Case Competitions in Teaching.

Case competitions are learning mechanisms that have the power to provide business students with opportunities to “learn, network, and engage with complex problems” and represent themselves, their teammates, and institutions (Gamble & Jelley, 2014, p. 435). They can also cultivate “memorable experiences, peer bonding, social capital development, and exposure to job opportunities” (Gamble & Jelley, 2014, p. 435). In preparation for the business world, case competitions teach students how to “be effective teammates, apply theory, gain project management skills such as managing heavy workloads, solve organizational problems, and present a persuasive argument to a client” (Stonebraker, 2016, p. 47). Students are presented with “a detailed scenario, or case, for which they need to provide a decision, defended by research and analysis” (Stonebraker, 2016, p. 47). While the nature and intent of a case will vary, as do sponsors and judges, case competitions can offer “students an edge in landing jobs and internships” (Stonebraker, 2016, p. 47).

Through the case competition, students can experience a significant form of engagement, which can lead to meaningful real-world benefits (Campbell & Cook, 2010; & McCarthy et al., 2006). For example, following the conclusion of an evidence-based management case competition, judges from the organization featured in the case competition “were so impressed by the students’ work that the winning team was invited to present to the organization’s senior executives and board of directors, a meeting that was not planned in advance,” reflecting a “genuine desire to make use of the students’ analysis” (Gamble & Jelley, 2014, p. 437). In business case competitions, students are able to showcase their decision-making and case analysis skills in addition to highlighting exceptional work completed during their educational programs (Stonebraker, 2016).

In addition to the benefits students reap from participating in case competitions, there are favorable outcomes for students, librarians, and stakeholders. In terms of decision-making skills, students can “integrate the acquisition of content and procedural knowledge” in simulated, case-based scenarios (Gamble & Jelley, 2014, p. 442). Publicity can also be influential, as awareness of concepts covered in the case competition can increase not only among students but also among additional competition stakeholders, such as sponsors, organizers, judges, and faculty (Gamble & Jelley, 2014). Ultimately, this can also lead to the production of resources for future case analyses, such as the creation of a handbook or opportunities for data collection for future researchers and case competition participants (Gamble & Jelley, 2014).

Librarian Involvement in Case Competitions.

Business librarians have historically supported entrepreneurial research in the academic library setting as well as in public libraries, whether connecting students with resources or providing entrepreneurial assistance with industry-specific support (Tully, 2019). Library services to entrepreneurs have varied over time, including opportunities for “networking and outreach, educating entrepreneurs at the library, and business incubator support,” as well as developing and maintaining relevant research collections for business planning and business strategy (Tully, 2019, p. 32). As case competitions and experiential learning are becoming more prominent in the business school world, there is a growing need for research and reference assistance for student competitors. Librarians at institutions serving business students have realized the need to become involved in case competitions in support roles (Heimann, 2022; Howard & Zwicky, 2019).

There are many ways librarians have addressed the growing need for information literacy training and reference assistance in case competitions. Whether it is providing library guides, makerspace equipment, specialized information literacy training, educational programming, workshops, or consultations with groups, librarians have met the challenge of providing quality service to meet the demands of their patrons (Carroll et al., 2019; Heimann, 2022; Howard & Zwicky, 2019; Stephens et al., 2021; Tully, 2019).

Business librarians have also collaborated with business faculty in support of various case-based learning scenarios (Campbell & Cook, 2010; Howard & Zwicky, 2019). In the case of Rider University, entrepreneurship faculty and business librarians worked to “improve the quality of market research conducted by the students in an Introduction to Entrepreneurship course” by educating students about library resources pertaining to business-related research (Campbell & Cook, 2010, p. 171). This was found to improve the quality of students’ research and provided additional benefits to students. Campbell and Cook noted:

students are spending their time and energy on analyzing the data and developing useful information, rather than wasting large amounts of time searching for data. … Students have developed a research process that they can use over and over again, which is important not only for future research assignments, but also as they search for viable business ideas throughout their lives as entrepreneurs (pp. 176–177).

With positive outcomes being shown from student engagement with libraries and librarians, and a “synergistic relationship between the entrepreneurship and library faculty,” academic libraries should strive to provide a similar level of service at their respective institutions and actively get involved with case competitions (Campbell & Cook, 2010, p. 177).

