Round 4: pitch the engagement to NovaBank's L&D sponsor, selling impact over activity and forecasting the four KPIs. The math rewards solution design over order-taking, profitability engineered in the design phase, disciplined faculty-capacity management, paid-for concessions, and outcome-based positioning — and punishes the classic errors: order-taking that breaches the margin floor, over-correcting on margin by stripping the premium the client is paying for, capacity blindness, free concessions, and selling activity rather than business impact. Final KPIs track client NPS, program margin (held at or above 30%), faculty utilisation, and the repeat-business rate.

Manage Helix, a B2B SaaS company, across 6 quarters by balancing customer acquisition, retention, and monetization decisions. Build toward Series B qualification by improving NRR, LTV:CAC ratio, CAC payback period, and cash runway.

Executive-education simulation that puts you in the COO seat at Costaria Mutual during the first 72 hours of a ransomware-with-suspected-exfil incident. Across four rounds — Saturday 06:01 chair call, Saturday 16:32 disclosure-and-ransom cabinet, Monday 09:00 all-hands, Wednesday 11:00 risk committee — you commit to documented decisions on containment, disclosure cadence, ransom posture, all-hands framing, and post-incident playbook edits. Anchored in NIST SP 800-61, SANS PICERL, the Maersk NotPetya 2017 reconstruction, the Equifax 2017 counter-example, the Colonial Pipeline 2021 ransom-decision constitution, and the IBM/Ponemon governance-maturity baseline.

A four-round, advanced corporate-strategy simulation set inside Aceros del Plata S.A., a mid-sized Argentine long-steel producer (one EAF mini-mill, two rolling lines, 600,000 t nameplate, ~78% utilization, 1,150 employees, AR$540,000M ≈ US$450M 2025 revenue, 16% EBITDA margin, 12% ROIC, 1.4x net leverage, 22% domestic share behind a ~45% incumbent). It is May 2026 and you are the VP Strategy. Two years of strong construction demand and a stabilizing peso have pushed effective utilization to ~92% at peak, and the board wants to approve a US$140M (AR$168,000M) third rolling line and furnace upgrade that would lift capacity 40%. But the market-intelligence team is flashing red: cement dispatches down two quarters, central-bank tightening, a sovereign spread out 250bps, and leading indicators pointing to a downturn within 12–18 months. The new line takes 24 months to commission — straight into the projected trough. Funding it all with US$ debt pushes net leverage toward ~3.4x on PEAK EBITDA, against a 3.5x covenant — and to ~5.0x on trough EBITDA, a breach. Across four rounds you (1) read the cycle and build a base/downside/upside scenario set with a probability and timing for the next downturn; (2) time the capacity investment — approve now, defer to the trough, phase it, or decline — modelling ROIC and downside survival probability against the 24-month lag and irreversibility; (3) set the financial posture — financing mix, a net-leverage ceiling judged on TROUGH not peak EBITDA, a liquidity buffer sized to the downside, and FX hedging on US$-priced CapEx against AR$ revenues; and (4) make the competitive move — match the incumbent's expansion, hold and defend share on cost/service, or preserve dry powder to acquire the distressed rival (≈US$60M) at the bottom. The math rewards cycle-aware timing, trough-tested leverage with a real liquidity buffer, hedged FX, and a pre-committed counter-cyclical option — and punishes the five classic errors: building full capacity at the peak, extrapolating peak demand as trend, sizing debt to peak EBITDA into a covenant breach, hoarding cash and forfeiting the acquisition, and leaving US$ CapEx unhedged against AR$ cash flows. Final KPIs track ROIC, Downside Survival Probability, Trough Net Leverage vs the 3.5x covenant, and Strategic Position. Built on Roberto Vassolo's through-the-cycle strategy in emerging markets.

Junior data analyst at Brightline Supply Co. has 118 minutes to define a churn KPI, write defensible SQL, clean dirty data, and deliver a one-page board-ready story to the CEO. Practices operational KPI definition, SELECT and JOIN discipline, query-plan literacy, NULL handling as editorial decision, and the analyst recommendation as the actual deliverable.

Sofia Linares-Trujillo, Customer Operations Manager at Caribia Banca Digital, handles four privacy-adjacent incidents stacked on her desk in a single Monday morning: a customer DSAR, an Apura third-party integration with four yellow flags, a marketing-list collision the night before send, and an internal Slack screenshot leak. Participants make line-manager calls anchored in GDPR / Ley 172-13, Solove, Cavoukian, Hartzog, NIST Privacy Framework, and Schrems II.

Redesign five bad Helio Verde quarterly-review charts using Tufte data-ink discipline, Cleveland perceptual hierarchy, Munzner task taxonomy, and modern colourblind-safe craft. Score every redesign against a six-item discipline checklist (chart-type fit, data-ink, perceptual encoding, colour accessibility, axis honesty, labelling completeness). Discover that the chart is not the deliverable — the argument is.

Simulation placing participants as Chief Analytics Officers at Mercantia S.A., investigating root causes of profit decline across five interconnected BI dashboard modules using analytical frameworks and data-driven reasoning

Solve 6 business mysteries of increasing SQL complexity against a fictional e-commerce database. Practice translating business questions into query strategies using JOINs, aggregation, window functions, CTEs, and anomaly detection.

A 48-hour Marketing Operations scramble at Caribia Banca Digital. Scope a confused CMO ask, rebuild a 12-chart dashboard, write a one-page attribution-method note, and produce a decision-grade exec slide for the board. Practises Tufte, Few, Kahneman, Wheelan, Heath & Heath, and Kaushik.

Step into the role of Chief Data Protection Officer at FinNova Digital, a rapidly growing LATAM fintech. Over five rounds spanning 18 months, navigate privacy impact assessments, cross-border data transfers, a 2-million-record breach, consent management redesign, and a comprehensive privacy governance framework. Balance compliance, customer trust, privacy culture, regulatory risk, and budget while complying with GDPR, LGPD, and LATAM privacy regimes.

An advanced post-merger integration simulation. You are Ricardo Vega-Mancebo, lead integration PM at Mareiba Foods, on Days 2, 28 and 75 of the Bodegas Aldeana craft-beverage acquisition. Practise Day-2 escalation discipline, the 30-day people-plan diff with named successor recommendation, and the Day-75 honest-truth synergy narrative. Anchored in Watkins STARS, the Bain four questions, Sirower-Weirens synergy discipline, Schein layer-three culture, and Marks-Mirvis merger syndrome.

A four-round, advanced higher-education strategy simulation. You are the Dean of Massif Business School (MBS), a triple-accredited grande école in Grenoble, France (EUR 92M budget, ~4,800 students, 165 faculty), the week of 30 September 2026. The European Master-in-Management ranking has just dropped MBS from 32nd to 41st — its sharpest fall in a decade, driven by weak career-progression and international-mobility scores — and in the same week the board approves a one-off EUR 14M strategic envelope over three years against ~EUR 31M of credible asks (exec-ed EUR 8M, degrees EUR 11M, faculty EUR 9M, brand EUR 3M). You must respond to the ranking AND sharpen positioning, without breaching a 2.0% operating-surplus covenant on the development loan. Round 1 diagnoses which ranking drivers are money-fixable versus structural and quantifies the portfolio gap. Round 2 sets the differentiation positioning — deepen the responsible-innovation niche, pivot to an adjacent differentiator, or broaden toward a generalist top-40 school — and names what MBS will NOT compete on. Round 3 allocates the EUR 14M across exec-ed, degrees, faculty and brand, phases the spend across three years to protect the surplus floor, and decides the fate of two star professors being courted by rivals. Round 4 defends the plan to a sceptical board chair and trustee, committing to four KPIs. The math rewards concentrating a real bet aligned with positioning and punishes the five classic errors — peanut-buttering the envelope, joining an un-winnable arms race against better-funded rivals, declaring a positioning the money contradicts, front-loading spend through the 2.0% covenant, and hollowing the faculty that underpins reputation and accreditation. Final KPIs: brand-differentiation score, reputation/ranking index, operating surplus %, and portfolio balance.

A four-round, advanced data-science-for-decisions simulation set inside Daloy Mobility, a Metro Manila ride-hailing and last-mile logistics platform (~46,000 driver-partners, ~1.9 million trips/week, PHP 24B gross bookings, PHP 4.3B net revenue, near break-even). A competitor with venture funding and superior ETA accuracy has entered the market, cancellations have climbed to 14%, and the board has handed the new Chief Analytics Officer a single flagship machine-learning mandate: one quarter (90 days), a PHP 90M budget, and a demand for measurable decision lift in production — not model accuracy. The board pays for lift, not AUC; the wrong problem, the wrong model, or the wrong threshold burns the team's credibility in a single quarter. Round 1: frame the prediction problem — score demand forecasting, ETA prediction (cleanest data, but the rival already leads there) and cancellation prediction (messier data, but it targets the 14% rate bleeding margin); define success as a decision outcome, not a model statistic, and weigh business value against data convenience. Round 2: the core accuracy-versus-cost trade-off — a simple gradient-boosted model (~82%, PHP 15M, 6 weeks, ships in the window) versus a deep spatio-temporal net on raw GPS (~89%, PHP 65M, 14 weeks, past the 90-day window) versus a black-box vendor API; plus the data strategy and an A/B-test measurement design. Round 3: set the deployment threshold that maximizes cost-weighted business value, not accuracy, knowing a missed cancellation (false negative) costs PHP 180 a trip while a needless intervention (false positive) costs PHP 40 — so the value-maximizing threshold sits well below the accuracy-maximizing 50%; design the human-in-the-loop boundary and a drift-monitoring rollback plan. Round 4: defend the initiative to the board as decision lift and pesos (not 0.86 AUC), and absorb a live shock — concept drift, a tougher rival, or a privacy regulator querying granular GPS — without over-claiming or abandoning the data-driven discipline. The math wires the concept's numbers and common errors into sticky, run-defining penalty flags: chasing the high-accuracy model that misses the deployment window yields a brilliant notebook and zero live lift; forgetting the threshold means the model changes no decision; the convenient problem cannot clear the lift bar; an accuracy-tuned threshold leaves money on the table; no drift monitoring lets the lift decay; and reporting accuracy to a board that buys lift risks the next round of funding. Final KPIs track decision lift (points on the target operating metric), net annual value (PHP M/yr), model accuracy (%) and deployment status — and the defining lesson is that a deployed, value-tuned 82% beats an undeployed 89%.

MBA-band decision-analysis simulation set at NovaSano Therapeutics. Across six weeks of Investment Committee deliberation on lead oncology asset NS-204, learners encode Phase III probabilities (Spetzler-Stael von Holstein protocol), build the decision tree, roll back expected value (Howard-Matheson), and recommend Go-Standard, Go-Pursue-AA, Partner or No-Go against shifting competitor and FDA signals. Practices probability encoding, EV rollback, EVPI, sensitivity analysis, and disciplined defense of a recommendation.

A four-round, advanced strategic-leadership simulation set inside Pennine Drive Systems Ltd, a Sheffield-based £210M precision-gearbox manufacturer betting its future on an electric-drivetrain transition. You are the newly appointed Managing Director of the 220-person Drivetrain Division, dropped into the deep end in your first week: the division's anchor customer — a European rail OEM worth £34M over three years — has issued a 90-day 'cure notice' demanding a qualified production unit or the contract is cancelled, and the board has set a 90-day review of your strategic plan on the same clock. The division has already burned £26M and missed two launch milestones; engagement sits at 58/100, three senior engineers (combined replacement cost £0.9M) are flight risks, and you can spend only £3.5M before triggering a group capital review, while the full 'do-everything' plan costs £6.2M — so you must choose. The simulation operationalises Narendra Laljani's research on strategic-leader capability (the visionary–managerial typology) and stretch experiences as the engine of leader development. Round 1 you diagnose the twice-missed launch and set a one-line strategic intent with a 90-day must-win and a stop-list. Round 2 you choose a crisis posture — a visionary reframe versus a managerial sprint, the answer being a disciplined sprint held inside a clear direction — and allocate the £3.5M recovery budget across engineering, testing and the missing external power-electronics expertise. Round 3 you make the stretch assignment: the proven deputy (safe, no development) or the high-potential engineer (visionary, unproven), and design the scaffold — authority, mentoring, escalation, day-job cover and a halfway fallback — that turns a stretch into development rather than a drowning. Round 4, at day 60 with a subsystem slipping and a flight-risk engineer resigning, you recover delivery within budget, coach the stretch leader through the setback without rescuing them, make a retention move, and present a board read that links 90-day delivery to the long-term transition. The math rewards leaders who hold visionary intent AND managerial delivery together, stretch the high-potential WITH a scaffold, coach rather than rescue, and build confidence on credible commitments — and it punishes the five classic errors: vision without delivery, delivery without direction, never stretching, stretching without scaffolding, and over-promising to everyone at once. Final KPIs track Strategy Clarity, Execution Rate, Talent Readiness and Stakeholder Confidence.

Four-round simulation placing students as Sustainability Director of Cartón del Plata S.A., a Buenos Aires packaging manufacturer navigating Extended Producer Responsibility legislation, industrial symbiosis networks, and circular business model transformation. Students balance recyclability targets, GHG reduction, and financial performance while designing the transition from linear to circular economy.

Diagnose your real practice mix on a plateaued skill, then redesign one hour to deliberate-practice spec — specific weakness target, productive edge (~30% failure), feedback source, full attention, structured segments, and a 3-rep commit over two weeks.

A four-round, intermediate design-management and innovation simulation set inside Lumière Living, Lda., a Porto-based design house (founded 2009, EUR 38M revenue, 9% operating margin, 160 staff including a 22-person studio) that wins design awards but has never deliberately designed for older adults. The board has ring-fenced a EUR 4.0M launch budget to enter the longevity (silver) economy — but the first concept, a 'senior assistance lamp' with oversized buttons and an emergency button, scored disastrously: in a 90-person panel of 60–75-year-olds, 71% said it made them 'feel old' and would not buy it, with purchase intent at 8% versus a 25% hurdle. Playing the innovation lead, you have one 12-week launch cycle to redesign and commit. Round 1 — diagnose WHY a technically capable product was rejected, surfacing that this is a failure of design management and meaning (stigma), not engineering, and naming the design principles the lamp violated. Round 2 — choose the segment within a EUR 90M serviceable market that splits into identity-driven 'Active Agers' (60–70) and function-driven 'Supported Living' (75+), resisting the temptation to serve everyone. Round 3 — make the central design-investment decision (true inclusive/universal design at a EUR 1.1M premium vs. a cosmetic re-skin) and allocate the EUR 4.0M across the three value axes — design/engineering depth, societal value (co-design, accessibility, repairability/take-back), and business value (pricing, channel, launch marketing) — while keeping payback inside the CFO's 30-month hurdle. Round 4 — lock the configuration and present the go/no-go board case, defending how the line creates personal, business AND societal value at once and beats a Scandinavian 'dignified-ageing' rival on meaning, not features. The math rewards a meaning-led diagnosis, segment discipline, a genuine inclusive-design investment aligned to the chosen segment, abatement of stigma through co-design, and a credible payback — and measurably punishes the five classic errors: feature-fixing a meaning problem, serving everyone, re-skinning to save the EUR 1.1M, stripping social value to hit payback (or over-investing in impact with no viable P&L), and claiming 'design-led' when design never changed the product. Final KPIs track Desirability, Personal value, Societal value, and Payback (months, lower better), reconciled into a 3-axis longevity scorecard.

A four-round, advanced executive-education simulation set inside Aurélie Executive Learning, the custom corporate-programs division of a leading European business school near Paris (EUR 24M division revenue, ~40 engagements, a 35% contribution-margin floor). Your strategic anchor client Continentale Energie — a EUR 9-billion utility worth EUR 3.1M over three years — issues a competitive RFP for a flagship program to build 'transformation leadership' in its top 300 managers, with three rivals bidding including a consultancy 15% cheaper. You play the bid team across a four-way squeeze of client fit, contribution margin, faculty availability and time-to-launch, against a EUR 1.8M budget cap, a 16-week launch demand (normal custom design takes 22–26 weeks), two star academics available only 12 days each, and a 20% (EUR 360,000) fee tied to demonstrated behaviour change at 6 months. Round 1 you diagnose the real capability gap from a discovery pack — separating the presenting label ('not strategic enough') from the underlying behaviour gap (mobilising teams through ambiguity, cross-silo influence) and naming target behaviours and impact metrics. Round 2 you architect a blended-learning journey and faculty mix from a modular kit, trading scarce star faculty against affiliates, client-exec faculty and scalable digital, and mapping each component to transfer-to-work. Round 3 you build the engagement P&L against the EUR 1.8M cap and 35% margin, choose how to absorb the 16-week launch (overtime, parallel-tracking, or a phased MVP cohort), and take a position on the impact-linked fee. Round 4 you pitch the CHRO and procurement, defending value and feasibility without discounting the margin away. The math rewards diagnosis-first, transfer-focused, deliverable-faculty, margin-disciplined design and punishes the five classic errors: designing from the brief not the diagnosis, over-promising star faculty, discounting below the 35% floor, saying yes to 16 weeks with no compression plan, and treating the impact fee as a satisfaction bet. Final KPIs track Client Fit, Contribution Margin %, Faculty Feasibility and the committed engagement cost against the EUR 1.8M cap.

A four-round, advanced executive-education simulation set inside Thames Leadership Studio, the custom leadership practice of a leading London business school (founded 2009, ~35 bespoke engagements a year, GBP 9M revenue at a ~28% margin, ~120 contracted faculty and coaches). You are the Executive Education Director. Britannia Severn plc — a FTSE-250 infrastructure group bruised by a difficult merger and a regulatory crisis — has hired the Studio to design a leadership programme for its top 120 senior leaders. The client set firm parameters: a hard GBP 600,000 delivery budget, a 9-month journey, and a sceptical board sponsor who will judge the programme not on satisfaction scores but on measurable capability uplift and transfer to practice. Across four rounds you (1) DIAGNOSE the capability gaps — separating the presenting symptoms (slow decisions, silos) from the underlying gaps (low self-awareness, weak collective leadership, poor complexity navigation) and choosing which two or three to target; (2) BLEND the three development elements — self-awareness, collective leadership through teams, and navigating complexity — in proportion to the diagnosis, avoiding the lopsided design that deepens one capability and leaves the priority gap untouched; (3) ALLOCATE delivery formats within GBP 600,000 — faculty masterclasses, action-learning projects, one-to-one coaching (~GBP 1,800–2,400 a set, GBP 250,000+ for all 120), immersive labs, and peer/digital reinforcement — engineering the mix that maximises transfer-to-practice per pound without breaching budget; and (4) DEFEND the design to the board sponsor and build in a Kirkpatrick-level measurement of transfer at the 9-month review. The math rewards a diagnosis-led, balanced, transfer-heavy-but-budgeted, measured design and punishes the five classic errors: activities before diagnosis, a lopsided blend that ignores the merger-silo gap, a cheap faculty-led design that engages in the room and changes nothing, a budget blow-out chasing every high-transfer format for all 120, and optimising for the happy sheet instead of behaviour change. Final KPIs track Capability Uplift, Transfer-to-Practice, Sponsor Confidence, and Budget Discipline.

A four-round, advanced executive-education design simulation set inside Aurora Executive Learning, a Finnish university-affiliated exec-ed provider in Helsinki. A strategic client, the Nordic energy utility Pohjola Energy, has signed a fixed EUR 880K contract for a custom program to make 60 senior managers 'transition-ready leaders' — but the brief is ambitious, vague, and immovable on time. As program director you must turn that brief into a coherent, deliverable program inside hard constraints: a 9-month window with only 12 contact days per participant, a 24% margin floor (EUR 211K, leaving EUR 669K of deliverable budget), a ~EUR 11,150 cost-per-learner ceiling, a 90% completion floor, and a learning-transfer expectation to a live Pohjola transition project. Round 1 translates the vague brief into a small set of prioritized, measurable learning objectives and an explicit out-of-scope, reconciling a CHRO who wants leadership behaviours with a commercial COO who wants hard P&L and market-design capability. Round 2 applies backward design to allocate the scarce 12 contact days and the EUR 669K budget across a module mix (core leadership, commercial/energy-market, a EUR 70K custom simulation, EUR 1,800/participant 1:1 coaching, peer action-learning, a capstone), keeping every module traceable to an objective without over-scoping the days or stacking high-touch elements past the per-learner economics. Round 3 chooses an assessment-and-transfer format — a live capstone judged by Pohjola executives plus EUR 240/participant 360 evidence beats portfolio-only or a narrow simulation score — that proves transfer to a live project and protects the 90% completion floor without an assessment burden that drives busy executives to drop out. Round 4 pitches to Pohjola's steering group and defends the scope when the COO demands two extra market-design modules 'without changing the price or the dates': the disciplined answer puts an explicit trade-off on the table (what comes out, or what the additions cost) rather than saying yes to everything. The math rewards backward-designed, objective-anchored, transfer-proving design held inside the days, budget, margin, and completion constraints, and punishes the five classic errors — designing to the vague brief, over-scoping the 12 days, stacking coaching and the simulation on everyone, lecture-heavy designs that ignore transfer and completion, and caving to scope creep. Final KPIs track Objective Fit, Transfer Strength, Sponsor Satisfaction, contribution margin, completion rate, and cost per learner.

A four-round, advanced strategy simulation set inside École Lumière Business School (ELBS), a private AACSB-accredited business school in Montpellier, France (2,800 students, €62M revenue, a thin 8% operating margin, 140 faculty). On 5 June 2026 a far richer rival, Institut Concorde, announces a €20M 'Sustainable Business & AI' master with aggressive scholarships and a global campaign — aimed squarely at the high-potential segment ELBS hoped to grow. The board demands a credible repositioning plan within ten weeks. ELBS is stuck-in-the-middle: nine me-too programs differentiated on nothing, a Differentiation Index of just 42/100, and one genuinely valuable, rare and hard-to-imitate capability — a respected faculty specialism in sustainability and impact management with faculty depth for only one or two flagships. Playing the Dean with a fixed €6M strategic-investment budget, you (1) run a VRIN capability analysis to separate true sources of distinctiveness from commodity offerings and read where Concorde is strong and where it is not; (2) choose where to compete and what to STOP doing — concentrating the €6M on three or four programs to cross a differentiation threshold rather than peanut-buttering it across all nine; (3) design a defensible flagship built on owned capability rather than matching Concorde's discount, and decide whether to retain the lead sustainability professor Concorde is poaching; and (4) defend a viable, distinctive strategy to the board chair, reconciling differentiation with positive operating margin and a resilience stress-test. The scoring rewards genuine strategic-capability design and punishes the five classic errors — starting a spending war, peanut-butter allocation, over-extending the one capability until it is just a label, claiming a position ELBS cannot deliver, and a beautiful flagship that loses money. Final KPIs track the Differentiation Index, Segment-fit, Operating margin (€), and Competitive resilience against the €6M cap.

A four-round, intermediate learning-experience-design simulation set inside Méridian Learning Studio, the in-house course-design unit of a private French grande école on the Riviera. The Dean has personally sold the board a new flagship — 'Leading Transformation', a 10-week executive certificate at €6,900 a seat for a 120-strong cohort — and made it the showcase for the October 2026 EQUIS re-audit. You have a fixed €540,000 design-and-production budget, 14 weeks, and 47 seats already sold. The brief contradicts itself: the board wants completion above 85% (existing certificates median just 61%, with a brutal week 3–5 drop-off cliff), three internal factions each 'know' the answer (faculty want live residentials, the digital producer wants fully self-paced async that historically completes at 48%, finance wants the cheapest blend), and the Vice-Dean ties every designer's bonus to learning-outcome attainment, not completion volume — so a course people finish but do not learn from is a more expensive failure than one they quit. Playing the Studio's design team you (1) diagnose the learner and the failure curve, distinguishing engagement drivers — relevance, momentum, social accountability — from engagement theatre; (2) choose the blended format mix and the in-person/online, synchronous/asynchronous split under the €540,000 cap; (3) sequence formative and summative assessment across the 10 weeks, concentrating intervention density at the diagnosed week 3–5 cliff rather than spreading it evenly; and (4) read the pilot telemetry, diagnose the design misses, and reallocate for a 120-seat v2 under the same envelope. The math rewards genuine learner-centred design that maximises engagement and outcomes JOINTLY and punishes the five classic errors — wish-list design that blows the budget, the cheapest-blend async fallacy, terminal-only assessment, uniform investment ignoring the curve, and completion tunnel vision that lets outcome scores slide. Final KPIs track Projected Completion %, Outcome Attainment (0–5), Engagement Quality (0–100), and Budget committed against the €540,000 cap.

Advanced strategic-HR simulation set at Pennine Precision Group, a Sheffield precision-engineering manufacturer facing a knowledge cliff: 38% of its master machinists are over 55 and within a decade of retirement, and GBP 31m of revenue runs through lines that depend on fewer than 15 of them. As Workforce Strategy Lead, the learner is given a fixed labour budget of GBP 142m and four rounds to redesign a single-track career model for a multi-stage, long-lived workforce. Round 1 segments the workforce by life-stage (learning, peak, mentoring, exploration) instead of undifferentiated headcount. Round 2 funds a mid-career reskilling programme on a multi-year ROI rather than a single-year payroll view. Round 3 designs a phased-retirement policy that transfers tacit knowledge while keeping cost within the ceiling, and decides whether to decouple reward from tenure. Round 4 integrates the three decisions into a costed three-stage strategy and defends it ahead of a GBP 48m aerospace capability audit. The math punishes the five classic errors — headcount thinking, short-horizon budgeting, unfunded generosity, tenure-anchored reward, and letting tacit knowledge walk out the door — so wrong strategies underperform on the debrief KPIs: talent retention, reskilling ROI, age-diversity productivity, knowledge-cliff exposure, and total labour cost against GBP 142m.

A four-round, advanced executive-education design simulation set inside Whitfield Learning Partners Ltd, the GBP 18M custom development arm of a UK business school. Whitfield's commercial differentiator is measurable business impact: 20% of every contract fee is contingent on hitting agreed metrics six months after delivery. On 2 February 2026 its largest client, Brackenmoor Industrials plc (a GBP 4.1bn engineering group, 22% of Whitfield's turnover), issues an urgent brief after a profit warning: ~180 newly promoted mid-level operations leaders are escalating every decision, safety incidents and project overruns are climbing, and the CEO blames a 'leadership capability gap'. Brackenmoor will fund GBP 1.8M (~GBP 10,000 a head, 26% below Whitfield's GBP 13,500 flagship price), wants a programme contracted in 90 days and proof of impact within 9 months, has GBP 360,000 of fee staked on the result, and is quietly evaluating two competing providers. Playing the Programme Director, the team (1) diagnoses the gap — separating the CEO's presenting 'leadership skills' problem from the underlying structural reality of unclear decision rights, no delegation mandate and a blame culture, and naming the portion no classroom can fix; (2) designs the intervention within the GBP 1.8M cap, trading reach against depth and building explicit transfer mechanisms — manager reinforcement, application projects and accountability, not contact hours; (3) builds a Kirkpatrick/Phillips measurement model spanning reaction, learning, behaviour and results, staking the at-risk fee on an attributable leading behavioural indicator rather than an operational outcome the programme cannot move alone in 9 months; and (4) pitches and defends the business case to a sceptical CEO and HR director, committing to an ROI grounded in a real attribution method. The math rewards a rigorous diagnosis, transfer-driven design within budget, level 3-4 measurement on an attributable metric, and an honest attribution-backed ROI — and punishes the five classic errors: accepting the sponsor's diagnosis, designing beyond budget, measuring only reaction and learning, loading contact hours with no transfer, and staking the fee on an unattributable outcome. Final KPIs track Diagnostic Rigour, Transfer Strength, Impact Credibility and whether the GBP 360,000 at-risk fee is secured against the GBP 1.8M budget cap.

Step into the Costaria Treasury and design a tax system from scratch. Apply the Mirrlees-Saez optimal-tax formula, calibrate it with modern elasticities, locate the schedule relative to the Laffer peak, and defend a six-instrument reform (PIT, EITC, capital tax, wealth tax, VAT, base broadening) against a sceptical Cabinet across three rounds — equity, efficiency, and political reality on the same page.

