How to build an international strategy course: a complete guide for lecturers

Central question: How should a firm think about international growth when markets are connected but still meaningfully different?

Begin by separating international strategy from a simple decision to export. The course needs a shared language for globalization, internationalization, multinational enterprises, foreign-market exposure and the sources of advantage that may or may not travel across borders. The objective is to give students a strategic map before they start applying country and industry frameworks.

What this concept covers

• Globalization, semiglobalization and changing patterns of cross-border flows.
• Why firms internationalize: market seeking, efficiency, resources, learning and risk diversification.
• The multinational enterprise as a network of activities, subsidiaries and external partners.
• The difference between domestic strategy, international strategy, global strategy and transnational coordination.
• How trade, foreign direct investment, digital delivery and partnerships create different forms of international presence.

Learning outcomes

• Distinguish internationalization from globalization and simple export growth.
• Explain why a firm may seek advantage abroad and why that advantage can fail to travel.
• Map the main strategic decisions in an international expansion lifecycle.
• Identify which cross-border flows and institutional conditions matter for a specific firm.

How to teach it

• Open with two firms that internationalize in very different ways, such as a digital service and a manufacturer.
• Ask teams to map where value is created, delivered and captured across borders.
• Use current trade and investment evidence to challenge the claim that globalization is simply reversing.
• Close with a one-page expansion logic: why abroad, why now, and what must be true.

Case-style example

Northstar Learning earns $120 million of revenue in the UK, with 18% EBITDA margins. Management is considering Germany, India and the United States. Germany offers a £28 million addressable segment, India £55 million and the United States £80 million, but expected first-year acquisition costs are 12%, 25% and 31% of revenue respectively. Students compute a simple revenue-to-acquisition-cost screen, then argue whether scale or institutional fit should dominate. They discover that the biggest market is not automatically the best first move.

Where students struggle

Students often treat international expansion as a volume problem. They need to see that international strategy is about where advantage travels, what must be adapted and what additional coordination costs the firm creates.

Reading and a quick check

Use the globalization chapter in Peng plus the DHL Global Connectedness Report 2026. Quick check: ask students to write one reason internationalization can create value and one reason the same move can destroy it.

Where a simulation fits

Use a case discussion, market-screen workshop or short strategy memo here rather than forcing a simulation into the sequence.

Where it leads

The next step is to examine the political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental context that makes one location different from another.

Central question: Which country-level conditions materially change the attractiveness and feasibility of an international strategy?

Country analysis should move beyond descriptive lists. PESTLE becomes strategically useful when students rank material factors, connect them to the business model and state how a change in the environment would alter the recommendation. Institutions affect market access, property rights, labour, capital, data, regulation, legitimacy and the practical cost of operating.

What this concept covers

• Political stability, policy direction, state capacity and geopolitical alignment.
• Economic growth, income, inflation, exchange rates, capital access and infrastructure.
• Social demographics, consumer behaviour, labour expectations and cultural context.
• Technological infrastructure, digital adoption, standards and data conditions.
• Legal and regulatory systems, plus environmental constraints and transition pressures.

Learning outcomes

• Apply PESTLE selectively rather than producing an undifferentiated checklist.
• Prioritise country factors by materiality and strategic consequence.
• Translate macro conditions into implications for demand, cost, risk and control.
• Defend a country-attractiveness recommendation with evidence and explicit assumptions.

How to teach it

• Give every group the same country pack, then assign different business models so materiality changes.
• Require factor weights that sum to 100% before any overall recommendation is allowed.
• Ask students to identify one factor that could reverse their conclusion.
• Finish with paired approval committees that compare growth and risk perspectives.

Case-style example

AsterGrid, a European battery-storage firm, is comparing India and Poland. India offers forecast demand of 1,200 units a year and 22% local growth but requires 35% local sourcing; Poland offers 650 units and 11% growth with a €4.2 million subsidy and easier EU market access. Students weight six PESTLE categories to 100%, score each location 1-10 and recommend where to commit a €30 million plant. They discover that different weightings can support two defensible locations.

Where students struggle

Students often confuse completeness with quality and give every PESTLE category equal weight. The strategic skill is deciding what matters for this company, in this country, at this moment.

Reading and a quick check

Pair Peng on institutions with current UNCTAD investment evidence. Quick check: ask which PESTLE factor would most change the firm's cash flows and which would most change its licence to operate.