Librarian-Led Case Competitions.

As case competitions have become more prominent in academic institutions, there have been several instances of librarian-developed and led competitions (Stonebraker, 2016; Tully, 2019). The library-sponsored case competition is crucially different from business competitions in that the “case analysis need[s] to be informed by [students’] understanding of the entire ecosystem of discoverable information” (Stonebraker, 2016, p. 46). Though many cases rely on exhibits as opposed to the ability to find information, library-sponsored cases build upon preexisting information literacy experiences in educational curricula (Stonebraker, 2016). While libraries have historically hosted paper competitions hinging on written work completed during classes, “interactive, live competitions highlight the tangible benefits of information literacy,” expanding the role of the library “from an internal service to a proactive advocate honoring the work of exceptional students inside the classroom to a larger audience of community members, employers, and educators” (Stonebraker, 2016, pp. 46–47).

Similarly, there are also several examples of case competitions in which librarians are directly embedded and continue to maintain an active role in the success of the case competition. Purdue University hosts an annual Student Soybean Innovation Competition, where students are tasked with developing new soybean products. A patent and trademark librarian and business librarian are instrumental in helping the students meet their information needs, often having consultations with the majority of groups competing and being heavily utilized throughout all stages of the competition (Howard & Zwicky, 2019). Another competition held at the University of California Irvine featured librarians embedded in the competition, running workshops and providing consultations, which they determined to positively impact student success compared to groups that did not utilize the librarians (Heimann, 2022). Librarian involvement in case competitions as a tool to prepare individuals for business and entrepreneurial scenarios, in addition to evidence-based decision-making, has varied over time but remains an area in the literature that needs to be explored further (Carroll et al., 2019; Tully, 2019).

Librarian-Vendor Collaboration.

Libraries and vendors have collaborated with one another on many occasions, particularly within the communication, library, and publishing ecosystems (Kawecki, 2018). This “mutual dependency” fosters opportunities for libraries and vendors to collaborate not only to design products and services but also to ultimately take advantage of today’s technologies to meet user needs (Kawecki, 2018, p. 14). The digital age has allowed for a “proliferation of partnership avenues that were not available in the past” (Thompson & Seiler, 2018, p. 16).

In an effort for vendors to provide products and services useful to libraries, they need an understanding of which resources librarians and library users seek. Pursuing a stronger understanding of this need can lead to “libraries collaboratively involved in the development of new vendor products and services” and offers librarians the advantage of “directly influencing the products and services that will be offered in the future” (Thompson & Seiler, 2018, p. 16). Librarians can also provide suggestions relating to product enhancements (Thompson & Seiler, 2018). By establishing shared goals, librarians and vendors work together and form a symbiotic relationship: “the library benefits from the expertise, resources, and economies of scale that a vendor can offer, while the vendor benefits from the perspective and workflow knowledge that the library can provide” (Kawecki, 2018). Additionally, the “vendor content is made more useful, librarians can more fully serve their patrons, and researchers ultimately interpret existing content in new ways” (Thompson & Seiler, 2018, p. 19).

While there is literature on the topic of library and vendor relationships, there is a distinct gap in the literature regarding the outcomes of library and vendor relationships in librarian-led case competitions. As technology and library-vendor cooperative arrangements evolve, it is important to note how this relationship can be advantageous in the work librarians conduct through case competition development and execution.

Scope of Case Competition.

Professional business research may take various forms depending on the business area and the researcher’s objectives. To narrow the focus of the case topic to something more targeted, the MECC planning team discussed common business research types during the ideation phase and refined the scope to address market validation research specifically. This approach would enable student teams to conduct concrete research and analysis on a minimum viable product (MVP) idea, examining consumer demand and product viability within an entrepreneurial case scenario.

The case centered on a real student startup company that was in the process of developing a nutritionally fortified condiment. In order to support this research experience, students were provided with a temporary license to SimplyAnalytics products, which allowed equitable access to market research data regardless of whether teams had subscriptions through their home institution. Another key feature of the case was using keyword analysis strategies for market validation purposes. While student teams had leeway in tools they could use for keyword research and analysis, many of the suggested tools were free or had freemium versions.

