What makes a fair simulation case competition?
A business simulation case competition should give every team the same decision problem, preparation time, evidence rules, and presentation limit. Teams should compare a baseline with one controlled change, explain tradeoffs and uncertainty, and recommend a feasible next action. Judges should use a published rubric and score the evidence behind the decision rather than treating profit, speed, confidence, or presentation polish as proof of learning.
Same starting conditions
Assign one simulator, scenario, time horizon, starting cash position, and permitted evidence set.
Visible success criteria
Publish the 20-point rubric before teams begin and explain that responsible constraints cannot be traded away.
Traceable judging
Require judges to cite a result, statement, calculation, or response before assigning each score.
Teacher setup and timing routes
| Route | Investigation | Presentation and judging | Best use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 minutes | 5-minute launch, 20-minute baseline and one changed run, 8-minute brief | Two-minute presentations, one common judge question, exit ticket | One class period; 3–5 teams |
| 60 minutes | 6-minute launch, 25-minute investigation, 8-minute brief | Three-minute presentations, one minute of questions, scoring | Standard competition; 3–5 teams |
| 90 minutes | 8-minute launch, 35-minute baseline/test/repeat investigation, 10-minute brief | Four-minute presentations, three-minute questions, judge calibration, revision | Showcase, capstone, or club event |
Before students arrive
- Choose one free xdage business simulator and one decision question from the scenario-card bank.
- Record the assigned starting conditions. If teams can choose scenarios, score them in separate divisions.
- Decide which tools are allowed: paper, calculator, local CSV export, class notes, or cited public sources. Apply one rule to every team.
- Print one student brief per team and one ballot per judge. Use anonymous team codes if practical.
- Explain the question procedure and tie process before starting. Do not invent a new criterion after seeing results.
Suggested tie process: compare responsibility and evidence scores first, then method. If still tied, recognize co-winners or ask both teams the same evidence question. Do not use applause volume, audience popularity, or a sudden profit-only test.
Printable page 1
Student case competition brief
Your task: Recommend one specific, feasible operating decision. Support it with a comparable baseline and changed run, at least three decision-relevant measures, one calculation, one material tradeoff or stakeholder effect, one limitation, and one next test or monitoring rule.
Assigned decision question:
Fixed starting conditions and evidence rules:
Required presentation sequence
- Question: State the decision and the outcome you tried to improve.
- Method: Identify the one main input changed and what was held constant.
- Evidence: Compare the baseline and test with units and calculation.
- Interpretation: Explain the likely mechanism without claiming the simulation proves causation.
- Responsibility: Name a legal, safety, privacy, accessibility, labor, consumer, or environmental boundary and a material tradeoff.
- Recommendation: Propose the action, monitoring measure, stop rule, and next test.
Submission check: ☐ comparable runs ☐ three measures ☐ units shown ☐ one checked calculation ☐ tradeoff ☐ responsibility boundary ☐ limitation ☐ next test or stop rule
Printable page 2
Team evidence and recommendation record
| Measure with unit | Baseline | Changed run | Absolute or percentage change | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Calculation with formula, substituted values, result, and unit:
What improved, what worsened, and what stayed uncertain?
Who or what is affected, and which boundary must not be traded away?
Recommendation: We recommend __________ because __________.
Monitor: __________ Stop or revise if: __________
Next controlled test: Change __________; hold __________ constant; compare __________.
Printable page 3
Judge ballot: 20-point evidence rubric
| Criterion | 4 — Strong | 2–3 — Developing | 0–1 — Missing or unreliable | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question and method | Focused question; one main change; comparable runs | Question or controls partly clear | Several changes or incomparable evidence | /4 |
| Evidence and calculation | Three relevant measures with units; traceable correct calculation | Some useful evidence; minor gaps | Unsupported, incorrect, or untraceable result | /4 |
| Interpretation | Explains mechanism, tradeoff, uncertainty, and model limit | Reasonable claim with incomplete qualification | Overclaim, score report, or no reasoning | /4 |
| Responsible decision | Material stakeholder and boundary shape the recommendation | Boundary named but weakly applied | Safety, law, privacy, fairness, or other duty ignored | /4 |
| Recommendation and response | Feasible action, monitoring, stop rule, next test; answers from evidence | Action is plausible but incomplete | Vague action or unsupported answers | /4 |
| Total | /20 | |||
Evidence for the strongest score:
One question asked and summary of the response:
One high-value revision:
Use common judge questions
Give judges a shared question bank and use approximately the same number and difficulty of questions for each team. A follow-up may clarify a response, but it should not become a different hidden test.
