WGU C714 Task 1: Step-by-Step Guide & Example

Updated on: Sep 7, 2026 

C714 Task 1, also referenced as D081, asks you to analyze a company from a provided scenario, then apply that analysis to a market-entry decision using design thinking. It’s not a summary assignment. You’re not restating what the case study says; you’re demonstrating that you can connect a company’s internal characteristics to how it actually makes decisions, and then use that same reasoning to evaluate a real strategic situation.

This guide walks through how to think through each rubric section, section by section, using a repeatable method rather than a memorized template. Every example below is fictional and labeled as such. Your actual answer has to come from your own scenario.

This guide walks through how to think through each rubric section, section by section, using a repeatable method rather than a memorized template. Every example below is fictional and labeled as such. Your actual answer has to come from your own scenario.

Before You Write: Verify Your C714/D081 Version

Do this before anything else. C714/D081 has had multiple scenario versions over time, using different companies, different cultures, and different target markets. A guide, example, or tip sheet written for a different version will point you toward the wrong culture type, the wrong structure, and the wrong market, and following it can cost you a full revision cycle.

1. Log into your WGU student portal and open your C714 or D081 course.
2. Go to the Performance Assessment area.
3. Download the current Task 1 template.
4. Download the current scenario or case study document.
5. Confirm the assessment code and version shown on those documents.
6. Treat those documents, not any third-party website, as your source of truth.

Don’t assume your version based on a Google search, and don’t assume the company, culture type, or target market described in an old example applies to you. Third-party sites and tip sheets can be years out of date, and some describe scenarios that are no longer in use at all. If a resource (including this one) describes a specific company or market, check that it matches your actual documents before you rely on any of its specifics.

What This Assessment Is Actually Testing

C714/D081 is built around organizational behavior, design thinking, and market strategy. Task 1 tests whether you can:

• identify the organizational characteristics your scenario actually describes (culture, structure, mission, vision)
• support each one with specific evidence from the case study
• explain how that characteristic affects the company’s decision-making
• evaluate the market-entry situation using relevant, scenario-specific factors
• apply design thinking to both the company’s culture and the market-entry decision
• address the ethical dimension of the market-entry decision
• connect every claim you make back to evidence, not assumption

WGU evaluates performance assessments like this one using a rubric where each aspect is scored independently, typically across levels such as Not Evident, Approaching Competence, and Competent. Confirm the exact scoring structure in your current rubric, but the general principle holds across WGU performance assessments: a thin or unsupported section can hold back an otherwise strong submission, which is why understanding what each section is actually asking matters more than writing at length.

How to Start C714 Task 1 After a Full Workday

If you’re opening this after work with limited energy, work in this order rather than starting at the top and writing straight through:

1. Verify the version. Confirm you’re looking at your current template and scenario.
2. Download the current task template. Use its actual section headers as your outline.
3. Read the rubric before you draft anything. Know what each aspect is graded on before you write toward it.
4. Read the scenario and highlight evidence as you go, tagging each highlight with the rubric section it might support.
5. Build a rubric evidence matrix (below) before drafting a single paragraph.
6. Draft one rubric item at a time, not the whole paper in narrative order.
7. Add citations as you go, not as a final pass.
8. Run a final rubric audit against the checklist at the end of this guide.

This is faster than writing it like a traditional essay because you’re never guessing what to write next; the matrix tells you which evidence goes where before you start drafting.

Build a Rubric Evidence Matrix First

Before drafting, pull your evidence into a table like this. It turns “write the paper” into “fill in what you already found.”

This is a planning tool, not a rubric substitute. Confirm every row against your own current rubric before you rely on it; if a section in your rubric doesn’t match a row here, follow your rubric.

The Core Response Formula

Use this structure for every analytical section in this task:

DEFINE → EVIDENCE → EXPLAIN → APPLY → CONNECT

• Define: What concept or characteristic are you identifying?
• Evidence: What specific fact from the scenario supports it?
• Explain: Why does that evidence demonstrate the concept?
• Apply: What does it mean for the company in practice?
• Connect: How does this answer the actual rubric question being asked?

A paragraph that stops after “Define” and “Evidence” reads as description. A paragraph that completes all five steps reads as analysis, which is what’s being scored.

