DSS Consulting Case Study: Change Management Analysis
This paper analyzes a case study involving DSS Consulting and its transition to a new business model following the departure of the company's founders. The founders had been the primary source of client relationships, making their exit a catalyst for significant operational change. The paper examines the dialogue and decisions between Meg Cooke and Chris Peterson, focusing on a six-month scheduling and budgeting initiative that was abruptly cancelled. It identifies two core issues — the need for a new customer acquisition strategy and the poorly managed scrapping of a major project — and evaluates four possible courses of action for Chris, ultimately recommending she seek employment elsewhere given DSS's apparent lack of sound change management practice.
- Introduction: Overview of DSS Consulting's business model transition
- Presentation of Facts: Timeline of project, meeting, and abrupt cancellation
- Identification of Key Issues: Founder departure and failed project governance problems
- Alternative Courses of Action: Four options Chris can pursue after project cancellation
- Conclusion: Recommendation to leave DSS due to poor change management
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Follows a clear, logical case-study structure — facts, issues, alternatives, conclusion — that mirrors standard business analysis frameworks.
- Identifies not just the two obvious choices presented in the case but expands the analysis to four options, demonstrating independent critical thinking beyond the surface-level scenario.
- Connects the cancellation of the project back to the lack of stakeholder engagement, showing cause-and-effect reasoning rather than simply summarizing events.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis, a core business school technique in which a student reads a scenario and systematically works through facts, problems, options, and recommendations. The expansion of binary choices into a four-option framework is a particularly strong move, showing that real decisions are rarely binary and that exit strategies deserve equal consideration in organizational analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief contextual introduction, then moves into a facts section that establishes the timeline and key events. The issues section identifies two distinct problems — strategic (loss of founder networks) and operational (poor project governance). The alternatives section is the analytical core, evaluating four courses of action and recommending one. The conclusion reinforces the recommendation with a change management critique, tying the argument together concisely.
Introduction
This paper analyzes DSS Consulting and its recent shift in business model. This situation arose because the founders of the company moved on to other endeavors. The changeover was necessary because the founders had been the driving force of the business and the primary source of its customers. Their departure therefore required an entirely new business model and new business priorities.
The case study primarily tracks the dialogue and actions between Meg Cooke and Chris Peterson. A large project connected to the changeover is worked on for six months. However, Meg calls a clandestine meeting and the project is quickly shut down. Chris is left with a choice between keeping her current role and returning to a functional position in IT — yet neither option is attractive given the abrupt about-face by Meg and what either choice could lead to in the long run.
Presentation of Facts
As noted above, a significant amount of time and effort was invested in a changeover relating to budgeting and scheduling. The stage set at the beginning of the case study is an upcoming meeting scheduled for the following day, after six months spent on this initiative. A meeting of that kind, coming with little warning, would naturally put someone off-guard.
When the meeting finally occurs, Meg arranges a last-minute rendezvous at an off-site coffee shop and bluntly informs Chris that the project is over. Chris must either accept the situation and continue in her current position or return to the functional information technology role. Given the new business model and the abrupt reversal, either choice carries potentially messy consequences.
Identification of Key Issues
There are two main issues to assess in this case. The first is that the departure of the DSS founders has necessitated a new business model and a new customer base. Much of the firm's business up to that point had been generated through the founders' personal contacts and professional network. Since those founders are stepping aside and bringing in new people to run the company, a new approach to business development is required — one that cannot simply rely on transferring the founders' relationships to their successors.
The second issue is the eventual scrapping of the scheduling and budgeting plan altogether. One particularly troubling detail is that the decision-makers and stakeholders whose buy-in was needed were not meaningfully engaged in terms of feedback or participation throughout the project. This is a striking observation given that the project was ultimately cancelled. It suggests either that there were concerns being voiced behind the scenes, or that the lack of visible engagement led Meg to conclude the initiative was moving in the wrong direction.
Another significant complication is that the functional silo role Meg offers Chris as an alternative had itself been slated for elimination or significant restructuring as part of the broader change process. This makes both options presented at the end of the case genuinely precarious and uncertain propositions for Chris.
Conclusion
In the end, Chris should probably move on. If Meg and her fellow decision-makers are willing to disregard six months of work that was demonstrably necessary — given what is known about the business and how its customers were originally sourced — that raises serious concerns about the organization's direction. This is especially troubling given the apparent absence of genuine dialogue with the stakeholders who should have been central to the change process.
This pattern of behavior is emblematic of an organization that is uncertain about both its current situation and its strategic path forward. Chris would be better served by joining a firm with more disciplined and thoughtful change management practices, where major decisions are made transparently and with appropriate stakeholder input.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.