Assessments

List of All Assessments

The following assessments will be used to measure progress towards learning outcomes and to assign grades. Assessments are organized by track: Recruiting (interview preparation) and Client Work (consulting projects).

Goal	Assessment	%	Pts	OS Actions	LOs
Both	Reading Quizzes (10)	10	50	Varies by week	1,2,3
Recruiting	Resume & Networking	12	60	1.4, 1.6, 2.2, 4.4	5
Recruiting	Practice Interviews	42	210	1.1–1.7, 2.4, 2.6, 3.6, 4.1–4.4	1,3,4,5
Client Work	P1: Intelligence Brief	8	40	1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3	1,2,3
Client Work	P2: Point of View	8	40	1.4, 1.5, 4.1	1,2,3
Client Work	Capstone: Conversation Deck	20	100	1.1–4.8	1,2,3,4
	TOTAL	100	500

Notes

Table of Learning Outcomes

#	Learning Outcome	BYU Aims Supported
1	Apply The Consultant’s OS to define and solve client problems using MECE logic, issue trees, and hypothesis-driven analysis	Intellectually Enlarging
2	Use AI-assisted tools (e.g., Claude, Copilot) to gather outside-in insights, build models, and test hypotheses with transparency and integrity	Lifelong Learning and Service; Character Building
3	Communicate clear, executive-level recommendations using the Pyramid Principle and visual slide design	Intellectually Enlarging; Character Building
4	Demonstrate Christlike professionalism through humility, judgment, and trustworthiness in team and client interactions	Spiritually Strengthening; Character Building
5	Prepare for consulting interviews and internships by articulating a clear value proposition through resumes, networking, and behavioral interviews	Lifelong Learning and Service; Spiritually Strengthening

Reading Quizzes

Points: 50 (10% of grade)

Overview

Reading quizzes ensure you come to class prepared and have internalized core concepts before applying them. Quizzes are administered on Thursdays and cover that week’s readings.

Requirements

10 quizzes throughout the semester (5 points each)
Quizzes are administered at the start of class on Thursday
Cover the assigned readings for that week’s OS concept
No quizzes on weeks when major projects are due (P1, P2, Capstone)
Quizzes are closed laptop and closed note

Grading Rubric

Component	Points
10 quizzes × 5 points each	50
Total	50

Resume & Networking

Points: 60 (12% of grade)

Overview

A consulting-ready resume and active networking are essential for landing interviews.

Requirements

Resume (35 points)

Submit two versions of your resume throughout the semester:

Resume v1: Initial consulting-formatted resume
Resume v2: Revised resume incorporating TA feedback

Your resume should:

Follow consulting resume format (1 page, action-oriented bullets)
Quantify scope and impact for each experience
Use strong action verbs and demonstrate leadership
Be error-free and professionally formatted

Resume Templates

The Resume Bible from Management Consulted includes consulting-specific templates and formatting guides. Access free through BYU Marriott registration.

Networking Tracker (25 points)

Maintain a networking tracker documenting your outreach throughout the semester:

5 networking conversations with consulting professionals (5 points each)
Track: Name, company, date, key insights, follow-up actions
Include a mix of informational interviews, smoothie chats, and firm events

Get Your Networking Tracker

Make a copy of the Networking Tracker to create your own version. Read the first tab for guidance on networking purpose, reminders, and etiquette.

Grading Rubric

Component	Points
Resume v1	15
Resume v2 client-ready	20
5 networking conversations (5 points each)	25
Total	60

Practice Interviews

Points: 210 (42% of grade)

Overview

Interview mastery requires deliberate practice of both behavioral and case components. You’ll practice as both interviewee and interviewer throughout the semester, starting with a goals conversation to set your development focus. Each practice interview mirrors common consulting interview compoents: behavioral/fit question and cases. Exact interview format at different firms will vary but this structure will prepare you well for whatever exact structure you will encouter.

Practice Interview Format

You should schedule 1 hour for each interview session: Each practice interview includes:

Component	Time
Behavioral/Fit Question(s)	15-20 min
Case	25-30 min
Feedback	5-10 min
Total	~60 min

Requirements

Complete 10 practice interviews as the interviewee:

Source	Sessions	Notes
Pod peers	7	Practice with pod members
TA	3	TA coaching sessions
Total	10

You will also complete 7 additional practice interviews as the interviewer.

TA Sessions

Your TA meets with you four times during the semester:

Goals Chat: Set recruiting goals and development focus using the Goals Worksheet
Session 1: Baseline interview assessment against those goals
Session 2: Progress check toward goals
Session 3: Final evaluation with full semester context

Get Your Goals Worksheet

Make a copy of the Goals Worksheet to create your own version. Complete it before your first chat with your TA.

Interview Feedback

Set Up Your Feedback Form

Each student creates their own copy of the feedback form. This ensures your interview feedback remains private. Only you, your TA, and Professor Murff can see your scores and comments.