Part A: Organizational Analysis

A1a: Organizational Culture

Identify your company’s culture using the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), which sorts organizational cultures into four types:

• Clan: collaborative, family-like, values loyalty and tradition
• Adhocracy: innovative, entrepreneurial, comfortable with risk and change
• Market: competitive, results-driven, focused on winning and market share
• Hierarchy: structured, process-driven, values stability and control

Don’t assume your scenario describes any one of these before you’ve read it closely. Identify the culture your specific evidence supports, then explain the mechanism by which it affects decision-making, not just that it does.

Illustrative example, not a WGU submission:

Weak: “The company has an adhocracy culture. This culture values innovation and creativity, and the company encourages employees to think of new ideas.”

Stronger: “The scenario describes a company that routinely invites frontline employees and outside collaborators to contribute directly to product decisions, and maintains a testing space where customer feedback shapes design choices before a formal review occurs. This pattern is consistent with an adhocracy culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), and it changes decision-making specifically by distributing input earlier in the process: rather than a proposal moving up a chain of approval, ideas are evaluated collaboratively based on where the strongest insight comes from, whether that’s a manager, an engineer, or a customer.”

Notice the second version defines the culture, cites evidence, explains the mechanism, and stops short of overclaiming; it doesn’t just say the culture is “good,” it explains what specifically changes about how decisions get made.

A1b: Organizational Structure

Structure is different from culture: culture is about values and norms; structure is about who has authority, how decisions flow, and how people communicate across the organization. Identify the structure type your scenario describes (commonly flat/decentralized or hierarchical/layered), then take a clear position on whether it’s an advantage or disadvantage for this specific company, and explain why.

Don’t default to “flat structures are always good.” Base the conclusion on what your scenario actually shows: a flat structure that removes bottlenecks and accelerates decisions is different from one that leaves nobody clearly accountable, and your evidence should point you toward one or the other.

A1c: Mission and Vision

A mission statement describes the company’s current purpose; a vision statement describes where it wants to be. Confusing the two, or treating them as one idea, is a common way this section falls short. For each statement, explain: what it says, what strategic commitment it represents, and what that commitment implies for future decisions. Paraphrase the statements in your own words rather than quoting them directly.

A1a vs. B2a vs. B2b: Why These Aren’t the Same Question

These three sections can draw on overlapping evidence but ask fundamentally different questions, and answering one with the content meant for another is one of the more common ways submissions come back.

A1a is about authority and decision flow in general. B2a is about whether the culture’s specific traits (collaboration, tolerance for iteration, openness to outside input) make the organization well-suited to a design thinking approach. B2b takes that same design thinking process and walks it through the actual market decision. Reusing your A1a paragraph as your B2a answer, even with minor edits, typically reads as repetition rather than analysis of a different question.

Part B: Market Entry and Design Thinking

B1: The Emerging Market

Your scenario points you toward a specific target market; analyze only the characteristics that are actually relevant to this company’s decision. Depending on your scenario, that could include economic conditions, cultural context, regulatory environment, infrastructure, competition, distribution, or sustainability expectations. Don’t turn this into a general essay about the country; every factor you discuss should connect to how it affects this specific company’s entry decision.

B2a: How Culture Supports Design Thinking

Design thinking moves through five stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test. In B2a, connect specific behaviors your scenario’s culture exhibits to specific stages of this process. A culture that actively gathers user feedback naturally supports Empathize and Test; a culture that welcomes ideas from outside the organization supports Ideate. Make each connection explicit rather than assuming the evaluator will draw the line themselves.

B2b: Applying Design Thinking to the Market Decision

This is where B-section submissions most often fall short, because it’s easy to describe design thinking generally instead of applying it to the actual market. Walk through each stage against your specific scenario:

• Empathize: Who are the relevant users, customers, or stakeholders in this market?
• Define: What specific problem should the company solve for this market?
• Ideate: What market-specific ideas could address that problem?
• Prototype: What could the company test before committing significant resources?
• Test: How would the company gather feedback and refine the approach?

Illustrative example, not a WGU submission: if a fictional company were entering a new coastal market, an Empathize answer grounded in the scenario might identify local fishing cooperatives as the primary stakeholder group whose specific needs (durability in the relevant conditions, price sensitivity, local distribution norms) the company would need to understand directly, rather than assuming needs based on the company’s home market.

