10 Checks Before You Finalise Your RICS APC Case Study

Download the latest case-study template from the RICS Assessment Platform and check the current APC Candidate Guide.

Do not rely on an old template saved by you, your employer or another candidate. Requirements can change.

Your case study must concern a project—or projects—in which you were personally involved during the 24 months before your assessment submission date.

The largest or most prestigious project is not necessarily the best choice. Look for one that gives you meaningful personal responsibility, a genuine challenge and enough substance to demonstrate your professional competence.

You may focus on one element of a larger or ongoing project if that element provides strong evidence of your involvement.

Before writing the full case study, identify:

• the competencies demonstrated;
• the key issue or challenge;
• your personal responsibilities;
• the options you considered;
• the advice you provided;
• the outcome; and
• what you learned.

Your case study must demonstrate at least one core competency at Level 3. Mapping the evidence first helps prevent a detailed project description that never clearly demonstrates the required competence.

The assessor will not share your background knowledge.

Provide enough context to explain the project, your role, the stakeholders and the relevant circumstances—but do not allow background information to dominate the case study.

Use clear professional language and explain project-specific terminology where necessary.

Assessors need to understand what you did.

Be precise about your responsibilities, authority and involvement. Explain which actions and decisions were yours, what advice you personally provided and where responsibility rested with somebody else.

Use "I" where it accurately describes your contribution. Avoid allowing "we" to obscure your individual experience.

A strong case study normally involves an issue, anomaly or challenge that required professional thought and judgement.

Explain:

• what happened;
• why it mattered;
• what made it challenging;
• what responsibility you held; and
• what risks or consequences had to be considered.

A focused analysis of a meaningful issue is more valuable than a chronological account of everything that happened on the project.

Do not jump directly from the problem to the final answer.

Set out the realistic options available to you, including those you rejected. Explain how you considered their technical, commercial, legal, ethical or practical implications.

Then make clear:

• what you advised;
• who you advised;
• why you reached that recommendation; and
• what happened as a result.

Level 3 is not demonstrated by simply stating that you gave advice. Assessors need to see the reasoning and professional judgement behind it.

Reflection is more than describing a successful outcome.

Consider:

• what worked well;
• what you would approach differently;
• whether your original advice remained appropriate;
• what the experience taught you; and
• how it has influenced your subsequent professional practice.

Recognising limitations or areas for improvement is not a weakness. Thoughtful self-evaluation demonstrates professional maturity.

The APC case study has a maximum of 3,000 words. Under the current guidance, RICS counts the content from the introduction through to the end of the conclusion. Tables and charts within the main body also count.

Use the required structure:

• Introduction — Project and Role
• My Approach — Key Issues and Options Considered
• My Achievement — Proposed Solution and Reflection
• Conclusion — Lessons Learnt

The introduction currently has a maximum of 500 words.

Keep appendices limited to relevant supporting material. Check spelling, grammar, formatting, confidentiality and anonymisation before submitting.

Your case study becomes part of your final assessment. You will deliver a ten-minute presentation based on an aspect of it and answer questions about your project, decisions and competencies.

Make sure you can:

• explain every technical term;
• defend the advice you provided;
• discuss the alternatives you rejected;
• connect the project to your declared competencies;
• explain the relevant standards or legislation; and
• reflect honestly on what you would do differently.

Do not include an experience, decision or level of responsibility that you could not confidently explain under questioning.