A four-round, intermediate management-development and learning-design simulation set inside the Cape Management Development Centre (CMDC), the R95M executive-education arm of a leading South African business school in Cape Town. You play the academic coordinator of its flagship Postgraduate Diploma in Management Practice — a cohort-based programme for working managers. CMDC has a problem its own data exposes: managers complete at 88% but only 38% change how they manage on the job, a 50-point gap between passing and transferring. In February 2026 Aurora Group, a logistics-and-retail conglomerate that sponsors 120 managers a year (R18M, ~19% of revenue), commissions an evaluation, finds high satisfaction but little measurable capability change, and gives CMDC one 9-month cohort cycle to redesign the pathway or lose the contract — and, with the reputational cascade, R30M+ of at-risk business — to a competitor offering an 'embedded, work-based' model. Across four rounds you redesign management development through the lens of integrating academic and workplace learning via systems thinking (Shelley), the 70-20-10 model, transfer-of-learning theory, and capability-gap (needs) analysis. Round 1: diagnose why completion outruns transfer and choose whether to design forward from existing content (the trap) or backward from Aurora's real capability gaps. Round 2: rebalance the 70%-classroom blend toward how managers actually learn and genuinely integrate the two halves — not run them as parallel streams — all within a hard budget of ~6 learner-hours/week (overbook it and the pathway, and completion, collapse). Round 3: sequence the 9 months as spiral cycles, engage the learner's line manager as the decisive workplace variable, and make stage gates demand workplace deliverables rather than recall exams. Round 4: measure transfer directly, protect completion by aligning assessment to the deliverable, and pitch employer-relevant value to win the renewal. The scoring rewards gap-led, integrated, time-realistic, manager-engaged, transfer-evidenced design and punishes the five classic errors — adding more classroom, content-led design, parallel non-integrated streams, ignoring the line manager, and optimising completion over transfer. Final KPIs track transfer-to-job rate (%), completion rate (%), and Aurora's sponsor satisfaction (/10).

Simulación de 7 rondas donde diagnosticas el P&L de Nómina Clara, una startup SaaS B2B LATAM, desde pre-revenue hasta preparación de Serie A. Cambia de rol en cada etapa para aprender que el mismo P&L cuenta historias distintas según quién lo lea.

Andes Tech Trading is six business days from clearing a critical shipment when DIAN flags a Muisca selectivity inspection, opens a post-clearance valuation audit on three 2025 declarations, and holds a Hamburg coffee export in Siglo XXI. Across four rounds, learners diagnose and prioritize the fights, defend a tariff classification using the General Rules of Interpretation, navigate the WTO valuation hierarchy and the 80/50/0 sanction-reduction ladder, unblock the export, and install broker governance — translating a customs crisis into a defensible board KPI.

Estimate the effect of a regional R&D tax credit four ways. Discover that two of them are biased, the third is the workhorse of policy evaluation, and the fourth is the methods revolution that re-wrote DiD between 2020 and 2025.

Coach COO Daniel Okafor through three difficult stakeholder meetings on the same day — an angry-skeptical board, a hurt-skeptical Customer Advisory Board, and an anxious-skeptical all-hands. Practice the three-mode classification frame, calibrate the opening 60 seconds, deploy the ABC bridge-and-block toolkit, execute named exit moves, and protect a cumulative credibility account that compounds across audiences.

Practice the 4-move template (Anchor, Own, Say, Offer) for difficult professional emails. Diagnose which of five archetypes the email is, draft against the principles, then run the send protocol — all before 6 PM today. A micro-simulation that turns the false-binary of likeability vs. truth into a re-usable third draft.

A four-round, advanced B2B digital-strategy simulation set inside Verlinden Industrial Solutions NV, a EUR 184M Belgian manufacturer-distributor of industrial fastening, sealing and fluid-handling components (12% EBITDA, 3,200 accounts, 28,000 SKUs, 290 staff). On 11 March 2026 its single largest customer — Hanssen Food Systems, EUR 14.8M, 8% of revenue — issues a digital-readiness ultimatum: integrate via EDI/punch-out and expose live stock and pricing through an API by 1 September 2026 or be 'deprioritized' to a backup tier capped at 30% of category spend (a ~EUR 10.4M cut). Eleven further accounts worth EUR 41M (22%) have signalled the same mandate, the competitive RFQ win rate has slid from 41% to 33%, and two pure-play digital rivals undercut list price by 6-9%. Only 9% of revenue is digital versus a 28-35% sector benchmark. The board approves a fixed EUR 6.0M, 18-month transformation budget — one shot — and wants a recommendation in 90 days. Playing the B2B Marketing Director, you apply Steve Muylle's three-layer Competitive Digital Innovation lens (product / process / business model): (1) diagnose where the value proposition is eroding and which layer, if digitized, protects the 38-strong technical-applications moat rather than commoditizing it; (2) allocate the EUR 6.0M across the product layer (IoT data services, EUR 3.8M, 14 mo), the process layer (API/EDI + self-service portal + real-time pricing engine, EUR 2.6M, 6 mo, answers the Hanssen mandate), and the business-model layer (managed-inventory subscription, EUR 4.4M, 18 mo, highest margin but cannibalizing and unproven), funding a lead at depth plus a partial secondary rather than spreading bets; (3) set the 18-month digital channel mix, move field-sales heads from order-taking to solution selling, price the digital channel against assisted channels, and install a mechanism to defuse channel conflict with the 64 reps and protect the technical team; (4) defend an 18-month roadmap to the board, answer a live price-war curveball from a pure-play without surrendering margin, set 6/12/18-month adoption KPIs and a pivot trigger. The math rewards the process-first sequencing that beats the deadline, defending the moat over chasing price, peer-protecting reallocation, and KPI-governed adoption — and punishes the five classic errors: spreading the budget thinly, chasing the subscription margin first, reframing the crisis as a price war, digitizing the process while ignoring the sales force, and launching with no adoption KPIs. Final KPIs track Digital Revenue Share %, Moat Strength, Margin Health and Budget committed against the EUR 6.0M cap.

Simulate omnichannel campaign optimization as CMO of a D2C skincare brand, allocating a $500K quarterly budget across six digital channels over four competitive weeks

A four-round, advanced, marketing-led digital-transformation simulation set inside Dom & Styl S.A., a Warsaw home-and-lifestyle brand with PLN 920 million revenue, 38 owned stores, a 240-retailer wholesale network and a crown-jewel 71% unaided brand awareness. On 9 March 2026 a private-equity-style Chair freezes the PLN 64 million marketing budget and hands the CMO a 12-month mandate: prove marketing spend earns its return — lift digital revenue share from 11% to 20% in four quarters without growing spend — or face a 20% cut and an agency takeover. Miss the half-year checkpoint of 16% by 30 September and the board pulls the trigger early. The learner plays the CMO and steers the pivot through Grzegorz Mazurek's marketing-perspective lens, where transformation is owned by marketing (virtualization, networking, datafication) rather than delegated to IT. Round 1 — Diagnose: split the budget into measurable versus unattributable spend, locate the funnel leak (high awareness, collapsing online consideration-to-purchase), and pick the north-star metric. Round 2 — Reallocate: move money inside the frozen PLN 64M envelope between brand (demand generation) and performance (demand capture), defending a brand-investment floor; over-cutting brand triggers a delayed awareness-erosion penalty that surfaces in Round 4, under-cutting starves the digital growth needed to hit 20%. Round 3 — Decide: sequence a PLN 12M martech envelope across an e-commerce replatform (highest revenue leverage, lifts conversion from 1.4% toward 2.6%), a CDP+CRM (lowers CAC via retention), attribution / marketing-mix modeling (makes ROI defensible), and an Allegro marketplace launch (fast demand capture) — you cannot fund everything, and a limited-time Allegro discount tempts breadth over foundation. Round 4 — Recover & Defend: face the year-end board with the realized scorecard — digital share, blended CAC, online conversion, brand awareness and transformation ROI, including any delayed brand penalty — and defend causality. The math rewards a balanced brand-performance mix, sequencing the highest-leverage martech, funding attribution so ROI is provable, and protecting unit economics (order value and retention) alongside CAC; it punishes the five classic errors: over-cutting brand, spreading martech thin, skipping attribution, optimizing CAC in isolation by chasing discount-seekers, and treating the pivot as an IT or agency project. Final KPIs track digital revenue share (%), blended CAC (PLN), online conversion (%), brand awareness (%) and transformation ROI.

Simulación ejecutiva donde los participantes asumen el rol de CDO de Manufacturera ANDEX S.A. y deben asignar USD 22M en tres rondas de seis meses, seleccionando iniciativas tecnológicas de IoT, IA, cloud y blockchain, modos de abastecimiento (construir/comprar/alianza) y acciones de gestión del cambio para maximizar el Índice de Transformación Digital (DTI) ante la Junta y los inversores.

Run a $75/day display campaign for a small leather-goods e-commerce brand across six simulated weeks. Pick the audience, the CPM bid, and the frequency cap; build the exclusion list; choose how strict to set brand safety. Hit a viewable rate above 60% and a positive net value once assisted conversions and branded-search lift are credited; ignore the placement report and let the budget bleed into MFA and unsafe inventory. Teaches display vs. search economics, viewability, frequency hygiene, brand safety, and the underrated lever — placement exclusions.

Simulación ejecutiva de 90 minutos donde los participantes dirigen BancaVerde, un banco latinoamericano tradicional, a través de 5 años de transformación digital frente a neobancos, fintechs y mandatos regulatorios de Open Banking en la República de Arvelia.

Solo founder simulation rehearsing the cap-table math, board pre-wire, and team narration of a down round. Three rounds: read the situation honestly, rehearse the board conversation, rehearse the team conversation. Exits with a 7-day plan.

Owner just demanded 6-week-earlier delivery on a baselined 38-week construction CPM, while a Week-12 progress shock has eaten the float. Diagnose the schedule, absorb the variance, rank fast-tracking and crashing options by cost-per-week, and defend a go / counter-offer / decline recommendation that survives the owner CFO and the bank covenant.

Simulación M-E de cuatro rondas en una EdTech latinoamericana de €180M ARR (Aulia Education Cloud) enfrentando simultáneamente disrupción por IA tutorial (Lumen Tutor), riesgo de comprador soberano (licitación abierta del contrato SEP México que representa 35% del ARR), presión de capital (USD 50-65M de capex comprometido sobre 26 meses de runway), y crisis de legitimidad pedagógica tras el estudio CEPPE-UAndes-UNAM. El comité ejecutivo decide build/buy/partner de IA, plan de financiación, defensa SEP con propuesta de lenguas originarias, diversificación geográfica, respuesta pública al estudio académico y cambio de producto comprometido.

Estimate the causal return to a Costarian university degree, decompose the gross premium into human-capital, signalling and selection channels, and design an education-finance regime that knows which channel it is paying for. Costaria | Joint MEC–UNC Research Team | April 2026.

Simulación para practicar liderazgo tecnológico en una fintech mexicana: selección de marco ágil a escala, rescate de equipo en crisis, asignación de capacidad de ingeniería bajo restricciones regulatorias, y decisión de adquisición Build vs. Buy vs. Partner

Simulation about specialty coffee market repositioning: managing quality control, direct trade relationships, and agricultural value chain upgrading for a Honduran coffee farm transitioning from commodity to premium specialty coffee

Test de descubrimiento vocacional gamificado para jóvenes de 17-18 años (concepto NextYou). El jugador no responde un cuestionario: vive 8 situaciones, un día en 2 de 5 profesiones emergentes y 3 pruebas de trade-offs. Cada decisión alimenta un perfil oculto de 6 dimensiones (preferencias reveladas, sin respuestas correctas) que se dibuja en un radar anónimo y se revela al final como 1 de 10 arquetipos profesionales, con 3 profesiones del futuro y un primer paso accionable. Duración: 25-35 min. Individual, con modo aula para orientadores.

Managerial accounting simulation where students diagnose a profitability crisis at InduColora S.A.S. using Activity-Based Costing, variance analysis, make-or-buy decisions, transfer pricing, and theory of constraints to restore margins and optimize the product portfolio.

Simulación de análisis de varianzas de costos estándar en una empresa textil colombiana. El participante gestiona inversiones en mantenimiento, capacitación y estrategia de compras para reducir varianzas desfavorables de materiales y mano de obra.

Simulation where learners advise four tech-startup founders on choosing between S.A. and SAS corporate structures in Colombia, navigating governance, fiscal strategy, shareholder conflict, and long-term growth over 4 rounds.

Simulation to practice after-action review, pre-mortem analysis, and systematic organizational learning from consulting project failures at a Spanish management consulting firm

Simulation to teach disruptive innovation strategy through R&D portfolio management at a Colombian battery manufacturer facing technological disruption from Li-Ion, LFP, and solid-state technologies. Based on Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma, Technology S-Curves, Ambidextrous Organization Theory, and Real Options Valuation.

Simulation to practice coaching conversation skills for managers transitioning from directive to coaching leadership style, using GROW, SBI, and 70-20-10 IDP frameworks in a high power-distance LATAM context

Simulation placing students in the executive committee of a traditional B2B distributor facing digital disruption, applying Christensen Disruption Theory, Kotter 8-Step Change Model, and Digital Maturity frameworks across three strategic rounds of diagnosis, execution, and repositioning

Simulation to teach startup creation and early-stage venture management through a plant-based fast-food company in Bogota, integrating Effectuation Theory, Lean Startup methodology, and the Business Model Canvas across four critical decision rounds covering MVP launch, pivot decisions, growth preparation, and strategic exit

Simulation on organizational design: structure, authority, span of control, and decision-making for a growing distribution company in Honduras that lost a key client due to structural dysfunction

Macroeconomic policy simulation where students manage Argentina's fiscal, monetary, and exchange rate policy to stabilize an economy facing high inflation, stalling growth, and external vulnerability.

Simulation to teach product-market fit analysis, pivot strategy design, investor negotiation, and rapid execution planning through a SaaS startup facing a strategic crossroads between enterprise and SME markets

Simulacion de estrategia de pricing para AeroHonduras, aerolinea regional hondurena. Los participantes analizan elasticidad de precio por ruta, disenan arquitectura de discriminacion de precios, responden a la entrada de una aerolinea low-cost (FlyBudget), y presentan una estrategia de revenue management al consejo directivo.

Service operations simulation where students manage a Buenos Aires steakhouse, applying the VUT equation, Little’s Law, batching strategies, and the Service-Profit Chain to optimize restaurant performance across table configuration, kitchen bottleneck resolution, employee retention, and peak demand management.

Simulation where students manage the 24-rep sales force of InduMed S.R.L., a Colombian medical device distributor, making decisions on territory design, quota setting, compensation plans, performance management, and key account strategy across 3 rounds

Simulation where students manage a critical urban infrastructure project in Mexico City, applying the Triple Constraint, Critical Path Method, Earned Value Management, risk registers, and Agile vs Waterfall methodology to deliver on time and under budget

Two pricing tests at a school cafeteria reveal price elasticity of demand. Students discover that raising the price of an elastic good (the bottled juice) cuts revenue, while raising the price of an inelastic good (the basic ham-and-cheese sandwich) lifts it. Across three rounds — juice test, sandwich test, and a final pricing plan — students compute %ΔQ / %ΔP, plot two demand curves, and learn the rule: raise the right price, not more prices.

A four-round, advanced corporate Learning & Development simulation set inside Helventer Industrial Group N.V., a Utrecht-headquartered precision-pump manufacturer (9,400 employees, EUR 2.1B revenue, 11% EBIT) mid-way through 'Helventer 2030' — a pivot from selling hardware to selling outcome-based service contracts. On 8 June 2026 the Board freezes the EUR 14.6M L&D budget after an audit finds only 34% of last year's training spend maps to any 2030 priority. As the newly appointed Chief Learning Officer you have 90 days to present a redesigned, strategically aligned, measurable portfolio — or the function is cut 30% (EUR 4.4M, two academies, 11 of 40 roles) and folded into shared services. Across four rounds you (1) diagnose the 312-course catalog against the five 2030 capability priorities and name the single largest source of misalignment, computing the baseline alignment score, priority-capability reach and cost per learner; (2) reallocate inside the frozen EUR 14.6M — retiring legacy/compliance spend, building for the ~2,800-employee reskilling gap, and choosing the digital-vs-classroom mix per priority (classroom EUR 1,180/learner deep but low-reach vs blended/digital EUR 190/learner scalable but weaker for relational skills); (3) design a business-impact measurement system that moves beyond completions and smile sheets to behavior, leading operational indicators and a defensible business-impact index; and (4) pitch the redesign to a skeptical Board against the 30%-cut alternative and commit to a governance cadence that keeps the portfolio aligned as strategy evolves. The math rewards strategy-to-capability alignment, mode-to-objective fit, outcome-based measurement and ongoing governance — and punishes the five classic L&D errors: defending popular-but-unaligned courses, digitizing relational skills to chase reach, asking for more money instead of reallocating under the freeze, reporting activity (completions/satisfaction) as proof of impact, and delivering a one-off redesign with no realignment cadence so alignment decays back to 34%. Final KPIs track Strategy-Alignment Score, Priority-Capability Reach, Cost per Learner and Business-Impact Readiness.

Simulación de crisis de financiamiento en empresa social dedicada a reintegración de ex-combatientes en Colombia. Los participantes analizan viabilidad financiera, eligen estrategia de pivote, negocian financiamiento y enfrentan un dilema ético sobre aceptar dinero de origen cuestionable.

Eight weeks to recommend a new financial architecture for a 142-parish Costarian archdiocese facing donor decline, an underfunded clergy pension, and a Catholic university about to breach bond covenants. The participant sits in the Vicar General CFO seat, applies UPMIFA prudent-spending and the Yale model under canon-law constraints, builds a hybrid recommendation, and defends it across three constituents before the Friday Finance Council vote.

A four-round, advanced organizational-behaviour simulation set inside Helvetia Präzision AG, a CHF 218M Swiss precision-components manufacturer in Winterthur. You inherit the Robotics & Automation unit (BU-R: 180 people, CHF 64M revenue) the week its pulse survey and a four-engineer resignation cluster land together. Mapped onto Heike Bruch's Organizational Energy Matrix, BU-R is alarming: productive energy 38% (healthy ≈65%), comfortable 22%, resigned inertia 24%, corrosive energy 16% (healthy <8%) — corrosive energy has doubled in a year. Engagement has fallen 74→58, 31% of staff are in the high-exhaustion band, overtime runs 9 hours/person/week, on-time milestones dropped 88%→71% (a CHF 4.2M medtech renewal at risk), and voluntary attrition hit 18% against a 7% firm average. The Executive Board gives you one transformation cycle — three quarters — to lift productive energy back above 55% AND cut attrition below 12%, without a budget bailout; miss either and BU-R is merged and the four-day week is scrapped company-wide. Across four rounds you (1) diagnose the energy state by sub-team, distinguishing low-intensity resigned inertia from high-intensity corrosive energy and naming the highest-leverage first move; (2) allocate CHF 240,000 of discretionary spend and a fixed 20 leadership focus tokens across interventions — purpose reset, workload triage, dismantling the corrosive coalition, recognition rituals, manager coaching, backfilling — discovering that a big motivational kickoff inflames corrosion when trust is absent while unglamorous workload triage unlocks the most productive energy, and that even attention is not effective attention; (3) set the hybrid / four-day-week policy and defend the CHF 1.1M wellbeing-and-development budget against Finance's proposed 40% (CHF 440,000) cut, making the business case in attrition-cost and velocity terms; and (4) lock in healthy high performance with anti-acceleration-trap recovery guardrails, monthly leading indicators, and a board pitch. The maths rewards reading quality and intensity before acting, sequencing trust-building before mobilisation, concentrating attention on the corrosive coalition, protecting the wellbeing budget as an investment against CHF 95,000-per-engineer replacement cost, and building recovery in — and punishes the five classic errors: misreading the quadrant, mobilising before trust, buying coordination with autonomy, cutting wellbeing to protect EBIT, and stacking energising initiatives on a 9-hour overtime baseline. Final KPIs track Productive Energy %, Corrosive Energy %, annualised Attrition %, and the protected Wellbeing Budget against the board's twin exit thresholds.

A four-round, intermediate people-leadership simulation set inside Liffey Connect Group, a Dublin customer-operations company (2,100 staff across Dublin, Cork, Galway and Leeds, EUR 145M revenue, a thin 8% operating margin of EUR 11.6M, payroll ≈62% of cost). On 12 January 2026 a major insurer client — 22% of revenue (EUR 32M), renewing in 150 days, ~310 roles at stake — puts Liffey Connect on formal service watch after CSAT fell from 84% to 71% and attrition on its dedicated team hit 41% annualized, naming "workforce stability and engagement" as a renewal condition. The group engagement score has slumped from 74 to 58 (bottom-quartile teams at 44), voluntary attrition runs at 34%/year vs a ~25% benchmark at EUR 9,500 fully-loaded replacement cost per leaver (~EUR 6.8M/year walking out), and the celebrated employer-sponsored volunteering programme that won "Employer of the Year" in 2021 has collapsed from 48% to 23% participation. The board approves a one-off EUR 1.8M people-investment fund plus EUR 600,000/year recurring — but will only release the recurring tranche against a measurement plan that proves ROI. Playing the senior people-leadership team you (1) diagnose disengagement past the headline score to its highest-leverage driver and the segment where intervention moves the renewal-relevant metrics — the data shows engagement varies more BETWEEN managers than between sites; (2) allocate the EUR 1.8M fund across manager-capability, volunteering relaunch, job-redesign/autonomy, recognition, targeted pay for the flight-risk team and wellbeing — where concentrating spend on the causal lever beats spreading thin; (3) design a measurement plan that separates leading indicators (engagement pulse, volunteering participation, manager-behaviour ratings) from lagging business outcomes (attrition, CSAT, renewal), with a baseline, a phased-rollout comparison and a defensible avoided-attrition ROI — vanity activity metrics are penalized; and (4) defend the plan to a CFO challenging the ROI and an insurer procurement lead demanding evidence of workforce stability, reconciling Shantz's responsible-leadership story (purpose, meaningfulness, community) with the hard commercial case. The math rewards a concentrated, manager-led, well-measured plan that fixes pay and workload on the at-risk team and keeps the purpose narrative — and punishes the five classic errors: funding everything equally (no measurable signal), leaning on volunteering while ignoring pay/workload, building activity-metric dashboards, claiming ROI with no baseline or control, and stripping the responsible-leadership story down to pure cost-cutting. Final KPIs track Engagement, At-Risk-Team Attrition, Account CSAT and Renewal Confidence.

A four-round, advanced non-market strategy simulation set inside Hélios Énergie S.A., the third-largest non-incumbent gas and power retailer in France (€4.6bn revenue, 3.1 million customers in Nouvelle-Aquitaine and Occitanie, a fair-price brand worth an estimated €180M premium). On 14 April 2026 the regulator (CRE) opens a 90-day consultation on a draft Consumer Energy Protection rule. Written to punish teaser-pricing discounters, as drafted it also sweeps in Hélios: a price cap below hedging cost would cut operating margin from 6.5% to 3.8% (≈€124M/yr of profit at risk), an early-exit-fee ban removes ≈€38M/yr and lifts churn 14%→21%, and new disclosure obligations cost €22M one-off plus €9M/yr. Playing the Director of Corporate & Public Affairs with a fixed €1.6M non-market budget and a four-person team, you (1) read the institutional field and triage the draft's clauses into support / oppose / amend instead of fighting all of it; (2) set the engagement strategy and frame, allocating the €1.6M across CRE submission, bilateral meetings, op-eds, customer mobilisation, independent economic research and external counsel, and choosing whether to argue narrow margin self-interest or reframe the cap as a threat to the very consumers the rule protects; (3) build the coalition before the 30 May UFE deadline — lead, join, free-ride or break ranks toward a consumer-group ally, while refusing the toxic discount-rival front and the incumbent's SME-sacrificing pact; and (4) execute the endgame, balancing inside (lobbying) and outside (public) tactics and defending all four KPIs to a CRE commissioner and a hostile journalist. The math is grounded in Von Staden's institutional-logics lens, Baron's non-market strategy, Olson's collective-action trap and Fombrun's reputational capital: legitimacy-bearing framing, selective opposition, peer-credible coalitions and inside-outside complementarity score best, while the five classic errors — self-interest framing, total opposition, the toxic discount coalition, free-riding the association, and inside-only lobbying with no public air cover — measurably underperform, the last two triggering the Ministry's escalation to a harsher statute. Final KPIs track Regulatory Outcome, Legitimacy, Coalition Strength and Reputational Risk simultaneously, against the €1.6M budget cap.

Simulación UNAD ECACEN sobre la ruptura del equilibrio económico en un contrato de obra pública. El consorcio ejecuta a pérdida y debe diagnosticar causales (imprevisión, hecho del contratante, sujeciones), cuantificar el desequilibrio, construir el argumento jurídico de tres pisos (Ley 80 + jurisprudencia Sección Tercera + doctrina), elegir herramienta de restablecimiento (otrosí / conciliación / liquidación con salvedades / tribunal) y redactar salvedades defensibles antes de la liquidación bilateral.

MBA-track ERM operating-model rebuild at Petrolia under regulator pressure. Players take the CRO seat after a near-miss pipeline rupture and rebuild the function across five components — cadence, three-lines-of-defense, register-to-decision pipeline, board reporting, and success metrics — over 12 months, with milestones at the CER 90-day filing, the mid-year Board review, the ICC customer-substitution trigger, and the year-end Board ERM Review.

Trace two canonical end-to-end transactions across an integrated enterprise system. Helio Verde Beverages moves from four disconnected legacy systems to a single SAP S/4HANA Cloud tenant; participants walk Order-to-Cash and Procure-to-Pay step by step, watch modules light up, and decide on master-data, governance, and implementation-pattern choices. The aha is Davenport (1998): ERP is the institutionalisation of business processes in shared data structures.

Interactive exercise exploring ERP system integration, module data flows, and diagnostic skills for identifying and fixing integration failures across SD, MM, PP, and FICO modules

Lead the sustainability transformation of Verdant Consumer Group over 5 years. Allocate capital across environmental, social, and governance initiatives while protecting shareholder value and managing ESG-related crises.

A four-round, advanced sustainable-investing and portfolio-risk simulation set inside the Mekhala ESG Leaders Fund, a ฿18,000,000,000 long-only Thai-and-ASEAN equity strategy run by a Bangkok asset-management boutique and benchmarked to the SET ESG Index. On 14 March 2026 a synchronized market disruption — a regional commodity shock plus a Bank of Thailand rate signal — sends the SET down 9% in eleven days, but the shock is asymmetric: it batters exactly the high-ESG sectors the fund overweights (renewables, consumer staples, healthcare) and spares the carbon-heavy energy and materials names it underweights. The fund is down 12.4% versus the benchmark's 9.0%, volatility has jumped from 14% to 22% against an 18% ceiling, and the integrity tilt has become the drawdown. Playing the portfolio manager, you must rebalance against a hard, multi-dimensional risk budget — return gap, volatility (≤18%), drawdown (≤15% board hard stop) and a contractual ESG covenant that forbids the weighted ESG score from ever falling below the 70th percentile, audited 31 March, whose breach for two consecutive quarters arms ฿12,000,000,000 of European-LP redemptions at no penalty. Round 1: diagnose the disruption — attribute the 340 bps of underperformance to the ESG sector tilt rather than stock selection or factor noise, identify the live volatility breach, and flag the two CSR-controversy holdings (4.2% + 3.1%) as covenant landmines rather than cheap positions. Round 2: set the two policy dials — the minimum eligible ESG rating (from ≥CCC return-chasing to a disciplined ≥BBB to an over-concentrated ≥A) and the CSR-exposure weight on the controversy names — and decide how much of the book to rotate into the rebounding low-ESG names, learning that the covenant, not the benchmark, is the binding constraint. Round 3: execute under a live mid-round shock — a two-notch downgrade pushes the live score below the floor while energy rallies again — choosing execution speed against ~150 bps of market impact, restoring the score with high-rated names rather than chasing return, adding a volatility overlay, and setting an ESG buffer above the floor. Round 4: defend the mandate to the lead European LP, framing ESG as state-dependent downside protection (per Sarajoti's research) rather than a free return premium, and proposing a standing threshold-plus-CSR-weight framework with a buffer, a volatility overlay and covenant monitoring. The math rewards covenant discipline, a real buffer, a volatility hedge and managed execution — and punishes the five classic errors: return-chasing into low-ESG names that arms the redemption clause, integrity over-protection that breaches the volatility and drawdown limits, treating controversy holdings as ordinary positions, leaving zero buffer above the floor, and ignoring market-impact cost on liquidity-stressed exits. Final KPIs track the weighted ESG percentile versus the floor, 30-day volatility, drawdown and the return gap to benchmark in basis points.

