Business Model Many conscientious and assiduous business professionals presuppose that success is determined principally by their capacity to offer products and services, meet customer demands and requirements, and run their operations using effective and efficient techniques. However, in today’s dynamic, networked, and ever changing business environment, the business model has become a central tool of trade since it is inseparable from the product, process and operational approaches of a business enterprise in shaping how success is realized (Chesbrough, 2006, p. 18). More often than not, the difference between success and failure is thinly veiled in the type of business model adopted by an organization. Before its uneventful entry into questionable deals and fraud charges, Arthur Anderson LLP’s business model revolved around the concept of ‘thinking straight and talking straight,’ as proposed by its founder, Arthur Andersen (Smith & Quirk, 2004, p.93). According to the case, the organization’s business model was founded on three fundamental tenets – honest accounting, elimination of conflicts of interests, and accountability to the investing shareholders rather than the organizations they audit. This rational plan helped the public auditing firm to generate and capture value in terms of increased revenue and clients during its heydays. Strategy A good business model can be enhanced by the right mix of business strategies. A strategy goes beyond a business model to secure an organization’s competitive advantage in the market, hence success (Chesbrough, 2006, p.26).Anderson’s business model had dictated the “standards for honest and law abiding accounting,” (Smith & Quirk, 2004, p. 93). This had enabled the firm to gain confidence and trust from the public to a point where it adopted the strategy of diversifying its products through market segmentation by coming up with a management consulting arm of the firm. The organization also utilized an expansionist strategy to keep up with industry trends and beat stiff competition from other firms offering the same products such as Delloitte and KPMG (Squires et al, 2003, p. 43). The strategy of segmenting products worked against the firm, and indeed against the founder’s strategy of a ‘one-firm’ philosophy, after the consulting arm of the organization disembarked from the parent company to form Accenture. Team building, morale raising and yearly training programs forms a cluster of other strategies practiced by Anderson’s to sharpen its focus in the market (Smith & Quirk, 2004, p. 93). Strategic Dilemma An organization’s strategic plan is as important as its business model, and is fundamentally important for the organization’s success. The use of ineffective or fraudulent strategies heralds an era of difficulties and legal tussles as it can be witnessed through Anderson’s case. In business terms, the firm’s descent from conscience-oriented and honest accounting maestro to a disgraced organization accused of obstructing justice is not an issue that happened overnight (Squires et al, 2003, p. 67). Rather, it originated from a succession of management misrepresentations and compromises on genuine accounting principles over the decades to limit the stream of professional fees charged on Enron for services rendered f