Search results

The theoretical basis for this case is a focus on strategic positioning as related to Porter’s Generic Strategies. The case accounts Roku’s journey in facing additional competition, highlighting the competitive dynamics at play. The case requires students to consider how Roku might revise its generic strategy based on the new competitive landscape in which it operates.

In writing this case, the research team used secondary research that was informed by interviews with Roku users. Resources such as IBIS World, MergentOnline, academic journals, trade magazines and websites were used to inform and verify information.

As the market disruptor of how media was consumed, Roku had been connecting customers, publishes and advertisers with its unique capabilities for over 10 years. With the belief that all TV content should be available through streaming, Roku had forever changed the traditional model of how media was distributed and consumed. By capitalizing on the previously untapped economic opportunity of TV streaming platforms, Roku had made itself the premier streaming broadcast service for users, content publishers and advertisers. The company was now faced with the difficult task of finding the best ways to keep innovation high and continue to grow.

This case could be taught at either the graduate or undergraduate level strategy course. At the undergraduate level, it would be best taught in a strategy course, when discussing industry life cycle or vertical integration. At the graduate level, MBAs could discuss the competitive dynamics and hypercompetition within the industry.

The theoretical basis for this case is a focus on strategic positioning as related to Porter’s generic strategies. The case describes GameStop’s previous differentiation approach, executed through physical stores and knowledgeable staff. With technological shifts and the introduction of digital downloads, this strategy is less effective. The case requires students to consider how GameStop might revise its generic strategy based on the new competitive landscape in which it operates.

In writing this case, the research team conducted thorough analysis through primary data collection in stores as well as secondary data collection through the use of market research tools, such as IBIS World, MergentOnline, S&P Net Advantage, and academic journals, trade magazines, and websites.

With high uncertainty shown by stakeholders about the future of GameStop coupled with falling share prices, the company must find a way to stay in play given the rapidly growing digital gaming market. As it planned to close at least 150 of its 7,500 stores, the company was starting to take measures to reduce operational costs and restructure to sectors that best fit consumer interests. GameStop’s core competencies were no longer aligned with market conditions, and its executives were now questioning where it could expand the organization’s operations as they focused on finding untapped areas of the market that have an opportunity for a new competitive advantage. Given its unique market share in gaming memorabilia and trade-in values, students are tasked with finding GameStop’s existing competitive advantages or identifying potential new ones that can be leveraged in a technology-driven industry.

This case could be taught at either the graduate or undergraduate level strategy course. At the undergraduate level, it would be best taught when discussing industry life cycle or competitive dynamics. At the graduate level, MBAs could discuss competitive dynamics facing GameStop and how it might find areas for future strategic growth.

The news that the Ministry of Education has set up two Working Parties in connection with the proposed new Public Libraries Bill is welcome and gives further hope that such a Bill will appear in the not too distant future. From the constitutions of these Working Parties, which seem to us to be fairly representative of all interests, it would appear that the first is going to concern itself with the main aspects of the Roberts Report recommendations, while the second will be given the task of studying the problems of library co‐operation. On the first party, county libraries are represented by Miss Paulin and Mr. Budge, while Wales is represented by Mr. A. Edwards, librarian of the Cardiganshire and Aberystwyth Joint Library. Mr. D. I. Colley, the city librarian of Manchester, will be keeping a watching brief on behalf of the large libraries, but it should not be forgotten that he is also a member of the Libraries Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Mr. Gardner is rightly there, perhaps not only as librarian of Luton but also as chairman of the Library Association's Executive Committee. The Smaller Libraries Group can surely have no complaints, for out of the ten members of Working Party No. I there are three librarians from smaller libraries, these being Mr. Helliwell of Winchester, Mr. Christopher of Penge and Mr. Parker of Ilkley. This Working Party is completed by two legal representatives in Mr. W. B. Murgatroyd, who is Town Clerk of Hornsey, and Mr. J. H. Oldham, who is Assistant County Solicitor for Kent.

The perspectives of people with dementia and their care partners regarding “extra care” housing are currently unknown. The purpose of this paper is to report findings of a consultation study exploring the perceived barriers and facilitators of a relocation to extra care housing, from the perspective of people living with dementia, and their care partners.

Fieldwork consisted of paired or 1-1 interviews and small focus groups with potential users of an alternative model of extra care support for people living with dementia in the South of England. The consultation took place between June and August 2013. The interviews and focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analysed thematically.

Benefits of extra care were identified as the opportunity for couples to remain living together for longer, creating a supportive, dementia-friendly community, and a reduction in the strain experienced by the care partners. Barriers centred on a sense of loss, stress and uncertainty. Living and caring at home was perceived as preferable to shared care.

The findings presented here have limited generalisability for two reasons. First, the shared care approach consulted on was very specific. Second, the participants form a purposive sample and as such are not representative of a wider population. Despite best intentions, the voice of people with dementia, are underreported in this consultation. Only one person with early on-set dementia was interviewed and the remaining two people with dementia were interviewed alongside their care partner.

The findings cast doubt on the viability of extra care facilities, designed for couples living with dementia, if extra care continues to be conceptualised and marketed as a preventative lifestyle choice. The findings indicate the value of consulting with people with dementia, and their care partners, when designing new forms of housing with care specifically for people living with dementia.

The findings of this consultation exemplify the wish of couples living with dementia to remain together, in what they perceive to be “home”, for as long as possible. Couples living with dementia are therefore unlikely to wish to move into an extra care facility as a lifestyle choice option, early into their journey with dementia. This raises questions about the suitability of extra care, as a form of housing with care, for couples living with dementia.

This paper contributes to the body of literature, exploring the feasibility of new and innovative alternative care and housing options, for people with dementia. This paper is one of the first to explore extra care as a housing and social care option for couples with dementia.

The theoretical basis for this case is a focus on vertical integration, first-mover advantage and competitive dynamics. Vertical integration is based on Williamson’s (1979) theory of transaction-cost economics as it relates to vertical integration; the discussion on first-mover advantage is built off of Suarez and Lanzolla’s (2005) dynamics of first-mover advantage; and the analyzes on competitive dynamics derives from the MacMillan et al. (1985) early empirical tests of interfirm rivalry dynamics.

The authors conducted extensive research using the following sources: IBISWorld, MergentOnline and academic journals, trade magazines and websites. Additionally, the authors successfully piloted the case on more than 350 undergraduate students enrolled in a business and corporate strategy course.

Peloton used vertical integration to control the creation of its own software, bikes, exercise classes and retail outlets. In doing so, Peloton was one of the first companies in the industry to have near full control of the production process (Gross and Caisman, 2019). Due to this integration, Peloton was one of the fitness equipment industry leaders. However, Peloton’s high level of vertical integration coupled with rapid growth led to lackluster profitability. Given the rise in popularity of in-home exercise equipment, Peloton had room to continue its growth, but the question remained whether it was strategically positioned to do so.

This case is best taught in undergraduate and graduate strategy courses. For undergraduate courses, it could be incorporated into lessons on competitive dynamics, internal analysis and first-mover advantage and strategic positioning. For graduate courses, it could be incorporated into lessons on vertical integration and delving more in-depth into the long-term sustainability of having a first-mover advantage.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.