- Which result most directly supports your recommendation, and why?
- What important setting did you hold constant?
- Which calculation would you recheck first?
- What competing explanation could fit the result?
- Who could be helped or harmed by this decision?
- What would make you stop or revise the plan?
- What does this simplified model not measure?
- What is the smallest useful next test?
No-device backup case with answer guidance
Case: A café team tests adding a second barista during the morning period. The same prices, menu, day type, and promotion are used in both runs. In the baseline, 112 customers arrive, 92 are served, average wait is 8.0 minutes, waste costs $52, labor costs $180, and daily profit is $238. In the changed run, 112 arrive, 104 are served, average wait is 4.5 minutes, waste costs $61, labor costs $245, and daily profit is $247. Customer rating rises from 3.7 to 4.2 out of 5.
Competition question: Should the café schedule the second barista every morning? Teams have 18 minutes to prepare a two-minute recommendation using only this evidence.
Suggested evidence reading: The changed run serves 12 more customers, cuts wait by 3.5 minutes, raises rating by 0.5 points, and increases profit by $9. The incremental labor and waste cost is $74. The result supports testing added coverage on comparable high-demand mornings, but one pair of runs does not justify “every morning.” A strong recommendation limits the schedule to a pilot, repeats the comparison across several matched mornings, monitors profit, service, worker workload, and waste, and stops or adjusts if the service gain does not cover the added cost.
Acceptable variation: A team may recommend against expansion if it accurately argues that the $9 profit gain is too small and uncertain. Score the quality of evidence and risk control, not whether the team matches the suggested conclusion.
Competition integrity and responsible-use boundaries
- Accessibility: offer the brief in advance when appropriate, readable print, keyboard access, flexible speaking roles, and an equivalent written or recorded response route.
- Fair participation: rotate analyst, operator, evidence checker, and presenter roles. Device control or fluent public speaking is not proof of deeper understanding.
- Privacy: use fictional inputs and team codes. Do not request personal, customer, employee, financial-account, health, or school-login data.
- Academic integrity: publish permitted assistance and require teams to retain calculations, run records, sources, and any AI or tool disclosure. Judges score verified team reasoning.
- Responsible decisions: legal, safety, consumer, labor, accessibility, environmental, and privacy obligations remain constraints even when a simulator does not score them.
- No real-world promise: the simulations are simplified educational models, not financial, legal, hiring, lending, investment, safety, or operating advice.
Keep recognition educational: certificates, class roles, or published learning highlights can acknowledge work without purchases, paid promotion, referral incentives, or claims that encourage ad clicks. Advertising must remain separate from judging, navigation, and simulator controls.
Business simulation case competition FAQ
How long does a business simulation case competition take?
A compact version takes 50 to 60 minutes. A 90-minute route allows a repeated test, four-minute presentation, judge questions, calibration, and revision.
Should the team with the highest simulated profit win?
No. Score the question, method, evidence, interpretation, responsible constraints, recommendation, and responses. Profit is one result, not a complete measure of decision quality.
Can the competition work with one device or no devices?
Yes. Rotate teams through one projected simulator or use the printable café case above. Give every team the same evidence and preparation time.
How can teachers keep judging fair?
Publish one rubric and apply the same time, evidence rules, and question process. Judges should score independently and cite evidence before discussing results.
Do students need accounts or personal information?
No. The simulators work without accounts. Use team codes on ballots and keep real personal or business information out of the activity.
Build a complete evidence-based event
Use the controlled experiment guide to teach comparable runs, the report template for a longer written submission, the presentation and oral defense guide for rehearsal and common questions, the decision brief for presentation planning, the peer-review protocol before judging, the academic integrity and responsible AI guide to set assistance rules, and the accessible classroom guide to plan equitable participation. Browse the complete resource index for every simulator, worksheet, and lesson.