The MECC planning team also wanted to prioritize having undergraduate participants for the case competition, as it would create a lower bar of entry for student teams and serve as a valuable intervention for growing business information literacy skills that could carry over into other experiential learning and professional contexts. Further, as a regional case competition, participants had to be enrolled in an academic institution in the Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.

Developing the Case.

When conceptualizing the parameters of the case, the MECC planning team aimed to develop a market validation research scenario that focused on a business-to-consumer (B2C) product or idea, as it would be a practical application for SimplyAnalytics' consumer research data. The team sought a case client in a go-to-market phase, where recommendations would have the greatest impact. While not a strict requirement, the team preferred working with clients who were recent graduates or current students from a Midwest college or university, as it would allow students to support students in their business pursuits.

With these criteria in mind, members of the MECC planning team reached out to entrepreneurship programs and campus accelerators and incubators in search of possible leads. Several potential clients were identified and interviewed to determine the best fit for the MECC event.

Following the interviews and subsequent discussions, the MECC planning team, along with representatives from SimplyAnalytics, selected a client team composed of two current biomedical engineering students. These students were in the research and development (R&D) phase of creating a nutritionally fortified sauce aimed at consumers, making their product idea an ideal fit for the case competition. Their company was already registered as a Limited Liability Company, and they were collaborating with an R&D advisor from their institution’s food science department to improve upon their sauce recipe. They had also participated in their campus incubator program and developed a business and marketing plan. However, as a startup still in the R&D phase, they were eager for feedback and open to ideas for improving their go-to-market strategy and felt the experience would be mutually beneficial.

The MECC planning team conducted a more in-depth interview with the client to discuss the origins of their product, their business plan, the market research they had completed, and their future plans. With this information, a member of the MECC planning team drafted a narrative case with salient details from the interview that challenged participating teams to employ secondary market research strategies, such as consumer and market analysis using SimplyAnalytics, market validation research through keyword analysis, and competitive analysis, to develop a comprehensive marketing and implementation strategy. The draft case was then reviewed by the full MECC planning team, the client, and representatives from SimplyAnalytics. Feedback and suggestions were incorporated, and the finalized case was prepared for the competition (Mayhook, Grauel, et al., 2024).

Format.

The MECC event was entirely virtual and comprised two rounds of judging, which spanned a two-week timeframe. The format and timeline mirrored similar case competitions, where participating teams submitted a video recording of their presentation in the first round and advancing teams presented in a live finalist round with the case clients selecting the first, second, and third place teams (Mayhook, Stonebraker, et al., 2024).

To manage the logistical components of the case competition, the MECC planning team utilized a platform available through Purdue University called Pitch, which provides features specifically designed for running case competitions, including a timed case release, secure spaces for SimplyAnalytics product links, supporting documents and videos for students, team folders for first-round video submissions, and materials and resources for judges (Mayhook, Bochenek, et al., 2025). The final round of the case competition was held over Zoom, which included five final presentations delivered in front of the clients and three business librarians.

Timeline.

There were five distinct phases in the months leading up to the case competition through the completion of the event: marketing and library buy-in, registration, case release and first-round submissions, the final live event, and post-competition logistics.

Marketing and Library Buy-In

Given the regional scale of the competition, the MECC planning team sought library partners interested in cross promoting the case competition within their institutions. In November 2023, save-the-date announcements were sent out through multiple communication channels for business librarians, including the BUSLIB-L listserv, the Midwest Business Librarian Summit email list, and the Business and References Services Section (BRASS) forum through American Library Association (ALA) Connect. Interested librarians could also opt into receiving additional information and were given the opportunity to attend optional librarian-oriented training sessions on the use of SimplyAnalytics, as well as keyword analysis strategies.

Save-the-date announcements were also distributed through multiple channels that targeted students in business and entrepreneurship-related programs and courses. This included departmental listservs and newsletters, webpages, social media postings, digital media library displays, direct email, in-person course announcements, and other channels that varied based on the partner academic institution.

