Search results

ONGC vs. Sumitomo – Supreme Court of India, 28 July, 2010 – is an example of a dispute in an international contract, with an arbitration clause, which could have been avoided. Ironically, it took almost two decades to be finally decided. The purpose of this case is to make the readers think about dispute avoidance vis-à-vis dispute resolution. The case presents the most relevant aspects of the judgment in simple language, devoid of legal jargon. A number of questions have been suggested towards the end.

The key teaching objectives of the case are the following:▪ to develop an awareness of a megaproject’s external environment (through PESTLE) in terms of challenges from each source;▪ to introduce theory that allows students to identify, characterise and describe factors that can lead to inter-organisational conflict during construction projects;▪ to develop the ability to apply the typology of causal factors (identified in Objective 2) to a given context, answering why each factor may have contributed to the given contractual dispute;▪ to develop an understanding of the procurement and contract management process wherein contracts are not only the logical outcome of the procurement process but also the primary vehicles for clarifying responsibilities (for task completion) and risk transfer; and▪ to understand specific dynamics of construction projects that make disputes inevitable and ways to overcome these.

Priced at US$1.63bn (in 2015), the Orange Line Metro Train (OLMT) project in Lahore was one of Pakistan’s earliest (and costliest!) transport infrastructure megaprojects ever undertaken. Devised to ease congestion in Lahore, promote ecofriendly, efficient, modern and affordable transport systems and lead to improved mobility across Lahore, the OLMT was a socially, politically and economically important project.The case is seen through the eyes of the protagonist, Uzair Shah, a seasoned public servant and an experienced Transport Engineer. At the time of the decision, Shah was General Manager – Operations at the newly established Punjab Metrobus Authority (PMA – the project sponsor) and was also the project lead of OLMT’s Project Management Unit (PMU). Through Shah’s eyes, students approach the project at a juncture when the most serious contractual dispute in the project’s history has erupted. The parties at the interface were Lahore Development Authority (LDA), PMU’s technical interface with contractors and consultants and Maqbool-Colson Joint Venture (MCJV), one of the two civil work contractors hired for OLMT’s civil works.While quality issues had been emerging with MCJV for a few months, LDA had maintained unilateral communications and remained considerably adversarial in their dealings with MCJV. Eventually, in October 2016, this relationship had soured to such an extent that it appeared irreconcilable. It was only then that LDA had recommended Shah to take the contractor to court for non-performance.The decision that Uzair faced was whether to take LDA’s advice and take the contractor to court (terminate the contract, claim performance guarantee and appoint a new contractor) or negotiate and continue with the current contract. The decision had huge financial, legal, reputational, political and schedule-related implications. The decision needed to be taken by the protagonist in the context of all these factors.

The case was initially developed for use within a Procurement and Contracts Management course for a (business) executive audience. The case is intended for the business school audience or students enrolled in courses related to the construction management discipline.Courses where the case can be used include Construction Project Management, Public Sector Projects, Contracts and Procurement and Strategic Projects and Practice (or similar). The case can also be used within an MBA setting.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS: 9: Operations and Logistics.

The case delves into supply, demand, price gouging, hoarding and capabilities of the firm. The theories/concepts and a short overview are covered below. These theories and concepts are then referenced as appropriate in the “Answers to Discussion Questions” section as follows: Supply Demand Theory; Price Gouging, Speculation and Hoarding; Resources, Capabilities and Activities; Friedman’s and Porter’s view of goals of a firm; Corporate Social Responsibility.

The case was motivated after a discussion with Mr Matthew Roberts, who is the Chief Operating Officer of SPR Industries. Several subsequent interviews were conducted with Matt. Matt also became the chief protagonist of the case. Matt provided multiple quotes and anecdotes. The protagonist Matt and the focal organization (SPR Industries) are disguised. The financial figures have also been disguised using a multiplier. However, the material facts of the case are authentic.

This case sheds light on the impact of the COVID pandemic on a small business in the personal protective equipment industry. The students will get an understanding of the supply and demand forces in a market. Furthermore, the case bears out how unpredictable situations such as the pandemic lead to speculation and price gouging opportunities but not in all products affected by it. The case explores the corporate social responsibility (CSR) of firms regarding price gouging in their products. Students will also get an appreciation of how an industry and its participants change in response to such black swan events as the COVID pandemic. Finally, the case presents a small enterprise’s decision choices â?? Should they maintain the status quo, become a sub-broker or become a wholesaler.

This case is designed to target undergraduate students of strategic management or entrepreneurship. It could be appropriate for upper level courses such as Strategic Management, Small Business Management and maybe even Family Business Management. It could be taught in the latter half of the course after the basic concepts have been covered. This case could bring together many of the concepts into a real-life setting.

The learning outcomes of this study are as follows:

1) illustrate the project management failures that contributed to the fire accident at Grenfell using a fishbone diagram;

2) identify and classify the power and influence of various stakeholders involved in a brownfield project using a relevant framework; and

3) elaborate the need for following effective stakeholder management processes and project leadership, especially in the context of a refurbishment/renovation project.

On 14th June 2017, the Grenfell Tower in North Kensington, West London, UK, caught fire. The fire raged for 60 h and around 72 people lost their lives. Many criticized the response of the London Fire Brigade (LFB) and their lack of preparedness to respond to such an emergency. There were calls for Dany Cotton, the Chief of LFB, to resign. However, there had been a major cladding-related refurbishment at Grenfell, and subsequent investigations revealed that the use of combustible materials, a lack of compliance with the fire-safety norms and a blatant disregard for resident safety had contributed to the fire. The tragedy was a cumulative outcome of failure on two counts: effective project management and stakeholder management during the process of refurbishment, especially in the context of a low-cost housing project. Given this situation, this case considers whether Dany Cotton should own up to her responsibility and resign from her position. In the process, the case considers Grenfell refurbishment from the theoretical lens of project management in the construction management scenario to understand the factors that could have led to an “avoidable” tragedy.

Postgraduate students of construction management; final year undergraduate engineering students who have a foundational course on project management; and architects.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 2: Built environment.

Anika, a new manager, is confronted by a dysfunctional organizational culture characterized by employee disrespect, insubordination, and low performance. Her charge is to “to turn the place around”. The case takes place in a service organization, a testing range run by the US Department of Defense. The staff is a combination of federal and contract employees who test clients’ high-tech systems in a sometimes dangerous, desert environment.

In addition, there are three vignettes that give a portrait of dysfunctional individual behaviors. Frequently, the response students want to make is “I'd just fire the guy.” Unfortunately, it is not so simple.