Setup (do this before your first practice interview):

Make a copy of the Practice Interview Feedback Form
Open the linked response spreadsheet (Responses tab > click the spreadsheet icon)
Share the spreadsheet with your TA and Professor Murff (View access)
Share your form link with your interviewers—they’ll submit feedback after each practice interview

Grading Rubric

Component	Points
Goals Chat	10
3 TA Interviews and Coaching sessions (20 points each)	60
7 peer interviews as interviewee (10 points each)	70
7 peer interviews as interviewer (10 points each)	70
Total	210

Points awarded for completion. Feedback is captured in the feedback form to track your growth over time.

Behavioral & Fit Interviews

The behavioral and fit portion of consulting interviews (typically 15-20 minutes) evaluates who you are beyond the case. Firms want to know: Do you have a track record of delivering strong results? Are you someone we’d want to work with on our team?

What Firms Are Assessing

While individual firms vary, behavioral response are generally evaluated on three main dimensions:

Dimension	What Firms Want to See
Impact & Ownership	You drove results, took accountability, and can articulate YOUR contribution
Teamwork & Collaboration	You work effectively with others, navigate conflict, and elevate teams
Presence & Fit	You communicate clearly, come across as authentic, and are someone they’d want to work with

Behavioral Questions

“Tell me about a time when…”

Behavioral questions use your past experiences to predict future performance. Firms believe the best indicator of how you’ll handle a situation is how you’ve handled similar situations before.

The STAR Framework

The STAR framework can be a helpful tool to structure responses to behavioral questions:

Element	What to Include	Tips
Situation	Brief context: when, where, what was at stake	a few sentences; don’t over-explain the setup
Task	Your specific responsibility or challenge	What were YOU accountable for?
Action	What YOU did (not “we”)	Be specific: decisions made, steps taken, how you influenced others
Result	Quantified outcome and what you learned	Numbers matter: %, $, time saved, people impacted

You won’t necessarily address all of these points in a single stream of consiousness, but each element should come out naturally during the conversation with your interviewer, thank ques from them for dynamic back and forth.

Creating a Story Bank

You will be served well by preparing 3-5 stories covering different topics. Common behavioral question topics include stories that showcase:

Leadership/Initiative
Problem-Solving Ability
Teamwork/Collaboration
Overcoming Challenges or Conflict
Impact/Achievement

Tip

Each story should demonstrate capability across all 3 dimensions (ownership, teamwork, presence). A “leadership” story still needs to show how you worked with others and should be told with confidence and authenticity.

Sample Questions by Topic

Leadership/Initiative

Tell me about a time you took initiative on something that wasn’t your responsibility.
Describe a situation where you had to lead without formal authority.
Tell me about a time you identified a problem before others did and took action.

Problem-Solving

Tell me about a complex problem you solved. Walk me through your approach.
Describe a time you had to make a decision with incomplete information.
Tell me about a time you had to change your approach mid-way through a project.

Teamwork/Collaboration

Tell me about a time you had to work with someone difficult.
Describe a situation where you had to influence someone without authority.
Tell me about a time a team project didn’t go as planned. What did you do?

Overcoming Challenges

Tell me about your biggest professional failure and what you learned.
Describe a time you received tough feedback. How did you respond?
Tell me about a time you had to persevere through significant obstacles.

Impact/Achievement

What’s your most significant professional accomplishment?
Tell me about a time you exceeded expectations.
Describe an impact you made that you’re particularly proud of.

Behavioral Scoring

Your TAs and peers will use the following rubric to assess your behavioral responses:

Dimension	1 - Not Yet	2 - Developing	3 - Solid	4 - Strong
Impact & Ownership	Vague story, no clear results, says “we” throughout	Has a story but results aren’t quantified, unclear personal contribution	Clear personal actions, quantified results, demonstrates initiative	Compelling ownership, impressive results with scale, clearly drove outcomes
Teamwork & Collaboration	No evidence of collaboration, or throws others under the bus	Others mentioned but unclear how they worked together	Clear collaboration, navigated different perspectives, elevated the team	Sophisticated influence, resolved real conflict, made others better
Presence & Fit	Rambling (3+ min), nervous/robotic, hard to follow	Too long or short, filler words, comes across as rehearsed	Concise, confident, natural delivery, likable	Crisp, engaging, authentic, memorable

Tips for Interviewees

Before the Interview

I have 4-5 stories covering different topics (leadership, teamwork, challenges, impact)
Each story demonstrates all 3 dimensions (ownership, collaboration, presence)
My personal contribution is clear (I am able to say “I” not “we”)

During the Interview

Listen carefully to the question and answer what’s being asked
Use STAR but don’t be robotic—let it flow naturally
If you’re rambling, wrap up: “The key result was…”
If asked a follow-up, answer directly, don’t restart the whole story

Tips for Interviewers

Mindset

Do	Don’t
Create realistic interview conditions	Make it artificially easy or hard
Stay engaged and present throughout	Check your phone or appear distracted
Let silence work—candidates need thinking time	Fill every pause with hints
Remain neutral; evaluate, don’t coach mid-interview	React visibly to good or bad answers
Treat every candidate like a future colleague	Condescend or intimidate

Running the Behavioral Section

Setup: State the question clearly, let them choose their story, set expectations (is this a deep dive an single experience or a 2-3 minute summary).