Simulacion de estructuracion de Estudios Previos para contratacion publica colombiana — caso ampliacion del Puente La Estancia (San Onofre del Rio, Tolima). Cinco rondas: justificacion de necesidad y arbol MGA, analisis del sector, valor estimado y AIU, matriz de riesgos CONPES 3714, garantias y modalidad de seleccion. Las decisiones se evaluan en tres dimensiones: solidez tecnica, defensibilidad juridica y mitigacion de riesgo.

Simulation placing participants as a country manager navigating six escalating ethical dilemmas — bribery, environmental compliance, whistleblowing, data privacy, community impact, and board governance — measuring ethical coherence, stakeholder awareness, and leadership reputation

Interactive simulation teaching ethnographic and observational research methods through simulated coffee shop fieldwork sessions where students allocate time across structured observation, ethnographic notes, and artifact analysis

HelioConnect 2026: 600 attendees, 3 days, $740K budget, 14 sponsors, a keynote at risk and a rooftop reception under a 30% storm forecast. Run the multi-vendor, multi-stakeholder, fixed-deadline operations problem across four rounds — Venue & Contracts, Registration & Sponsors & Speakers, On-Site Day 1, and the Day 2 Crisis Cascade.

MO-210-shaped decision trainer: a Junior Business Analyst at Brightline Supply Co. faces four rounds of right-function choices across workbook triage, formulas, tables, and delivery. Score against the five MO-210 domains and earn defensible Excel reasoning.

A four-round, advanced executive-education strategy simulation set inside Liffey Business School — Executive Development (LBS-ED), the exec-ed arm of a leading Irish university business school in Dublin (€22M revenue, 24% operating margin, 35 staff plus a faculty pool of 55). On 19 January 2026 three pressures converge on the annual strategy review: the Financial Times custom ranking has dropped 6 places (from #28 to #34, with a board-signalled strategic review if it falls below the top 40), the university finance office has raised the annual surplus target by €1.5M to fund a new campus building, and two anchor corporate clients worth a combined €3.1M/year are being courted by INSEAD and a fast-growing online provider while custom repeat business has slipped from 78% to 69%. Faculty utilization sits at 88%, near the ceiling, and a fixed €4.0M faculty-investment budget must cover delivery, research time (an FT ranking input that is non-billable this year), new-programme development and practitioner recruitment. Playing the Director of Executive Development, the team (1) reads the position — separating the lines that fund the unit from the lines that position it; (2) sets the portfolio mix and capacity allocation across open, custom and qualifications against the 88% utilization ceiling, deciding what to grow, hold or prune; (3) allocates the €4.0M faculty budget between billable delivery and the research/development that sustains ranking and pipeline, and sets a pricing posture under the market-positioning constraint; and (4) commits the strategy and defends the surplus-vs-ranking trade-off, an anchor-client retention play, and an explicit strategic sacrifice to the executive board and FT-conscious dean. The math rewards a custom-led, research-funding, premium-where-earned, anchor-protecting strategy and punishes the five classic errors — surplus over position, blind across-the-board price rises, growing every line past the ceiling, ignoring the €3.1M anchors, and spending the whole budget on delivery with no pipeline. Final KPIs track FT Ranking trajectory, Surplus vs the +€1.5M target, Client Retention %, and Faculty Utilization against the 88% ceiling.

Diagnostic simulation for senior executives weighing a €60k+ AMP / SEP / PADE: separate the four motives (knowledge, network, brand, identity), match motive to program archetype, build the all-in cost model, and run the timing test before committing.

Diagnose the real motive, the all-in cost, and whether this year is the right year for an AMP, SEP, or PADE — and produce a defensible commit, defer, or skip.

Build the script, the deck and the Q&A for Helena Vargas's high-stakes 8-minute Series-D board update on the troubled CoEditor.io EU expansion. Diagnose the room, design the answer-first architecture, and defend it under fire when a leaked director's note, an agenda compression and a killer-question pre-flag rebuild the room in real time.

A 4-round negotiation simulation for Director-level professionals facing separation. Practice reading the package for omissions, mapping ethical leverage, drafting a statute-anchored counter-letter, and holding the floor against HR pressure tactics to recover the 30-60 percent of value most people leave on the table.

A four-round, advanced services-marketing and digital-platform simulation set inside GharSe, a four-year-old Indian home-services marketplace headquartered in Bengaluru that connects 1.9M households with 48,000 vetted professionals across six cities (540,000 bookings/month, ₹850 average order value, 18% take rate, ~₹5,500 crore run-rate GMV). Over one quarter consumer NPS has fallen from 46 to 31, match-success from 88% to 79%, repeat-usage from 62% to 54%, and — most alarming — monthly churn of top-rated professionals has doubled from 4% to 8% while rival UrbanReady dangles ₹45,000 earnings guarantees and two viral posts (a no-show and a safety complaint) knocked 9 points off trust. The board gives the CX team one quarter, ₹9 crore and 6 engineering sprints to reverse all of it, or it cuts the budget 40% and pauses two city launches. Playing the CX Manager you (1) map the multi-actor journey and diagnose where value is leaking and FOR WHOM — your own T+7 payout delay and slow resolution, not a price war with UrbanReady; (2) build a costed touchpoint-investment portfolio under the hard ₹9 crore / 6 sprint cap that must protect supply, not just polish the consumer funnel; (3) tune the matching algorithm (speed vs quality vs supply-fairness vs price) and engineer ONE targeted trust mechanism rather than stacking every mechanism into trust theater; and (4) read the mixed end-of-quarter results and pick a single rebalancing move — a pro-earnings floor or a consumer-trust booster — while handling the viral incidents with a fast, visible recovery and defending a genuine two-sided trajectory to the board. The math rewards value co-creation across consumers, professionals and platform infrastructure and punishes the five classic errors — consumer-only optimization, speed-at-all-costs matching, trust theater, neglecting service recovery, and chasing the competitor instead of fixing your own diagnosed leaks. Final KPIs track Consumer NPS, Match-Success Rate, Repeat-Usage Rate and Supply Health, against the ₹9 crore budget and 6-sprint capacity caps.

Multi-period integrated business strategy simulation where participants manage a consumer goods company across LATAM markets, making decisions on pricing, marketing, R&D, sales force, production capacity, international expansion, and financial policy while competing against AI-driven rivals and navigating macro events.

Advanced 12-quarter simulation managing a multinational across 8 global markets with dual financial and ESG/SDG scoring, geopolitical events, carbon regulation, and stakeholder governance

Apply three Pigouvian-style policy tools — fee, tradable permits, command regulation — to a real schoolyard externality. Calibrate, observe, defend, and surface who pays the un-priced cost.

A four-round, intermediate leadership and organizational-behaviour simulation set inside Nordlys Forsikring AS, a Bergen-headquartered Norwegian insurer (NOK 6.4 billion in gross written premiums, 720 employees). You started six weeks ago as head of the 28-person, deliberately multigenerational Claims Excellence department. The long-serving Senior Team Lead retires on 1 May and there is budget for exactly one promotion — a 140 000 kr salary uplift and a leadership track. Two strong internal candidates have applied: Astrid (58, 22 years, the deepest technical expert and mentor to half the team, twice passed over) and Henrik (29, 4 years, led the claims-automation pilot that cut settlement time 22%, high executive visibility). A live grievance alleges the last promotion was decided opaquely; the perceived-fairness score has fallen to 58/100 from 71 two years ago; exit-risk modelling flags 3 younger and 2 senior experts at elevated flight risk (each loss costing 600 000–900 000 kr); and a “Great Place to Work” finalist result lands in eight weeks while an angry team-channel screenshot circulates. The danger is not the choice but the justice of how it is made and explained. Round 1: diagnose which kind of fairness Nordlys has been failing across the three dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interactional) — and discover the score fell over an opaque process, not over who won. Round 2: design the decision process before choosing anyone — weighted criteria declared in advance, structured voice, a bias-checked and documented record, trading process depth against the 1 May deadline. Round 3: commit to Astrid, Henrik, or a designed third option, where the model rewards consistency between the criteria set in Round 2 and the choice made here, and punishes a quiet re-weighting (a rigged process), an unspoken seniority norm, or visibility bias. Round 4: deliver the team announcement and the one-on-one with the candidate not chosen — honest and respectful, not platitudes — face the circulating screenshot and reputational clock, and commit a 60-day plan to rebuild fairness. Sticky penalty flags mean the headline anti-patterns (outcome before process, criteria–choice inconsistency, conflict avoidance via seniority, visibility bias, platitudes over honesty) cap the KPIs and cannot reach the top verdict even when other rounds are played well. Final KPIs track perceived fairness (/100), team trust (/10), conflict resolution (/100) and retention of the five flight-risk experts. Currency throughout is the Norwegian krone (kr).

A four-round, advanced corporate-financial-reporting simulation set inside Rheinwerk Systeme AG, a Mannheim-headquartered, Frankfurt-listed (Prime Standard) industrial-automation group that reports under IFRS (revenue €540M, EBIT €51M, 2,100 staff). The 31 December 2026 close is underway with audited results due to the supervisory board on 18 February 2027, and three issues converge on the Group Financial Controller's desk in one week. A €24M year-end 'Project Adler' contract bundles delivered hardware (~€14M), incomplete software/integration (~€6M) and a 36-month service that begins in Q1 2027 (~€4M); the commercial team booked the full €24M as 2026 revenue. A separate €9M receivable is 180+ days overdue from a client now in formal restructuring. And the Big Four group auditor — whose signing partner has held the engagement for nine years — has sent a written query due in seven days. The bite: a €200M syndicated loan carries a net-debt/EBIT covenant of 3.0x, and management bonuses worth €3.8M vest above an EBIT threshold; recognising Adler in full lands the covenant at a comfortable 2.94x, while the IFRS-15-correct deferral pushes EBIT to ~€46.8M and the covenant to 3.21x — a breach. Playing the controller, you (1) apply the IFRS 15 five-step model to Adler — identify the distinct performance obligations, allocate the price on a relative stand-alone-selling-price basis, and recognise only what was satisfied; (2) size and disclose an IFRS 9 expected-credit-loss provision on the €9M receivable against the true-and-fair-view obligation; (3) answer the auditor query on the standards rather than the pressure, decide whether to proactively escalate the covenant breach to the audit committee and lender, and handle the nine-year-partner familiarity threat; and (4) defend the statements to the audit-committee chair, facing the 'it's signed and delivered' and 'do we have to disclose it?' pressure and the chair's observation that every estimate broke toward the bonus and the covenant. The scoring rewards faithful representation and punishes the five classic errors — sign-equals-revenue, a concealed breach, an optimistic receivable, incentive-led judgement, and leaning on the long-tenured partner — so a covenant- or bonus-driven play measurably underperforms the standards-grounded one. Final KPIs track IFRS Compliance, Earnings Quality, Disclosure Transparency and an Audit-Risk rating, alongside reported EBIT and the live covenant ratio.

A four-round, advanced corporate-finance simulation set inside Lácteos del Altiplano S.A.S., a second-generation family dairy company in Tunja, Boyacá, Colombia (COP$96.000 millones revenue, 13% EBITDA margin, 410 employees, founded 1991). A national supermarket chain offers a transformational 3-year private-label contract worth COP$40.000 millones a year — a 42% revenue jump — but it demands a COP$22.000 millones plant and cold-chain expansion within 12 months and payment terms stretched from 30 to 75 days, trapping roughly COP$6.200 millones in receivables. Total cash requirement: about COP$28.200 millones against COP$5.500 millones of cash and COP$6.800 millones of annual free cash flow, almost all of it currently paid out as an ~88% family dividend. Playing the CFO, you (1) diagnose why a profitable, lightly-leveraged firm is cash-constrained — reading the balance sheet and cash flow past the income statement to see the working-capital trap and the three binding constraints of cash, covenant and governance; (2) design a financing mix across bank debt, equipment leasing, retained earnings via a dividend cut, and an outside minority equity investor, keeping leverage under the bank's 3.0x EBITDA covenant ceiling; (3) convert the dinner-table dividend habit into a formal policy that funds growth while building a bridge for the abroad-based sibling who depends on the payout and threatens to block any cut; and (4) reform governance — independent directors, separation of ownership and management, an audit-and-finance board remit, and a genuine founder transition from operator-with-veto to chair-with-defined-authority — then pitch the integrated package to the bank's credit committee and the retailer. The math rewards genuine, sequenced family-firm finance and punishes the five classic errors: income-statement myopia, control-at-all-costs all-debt funding that breaches the covenant, imposing a dividend cut with no shareholder bridge, cosmetic governance, and reflexive dilution before exhausting cheaper levers. Final KPIs track Liquidity Coverage, Financial Health, Family Trust, and Bankability against the COP$28.200 millones funding requirement and the 45-day deadline.

MBA Track 4 simulation. As FECOFA Independent Ethics Officer Verónica, you have nine weeks (W4 to W12) to design a governance reform package strong enough to lift the FIFA Article 12 audit, recover two suspended title sponsors worth USD 9M/yr, secure the Week 10 General Assembly vote, and survive the Week 8 FIFA preliminary review. Six reforms (Independent Ethics Committee, unbundling VP Competitions, Betting Integrity Unit, Whistleblower Hotline, Electoral Reform, Financial Controls) compete for political capital, reserves and stakeholder attention. Anchors: FIFAGate 2015, DFB 2015, RFEF 2023, Calciopoli 2006, Last Bet 2011, Bochum 2009.

Audit two domains where you want to improve, grade each on the four feedback criteria (fast, specific, honest, actionable), identify the broken loops, then design one install — source, cadence, format, and honesty mechanism — that closes the highest-leverage broken loop.

A four-round, advanced Organisational Behaviour & Change simulation set inside Halden & Crew Engineering, a 1,150-person Leeds water-infrastructure consultancy that has just completed an all-share merger with the 620-person Tarn Civil Partners, creating a 1,770-person UK group. The firm's 30-year-old 'engineer-led, no-layoffs' promise is now in doubt: five weeks into integration the pulse score has fallen from 72 to 51, negative-emotion comments have jumped from 20% to 58%, only 29% of Tarn-side and 41% of Halden staff agree the merger is being handled fairly, and regretted attrition among the 210 billable senior engineers is running at 19% versus a 7% baseline — each leaver costing ~GBP 95K plus stalled client projects. You are the HR lead with a single ring-fenced fund of GBP 1.2M and eight weeks to get attrition below 10% by the 15 May board review, or the board triggers the forced redundancies that would break the Day-1 promise outright. Playing through four rounds you (1) read the emotional event signals — separating one-off affective events like the leaked synergy slide from chronic strain like the 14% pay-band gap, and naming which emotion is the leading indicator of senior attrition; (2) restore fairness by allocating the GBP 1.2M across the three justice types — distributive pay harmonisation (GBP 850K), procedural transparent criteria and appeals (GBP 120K), and an interactional manager explain-and-listen cascade (GBP 200K) — learning that procedural and interactional justice move trust faster and cheaper than the loudest, most expensive distributive fix; (3) enable bounded job crafting under the freeze as a near-zero-cost lever for meaning and engagement, setting guardrails so unloved-but-critical compliance and QA work stays covered; and (4) integrate everything into a board-ready stabilisation plan that translates fairness and crafting into the cash that protects the GBP 9M synergy, while responding to a live press leak without contradicting the Day-1 promise. The scoring rewards segment-specific, procedural-and-interactional-first, abatement-of-attrition strategies with a board case framed in cash — and punishes the five classic errors: expensive-fix bias (blowing the budget on pay), undifferentiated treatment of the workforce, suppressing the negative-comment signal, unbounded or strangled job crafting, and a soft 'it is the right thing to do' board framing. Final KPIs track Wellbeing (pulse 0-100), Perceived Fairness (0-100), Change Adoption (0-100) and Regretted Attrition (% annualised, lower better).

Negotiate the closure of a stalled COP 14,800M public water-supply contract in Colombia: release the COP 740M retención, start the 5-year stability warranty, and sign the Acta de Recibo Final without losing the warranties — across four rounds covering closure-file diagnosis, path selection (salvedades / clean / partial acta), three-counterparty negotiation under hidden political constraints, and the final acta drafting under legal-counsel pressure.

Forty-eight hours between Monday's P&L pack and Wednesday's BU review at Norandic Iberia. As Astrid Solberg-Lindqvist, ninety-one days into a first department-lead seat, practice the disciplines of reading variance, asking the right questions of the finance partner, and presenting the unfavourable variance you own to leadership.

Guide Mercado Fresco S.A. through a complete accounting cycle: record operating transactions, asset purchases, period-end adjustments, and closing entries to build the Income Statement, Balance Sheet, and Cash Flow Statement from scratch.

Manage MiEmpresa, a small fashion accessories startup, making decisions about production, pricing, marketing, hiring, and cash management across 4 months. Learn fundamental business trade-offs: price vs. volume, fixed vs. variable costs, and cash vs. profit.

Career-readiness simulation for HS / early-CTE learners. Across four rounds at Lakeshore Supply Co., the protagonist navigates the unwritten rules of a first job: dress code, attendance ledgers, peer pressure, customer hand-offs, owning mistakes, and the thank-you email. Tracks Reputation with Diane, Ethics under peer pressure, Customer Service, and the 90-day occurrence ledger.

A 5-round CFO-debut earnings-call simulation. Practice Reg FD discipline, hostile-analyst protocol, pace-as-credibility, and the 6-hour post-call window inside a mid-cap industrial software setting (NYSE: HEIA, $402M LTM). The choreography of a public-company first call.

Three student founders of The Hub — a snack bar inside Greenfield International School — must hire their first paid employee, design induction and motivation, and pick a leadership style for a real product disagreement. Three rounds covering the whole of IB Business Management Section 2 (Units 2.1 to 2.5): recruitment process, induction and training, motivation theories (Taylor, Mayo, Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor), and leadership styles.

Three Saturday-job conversations a 16-year-old has to navigate without a parent or teacher in the room: saying no to an extra shift, responding to a wrongful blame, and asking about a strange boss instruction. The dashboard models the 3-month consequences of each choice across boss relationship, coworker trust, self-respect and practical outcome.

A 75-minute Corporate L&D simulation for newly promoted operational managers. Take Maya Chen-Vásquez's seat at CoEditor.io's Madrid Platform team across the first thirty days: a fragile first 1:1 with the colleague who didn't get the job, a Sev-2 incident that pulls every doer-instinct, and a flight-risk senior who doesn't believe you can lead the rewrite. Practise Grove, Fournier, Zhuo, Watkins, Larson, and Scott applied at the operational seat, and produce three artifacts you could carry into a real Monday.

Sit on the Costaria Cabinet during a real recession. Choose the tax-and-spending mix from a CO$30bn package, watch multipliers play out across two years, and discover that stimulus is six different policies in one word.

A four-round, advanced supply-chain strategy simulation. You are the newly hired — and first-ever — VP of Supply Chain at Smoky Mountain Foods, Inc. (SMF), a Chattanooga, Tennessee branded-food manufacturer: US$1.25B revenue, 11% operating margin, four plants, six DCs, ~3,800 people, grown by acquisition into a patchwork of three ERP instances, no integrated S&OP, and plants that optimize locally. In your first week two things land: the largest customer (~22% of revenue, ~US$275M) issues a formal service-watch letter — OTIF has slipped to 89% against a required 96%, and a second strike within two quarters delists slow SKUs — and the board hands you a charter to build an integrated supply-chain strategy funded from a US$40M three-year budget, gate by gate. Following Dittmann's Supply Chain Transformation framework and the New Supply Chain Agenda, you (1) run a structured SWOT and name the single biggest threat to value — reframing 'fix operations' into 'build a strategy'; (2) choose a coherent few strategic priorities and align each to how SMF actually competes for its at-risk customer, resisting the urge to fix everything; (3) allocate the US$40M across a slate of initiatives — integrated S&OP/IBP, network/DC redesign, working-capital release, single ERP, plant automation, talent & org, a control tower — and sequence them across three phases for early, provable value under the board gate; and (4) present the Phase-1 gate to the board, committing measurable success tests (an OTIF target, a cash-released target, a date) and defending the sequencing. The math rewards an S&OP-first, service-led, self-funding roadmap with credible gate tests, and punishes the five classic errors: an ERP-first big bang that delivers zero service before the customer's second review and consumes the budget, funding everything and blowing the US$40M cap, chasing plant-cost reduction while service to the US$275M customer keeps slipping, buying assets while neglecting the talent and S&OP cadence that make them work, and presenting a roadmap with no measurable gate tests the board can govern. Final KPIs track OTIF (the service clock to the at-risk customer), Cash Released (US$M — the self-funding lever from the 94-day cash-to-cash cycle and US$60M+ excess inventory), Board Confidence (gate buy-in), and Budget Used against the US$40M cap.

A four-round, intermediate HR strategy simulation set inside Linnea Industrial Software (LIS), a Barcelona-headquartered B2B software and engineering-services company of 1,450 people with a second business unit in Munich (€198M revenue, 13% margin). The two units have opposite work cultures and opposite problems: Barcelona (820 staff, younger, collaborative, office-attached) has a 19% voluntary-turnover retention crisis where 38% are 'actively considering leaving' and each regretted exit costs ~€62,000; Munich (630 staff, older, autonomy-oriented, client-site) has only 9% turnover but an engagement crisis at 61% versus a 74% target. After a competitor's four-day-friendly model triggers a talent walkout, the CEO gives the HR Director one quarter and a single fixed €1,200,000 budget — about 60% of what the two units' first-choice policies would jointly cost (~€1.95M) — to design a flexible-work policy across both units that cuts turnover and lifts engagement without breaking the budget. Playing the HR Director, you (1) diagnose why the same policy lands differently across cultures, distinguishing flexibility that reduces work-family CONFLICT from flexibility that creates work-family ENRICHMENT (Masuda's cross-cultural evidence); (2) choose a policy per unit — flextime, a compressed four-day week, or structured hybrid — set eligibility rules with a fairness principle for the ~40% of client-site and 24/7 roles that cannot flex, and allocate the €1.2M across both units under the cap; (3) handle a mid-rollout shock — Munich managers can't lead flexible client-site teams, a 24/7-support fairness grievance, and a customer losing Friday coverage — by investing in manager capability, defusing the backlash procedurally, and protecting service levels; and (4) commit to a leading-indicator KPI dashboard (turnover intention, satisfaction, work-family conflict, cost) and defend the case to the CEO to avert a uniform return-to-office mandate. The math rewards context-sensitive, enrichment-aware, procedurally fair design within budget and punishes the five classic errors — one-size-fits-all rollout, choosing the four-day week on appeal while ignoring coverage, treating flexibility only as conflict-reduction, overspending past the shared budget, and writing eligibility rules with no fairness principle. Final KPIs track Barcelona Retention, Munich Engagement, Eligibility Fairness, and Budget used against the €1.2M cap.

Sales-leadership simulation for MBA Track 3B. You are CRO Tomás Beltrán at CoEditor.io. After a 22% Q3 board miss, lead independent director Mara Lindqvist has given you 60 days to design a calibration system the board can underwrite. Allocate quarterly leadership bandwidth across five system components — comp-plan reform, stage-gate evidence, dot-grading, AE calibration scorecards, Tetlock training — and choose your coaching protocol and board posture across a two-year build window. The simulation tests for the canonical CRO mistakes: treating forecast accuracy as Sales Ops, public-shaming the AE base, and over-promising next-quarter accuracy.

MBA-level bilingual simulation in Auditoría Forense set in CABOCOM (Caja de Compensación Familiar, Bogotá). Players run a four-round forense engagement — Detect, Preserve, Interview, Testify — applying Cressey fraud triangle, Benford screening, NIST SP 800-86 chain of custody, Fisher-Geiselman cognitive interviewing, and Art. 391/405 Ley 906 cross-examination defense to dismantle a phantom-supplier pattern of COP 2,400 millones.

Step into the role of Chief Strategy Officer at Altiplano Energia, a $2.8B Latin American energy company, and navigate the energy transition through structured scenario planning, strategic stress-testing, and real options design across five rounds of deepening uncertainty.

A four-round, advanced operations-and-innovation simulation set inside Esmaltec Sul S.A., a Joinville (Santa Catarina) maker of enameled steel and ceramic-coated home and building products — R$720 million revenue, 12.5% EBITDA, one plant with four lines running near a hard 2.1M-units/year ceiling. The defect rate has crept to 4.2% (best-in-class ~1.5%), cost of quality runs at 9% of revenue (R$64.8M/year — more than two-thirds of EBITDA), and on 18 March 2026 the firm's largest customer CasaForte (24% of revenue, R$173M) issues an ultimatum: cut the defect rate on its lines below 2.0% within two quarters or it dual-sources 50% of the volume (R$86.5M at risk, a further R$120M if the reputation spreads). As the VP Operations, advised by Esmaltec's university-industry Innovation Forum, you (1) diagnose the defect Pareto and cost-of-quality structure to tell a process-limitation root cause from an execution-variation one; (2) choose the innovation project inside a R$22M envelope among process innovation A (electrostatic enamel + in-line vision, R$19M, gets defects to ~1.6% but a 6-month install removes ~180,000 units of peak-season capacity), product innovation B (a premium nano-coating extension, R$14M, revenue upside but raises near-term defect risk on the watched lines), and continuous-improvement C (Six Sigma DMAIC + SPC, R$4.5M, fast and low-downtime but plateaus around 2.8%) — or a feasible combination; (3) set a balanced quality scorecard rather than a single defect-rate target that invites gaming cycle time and cost of quality; and (4) sequence the rollout to protect CasaForte's peak volume while a mid-project trial underperforms — phasing installs, overtime, temporary outsourcing or renegotiating the deadline. The math rewards reframing quality spend as an investment against the R$64.8M cost-of-quality bleed, matching the intervention to the Pareto root cause, focusing the budget instead of spreading it thin, a balanced scorecard, and phasing the install around the capacity ceiling — and punishes the five classic errors: revenue before stability, ignoring downtime, thin spreading, single-metric tunnel vision, and treating the project as pure expense. Final KPIs track Defect Rate %, Cost of Quality % of revenue, CasaForte Delivery, and Innovation Pipeline value.

A four-round, advanced change-leadership simulation built on Cliff Oswick's organisational-discourse theory and set inside Calderwood Building Society, a 740,000-member UK mutual in Manchester (92 branches, a GBP 14.2bn mortgage-and-savings book, 3,100 staff of whom 1,850 are front-line, and a cost-to-income ratio of 62% that must fall to 54% to stay viable against digital challengers). On 9 March 2026 the board approves Project Horizon: consolidate 92 branches into 64 hub-and-spoke sites, move 480 of 1,850 front-line roles into a centralised digital-and-phone centre, retrain affected staff at ~GBP 9,000 each, and launch within three weeks — by 31 March — or push GBP 6m of savings into next year. Trust is already low: a pulse survey shows only 34% of staff believe leadership is honest about why change happens, 28 of the 28 closures are the only bank left in their town, the union wants consultation, and the press is circling. Playing the change leader, you (1) diagnose the discourse landscape — the existing 'family', 'fortress' and 'machine' metaphors already shaping how Horizon will be heard, and the 34% credibility gap you must close; (2) choose ONE governing metaphor (journey, renewal/growth, machine/efficiency, or organism/adaptation), naming what it enables and what it suppresses for a people-first mutual; (3) write three audience-tuned messages (staff, members/community, union) within that one metaphor and decide whether to engage, contain, or route around dissent under the clock; and (4) absorb a launch-day counter-narrative — a viral staff post reframing 'Horizon' and a community protest — choosing to reframe, hold, or suppress. The math rewards an identity-fit metaphor that names the loss honestly, dialogic engagement of the union, audience-tuned messages, and reframing over suppression; it punishes the five classic errors: a machine/efficiency frame on a people-first identity, euphemism that papers over 480 lost roles, routing around the union and ceding authorship of the narrative, one-message-fits-all, and a 'cease and correct' suppression of the counter-story. Final KPIs track Buy-in, Message Clarity, Resistance Incidents (lower better) and Rollout Speed (% of the deadline protected), so every framing trade-off is computable in the debrief.