Registration

Registration for the MECC event opened January 10, 2024, and closed on February 9, 2024. Participants registered their teams through a Qualtrics web form. Teams were eligible if they were affiliated with any Midwest academic institution, regardless of whether their institutions had an identified library partner. Teams were required to consist of four to five undergraduate members, with at least three members available to participate in the live final round, held online. Once registered, teams were added to the competition page within the Pitch platform, providing secure access to competition details and rules, instructions for accessing SimpleAnalytics, and judging criteria (Mayhook, O’Neill, et al., 2024; Mayhook, Stonebraker, et al., 2024). During the registration period, 18 teams comprising a total of 76 students registered from five Midwest academic institutions.

Case Release & Optional Workshops.

On February 10, the case was released within the Pitch Platform, accompanied by two optional training sessions designed to support participants with their research. These sessions were recorded and linked on the case competition page for participants unable to attend the live sessions.

Due to the broad range of research experiences among the undergraduate students from multiple academic institutions, the workshops were incorporated to bridge knowledge gaps and to support research skill development throughout the competition process. The intent of these workshops was to give participants guidance in effectively using specialized business and marketing resources. In aligning with the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2015), these sessions also demonstrated that information has value, and within a business context, quality information is an essential commodity for informed decision-making. Further, these sessions demonstrated the concepts of research as inquiry and searching as a strategic exploration, which requires participants to scope and identify their research objectives and employ searches in specialized databases that may have their own search languages and functionalities.

The first session was presented by Juan Vasquez, who walked participants through how to access consumer data through SimplyAnalytics with comparable examples to the case prompts. The second session was led by Zoeanna Mayhook, who explored keyword analysis for market validation research, a strategy of using search term volume and popularity to uncover consumer demand and gaps in the market (Mayhook, 2025). The session provided background on keyword analysis and offered a six-step approach employing this strategy for market validation research purposes (Mayhook, 2025). Separate workshops were also provided to business librarians to help familiarize attendees with SimplyAnalytics and keyword analysis in case they received questions from students at their home institution.

First Submission & First-round Judging.

Students had one week to prepare and record an 8-minute video presentation addressing the case prompts, which they could then be uploaded into the Pitch platform. Students typically opted to record their presentations using a video conferencing software, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams, and then submitted an mp4 file of the recording.

Each presentation was evaluated by a panel of three judges, consisting of a business librarian, an entrepreneurship professor, and an entrepreneur or vendor representative. A total of thirteen judges volunteered to participate in the first round of judging, and most were affiliated with various Midwest institutions, including Purdue University, Michigan State University, Indiana University, and the University of Dayton. Judges were recruited through direct email outreach, with an additional call for judges sent out through the BUSLIB-L listserv, and the BRASS forum on ALA Connect. The case clients were not involved in the first-round judging as they would be the final-round judges during the live case competition event.

Judges assessed the presentations using a rubric with four key categories: research, analysis, presentation, and delivery. The research category emphasized the effective use of diverse and reliable secondary data sources, as well as the ability to synthesize this information for broader case analysis. Proper attribution of sources, including consistent use of a citation style, was also rated by judges. Ratings for each category were assigned on a 1–5 scale, with one being poor and five being excellent (Mayhook, O’Neill, et al., 2024). The rubric scores and written feedback were compiled into a cumulative scoring document, with the numerical scores determining which teams would advance to the final round. Although individual judges' scoring often varied based on their areas of expertise, having multiple judges per team ensured that the aggregated scores balanced out, providing a fairer overall assessment. Judges also provided narrative feedback that addressed positive aspects of the presentation and areas for improvement. The narrative feedback was then shared with all teams and could be used in preparation for the final round of the case competition.

Finalist Round.