Note “I” vs. “we.” Listen for specific actions and quantified results.

Probing Questions

“What was your specific role in that outcome?”
“What would you do differently if you faced this again?”
“How did that experience change how you approach similar situations?”
“What was the hardest part for you personally?”

Red Flags

Can’t explain their personal contribution when pressed
Story lacks specific details (names, numbers, timelines)
Takes credit for team outcomes without acknowledging others
Gets defensive when probed

Fit Questions

“Why consulting?” “Why our firm?” “Walk me through your resume”

Often part of behavioral interviews (usually at the end), fit questions test your motivation, self-awareness, and genuine interest in the firm. Unlike behavioral questions, these aren’t about past stories, they’re about your personal narrative and career intentions.

Key Questions to Prepare

Question	What They’re Really Asking	What Good Looks Like
“Why consulting?”	Do you understand what consultants actually do? Is this a thoughtful choice?	Specific reasons tied to your experiences, skills, and goals—not generic prestige
“Why [this firm]?”	Have you done your research? Are you genuinely interested in US specifically?	Firm-specific reasons (culture, type of work, people you’ve met), not copy-paste answers
“Walk me through your resume”	Can you tell a coherent career story? Do your choices make sense?	A 2-minute narrative showing intentional progression toward consulting
“Why should we hire you?”	What’s your unique value proposition?	2-3 specific strengths with evidence, tied to what the firm needs
“Where do you see yourself in 5 years?”	Are you thoughtful about your career? Will you stick around?	Honest ambition that includes growth at the firm

Tips for Interviewees

Crafting Your “Why Consulting” Answer

Structure your answer around three elements:

The spark: What experience or realization drew you to consulting?
The fit: What about consulting matches your skills and interests?
The goal: What do you hope to learn or accomplish?

Avoid generic answers like “I want to learn from smart people” or “I like problem-solving.” Everyone says that. Be specific about YOUR journey.

Crafting Your “Why [Firm]” Answer

Do your research. Reference:

Specific practice areas or industries that interest you
People you’ve spoken with and what you learned
Culture elements that resonate (with specific examples)
Recent work or thought leadership that impressed you

Tips for Interviewers

What to Listen For

Genuine enthusiasm vs. rehearsed talking points
Specific, researched reasons vs. generic statements
Self-awareness about strengths and growth areas
Coherent career narrative that leads logically to consulting

Red Flags

Can’t articulate why consulting beyond prestige or pay
Generic “why firm” answer that could apply to any firm
Resume walkthrough is disjointed or defensive about gaps
Seems to be interviewing at every firm with no real preference

Case Interviews

Case interviews test your structured problem-solving ability. You’ll be given a business problem and asked to work through it out loud, demonstrating how you think.

Select a case from the Management Consulted: Case Library – Full library of practice cases by firm, type, and difficulty

Case Scoring

Dimensions

Dimension	What to Evaluate
Structure & Approach	MECE framework, tailored to problem, prioritized
Analytical Rigor	Math setup, accuracy, “so what” interpretation
Hypothesis-Driven Recommendation	Clear POV, insight-led synthesis, practical and actionable

Scoring Anchors

Structure & Approach:

1 - Not Yet: No framework or completely generic, no prioritization
2 - Developing: Has a framework but not tailored, missing MECE
3 - Solid: Tailored MECE structure, logical prioritization
4 - Strong: Insightful structure that unlocks the case, adapts as new info emerges

Analytical Rigor:

1 - Not Yet: Can’t set up the math, significant errors, no interpretation of results
2 - Developing: Gets to an answer but messy setup, minor errors, or no “so what”
3 - Solid: Clean setup, accurate math, interprets what the numbers mean for the decision
4 - Strong: Efficient approach, creative shortcuts, surfaces insights others would miss

Hypothesis-Driven Recommendation:

1 - Not Yet: No recommendation, or wishy-washy “it depends,” no point of view
2 - Developing: Has a recommendation but just summarizes analysis, no real insight
3 - Solid: Clear POV with structured reasoning, acknowledges risks, actionable next steps
4 - Strong: Sharp insight that reframes the problem, creative yet grounded, CEO would act on this

Tips for Interviewees

Structure Your Approach

Ask clarifying questions to understand the problem
Take 60-90 seconds to organize your thoughts before speaking
Present a MECE framework tailored to the specific problem
Prioritize: state which branch you’ll explore first and why

Drive the Analysis

Ask for data; don’t wait for it to be offered
Set up math clearly before calculating
Interpret results: always state the “so what”
Adapt your structure as new information emerges