Where a simulation fits

The PESTLE Analysis Simulation fits directly after this concept. Students assess all six factors, allocate weights totalling 100%, write evidence-based rationales and defend a market-entry recommendation from Growth Strategy and Risk Management perspectives.

Where it leads

Country attractiveness is only part of the problem. Students next need to ask how distance and foreignness affect the cost of serving and learning from a market.

Central question: How should a firm compare foreign markets when geographic size is not the same as strategic accessibility?

Market selection needs a disciplined way to consider cultural, administrative, geographic and economic distance, alongside the liability of foreignness that comes from unfamiliarity, discrimination and relational disadvantage. The goal is not to turn distance into one magic score, but to make students explicit about the frictions a firm will face and whether its capabilities compensate for them.

What this concept covers

• Cultural, administrative, geographic and economic distance as distinct frictions.
• Liability of foreignness, unfamiliarity hazards and legitimacy gaps.
• Market screening versus full market-entry evaluation.
• The role of regional clusters, trade agreements and diaspora/network effects.
• Sequencing: beachhead markets, learning paths and option value.

Learning outcomes

• Compare candidate countries using several dimensions of distance.
• Explain why a nearby market can still be institutionally difficult.
• Assess how firm-specific experience reduces or fails to reduce foreignness.
• Recommend an expansion sequence rather than a static ranking.

How to teach it

• Ask teams to compare three countries using a two-stage screen: attractiveness first, accessibility second.
• Use a firm with an existing regional subsidiary and ask whether experience creates an adjacency advantage.
• Require students to separate facts from assumptions in their distance scoring.
• Have teams design a two-market sequence and explain what is learned in market one before market two.

Case-style example

HelioCare, a UK digital-health firm, can enter Canada, Brazil or Saudi Arabia. Addressable revenues are estimated at £40 million, £65 million and £52 million. Regulatory approval is expected to take 6, 18 and 11 months, while local partner revenue shares would be 8%, 20% and 15%. Students create an accessibility-adjusted market screen and choose the first and second markets. They discover that entry sequencing can be more valuable than picking the highest stand-alone NPV market.

Where students struggle

Students often collapse cultural and geographic distance into stereotypes. Push them toward observable frictions, institutional evidence and specific implications for coordination, adaptation and legitimacy.

Reading and a quick check

Use Peng on institutions and internationalization, then ask students to define one measurable indicator for each distance dimension in their chosen market.

Where a simulation fits

Use a case discussion, market-screen workshop or short strategy memo here rather than forcing a simulation into the sequence.

Where it leads

Once a market is accessible enough to consider, the next question is whether the industry structure allows attractive returns.

Central question: Is the target industry structurally attractive, and how does international entry change the competitive forces the firm faces?

Porter's Five Forces is especially valuable in international strategy because country attractiveness and industry profitability are not the same question. Students need to analyse entry barriers, suppliers, buyers, substitutes and rivalry as a connected system, then ask whether a foreign entrant can build a defensible position within that structure.

What this concept covers

• Threat of new entrants and barriers that may differ across jurisdictions.
• Supplier concentration, switching, bargaining power and global sourcing.
• Buyer power, channel structure, customer switching costs and price sensitivity.
• Substitutes, rivalry, capacity and the economics of local competition.
• How regulation, technology and international entry reshape industry structure over time.

Learning outcomes

• Apply the five forces to a specific foreign-market entry decision.
• Connect industry structure to pricing power and expected profitability.
• Distinguish a growing market from an attractive industry.
• Defend a Go, Conditional Go or Reject recommendation with evidence.

How to teach it

• Use the same market case for Growth and Risk teams to expose role-based assumptions.
• Make students score all five forces before discussing the recommendation.
• Ask which force could change most quickly after entry and why.
• Link the result back to PESTLE: macro change can alter an industry force, but the frameworks answer different questions.

Case-style example

Luma Café is considering entry into South Korea's premium coffee market. The category is growing 9% annually, but the top four chains hold 63% share. Store rents average 14% of sales, supplier contracts lock in 60% of bean volume and delivery platforms take 18% commission. Students score each force 1-10, write a one-sentence evidence rationale and vote Go, Conditional Go or Reject. They discover that strong demand can coexist with unattractive industry economics.

Where students struggle

Students frequently use Five Forces as five independent headings. The learning comes from the system: a high-growth market can still leave weak economics if rivalry, buyer power or entry barriers work against the entrant.