Advancing and non-advancing teams were notified through email. Confirmed finalists were sent a Zoom invitation that included a scheduled presentation time slot and day-of logistics. The final round took place on Saturday, February 24, 2024, and lasted approximately three and a half hours. The live final round itinerary was as follows:

12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET – Judge orientation and preparation time

1:00 p.m. - 1:20 p.m. ET – Finalist presentation

1:20 p.m. - 1:40 p.m. ET – Finalist presentation

1:40 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. ET – Finalist presentation

2:00 p.m. - 2:10 p.m. ET – Break

2:10 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. ET – Finalist presentation

2:30 p.m. - 2:50 p.m. ET – Finalist presentation

2:50 p.m. - 3:20 p.m. ET – Break and judge deliberation

3:20 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. ET– Preparation for the announcement of winners

3:30 p.m. - 3:40 p.m. ET – Client debriefing with teams

3:40 p.m. - 3:43 p.m. ET – Group photoshoot

3:43 p.m. - 3:55 p.m. ET– Announcement of winners by SimplyAnalytics

3:55 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET – Photos with top placing teams

The final round was judged by the two case clients, with additional business librarians present to ask follow-up questions and provide feedback to the presenting teams. The case clients used the same rubric as the first-round judges but also considered which presentations were most relevant, insightful, and beneficial to their company.

After the presentations in the first half of the event, the judges reflected on the strengths and areas for improvement in the teams' performances and finalized their decisions on the top-placing teams. This feedback was used to update a templated slideshow and script for SimplyAnalytics to announce the winners.

During this time, teams were invited to complete a feedback survey while waiting to rejoin the Zoom room for the debriefing session. Once all materials were finalized, the clients met with the entire group of finalists to provide general feedback and commendations. SimplyAnalytics then announced the winners, and the event concluded with photos of the top-placing teams.

Post-Competition

After the live MECC event, participating teams received event photos and a signed certificate of completion indicating whether they placed in the competition. Winning teams were also sent a survey requesting permission to use event photos in social media posts and press releases. Additionally, the survey collected preferred mailing addresses to facilitate the shipment of gift cards to team members by SimplyAnalytics.

Terence O’Neill: First-Time Case Competition Planner.

As a librarian who works primarily with entrepreneurs, I am very interested in how entrepreneurs make decisions based on a mix of primary and secondary information. This information synthesis is challenging yet crucial for entrepreneurs. In conversation with Heather Howard, who had written on entrepreneurs’ information synthesis in the past, she mentioned Purdue Libraries’ integration with their campus’s extensive and ongoing case competition activities. Heather and I wondered if there would be a way to bring these two topics together. I had never been directly involved with case competitions and saw them as a vehicle for students to apply information literacy skills to entrepreneurial possibilities in a venue that they would find appealing.

In working to create and support this event, I learned directly from our experienced team. One shared insight related to event promotion: “You have to tell them about the event seven times.” This advice revealed how the case competition was breaking from my typical mode of working on my campus, indicating how the case competition event typifies and requires extensive student engagement.

A particular merit of a case competition is also being able to see the culmination of student work, which is something that is not constant in library work. Our case competition featured a final presentation event with our student finalist teams, our sponsoring organization, and the clients who contributed their business as the case. This community helped make the presentation and awards final event a satisfying conclusion.

Altogether, the case competition was very useful in expanding my understanding of the world of our business students. Participating also helped make tangible the value that our profession and library resources have for students: information synthesis is a valued skill set, and the case competition format is a great vehicle for encouraging the development of these skills.

Elizabeth Grauel: Case Competition Judge.

As a new librarian with over a decade of work as a business professional, I am interested in how information behaviors and literacies of students transfer to environments beyond the classroom. My earlier career gave me first-hand experience with the intricate web of information that is created and used, the barriers to information access, and the impact that a foundation of information literacy (or lack thereof) has on people and business. In undergraduate settings we often work with students engaged in theoretical research, using tools and information sources that are not readily available or affordable outside of academic settings. Knowing that many of our students will leave the academy, I want to understand how libraries can better educate and develop programming that builds context-crossing information literacies.

As the liaison librarian to the University of Dayton’s School of Business Administration, I provide research instruction for business courses, develop resources for our entrepreneurship programs, and support co-curricular activities like pitch competitions. These are valuable learning pathways between the classroom and the real-world; however, they are shaped and sponsored outside of the library without consistent on-ramps for teaching and assessing information behaviors. Recognizing that time and resources are finite, I look for ways that I can be a partner to teaching faculty and offer students opportunities to build information literacies while engaging in applied research projects.