Synthesize and Recommend

Lead with your recommendation (answer-first)
Support with 2-3 key reasons from your analysis
Acknowledge risks or considerations
Propose concrete next steps

Tips for Interviewers

Prompt Delivery

Read the prompt clearly, don’t paraphrase or editorialize
Provide the prompt in writing if it’s complex
Give 60-90 seconds for initial structuring time
Say “Feel free to take a moment to organize your thoughts”

Pacing the Case

Phase	Your Role
Structure	Listen without interrupting; let them complete their framework
Exploration	Guide them through 2-3 branches; reveal data when appropriate
Analysis	Provide data clearly; give time for calculations
Synthesis	Push for a recommendation with 5 min remaining

Data Reveals

Release data in response to good questions
Say “What would you want to know?” rather than “Here’s some data”
If stuck, give one gentle redirect: “What else might drive profitability?”
Don’t volunteer data they didn’t ask for

Red Flags

Generic framework not tailored to the problem
Can’t do math or interpret what numbers mean
Avoids taking a point of view
Doesn’t adapt as new information emerges

Giving Feedback

Feedback Delivery Framework

Use this structure every time:

Ask first: “How do you think that went? What felt strong? What felt harder?”
Validate: Acknowledge their self-assessment before sharing yours
Strengths (2-3 specific): “Your structure was MECE and tailored to problem”
Development areas (1-2 specific): “The one thing to work on: interpreting the numbers, you got the math right but didn’t say what it meant for the decision”

Delivering Difficult Feedback

Instead of…	Try…
“That was pretty weak”	“There’s room to develop here, let me show you what I mean”
“You need to do X”	“Strong candidates typically do X, here’s why it matters”
“That’s wrong”	“I’d push back on that assumption, what’s your evidence?”

Calibration Mistakes to Avoid

Halo effect: One strong moment doesn’t make everything strong
Recency bias: Don’t over-weight the recommendation at the expense of the whole case
Comparison drift: Score against the rubric, not against the last candidate
Niceness inflation: A 3 means “solid”, reserve 4s for truly standout performance

Client Work

Think of these three projects as “freemium consulting”—like Gmail, you’re giving real value upfront to demonstrate your capability and earn a conversation.

You’ll choose one public company and build toward actual outreach by semester’s end. The deliverables follow the SCQA framework (Situation, Complication, Question, Answer) from the Pyramid Principle:

Project	SCQA	The Story	The Gift
P1: Intelligence Brief	S + C	“Here’s how the world is, and here’s the tension I noticed”	Informed
P2: Point of View	Q + A	“Here’s the opportunity, and here’s what I think you should do”	Compelling
Capstone: Conversation Deck	Full SCQA	Synthesized narrative with a clear ask	Credible

Each deliverable builds on the last. By Capstone, you’ll have a portfolio piece and—with a little luck—a real conversation with a real company.

Pod Presentations: Simulated Client Discussions

Each pod session is a simulated client meeting. You’re not presenting to classmates—you’re pitching to a skeptical executive team. Your pod members play the role of client stakeholders: they’ll ask tough questions, probe your logic, and give you honest feedback.

Phase	Time	What’s Happening
Present	4 min	Deliver your deck as if to a client
Q&A	3 min	Pod asks questions in character
Written feedback	2 min	Everyone completes the feedback form
Transition	30 sec	Next presenter prepares
Per student	~9.5 min

How Feedback Works

All pod members and your TA complete a feedback form for each presenter. The same form is used for all three projects:

Project	Ratings Used For	Points
P1	Developmental feedback only	25 present + 15 feedback
P2	Developmental feedback only	25 present + 15 feedback
Capstone	Graded on deck quality only	100 (Deck Quality Rubric)

Feedback points (P1 and P2) require submitting forms for all pod members. Missing any form = 0 feedback points for that round.

Presentation Feedback Form

Submit Presentation Feedback — Complete this form for each pod member after their presentation. The same form is used for P1 and P2.

Feedback Form

This form is used for P1 and P2. Ratings provide developmental feedback but do not determine your grade on those assignments. The Capstone is graded entirely on deck quality using the Deck Quality Rubric, scored by the professor.

Role-Play as the Target Company

Put yourself in the shoes of someone at the presenter’s target company — a strategy director, business unit lead, or chief of staff. You’re busy. You get cold outreach all the time. As you watch this presentation, ask yourself: Would I take this meeting?

Informed (40%) — Do they understand my world?

Rating	Description
4	Yes — they’ve done their homework and surfaced tensions I’d recognize as real
3	Mostly — solid understanding with minor gaps or oversimplifications
2	Somewhat — they get the basics but miss nuances I’d expect them to know
1	No — this feels like a surface-level read; they don’t really understand my situation

Compelling (40%) — Would I want to explore this opportunity?