Reading and a quick check

Use Peng on industry competition. Quick check: ask students which force most limits profitability and what evidence could reverse that view.

Where a simulation fits

The Porter's Five Forces Simulation is a direct fit. Growth and Risk teams assess the same US premium café market, score the five forces and defend a market-entry decision in an Investment Committee.

Where it leads

Industry attractiveness tells students where value may be available. The next concept asks whether the firm itself has the resources and capabilities to capture it.

Central question: Which firm-specific strengths can travel across borders, and which weaknesses become more exposed internationally?

SWOT is useful only when it is anchored in strategy. Strengths and weaknesses should be specific to the firm and tested for transferability; opportunities and threats should come from external analysis rather than brainstorming. In international strategy the key question is whether capabilities remain valuable when customers, institutions, channels and competitors change.

What this concept covers

• Resources and capabilities as sources of advantage.
• Transferability, replicability and local complementarity of capabilities.
• Internal strengths and weaknesses versus external opportunities and threats.
• Capability gaps created by foreign-market entry.
• Turning diagnosis into strategic options and explicit trade-offs.

Learning outcomes

• Separate internal capabilities from external conditions.
• Assess whether a capability is transferable to a target market.
• Build a prioritised SWOT tied to a specific international decision.
• Convert SWOT findings into coherent strategic options.

How to teach it

• Ban generic labels such as brand, people or competition unless students attach evidence.
• Give teams the same firm but different country targets so a strength can become a weakness.
• Require every SWOT item to link to a decision implication.
• Finish with four strategy options: exploit, build, partner or avoid.

Case-style example

Orion Kitchens has a strong direct-to-consumer brand in France, 42% gross margin and a 12-day fulfilment promise. In Japan, distributors expect a 28% margin, homes require smaller product dimensions and return rates for imported appliances average 9% versus Orion's 3% domestic rate. Students build a prioritised SWOT and choose whether to enter directly, partner or delay. They discover that a domestic strength can lose value when the complementary local system changes.

Where students struggle

Students often fill SWOT boxes with unprioritised facts. Insist on evidence, materiality and a strategic response so the framework produces a choice rather than a poster.

Reading and a quick check

Use Peng on resources and capabilities. Quick check: ask students to identify one capability that transfers unchanged, one that needs adaptation and one that should be accessed through a partner.

Where a simulation fits

The SWOT Analysis Simulation can consolidate this concept by placing students in an executive role and requiring them to connect internal strengths and weaknesses with external opportunities and threats before selecting a strategic direction.

Where it leads

With country, industry and firm diagnosis in place, students can examine how much the international business should integrate globally and how much it should respond locally.

Central question: What should be standardised across countries, what should be adapted locally, and what coordination costs follow?

This concept moves from diagnosis into configuration. Students need to distinguish the pressure for global efficiency and consistency from pressure for local responsiveness. Strategy labels are less important than the operating consequences: where decisions sit, which activities are shared, what is local, and how knowledge moves across the firm.

What this concept covers

• Pressures for global integration and local responsiveness.
• International, multidomestic, global and transnational strategy archetypes.
• Standardisation versus adaptation across product, brand, pricing and operations.
• Knowledge transfer and reverse innovation across subsidiaries.
• The coordination costs and organisational tensions created by hybrid strategies.

Learning outcomes

• Diagnose integration and responsiveness pressures in a specific industry.
• Recommend which activities should be globally standardised and locally adapted.
• Explain the organisational cost of a transnational or hybrid approach.
• Identify what knowledge should flow from subsidiary to headquarters and vice versa.

How to teach it

• Give students one value chain and ask them to colour-code global versus local activities.
• Compare a regulated service, consumer brand and industrial component business.
• Ask students to justify one non-negotiable global standard and one essential local adaptation.
• Use a debate: global consistency versus country-manager autonomy.

Case-style example

Vela Streaming serves 16 countries from one platform. A global content recommendation engine costs €8 million annually, while each country team requests €1.2 million for local content curation. Localised curation is forecast to reduce churn by 1.5 percentage points, but fragmented data rules could raise platform costs by 12%. Students recommend which activities stay global and which move local, then quantify the break-even churn improvement. They discover why “think global, act local” hides real coordination economics.

