Search results

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.

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.

Is “Fair Trade” really fair? This case examines the concept, history, and logistics of the Fair Trade movement, specifically for coffee. Fair Trade began as an attempt to ensure farmers received fair compensation for their crops and credit when needed. Fair Trade also provided opportunities to help coffee growers learn best practices and sustainable farming methods (minimal damage to the environment, for example). But Fair Trade had its critics, who claimed that ultimately the farmers did not benefit and that retailers charged more for Fair Trade products and pocketed the difference. This case examines these issues through the eyes of one coffee-drinker who has specifically chosen her caffeine venue because of the Fair Trade designation.

In early 2004, residents of Inglewood, California, a working-class community just outside Los Angeles composed primarily of African- and Hispanic-Americans, were preparing to vote on a referendum that would change the city charter to allow Wal-Mart to build a supercenter on a huge, undeveloped lot in the city. Walmart had put forward the measure after the city council refused to change the zoning of a sixty-acre plot on which it held an option to build. Numerous community and religious groups opposed Wal-Mart's entry and campaigned against the referendum. Walmart promised low-priced merchandise and jobs, but these groups were skeptical about the kinds of jobs and compensation that would be offered, the healthcare that would be provided to employees, and the broader impact Walmart would have on the community. Inglewood was a pro-union community, so there was also opposition based on Walmart's anti-union position. On April 6 Inglewood residents voted to reject the referendum by a margin of 60.6 percent to 39.9 percent. Though smaller, less organized, and with fewer resources than Walmart, this coalition of community and religious leaders had defeated the global retailing behemoth.

After students have analyzed the case they will be able to (a) appreciate the importance of nonmarket factors to execute growth and market entry strategies, (b) understand how the decisions of political institutions depend on the issue context and the alignments of coalitions of interest, (c) formulate and assess strategies to overcome nonmarket barriers to entry.

Why do some individuals become entrepreneurs while others do not? This fundamental question has vexed entrepreneurship scholars for some time, giving rise to various schools of thought. Traditional economic motivation theories, for example, suggest that entrepreneurial opportunities arise from changes in either supply (Shane, 2000) or demand (Dew et al., 2004) and emphasize personal economic gain as a motivator for pursuing entrepreneurship. Both neoclassical equilibrium and psychological theories take a person-centric perspective whereby stable, enduring differences among people’s characteristics, determines who becomes an entrepreneur. Opportunity recognition may be enhanced through perspective taking (i.e. putting oneself in the shoes of another person) (Prandelli et al., 2016).

The founders of the company provided us with access to the inner workings of the company, their mentors and advisors and themselves. This study used archival research and interviews when preparing this case. Interviews allow for the development of uncensored, real-life insights into the entrepreneur’s business experience. The authors first conducted a 90-min interview with Rajia and Ray at DifferenceMaker^® Central on the UMass Lowell campus. DifferenceMaker^® provided us with pictures and timelines from when Rajia and Ray participated in the various DifferenceMaker^® activities and competitions. A follow-on 90-min interview was conducted with the founders four months later at the UMass Lowell Innovation Hub to delve deeper into their transition from engineers to entrepreneurs.

In the summer of 2016, the future of invisaWear suddenly became uncertain. Rajia Abdelaziz and Ray Hamilton had conceived an idea for smart jewelry that they felt solved a real problem. But it was one thing to have a great idea and quite another to turn that idea into a real business. As engineering students, they were accustomed to solving problems, but if they truly wanted to make an impact, they had to learn to solve problems as entrepreneurs. With the help of DifferenceMaker^® and their mentors, they developed an entrepreneurial mind-set and decided to build invisaWear into a company.

This case is suitable for an undergraduate course in business or entrepreneurship. This case is intended to illustrate to both business and non-business students how individuals with different backgrounds can become entrepreneurs. Presented as a real-life example of how engineering students can make the transition to an entrepreneurial mind-set, the case can also be used to hone in on select topics including opportunity recognition, problem-solving, ideation and the business model canvas.