Rating	Description
4	Yes — this is worth my time; I want to dig into this with them
3	Probably — there’s something interesting here worth a conversation
2	Maybe — I’d need more convincing before I’d give up 20 minutes
1	No — nothing here makes me want to continue this conversation

Credible (20%) — Would I trust this person?

Rating	Description
4	Absolutely — sharp, prepared, handled my questions like they’ve done the work
3	Yes — professional and competent, knows their material
2	Somewhat — a few gaps or shaky moments made me wonder
1	Not really — I wouldn’t trust them with a real project

Written Feedback (required)

One strength: What would make someone at this company say yes?
One thing to work on: What would most increase their chances of getting the meeting?

The Gut Check (optional, not scored)

If you were at this company, would you take this meeting? ○ Yes — I’d make time ○ Probably — if my calendar allowed ○ Unlikely — I’d need a stronger hook ○ No — I’d pass

Project 1 (P1): Intelligence Brief

Points: 40 (8% of grade)

Team: Individual

Deliverable: 4-6 slide deck

Overview

Your first “freemium” deliverable. You’ll surface something your target company should be paying attention to, hopefully an insight from public data they might have missed. Think about this as a gift to company of outside-in perspective.

Choose a public company you’d genuinely want to work with or have a real interest in. You’ll build on this company for Project 2 (P2) and the Capstone Conversation Deck, ultimately sending your work to someone at the company and requesting a meeting to discuss it.

Requirements

Produce a 4-6 slide main deck (appendix, header, and transistion slides not counted):

Slide 1: The Company at a Glance

Brief context: what they do, where they play, recent performance
Just enough for someone unfamiliar to follow along (keep it tight)

Slide 2: What I Noticed

One non-obvious pattern, trend, or tension from your outside-in research
Could be: competitive shift, margin pressure, underexploited opportunity, market timing

Slide 3: Supporting Evidence

Data that backs up your observation (financials, benchmarks, industry trends)
Visual where helpful (chart, table, comparison)

Slide 4: Why This Matters

So what? What’s at stake if they act—or don’t?
Frame the implication, not the solution (that’s P2)

Sources: Public information (10-K, earnings calls, news, industry reports, expert interviews)

Grading

Component	Points
Present to pod	25
Submit feedback for all pod members	15
Total	40

Rubric ratings are collected for developmental feedback but do not determine your grade.

P2: Point of View

Points: 40 (8% of grade)

Team: Individual

Deliverable: 5-8 slide deck

Overview

Building on your Intelligence Brief (P1), you’ll now take a position: “Here’s an opportunity I see, and here’s what I believe you should do about it.” This is the core of client work when you can demonstrate insight that earns you a conversation the client finds compelling.

Requirements

Produce an additional 5-8 slides for the same company as P1 (appendix, header, and transistion slides not counted):

Slide 1: The Opportunity

One sentence: “I believe [Company] should [do X] because [Y]”
This is your point of view—take a real position

Slide 2: Why This, Why Now

Build on P1: what’s changed or what did you find that makes this urgent?
External pressures, competitive moves, market timing

Slide 3: What It Would Take

High-level approach: how would you structure the work?
2-3 key questions to answer or analyses to run

Slide 4: What’s at Stake

Quantified potential impact (revenue, cost, market share, risk)
What happens if they act vs. don’t act?

Slide 5: What I’d Want to Discuss

The 2-3 questions you’d want to explore in a conversation
Frame it as genuine curiosity, not a sales pitch

Grading

Component	Points
Present to pod	25
Submit feedback for all pod members	15
Total	40

Rubric ratings are collected for developmental feedback but do not determine your grade.

Capstone: Conversation Deck

Points: 100 (20% of grade)

Team: Individual

Deliverable: 6-10 slide main deck + appendix

Overview

This is an unsolicited proposal deck, the same format consulting firms use to start relationships with prospective clients. The playbook: lead with real insight, demonstrate that you understand their world, and propose specific next steps that would be worth their time. You earn the right to propose work by delivering value first.

You’ll synthesize your P1 and P2 into a tight, client-ready deck, then send it to someone at your target company. The goal is a conversation, not a job. You’re showing a professional that you can think, that you’ve done real work, and that talking to you would be worthwhile.

Client-Ready Means Standalone

Your Capstone should read as a standalone professional document. The recipient has no context for “P1,” “P2,” or “STRAT 325,” so integrate your earlier work without referencing the class assignments. Include your name and email on the title slide. If someone at the company opened this attachment, they should know who sent it and how to respond.

Requirements

The Deck (6-10 slides + appendix) (title slide, appendix, and transition slides not counted)

Your deck follows the SCR arc (Situation, Complication, Resolution) adapted for cold outreach. The sections below describe what each part covers, not what your slide titles should say. Your titles should state conclusions, not section labels (e.g., “Market is shifting toward X” rather than “Market Overview”). Every slide that cites a number must include a traceable source in the footnote (named report, filing, or database). See the Source Quality Gate in the rubric.