B3: The Ethical Statement

Identify the company’s stated ethical commitment from the scenario, explain what it represents in terms of company values, then evaluate whether it aligns with the norms and expectations of the target market. This section is often shortest, which makes it easy to under-write; a complete answer defines the statement, connects it to company values, and explicitly evaluates market alignment, not just restates the statement.

A Complete Fictional Case Walkthrough

Everything in this section is invented for teaching purposes. The company, culture, structure, market, and statements below do not describe any real organization or any actual WGU scenario. Do not adapt this wording into your own submission; your response has to come from your own assigned case study, not this one.

The fictional scenario: Solstice Outdoor Gear is a mid-sized, family-founded manufacturer of camping and hiking equipment. The company was built by two siblings who still run daily operations, and roughly 40% of staff have been with the company more than a decade. New product ideas typically move through a regional advisory board before reaching leadership, and the company is now evaluating an expansion into Vietnam’s growing adventure-tourism market. Solstice’s mission statement is “to equip families for safe outdoor adventures using responsibly sourced materials.” Its vision statement is “to become the leading sustainable outdoor gear brand in Southeast Asia’s adventure-tourism markets by 2032.” Its published ethical statement commits the company to fair-labor manufacturing partnerships and sustainably sourced materials.

Below is how each rubric section might be worked through against this fictional scenario, using the DEFINE-EVIDENCE-EXPLAIN-APPLY-CONNECT formula.

A1a, Culture: Define: the scenario describes a clan culture. Evidence: long employee tenure, family founders still active in daily operations, and a regional advisory board that reviews ideas collaboratively before they reach leadership. Explain: these traits reflect the loyalty, mentorship, and family-like cohesion the Competing Values Framework associates with clan culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), rather than the external competitiveness of a market culture or the formality of a hierarchy. Apply: decisions at Solstice tend to move through trusted internal relationships and consensus-building rather than top-down directives. Connect: this affects decision-making by slowing formal authority-driven decisions in favor of relationship-driven ones, meaning major changes, like a new-market entry, are more likely to gain traction once long-tenured staff and the advisory board are personally bought in, not simply once leadership approves them.

A1b, Structure: Define: the scenario suggests a moderately centralized structure, since new ideas route through a single regional advisory board before reaching leadership rather than being decided locally. Evidence: the board functions as a required checkpoint rather than an optional resource. Explain: this creates a single funnel that every proposal must pass through. Apply: for a company this size, that funnel can act as a quality-control advantage, keeping decisions aligned with company values, but it can also slow responsiveness during time-sensitive opportunities like an emerging-market entry. Connect: the position taken here is that this structure is a disadvantage specifically for the market-entry decision, because Vietnam’s opportunity window may not wait for a single board’s full review cycle the way a domestic product tweak could.

A1c, Mission and Vision: Define: the mission describes present purpose (equipping families safely, using responsible materials); the vision describes a future state (becoming Southeast Asia’s leading sustainable brand by 2032). Evidence: both statements are given directly in the scenario. Explain: the mission commits the company to a safety-plus-sustainability value proposition today, while the vision commits it to regional market leadership specifically in Southeast Asia. Apply: together, they suggest Solstice should evaluate the Vietnam opportunity not just on revenue potential but on whether it reinforces the sustainability positioning the mission promises. Connect: this directly shapes B1 and B2b, since any market-entry recommendation has to be evaluated against both statements, not treated as a separate, purely financial decision.

B1, Market: Define: the relevant market characteristics are the ones that affect this specific entry decision, not Vietnam in general. Evidence: the scenario specifies a growing adventure-tourism sector. Explain: that detail matters because it signals rising demand for durable, safety-oriented outdoor gear, directly aligned with Solstice’s mission. Apply: other market factors, like import regulations or existing competitor presence, would need to be evaluated for their effect on distribution and pricing. Connect: the analysis stays tied to how each factor helps or complicates this company’s specific entry, not a general country profile.

B2a, Culture and Design Thinking: Define: the question is whether Solstice’s clan culture supports the design thinking process. Evidence: the advisory board’s collaborative review structure and the company’s history of long-term, relationship-based decision-making. Explain: clan cultures often support the Empathize and Test stages well, since they’re built around close, ongoing relationships with people (employees, and by extension customers) whose feedback is trusted. Apply: that same closeness can slow Ideate, since new ideas from outside the existing relationship network may face more resistance than they would in a more externally oriented culture. Connect: this is a different question from A1a; here the focus is specifically on fit with the design thinking process, not general decision-making authority.