When the 2024 MECC planning team contacted me with a request to share information about the competition with students at my institution, I was eager to learn about library-led case competitions. While I was familiar with case competitions hosted by business programs, I had never seen one developed by librarians, and it was an easy ‘yes’ when the team asked me to participate as a judge.

Serving as a judge for MECC benefitted my practice of librarianship more than I expected. Not only was the case competition designed by librarians, but so was the business case. The case was an applied business research activity, as many are, but centered on discovery and critical evaluation of information as criteria for judging. This was subtle but notably different from cases and applied learning projects I’ve worked with in the past. The output—an analysis and recommendations for a business—was the same, but what participants had to demonstrate was both business acumen and intentional, informed, well-rounded engagement with a variety of data and evidence.

I was able to fully understand and appreciate the structure of the case when scoring the teams’ pitches. Each pitch was unique and demonstrated different perspectives and ideas, but the strongest were those who explained how they came to their conclusions. Hearing participants verbalize their processes in this way was a thing of beauty. I wondered, is this how you know that a threshold has been crossed? Is this how I can see the edge before a threshold and help a student step over?

Becoming involved in MECC as a judge was an excellent way to step outside of my usual role and observe librarians as facilitators and participants as information actors. As I reflect on the experience, which asked little of my time, I have realized that my perspectives on information literacy have grown. I see different ways that librarians can prepare students for life in ever-changing information environments and where such preparation might fit into the spaces we and they already are.

Juan Vasquez: Vendor Sponsor.

My name is Juan Vasquez, and I am the Customer Support & Sales Manager for SimplyAnalytics. I served as a round 1 judge and provided training for the student groups using the database during the event. SimplyAnalytics was an ideal fit, offering easy access to demographics, consumer behavior, brand data, psychographics, and more. Students leveraged data from the Census, MRI-Simmons, and Nielsen to create maps, reports, and analyses that enhanced their decision-making and turned their insights into compelling presentations.

I had a rewarding experience working with the librarians and students. The students were eager to learn and asked great questions. It was exciting to see them use the same data companies rely on in a real-world context. I mentioned to them that the same techniques I teach our corporate customers are the same I am teaching them, which seemed to resonate. From my discussions, I gathered that it is often challenging to connect theoretical data to application, and this competition addresses that.

As a vendor, most of my time is spent working with librarians and professors to teach SimplyAnalytics. While I occasionally field questions from students about basic database access, I rarely have the chance to interact with them directly outside of a classroom setting. The Case Competition gave me a unique insight into how students think and interact with our database. This perspective was valuable and sparked ideas for updates. It also shaped how I train librarians and professors, as I now understand the types of questions students may ask.

My advice to other vendors is to seize the opportunity to participate in these competitions if invited. Not only does it increase interest in your software, but it helps you view your database differently. I also recommend planning your meetings with students in advance and teaching the necessary materials without providing direct answers. If multiple sessions are scheduled, ensure the same features are shown to prevent any group from having an advantage.

It would be great to see the MECC competition expanded across the US. As a vendor, the time commitment was about 5–6 hours across several weeks, including training, judging, setting up a special instance of the database, and attending the virtual finals. I appreciated how well-coordinated the event was. I knew the exact dates, times, and objectives, which made the judging process smooth. Overall, the competition required minimal time and costs but had a significant impact. I would happily participate again.

Key Themes and Benefits.

This project sought to validate the idea of putting forward a regional library-led case competition and identify the benefits that case competitions offer to participating stakeholders. Stakeholder reflections highlighted several key themes.

Mutual Learning

First, the value of shared learning from collaboration and partnership emerged as a prominent benefit. The MECC competition brought together business librarians, entrepreneurship faculty, entrepreneurs affiliated with multiple academic institutions, and a vendor sponsor to participate in planning, judging, training sessions, and overall execution of the event. This collaboration fostered mutual learning among partners, such as strategies for planning and supporting case competitions, and approaches to librarianship and teaching information literacy within a business scenario, echoing the “synergistic relationship” found between librarians and entrepreneurship faculty in Campbell and Cook (2010).