Before submitting, run the five self-check tests in the Deck Quality Rubric.

Title slide (not counted): Company name, your name, email, and date. Keep it clean.

Executive Summary (1 slide): Compress your entire argument into one slide. If the recipient reads only this slide and nothing else, they should understand what you found, why it matters, and what you’re proposing. Write this slide last, after the rest of the deck is built. Use the Pyramid Principle: lead with your conclusion, then support it with 3-4 key points.
What I Noticed (1-3 slides) — Situation + Complication. Your outside-in insight (refined from P1). What is happening at this company that they should be paying attention to? Keep the setup tight. The recipient already knows their own company; your job is to show them something they haven’t seen or haven’t connected yet. This section earns attention, but the resolution is where you earn the conversation.
The Opportunity (2-4 slides) — Resolution. Your point of view (refined from P2). What should they do about it, and why now? This section should dominate the deck. It’s where you demonstrate that you can move past observation into actionable insight. Include quantified impact: what happens if they act vs. don’t act? Back every claim with sourced data.
Proposed Next Steps (1 slide) — The Ask. Based on your analysis, what would you propose doing next? Identify 2-3 specific analyses, workstreams, or initiatives that would take your outside-in perspective deeper. Each one should connect directly to a finding in your deck and describe what you’d actually do, not just what you’d ask about. Close with a single line requesting a 20-minute conversation.

The test: does this slide make the recipient think “this person could actually help me,” or does it make them think “this person wants to pick my brain”? You’re proposing work, not requesting an informational interview.

Appendix: Supporting detail (data tables, methodology notes, additional analysis, source bibliography). Keep the main deck tight and narrative-driven. A busy exec will skim the main slides; the appendix shows you’ve done the work if they want to dig deeper.

This deck should be tight enough to attach to a LinkedIn message or cold email.

Reference Decks

Study how top consulting firms structure client-facing slide decks. These examples from McKinsey and BCG demonstrate action titles, sourced data, clear visual logic, and professional formatting:

BCG: Loose Dogs in Dallas. A real BCG engagement delivered to Dallas City Council. Clean structure (Context, Key Findings, Recommendations, Next Steps). Strong action titles, sourced data on every slide, effective use of original research (BCG conducted their own dog census). The closest analog to what your Capstone should look like.
McKinsey: Overcoming the European Tech IPO Challenge. Sharp executive summary with numbered claims, each proved by subsequent slides. Every chart sourced to Capital IQ, FactSet, or Crunchbase. Note: the original deck included author photos and contact emails on the closing slide. Your deck should include your name, email, and LinkedIn on the title slide so the recipient knows who sent it.
BCG: Navigating through COVID-19 and Oil Supply-Demand Shock. A CEO-level pitch deck for PetroVietnam. Opens with the BCG team and relationship history, then builds urgency with macro data before proposing workstreams. Note how the deck earns the right to propose work by demonstrating insight first.

Pay attention to what these decks do not include: no assignment headers, no “Key Takeaways” sidebars restating the slide, no unsourced numbers, no “illustrative” labels without supporting analysis.

The Outreach (+5 extra credit)

For extra credit, send your deck to at least one person at your target company. This could be:

A LinkedIn message to someone in strategy, corp dev, or a relevant business unit
A cold email (if you can find a contact)
A warm intro through your network

What to Submit

Your final deck (PDF)
(Optional, for extra credit) Screenshot or link showing your outreach message (LinkedIn, email, etc.)

Grading

Component	Who Scores	Points
Deck quality (Deck Quality Rubric)	Professor	100
Outreach completed	Extra credit	+5

Due: Monday, April 20 at 11:59 PM. Submit your final deck as a PDF to Canvas.

Capstone Showcase

Wednesday, April 22, 11:00 AM - 12:15 PM, W240 TNRB

All students are invited and encouraged to attend. After grading, 5-8 students with the strongest decks will be selected to present their work and take questions. Everyone else will see what top-quality decks look like and hear what made them stand out.

Deck Quality Rubric

Four dimensions, each on a 7-point scale, converted to 100 points. Two quality gates enforce minimum professional standards.

Self-Check Before Submitting

Run these five tests on your deck before you submit:

Title-flow test. List all your action titles in order. Do they tell a coherent, persuasive story without the slide bodies?
Golden Rule. For each slide: does the body prove the title and nothing else? Is there anything in the title that isn’t supported below, or anything below that doesn’t serve the title?
“So what” test. Can every slide answer “so what does this mean for the decision?” If it only states a fact, push to the implication.
Squint test. Squint at each slide. Is the main message still visually clear?
Devil’s advocate test. Would the deck be weaker if you removed this slide? If not, cut it.

Quality Gates

These are pass/fail checks that cap your score if triggered. Fix these first.