Where students struggle

Students often assume more localisation is always customer-centric and more integration is always efficient. Both choices create costs, dependencies and control problems that should be made explicit.

Reading and a quick check

Use Verbeke and Lee on international business strategy plus a recent global-scaling reading. Quick check: ask students to name one activity that should be centralised and one where local discretion creates more value.

Where a simulation fits

Use a case discussion, market-screen workshop or short strategy memo here rather than forcing a simulation into the sequence.

Where it leads

The configuration decision sets up the next choice: the entry mode and ownership structure that will deliver the strategy.

Central question: How should a firm enter a foreign market when speed, commitment, control, learning and risk point in different directions?

Entry mode is not a menu to memorise. Exporting, licensing, franchising, alliances, joint ventures, acquisitions and greenfield investment allocate control, risk and learning differently. Lecturers should force students to connect the entry form to strategic assets, uncertainty, institutional constraints and the need for local complementarity.

What this concept covers

• Exporting, licensing, franchising and contractual modes.
• Strategic alliances, joint ventures and partner governance.
• Acquisition and greenfield foreign direct investment.
• Control versus commitment, reversibility and option value.
• Partner selection, knowledge leakage and ownership constraints.

Learning outcomes

• Compare entry modes using consistent strategic criteria.
• Recommend a mode that fits uncertainty, asset specificity and local capability needs.
• Explain how ownership affects learning, control and downside exposure.
• Identify governance mechanisms that reduce partner risk.

How to teach it

• Give teams a fixed £25 million budget and require a mode choice, not a list.
• Make one strategically important asset easy to imitate so knowledge leakage matters.
• Introduce a policy change halfway through and ask whether the preferred mode changes.
• Require an exit or escalation clause for partnership-based entry.

Case-style example

Boreal Foods wants to enter Vietnam. Exporting requires £2 million and gives 35% gross margin; licensing requires £1 million but transfers process know-how; a 50:50 joint venture requires £8 million and a local partner with distribution; an acquisition costs £24 million and gives full control. Demand could be £12 million or £28 million by year three. Students compare expected contribution, control and reversibility, then defend a mode. They discover why the financially highest-control option may be strategically inferior under uncertainty.

Where students struggle

Students often equate ownership with quality. More control also means more capital, more exposure and sometimes less access to local relationships. The right mode is contingent.

Reading and a quick check

Use Peng or Verbeke and Lee on entry and internationalization. Quick check: ask which entry mode becomes more attractive when uncertainty rises and which becomes more attractive when proprietary know-how is central.

Where a simulation fits

Use a case discussion, market-screen workshop or short strategy memo here rather than forcing a simulation into the sequence.

Where it leads

Once ownership and control are chosen, the strategy must become a commercial market-entry plan that targets customers and adapts the offer.

Central question: How should the firm translate an international strategy into a customer, channel, pricing and positioning plan?

International strategy can fail in execution even when the market choice is sensible. This concept connects strategy to segmentation, targeting, positioning, route to market, pricing, messaging and evidence. The teaching challenge is to show where global consistency adds scale and where market-specific behaviour requires adaptation.

What this concept covers

• Segmentation and target-customer choice in a new market.
• Positioning, customer value proposition and local proof points.
• Pricing architecture, willingness to pay and channel economics.
• Direct, distributor, marketplace and partner routes to market.
• Launch sequencing, commercial experiments and feedback loops.

Learning outcomes

• Translate a market-entry thesis into a coherent go-to-market plan.
• Select target segments using strategic fit rather than market size alone.
• Assess whether pricing, messaging and channels need local adaptation.
• Design measurable launch assumptions and leading indicators.

How to teach it

• Give teams a target country plus three customer segments with different margins and acquisition costs.
• Require one primary segment and one explicit non-target segment.
• Ask students to adapt one global brand promise without changing the core positioning.
• Use a launch pre-mortem to identify which assumption should be tested first.

Case-style example

NexaFleet sells fleet software at £24,000 per customer per year. In Spain it can target logistics firms with £7,500 acquisition cost and 86% retention, municipal fleets with £13,000 acquisition cost and 94% retention, or SMEs with £3,200 acquisition cost and 72% retention. Students compute simple first-year contribution, choose a primary segment and design pricing, channel and messaging. They discover that the cheapest customer to acquire may not create the strongest market-entry position.

Where students struggle

Students often jump from country selection to “launch” without making customer and channel choices. International strategy becomes real only when the target market is translated into a commercial system.

