GB710 Unit 5 Comparative Case Study Example

Same Tools, Opposite Choices: A Unit 5 Comparative Case Study of Two Accounting Firms and Their Graduates

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GB710: Contemporary Challenges in Business

Unit 5 Comparative Case Study

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Both firms, their people and every figure are composite and illustrative; the methods and sources cited are real.

Why These Two Firms

The comparison follows a most-similar systems design, which picks cases that match on as many relevant features as possible, leaving the few remaining differences as candidate causes of any gap in results (Przeworski & Teune, 1970). Both firms employ about 600 people across four offices in the same Midwestern region. Both serve mid-market companies in manufacturing, distribution and health care, and both earn roughly 55 percent of revenue from audit and assurance, 30 percent from tax and 15 percent from advisory work. Both brought in software that reconciles bank accounts, drafts workpapers and screens client documents, both during 2024. Their graduate intake decisions in the fall of 2024 are the main thing that differs. The cases are composites built from the candidate's professional network and public information, with details changed so that neither firm can be identified.

Firm A: Fewer Graduates, More Software

Firm A reduced its fall class of staff accountants from 36 to 24. Partners reasoned that the AI tools would take over most of the reconciliation and drafting work first-years had done, and that the savings, roughly $1.1 million annually once benefits are counted, would offset the tools' cost and improve margins. Routine work was redistributed to the software, with seniors reviewing its output directly.

Eighteen months later, the firm's own time records showed that seniors were spending about 22 percent more hours on tasks first-years used to perform, mainly reviewing AI drafts and fixing errors the software made with unusual transactions. Senior utilization rose, and so did senior overtime during the spring busy season. Two seniors left for other firms, both citing workload in exit interviews. The smaller first-year class reported less contact with clients than prior classes, since there were fewer of them to staff engagements. Margins improved in the first year but fell back partway in the second, as overtime and recruiting costs for replacement seniors rose.

Firm B: The Same Class, Different Work

Firm B held its class at 34. Instead of removing first-year tasks, it redesigned them. First-years were trained to review and correct AI drafts under supervision, a task that had previously belonged to seniors, and were assigned to client meetings earlier than in the past, with the time saved by the tools. A senior manager was assigned half-time to oversee the redesign.

Eighteen months later, the time records showed seniors spending about 9 percent fewer hours on routine review than before the tools arrived. First-year utilization was lower in the first six months, while they learned the new tasks, then returned to its prior level. No seniors left over workload. The first-year class was rated by managers as further along in judgment and client skills than prior classes at the same point. Margins improved less than at Firm A in the first year, by about half as much, yet edged past Firm A's before the second year closed.

The Cross-Case Comparison

Set side by side, the firms differ on five outcomes. Senior hours on first-year tasks: up about 22 percent at Firm A, down about 9 percent at Firm B. Senior departures over workload: two at Firm A, none at Firm B. First-year client contact: lower at Firm A, higher at Firm B. Margin change after one year: larger at Firm A. Margin change after two years: slightly larger at Firm B. On the one outcome partners watched most closely in the first year, margin, Firm A looked better. On the outcomes that bear on the firm's future capacity, senior workload and first-year development, Firm B did.

Firm A saved money on graduates and spent part of it on seniors; Firm B spent money on graduates and saved part of it on seniors.

How the Evidence Was Gathered

The case evidence comes from three kinds of material. Each firm's time records, summarized by task code and staff level, supplied the hours comparisons. Interviews with two partners, two senior managers and three first-years at each firm, conducted with permission and with names withheld, supplied the accounts of how work changed. And each firm's internal reports on margins, overtime and departures supplied the financial and staffing outcomes. Where interviews and records disagreed, the records were preferred for counts and the interviews for explanations.

Rivals to the Obvious Explanation

The obvious explanation is that the intake decision caused the difference. Several rivals must be considered. Client mix: although the firms' revenue shares are similar, Firm A had two large clients with unusually complex transactions, which might explain more AI errors. Leadership: Firm B's half-time senior manager may have mattered more than the intake decision itself. Local labor markets: Firm A's largest office is in a city where competitors recruited seniors aggressively during the period, which may explain its departures. Measurement: the firms' time records use different task codes, and the comparison of senior hours required mapping one firm's codes onto the other's.

Each rival is plausible. None fully explains the pattern, since the differences in senior hours appeared across all four offices at Firm A, including those without complex clients or aggressive competitors. Eisenhardt (1989) recommends that case comparisons look for evidence that would distinguish rival explanations, and the office-level consistency is that kind of evidence.

What Two Cases Can Support

Two cases cannot establish that cutting graduate intake causes seniors to absorb the work and leave. They can show that the outcome is possible, that it appeared under conditions where the main alternative explanations were weak, and that a different choice under similar conditions produced a different result. Yin (2018) describes this as analytic generalization: the cases support or challenge a theoretical proposition rather than estimating its frequency in a population. The proposition the cases support is that redesigning first-year work around AI may preserve development and senior capacity better than removing it, at a short-term cost in margin.

What the Cases Suggest for the Candidate's Firm

The candidate's own firm made Firm A's choice. The cases suggest it should track senior hours on first-year tasks and senior departures closely over the next year, since those were the earliest signs of strain at Firm A. They also suggest a modest test: redesigning first-year work in one office along Firm B's lines, so the firm can compare the two approaches within its own walls.

References

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385

Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley-Interscience.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.