Source Quality Gate — Any slide citing a number must include a traceable source in the footnote: a named report, filing, earnings call, survey, or database with dates. “Web research,” “various sources,” “Statista” (without naming the dataset), “analyst estimates” (without naming the analyst), “AI research,” and “proprietary analysis” (without showing assumptions) are not traceable. Your appendix must include a sources page with full citations (report titles, authors, dates, URLs where available). Untraceable sourcing on key analytical claims caps Evidence at 4.

Client-Readiness Gate — Your deck must read as a standalone professional document. Any of the following cap Storyline at 4: assignment artifacts (“P1,” “P2,” “STRAT 325,” template section headers used as slide titles), missing contact information (name and email) on the title slide, or a missing/weak executive summary that doesn’t compress the full argument into one standalone slide.

1. Storyline (30%)

Does the deck tell a coherent, answer-first story from first slide to last?

This dimension evaluates the full arc: structure, action titles, executive summary, proposed next steps, and deck tightness.

Rating	Description
7	Clear SCR arc with the resolution dominating the deck. Executive summary compresses the full argument into one standalone slide. Every title is a specific conclusion stating the slide’s “so what” (quantified where the content warrants it); reading only the titles tells the complete story (title-flow test). Proposed next steps flow directly from the analysis, reference specific findings, and imply deliverables. Every slide advances the argument; removing any one would weaken the deck. No assignment artifacts. Includes name and contact information.
6	Strong narrative arc with action titles throughout. Exec summary exists and mostly stands alone. Proposed next steps are specific and connected to findings. One title could be sharper, or one slide could be tighter, but the story holds. No assignment artifacts.
5	Clear point of view and logical flow. Most titles are action titles; a couple are topic labels (“Market Overview” instead of “Market is shifting toward X”). Exec summary covers the key points but doesn’t fully compress the argument. Proposed next steps are reasonable but somewhat generic.
4	The argument is there but you have to work to follow it. Mix of action titles and topic labels. Exec summary is weak or missing. Next steps exist but feel formulaic. Some slides feel out of order, or the connection between insight and proposal is unclear.
3	Follows the required structure but the narrative doesn’t build. Reads more like a checklist than a story. More labels than conclusions. Next steps ask generic questions rather than proposing specific work. Assignment structure may be visible.
2	Disjointed. Slides make individual points but don’t connect into an argument. Titles are generic headers. No exec summary. No meaningful proposal. May feel like two assignments stapled together.
1	Missing major structural components or reads as a data dump with no narrative thread. No action titles. No proposal.

2. Insight (30%)

Does the deck push past observation into non-obvious, actionable insight?

Rating	Description
7	Non-obvious insight that someone at the company would learn from. Each analytical slide answers “so what does this mean for the decision?” Conclusions are pressure-tested: assumptions stated, alternatives acknowledged, strongest counterargument addressed. Recommendations flow directly from insights. The reader feels smarter after reading the deck.
6	Strong insight with a genuine “so what” at every level. The connection between findings and recommendations is clear and well-supported. One analytical leap could be better justified or one assumption better bounded.
5	Clear point of view that goes beyond obvious observations. Evidence supports the argument but relies on one or two unsupported leaps or round-number estimates. Some slides present data without fully drawing out the implication.
4	Adequate analysis with a stated “so what,” but the insight is not fully earned by the data. The core observation may be widely known (recent headlines, standard 10-K summary) without original synthesis on top.
3	Surface-level research presented as analysis. Uses easily available facts without digging into drivers, competitive dynamics, or trends. The deck presents observations but doesn’t push to insight.
2	Generic observations that could apply to any company in the industry. Little interpretation. Data labeled “illustrative” without supporting analysis. Reads as a research report, not a decision document.
1	No real analysis. Assertions without evidence, or irrelevant data that doesn’t connect to the opportunity.

3. Evidence (25%)

Is every claim backed by traceable, on-slide sourcing in the right format?

Rating	Description
7	Every numerical claim is sourced on-slide to a named report, filing, or database with dates (e.g., “Source: Apple 10-K FY2025, p. 34”). Format matches content perfectly: charts for trends, tables for comparisons, text for concepts. Assumptions are stated explicitly. Data is internally consistent across all slides. Appendix includes a full sources page with report titles, dates, and URLs.
6	All key claims are traceable on-slide with named sources. Format choices are strong. One minor source could be more specific, or one assumption could be better disclosed. Appendix sources page is present but may be incomplete.
5	Most claims are sourced on-slide. One or two sources are vague (e.g., “Statista” without naming the dataset, or a news outlet without the article title). Format is mostly appropriate. Data is generally consistent.
4	Sources appear on some slides but are inconsistently applied. Some key claims cite vague sources (“industry reports,” “company website”) or rely on unattributed estimates. Format choices feel default (bullets where a chart would be clearer). Numbers may be internally inconsistent across slides.
3	Sources are present but mostly vague or appear only in the appendix rather than on the slides where claims are made. Multiple unsupported numerical claims.
2	Few or no on-slide sources. Key claims are unverifiable. Sources like “web research,” “Google,” or “AI research” are used. No appendix bibliography.
1	No sources anywhere. Claims are entirely unsubstantiated.