Halden & Rowe, a London consultancy, has won a £12m bank transformation programme sold on its “Inclusion Dividend” thesis — diverse teams outperform homogeneous ones, but only if the friction is managed. You are the Project Lead. Over four rounds you compose an 8-person delivery pod from a 14-candidate bench, diagnose three live disputes as task, process, or relationship conflict, intervene under a fixed time-and-attention budget, and then retain your most diverse hires and defend the realised Return on Inclusion at the Day-45 client checkpoint. Learn the core distinction (task conflict is fuel up to a point, process conflict is mildly corrosive, relationship conflict is almost always friction), that diagnosis must precede intervention, that one playbook cannot fix three conflict types, and that inclusion is sustained — not composed once on Day 1. Wrong strategies underperform: the safe homogeneous pod forfeits the dividend, misdiagnosis smothers the debate that improves the design, a one-size remedy makes two conflicts worse, and ignoring the roll-off signals collapses the pod back to the team you rejected.

A 5-round coaching simulation that converts the noticed absence of a non-work friendship layer into a first month of action: an honest inventory, a Dunbar tier map, a reactivation list with three drafted messages, a calendar architecture with a protector script, and three asks actually sent before the round ends.

A four-round, advanced executive-education and corporate-L&D simulation set inside Levent Learning Partners (LLP), the custom-programs arm of a top Istanbul executive-education unit (EUR 11M revenue, 20% operating margin, 14 designers, 55 faculty). A fast-growing Turkish e-commerce and logistics group, Anadolu Express (EUR 2.3bn revenue, 11,000 staff), issues an RFP for a 'first-time manager' programme for 300 newly promoted team leads, with a fixed EUR 900,000 budget and a proposal due in nine working days. The RFP states the problem as 'our new managers lack delegation and time-management skills' — but LLP's preliminary diagnostic data (engagement surveys, exit-interview themes, 360 snapshots, manager-span and turnover figures) say the real drivers are feedback avoidance, unclear role authority and a punitive error culture. Two of three rival bidders will simply build the literal brief. Playing LLP's custom-programs team, you (1) run a structured training-needs analysis that separates the presenting symptom from the root competency gaps and choose a diagnosis stance — confirm, partially reframe, or fully reframe; (2) convert the prioritized gaps into a costed module-to-competency blueprint within the EUR 900,000 cap, choosing methods that fit each behaviour (practice and coaching for feedback, not lectures) and a depth-vs-coverage balance for 300 people; (3) price, position and win the RFP against the literal-build rivals, leading with the client's business outcome and navigating a sponsor-vs-COO split; and (4) defend the diagnosis once the programme is running, honour the COO's felt need without diluting fit, and commit a month-six needs-fit and NPS evidence plan built on behaviour, retention and promotion-readiness rather than a satisfaction smile-sheet. The math rewards genuine, well-positioned needs-fit and punishes the five classic errors — building the literal brief, burying the reframe, wish-list scoping that breaches the budget and margin floor, lecturing about competencies that must be built through practice, and capitulating to politics by dropping the diagnosis. Final KPIs track Needs-Fit %, Win Probability %, Account Health (month-six NPS / durable account) and Budget Committed against the EUR 900k cap and the 20% margin floor.

A four-round, advanced technology-transfer simulation set inside NorTec Transfer Office, the knowledge-transfer unit of a Porto-based research university operating from the U.Porto innovation ecosystem (EUR 1.8M annual budget, six-person team, 23 disclosed inventions). Two clocks collide on 16 June 2026: AeroFoam-7 — a recyclable aerogel insulation material with strong lab data but stuck at Technology Readiness Level 4 — must enter the PCT patent national phase within 90 days (≈EUR 180,000) or lose protection in key markets, and the same quarter the discretionary EUR 600,000 proof-of-concept seed fund's reporting period closes, clawing back anything unspent. Industrial buyers want TRL 7, and closing the valley of death needs ≈EUR 450,000 plus 9–12 months of field validation — so internal money alone cannot both protect and de-risk the asset and external leverage is mandatory. Playing the Tech-Transfer Manager you (1) diagnose readiness and value honestly, naming the binding constraint as the TRL-4-to-7 readiness gap rather than treating lab data as sale-ready; (2) choose the commercialization model — exclusive license, inventor spin-off, or a co-funded joint-development agreement — matching pathway to the technology's maturity, the lead inventor's reluctance to leave academia, and the capital available; (3) allocate the EUR 600k seed fund across national-phase filing, field validation and a reserve, decide which jurisdictions to file in versus abandon, and pick a partner among a multinational's EUR 250k + 3% royalty exclusive license, a regional construction group's EUR 400k co-funded JDA with a future option, or a venture fund's EUR 1.2M for 35% equity conditional on the inventor leaving; and (4) sequence the next 12 months around the hard deadlines, set exit KPIs, and build a contingency for inventor exit or weak validation. The math rewards genuine funding leverage (≥1.5× external euros per internal euro), context-fit pathway choice and deadline-driven sequencing, and punishes the five classic errors — upside-chasing into a founderless spin-off, leverage blindness, control surrender to a conflicted incumbent, IP over-filing, and readiness denial. Final KPIs track Readiness (TRL progress), Funding Leverage, Value Capture and seed-fund Budget used against the EUR 600k cap.

A four-round, advanced cross-cultural leadership simulation set inside Anadolu Çelik Sanayi A.Ş., a family-controlled Turkish steel-products manufacturer in Gebze (1,150 staff, ₺11.2 billion revenue, 45% exported to European automotive and white-goods customers). On 8 June 2026 the flagship German customer issues a formal quality escalation: front-line workers saw a defect early and said nothing, supervisors didn't ask, and the fix waited three days for senior sign-off. The customer demands a credible workforce-and-process plan in eight weeks or it re-sources 20% of its volume (≈₺1.0 billion annualised). As the new Country Manager carrying the Koç Leadership Lab mandate to shift the culture from power toward empowerment, you must transform an over-controlled, high-power-distance team — but WITHOUT importing a flat, foreign 'speak-freely' model that dishonours Turkish norms of hürmet (respect for hierarchy) and paternalist care. Four scored dials track the Empowerment Index (now 31/100), Cultural-Fit, team engagement and output quality. Round 1: diagnose how the control culture causes the quality escape and the talent bleed (18%/year attrition), and identify the local norms any change must work WITH. Round 2: choose and SEQUENCE empowerment levers — delegation (line-stop authority), voice (daily huddles, no-blame escape-reporting), recognition — under a fixed change budget and limited manager attention, without piling everything on at once. Round 3: a worker uses the new line-stop authority over a minor issue and the veteran Operations Lead demands the authority be revoked, while the German customer requests a plant visit in two weeks — respond to the incident, bring the resistant power-holder along, and decide what to show the customer. Round 4: defend the transformation to the board chair and the German supplier-quality director with a 90-day proof plan, distinguishing honestly between early behaviours and a completed transformation. The math rewards contextual, paternalism-honouring empowerment and a sequenced two-lever rollout, and punishes the five classic errors: decontextualised flatness, ignoring the middle layer, punishing early voice, initiative overload, and tooling a leadership problem as a quality-checklist problem.

Migrate Helio Verde Beverages 1.4-million-row sales workbook into a relational schema. Diagnose the four canonical Excel-at-scale failure modes (performance, concurrency, integrity, auditability), design a 3NF schema with referential integrity and proper indexes, write SQL for filtered aggregations and anti-joins, and pick the right architectural tier from Excel-only to a full modern data stack.

Andina TropicExport must convert three live FTA opportunities — US (TPA), Germany (Colombia–EU TA), Mexico (Alianza del Pacífico) — into two signed contracts before the August harvest window. Across four rounds players price each lane, qualify the cocoa butter under AP rules of origin, build the certification roadmap, and lock the export plan with an FX hedge.

Bilingual MBA simulation: a Bogotá-listed agro-industrial group consolidates four functional currencies into one set of IFRS financial statements. Determine functional currencies under IAS 21, run the IFRS 3 acquisition method on the new US arm, translate and consolidate four jurisdictions, and walk the auditor through the IAS 36 goodwill impairment test before the SuperFinanciera filing deadline.

A four-round, advanced organisational-behaviour simulation set inside Northgate Systems Ltd, a Reading-based enterprise-software company (1,400 staff, £240M revenue) recently acquired by a private-equity group. You lead its 320-person Platform Engineering Division, once the company's pride, now spending more and delivering less. The data is a textbook signature of energy gone wrong: the division scores highest in the company on hours worked and lowest on 'I have energy for my work'. Engagement has fallen from 78% to 54%, 41% report high exhaustion, average overtime is 9.2 hrs/week, productive energy sits at 38/100, regretted attrition runs at 18% (company 9%), and on-time delivery has slipped from 94% to 81%. A new PE-appointed board gives a 12-week ultimatum: visibly raise productive energy and stabilise attrition, or the division is broken up and outsourced. You hold a one-time £600,000 change budget and roughly 12 weeks of leadership attention — enough to fund and personally sponsor TWO levers well, not five badly. Using the Vogel & Bruch Organizational Energy Matrix you (1) diagnose the dominant energy state across both axes — intensity and quality — resisting the trap of reading high hours as passion or simple burnout when cynicism and friction point to CORROSIVE energy; (2) set the destination (productive energy) and shortlist change levers, distinguishing 'Slaying the Dragon' (rally against a shared threat) from 'Winning the Princess' (mobilise toward a vision), plus structural, people and load fixes; (3) pick EXACTLY two levers and sequence them under the budget and attention cap, learning that vision-before-stabilisation breeds cynicism and that de-loading — not adding — beats the acceleration trap; and (4) defend a sustainable 12-week trajectory to the PE board chair, distinguishing durable productive energy from a short-lived adrenaline spike. The math rewards a sharp corrosive diagnosis, dragon-before-princess sequencing, real de-loading, focus on two levers, and a relational (not structure-only) move — and measurably punishes the five classic errors. Final KPIs track Productive Energy (0–100), Engagement %, Burnout Risk and Regretted Attrition % against the board's 12-week test.

A four-round, intermediate finance-and-strategy simulation set inside Escuela de Alta Gerencia del Pacífico (EAGP), the executive-education unit of a leading Lima business school in San Isidro, Peru. Annual revenue is S/ 24,000,000 (roughly 55% open-enrollment certificates, 45% custom in-company programs), but classroom and faculty capacity is the binding constraint: six classrooms run at a 62% fill rate and the two most-requested faculty are booked nine months out. In March 2026 the rector freezes the central subsidy and raises the contribution-margin floor from 32% to 35%; last year EAGP closed at just 31%, a four-point gap worth about S/ 1,000,000 of contribution that the unit must now self-fund. Miss the floor two years running and the unit is merged into the MBA office and the director role disappears. Playing the Director of Executive Education and the leadership team, you treat an academic unit as a P&L across the 100-day decision window. Round 1: read a program-level P&L and classify the portfolio — separate the genuinely loss-making from the merely low-margin, and decide how to read the zero-contribution PAD flagship, which is also the alumni and custom-demand engine. Round 2: reprice the 14 open-enrollment programs using price elasticity (a 10% price rise historically cuts enrollment 6-8%) and segmentation rather than across-the-board hikes, protecting fill rate and the brand. Round 3: allocate scarce faculty between higher-margin custom work and steadier open-enrollment, and counter a mining client demanding a 12% rate cut (S/ 470,000 of contribution at risk) without simply conceding a logo. Round 4: build the capacity-investment case for the adjacent floor (+33% capacity) — do nothing, lease at S/ 1,400,000/year, or own for S/ 5,200,000 capex — computing ROI, payback and the break-even fill rate under three demand scenarios. The math rewards segmented pricing, capacity discipline, negotiated counter-value and scenario-tested investment; it punishes the five classic errors: killing the flagship on contribution alone, uniform price hikes, conceding the client cut for nothing, over-investing on an optimistic fill ramp, and slashing variable spend until quality (and NPS) collapses. Final KPIs track blended contribution margin (%), capacity fill rate (%), annual contribution (S/) and a strategic-health index covering brand, pipeline, talent and quality.

Investigative simulation in the Republic of Costaria. Round 1: classify 24 real-world transactions as in or out of GDP and assign their canonical value. Round 2: build the Minister's Second Number by selecting which household, informal, volunteer and environmental adjustments to apply. Teaches the SNA conventions, the three GDP approaches, and the GDP-vs-welfare distinction.

Foundation engineering decision simulation set on Bogotá Sabana lacustrine clays. Students compute allowable bearing capacity with proper water-table correction, compare shallow-mat vs. pilotes excavados vs. micropilotes against a fixed-price contract, negotiate under client pressure, and specify a construction-phase monitoring plan compliant with NSR-10 Título H.

A four-round, advanced executive-education simulation set inside ESCA Executive Learning, a French grande-école exec-ed unit (EUR 9.6M revenue, 22% contribution-margin target). Novalté Group, ESCA's second-largest client, has signed a EUR 1.4M flat-fee contract to deliver the acclaimed flagship 'Leading Across Borders' to 90 high-potential managers — but as one global cohort split simultaneously across three very different markets: 30 in France, 30 in Germany, 30 in the UAE (Dubai). The program earned its reputation delivered identically in France; it has never run in three national markets at once. As Program Director you must hold a hard 22% contribution-margin floor (EUR 308K) against a fixed fee while clearing a contractual module-1 satisfaction bar of >=4.2/5.0 in EVERY market — miss it in any one and ESCA forfeits 10% of the fee (EUR 140K) and the renewal. You play four rounds: (1) diagnose each market, separating the durable core (objectives, frameworks — standardize) from the culture-bound surface (cases, role-plays, feedback norms, language, pacing — localize), and flag the highest cross-cultural risk per market; (2) set delivery mode (in-person / virtual / blended) and cultural-adaptation level (light / moderate / deep) per market, each carrying a margin cost and a fit consequence, keeping margin >=22%; (3) build the faculty mix under genuine scarcity — only two French-capable core faculty, one German affiliate, zero UAE bench — choosing fly-in (EUR 4,800/trip, capacity drain), recruit-a-local-adjunct (cheap, quality risk against the 4.2 bar), or co-teach (best fit, highest cost), while preserving brand consistency via certification and shared materials and never over-committing the two core faculty across three simultaneous markets; (4) pitch the design and survive the live pilot result (France 4.5, Germany 4.3, UAE 3.9 — below the bar), diagnosing the UAE miss against the Round 1 risk flags and choosing a costed remediation without breaking the margin or the 1 August lock. The math rewards disciplined, selective, market-by-market glocalization and punishes the five classic errors — standardizing everything and forfeiting the fee, gold-plating localization until margin collapses, over-committing the core faculty, hiring unvetted adjuncts on price alone, and designing one undifferentiated 'international' version. Final KPIs track Cross-Cultural Fit, Satisfaction Outlook, Contribution Margin %, projected enrolment (75 vs 90 seats), and core-faculty capacity used.

A four-round, advanced higher-education management simulation set inside Atlantique Global Business School (AGBS), a triple-crown French grande école (EUR 142M budget, 11,000 students, five campuses — Lille, Paris, Sophia Antipolis, Raleigh and Suzhou). On 21 September 2026 the Executive Committee approved a new flagship MSc in Global Sustainable Management to launch in September 2027 — twelve months out — delivered simultaneously across at least three of the five campuses under one consistent learning-outcome set and the signature International Week. Playing the Program Portfolio Director, you must architect ONE coherent global programme, not five disconnected local ones, against unforgiving constraints: a program-coherence score stuck at 45/100 against an accreditation-safe floor of 75; only 6 qualified core faculty against a 9-FTE requirement with current utilization already at the 88% burnout danger line; a hard EUR 2.4M launch budget where the 'teach-everywhere' travel model alone costs EUR 1.1M; an enrolment target of 120 to break even at EUR 24,000 tuition against unpositioned demand of 95; and a full-residential International Week that would consume EUR 480K (20% of budget). Round 1 diagnoses the portfolio fit, names the binding constraint and selects the three lead campuses. Round 2 designs the global architecture — the core/adaptable credit split and the assessment-equivalence spine — resolving the integration-vs-responsiveness tension that punishes both fragmentation and over-standardization. Round 3 allocates the scarce faculty across campuses using hiring, visiting professors and online delivery while keeping utilization sustainable, and chooses and costs the International Week format within budget. Round 4 assembles the EQUIS/AACSB accreditation-readiness case and sets the multi-year roadmap. The scoring rewards a genuine, coherent, market-relevant, sustainably staffed and on-budget design and punishes the five classic errors — five-programme fragmentation, identical over-standardization, faculty over-allocation toward burnout, budget-blind experience design, and a standalone launch that cannibalizes the existing 38-programme portfolio. Final KPIs track Program Coherence (toward 75), Net Enrolment (toward 120 after cannibalization), Faculty Utilization (against the 88% line) and Budget committed (against the EUR 2.4M cap).

Simulation where participants manage a cascading supply chain crisis at Norda Industries as Chief Supply Chain Officer, making sourcing, logistics, customer allocation, and financial decisions across 6 crisis rounds representing 12 weeks of disruption and recovery

Simulation to teach international human resource management through expatriate assignment design, cross-cultural adjustment management, and repatriation planning across three global markets

A four-round, advanced global-marketing simulation set inside Aurelia Türkiye, the Istanbul subsidiary of a €14 billion European home- and personal-care multinational. On 1 June 2026 two shocks land in the same week: global HQ mandates the new standardized "Bella Global" campaign at ≥70% of media weight to fund a worldwide rebrand, while a local rival relaunches a value-tier hair-care line at a 22% price undercut with a culturally tuned Ramadan/wedding campaign — and the lira weakens, raising imported-input costs ~15%. The subsidiary's flagship Bella sits at 19% value share (#2, three points behind the local champion) and its H2 marketing budget is frozen at ₺240 million with no top-up. Playing the Subsidiary Marketing Lead, you must protect share and ROI while satisfying HQ's standardization mandate and the local market's demand for responsiveness — the "twin engines" of Özsomer, Simonin & Mandler's marketing-agility research (Journal of International Marketing, 2023), where market orientation and marketing-program standardization are complementary capabilities, not a zero-sum slider. Across four rounds you (1) diagnose market orientation — reading which segments and occasions the rival is taking and the biggest mismatch between the global creative and Turkish reality; (2) allocate the frozen ₺240M across the standardized global campaign and local adaptation, hitting or transparently negotiating the ≥70% mandate while moving Local Share, the Brand Consistency Index, and ROI in tension; (3) respond to a sudden mid-game shift — the rival cuts price another 8% and goes viral while HQ queries the falling consistency score — reallocating under time pressure and deciding what to tell HQ; and (4) defend agility and lock the H2 plan to the HQ Global Brand Director and the GM, presenting a Marketing-Agility Index that proves responsiveness and standardization were managed as complementary twin engines. The math rewards finding the standardized asset that carries local relevance (one lira buying both engines), margin-aware allocation under the currency shock, timely good-enough response over delayed perfection, and transparent HQ negotiation — and it punishes the five classic errors: blind 70% compliance that cedes the Ramadan window, rogue localization that breaches the 80 consistency floor, pure zero-sum thinking, macro-blind ROI that ignores the lira, and opaque deviation from HQ. Final KPIs track Local Share %, Brand Consistency Index, Marketing ROI, and the Marketing Agility Index against the frozen ₺240M cap.

A four-round, advanced international-business simulation set inside Maasvliet Mobility Systems B.V., a Rotterdam maker of EV drivetrains, battery-management systems and charging electronics (founded 1994, 3,100 staff, EUR 780M revenue at a 9% operating margin). On 10 June 2026 a margin-and-mandate ultimatum and a geopolitical shock land in the same week: the three largest OEM customers (61% of revenue) demand an 8–12% price cut at a 120-day renewal or they dual-source from an Asian rival, while new export controls and tariffs reprice the lanes that carry advanced battery-management IP. Maasvliet's European cost base runs 30–40% above the Asian benchmark, so the sourcing decisions must recover at least EUR 45M a year to restore margin — and the board carries scar tissue from 2019, when offshoring cell-balancing assembly to a contract manufacturer leaked a proprietary design and was reversed in 2022. Playing the strategy director you (1) map the value chain on a control-vs-cost grid and separate core/proprietary activities from context activities; (2) choose a global-sourcing footprint per activity along the location axis (onshore / nearshore / offshore) AND the independent governance axis (captive vs. outsourced), hitting ≥EUR 45M of annual savings while keeping the cell-balancing IP off any flagged border and out of third-party hands, and avoiding a single concentrated fragile lane; (3) select the North American entry mode for a USD 90M (~EUR 83M) pipeline across the export → licensing → joint venture → wholly-owned-subsidiary spectrum, trading cost and speed against control and domestic-content eligibility; and (4) integrate the footprint and the entry mode into one plan, absorb a live tariff or export-control shock, and pitch the board that still remembers 2019. The math rewards Van Gorp's two-dimensional sourcing logic, dual-sourcing for resilience, a phased entry that serves the live pipeline before the greenfield plant opens, and policy-modelled geopolitics — and punishes the five classic errors: offshoring the crown jewels, conflating location with governance, the control reflex of a slow wholly-owned plant, policy-blind export, and a single flagged-jurisdiction lane. Final KPIs track Annual Savings (EUR M, target ≥45), IP & Control retention, Market Fit & Speed, and Geopolitical Resilience.

A four-round, advanced corporate-sustainability and competitive-strategy simulation set inside Alpina Domus d.o.o., a mid-sized Slovenian household-appliance maker in Velenje — €218M revenue, 7.2% EBIT, 1,180 staff, a full EU energy-label class behind the two market leaders, and 71% of its manufacturing power still drawn from the grid. On 4 March 2026 the EU confirms a tightening of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling effective in 24 months: 38% of SKUs (€83M of revenue) will become unsellable without redesign, and Alpina Domus has just lost a €19M white-label tender to a greener rival. Playing the Strategy Director, you have one planning cycle and a fixed, board-authorised €9.0M of green-innovation budget to convert into a defensible competitive advantage — not a compliance receipt. The simulation operationalises Čater's innovation–strategy nexus (technological innovation → green product/process innovation → environmental strategy → sustainability-based competitive advantage). Round 1: diagnose the position — name the binding constraint (product performance, manufacturing emissions, brand), audit the SKU portfolio against the new thresholds, place the firm on the reactive↔proactive axis, and weight the 46% white-label channel risk. Round 2: place the core bet — allocate the €9.0M between green PRODUCT innovation (jump energy classes, raise recycled content — differentiation, slow payback) and green PROCESS innovation (on-site solar, heat recovery, waste cuts — cost and Scope-2 emissions, low customer visibility), then pick a stance (reactive compliance, selective proactivity, full leadership) and an advantage thesis. The math rewards the product/process complementarity at the heart of the nexus and punishes both all-in extremes — a green appliance made in a brown factory, or a cleaner plant with nothing visible to sell. Round 3: commit under live policy uncertainty — the 30% clean-manufacturing subsidy is revealed as enacted, delayed, or cancelled and a ±€2.4M/yr carbon-border adjustment is confirmed or shelved; you go, phase, or hold the process tranche, decide how much of your case rode on the subsidy, hedge the carbon swing, and set pricing, with real-options discipline (phasing, hedging, conditioning) beating an all-in bet on an un-enacted policy. Round 4: defend the advantage before the board chair and a sceptical white-label partner — name what protects the edge against the imitability test (capability, scale, brand, lock-in), defend the threatened white-label channel (€41M at risk), and present the four-KPI scorecard. The simulation tracks differentiation index, cost position, emissions reduction and market share, and wires the five classic errors — compliance mindset, product/process imbalance, subsidy dependence, differentiation without defensibility, and the channel blind spot — directly into the scoring so that wrong strategies measurably underperform.

Lead TerraVida Foods, a $580M organic food company in Colombia, through a 5-round strategic transformation from conventional sustainability to regenerative agriculture. Balance ecological restoration, farmer livelihoods, investor pressure, and market positioning while building a resilient supply chain across 2,400 smallholder coffee and cocoa farmers.

A four-round, advanced entrepreneurship simulation set inside Racine SAS, a four-year-old mission-led French B2B SaaS venture in Nantes that helps mid-market food and agriculture companies measure and cut supply-chain waste. By March 2026 Racine has reached €1.4M ARR with 38 customers and a team of 21, grown capital-efficiently on a €900K seed round, and built an unusually dense founder network — an alumni accelerator cohort, two anchor-customer advisors, and a sustainability-investor community. But growth has stalled, the bank shows nine months of runway (€855K cash against €95K monthly net burn), and the largest competitor just raised a €12M Series A. Playing founder-CEO Camille, you must choose a growth path, activate the network, and reconcile identity with funding terms before the runway runs out. Grounded in Vincent Lefebvre's research on sustainable entrepreneurial growth, entrepreneurial identity, and networks for resourcefulness, the simulation treats growth not as maximised velocity but as a rate the venture's resources, identity and relationships can sustain. Round 1 — diagnose why growth stalled (capital-efficient but under-resourced sales), read the runway clock precisely, and name the two identity attributes (mission selectivity and team mission-fit) that must survive any path. Round 2 — activate the founder network for resourcefulness: convert advisors into three warm enterprise pilots, take co-marketing and a shared engineer, and set an attention budget that leverages €400–600K of relationship capital without starving the raise. Round 3 — choose among a €6M Series A at a €24M valuation (with an 'any-customer' clause and a 2x liquidation preference), €1.5M revenue-based finance (identity-preserving, slower), or a €2M strategic partnership (exclusivity plus a board seat); a mid-quarter shock accelerates the VC deadline and hardens the exclusivity demand, and you accept, renegotiate, or reject the strings. Round 4 — build an 18-month plan toward the €3M ARR milestone, commit (or delay) the €180K/yr enterprise sales hire every path assumes, set a sustainable growth rate, and pitch the board. The math rewards funding-path fit, deliberate network leverage, renegotiated terms and a credible sustainable rate — and punishes the five classic errors via sticky run-defining penalties: valuation tunnel vision (the VC trap that collapses identity-alignment from 82 toward 41), identity purism (bootstrapping into a flat ARR while a €12M rival outspends you), the free-money illusion (a partnership whose exclusivity blocks 30% of pipeline), network neglect, and over-conservatism on burn that starves the growth case. Final KPIs track runway (months), ARR (€M), identity-alignment (0–100) and network leverage (€K).

Advise the Costaria Ministry of Health on three connected economic decisions — Grossman demand for health, insurance-pool architecture (M1–M6 levers), and provider payment mix (FFS/capitation/P4P/bundled) — and discover that no national health system gets all three right at once. Anchored on Arrow (1963), RAND HIE, Einav-Finkelstein, and the iron triangle of cost / quality / access.

Six-quarter simulation as COO of Hospital Santa Catalina, a 300-bed acute-care hospital. Optimize clinical throughput, workforce deployment, financial sustainability, and patient safety quality under insurance constraints, regulatory mandates, and complex care demands. Experience the capacity-quality paradox, nursing workforce dynamics, and value-based care transition.

Build the two-country, two-good, two-factor Heckscher-Ohlin model from first principles for the Costaria-Boravia pair. Diagnose the trade pattern (Round 1), derive the Stolper-Samuelson distributional consequences and design a compensation mix (Round 2), then confront the model with the Leontief paradox and pick the right lens — Ricardo, H-O, Stolper-Samuelson, Krugman, Melitz, Grossman-Rossi-Hansberg — for each margin of the actual 2026 trade pattern (Round 3).

Multi-class restructuring negotiation simulation for MBA Track 3C. Players take the CRO seat (Verónica Aguilar-Trías) at Helio Cárnicos S.A., a Costarian meat-processing subsidiary of Helio Verde, on Day 0 of the 14-day Ley Concursal clock. Across 14 daily decision points the team builds the priority-of-claims waterfall, secures the FCTA labour-priority handshake, lines up Banco Andino super-priority DIP financing, designs the three-tranche Río Plata counter-offer, files the pre-pack scheme under Article 5, defends procedural objections at the bench in front of Magistrada Romero-Tinoco, and delivers the Friday-13:00 one-pager to parent CEO Lucía Arenas-Beltrán. Teaches diagnosis-before-decision, BATNA-vs-stated-position discipline on holdout distressed funds, multi-party creditor sequencing, DIP-sizing under affiliate-subordination risk, and appeal-survivable procedural-record discipline.

MBA-level cross-border M&A simulation. Helio Verde signed an exclusivity LOI to buy Mexican meat processor Cárnicos del Pacífico for USD 920M EV; the team has eight working days across three rounds (Diagnose / Design / Defend) to lock SPA architecture, decide CFIUS posture on the McAllen plant, and file under EU Reg 139/2004 before the Chair walks into a board pre-read.