Reading and a quick check

Use Peng on international market strategy and a current international-scaling reading. Quick check: ask students to name the first commercial assumption they would test before committing a full launch budget.

Where a simulation fits

The Go To Market Simulation is a secondary fit here. It asks students to apply segmentation, targeting and positioning to a new-product launch and connect customer choice, pricing, messaging and market-entry decisions.

Where it leads

Commercial entry depends on a delivery system. The next concept looks at where activities and suppliers sit across borders and how resilient that configuration is.

Central question: Where should activities be located, sourced and duplicated when efficiency and resilience pull in opposite directions?

International strategy includes the geography of the value chain, not only the geography of sales. Students should learn to reason about offshoring, nearshoring, supplier concentration, logistics, inventory buffers, dual sourcing and digital dependencies as strategic choices. Resilience is not free, and efficiency is not riskless.

What this concept covers

• Global value-chain configuration and location of key activities.
• Offshoring, nearshoring, reshoring and regionalisation.
• Supplier concentration, switching costs and critical dependencies.
• Inventory, redundancy and capacity buffers as strategic choices.
• Trade policy, technology controls, carbon and human-rights exposure in supply chains.

Learning outcomes

• Map a global value chain and identify critical dependencies.
• Compare efficiency and resilience across alternative configurations.
• Estimate the cost of redundancy against the cost of disruption.
• Recommend where diversification or regionalisation creates strategic value.

How to teach it

• Give teams a supplier map with unit costs, lead times and disruption probabilities.
• Ask for a base case and stressed case rather than one optimal answer.
• Require students to quantify the annual cost of dual sourcing.
• Debate whether resilience should be treated as insurance, capability or strategic option.

Case-style example

ArcLight Electronics sources 80% of a critical chip from Supplier A at $18 per unit with a 6-week lead time. Supplier B in Mexico charges $23 with a 3-week lead time. Annual volume is 400,000 units and a six-week stockout would forgo $6 million of contribution. Students compare single sourcing with a 70:30 dual-source split and calculate the annual resilience premium. They discover that a higher unit cost can be rational when disruption exposure is material.

Where students struggle

Students often label diversification as automatically safer. More suppliers can create qualification costs, complexity and weaker volume economics. The question is which dependencies deserve redundancy.

Reading and a quick check

Use the 2026 DHL report, UNCTAD or WTO evidence and the 2024 JIBS reading on sustainability in global supply chains. Quick check: ask students to identify one dependency that should be duplicated and one that can remain concentrated.

Where a simulation fits

Use a case discussion, market-screen workshop or short strategy memo here rather than forcing a simulation into the sequence.

Where it leads

As firms distribute activities internationally, they also need governance mechanisms for alliances, subsidiaries and partners across organisational boundaries.

Central question: How should firms govern relationships when they need local capabilities but cannot or should not own everything?

International strategies frequently depend on partners for distribution, technology, legitimacy, manufacturing or market knowledge. The issue is not merely finding a partner. Students need to think about goal alignment, contribution, control, knowledge exchange, escalation and exit when partners have partially overlapping incentives.

What this concept covers

• Strategic alliances and joint ventures as capability-access mechanisms.
• Partner selection: complementarity, compatibility and commitment.
• Governance through equity, contracts, milestones and decision rights.
• Knowledge transfer, learning races and appropriation risk.
• Conflict resolution, renegotiation and alliance exit.

Learning outcomes

• Identify when partnership is superior to ownership or contracting alone.
• Evaluate a potential partner against strategic and governance criteria.
• Design decision rights and safeguards for a cross-border alliance.
• Anticipate conflict and specify escalation or exit mechanisms.

How to teach it

• Split teams into two prospective partners with partially confidential objectives.
• Require a governance term sheet covering contributions, decisions and exit.
• Add a performance shortfall and ask who has authority to change the plan.
• Debrief where trust can substitute for control and where it cannot.

Case-style example

Mira Mobility has proprietary routing software but lacks distribution in Indonesia. Local partner Sagara offers 2,000 enterprise relationships and asks for 45% of a joint venture plus veto rights over pricing. Mira would contribute £6 million of technology and training; Sagara £3 million of cash and sales staff. Students propose ownership, board rights, reserved matters and exit triggers, then negotiate from both sides. They discover that a good strategic fit can still fail through poor governance design.