Sourcing Guide: What Goes Where

On-slide source lines (bottom of each slide with data claims):

Source: Chipotle 10-K (FY2025), p. 22
Source: IBISWorld, “Fast Food Restaurants in the US,” Dec 2025
Source: Q3 2025 Earnings Call Transcript, CFO Brian Niccol remarks
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (2024)

Appendix sources page (one slide listing all sources with enough detail to find them):

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. “Annual Report (Form 10-K), Fiscal Year 2025.” SEC EDGAR. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=1058090
IBISWorld. “Fast Food Restaurants in the US: Market Size, Industry Analysis, Trends and Forecasts.” December 2025. Accessed via BYU Library.
Chipotle Mexican Grill. “Q3 2025 Earnings Call Transcript.” October 29, 2025. Via Seeking Alpha.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: Private, NAICS 722513.” 2024. https://data.bls.gov/cew/

The on-slide line tells the reader where the number came from. The appendix entry gives them enough to go find it themselves.

4. Slide Design (15%)

Would a busy exec actually read this?

Rating	Description
7	Polished and professional. One message per slide. Passes the squint test: key messages are visually clear from across the room. Consistent formatting throughout (fonts, colors, alignment, margins). Color used strategically to highlight key data, not decorate. Clean charts with clear takeaways, sourced in footnotes. Consistent text hierarchy. No chart junk, no animations, generous white space.
6	Clean and readable throughout. One slide is slightly dense or one chart could be clearer, but overall professional. Formatting is consistent. Adequate white space.
5	Good visual quality. A couple of slides have too much text or a chart that takes effort to parse. Formatting is mostly consistent.
4	Readable but unpolished. Mix of strong and weak slides, with some clean and others text-heavy or visually cluttered. May have redundant content (e.g., “Key Takeaways” sidebar restating what’s already on the slide).
3	Rough overall. Multiple text-heavy slides, inconsistent fonts or formatting, charts without clear takeaways.
2	Hard to follow visually. Walls of text, cluttered layouts, or design that distracts from the content. Raw spreadsheet screenshots in place of formatted tables.
1	Minimal effort on presentation. Misaligned elements, unformatted, or incomplete slides.

Deck Quality Scoring

Each dimension is scored 1-7. The weighted average is converted to 100 points:

Deck Quality Score = (Storyline x 0.30 + Insight x 0.30 + Evidence x 0.25 + Design x 0.15) x 100 / 7

Weighted Avg	Points (out of 100)
7.0	100
6.0	86
5.0	71
4.0	57
3.0	43
2.0	29
1.0	14

Sources

This rubric synthesizes best practices from the following articles by former MBB consultants:

Kampmann, A. H. “BCG’s Approach to Great Slides.” Slideworks, Feb 2025. Golden Rule, devil’s advocate test, squint test, slide-writing dimensions.
Kampmann, A. H. “Getting to the ‘So What.’” Slideworks, Jan 2025. Three levels of “so what,” pressure-testing conclusions, bias checks.
Kampmann, A. H. & Stigzelius, M. “How to Write Slide Action Titles.” Slideworks, Sep 2023. Action titles as forcing function, <15 words, SCQA framework.
Kampmann, A. H. & Stigzelius, M. “How to Write an Effective Executive Summary.” Slideworks, Aug 2023. SCQA structure, solution-focused summaries, Pyramid Principle.
Kampmann, A. H. “How to Write Recommendation Slides.” Slideworks, May 2024. MECE grouping, active language, earned asks.
Stigzelius, M. “The Pyramid Principle.” Slideworks, Aug 2023. Answer-first structure, top-down communication.
Stigzelius, M. “How Management Consultants Make Presentations.” Slideworks, Mar 2023. Five-section structure, slide anatomy, formatting standards.
Stigzelius, M. “How to Write Key Takeaway Slides.” Slideworks, Sep 2024. Summary slides, Pyramid Principle connection.
Vardrup, K. & Stigzelius, M. “How to Use the SCR Framework.” Slideworks, Sep 2023. Situation-Complication-Resolution arc, resolution dominance.
Vardrup, K. & Kampmann, A. H. “How to Write a Next Steps Slide.” Slideworks, Nov 2024. Ask specificity, action-oriented language.
Vardrup, K. “Accelerate Your PowerPoint Deck Creation.” Slideworks, May 2023. Audience calibration, paper-first drafting.

Feedback Surveys

Mid-Semester Feedback Survey

Complete the anonymous mid-semester feedback survey to earn 5 extra credit points added to your final grade. The survey is anonymous, so to receive credit, submit a screenshot of the confirmation page to Canvas.

Take the Mid-Semester Feedback Survey

Student Ratings

If you complete the official student ratings survey at the end of the semester, we will add 5 bonus points to your final grade.