The partnership with the vendor sponsor was a unique aspect of the project. While librarian and vendor relationships are represented in the literature, these partnerships are often focused on library collections, publishing, and product development recommendations that inform new features and services (Kawecki, 2018; Thompson & Seiler, 2018). Partnership opportunities relating to information literacy education and corresponding activities and events have not been previously explored. Vendors commonly sponsor library-related events, but this competition allowed for a more integrated and participatory role, with the vendor representative involved in the initial planning through the end of the event. By designing a case that aligned with SimplyAnalytics’ data offerings, participating librarians also had the chance to learn about its applications in a practical and authentic context, moving beyond the traditional format of vendor demonstrations. This was further reinforced by observing how students ultimately incorporated the tool into their own research and presentations.

Student-Partner Engagement

This leads to another notable benefit, which is that the MECC event provided an uncommon opportunity for partners to interact with students and observe the final outcomes of their work. Librarians often meet with students at specific stages of their research but rarely see the culmination of these efforts or assess whether information literacy learning objectives are achieved. By viewing student presentations, participating business librarian judges were able to see how students apply information sources in their decision-making processes. Similarly, the vendor representative benefited from working with students during training sessions and observing their presentations. This direct engagement offered valuable insights into how students approach and use the vendor’s products, which may inform future product development and demonstrations for librarians.

Focus on Information Literacy

Another key benefit of a library-led case competition is the integration of business information literacy concepts into both the competition narrative and supporting resources. This approach expands student knowledge of the business information ecosystem while cultivating the essential skills of gathering, evaluating, synthesizing, and ethically using business information to make informed decisions. Information literacy outcomes were evident in MECC, as observed by judges, and have been similarly documented in other case competitions that have involved librarians and library resources (Campbell & Cook, 2010; Heimann, 2022; Howard & Zwicky, 2019; Stephens et al., 2021; Stonebraker, 2016; Tully, 2019). Business case competitions often contain narratives, with preexisting data and exhibits supplied within the case write-up for students to use in their analysis (Stonebraker, 2016). While this can be more equitable as it ensures that all students have access to the same information, it misses out on the opportunity for students to practice business research skills that are critical for aspiring business professionals and entrepreneurs. By offering the same resources and tools, MECC also provided equitable access while giving students practice using research tools designed for business professionals and entrepreneurs.

Alignment with AACSB Accreditation

More than just individual students benefit from library case competitions; business schools also benefit. Almost all business schools are accredited by Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), a global accreditation body. Library case competitions assist business schools by providing evidence of teaching effectiveness and impact (Standard 7) and engagement with the business community (Standard 9), as well as evidence of impact on student learning outcomes (Standard 5) (AACSB 2020). Additionally, by running case competitions, librarians can show they contribute to student success by providing relevant knowledge and skills to the communities they serve, an important element of business education as outlined by AACSB (2020).

Challenges and Lessons Learned

The planning committee, partners, and sponsor deemed the MECC event to be a worthwhile pursuit, with the regional aspect and collective effort garnering many benefits, as explored above. However, as an inaugural event, there were some notable challenges as well.

Librarian Participation

Librarian buy-in was an important consideration for the MECC event in order to cross-promote the event regionally and ensure student teams had support at their home institutions. Calls for participation were advertised through multiple business librarian listservs; however, because of a lack of formalized opt-in procedures, some institutions did not feel as invested. Future library-led case competitions should formalize this relationship to broaden the reach of the event.

Marketing

Because MECC was new and lacked name recognition, marketing and cross-promoting from reputable marketing channels were important to legitimize the case competition. While several schools promoted the event through their library networks, expanding outreach to include related disciplinary programs, such as business, engineering, hospitality, and entrepreneurial incubators, could attract greater participation from a broader range of academic institutions.

Student Retention

As a co-curricular activity, student retention poses a significant challenge for any new case competition. For MECC, which was free to participate in and did not require students to complete the event, the retention rate was 33.3%. Several factors likely contributed to this outcome. Case competitions are highly time-intensive, with some student teams reporting they spent over 20 hours preparing their presentations. Consequently, as student schedules become too demanding or unexpected conflicts arise, case competitions are often an easy commitment to drop. Future iterations should balance the workload by designing cases that are less time-intensive while still maintaining enough rigor to keep students engaged and to ensure they feel the experience is valuable and educational.