WGU C714 Task 1 Help: Expert Guide, Tips, Example

1. What Is WGU C714 Task 1 Actually Testing?

Let's start with something almost no student resource online bothers to explain: this is not a summary assignment. It's not asking you to restate what the case study says. It's asking you to demonstrate that you can think strategically — meaning you can look at a company's internal characteristics and explain how those characteristics drive real decisions.

C714 (also known as D081: Innovative and Strategic Thinking) sits in the WGU business core and is built around three interconnected ideas: organizational behavior, design thinking, and market strategy. Task 1 specifically tests whether you understand how a company's culture, structure, and stated values shape the way decisions actually get made — and how those same forces either help or hurt when a company tries to expand into a new market.

WGU's evaluators grade this on a 3-Level Descriptive Rubric. You must hit "Competent" on every single rubric aspect to pass. One thin section returns the whole task. This is why understanding what each section is actually looking for is more important than writing a lot.

2. Know Your Version Before You Write a Single Word

This is the single biggest hidden trap with this task. There are multiple active versions of C714/D081, and they use different companies and different scenarios. Using study resources written for the wrong version — even well-intentioned ones — will lead you to analyze the wrong culture type, the wrong structure, and the wrong market.

3. Breaking Down Part A — The Company Analysis

Part A is where most students spend the majority of their word count, and it's also where most returns happen. There are three sections, and the keyword that runs through all of them is "decision-making." Every answer in Part A should loop back to how decisions get made.

A1a Organizational Culture

Your first job is to identify the culture type using the Competing Values Framework (CVF) — a model developed by Cameron and Quinn that WGU references directly in the course material. The four types are: Clan (collaborative, family-like), Adhocracy (innovative, entrepreneurial), Market (competitive, results-driven), and Hierarchy (structured, process-driven).

Most v2–v5 scenarios describe an adhocracy culture — the company invites employees, customers, and outside innovators to contribute ideas, rewards creative thinking, and operates without rigid top-down control. If your scenario describes something like a conventional org chart with a CEO, COO, and layered reporting structure, you're probably looking at hierarchy or clan (this describes the v1 EZ-Pleeze scenario).

A1b Organizational Structure

The v2–v5 scenarios typically describe a flat or decentralized structure — employees are empowered to reach out directly to founders, there's no middle management filtering communication, and decision-making authority is distributed. This is distinct from the culture (culture is about values and norms; structure is about reporting lines and authority).

The rubric asks you to take a position: is this structure an advantage or a disadvantage for the company? Don't try to say both. Pick one and defend it with specifics from the scenario. The vast majority of competent submissions identify the flat structure as an advantage — it accelerates decision-making, removes bottlenecks, and aligns well with the innovation-driven culture. Just make sure to explain the mechanism, not just assert the conclusion.

A1c Mission and Vision Statements

This section trips students up in two ways. First, many confuse the mission and vision — a mission statement describes what the company does and why it exists today; a vision statement describes where the company wants to be in the future. Second, most submissions simply quote or paraphrase the statements without actually analyzing them. The evaluator wants to see you connect the mission/vision to strategic (long-term) decision-making.

A good answer explains: here is what the mission/vision says → here is the specific strategic commitment it represents → here is how that commitment will shape decisions when the company enters a new market or evaluates new opportunities.

4. Breaking Down Part B — Market Entry & Design Thinking

Part B shifts from analyzing the company internally to applying those internal characteristics to a real-world strategic challenge: entering an emerging market. For v2–v5 scenarios, that market is India. Everything in Part B should be grounded in the specifics of what entering the Indian market actually involves — not generic "entering a new market" language.

B1 The Emerging Market

Describe the characteristics of the Indian market that are most relevant to your company's scenario. This includes economic factors (India's middle-class growth, manufacturing costs), cultural considerations (relationship-based business culture, attitudes toward sustainability), and practical factors (regulatory environment, distribution infrastructure). Your case study will point you toward the most relevant dimensions — follow its lead but add your own analysis.

B2a How Company Culture Supports Design Thinking

Design thinking is a problem-solving methodology comprising five stages: Empathize → Define → Ideate → Prototype → Test. Your job in B2a is to show how the company's specific culture makes it well-suited to applying this process — not to define design thinking in the abstract.

For adhocracy cultures, the connection is direct and natural: the same behaviors that define the culture (inviting outside collaborators, customer testing labs, incentivizing creative ideas) map directly onto the design thinking stages. The key is to make those connections explicit, not assume the evaluator will draw them.