B2b, Design Thinking Applied to the Market: Empathize: the relevant stakeholders are Vietnamese adventure-tourism operators and first-time domestic hikers, whose gear needs may differ from Solstice’s existing customer base. Define: the problem might be that Solstice’s current product line is priced and sized for a different climate and body of customers than Vietnam’s emerging market. Ideate: the company could explore a lighter, humidity-resistant product line developed with local input rather than exporting its existing catalog unchanged. Prototype: a small batch could be tested with a handful of Vietnamese tour operators before a full product launch. Test: structured feedback from those operators would shape a second iteration before wider distribution.

B3, Ethical Statement: Define: Solstice’s ethical statement commits it to fair-labor manufacturing partnerships and sustainable sourcing. Evidence: this is stated directly in the scenario. Explain: this commitment represents more than a marketing claim; it constrains which manufacturing partners and material suppliers the company can ethically work with in a new region. Apply: entering Vietnam would require vetting local or regional suppliers against those same fair-labor and sustainability standards, not defaulting to whichever option is cheapest. Connect: the alignment question is whether Vietnam’s manufacturing and sourcing landscape can actually support that commitment, which is a market-specific evaluation, not a restatement of the ethical statement itself.

Illustrative Example: Turning Description Into Analysis

Illustrative example, not a WGU submission.

Weak (description only): “The company’s mission is to provide quality products to customers. This shows they care about quality.”

Stronger (definition + evidence + analysis + rubric connection): “The scenario states the company’s mission is to deliver reliable, affordable products to underserved communities. This represents a strategic commitment to accessibility over premium positioning, which has a direct decision-making implication: when the company evaluates a new market opportunity, pricing and distribution decisions will be weighed more heavily than brand prestige, since the mission itself defines success around reach rather than margin.”

The difference isn’t length. It’s that the second version explains what the statement commits the company to and what that commitment changes about future decisions, which is the actual rubric question.

How to Use Sources Without Overloading the Paper

You’ll typically cite two categories of sources in this task: the WGU-provided scenario or case study, and any course material or outside concept you reference, such as the Competing Values Framework or design thinking literature. Cite anything you paraphrase or summarize from these sources, and avoid direct quotes from the scenario; WGU generally expects you to demonstrate comprehension in your own words rather than quote the case study. Use the citation format shown in your current course’s “Citing Sources” resource for the scenario itself, since that format can vary; don’t assume a generic portal URL applies to your specific course artifact.

Why C714 Task 1 Responses Get Returned

1. Using the wrong version’s scenario or company.
2. Describing a characteristic instead of analyzing it.
3. Naming a culture type without explaining its decision-making effect.
4. Confusing culture with structure.
5. Treating mission and vision as the same thing.
6. Reusing A1a content as the B2a answer.
7. Defining design thinking without applying it to the company or market.
8. Writing B2b in general terms instead of market-specific terms.
9. Writing a generic ethics paragraph disconnected from the market.
10. Missing citations for paraphrased material.
11. Using unnecessary direct quotes from the scenario.
12. Leaving one rubric element thin while the rest of the submission is strong.
13. Modeling a response on an outdated online example that doesn’t match the current scenario.

C714 Task 1 Workflow for Full-Time Working Professionals

Actual time varies by how familiar you are with the material; these are sessions to structure your work, not a promised timeline.

• Session 1: Confirm your version, read the rubric, read the scenario once fully.
• Session 2: Extract evidence into the rubric evidence matrix.
• Session 3: Draft Part A (A1a, A1b, A1c).
• Session 4: Draft Part B (B1, B2a, B2b, B3).
• Session 5: Add citations and revise for clarity.
• Session 6: Run the final rubric audit below.

Compress sessions if you have larger blocks of time available, or split any session further if you’re working in shorter increments.

Final Rubric Audit

• Correct version confirmed against current portal documents
• Correct template used
• Every rubric criterion addressed
• Culture identified from scenario evidence, not assumed
• Culture connected to a specific decision-making effect
• Structure analyzed separately from culture, with a clear position taken
• Mission and vision addressed separately, each with strategic implication
• Market analysis is specific to your scenario, not a general country summary
• Design thinking is applied to the company and the market, not just defined
• B2a and B2b are clearly answering different questions
• Ethical statement is defined and evaluated against market alignment
• Every major claim is supported by scenario evidence
• Citations are present for paraphrased or summarized material
• References are accurate and complete
• No unnecessary direct quotations from the scenario
• Formatting matches your current task template
• Similarity/originality report reviewed
• Current WGU template and rubric rechecked one more time before submission

Working on More Than One WGU Business Assessment?