MBA Real Estate Finance simulation. As Andres Carvalho-Espinel, Managing Partner & CIO of Hemisferio Capital Advisors, drive the triennial strategic-asset-allocation review across five proprietary REIT sleeves (Office, Retail, Logistics, Resi, Infra) while choosing the right fund architecture (status quo, single fund, or hybrid master/feeder) and managing sovereign LP and four-LP-cohort governance pressures. Trains Markowitz mean-variance, Black-Litterman views, cap-rate decomposition, the diversification illusion under stress, and fund-architecture as investment decision.

Bilingual 4-round simulation in which a small Colombian municipality (municipio de 6ª categoría, 9,200 inhabitants) must engineer an aqueduct and treatment upgrade under RAS 2017 — within a binding COP 2,400M envelope, a Superintendencia IRCA <5% deadline, and a CAR-monitored PSMV gap. Teams compute design flows, choose treatment + PTAR architecture, size distribution via Hazen-Williams, and defend the package to a sceptical concejo.

Manage a 187-km Colombian 4G toll-road concession at the inflection point of its 25-year life. Balance OPEX/CAPEX, defend the asset health index floor, negotiate with the regulator and counterparties, and lock a credible 20-year asset plan over four strategic rounds.

Lead a 14-month critical-path build of a 180-bed second-level public-private hospital in Armenia, Quindío. Resolve a Resolución 4445 corridor non-conformity, size medical-gas systems per NTC 3631, engineer the EDGE Health 20/20/20 gap with the foundation already poured, and defend the plan to a sceptical project board — under a finite contingency.

As CEO Helena Vargas of Hospital San Lucas Network (HSLN), navigate the 24-month consolidation of an 8-facility, 2,840-bed system through the CCSS DRG reimbursement transition. Each period you make architecture, capital, retention, and communications decisions that move operating margin, political capital, medical-staff retention, and clinical quality. Survive the politics of consolidation while delivering a board-approvable architecture that lands FY2028 above the line.

Manage the aftermath of a fall-from-height incident at a Colombian civil construction site. Diagnose the SG-SST failure, decide the proportionate shutdown scope, negotiate with ARL, the family and Ministerio de Trabajo, and design a 30-60-90 day recovery plan that moves the company from 72% to ≥85% on Resolución 0312 minimum standards.

A four-round, intermediate creative-technology simulation set inside Lumen & Co., the in-house studio of French cosmetics group Florette Beauté (Paris, 9th arrondissement; €620M revenue, 13% margin; a 62-person studio on an €11M budget). As Creative Director you must ship the make-or-break relaunch of the €88M Aurore skincare line — defending against a D2C insurgent that has taken 6 share points in 18 months — across six channels, in a 5-week deadline that is 40% shorter than normal, on a fixed €1.8M production budget, with the board watching how the studio uses AI after last spring's over-automated launch tested 18% below the brand's distinctiveness baseline. Grounded in Margherita Pagani's work on human-centered AI and marketing creativity, the simulation operationalises the core argument that AI amplifies creativity when humans and machines are orchestrated complementarily — AI for divergence, scale and analysis; humans for judgement, meaning and brand sense — and flattens it when machines displace the human creative core. Round 1 diagnoses the brief and rates creative tasks for AI-suitability (the creative core versus scalable production). Round 2 is the core decision: deploy generative versus non-generative AI per task, costing it within €1.8M and defending each placement against distinctiveness risk. Round 3 orchestrates the 5-week human-AI workflow, places review gates for distinctiveness and rights/likeness/disclosure, and locks the six-channel delivery plan. Round 4 reveals launch telemetry — distinctiveness versus baseline, time-to-delivery, engagement, the realised human-AI cost split and any legal flags — and recalibrates the operating model. The math rewards genuine human-AI complementarity and punishes the five classic errors: automating the creative core, all-human refusal (over budget, misses the date), confusing generative with non-generative AI, one fixed human-AI ratio across all tasks, and skipping the rights/legal review gate. Final KPIs track Distinctiveness vs baseline, Delivery (weeks to ship against the 5-week date), Engagement, and Budget committed against the €1.8M cap, with a live Legal-risk flag.

Strategic simulation where learners serve as Chief People Officer at a high-growth tech company, making decisions on talent acquisition, development, retention, and crisis management across four quarters

MBA-tier Modern Project Management simulation. Participants run the joint Engineering / Product / Quality / Regulatory task force at CoEditor Health after a leaked FDA pre-submission memo flags the firm's continuous-deployment release cadence as inconsistent with IEC 62304 and 21 CFR 820.30. Across three rounds — Diagnose, Design, Defend — the team builds a hybrid-delivery architecture across five levers: cadence by quadrant, validated-platform / iterative-app pattern, tooling-mediated artefact bridge, definition-of-done by quadrant, and team-of-teams topology. The simulation tracks FDA inspection-finding probability, artefact freshness, board confidence, engineering velocity, culture friction and roadmap NPV penalty, and exposes the team to a second leaked FDA memo in Round 3 that flags the validated-platform pattern unless explicit architectural fitness functions enforce platform invariants.

Behavioral-economics lab in three rounds. Participants elicit their own present-bias parameter beta from a paired binary-choice elicitation, watch a naif, sophisticate, and pre-committer diverge on the same maintenance problem, and design a SMarT-style auto-enrollment plus auto-escalation pension architecture for Helio Verde Beverages (1,600 employees, Costaria). Bridges Phelps-Pollak/Laibson quasi-hyperbolic discounting to Madrian-Shea and Thaler-Benartzi mechanism design.

Take the seat of Lars Eriksson-Mendoza, Operations VP at Norandic Cementos Iberia, and author the three operations artifacts that ratify the September 2026 binding decarbonisation gate: the capex hierarchy memo, the Setúbal talent-redeployment plan, and the stage-gate scorecard. Engineering plan, not strategy memo.

A four-round, advanced higher-education simulation set inside the Office of Research Translation (ORT) at Pragati Institute of Technology, Pune, India. The ORT (founded 2014, 11 staff) manages 240 disclosed inventions of which only 18 were ever licensed, and a single 2019 biotech licence generates 80% of its ₹14 crore cumulative revenue — a one-hit dependency that masks a thin pipeline. On 15 May 2026 the Dean mandates a 3x increase in commercialization outcomes within 18 months on a flat ₹9 crore budget or face restructuring; the anchor licence (~₹2.2 crore/year) enters renegotiation as the licensee threatens to walk; and four high-potential inventions need a combined ₹16 crore — only two can be fully backed. Playing the Director of the ORT, you (1) diagnose the portfolio AND the identity fault line — where each funding choice pulls the office toward 'academic steward' (open inquiry, public good, publication) or 'commercial engine' (revenue, spin-outs, exclusivity); (2) choose a partnership model per backed invention — exclusive licence (high cash, low control), non-exclusive licence (broad access, strong academic fit), university spin-out (highest upside and burden), or sponsored/open-innovation collaboration (preserves publication, modest revenue); (3) allocate the ₹9 crore across the four inventions — the deep-tech clean-energy long shot (₹7 crore, 4–5 yrs, best identity fit), the fast B2B software win (₹1.5 crore, 6 months, identity concern), the strategic-investor medical device (₹5 crore exclusive + board seat), and a non-exclusive base — while resolving the anchor-licence renegotiation and the faculty inventor's threat to publish-and-abandon; and (4) integrate everything into one reconciled identity and an 18-month plan, defending it to the Dean, the faculty senate, and the strategic investor. The math rewards a budget-honest, abatement-of-identity-tension portfolio with a credible commercialization ramp and an aligned faculty inventor — and punishes the five classic errors: pure commercialization that erodes faculty trust and the disclosure pipeline, pure academic purity that fails the Dean's mandate, ceding control for cash via an unexamined exclusive-plus-board-seat deal, ignoring the inventor until she publishes-and-abandons, and budget denial that over-commits across all four so none reaches proof of concept. Final KPIs track Commercialization Index, Identity Coherence, Stakeholder (faculty) Trust, and Revenue (₹ crore), reflecting institutional theory, organisational identity and competing academic-vs-market logics in an emerging-economy tech-transfer context.

A four-round, advanced executive-education strategy simulation set inside Aldermoor Business School Executive Education, the open- and custom-programme unit of a research-intensive UK university business school (GBP 18M turnover, 55% custom, 34-staff core team running 40–50 client programmes a year at a 34% target contribution margin). On 20 April 2026 Pennine Energy Networks plc — a GBP 4bn regulated utility — issues an RFP for a custom leadership-and-transformation programme to equip 240 senior managers to deliver a regulator-mandated operating-model change over 18 months. Pennine's brief is unusually demanding: the programme will be judged on MEASURABLE BUSINESS IMPACT (project cycle-time reduction and cross-functional decision speed), NOT participant-satisfaction scores. The budget is fixed at GBP 1.6M over two cohorts (~GBP 6,667 per participant); two rival schools and one global consultancy are also bidding. Playing the Director of Executive Education, you (1) DIAGNOSE — restate Pennine's vague brief as a measurable business outcome and locate the impact gap on the Kirkpatrick hierarchy, resisting the satisfaction trap; (2) ALIGN — design the programme backward from the outcome, linking each module to a Pennine business metric and committing to a real measurement design (baseline, comparison, 18-month follow-through) in Camilla Jonsson's design-for-impact tradition; (3) CHOOSE — select among the residential, blended-plus-coaching and embedded action-learning delivery models against both transfer-of-learning and the capacity reality of a lean team already running 45 programmes, deciding faculty mix and what other client work is deprioritised; and (4) PRICE & DEFEND — set the fee inside the GBP 1.6M envelope, commit to a measurable, attributable KPI scorecard, protect the 34% margin, and pitch to the facilitator playing the Pennine sponsor and procurement lead. The scoring rewards designing for measurable impact, choosing high-transfer delivery with a credible capacity plan, committing to hard but attributable Level 3–4 KPIs, and pricing on value while protecting margin; it punishes the five classic errors — a satisfaction-optimised 'happy-sheet' design, vague unmeasurable KPIs, choosing residential purely for day-rate margin, committing to embedded action-learning with no staffing plan, and pricing to win below the margin line. Final KPIs track Impact Score, Win Probability, Contribution Margin %, and Programme Cost committed against the GBP 1.6M cap.

Manage a $50M LATAM impact fund balancing financial returns for institutional LPs with measurable social outcomes across clean energy, health-tech, education, and agriculture sectors

A 10-minute real-time micro for high-performing professionals having an imposter moment during a meeting. Three rounds — name the loop, reset attention, plan a small contribution — coached by an AI that recognises the difference between an imposter loop and an anxiety response.

One week in the chair of Ana Torres-Mancebo, HRBP at the Norandic Iberia BU. Three concrete operational decisions land by Friday: facilitating a promotion calibration panel where the panel-favoured top-six is 5-1 male, holding a hiring-manager pushback conversation that does not over-reach into line-manager decision rights, and documenting three RTO accommodation cases across three different legal pathways. The simulation rewards fairness-by-design as craft: install the structure, do not legislate the outcome. Built on Bohnet, Edmondson, Roberson, Kalev-Dobbin-Kelly, Sue, and the Williams/McKinsey evidence base.

Run a three-firm Costarian beverage industry through the full entry / fight / exit cycle. Surface barriers, contestability, predation and the war of attrition. Three rounds: Tropico's entry decision (Mercurio NPV under three incumbent reactions), Helio Verde's accommodate-vs-fight decision (Areeda-Turner, Brooke Group, AKZO, Wanadoo), and Tropico's exit-or-pivot decision (sunk-cost fallacy and Bulow-Klemperer war of attrition).

A 45-minute, three-round bilingual lab where students build a Lorenz curve from 10 households of a Colombian market town, compare Norway, Spain, US, Mexico, Colombia and South Africa side-by-side, then try one redistributive policy lever and watch the Gini move. Maps to IB Economics 2.10 (Inequality and poverty), IB BM 1.2 (Stakeholders) and AP Macro distribution unit.

Run the Monetary Policy Committee of the Banco Central de Costaria. Set the policy rate under noisy data, learn the Taylor rule by playing it, and choose the regime and communication strategy when the words are the policy.

Cross-functional influence simulation: diagnose a stalled decision with a peer Director, map his four interests, redesign the ask with a shrunken decision and real cost-lowering moves, rehearse a 25-minute conversation against three Pablo temperaments, and engineer a 72-hour follow-up that converts a verbal yes into a durable one.

A teen-friendly Lemons market: watch a Saturday bicycle market in Plaza Rosales unravel under one-sided information, then design the mechanisms (inspection, warranty, reputation, certification) that bring the good bikes back. Live simulation of Akerlof 1970, Spence 1973, and Stiglitz 1976 in five rounds.

A four-round, advanced corporate-strategy and social-innovation simulation set inside Liwanag Consumer Group, a ₱52 billion (PHP) diversified food and household-goods company headquartered in Cebu City, Philippines. Liwanag reaches consumers through 140,000 sari-sari stores and sources coffee, coconut and corn from ~28,000 smallholder farmers — the place where its largest cost and largest risk both sit. A supply shock has left 22% of coffee volume unsecured while a competitor signs Liwanag's farmers on exclusive contracts; a modern-trade customer worth 15% of revenue (₱7.8B) demands audited inclusive-sourcing evidence within 12 months or it de-lists; and the average supplying farmer earns ~₱78,000/year (about 60% of a rural living income) with 9%/year attrition and an average age of 58. The board gives the strategy team 90 days, a ₱1.2 billion three-year investment envelope, an 18% financial hurdle, and an inclusive-growth threshold — and a warning: if the plan is judged philanthropy in disguise, it is defunded and the firm reverts to the spot market. Playing the Chief Strategy Officer's team, you apply Herrera's research on institutionalizing corporate social innovation and Innovation for Impact (I4I). Round 1 — Diagnose: distinguish extractive procurement, disconnected philanthropy and institutionalized social innovation, find where impact and business value can be co-created (the smallholder supply base), and define what 'institutionalize' concretely means. Round 2 — Redesign the business model so securing supply and lifting farmers become the SAME activity: scale the foundation (the headline philanthropy trap), squeeze procurement (the extraction trap), or a farmer-equity shared-value sourcing model / digital farmer-services platform with structural embedding and a real barrier to imitation. Round 3 — Allocate the ₱1.2B against the dual constraint (clear 18% AND move the inclusive-growth index), and design governance: avoid splitting impact and ROI into two budgets, give the initiative a real P&L owner in the core business rather than a standalone sustainability office, and build all three Herrera enablers — strategic alignment, responsible purpose and institutional drive. Round 4 — Defend the strategy to the board and the ESG customer, absorb a live shock (competitor, typhoon or NGO 'fair-trade-washing' attack) without collapsing into philanthropy or extraction, and name the single metric that proves it is strategy not charity. The math wires the concept's common errors as sticky, run-defining penalties: scaling the foundation, pure cost extraction, split budgets, no P&L ownership, and a copyable differentiation claim each cap competitive advantage and gate the top verdict so no later good round can wash them out. Final KPIs track blended return vs the 18% hurdle, the inclusive-growth index, coffee supply secured, and competitive advantage / defensibility — and the board's verdict moves from 'philanthropy in disguise' to 'institutionalized social innovation' only when supply, impact, return and defensibility all land together.

A four-round, advanced consumer-goods (FMCG) and route-to-market simulation set inside Greenfield Beverages Nigeria Ltd. (Lagos, NGN 31bn revenue, a sales force of 220, a thin 9% modern-trade gross margin). Despite three years of effort Greenfield holds under 3% share of Nigeria's informal trade — the open-air markets, kiosks and table-top sellers that carry ~85% of national FMCG volume. The board sets a hard target: capture meaningful share in the Idumota/Balogun and Oyingbo market clusters in Lagos plus an Onitsha tier-2 test, within two quarters, on a NGN 900 million route-to-market budget, or cede the mass market entirely. Playing the commercial team, you (1) diagnose how the informal market actually works — the wholesaler → semi-wholesaler → retailer → hawker hierarchy, why posted prices and formal contracts fail, who the gatekeeping market leaders are, and the single biggest entry barrier; (2) design a channel pricing architecture for a market where price is negotiated, not posted, stacking margin so every tier is motivated to push the brand while protecting Greenfield's net price and building deliberate bargaining room; (3) choose the reseller-relationship strategy (court gatekeepers, build a broad base, or sequence both), set a credit policy against an incumbent that lends traders 14-day credit, and allocate the NGN 900M across market sub-distributors, company van-sales routes, wholesale partners and a trade-credit float; and (4) defend the beachhead when the incumbent strikes back — a trade-price cut, a stocking bonus to freeze you out, or a gatekeeper demanding exclusivity — then pitch the integrated go-to-market to the board with KPI projections and the Onitsha read-across. The math rewards a margin-stacked price with designed-in bargaining room, a sequenced relationship plan with credit, a purpose-built informal route-to-market, and a defense that holds margin and trust — and punishes the five classic errors: imposing a fixed national price list, cash-only rigidity that loses the shelf, gatekeeper over-dependence, handing the rollout to modern-trade distributors, and trade-starving margin that leaves the chain no reason to push. Final KPIs track informal-channel Penetration (%), Net Margin (%), Reseller Loyalty and Bargain Satisfaction (0–100).

Three real published cases — schooling, the Vietnam draft, colonial institutions — walked end to end. Estimate naively with OLS, diagnose the bias, apply the canonical instrument, then defend the exclusion restriction against published critiques. A credibility-revolution lab built on Angrist-Krueger 1991, Angrist 1990, and Acemoglu-Johnson-Robinson 2001.

A US personal-finance simulation that walks a 22-year-old through the five insurance decisions (auto, health + HSA, renters, life, long-term disability) inside a 14-day benefits-enrollment window. Students learn the breakeven on a deductible, why state-minimum liability is inadequate, why HDHP + HSA is a stealth retirement vehicle, the dependency test for life insurance, and why long-term disability is the highest-expected-value policy in their twenties.

Run a health-insurance pool that unravels in real time, then design the institutional fix. Three rounds: build the adverse-selection death spiral (Akerlof 1970, Rothschild-Stiglitz 1976); add moral hazard and find the Zeckhauser (1970) cost-sharing optimum (RAND HIE); pick a combination of four mechanism levers (mandate, risk-rating, cost-sharing, managed care) and brief the regulator. Closes Track 2A.

A four-round, advanced economic-policy simulation set inside the Maritima National Economic Council (MNEC), the inter-ministerial body of the fictional Republic of Maritima — a 58-million-person, middle-income ASEAN-style archipelagic economy (GDP MRD 480 billion; exports MRD 168 billion, 35% of GDP) and the deepening bloc's 'median economy', the swing vote on every integration protocol. The bloc has ratified an accelerated single-market roadmap — tariff elimination on the remaining sensitive lists, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and free movement of skilled labour, all phased over a binding 36 months — and Maritima's adjustment math does not close. Playing the Chief Economic Advisor, the learner must sequence the integration across four KPIs that pull against each other: trade gains, the employment effect, a regional competitiveness index that the Prime Minister's mandate forbids from falling below 60 (it starts at 62), and the fiscal cost of replacing MRD 2.1 billion/year in tariff revenue. Round 1 — Diagnose: classify eight sectors offensive/defensive/transformational using revealed comparative advantage (RCA) and adjustment cost, identify the sharpest gains-versus-jobs tension (electronics is the offensive engine at 28% of exports; garments, 310,000 jobs, are defensive), and frame the bloc's 'full and immediate' schedule as a net-welfare baseline to beat rather than a target to chase. Round 2 — Plan: set the tariff-elimination phasing (immediate, sequenced, or all-to-36-months), the labour-mobility regime (full mutual recognition, recognition-with-retention, or staged), and confirm the schedule meets the bloc minimum to keep MRD 3.4 billion in co-financing and the rule-setting seat. Round 3 — Decide: allocate the MRD 9.6 billion development fund (a hard ceiling, against MRD 14–18 billion of credible need) across five competing claims — retraining and wage-insurance, rural cross-subsidy to replace lost tariff revenue, talent-retention against brain drain, SME productivity grants, and trade-facilitation infrastructure — prioritizing rather than dividing into equal slices. Round 4 — Recover & Defend: respond to a mid-transition dumping shock that dips the index to 60.4 with a permitted safeguard and fund reallocation without forfeiting co-financing, then defend the schedule on all four KPIs to a skeptical bloc Secretariat. The math rewards correct comparative-advantage reads, sequenced phasing, recognition paired with retention, prioritized funding, and a held competitiveness floor — and uses sticky, run-defining penalty flags to punish the five classic errors so none can reach the top verdict: speed over sequence (breaching the 60 floor kills the schedule), reflexive protectionism (forfeiting the seat), one-sided labour math (brain drain), equal-slice budgeting (no claim clears its threshold) and ignoring the fisc (an unfunded structural hole). Built on Macaranas's ASEAN regional-integration framing and AEC single-market logic, it teaches that integration is a distribution-and-timing problem, not a speed contest.

MBA-level simulation in which the CSO of CoEditor.io redesigns the Platform 2027 strategy as a story the org can retell after an engagement-survey leak reveals that only 18% of employees can articulate the strategy. Three rounds: Diagnose with the Heath SUCCESs framework, Design the one-line story plus three rallying-cries plus cascade kit plus measurement plan, and Defend the redesign against a leaked manager transcript and the structure-vs-personnel question. Closes MBA Track 3E (Communication for Managers).

Practice FIDIC contract diagnosis, bid pricing under risk transfer, Sub-Clause 20.1 notice discipline, and DAB-to-ICC dispute escalation on a USD 480M cross-border infrastructure tender.

Simulation where players manage Empresa Catalina's international expansion into Latin American markets, applying CAGE framework, entry mode theory, and managing currency risk, distribution, and competitive dynamics across 4 years

Simulación de interventoría externa de obra civil pública en Colombia: cinco rondas de control técnico, administrativo, financiero y jurídico sobre un viaducto urbano. El equipo asume el rol de la firma interventora y debe decidir bajo presión institucional, con la Ley 1474, el Manual CCE y el Código Penal en juego. Cada decisión mueve el riesgo legal, la reputación de la firma y la calidad de la bitácora — la única defensa real ante Personería, Procuraduría y Contraloría.

Simulación de 4 rondas en la que un equipo de investigadores de mercado diseña una muestra, analiza datos, estima el tamaño del mercado de alimentos saludables en Colombia y presenta al cliente (Carrefour). Enseña sesgo de muestreo, ponderación, brecha intención-comportamiento y extrapolación.

A 12-decision CFO simulation for Track 4B (CFO Playbook Expansion). Mariana Solis-Ramirez, CFO of Petrolia S.A., walks into the seventeen-hour pre-call window, the live forty-five-minute earnings call, and the seven-day rebuild arc after Q4 misses consensus and FY26 guidance is reset. Across three rounds (pre-call posture, live Q&A, and seven-day artifacts) the participant practices the Porat-Olsavsky-Johnston concession-with-cadence discipline against four simultaneous audiences (audit committee, buy-side, sell-side, rating agency) and learns to refuse the four soft framings the analyst queue offers in real time.

Founder micro-simulation: a partner at a real fund just invited you for a casual coffee tomorrow morning. Three rounds — diagnose the meeting, design the 45 minutes, draft the 24-hour follow-up — to leave with a calibrated ask, three signals, and a relationship infrastructure that converts coffee into a check three months later.

MBA bilingual simulation: a Crowe Horwath Andina engagement team audits Industrias Bavaria del Norte S.A. (BVC-listed) over four rounds — NIA 300 planeación, NIA 315/320 risk and materiality, NIA 330/505/520/540 procedures, and NIA 700/701/705/706 dictamen — calibrating audit risk, materiality, the SUM, and the limpia/salvedad/adversa/abstención opinion call.

Design a journaling practice built to survive a hard week, not the picture of discipline. Across three rounds — cadence autopsy, prompt design, trigger and recovery rule — pick the cadence, prompt family, and anchor that maximize survival probability through week 12.

A senior-executive strategy simulation set at Helvetia Instruments AG, a CHF 1.9bn Zürich maker of precision laboratory and diagnostic instruments sitting at the top of a mature S-curve. A venture-backed challenger, Lumea, has just launched a cloud-native diagnostic platform and won a marquee pharma account, and the board has handed the CEO a fixed capital pool of CHF 300m over three years with one question: are we riding a dying curve, and what will we do about it? Across four rounds you diagnose where the firm sits on its current curve and how close the next curve is to crossover using the Future Readiness Indicator; decide when and how hard to jump under genuine uncertainty (the window closes before proof arrives); reallocate a fixed pool from the cash-rich-but-mature core to fund a software/analytics capability without breaking the funding bridge; choose build, partner, or acquire for the new capability; and place a cultural-relevance bet that actually forces the organisation onto the new curve rather than merely announcing it. The model makes the classic incumbent errors underperform: complacent deferral collapses the Future Readiness Indicator, over-committing and gutting core R&D craters core cash flow, an even 50/50 split wins on neither curve, and building the new capability inside the core culture with no autonomy starves the capability build. You learn to read top-of-curve health as a danger signal, time a leap without proof, and resource a two-speed transition. Currency is CHF throughout.

Practice the post-layoff first-week protocol — severance review, comms cascade, nervous-system regulation, and Day-8 starting conditions — across five guided rounds with an AI coach.

Design a learning partnership that survives month 3. Pick the right partner, draft the written 8-item agreement, and stress-test it against the failure modes that kill informal pairings.

A four-round, advanced strategic learning-and-development simulation set inside Lumière Industrielle SA, a €680M French industrial-tech group in Lyon mid-way through a shift from selling equipment to selling outcome-based service contracts. You are the brand-new Chief Learning Officer of a €4.2M L&D function that is, today, a cost center: 71% completion, 4.6/5 satisfaction, and no link to a business outcome. The CFO has tabled a €1.4M (one-third) cut and asked you to prove L&D's strategic value within a single budget cycle or accept the reduction. The stakes: the services transition is the board's #1 priority, the services win-rate is stuck at 18% against a 35% target, and moving 20% of revenue to outcome contracts (22% margin vs 14%) is worth roughly €11M a year — dwarfing the entire L&D budget. Playing the CLO through the lens of strategic L&D and the 'Next CLO' as a business leader, you work the four moves that earn L&D a strategic seat. Round 1: reject activity goals (completion, satisfaction, 'upskill everyone') and anchor the program to a single business metric — the services win-rate — mapping the capabilities that actually move it (consultative selling, solution scoping, service economics) and pruning the irrelevant catalogue. Round 2: design the modality mix on 70-20-10, deciding where expensive high-impact coaching earns its keep on the front-line deal teams, where cheaper digital scales, and what the manager's reinforcement role is — without blowing the €4.2M budget on a classroom-for-everyone default. Round 3: build the measurement case up the Kirkpatrick ladder from reaction to attributed business results, choosing leading indicators (skill assessments, manager-observed behaviors), lagging indicators (win-rate, margin), and a credible trained-vs-untrained cohort attribution, then grounding an ROI in the share of the €11M the evidence can claim. Round 4: defend the budget to the board, leading with the business case, answering the cut rather than conceding it, and committing to quarterly business KPIs and the executive sponsorship the program needs. The math rewards business alignment, a 70-20-10 design, Level-4 measurement with real attribution, and a defended budget — and punishes the five classic errors via sticky penalty flags that cap the creditable impact and gate the top verdict: activity-based goals, the classroom default, happy-sheet measurement, no attribution, and conceding the cut. Final KPIs track the business impact case (€M of attributed margin), strategic alignment (0–100), Kirkpatrick evaluation level reached, and the budget defended (€M).

Ransomware crisis simulation for a Honduran microfinance institution. Learners manage incident response, evaluate the pay-or-rebuild dilemma, navigate AML and regulatory compliance, and design a cyber resilience framework — discovering that $500K in prevention is 10x cheaper than disaster recovery.

Simulación ejecutiva de internacionalización: los participantes dirigen el Comité de Expansión de una empresa venezolana de ingeniería industrial y deben decidir la secuencia de entrada, el modo de entrada y la gestión de riesgos para cuatro mercados internacionales, aplicando los marcos CAGE, OLI y Uppsala.

Simulation to practice leveraged buyout analysis, PE value creation, covenant management, and exit strategy through managing the acquisition of CliniBird S.A., a LATAM veterinary services platform

Simulation where participants negotiate a collective bargaining agreement between management and a union at a Colombian plastics manufacturer, balancing wage demands, safety investments, production flexibility, and relationship preservation across four structured negotiation rounds.

Stand in the shoes of a Costarian Ministry of Labour strategy team. Run the textbook competitive labour-market model side by side with the Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides search-and-matching framework, layer in monopsony, confront the empirical record (Card & Krueger 1994, Cengiz et al. 2019, Schmieder-vWB 2016, Card-Kluve-Weber 2018, Manning 2003, Card 2022 AER), and assemble a defensible policy package across minimum wage, UI design, ALMPs, antitrust, and gig-economy classification.