B2b Design Thinking Applied to Market Entry

This is the section students most commonly write too generically. B2b asks you to apply design thinking specifically to the India market entry — not to describe design thinking broadly or repeat what you said in B2a. Walk through how the company would (or should) execute each design thinking stage in the context of entering the Indian market: who they would empathize with, what problem they would define, what ideas they would generate for the Indian context, what a prototype would look like, and how testing would work.

B3 Ethical Statement

Often the shortest section but also one of the most commonly skipped or underwritten. B3 asks you to identify the company's ethical statement from the scenario and analyze whether those ethics align with the values of the Indian market. Define what the statement represents, then evaluate alignment. The scenario will give you enough to work with — a commitment to sustainability, for example, maps onto India's growing environmental consciousness and policy direction. Keep it focused and evidence-based.

5. A Passed Example (Real Student Work, Annotated)

Below is an example of the type of response that earns a "Competent" mark for Section A1a (Organizational Culture). This is drawn from multiple passed submissions posted to Studocu and CliffsNotes by WGU students between 2021 and 2024, synthesized to illustrate best practices. Names and IDs have been removed.

6. What Real Students on Reddit Say

The r/WGU subreddit has been one of the most candid sources of real student experience since the community was established. For C714 Task 1 specifically, a widely shared tip thread (r/WGU — C714 Task 1 Tip) generated discussion that reflects patterns seen across hundreds of student submissions. Here's what the community consistently identifies as the key differentiators between first-attempt passes and returns:

These observations align with the rubric guidance WGU instructors themselves publish. The pattern is consistent: students who treat this like a traditional business essay often get returned; students who treat it as a structured rubric-response exercise pass more reliably.

7. The 5 Reasons WGU C714 Task 1 Gets Returned

Based on student discussions on r/WGU, Studocu tip sheets, and WGU's own course instructor guidance, these are the five most common reasons an otherwise well-written submission comes back "Not Competent" on one or more aspects.

• 1
  Describing culture without connecting it to decision-making Students write excellent descriptions of adhocracy culture — the values, the behaviors, the structure — but never complete the loop by explaining how that culture affects the decision-making process. The rubric for A1a is grading the culture-to-decisions connection, not the culture description itself.
• 2
  Confusing mission and vision statements — or treating them as one thing These are graded as separate elements. Your mission statement describes the company's current purpose; your vision describes its future aspiration. Conflating them in a single paragraph, or analyzing only one, typically results in a return on A1c. Verify that your scenario includes both, and address each separately.
• 3
  Directly quoting the scenario or course material without paraphrasing WGU's assessment guidelines are clear: submissions that rely heavily on direct quotes from the case study rather than the student's own analysis are scored as insufficient. This is not about plagiarism — it's about demonstrating comprehension. If you must quote, keep it to one short phrase and pair it with a proper APA in-text citation (see Section 8 below).
• 4
  Writing about design thinking abstractly in B2b instead of applying it to India This is the most frequent B-section return reason. Students describe what design thinking is (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test) and say the company would use it to enter the market — but never explain what that actually looks like in India. Evaluators want to see India-specific context: who would the company empathize with (Indian fishermen, coastal communities), what would the prototyping phase involve given local manufacturing or distribution conditions, etc.
• 5
  Treating B3 (Ethical Statement) as optional or writing only one sentence Because B3 is shorter and comes at the end, students often rush through it or skip it entirely under time pressure. It is graded independently. A complete B3 response defines the ethical statement, explains what it represents in terms of company values, and then explicitly evaluates whether those ethics align with the values and business norms of the Indian market.

8. APA & Citation Tips Specific to This Task

WGU uses APA 7th edition formatting. For C714/D081 Task 1, you'll primarily be citing two types of sources: the scenario/case study provided by WGU, and the course textbook or materials. Both require specific formatting that differs from standard journal or book citations.

10. Frequently Asked Questions

These are the questions that come up most often from students working through C714 Task 1 — drawn from course forums, r/WGU discussions, and direct student feedback.

• What is WGU C714 Task 1, and how is it different from an exam? +

  C714 Task 1 is a written performance assessment — a structured business analysis paper submitted for human evaluation. Unlike objective exams, it has no multiple-choice questions and no automatic grading. A WGU evaluator reads your submission and scores each rubric aspect independently as either Competent or Not Competent. A single Not Competent on any aspect means the whole submission is returned, regardless of how strong the rest of it is.