Where students struggle

Students often use “strategic partnership” as a solution without specifying who decides, who contributes and what happens when incentives diverge.

Reading and a quick check

Use Verbeke and Lee on subsidiary and network strategy. Quick check: ask students to write the single decision right they would refuse to leave ambiguous in a joint venture.

Where a simulation fits

Use a case discussion, market-screen workshop or short strategy memo here rather than forcing a simulation into the sequence.

Where it leads

Partnership governance then widens into the external political, social and sustainability relationships that determine whether the international strategy remains legitimate.

Central question: How should multinational firms respond when governments, regulators, workers, investors and communities define success differently?

International strategy now sits directly inside geopolitics, industrial policy, sanctions, data rules, sustainability expectations and stakeholder conflict. Students need to move beyond “political risk” as an external number and consider how firms build nonmarket strategy, legitimacy and resilience while still making economically viable choices.

What this concept covers

• Geoeconomic fragmentation, sanctions, tariffs, export controls and industrial policy.
• Nonmarket strategy and relationships with governments, regulators and civil society.
• ESG expectations across jurisdictions and the problem of inconsistent standards.
• Stakeholder legitimacy, workforce expectations and responsible value-chain governance.
• Scenario planning when policy and geopolitical outcomes are uncertain.

Learning outcomes

• Analyse geopolitical exposure as a strategic variable rather than background context.
• Map the incentives of major nonmarket stakeholders.
• Evaluate ESG and legitimacy trade-offs alongside financial viability.
• Recommend strategic responses under multiple plausible policy scenarios.

How to teach it

• Use a two-scenario geopolitical shock and ask teams to identify no-regret moves.
• Map stakeholder power and urgency before discussing corporate response.
• Require financial viability constraints in ESG negotiations.
• Ask students to separate compliance, legitimacy and strategic positioning.

Case-style example

TerraTextiles sources 55% of its output from one low-cost country. A proposed import rule could add a 14% tariff, while moving 30% of production to a second country raises manufacturing cost by 7% but cuts expected disruption losses by £4 million a year. Investors also require a verified labour-standard programme costing £1.1 million. Students model the two sourcing mixes and defend a stakeholder plan. They discover that responsible strategy, resilience and cost are linked rather than separate agendas.

Where students struggle

Students often treat geopolitical risk and ESG as compliance appendices. In international strategy they alter location, sourcing, capital, reputation and bargaining power, so they belong inside the strategic choice.

Reading and a quick check

Use Luo (2024), Luo and Van Assche (2023), Marano et al. (2024) and the IMF fragmentation chapter. Quick check: ask which political development would trigger a strategy change rather than a communications response.

Where a simulation fits

The ESG Simulation fits as a stakeholder-governance application. Management, Investor, Regulator and Union teams negotiate environmental, workforce and funding terms while preserving financial viability.

Where it leads

The final concept brings the frameworks together into implementation choices, scenario tests and an integrated international portfolio recommendation.

Central question: How should a firm turn international analysis into a sequenced, measurable strategy that can adapt when assumptions change?

The course should end with integration rather than one more framework. Students combine country, industry, capability, entry-mode, commercial, value-chain and stakeholder evidence into a portfolio of choices. Scenario planning makes the assumptions visible and gives the lecturer a way to assess whether students can change course when the environment changes.

What this concept covers

• Strategic option portfolios rather than single deterministic forecasts.
• Scenario construction around critical uncertainties.
• Market sequencing, resource allocation and real-option logic.
• Implementation milestones, leading indicators and governance.
• Exit, pause, scale and pivot criteria for international initiatives.

Learning outcomes

• Synthesize multiple frameworks into one coherent international recommendation.
• Build scenarios around the uncertainties that matter most.
• Allocate resources across markets using strategic fit, risk and option value.
• Define triggers that would scale, pause, pivot or exit an international initiative.

How to teach it

• Give teams an executive brief with three country options and a fixed capital envelope.
• Require one base case, one downside and one upside scenario.
• Make teams state what evidence would change their recommendation.
• Close with a board-style defence in which another team challenges assumptions.

Case-style example

NovaWorks has £45 million for international expansion. Market A requires £18 million and offers expected annual EBITDA of £7 million, Market B requires £30 million for £12 million EBITDA but has a 35% probability of a regulatory delay, and Market C requires £12 million for £4 million EBITDA with strong option value into two neighbouring countries. Students allocate the budget, write scale/pause/exit triggers and defend a portfolio. They discover why an international strategy can rationally include more than the highest expected-return market.