A career-allocation simulation: pick Portuguese, French, or Mandarin as a third language, defend it on real career math (CACPU), build a 5-year plan with forcing functions and pre-decided dropout criteria, run a pre-mortem, and either commit or formally defer with a re-trigger condition.

After years of app-streaks without real conversation, redesign the 90 days that would actually get an adult learner to CEFR B1. Diagnose the receptive-vs-productive imbalance, then build a speaking-first sprint with weekly hours, tutor cadence, budget, and a real day-90 stakes event.

Four-round executive simulation in which the AeroAndes 2027 cabinet builds and defends an integrated network, fleet, RM and sustainability plan against a +28% jet fuel shock, ULCC entry at CDI, and CORSIA Phase II + ReFuelEU SAF exposure on the Madrid route.

Reach financial close on a USD 480M Colombian toll-road concession (CVAN). Build the multilateral debt stack (IDB Invest A-loan, B-loan syndication, CAF tranche, sponsor equity), price country risk through the EMBI lens, decide a defensible currency-hedge ratio under structural USD-debt / COP-revenue mismatch, negotiate the package across four counterparties, and stress-test the minimum DSCR for a sceptical credit committee.

AndinaSnack S.A.S., a Manizales specialty-food SME, must convert COP 850M of cash and one year into 15% of revenue from exports. Diagnose readiness, pick markets, choose entry mode, and lock a Year-One plan that survives FX shocks and channel-margin compression.

A four-round, intermediate entrepreneurship simulation set inside Cosecha Pay S.A.C., a seed-stage Peruvian AgriTech-Fintech founded in Lima in late 2025. Cosecha Pay gives smallholder farmers in Peru's coastal and highland valleys fast payment and working-capital advances against confirmed produce orders, while giving agro-buyers traceability. At start the venture holds S/ 600,000 in the bank against a S/ 95,000 monthly burn (a runway of ~6.3 months), 3,200 registered farmers but only 310 transacting monthly (a 9.7% activation rate), S/ 48,000 MRR, a CAC of S/ 220, ARPU of S/ 155 at 60% contribution, and 8% monthly churn. In May 2026 the lead investor blinks: show S/ 150,000 MRR and 1,000 transacting farmers within two quarters or the seed round is off. Playing the founders, you must beat Peru's high venture-mortality odds (grounded in Serida's GEM-Peru findings on what separates surviving ventures from failing ones) by steering four survival KPIs — runway, revenue growth, transacting-farmer acquisition, and survival probability. Round 1: diagnose the binding survival risk (registrations are vanity; activation, retention and unit economics are value) and name the gap to the bar. Round 2: make three coupled bets under the runway constraint — win ONE market (deepen Ica, expand the Mantaro highlands, or pivot to agro-exporters, not all three); choose a funding source (seed equity, non-dilutive grant, fast-but-dangerous revenue-based debt, or a strategic agro-buyer partnership); and sequence the next two hires (growth lead, field agronomists, credit-risk hire) to the venture's real risk. Round 3: survive an off-season repayment slowdown and a subsidised competitor by re-cutting burn surgically, defending on trust rather than a margin-destroying price war, tightening credit underwriting, and holding a cash reserve. Round 4: pitch a fundable, survivable venture, frame a right-sized milestone-based ask that keeps founders in control, and defend why this venture beats the mortality odds. The math rewards focus, runway discipline, retained unit economics and matching the hiring sequence to a lending business — and punishes the five classic errors: buying growth that doesn't retain, taking the fastest capital at high burn, spreading across markets, mis-sequencing hires, and gaming the milestone by discounting margin to zero. Final KPIs track runway (months), MRR (S/), transacting farmers, LTV:CAC and survival probability.

A four-round, advanced public-policy and economic-development simulation set inside the National Entrepreneurship & Innovation Office (ONEI) of the Republic of Aurelia, a fictional 34-million-person Latin American emerging economy (GDP per capita ≈ AUP 210,000; currency AUP, pegged 1:1 to MXN for modelling). On 12 May 2026 a Presidential Directive orders ONEI to deliver a National Entrepreneurship Plan within the fiscal year that measurably lifts new-firm formation AND the share of high-growth ventures — without exceeding a fixed AUP 1.8 billion discretionary budget and without new debt, with the plan due to the Finance Ministry by 30 June 2026. The decisive fact is that Aurelia's entrepreneurship is bimodal: ≈62% of early-stage activity is necessity-driven survival microbusiness and only ≈8% is high-growth aspiration — and, as Amorós's GEM-grounded research shows, the two segments respond to completely different policy levers. Playing the policy advisor, you (1) diagnose the ecosystem, separating opportunity-driven from necessity-driven activity and naming which constraint actually binds for each segment; (2) set the targeting posture — concentrate on high-growth ventures (productivity and exports, but political-backlash risk), spread across necessity microbusinesses (inclusion and jobs, but no dynamism), or design a deliberate portfolio split tied to the Directive's twin KPIs; (3) allocate the AUP 1.8 billion across six support levers (seed/matching capital, accelerators, training, finance guarantees, formalisation support, R&D vouchers) and choose exactly ONE regulatory reform (one-day digital registration, simplified-tax regime, insolvency/fresh-start, or a startup equity/visa regime, each costing AUP 80–260M and helping a different segment) inside the fiscal envelope; and (4) defend the plan to a cabinet playing the Finance Minister, a jobs-and-inclusion coalition, and an international development partner. The math rewards a segment-aware portfolio whose levers and reform match the targeted segment and whose costed plan fits the budget — and punishes the five classic errors: treating entrepreneurship as one undifferentiated thing, over-concentrating on a few elite high-growth ventures, spreading thinly across necessity firms only, choosing a reform that serves the wrong segment, and breaching the AUP 1.8B no-new-debt limit. Final KPIs track new-firm formation (TEA), high-growth venture share, 3-year survival, budget efficiency, and political viability.

Build the 30-day plan that makes both layoff outcomes survivable. Read the signals honestly, calculate your runway, commit to the 70% no-regrets overlap plan, pre-commit the 30% divergent branches, and book the three people-conversations.

A four-round, advanced executive-education simulation. You are the Programme Director of the Global Executive MBA (GEMBA) at Atlas Global Business School in Barcelona, with teaching residencies in São Paulo and Singapore. The cohort is 72 senior managers from 26 nationalities; the programme earns EUR 9.4M at a 22% margin and feeds the school's rankings and corporate pipeline. On 14 April 2026, two days after Atlas placed 41st on a new responsible-leadership ranking sub-index, the three largest corporate sponsors — who together fund 31 of 72 seats (43%, worth EUR 4.05M over two intakes) — send a joint letter making measurable ESG and sustainability integration a condition of renewal. The catch: the curriculum is locked at exactly 480 contact hours (accreditation + executive availability), the core management content is rated 4.6/5 and employers resist losing it, the regional hour split (210 Barcelona / 150 São Paulo / 120 Singapore) is flagged as incoherent, and the contractual NPS floor with sponsors is +40 (last cohort +47). Over four rounds you (1) diagnose the design as ESG INTEGRATION vs ESG-as-a-bolt-on, not mere addition; (2) rebalance the 320 core / 70 ESG / 90 regional topic mix inside the fixed 480 hours, choosing standalone vs integrated vs blended ESG delivery and how ESG learning is ASSESSED, not just scheduled; (3) rebalance the three regional residencies into one coherent global journey and decide whether to accept a sponsored Singapore operations residency that would tilt hours east; and (4) lock the design and defend a four-metric scorecard — global balance, ESG coverage, participant satisfaction, employer relevance — to the lead corporate sponsor and the academic dean, proving the 31 seats renew. The math rewards genuine integration, an honored 480-hour cap, regional balance, assessed ESG and protected satisfaction, and measurably punishes the five classic errors: bolting ESG on, under-funding ESG to protect the core, exceeding the hour cap, skewing regional hours to grab a sponsored residency, and scheduling ESG without assessing it. Final KPIs track ESG Coverage, Integration Quality, Global Balance and Participant NPS, all inside the hard 480-hour ceiling.

A four-round, advanced leadership-and-change simulation set inside Vélocité Logistique, a French regional last-mile operator (EUR 210M revenue, 7% operating margin, 2,400 employees, a 900-vehicle fleet) that has just merged with its larger northern rival Septentrion in a 'merger of equals' everyone on the ground knows is really an acquisition by the north. You are the newly appointed integration manager for the Lyon mega-hub, where 600 employees from both legacy companies — 360 Vélocité, 240 Septentrion — were merged under one roof on day one. Within 72 hours cooperation has fractured: on-time dispatch fell from 96% to 81%, the two teams are hoarding dock equipment and missing cross-team handoffs, perceived fairness sits at 38/100 among legacy Vélocité staff versus 61 among Septentrion staff, 18% of staff intend to leave within six months (the most mobile, most valuable talent first), and a 70-of-600 redundancy is coming that everyone can feel. A EUR 8M/year e-retailer contract renews in 8 weeks and triggers its exit clause if dispatch stays sub-90% through peak. Across four rounds you (1) DIAGNOSE the fracture — separating the operational symptom (dispatch collapse) from its justice-and-cooperation root cause, and naming the first behaviour you must model; (2) DESIGN the 6-week communication and fairness-signal plan — choosing honest communication over strategic silence and allocating a finite set of high-visibility fairness moves across two distrustful legacies; (3) EXECUTE the 70-role redundancy and MODEL behaviour under fire — designing a fair process with employee voice, deciding what you personally model (deliver the news directly or delegate, share the pain or protect your perks, apply criteria evenly or protect 'your own'), and responding in real time to a mid-round injection (a rumour the cuts fall on the south, a walkout threat, a star dispatcher resigning); and (4) RECOVER cooperation and set the new norm against the day-one baseline. The math is grounded in Melkonian's research on exemplarity and organizational justice: it rewards naming the justice root cause, procedural and interactional fairness over generous-but-unfair outcomes, consistent exemplary behaviour, and even-handedness across legacies — and it measurably punishes the five classic errors: an operations-only response (more supervisors and overtime), strategic silence, outcome-over-process severance, inconsistent exemplarity, and favouring one legacy. Final KPIs track Cooperation Index, Perceived Fairness, Change Adoption, and Turnover Risk versus baseline, plus the on-time dispatch rate against the 95% client commitment.

A four-round, advanced sustainable-leadership and capital-allocation simulation set inside Boréal Matériaux inc., a TSX-listed, CA$1.9 billion Montréal cement-maker emitting ~2.6 Mt of CO₂ a year — roughly 60% of it process emissions inherent to making clinker, structurally hard to abate. In April 2026 a 4.8% activist demands a credible net-zero pathway and threatens a proxy fight while a federal carbon-price step-up adds CA$90M to the 2027 bill; left unmanaged, the carbon cost climbs toward CA$440M a year by 2030 as the price reaches CA$170/tonne — larger than today's entire EBITDA cushion. Playing the CEO with a two-quarter board mandate, you lead the transition as a leadership challenge of holding a polarized coalition together (Dominique Anglade's sustainable-leadership-in-polarization framework), not as a technical optimization. Round 1 — Map the transition and the polarization: diagnose which emissions are addressable now versus structurally hard, and read a genuinely polarized field where ESG investors want speed, a 60%-income-focused dividend base fears the capex, a union has 480 jobs at the oldest kiln, the province wants both jobs and cuts, and NGOs watch for greenwashing. Round 2 — Sequence and allocate: spend a CA$600M transition budget across four levers with sharply different marginal abatement costs (alternative fuels ~CA$40/t and ready now, clinker substitution ~CA$55/t, kiln electrification ~CA$110/t and multi-year, a carbon-capture pilot at CA$200+/t and unproven), under the constraint that capex now cuts EPS and pressures the dividend — and the math rewards MACC discipline while punishing the symbolic even-split that funds capture for optics. Round 3 — Hold the coalition: negotiate the at-risk kiln as a just transition versus idling it for fast cuts, bridge both investor camps, build a public-private compact with the province, engage the NGOs on verification, and — decisively — state an explicit dividend stance, because in a polarized field silence is read as the bad answer. Round 4 — Announce and defend under earnings pressure: decide which targets to commit to publicly versus frame as ambitions (over-promising a 50%-by-2030 cut sets up a credibility-and-greenwashing crisis), choose consistent quarterly metrics, and defend against the activist's proxy slate with the coalition rather than capitulating to one pole or dismissing the activist. The model wires in the concept's common errors — pleasing one pole and mobilizing the other, speed over a just transition, symbolic budgeting over abatement-cost logic, over-committing targets under uncertainty, and treating the dividend as a footnote — so wrong strategies measurably underperform. Final KPIs track abatement on a credible path (% of 2.6 Mt), coalition support (0–100), the indexed share price (100 = day 1) and plan credibility (/10).

A four-round, advanced crisis-leadership simulation set inside Severnvale University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the designated major-trauma and emergency-surge centre for a Midlands region of 620,000 people (two sites, 840 beds, GBP 620M budget, 8,200 staff). At 18:40 on a Friday night a chemical-release incident triggers mass self-presentation while — within the same hour — a ransomware attack disables the electronic patient record and bed-management systems, forcing the whole trust onto paper. ED attendances surge toward 560 in 24 hours against a normal 350; the trust starts at 94% occupancy with only ~50 free beds. Regional command reviews the trust at hour 48; if flow is not stabilised and command is judged incoherent, external incident management is imposed. Playing the Trust Chief Executive, you steer the response across a scarce pool — 6 surge theatres/resus bays, 40 redeployable staff, 12 critical-care beds and a GBP 1.2M contingency — over four rounds drawn from Colley & Spyridonidis' work on collective leadership in turbulent times: (1) make sense under information loss, separating what you know from what you assume and naming which decisions must be pushed to those who can see the ground; (2) allocate the finite resource pool by explicit prioritisation rule while protecting a deliberate reserve for the night-two collapse; (3) design the decision-rights model — choosing centralized command, distributed/mission-command leadership, or a calibrated mix, anchored by a one-line commander's intent — against the reality that the blind centre cannot micro-control; and (4) frame the message to a frightened, exhausted frontline so it switches the distributed model on, then defend containment and stabilisation to regional command at hour 48. The math rewards the concept's correct plays — distributed authority with clear intent, rule-based triage with a protected reserve, an empowering honest message, and pacing the response — and measurably punishes the five classic errors: the central-control reflex during the blackout, distribution without intent, reactive loudest-voice allocation, treating the message as PR, and front-loading the entire contingency in the first six hours. Final KPIs track Flow Stability %, Frontline Trust, Command Coordination, plus contingency and redeployable-staff spent against hard caps.

A four-round, intermediate change-leadership simulation set inside Hanseatic Naturkost GmbH, a EUR 480M Hamburg organic-food manufacturer (1,900 employees, 2 sites) that publicly committed to a 42% Scope 1&2 emissions cut by 2030 — and just missed its first milestone (3% achieved vs 6% needed). The science is solved; the people are not. A pulse survey shows the classic value-action gap: 71% of employees say they care about sustainability, yet only 22% have changed any work behavior. Worse, a leaked memo about "efficiency measures" has 48% of production staff reading decarbonization as code for automation and layoffs, 34% are guilt-fatigued and have tuned climate messaging out, and two of three works-council reps are skeptical. Playing the sustainability lead, you have EUR 600,000 and one quarter to lift the behavior-change rate from 22% toward a board target of 50% participation — without re-triggering anxiety. Grounded in Myriam Bechtoldt's research on discrete emotions in climate-mitigation behavior, the simulation runs four decisions: (1) diagnose the emotional landscape, mapping which discrete emotion — fear, guilt-fatigue, apathy, hope, pride — is blocking which segment, and distinguishing the value-action gap from outright opposition; (2) choose a communication frame — fear/urgency, guilt, hope/efficacy, or pride/identity — pricing each frame's effect on the message-effectiveness index per segment and naming its emotional risk, because fear and guilt spike attention but deepen avoidance while hope and efficacy build durable engagement; (3) manage an anxious town-hall and works-council, choosing emotion-regulation moves — validate before reframe, reframe threat as agency, offer credible rather than hollow job-security reassurance, give people control through choice; and (4) design the EUR 600,000 engagement initiative across peer champions, visible quick-wins, gamified challenges, recognition, manager-led conversations, and a transparent progress dashboard, building for persistence rather than a one-off spike. The math rewards matching frame to emotion, validating before reframing, credible reassurance, and a feedback-loop-backed engagement design — and punishes the five classic errors: treating it as an information deficit, defaulting to fear/guilt, answering feelings with spreadsheets, hollow over-promising on job security, and buying a one-off participation spike with no mechanism to make behavior stick. Final KPIs track Behavior-Change Rate (%), Emotion-Regulation Score, Message Effectiveness, and Resistance Risk.

A four-round executive-education design simulation set at Spree Executive Academy gGmbH, the custom L&D arm of a Berlin business school. With nine days to redesign a rejected two-hour lecture, you must architect the capstone of Nordwind AG's “Leading Through Disruption” programme for 24 senior managers — under a hard 20-minute active-session cap, with a EUR 1,800,000/year contract and EUR 360,000 of fee tied to a 60-day transfer score that must climb from a baseline of 58 to ≥ 70. Built on Grasselli's experiential/action-learning principles and Kolb's learning cycle, the simulation makes you (1) diagnose why “telling” fails on transfer and define a measurable transfer indicator, (2) select an experiential format — live role-play, decision-forum case, or computer-based crisis sim — trading engagement, fidelity, transfer potential and feasibility against the cap, (3) cast a mixed, partly skeptical cohort (three skeptics, two quiet experts, one dominant VP) and budget the 20 minutes between exercise and debrief, and (4) design an 8-minute structured debrief plus a 60-day transfer-measurement plan, then defend it. The math rewards experiential design discipline — protecting reflection, casting deliberately, measuring transfer not satisfaction, and subtracting objectives — and punishes the five classic errors: reverting to telling, over-scoping the exercise, starving the debrief, random casting, and optimizing happy-sheets. Final KPIs track the projected Transfer Score (vs. the 58 baseline and 70 target), Engagement across the cohort, Debrief Quality, and Time-on-Task discipline against the cap.

A four-round, advanced people-leadership simulation set inside Lumera Cloud Pty Ltd, a Sydney B2B SaaS scale-up (410 staff, 240 engineers in 22 squads, AUD 96M ARR, 78% gross margin, Series C 2024 with an eight-quarter break-even mandate). After the Series C, Lumera rolled out PulseHR, an algorithmic platform that scores engineers weekly on velocity, code-review latency and peer-recognition and feeds a quarterly pay calibration. Instead of making performance management objective, it taught engineers to game the metrics: candid feedback dried up and the flagship Atlas squad (9 engineers) has now missed three straight sprints, delaying a feature for the two largest customers (AUD 7.2M ARR). Voluntary feedback-seeking fell from ~14 to 3 events per engineer per quarter, the Atlas engagement index sits at 52/100, the trust item 'I trust how my performance is evaluated' is 34/100, and rework on 'done' work rose from 9% to 22%. A fourth miss triggers an AUD 540,000 service-credit clause; replacing a flight-risk senior engineer costs AUD 180,000. Playing the Engineering Team Lead, you (1) diagnose why a system built to increase feedback suppressed it — separating the feedback environment from the measurement system and naming the cost (image cost, ego cost) PulseHR inflated using Anseel's cost/benefit lens; (2) design a feedback-and-reflection operating model that fits inside a HARD budget of 6 engineer-hours per person per week, closing the loop so reflection feeds the next sprint; (3) re-tune PulseHR under an explicit trust constraint — the board will not switch off a AUD 1.1M platform — by re-weighting signals, choosing individual vs squad scoring, drawing the developmental-vs-evaluative boundary, and granting transparency; and (4) sequence a 90-day recovery and scale-out plan with leading and lagging indicators, a stop condition, and a pilot-before-fiat rollout. The math rewards lowering the image cost of candour over merely adding feedback events, fitting the 6-hour budget, separating development from pay, and aligning the algorithm change to trust — and punishes the five classic errors: confusing feedback volume with culture, detonating PulseHR, blurring development and evaluation, reflection that never closes the loop, and scaling the fix by fiat. Final KPIs track Feedback-Seeking events, Trust (0-100), Adaptive Performance (0-100), and Delivery Risk (the AUD 540,000 service-credit exposure).

A four-round, advanced executive-education design simulation set inside Catalyst Learning Partners, the custom unit of a top-tier U.S. business school in Miami ($14.2M revenue, 28% margin, 11 directors, 60 contracted faculty). Meridian Energy — a $6B utility and Catalyst's second-largest account ($1.6M over three years) — has frozen all L&D spend. Its new CHRO gives Catalyst one shot: design ONE flagship program for 120 leaders, deliver it inside a $480,000 all-in cap and a 10-week launch, and prove it moved the business. Catalyst has already pre-committed $90,000 of design time; if the program is declined or fails, that cost is sunk and the unit misses its margin target. A program that scores 4.7/5 on satisfaction but cannot show a behavior-change or ROI signal loses the renewal just as surely as one participants disliked. Playing the Program Director, you (1) DIAGNOSE — the CHRO names three competing challenges (frontline-to-enterprise leadership, digital & AI adoption, cross-business-unit collaboration) and refuses to pick; you choose ONE center of gravity and name the target behavior and its leading indicator, because chasing all three at $4,000/participant changes none deeply enough to measure; (2) DESIGN the delivery model from a costed format menu (2-day intensive $165k, blended 8-week $210k, action-learning + coaching $240k, self-paced digital + AI sims $95k, manager-as-multiplier $130k) plus add-ons (coach pairs $60k, real business project $55k, spaced reinforcement $25k, peer-practice lab $40k), reserving budget for measurement instead of buying a single high-energy event that the forgetting curve erases; (3) COMMIT a Kirkpatrick measurement plan funding Behavior (Level 3) and Results (Level 4), choosing a comparison logic and a Phillips ROI isolation method, spending the recommended $60k–$80k; and (4) DEFEND the day-120 results to a skeptical CHRO and CFO — separating what the program caused from what it merely correlates with, refusing to overclaim, and recommending renew / redesign / decline. The math rewards focus, transfer-of-learning design, funded behavior/results measurement, and a defensible isolated ROI; it punishes the five classic errors — doing everything, starving measurement, event-thinking, overclaiming ROI, and treating AI adoption as a tools-training problem. Final KPIs track Behavior Change Index, Transfer Strength, Credibility, and Budget committed against the $480,000 cap.

A 3-round HS microeconomics simulation: discover the demand curve in a heatwave, then live through a binding €1 price ceiling and the unintended consequences (queues, rationing, black market, bundling).

Interactive lab teaching linear algebra through financial and data science applications including portfolio optimization, PCA, Markov chains, Leontief input-output models, and SVD for recommendation systems

A 4-round bilingual (ES + EN) simulation in which UNAD ECACEN learners close out a Colombian public-works contract under Ley 80 / Ley 1150. Teams sequence open items, build a defensible balance económico (with anticipo amortisation), draft salvedades, manage the póliza de estabilidad, and choose between bilateral, unilateral, or judicial liquidation — each with different consequences for cash, preserved claims, and CGR audit defensibility.

A four-round, advanced corporate-finance and equity-capital-markets simulation set inside Lumiform S.A., a EUR 480M-revenue, EUR 76M-EBITDA French specialty-materials manufacturer (Lyon, founded 1991, ~2,300 staff) listed on Euronext Paris. Lumiform is a thinly traded mid-cap: average daily volume of only EUR 1.1M, a 65 bp bid-ask spread, just 31% institutional ownership, a founding family holding 28% with double-voting rights, and sell-side coverage down to a single analyst. It trades at 7.2x EV/EBITDA against peers at 9.0x — a ~20% illiquidity-and-governance discount worth roughly EUR 137M of enterprise value. On 11 May 2026 an activist-leaning fund publishes a note demanding change before the AGM in ten weeks, and a family-linked holder signals it may sell a 9% block (~EUR 39M) into a thin market. Playing the CFO, you must convert governance, listing and investor-relations choices into multiple expansion while protecting firm value through a liquidity shock. Round 1 (Diagnose): trace the causal chain liquidity -> transaction costs -> institutional demand -> valuation multiple and judge the two strongest drivers of the discount — the trap is earnings tunnel vision, believing better guidance alone closes a liquidity discount. Round 2 (Structure): set the listing compartment, board independence, the double-voting-rights structure and a liquidity provider, facing the control-versus-value trade-off — entrenching family control while expecting institutions to pay peer multiples caps the re-rating, and over-engineering every lever at once with no sequencing wastes credibility. Round 3 (IR & Block): choose an investor-relations move (IR head, roadshow, restored coverage) and manage the 9% block — an orderly placement to new institutions versus dumping it into a thin tape that signals distress — while a mid-round liquidity shock (accelerated block or market-wide risk-off) tests whether you confuse a market-wide price fall with firm-specific repricing. Round 4 (Re-Rate): assemble the integrated case for the board and the activist fund, owning the control trade-off and showing how the levers lift liquidity, lower the spread, attract institutions and narrow the EV/EBITDA discount toward 9.0x. The math rewards demand-and-ability levers working together, fair sequencing and an orderly block, and punishes the five classic errors: earnings tunnel vision, control at all costs, mishandling the block, plumbing without demand, and confusing price with value. Final KPIs track the EV/EBITDA multiple (turns), the bid-ask spread (bp), institutional ownership (%) and recovered enterprise value (EUR M of the EUR 137M at stake). Grounded in Alexis Guyot's research linking market liquidity and corporate governance to firm value.

A four-round, intermediate healthcare digital-transformation simulation set inside Brookfield NHS Foundation Trust — a 720-bed acute trust in the English Midlands serving 540,000 people on a £610M budget, with a graveyard of 14 clinically promising digital pilots that died at scale once the pilot money or the champion ran out. A clinician-designed digital sepsis-detection pathway has just finished a six-month pilot on two wards (sepsis mortality down 18%, length-of-stay cut 1.4 days). The board gives you, the Clinical Innovation Lead, one chance to embed it trust-wide and make it STICK against the backdrop of those 14 failures. You must: (1) diagnose WHY good pilots die — separating knowledge-translation gaps, structural gaps (no owner, no funding line) and behavioural gaps (the workaround is easier) — and name the sepsis pathway's top sustainability risk; (2) choose an active knowledge-translation bundle within the £1.8M rollout envelope (clinical champions, audit-and-feedback dashboards, EPR forcing-functions, education & simulation training, patient materials) instead of the passive emails-and-guidelines dissemination that killed 11 of the 14; (3) build the board investment case that translates lives saved and freed bed-days into cost-avoidance the board can fund against a £12M deficit, with the case stress-tested at 40% adoption; and (4) routinize the change so it survives champion turnover and the 9-month funding gate (60% adoption or central funding is withdrawn), while handling a senior consultant who publicly disputes the algorithm's false-positive rate. The maths rewards active, socially-anchored, EPR-embedded translation with credible (not champion-dependent) ownership, an adoption-sensitive cost-avoidance case, and engaging clinical resistance as design data — and punishes the five classic errors: passive dissemination, a clinical-benefit-only business case, single-champion dependency, declaring victory at the 9-month checkpoint, and hard-wiring mandatory alerts while ignoring the false-positive concern. Final KPIs track Sustained Adoption (% consistent use), a Sustainability Index (the 24-month survival probability), Clinician Engagement, and the Investment Case strength (£M cost-avoidance vs the £1.8M + £420K/yr ask). Grounded in Oborn's work on knowledge translation and innovation sustainability and in Normalisation Process Theory (May & Finch).

