Part A: The integrated case
Analysing a case: identifying the salient issues
Key takeaways
- The integrated case applies the diploma's other nine papers to a single, realistic public-sector scenario, usually longer and more detailed than a single-paper exam question.
- Read the case once for context, identify the entity, its mandate and the problem or decision it faces, note the timeline and figures, then read it again noting which facts relate to which paper.
- A salient fact directly bears on the problem or decision: if it were removed, the analysis would change. Background gives context only, and distractors test whether you can tell what matters.
- State the core problem in one or two sentences first, list the salient facts under their subject area, note any tensions between facts, and only then relate them to prior knowledge.
- Restating the case earns little: say in one sentence why each fact you cite matters to your answer.
This paper synthesises everything across this diploma's other nine papers, political philosophy and policy, strategic management, budgeting, procurement, public sector accounting, audit, financial management, and governance and ethics, applied to a single, realistic public-sector scenario, usually longer and more detailed than a single-paper exam question.
Reading the case systematically:
- Read the case once for overall context before looking for detail
- Identify the entity, its mandate, and the stated problem or decision it faces
- Note the timeline, key figures, and any numbers (budget, revenue, debt figures) given
- Read it a second time noting which facts relate to which paper's subject area
Distinguishing salient facts from background and distractors:
Structuring the initial analysis:
- State the core problem or decision in one or two sentences before analysing anything else
- List the salient facts under the paper/subject area they relate to
- Note any conflicting facts or tensions the case deliberately sets up
- Only then move to relating the facts to prior knowledge (the next chapter)
Exam tip
A common scoring failure in integrated case studies is analysis that restates the case's facts without identifying which ones are actually salient to the decision at hand, practise stating in one sentence why each fact you cite matters to your answer, not just that it appears in the case.
Self-check
(a) A case describes a county health department that overspent its annual budget by 40%, mentions the county's population and the name of its current governor, and notes the procurement of medical supplies bypassed competitive tendering. Identify which details are salient, which are background, and which is a distractor. (5 marks)
(b) State the four steps for structuring an initial case analysis. (4 marks)
(c) Explain why simply restating the case's facts, without identifying which are salient, is a common scoring failure. (3 marks)
Show worked answer
(a) Salient: the 40% budget overrun and the bypassed competitive tendering, both directly bear on the core problem and would change the analysis if removed. Background: the county's population, useful for context but does not itself change the analysis. Distractor: the governor's name, included to test whether a candidate can distinguish it from something that actually matters to the financial and procurement issues at hand (5 marks).
(b) State the core problem or decision in one or two sentences before analysing anything else; list the salient facts under the paper/subject area they relate to; note any conflicting facts or tensions the case deliberately sets up; only then move to relating the facts to prior knowledge (4 marks).
(c) Restating facts without identifying salience shows the marker the candidate read the case but not that they can distinguish what actually matters to the decision from what is merely present, since marks are awarded for demonstrating relevance and judgement, not for demonstrating that the case was read (3 marks).