The case study: the reigning format
Since Harvard Business School popularized the method in the 1920s, the case study has become the dominant pedagogical format in higher education for business, law, and medicine.
The principle is appealing: instead of a theoretical lecture, you plunge the student into a real situation. They must analyze, diagnose, recommend.
Except it doesn't work as well as we think.
The 4 structural flaws of the case study
1. Everyone gets the same information
A case study is a document. Everyone reads the same text, the same figures, the same appendices. Information is given, not sought.
Result: students converge on the same conclusions. The "right answers" circulate from one cohort to the next. And the debrief goes in circles — everyone saw the same thing.
In real life, nobody hands you a PDF with all the information you need to make a decision. You have to go find it, talk to the right people, ask the right questions, sort through contradictory information.
2. No observable process
When a student submits their analysis, you see the result — not the journey. Did they think independently or copy from a neighbor? Did they read the financial appendices or just the introduction? Did they consider alternatives before concluding?
You have no idea. The case study assesses a finished product with no visibility into the thinking process. That's exactly what makes AI cheating so easy. (See: 5 Assessment Methods ChatGPT Can't Beat)
3. Free riders thrive
In group work on a case study, the pattern is always the same: one or two students do the bulk of the work. The others "contribute" by rephrasing. Everyone puts their name on the deliverable.
Since there's no trace of who did what, it's impossible to distinguish the contributor from the free rider. Individual assessment in group case study work is a myth.
4. Information is static
A case study is a frozen snapshot. The student can't "go back to see" the CFO to ask a follow-up question. They can't discover a new fact in round 2 that challenges their hypothesis from round 1.
Reality is dynamic. Situations evolve. New information emerges. Stakeholders change their minds. The case study captures none of that.
The solution: from analysis to investigation
The problem isn't the case study's content — it's the format. Replace the document with a living world, and all 4 flaws disappear:
| Case study flaw | Investigation solution | |-----------------|----------------------| | Same information for everyone | Each team interrogates different characters and discovers different clues | | No observable process | Every interaction is tracked: who talked to whom, what questions, which clues | | Free riders | The dashboard shows each student's real contribution | | Static information | Clues are distributed by turn, characters react to questions |
The content stays the same — a struggling company, a conflict to resolve, a strategic decision to make. But instead of reading a document, the student leads the investigation.
What does this look like in practice?
The classic case study
"Dupain Bakery has seen its revenue drop 15% since a competitor opened. You'll find the income statement, org chart, and customer satisfaction survey in the appendix. Analyze the situation and propose an action plan."
Student time: 30 minutes reading, 30 minutes writing. Everyone arrives at the same 3 recommendations.
The investigation simulation
Students walk into Dupain Bakery. They can talk to:
- Marie Dupain (owner) — knows the big-picture numbers, worried but doesn't want to lay anyone off
- Lucas (baker) — knows quality has dropped since the flour supplier changed, but doesn't dare tell Marie
- Sophie (sales clerk) — hears customer feedback, knows the opening hours no longer match neighborhood habits
- Thomas (part-time accountant) — sees rising costs but doesn't know why
Each character has information the others don't. Some clues are only available in round 2 or 3.
Team A talks to the accountant first and focuses on costs. Team B starts with the sales clerk and discovers the schedule problem. Team C interviews the baker and learns about the supplier change.
At the debrief, three different analyses. Three argued recommendations. And a rich discussion about why each team reached a different conclusion — because they asked different questions to the right (or wrong) people.
That difference is what makes the debrief. And it's a difference the classic case study can't produce.
How to make the transition
You don't need to abandon your case studies. You can transform them:
Step 1: Identify the core problem
Your case study already has a problem to solve. Keep it.
Step 2: Distribute information across characters
Instead of putting everything in a document, distribute information across 4-6 characters. Each character knows certain things and is unaware of others. Some have biases. Some won't volunteer everything.
Step 3: Create the simulation
With MEτiS, describe the problem and the characters. The AI enriches their knowledge, adds depth to their personalities, and creates the deliverables your students will produce.
5 minutes. Your static case study becomes a living investigation.
Step 4: Debrief with data
After the simulation, project the analytics. Show each team's journey. Discuss the differences. This is the most powerful pedagogical moment — and it's impossible to plan in advance, because it emerges from what your students actually did.
The best of both worlds
The case study invented the idea of contextualizing learning. That's a major contribution to pedagogy.
Investigation simulation preserves that idea and adds what was missing: active investigation, traceability, and unique journeys for every team.
It's not the end of the case study. It's its natural evolution.
The case study says: "here's the information, analyze." The simulation says: "here's a world, investigate."
The content is the same. The experience is transformed. And the learning is nothing alike.