A four-round, intermediate sustainability-marketing simulation set inside Maple & Meadow Foods Co., a mid-size Canadian packaged-foods company in Vancouver (CA$480M revenue, CA$38M marketing budget). A retailer scorecard has ranked the brand 11th of 14 on 'helping consumers reduce waste', and a leading grocery chain threatens to de-list slow-moving SKUs at the autumn category review. ~70% of the company's Scope 3 footprint sits in consumer use and end-of-life, so it cannot hit its 2030 target without changing consumer behaviour at scale — yet its flagship recyclable packaging is recycled only 28% of the time and two prior CA$6.5M 'go green!' awareness campaigns moved measured behaviour under 1%. Playing the Sustainability Marketing Lead with a fixed, no-top-up CA$4.0M budget, you (1) diagnose this as a behaviour-change problem, not an awareness gap, prioritising target behaviours and mapping their psychological barriers; (2) select SHIFT levers (Social influence, Habit formation, Individual self, Feelings & cognition, Tangibility) matched to each behaviour's barrier rather than one-lever-fits-all; (3) allocate the CA$4.0M across on-pack, in-store, app/loyalty, digital and partnership channels — trading cheap reach against cost per conversion — and design a measurement that can prove uptake and 90-day habit-retention with a control group; and (4) defend the plan to a sceptical CMO and board against the failed-campaign benchmark, naming the biggest backfire risk and a scale-up evidence gate. The math rewards behaviour-and-retention strategy and honest substantiation, and penalises the five classic errors — another awareness campaign, one lever for every behaviour, optimising for reach over conversion, unmeasurable claims, and ignoring retention or over-claiming into greenwashing. Final KPIs track Behaviour-Change Uptake %, Habit-Retention %, Claim Credibility, and Cost per Conversion against the failed-campaign benchmark.

A four-round, advanced operations-strategy simulation set inside Andicorp Manufactura S.A.C., a mid-market Peruvian consumer-durables manufacturer (Lurín + Arequipa, founded 2004, 1,850 staff, S/ 520M revenue, 12% EBITDA margin) that makes household appliances under its Hogarsa brand plus contract manufacturing for two multinationals. In March 2026 a Sol depreciation and a nine-week Callao port-congestion backlog spike imported-input cost by 22% (margin projected to fall from 12% to 7.5%, ≈ S/ 24M of profit at risk), and the board freezes growth capital and orders a 15% cost cut (≈ S/ 47M) in two quarters — without losing the quality edge that wins contract-manufacturing renewals, and while a bank covenant (Net Debt/EBITDA ≤ 3.0x) threatens to breach toward 3.4x. Playing the CEO, you decide what to make, buy, or bend across the firm's functions through Ben Schneider's outsourcing-and-resilience lens, distinguishing core capability from commodity context and pricing resilience against quantified disruption cost. Round 1 — map the capability: classify the in-house tooling & mold shop (S/ 11M/yr fixed, ~60% utilised, the source of design-iteration speed), the two single-source motor SKUs (11-week lead time, a line-down costs S/ 180,000/day) and the fleet/IT/call-centre block as core, commodity or strategic-but-fragile. Round 2 — make, buy, or bend: hit the S/ 47M target by selective capability-weighted cuts rather than a flat haircut, bend the tooling core (nearshore co-development) instead of outsourcing it for a S/ 4.5M saving that risks the S/ 166M anchor renewal, variabilise context for operating leverage, and guarantee the anchor client a design-iteration SLA. Round 3 — invest in resilience under a constrained S/ 6M budget after the single-source motor supplier declares a 6-week force-majeure delay: dual-source the true single-points-of-failure, hold safety stock against the idle, underwrite the SLA with a nearshore partner, and resist over-insuring every link. Round 4 — defend the renewal and recover before the anchor client and the board, committing to a 12–18 month operating model and a KPI suite. The math wires the concept's five classic errors with sticky run-defining flags: outsourcing the tooling core caps capability and gates the top verdict; a flat across-the-board cut caps the differentiator; zero resilience triggers a measurable line-down that costs more than the budget; over-insuring inflates working capital; identity-driven inertia misses the operating-leverage move the covenant needs. Final KPIs track cost savings (S/ M), EBITDA margin (%), the Net Debt/EBITDA covenant and a capability-and-resilience index. Currency throughout is the Peruvian sol (S/).

A four-round, advanced international-management simulation set inside Atlântico Foods, S.A., a Lisbon mid-cap FMCG producer (EUR 410M revenue, 12% EBITDA, 1,900 staff, four Iberia plants + one in Morocco). Six months after a EUR 18M board-approved push into Sub-Saharan Africa, the Nairobi 'copy-paste launch' has stalled: revenue is running at 38% of plan (US$3.4M vs a US$9.0M Year-1 target — a US$5.6M gap), the direct fleet reaches only 11% of target outlets while 68% of grocery volume flows through informal dukas and open-air markets, chilled SKUs (40% of the portfolio) spoil at 22% versus 3% in Iberia, only 3 of 24 local hires have category experience, and the GM is burning budget on expatriates at US$220K each. The board gives the Regional GM one quarter to fix the operating model and choose an entry partner, or the programme is paused. Playing the GM, you (1) DIAGNOSE the transfer gap — separating what genuinely travels (brand, recipes, quality, finance discipline) from what must be locally adapted (route-to-market, cold-chain, pack architecture, talent), decomposing the US$5.6M gap and ranking root causes; (2) REDESIGN the operating model under budget — channel mix between informal-trade aggregators and direct modern-trade, a cold-chain decision (invest in chilled depots vs. reformulate toward ambient SKUs), and a pack architecture that introduces affordable KSh price-point sachets; (3) BUILD local management capacity — setting the localisation curve (% local leadership by Month 24), choosing build-vs-buy talent (a graduate academy à la Católica's PGGE/PAGAP capacity-building approach vs. poaching at a premium), and a knowledge-transfer mechanism that shifts budget off expat salaries; and (4) CHOOSE the entry partner — asset-light exclusive distributor (14% margin given away, fast reach, low control), 50/50 joint venture (US$7M capital, deeper control, partner-alignment risk, a competitor circling the same partner), or a hybrid — modelling the 3-year payback and the governance that keeps the partner aligned. The math rewards adapting the model rather than exporting it: serving the informal channel, matching product to cold-chain reality, building local GMs instead of flying in expats, and a partner choice that is coherent with the redesigned model and governed for alignment. It punishes the five classic errors — copy-paste execution, ignoring the informal duka channel, cold-chain denial, expat dependence, and partner choice without alignment. Final KPIs track Outlet Reach (%), Chilled Spoilage (% — lower better), Local Capacity (0–100), Contribution (US$M), and the 3-year payback.

A four-round microeconomics lab. Same coffee, same marginal cost, four market structures: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, monopoly. Watch price, output, profit and consumer surplus shift dramatically.

Simulación de estrategia de marketing digital multicanal para una marca colombiana de bebidas energéticas, con gestión de crisis por viralidad política, decisión de plataformas (Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn) y manejo de influencers

A four-round, advanced purpose-led-branding simulation set inside Botané SAS, a Lyon-based EUR 78M natural personal-care brand (9% EBIT, 240 staff) whose entire price premium rests on one fragile asset: 71% of customers buy it 'because of what it stands for'. The board has just demanded +18% revenue (EUR 14M incremental) via a national campaign for a new 'Climate Positive' hair-care line and entry into the supermarkets — in the same week the EU Green Claims Directive and France's Loi Climat (Art. 12) tightened the rules and a rival was fined EUR 2M for an unsubstantiated 'carbon neutral' claim. Playing the CMO's leadership team with a EUR 3.2M campaign budget, you (1) audit the seven proposed claims against an evidence standard and the 'seven sins of greenwashing', rating each Defensible / Conditional / Drop and identifying which fragile claim would do the most damage; (2) design the launch — split the EUR 3.2M across mass-reach and owned/earned channels under the authenticity-vs-reach trade-off, lock the claim set, and decide the supermarket listing (on the buyer's −12% terms, on Botané's terms, or decline); (3) decide three partnerships under pressure — a poor-fit 4.1M-follower influencer, an eco-label co-brand costing 30% control, and an NGO endorsement demanding full (92%-traceable) supply-chain disclosure; and (4) respond when a watchdog challenges the 'Climate Positive' claim 72 hours after go-live — substantiate, reframe, partially or fully withdraw — then institutionalise claim governance. The math rewards genuine, substantiated, well-fit marketing and punishes the five classic errors: claim maximalism (greenwashing fines up to 80% of spend, ~EUR 2.56M), over-correction to a bland 'safe' campaign that forfeits the +18%, renting credibility through poor-fit partners, treating transparency as optional, and PR-ing a substance problem. Final KPIs track Sales Lift % against the +18% mandate, Brand Credibility (the values segment, starting at 71), Greenwashing Risk, and budget used against the EUR 3.2M cap.

A live, three-round marketing lab where IB Business Management students take over The Hub — a student-run snack bar at Greenfield International School — and use the extended 7Ps marketing mix (4Ps + People, Process, Physical Evidence) to fight a 15-year-old institutional cafeteria for share of student lunch money. Same product, same school, same €5.20 ticket price, no price war allowed. Teaches segmentation, target market, USP, AIDA, the difference between marketing and promotion, and the principle that the 7Ps act as a system.

Simulación interactiva de 3 trimestres donde el estudiante asume el rol de Director de Marketing de Sabores del Valle S.A., una empresa peruana de snacks funcionales. Practica segmentación, pricing, distribución y asignación de presupuesto promocional en un mercado competitivo con dos rivales impulsados por IA, acumulando brand equity y persiguiendo un objetivo de 15% de participación de mercado.

Apply core business mathematics to 8 real-world problems covering compound interest, loan amortization, profit maximization, cost minimization, EOQ, break-even analysis, expected value, and consumer surplus using an interactive visual workbench.

A 90-minute decision simulation for professionals at 32 weighing four MBA paths. Surface the hidden question beneath the MBA framing, score paths against it, stress-test the honest financial recovery year, and exit the indecision loop with a written commitment.

An MBA Week-Zero quantitative microeconomics bootcamp. Across three 25-minute rounds anchored on Café del Valle (a 40-store specialty-coffee chain in Costaria), participants read own-price elasticity off real POS data, apply the Lerner condition to find the elasticity-optimal price, decompose the welfare cost of a sin tax (CS loss, PS loss, government revenue, deadweight-loss triangle, Harberger t² scaling), and solve a Cobb-Douglas Lagrangian for two-good consumer choice — recovering the equimarginal principle and the marginal utility of income. Bridge module into the 1300 Duopoly Lab.

Three real allocation problems land on your policy-lab desk — schools, kidneys, refugees. You do not pick the outcome. You design the rule that makes self-interested agents reveal what you need to know.

Recover a 4G road concession in crisis: diagnose the overrun with reference-class forecasting, restructure cost/schedule/scope levers, negotiate four consistent stakeholder positions (ANI, lenders, communities, regulator), and make a catastrophic-risk decision that survives a Senate-debate test.

Design and install a minimal, ruthlessly curated spaced-repetition stack that survives years of daily maintenance — turning hard-earned professional heuristics, frameworks, key numbers and relationship details into compounding knowledge instead of leaking experience.

Draft a cold ask to someone 10–20 years ahead of you and watch the response-rate climb as you replace unbounded language, add a specific question, time-box it, prove you know their work, and close with reciprocity. Two rounds: the draft, then the landing.

A four-round, advanced competition-economics simulation set inside the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Combination Division, New Delhi. You are the economics cell reviewing a notified ₹14,200 crore all-cash merger: Aarav Foods Ltd. (≈27% of the national branded edible-oils market) wants to acquire Sundara Consumer Brands (≈18%) — two firms retailers see as each other's closest substitute on price and promotion. On 3 August 2026 the 30-day prima-facie clock has expired, the Commission has formed a prima-facie opinion of an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC), and the case is in Phase II with the 210-working-day outer limit running. You must deliver the substantive competitive-effects assessment the Commission will defend before the NCLAT on appeal. Round 1: define the relevant market with the SSNIP / hypothetical-monopolist test — broad ‘all edible oils’ (shares look modest) or narrow ‘branded sunflower + soyabean refined oils’ (overlap is alarming), national or state-level — knowing market width is contestable and outcome-determinative. Round 2: compute pre/post-merger HHI and the HHI delta (national sunflower oil rises ~1,950 → ~2,920, a +970 delta against +100/+150 review thresholds; three states exceed HHI 3,000), apply the structural presumption, and classify each market as safe / needs-scrutiny / presumptively harmful while distinguishing unilateral from coordinated effects. Round 3: estimate the unilateral price effect from the high diversion ratio and margins (UPP / GUPPI / merger simulation predicts a 6–11% price rise), then discipline the acquirer's ₹900 crore synergies on the three-part standard (merger-specific, verifiable, passed-through) and net credited pass-through against the ₹1,400–2,600 crore consumer-welfare loss. Round 4: recommend unconditional clearance, prohibition, or conditional clearance with a structural divestiture or behavioural conditions, weighing Type I (block a good deal, destroy synergies, invite a successful appeal) against Type II (clear a bad one, raise prices on a staple) error under the deadline, and defend the order to the bench. The math rewards a tested narrow market, an HHI screen used as a trigger not a verdict, an effects estimate that survives appeal, disciplined synergy crediting, and a proportionate structural remedy — and punishes the five classic errors: accepting the parties' broad market, treating high HHI as the verdict, crediting unverified synergies, defaulting to a hard-to-monitor behavioural price cap, and a disproportionate blanket prohibition. Operationalises Viswanath Pingali's empirical-pricing and CCI competition-policy research under the Indian Competition Act, 2002.

A four-round, advanced change-leadership and M&A simulation set inside Lowlands Logistics Group, the EUR 750 million, 3,000-person Dutch logistics-technology company formed on 1 April 2026 from the merger of Stadhaven B.V. (Rotterdam, 1998 — 1,800 staff, EUR 410M, a proud engineering-led incumbent) and Nimbus N.V. (Amsterdam, 2016 — 1,200 staff, EUR 340M, a cloud-native challenger). The deal's entire logic rests on retaining and combining the two engineering organisations (1,150 people), but day-one surveys show only 34% identify with Lowlands while 81% still identify with their legacy firm, perceived justice sits at 5.2/10, and people analytics flag ~250 engineers (22%) at elevated flight risk — losing the top 50 would slip the integrated-platform roadmap 6–9 months and put EUR 22M of synergies at risk. Playing the integration office, you lead the human side of the merger across the 100-day window through a social-identity lens (Giessner's research on identity management during mergers). Round 1: diagnose where identity threat is highest and which pending decisions carry identity weight, and set your opening posture. Round 2: commit the founding narrative along the continuity-change spectrum — a fast 'one new Lowlands' rebrand (the dominance trap that maximises threat and exits), 'two brands, slow blend' (separation paralysis that stalls synergy), or a dual-identity / sense-of-continuity path that builds a superordinate identity while honouring both legacies. Round 3: resolve three justice flashpoints — which engineering standards win, how to harmonise titles and the ~8% senior pay gap, and who leads the merged platform org — each handled across distributive, procedural and interactional justice, with retention actions for the at-risk engineers. Round 4: land the 100 days before the board and a town hall, balancing identification, retention, perceived justice and integration progress. The math rewards a sense-of-continuity narrative, fair process and respectful explanation, deliberate symbolic choices, and integration that actually progresses — and punishes the five classic errors: dominance dressed as merger, separation paralysis, technical-only decisions, outcome without process, and dismissing symbols. Final KPIs track post-merger identification (%), talent retention, perceived justice (/10) and integration progress (%).

Simulación de orientación laboral donde el estudiante acompaña a Andrea Quispe (17 años, Lima) en su primera búsqueda de empleo formal: preparación del CV, entrevista de trabajo con método STAR, y primera semana laboral incluyendo elección de AFP, resolución de conflictos y derechos laborales en el marco legal peruano.

A four-round, advanced knowledge-management and intellectual-capital simulation set inside Sendoa Systems S.A., a Bilbao high-tech firm (EUR 86M revenue, 16% EBITDA, 540 staff, 310 engineers) whose innovation engine has stalled: new-product revenue has halved from 38% to 19% in four years, three senior architects holding ~EUR 2.1M of undocumented tacit knowledge have left in 18 months, and two more are eligible to retire within 18 months. A costly knowledge platform bought in 2021 sits unused because it was deployed without incentive alignment. Playing the new head of strategy with a EUR 5M budget and a one-year window, you (1) diagnose the binding intellectual-capital constraint across human, structural and relational capital, and recognise that fragile tacit knowledge is walking out the door; (2) allocate the EUR 5M across five knowledge-sharing mechanisms — communities of practice (EUR 0.6M), platform relaunch with curation (EUR 1.4M), expert-capture / cognitive apprenticeship (EUR 0.9M), cross-unit rotation and co-location (EUR 0.8M), and customer/university open innovation (EUR 1.2M) — concentrating on the urgent and high-impact rather than spreading thinly; (3) redesign HRM incentives so knowledge actually flows — reward sharing and reuse without cratering delivery, set protected time and curation ownership, and avoid simply relaunching the platform with the same share-versus-ship incentives that killed it in 2021; and (4) absorb a mid-year shock (lagging platform adoption plus an architect's early retirement) and commit a one-year roadmap that lifts new-product revenue back toward 30% while measuring innovation OUTPUT, not vanity activity. The math rewards urgency-weighted, focused, incentive-aligned knowledge mobilization and punishes the five classic errors — tool without incentive, ignoring retirement urgency, even-spreading the budget, hiring as a cure-all, and measuring activity instead of innovation outcomes. Final KPIs track the Intellectual-Capital Index, Innovation Output (new-product revenue %), Knowledge-Flow Adoption, and Tacit-Knowledge Capture against the EUR 5M cap.

A four-round, advanced entrepreneurship & digital-sustainable strategy simulation set inside Venturely Urban, Lda., an 18-month-old Lisbon smart-mobility startup (28 employees, €1.4M ARR, €220K/month burn, ~9 months runway). A lead investor will anchor a €6M Series A, but only if the team presents — within one 8-week fundraising cycle — a coherent business model where digital and sustainable value reinforce each other, a disciplined generative-AI plan, and a defensible smart-city ecosystem position before a global mobility super-app takes it. Playing the venture lead, you (1) diagnose why the consumer-app model burns cash — a blended CAC of €34 against an LTV of €41 is a 1.2x ratio, far below the 3.0x investors expect — and find where sustainable value (emissions cut, city outcomes) is given away instead of priced; (2) choose and design the model — Consumer app (big TAM, weak economics & moat), B2B city SaaS/data (smaller TAM, strong margins & retention), Ecosystem/platform (network effects, needs scale), or a sequenced hybrid — and reset pricing to reach ≥3.0x LTV/CAC while making digital and sustainable value compound (per René Bohnsack's digital-and-sustainable business-model-innovation work); (3) decide whether and where to deploy generative AI against its ~€45K/month cost — consumer trip-planning, operations automating municipal reporting cities pay for, build-vs-buy, or not-now — as a value driver, not a slogan; and (4) choose a defensible ecosystem position (data partner to cities, integration hub for transit/charging operators, or consumer aggregator), defend it against the incoming super-app, and pitch the €6M raise as one coherent story. The math rewards a focused model with priced sustainability and ≥3.0x unit economics, AI placed on the task customers pay for, a defensible wedge with a path to scale, and an integrated pitch — and punishes the five classic errors: growth over economics, sustainability as cost/PR, AI everywhere, refusing to choose among the three models, and an incoherent raise. Final KPIs track Runway (months), LTV/CAC ratio, Investor Confidence, and Ecosystem Moat.

Run Modular Andina S.A.S. through the 192-unit Proyecto Tejar. Decide throughput, module width, design freeze, defect-rate target and innovation co-financing — and find the point at which industrialized construction beats cast-in-place.

A four-round, intermediate executive-education and learning-design simulation set inside Nordlys Learning Lab, the short-format exec-ed unit of a Norwegian business school in Oslo (founded 2014, ~14,000 learners a year, NOK 46M revenue at a 22% contribution margin, a 60-module micro-catalogue). On 9 June 2026 the Lab's biggest client — NOK 9M a year, ~20% of revenue — demands a flagship 20-minute, mobile-first leadership module live in six weeks, and warns it will benchmark Nordlys against two rival providers on completion, knowledge retention and satisfaction. Twenty minutes is the whole budget: the Lab's data shows passive engagement falls off a cliff after ~6–7 minutes and mobile learners multitask within ~90 seconds of a dull segment, so format and sequencing — not content volume — decide whether anything sticks. Playing the exec-ed designer, you steer four KPIs the client benchmarks (engagement, knowledge retention, completion and satisfaction) plus a hard minute budget. Round 1 (Diagnose): commit one sharp, provable learning objective, state a design principle, and decide whether the module opens with a relevance hook or abstract theory. Round 2 (Plan): storyboard the 20 minutes by allocating passive content, experiential, retrieval and hook minutes that must sum to exactly 20, and sequence the blocks against the attention-decay curve. Round 3 (Decide): set the assessment method (a weak confidence self-rating, a budget-eating 6-minute quiz, or a 2–3 minute applied scenario that proves and strengthens retention), set its minute cost, build interaction-cadence safeguards, and respond to a pilot injection — a minute-11 drop-off and a new accessibility requirement. Round 4 (Recover): present projected metrics against the benchmark and defend the design to the client. The math wires the concept's five common errors as sticky, run-defining penalty flags that cap KPIs and gate the top verdict: content stuffing past the decay onset (the headline anti-pattern), theory-first openings, weak self-rating assessment, unscaffolded experiential blocks, and ignoring the benchmark metrics — so coverage cannot beat designing for how adults actually learn. Final KPIs track engagement (%), knowledge retention (%), completion (%) and satisfaction (/5). Currency: NOK.

Probabilistic forecasting on the NS-204 capacity-build authorisation at NovaSano Therapeutics. Three rounds — Diagnose, Design, Defend — walk participants through framing the decision under multi-axis uncertainty, building a defensible Monte Carlo with input-distribution choices and Iman-Conover correlation imposition, and answering the audit-committee chair's certifying-workflow question. Graduate / MBA quantitative-methods band; anchor sim of Track 13B.

Step into Inés Carvalho's seat as CEO of Helio Verde Renovables. Build a defensible 11-criterion MCDA across six rounds (base, financial-led, license-led, engineering-led, lender stress, IC commitment), scoring four candidate sites for the 250 MW Proyecto Mariposa solar+storage build. Adjust the weight vector, recommend a site, and earn defensibility plus robustness scores anchored to Saaty AHP and Belton-Stewart MCDA conventions.

Run Helio Verde Beverages' three-product portfolio (Cola, Agua, Sport) through the full multivariable-calculus apparatus: gradients on the unconstrained surface (Round 1), the constrained Lagrangian with KKT conditions and shadow prices for bottling, sugar and labour (Round 2), and the envelope theorem with comparative statics for scenario analysis under a sugar-price shock (Round 3). Designed for advanced undergraduate methods courses, Master's-level quantitative-methods modules, and exec-ed cohorts of CFOs and OR practitioners with prior calculus.

MBA-track 3C negotiation simulation set inside the CoEditor.io / MeridianBank renewal: a leaked procurement memo lands at 6:53 AM and the team has 90 minutes to diagnose the negotiation, design an integrative package, and defend the recommendation in front of the CRO. Practices the Fisher-Ury-Patton interest-based discipline, the Lax-Sebenius 3-D framework, BATNA/ZOPA computation, anchoring, concession-pattern design, and the independent-justification ethical hinge.

A 4-round manager simulation: quarterly planning is in 9 days, three asks on a sticky note, one shot. Practice cost-of-inaction framing, irreversibility ranking, pre-meeting alignment, reverse-pyramid sequencing of asks, and the second negotiation — communicating the result to the team.

Six-session negotiation simulation in which a 47-person Costa Rican renewable-energy developer (Helio Verde Solutions) prepares its playbook for a 20-year power-purchase agreement with a Fortune-100 hyperscaler counterparty (NorthernArc Cloud Services). Players design BATNA improvement, fairness-norming through objective criteria, switching-cost tying, calibrated regulatory leverage, deadline discipline, and price-line discipline simultaneously, while managing the principal-agent gap that surfaces in Round 5 when the CEO discloses a private off-script concession. Closer of MBA Track 3C — Negotiation; inherits 1420 (mutual gains), 1421 (distributive) and 1422 (multi-party) and stress-tests them in the structurally hardest case: the negotiation where the other side appears to hold all the cards.

A four-round, advanced corporate-strategy simulation set inside Anatolia Sensörik A.Ş., an Istanbul-based automotive-sensor maker ($240M revenue, 14% EBIT) that owns no dominant patent and no platform of its own, yet quietly sits between two rival mapping firms and three Tier-1 integrators in a fast-consolidating mobility ecosystem. On 5 May 2026 a global Tier-1 announces an exclusive autonomous-driving bloc; the blocs are about to crystallise into two or three closed camps and the high-value broker positions are being filled by rivals. The board, drawing on a formal performance-feedback review (design-win rate has fallen from 31% to 22%, below the 28% aspiration), has ruled that the firm is below aspiration and must search aggressively rather than defend the status quo. Playing the Chief Strategy Officer with one quarter, a $28M alliance-investment budget and a hard engineering-attention cap, you (1) diagnose the network — read the structural holes, rank candidate partners by centrality contribution and conflict risk, and accept the performance-feedback signal that licenses aggressive search; (2) build a focused alliance portfolio of three or four positions, set depth and exclusivity, and resolve the GeoNorth–AtlasMap conflicting tie rather than straddling it; (3) govern the brokerage under pressure — answer an exclusivity ultimatum, defend the broker position against disintermediation with real lock-in instead of broadcasting every connection, and take an innovation tie without leaking your roadmap; and (4) appropriate the value and defend the position after a rival's counter-move, installing contracts, embedded standards and switching costs so the ~$60M of joint value the portfolio creates is actually captured by Anatolia, then set the feedback rule for the next cycle. The math rewards Gözübüyük's centrality-rents logic — position and portfolio shape over partner count — and measurably punishes the five classic errors: confusing connectedness with centrality, straddling the conflicting tie, over-broadcasting brokerage, creating value without appropriating it, and defending the status quo under shortfall. Final KPIs track Network Centrality, Rent Appropriation, Partner Trust and the $28M budget committed.

A four-round, intermediate people-analytics and talent-strategy simulation set inside Triglav Systems d.o.o., a 540-person, €72M Ljubljana enterprise-software firm building industrial-IoT platforms whose entire competitive edge is the tacit knowledge held in its engineers' heads and the informal ties between them. On 5 May 2026 a principal architect — Maja K., who the firm's first organizational network analysis (ONA) shows sat at the centre of knowledge flow — resigns, a flagship client implementation stalls, and €2.1M of contracted revenue goes at risk. The ONA reveals the truth: the knowledge-transfer index has collapsed to 41/100 (cross-squad flow down 30% year-on-year), three connectors mediate ~45% of all cross-team knowledge ties (a single point of failure), network density across the six squads is just 0.06, and the two remaining top connectors both sit in the engagement survey's flight-risk band. The CEO authorizes zero net new headcount: you must fix knowledge sharing by redeploying and connecting the people the firm already has, before two quarterly client milestones — or leadership forces a rigid functional reorganization that engineering leaders warn will make the silos permanent. Playing the Head of People & Network through Robert Kaše's social-network perspective on HRM, you work four rounds. Round 1 — Diagnose: read the ONA against the org chart (they look nothing alike), identify the connectors by betweenness centrality, the highest-leverage structural holes between zero-tie squads, and the over-concentration risk. Round 2 — Plan: design the intervention portfolio under a fixed development budget across three levers — connector investment (de-load the central few vs. the headcount-reflex external hire vs. the concentration trap of deepening dependence), bridging mechanism (relational rotations and communities of practice vs. the documentation fallacy of a wiki vs. conceding the reorg), and deploying line managers as knowledge enablers rather than inward supervisors. Round 3 — Decide under the cap: commit scarce budget and manager capacity across knowledge-capture and succession (apprenticeship that moves tacit context vs. playbooks), targeted vs. flooded cross-squad rotations, redistributing brokering load onto multiple redundant paths vs. protecting or re-anointing heroes, and funding retention for the flight-risk connectors. Round 4 — Recover: absorb two shocks — a second top connector signalling an exit and a new strategic client demanding rapid cross-squad mobilization — show the reshaped network holds without a single hero, then make the executive-committee case on the four KPIs and render the rigid reorg unnecessary. The scoring rewards reading the network not the org chart, de-loading connectors while building the right bridges, transferring tacit knowledge through relationships, redundant multipath brokering, and funded connector retention — and measurably punishes the five classic errors: the headcount reflex, connector over-investment, bridge-everything overreach, the documentation fallacy, and ignoring connector retention. Final KPIs track the knowledge-transfer index (/100), network density, connector concentration (%), network resilience, and how many of the two remaining connectors were secured.

Diagnose your note-taking leak ratio (capture surfaces ÷ intentional re-opens), design a 2-surface architecture and weekly review ritual before picking a tool, then commit to a 7-day pilot. Teaches re-read beats re-tool, ritual is the system, and tool-as-cope avoidance.