• How do I know which version of the task I have? +

  Check the company name in your scenario document. If it references a Fishing Boat Manufacturer or mentions fishermen and coastal communities, you have v2 or v3. If it says Cast Inc., you have v4 or v5. If it mentions bicycles or EZ-Pleeze, you have the older v1. Using guidance written for a different version is one of the top reasons for returns — always verify before writing.

• What is the Competing Values Framework, and do I need to cite it? +

  The Competing Values Framework (CVF) is a management model developed by Cameron and Quinn that categorizes organizational cultures into four types: clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy. Most C714 scenarios map to adhocracy culture. You should reference it by name and cite the source: Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. In-text: (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

• Why does my submission keep getting returned on A1a even though I described the culture correctly? +

  A1a is not graded on your culture description — it's graded on whether you connect the culture type to how decisions are made. Students who accurately identify adhocracy culture but never explain the mechanism by which that culture affects decision-making receive a Not Competent. Every paragraph about culture should loop back to a decision-making implication. Ask yourself: how does this cultural behavior actually change who decides, when they decide, or how they decide?

• What's the difference between A1a (culture) and B2a (design thinking + culture)? +

  A1a asks how the organizational culture affects decision-making. B2a asks how the same culture supports the company's ability to apply the design thinking process. The evidence you cite may overlap (same behaviors), but the analytical frame must differ. A1a is about authority and decision flow; B2a is about readiness for iterative, user-centered problem solving. Submissions that copy A1a content into B2a are typically returned on both.

• Does B2b really need to be about India specifically, or can I describe design thinking generally? +

  It must be India-specific. B2b is graded on whether you apply design thinking to the actual market entry scenario — not whether you can define the five stages. Walk through each stage (Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test) with explicit reference to India: who the company would empathize with (e.g., Indian coastal fishermen), what problem they would define for that market, what local conditions would shape prototyping, and how testing would work given the context.

• Can I quote directly from the WGU scenario in my submission? +

  WGU instructors explicitly advise against it. Submissions that rely on direct quotes from the scenario are scored as insufficient because they demonstrate recall, not comprehension. Paraphrase everything in your own words. If you feel a direct quote is necessary, keep it to one short phrase and include a proper APA in-text citation with a page number. When in doubt, set the scenario aside and write from memory, then verify facts afterward.

• How long should each section be? +

  WGU does not publish official word counts, but community experience suggests: A1a typically needs at least 2–3 solid paragraphs to adequately name the culture type, provide evidence, and explain the decision-making connection. A1b and A1c can often be done in 1–2 focused paragraphs each. B2a and B2b are usually the longest Part B sections. B3 is shorter but must still define the ethical statement and evaluate alignment with India — don't rush it. Quality and rubric-alignment matter more than length.

• How do I cite the WGU scenario in APA 7 format? +

  Reference list entry: Western Governors University. (n.d.). [Scenario title] [Course artifact]. Available from https://my.wgu.edu/courses/course/[course ID]

  In-text citation: (Western Governors University [WGU], n.d.) on first use, then (WGU, n.d.) for all subsequent citations in the same document.

• I've already been returned once. What should I focus on when revising? +

  Start by reading your evaluator feedback carefully — it will specify which aspects received Not Competent. The most commonly returned aspects are A1a (culture without decision-making connection), B2b (generic design thinking without India specifics), and B3 (too brief or missing). Revise only the returned aspects, but review adjacent sections to ensure you haven't used similar language across them. Do not submit a complete rewrite unless multiple aspects were returned.

• Can I use other students' papers from Studocu or Course Hero as a template? +

  You can review passed examples to calibrate the level of detail and format expected — but do not copy structure, wording, or analysis from another student's paper. WGU evaluators read hundreds of submissions and recognize pattern-matched responses. More practically: version differences mean another student's paper may reference the wrong company or market, which guarantees a return. Use examples for direction, not as a template.

• What does a 'Competent' rating actually require — is there a minimum bar? +

  Each rubric aspect has its own bar, but the consistent standard across aspects is: (1) the correct theoretical framework or concept is named, (2) at least two or three specific pieces of evidence from the scenario support your claim, and (3) you explain the analytical implication — not just what the evidence is, but what it means for decision-making, market entry, or design thinking. Submissions that state conclusions without evidence, or provide evidence without connecting it to the rubric question, fall below Competent.