Where students struggle

Students often present frameworks sequentially but never reconcile them. The final recommendation should show which evidence dominates, which assumptions remain uncertain and what the firm will do if those assumptions fail.

Reading and a quick check

Revisit Peng and the most recent globalization, trade and geopolitical readings. Quick check: ask students to state the one assumption that would cause them to reverse the capstone recommendation.

Where a simulation fits

Use a case discussion, market-screen workshop or short strategy memo here rather than forcing a simulation into the sequence.

Where it leads

This concept closes the course. Students should now be able to move from international context to country and industry analysis, capability fit, entry choice, implementation and adaptive portfolio judgement.

10-week course structure

Compress by combining adjacent analytical stages, not by deleting the decision points. Preserve at least one country, one industry and one integrated market-entry application.

14-week course structure

Use the additional sessions to separate market selection, industry analysis and nonmarket strategy, and to create more space for simulation debrief, case discussion and individual defence.

The PESTLE Analysis Simulation places students in a live market-entry decision: whether Tesla should commit to building a Gigafactory in India or continue serving the market through imports. Growth Strategy and Risk Management teams assess the same six PESTLE dimensions from different role briefs, then meet in paired Approval Committees to reconcile evidence and reach a recommendation.

Why it fits here

Students already know the six categories, so the simulation can focus on materiality, evidence, weighting and strategic consequence. It turns a descriptive environmental scan into a recommendation under disagreement.

What students do

• Assess all six PESTLE factors against a common briefing and dataset.
• Assign scores and allocate factor weights that total 100%.
• Write a rationale explaining why each factor matters.
• Compare Growth Strategy and Risk Management perspectives in a paired Approval Committee.
• Submit a final PESTLE assessment and market-entry recommendation.

Recommended course placement

• At the end of Session 3 after PESTLE teaching.
• Inside a two-hour class with a separate pre-read and short debrief.
• Before students move into distance and industry analysis so they can distinguish macro environment from competitive structure.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• The purpose and six categories of PESTLE.
• The difference between evidence, weighting and recommendation.
• A basic understanding of market-entry decisions.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Which factor received the largest weight and why?
• Where did Growth Strategy and Risk Management interpret the same evidence differently?
• Which assumption would most likely reverse the recommendation?
• Did any team confuse a major macro issue with an industry-competition issue?
• What evidence would you seek before a real capital commitment?

The Porter's Five Forces Simulation asks students to assess whether BrewSphere should enter the US premium café industry. Growth and Risk teams use the same market-entry question but different role perspectives, score each of the five forces, explain the evidence behind the score and then bring the analysis into an Investment Committee.

Why it fits here

By Session 5, students can separate country-level PESTLE evidence from industry economics. The activity tests whether they can treat new entrants, suppliers, buyers, substitutes and rivalry as one connected profitability system rather than five isolated headings.

What students do

• Review BrewSphere's market-entry mission plus role-specific Growth or Risk evidence.
• Assess new entrants, supplier power, buyer power, substitutes and rivalry.
• Score each force from 1 to 10 and add a concise evidence-based explanation, with 1 unattractive and 10 attractive in the simulation guidance.
• Monitor team reasoning and compare where Growth and Risk assumptions diverge.
• Build and defend a Go, Conditional Go or Reject recommendation in the Investment Committee.
• Use Reflection outputs to compare scores, reasoning and final recommendations across teams.

Recommended course placement

• After Session 5 once students know Five Forces and have already completed macro-environment analysis.
• As a three-hour applied class, or split across 4 x 45 minutes, 3 x 1 hour or 2 x 1.5 hours.
• Before SWOT and entry-mode work so students carry a clear view of industry economics into the firm-specific decision.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• The purpose and basic structure of Porter's Five Forces.
• The distinction between market growth and industry attractiveness.
• How evidence should support a strategic recommendation.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Which force most constrained expected profitability?
• Where did role perspective change the interpretation of the same evidence?
• Did market growth bias any team toward entry?
• Which force could change fastest after BrewSphere enters?
• What would move a Conditional Go to Go or Reject?
• How should the PESTLE analysis from earlier sessions inform, but not replace, the Five Forces conclusion?