A residential 8-story tower in Cali fails the NSR-10 inter-story drift check three weeks before the fourth-slab pour. Teams diagnose the failure, choose a remediation path, and negotiate compliance with the Curaduría — practising drift limits, soft-story irregularity, load combinations, importance coefficient, and the legal force of NSR-10 under Law 400 of 1997.

A four-round, intermediate behavioural-science and customer-transformation simulation set inside Brisbane Metro Utilities Ltd (BMU), a Queensland multi-utility serving 1.4 million water and energy customers on A$1.9 billion in annual revenue. A heatwave water-restriction breach has gone viral — 4,200 automated fines, a pensioner wrongly fined, a hardship family disconnected in 39°C heat — and the state utilities regulator has opened a 'punitive and ineffective compliance' inquiry with up to A$5M in penalty exposure and a binding remedy. Non-payment affects 11% of accounts (~154,000) and ties up A$47M in receivables; restriction non-compliance ran at 18% during the heatwave; enforcement costs A$6.8M a year while complaints rose 34% and Net Trust fell 12 points. As the new Head of Customer Transformation you have one quarter (90 days) and a capped A$3M pilot budget to prove a behavioural approach beats enforcement before the regulator's interim report lands. Working through Dootson's deviant-consumer-behaviour lens and COM-B, you must: Round 1 — diagnose WHY customers misbehave for each non-compliance type, separating 'can't comply' (hardship, friction, confusion) from 'won't comply' (deliberate, opportunistic defiance), and choose the target behaviour, because misdiagnosing the two is the costliest error. Round 2 — design the intervention: pick a choice-architecture mechanism (social-norm messaging, opt-out default, friction reduction, salience/timing, commitment) and a human or digital channel matched to the audience's reachability, with an ethics check that avoids disguised coercion (the failure mode that caused the crisis). Round 3 — set the rollout scope and test design within budget and 90 days, choosing between a controlled randomised pilot, a multi-arm human-vs-digital test, a single-suburb trial or a fast broad rollout, and deciding whether to run a control group as advocacy-group pressure mounts. Round 4 — read heterogeneous pilot results (some nudges backfire on the won't-comply segment via the boomerang effect), then scale, redesign or stop each nudge and present a behaviourally grounded, ethical compliance strategy to the regulator. The math rewards diagnosis-led design, channel-fit, experimental discipline with a counterfactual, and responsible scaling — and punishes the five classic errors: a one-size nudge, coercion in disguise, channel mismatch, no control group, and over-scaling a backfired nudge. Final KPIs track projected compliance uplift (percentage points), the behaviour-change index, adoption rate, cost-per-conversion against the A$3M budget, and regulator and trust standing.

A four-round, advanced organisation-development simulation set inside Meridian Components Corporation, a Cleveland, Ohio maker of precision industrial components (2,600 staff, $720M revenue). Its 240-person Customer Operations unit is the company's most visible weak point: products are rated best-in-class on quality, yet Meridian is losing accounts purely on service experience. A top-10 customer, Atlas Manufacturing ($22M/year), has just churned citing 'chronic order errors, slow responses, and no one who owns our problem', and $60M sits with three more at-risk accounts renewing within six months. Playing the OD Lead with a one-time $1.5M change budget and two quarters, you (1) diagnose the performance gap across the structural, process and people families — resisting the urge to blame the most visible symptom, the 6.8% order-error rate; (2) choose an intervention mix across at least two of the three families from a costed menu (account-owner role, order-to-resolution redesign, ERP reconfiguration, capability training, leadership coaching, recognition/role-clarity, change-management wrap), learning that single-lever fixes don't close a multi-cause gap; (3) sequence the change plan under the budget cap — structure typically before process before capability, with communication running throughout — and absorb a mid-plan shock (a key supervisor resigns or the ERP vendor raises its quote); and (4) defend a two-quarter KPI trajectory to the CEO, banking on real adoption rather than a coerced paper number, and refreezing the gain into job descriptions, systems and incentives so it survives after the project ends. The math rewards a genuine, sequenced, adoption-led multi-lever plan and punishes the five classic OD errors — symptom-chasing with retraining, redesigning a process while roles are ambiguous, the people-only HR default, spreading $1.5M across five simultaneous interventions, and a technically correct design with no buy-in. Final KPIs track Service Recovery, Adoption, Sustainability and budget used against the $1.5M cap, with $60M of at-risk revenue retained or lost on the trajectory.

A four-round, high-stakes leadership simulation set inside Rheinwerk Components GmbH, a Cologne-based tier-one automotive supplier. At 06:40 a leaked restructuring memo has triggered a wildcat stoppage: 600 workers occupy the Düsseldorf assembly hall, the works-council chair refuses to meet, and the line bleeds roughly €95,000 an hour with an OEM penalty of €1.4 million looming past 18 hours. Playing the plant leadership team, you have until the 14:00 handover (about 7 hours) to win a return-to-work that restores trust rather than merely securing compliance. Built on Kohlrieser's Secure Base Leadership and Hostage at the Table, the simulation makes you (1) diagnose the underlying need behind the chair's position and confront your own threat reactions, (2) bond before you bargain by choosing an opening contact, (3) reframe a zero-sum threat into a shared problem and pick a single unlocking move, and (4) land a signed-in-principle agreement under acute time and emotional pressure. The math rewards sequencing — bonding before content, regulating your own state, turning the adversary into a thinking partner — and punishes the five classic errors: leading with rights and numbers, casting the chair as an enemy, rushing to the substance, matching his anger, and winning compliance while spending the 22-year relationship. Final KPIs track De-escalation, Trust (the 22-year asset), the OEM/contagion clock, and your own Self-Regulation.

A four-round, advanced operations-strategy simulation set inside Indústria Mecânica Paulista Ltda. (IMP), a São Bernardo do Campo (ABC, São Paulo) maker of precision machined components and pre-assembled modules. IMP turned over R$480 milhões in 2025 at an 11% EBITDA margin with 640 staff and ~12 million standard hours of capacity running at 86% utilization. The trap is structural: 62% of revenue is low-capture 'build-to-print' work where IMP captures ~R$6 of the ~R$31 of value it creates per unit (≈19% share). On 4 March 2026 the anchor OEM, AGT Powertrain (28% of revenue = R$134 milhões), issues a 'partner or replace' ultimatum on a new electrified-drive module — co-develop and sign a multi-year value-sharing deal, or stay build-to-print under a 4%/yr price-down and open re-bidding. Capacity, not demand, binds: only ~1,68 million free hours against a ~2,4 million-hour module ramp. Playing the COO, you (1) DIAGNOSE where value is created vs captured and rank lines by contribution-per-CONSTRAINT-HOUR — not per-unit margin; (2) PLAN which capability to rebuild (co-engineering, advanced metrology/qualification, or flexible assembly) inside a R$40 milhões envelope, deciding what build-to-print volume to STOP serving to free hours; (3) NEGOTIATE the value split with AGT — a target capture share anchored to a real, scarce capability, without over-reaching and pushing AGT to the Paraná competitor; and (4) COMMIT capital under the cap, knowing reconfiguration (R$22M) plus a new line/third shift (R$35M) = R$57M exceeds R$40M, so you sequence, phase, or lease. The math rewards the contribution-per-hour lens, capability-backed capture, disciplined sequencing under the cap, and securing the volume that fills the constraint — and punishes the five classic errors: margin myopia, capture-without-capability, cap-busting, over-negotiating the split, and exiting high-per-hour volume. Final KPIs track Value-Capture Share %, Contribution per Constraint-Hour (R$), Capacity Utilization %, and Capital Committed against the R$40 milhões envelope.

A four-round, advanced innovation-strategy simulation set inside Brennaro Sistemi S.p.A., a Milan-headquartered industrial-technology firm (EUR 720M revenue, 11% R&D-to-revenue, 210 patent families) designing precision electric-drive and power-electronics systems for e-mobility, robotics and automation. The board has handed the R&D chief a hard EUR 24M discretionary innovation budget and a 12-month horizon to make three partly-irreversible technology decisions together — for the first time with open-innovation discipline. Three of Brennaro's patent families cover a silicon-carbide (SiC) inverter-control architecture two years ahead of rivals but largely idle (~EUR 0 revenue). A Japanese tier-1 has offered EUR 9M upfront plus a 3% royalty to license it out; a German competitor is rumoured nine months from a rival 800V platform; and the licence offer expires in six weeks. Playing the Chief Technology / R&D Officer, you (1) map the technology portfolio on strategic centrality vs internal capability, producing the open/closed grid; (2) design the outbound SiC licence-out — field-of-use carve-outs, exclusivity, royalty floor — to bank the EUR 9M without arming a competitor in robotics, your own backyard; (3) make a disciplined make/buy/ally choice under the cap, allocating across the EUR 16M in-house 800V build and the thermal-management gap (EUR 6M alliance / EUR 11M minority equity + access / EUR 30M acquisition that busts the cap); and (4) integrate the three into one technology-leverage strategy and defend a blended ROI, a time-to-market inside the EV window, and an IP-risk register to the board. The math is built on Frattini's open-innovation and technology-leverage research: it rewards licensing-out a non-core idle asset with field-of-use protection, using the licence cash to fund inbound, choosing the staged equity-plus-access option over an unaffordable acquisition, and keeping a defensible core — and it measurably punishes the five classic errors: the closed-innovation reflex (build everything, miss the window), reckless broad licensing (arm a rival), IP hoarding (decline and let the asset age), buying when access suffices (bust the budget), and three deals with no portfolio logic. Final KPIs track Strategic Value (blended ROI), IP Defensibility, Time-to-Market against the 9-month competitor and the 18-month build, and Budget committed against the EUR 24M cap.

A four-round, advanced strategy and management-control simulation set inside Chimiq Distribution SA, a Lyon-based specialty-chemicals distributor (EUR 480M revenue, 7.5% EBIT margin, 1,300 staff across four hubs) that has made strategy behind a closed door for thirty years. After a third flat year against a 4% market, an engagement pulse shows only 24% of managers understand the link to strategy and 19% believe the targets are achievable, while bottom-up forecasts run 11% hot. You are the new CFO, recruited from a firm that practised open strategy, and you must reopen the next strategy cycle — but a PE board confidentiality directive and a refinancing covenant (Net Debt/EBITDA 2.9x against a 3.25x limit) bound how far you can open. Across four rounds you (1) diagnose the closed process on the two dimensions of openness — inclusion (who participates) and transparency (who sees information) — and decide which Chimiq most lacks; (2) design the participation-and-disclosure architecture, classifying each data class (hub cost and growth, margin-by-customer, M&A pipeline) as open, gated or closed to the right audience under the governance constraint; (3) design the performance-measurement dashboard as a management-control system — a Balanced-Scorecard cascade, an OKR commitment system or a hybrid, balancing shared, interactive measures that build ownership against board-only diagnostic control, with a calibration rule that counters the 11% forecast bias; and (4) present to the PE board chair and CEO, then respond to a live recovery test — a plan leak to a trade journal and bottom-up targets coming in 4% below the refinancing requirement — re-gating without re-closing participation and reconciling the gap with the hub directors rather than over them. The math rewards calibrated openness and punishes the five classic errors — radical transparency, communication-not-inclusion, a control-only dashboard, constraint-blind openness, and imposing the reconciliation top-down. Final KPIs track Strategic Alignment, Control Effectiveness, Employee Inclusion and Target Attainment, under a Leak-Risk gauge and a fixed transformation budget.

A four-round, advanced strategy simulation set inside the Lumen Atlas Foundation, a Cambridge (UK) non-profit that runs Atlas — one of the world's ten most-visited reference sites: 14 million volunteer-edited articles, 480 million monthly readers, GBP 92M of mostly small-donor revenue, 340 staff but 240,000 active volunteer editors who expect to be consulted on anything that touches the platform. On 4 March 2026 the Board orders a 2026–2031 strategy in 90 days (AI-content response, a new revenue line, a governance update) — and within 48 hours a volunteer leaks the memo to the community forum. Playing the Chief Strategy Officer, you must run the planning cycle in full public view, with a hard 15 June Board deadline (miss it and the Board appoints the external consultancy that triggered the 2021 revolt). The simulation operationalises Loizos Heracleous's study of open, dialogic strategy-making at Wikimedia: inclusion (who participates) and transparency (what is shared) are two independent, costed dials, not one open/closed switch. Round 1 — assign each of nine stakeholder groups (core editors, casual editors, chapter affiliates, major donors, small donors, staff, the Board, partner institutions, readers) an inclusion level (co-create / consult / inform / exclude) inside a GBP 600K, 10-week participation budget. Round 2 — set transparency per phase (problem framing, option generation, financial modelling, recommendation) and choose input channels, deciding when the GBP 20M AI-licensing figure becomes public. Round 3 — reconcile 740 proposals clustering into four irreconcilable camps (purist / license-to-AI / premium tier / status-quo) into a single coherent five-year spine of at most three priorities, choosing what to reject and how to tell rejected camps they were heard. Round 4 — win the split Board vote (three community-elected trustees, four appointed) WHILE holding community legitimacy, and respond to a live editing-freeze threat from 600 editors without surrendering coherence or capitulating by ultimatum. The math rewards costed inclusion, phase-dependent transparency, reconciliation-by-rejection, and winning approval and legitimacy together — and punishes the five classic errors: maximal co-creation that blows the budget and deadline, premature transparency on half-formed figures, averaging all four camps into a focus-free plan, winning the vote while losing the community-elected trustees, and instant capitulation to a loud faction. Final KPIs track Buy-in, Idea Quality, Legitimacy and Coherence.

A four-round, advanced open-innovation and technology-strategy simulation set inside Lumen Coatings NV, a €240M specialty-chemicals firm in the Port of Antwerp, Belgium. Lumen develops high-performance functional coatings, spends €19.2M a year on R&D (8% of revenue) and holds 140 patents — but commercialises fewer than 30% of them, leaving ~98 dormant on the shelf: the textbook symptom of a closed, not-invented-here model. On 14 January 2026 a Dutch rival, AquaShield BV, launches a self-cleaning marine hull coating by licensing in a university spin-out's enzyme technology and co-developing the rest — the exact value proposition of Lumen's flagship internal project Tritón, still 14 months from launch. A first mover captures 55–60% of a €22M premium segment; Lumen has already sunk €8.4M into Tritón and faces a board deadline of one budget cycle to demonstrate a credible open-innovation turnaround or have R&D strategy outsourced. Playing the new Head of Innovation, you operationalise Vanhaverbeke's open-innovation framework across four rounds. Round 1: diagnose where the funnel is too narrow — at the front (no inbound, few external ideas entering) and at the side (no outbound, dormant IP dying on the shelf) — and make the Tritón call: kill, finish closed, or pivot to inbound licensing. Round 2: allocate the €19.2M R&D budget across openness modes (build internally, license in, co-develop, crowdsource, out-license), select partners from a slate of five (the spin-out, a Korean shipyard, an accelerator, a CRO, a complementary coatings firm) under capability, cost, reliability and strategic-leakage trade-offs, and confirm the Tritón inbound deal (€2.8M upfront + 6% royalty, launch in 8 months). Round 3: set the IP and deal terms that determine value capture — exclusivity, field-of-use carve-outs, royalty structure and the core-vs-periphery boundary — license out at least three dormant patents, and respond to the escalation event: AquaShield's same-day bid to buy the spin-out exclusively. Round 4: build the operating model and governance (inbound-scouting function, out-licensing desk, KPIs) that sustains openness against the not-invented-here culture, and pitch it to the board. The math rewards selective, strategy-led openness — inbound for speed, outbound to monetise dormant IP, watertight IP terms, a defended core and a real operating model — and punishes the five classic errors: defaulting to closed, hoarding all IP, opening without terms, over-opening the core, and shipping deals with no operating model. Final KPIs track external-idea yield (% of pipeline value sourced externally), time-to-market (months), R&D ROI and partner-network value realised (€M).

A four-round, advanced operations and supply-chain simulation set inside Empaques del Trópico S.A., a Costa Rican sustainable-packaging manufacturer (USD 86M revenue, ~13% EBITDA margin ≈ USD 11.2M, 3 lines / 2 shifts at 78% utilization, 55% of revenue tied to a volatile agricultural-export calendar). A demand whipsaw — a +38% January surge, on-time delivery collapsing to 81% vs a 96% target, USD 240,000 in late-delivery penalties, then USD 3.1M of excess inventory (≈52 days vs a 30-day target) from a panic overcorrection — collides with a static spreadsheet plan, a single-sourced compostable-resin supplier (6-week lead time, 3-week delay flagged), and a USD 14M two-year contract that demands +20% capacity. Playing the new operations manager with a USD 6M modernization budget and two quarters to deliver, you (1) diagnose the system, not the symptom — separating true external volatility from self-inflicted variability and naming the root cause behind the bullwhip / overcorrection loop; (2) set capacity under volatile demand — go/no-go on the USD 14M contract and the permanent-versus-flexible capacity mix, sized to a demand distribution and a service level rather than last month's headline; (3) choose the digitalization investment — allocating the digital slice across demand-sensing/S&OP, MES + line sensors, an automated warehouse, or a supplier control tower, recognising that information-centric Industry 4.0 tools often beat throughput-centric ones for a volatility problem; and (4) redesign inventory buffers and defend the integrated operating plan — statistical, item-differentiated safety stock toward the 30-day target, a response to the single-sourced resin risk, and a KPI scorecard. Grounded in Roy Zúñiga's (INCAE) behavioral-operations and system-dynamics research, the math rewards damping the bullwhip, flexible capacity, information-first digital spend and risk-differentiated buffers — and punishes the five classic errors: a recency-driven permanent-capacity bet, over-producing into the glut, signing the contract before fixing variability, buying throughput when the constraint is decision quality, and a flat safety-stock policy that ignores the upstream supply risk. Final KPIs track On-Time Delivery, Inventory days, Capacity Utilization and the cumulative cost/P&L impact in USD.

Interactive lab where students formulate and solve optimization problems across 5 business scenarios, interpreting optimal solutions, shadow prices, and sensitivity analysis

A four-round, advanced Operations & Supply-Chain simulation set inside SaharaFresh Distribution Ltd., a Lagos-headquartered third-party FMCG distributor (1,400 SKUs, 22,000 outlets across Lagos, Ibadan, Abuja and Port Harcourt, ₦96bn revenue on a thin 4.5% EBIT margin of ₦4.32bn). SaharaFresh grew by bolting on three regional distributors and never integrated their four distribution centres — so it inherited overlapping catchments, four incompatible inventory rules of thumb and a transport cost-per-case 35% above benchmark. On 14 July 2026 its two largest principals, NorthStar Foods and AquaClean (together 41% of revenue, ₦39.4bn), issue a joint service warning: on-time-in-full (OTIF) has fallen to 78% against a 95% contractual target, and a clause lets them appoint a parallel distributor if OTIF stays below 90% for two consecutive quarters — one quarter is already lost. Fill rate is 88% (target 97%), inventory turns 8.3x (target 12x), total logistics cost 11.8% of revenue versus an 8.5% benchmark (a ₦3.2bn excess larger than the entire EBIT), and emergency inter-DC transfers have tripled to ₦480m/quarter of pure waste. Playing the Head of Operations, you (1) DIAGNOSE the network — split logistics cost into warehousing, primary and secondary transport, find the lanes and SKU class driving the OTIF miss, and rank network vs inventory vs transport by impact before spending a naira; (2) REDESIGN the distribution network — keep four DCs and re-cut catchments, consolidate to three (−₦900m fixed / +₦620m transport), or add a fifth cross-dock (+₦1.1bn fixed, +9 OTIF points in the weak region) — optimising TOTAL landed cost, not one component; (3) SET INVENTORY POLICY by ABC class — choose continuous vs periodic review and a cycle service level per class, holding more safety stock on volatile A-items and slashing it on long-tail C-items to hit 97% fill AND 12x turns simultaneously (a blanket 99% CSL blows the turns target); and (4) SELECT THE 3PL & COMMIT — keep the in-house fleet (₦1.4bn capex), outsource secondary distribution to a national 3PL (+12% per case but a contractual 96% OTIF and ₦1.4bn capex avoided), or run a hybrid, then negotiate an SLA (penalty per OTIF point, volume commitment, 90-day review) and pitch the recovery to the principals. The math rewards measure-before-invest, total-cost-to-serve thinking, segmented inventory, an SLA that transfers risk, and quick wins under the 30-day/one-quarter deadline — and punishes the five classic errors: spending capex before raising the 61% truck fill, blanket 99% service that destroys turns, silo-optimising one cost while net-worsening the whole, picking a 3PL on rate without reading the SLA, and ignoring the un-integrated legacy footprint. Final KPIs track OTIF (%), Inventory Turns (x), Total Logistics Cost (% of revenue) and EBIT impact (₦bn).

A five-round, advanced infrastructure simulation in which you play the project owner — the Senior Responsible Owner of Pennine Connect Ltd, the lean 140-strong client organization set up to deliver a £4.8bn, 38 km rail link with two new stations between Manchester and Leeds, opening 2034. On 15 June 2026 HM Treasury and the sponsor freeze the second-stage funding review: the Outline Business Case is weak (benefit-cost ratio just 1.30 against a required ≥1.80, with a 1.50 floor below which the £620M second station is cut), the value proposition reads as 'build the railway' rather than deliver regional outcomes, and the proposed single £4.8bn lump-sum design-and-build concentrates risk badly. Comparable UK rail megaprojects have run 40–60% over — an unmitigated 50% overrun is £2.4bn the public sponsor cannot absorb. You have 120 days to re-shape the value proposition, restructure the delivery model, and present a credible stage-gated investment plan to the sponsor board on 13 October 2026, or funding is paused and the scheme descoped. Drawing on Graham Winch's Strategic Project Organizing — the owner as investor and value-shaper, not a passive client buying an asset — you (1) diagnose the owner's exposure, separating what only the owner can do (shape, sponsor, govern) from what the supply chain delivers; (2) shape a benefits-led value proposition that rebuilds the BCR toward ≥1.80 through scope choices that drive value; (3) structure the delivery model across the risk-allocation spectrum (lump-sum, multi-package, alliance, target-cost) and place the city-centre tunnel and live-rail junction risk with the party best able to manage it, aligned by pain/gain incentives; (4) stage-gate the £4.8bn into tranches with go/no-go gates that preserve the option to stop, reprice or descope; and (5) govern and defend to the Treasury/sponsor board through a live £300M tunnel cost shock, showing the structure absorbs it through contract and gate mechanisms rather than the public balance sheet. The math rewards genuine owner-investor moves and punishes the five classic errors — output framing, risk dumping via lump-sum, front-loaded commitment, incentive-blind alliances, and a plan with no governance. Final KPIs track BCR, worst-case cost exposure, schedule float, and stakeholder value.

Andina Logistics must move 4,200 tonnes of specialty chemicals from Bogotá to Quintero, Chile, under port disruption, customs inspection escalation, and a USD 9,500/day late-delivery penalty. Across 4 rounds the team diagnoses the corridor, re-optimizes under disruption, synchronizes VUCE single-window pre-clearance across DIAN-SUNAT-SNA, negotiates AEO sponsorship under Alianza del Pacífico, and presents a probability-weighted routing plan to a sceptical CFO. Bilingual delivery (Spanish + English).

A four-round empirical-econometrics workshop set in the Costaria National Productivity Council. Participants must deliver a defensible estimate of the PNCG management-training program's productivity effect on a panel of 1,500 SMEs over 2018–2024. Across four rounds — naive pooled OLS, omitted-variable bias decomposition, fixed-effects (one-way, two-way, random) with the Hausman test, and robustness (cluster-robust SEs, parallel-trends event study, heterogeneity) — players learn that the right number is rarely the first number, that statistical precision is not causal credibility, and that the credibility-revolution framing 'best estimate under stated assumption' beats 'true causal effect'. Bilingual EN/ES.

A four-round, advanced FinTech & sustainable-finance simulation set inside Solvio Pay SAS, a Paris consumer-fintech (2.1M users, EUR 4.3B annual B2C payment volume, EUR 86M net revenue, a thin 6% EBITDA margin of ~EUR 5.2M, EMI licence regulated by the ACPR/AMF). Eighteen months ago Solvio raised a EUR 60M Series C from impact funds whose term sheet embedded a sustainability covenant. On 2 June 2026 three deadlines converge on one finance team: mandatory CSRD/ESRS reporting for FY26 (compliance cost EUR 1.1M–1.9M, with limited external assurance and double materiality), eroding payment-rail economics (cards at ~1.05% blended vs an A2A instant-SEPA rail at ~0.35% — a EUR 8–12M annual swing that exceeds the entire EBITDA line), and a EUR 2.4M ring-fenced climate budget the covenant requires Solvio to deploy. A financial-press journalist is preparing a greenwashing piece. Playing the CFO, you (1) diagnose the payment, climate-finance and disclosure decisions as one interlocking system, naming the single biggest financial and reputational exposure; (2) choose the B2C payment rail on EUR 4.3B volume — stay on cards, migrate hard to A2A, or run a phased hybrid — pricing the cost swing AND the adoption/fraud risk, because a rail saving is meaningless without an adoption assumption; (3) allocate the EUR 2.4M climate budget across the credibility-vs-cost spectrum (cheap low-additionality offsets, real abatement in the cloud/payments stack, and a customer green-spending product), aligning spend with what the rail actually did to emissions; and (4) select CSRD disclosures under double materiality and face the press, choosing assurance scope within the compliance budget, committing only to targets you can evidence, and reconciling all three decisions to the board. The math rewards a phased rail with modelled adoption, abatement-weighted credible climate spend, and an honest, assurable, integrated disclosure — and punishes the five classic CFO errors: A2A purely for the headline rate, staying on expensive cards while the swing eats the EBITDA line, offset-only climate spend that invites a greenwashing exposé, over-promising into unassurable targets, and treating CSRD as a siloed reporting exercise. Final KPIs track Net P&L impact (EUR M), Credibility, CSRD Compliance Readiness, and Exposure to greenwashing, regulatory and covenant risk.

A 4-year college financing simulation. Decode aid letters, build a year-by-year funding stack from cheapest to most expensive source, project the monthly payment, and defend the prestige-vs.-debt trade-off. Concept 882 of the US Personal Finance cluster.

A four-round, advanced corporate-governance simulation set on the remuneration committee of Lumière Materials NV, a Brussels-listed (Euronext) building-materials and insulation maker with EUR 4.8B revenue, 14,000 staff and a 2030 decarbonization thesis institutional investors buy the stock for. Last month the say-on-pay vote scraped 68% support — a near-revolt — because the CEO's EUR 4.2M package (70% variable, ~EUR 2.94M under redesign) links pay almost entirely to financials with a token 5% ESG modifier proxy advisors called 'window-dressing'. Two of the three largest holders (22% of shares) and both proxy advisors (ISS/Glass Lewis equivalents) will vote against the chair next AGM unless CEO pay is credibly tied to verifiable, CSRD-auditable climate targets — without making the package unwinnable and losing the CEO who drove the turnaround. Chairing the committee you (1) diagnose why the policy failed — token ESG and weak pay-for-performance alignment, not disclosure alone; (2) set the financial-vs-ESG weighting (90/10, 80/20, 70/30, 60/40), split it across the annual bonus and the long-term incentive where climate targets belong, and choose standalone-weighted vs a modifier; (3) pick 2-3 ESG indicators (absolute Scope 1+2, carbon intensity, low-carbon revenue share, an SBTi-validated milestone, TRIR safety, diversity) and set the payout cap (150/175/200%), a financial gate, and malus/clawback; and (4) defend the policy to a coalition of the two large investors and a proxy advisor, deciding which CEO-retention and investor pushback to accommodate and projecting the AGM vote. The math rewards material-but-verifiable ESG in the LTI with a cap, gate and clawback, and punishes the five classic errors — token ESG, soft over-weighting on unauditable metrics, easy intensity metrics while absolute emissions rise, no cap or gate, and chasing investors until the CEO walks. Final KPIs track Investor Approval (say-on-pay %), Policy Credibility, CEO Retention and the EUR materiality of the ESG-linked variable pay.

Step into Costaria National Insurance Institute as the working-to-retiree ratio falls toward 2.4:1. Build the three canonical pension architectures (PAYG, fully funded, multi-pillar hybrid), test them against four decades of reform evidence (Chile 1981, Sweden 1998 NDC, Argentina 1994/2008, Germany Riester, Netherlands, Australia, Singapore), and design a Costaria reform package — with explicit allocation of the transition cost across cohorts. Apply the Aaron-Samuelson rule, the PAYG sustainability identity, and the World Bank multi-pillar framework to a 30-year fiscal projection.