Writing That Wins
Case Study Mastery
Module 5 Learning Objectives
- Select the most strategically powerful project for your case study
- Structure your case study using STAR++ to demonstrate Level 3 at every stage
- Write with the assessor as the audience — professional, specific, judgement-rich
- Complete a peer review of your draft using the structured review framework
What the Case Study Really Tests
Your case study is not a project report. It's not a diary entry. It's your professional argument that you deserve to be chartered. Assessors read it looking for one thing above all: evidence that you think and act like a Chartered Professional.
The three things every assessor is looking for: (1) professional judgement — visible in every section; (2) structured professional thinking — logical, evidence-based, client-focused; (3) clear role and responsibility — unmistakably YOU, not your team.
The STAR++ Framework
Project context, client, complexity, your professional role. Set the scene professionally.
Your brief, responsibility, constraints. What were you professionally accountable for?
What YOU did. Not what happened — what you decided and why. Include options considered.
Quantified outcomes. Cost, programme, risk, client satisfaction — with real numbers.
Identify 2–3 key moments of professional judgement. Options, reasoning, recommendation, outcome. This is what separates Level 2 from Level 3.
What you'd do differently. Genuine reflection — not "it all went perfectly." This shows professional maturity and growth.
"Do not choose the biggest project. Choose the project where YOU made the most significant professional decisions, where the situation was genuinely complex, and where you can speak with absolute confidence for 45 minutes. Scale doesn't impress assessors. Professional judgement does."
Module 5 — Exercises
Rate 3 candidate projects across 4 selection criteria (1–5 each, 20 max). Choose the highest-scoring project for your case study.
| Criteria | Project A | Project B | Project C |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Genuine professional responsibility — YOU made key decisions | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| 2. Complexity — genuinely challenging situations | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| 3. Professional judgement visible — clear decisions and reasoning | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| 4. Interview confidence — could talk about this for 45 minutes | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| TOTAL | /20 | /20 | /20 |
My chosen project: ______________________________________________ Value: £______________
Write your first draft here. Don't edit as you go — just get the content down. You'll refine it in Exercise 3.
Project Overview
| Project Name | |
| Type & Sector | |
| Value | |
| Your Role | |
| Competencies Demonstrated |
S — Situation (200–250 words target)
T — Task (150–200 words target)
A — Actions (700–800 words target — your most important section)
Sentence starters for Level 3 actions: "I advised the client that..." / "Having reviewed [X] options, I recommended..." / "My professional judgement was to..." / "I identified a risk of [X] and recommended [Y] because..."
R — Results (150–200 words target)
+ Professional Judgement (300–400 words — Level 3 lives here)
Identify 2–3 key judgement moments. For each: context → options considered → your recommendation → reasoning → outcome.
+ Lessons Learned (200–250 words target)
Go back through your STAR++ draft. For each paragraph, ask: "Can an assessor see professional judgement here?" If yes, put a ✓. If no, rewrite that paragraph below.
Paragraphs I need to rewrite (copy the weak paragraph, then write the Level 3 version):
Weak paragraph 1:
Level 3 rewrite:
Weak paragraph 2:
Level 3 rewrite:
Give your case study draft to a study partner, colleague, or mentor. Ask them to answer these 8 questions honestly. Then discuss their feedback.
| # | Question | Reviewer's Answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Can you see genuine professional judgement (not just actions) in every section? | |
| 2 | Is the candidate's specific role and responsibility crystal clear throughout? | |
| 3 | Are there any sections that read like a description rather than professional advice? | |
| 4 | Are the options considered named and reasoned, or is only the final choice mentioned? | |
| 5 | Is the Professional Judgement section convincing at Level 3 — or does it feel generic? | |
| 6 | Does the Lessons Learned section feel genuine and reflective? | |
| 7 | After reading, would you as an assessor feel confident this person deserves chartership? | |
| 8 | What one thing would most improve this case study? |
| Section | Target | My Count | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Situation | 200–250 | ||
| Task | 150–200 | ||
| Actions | 700–800 | ||
| Results | 150–200 | ||
| Professional Judgement | 300–400 | ||
| Lessons Learned | 200–250 | ||
| TOTAL | Max 3,000 |
Pre-Submission Checklist
- Every paragraph demonstrates professional judgement, not just activity
- Your role and responsibility is unambiguous throughout
- At least 2 professional judgement moments are clearly named and reasoned in the + section
- Lessons Learned is genuine and specific — not "it all went well"
- Active first-person language throughout: "I advised", "I recommended"
- All specific figures (values, dates, outcomes) are accurate and verifiable
- Word count is within the 3,000-word limit
- Peer review completed and key feedback incorporated
- Submitted on time to RICS
Reflection Questions
1. Does your case study show YOU making decisions, or does it describe what your team did?
2. What is the single strongest demonstration of professional judgement in your case study?
3. If an assessor only read the first paragraph of your case study, what would they think about you?
4. What would you change if you could rewrite the case study from scratch, knowing what you know now?
Module 5 — Key Takeaways
- Your case study is your strongest argument — treat it like a professional report, not a project diary
- STAR++ gets you to Level 3 — standard STAR tells what happened; the two extra elements (Professional Judgement + Lessons Learned) prove how you think
- The Actions section is where most candidates fail — write decisions and reasoning, not a timeline of activities
- The Professional Judgement section is where Level 3 lives — invest your best thinking and most specific evidence here
- Peer review is not optional — you cannot objectively assess your own writing after weeks of immersion; fresh eyes find what you can't see
Your Action Plan This Week
- Complete the Project Selection Matrix and confirm your case study project
- Write a full STAR++ first draft — no editing, just get it down
- Complete the Level 3 Language Check and rewrite any weak paragraphs
- Share your draft with a study partner for the Peer Review
Before Module 6
- Case study project confirmed and first draft complete
- Peer review completed and key feedback incorporated
- Pre-submission checklist completed — ready to submit
- I can speak confidently about every judgement moment in my case study
- I am ready to prepare for the Final Assessment Interview in Module 6