If you’re also working on wgu c714 task 2, approach it with its own current task template and rubric; don’t assume Task 1 requirements carry over, since the two tasks assess different parts of the scenario. Gradevia’s C714 Task 2 guide covers that task separately. Keep in mind that online examples for either task, including ones on this site, can become outdated when WGU updates the assessment version, so always confirm against your current portal materials first.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is WGU C714 Task 1? A written performance assessment for the Innovative and Strategic Thinking course (also referenced as D081) where you analyze a provided company scenario and apply that analysis to a market-entry decision using design thinking.

Is C714 the same as D081? Yes, they refer to the same course under different code conventions; which one appears in your portal depends on your program.

What does C714 Task 1 evaluate? Your ability to identify a company’s culture, structure, and mission/vision from scenario evidence; connect those characteristics to decision-making; and apply design thinking to a market-entry decision, including its ethical dimension.

How do I know which C714/D081 version I have? Check the company name and scenario details in your current task documents in the WGU portal. Don’t rely on a version identified from a third-party website or an old example.

What is the Competing Values Framework? A model developed by Cameron and Quinn that classifies organizational culture into four types: clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy, used to analyze how culture shapes an organization’s behavior and decisions.

How do I answer A1a? Identify the culture type your scenario supports, cite specific evidence for it, and explain the mechanism by which that culture affects how decisions get made, not just that a connection exists.

What is the difference between culture and structure? Culture is about shared values, norms, and behaviors. Structure is about authority, reporting relationships, and how decision rights are distributed across the organization.

How do I answer A1c? Identify the mission and vision statements separately, explain what strategic commitment each represents, and connect that commitment to a future decision-making implication.

How should I approach B1? Identify only the market characteristics that are actually relevant to your company’s specific entry decision, and explain why each one matters to that decision rather than summarizing the market in general.

How do I apply design thinking in B2a? Connect specific behaviors described in your culture (not a general definition of the culture) to specific stages of the design thinking process, showing why that culture is positioned to support each stage.

How is B2b different from B2a? B2a asks whether the culture supports the design thinking process in general. B2b asks you to actually apply each design thinking stage to the specific market-entry decision in your scenario.

How do I answer the ethical-statement section? Identify the company’s stated ethical commitment, explain what it represents, and evaluate whether it aligns with the values and norms of the target market, rather than writing a general ethics statement.

How long should C714 Task 1 be? There’s no official length requirement in current task instructions; focus on fully addressing every rubric aspect rather than hitting a word count.

Do I need APA citations? Yes, for any paraphrased or summarized source material, including the scenario itself and any outside concepts you reference. Confirm the specific format expected in your current course’s citation resource.

Can I use an old C714 example I found online? Only as a general sense of structure and depth, not as a template. Version differences mean an old example may reference the wrong company, culture, or market entirely, and copying its structure or wording risks both a version mismatch and an originality concern.

What is the relationship between WGU C714 Task 1 and wgu c714 task 2? They’re sequential tasks in the same course but assess different parts of the overall scenario. Task 2 has its own current template and rubric and shouldn’t be approached using Task 1’s requirements.

Related WGU Content

WGU C219 Task 1: Investor Presentation Guide + Example (C219 Healthcare Management Capstone)

WGU KAM4 C219 Task 2: Business Analysis Report Help, Expert Guide, Tips, and Sample for Healthcare Management Students

WGU C207 Task 1: Complete Guide + Worked Example (Linear Regression Analysis)

WGU C207 Task 2 Guide: Decision Tree Analysis + Example (2026 Edition)

References

• Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744252
• Seifried, J., & Wasserbaech, C. S. (2019). Design thinking in leading European companies: Organizational and spatial issues. Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1), 80-107. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_007.001_0006
• Western Governors University. (2025). Performance assessment scoring policy and rubrics. WGU Knowledge Center. https://cm.wgu.edu/t5/WGU-Student-Policy-Handbook/Performance-Assessment-Scoring-Policy-and-Rubrics/ta-p/188