Search results

This article, written in the case format, is an extension of the article entitled “Case Research and Writing: Three Days in the Life of Professor Moore” published in The CASE Journal, Volume 1, Issue 1. It is intended to give the novice case writer insight into problems associated with obtaining the release for publication from companies where primary data had been collected. Related issues on case writing are also included.

Erick Wilson and Richard Hyche, managers of Hughes Family Furniture Store in Charlotte N.C. are exploring new ways to motivate their sales force to sell more of one of their most profitable items, a Furniture Protection Plan. They are considering a new compensation plan but are concerned about how this new change might affect their sales force.

A year into the launch of TiVo—the “revolutionary new personal TV service that lets you watch what you want, when you want”—John Tebona, VP of business development, was faced with important decisions about TiVo's revenue model and strategic alliances. With television's move from a network-based model to an interactive one, he had to decide what role TiVo would play in the emerging industry landscape. Would TiVo be just a set-top box or would it live up to the vision of revolutionizing the television viewing experience? What revenue streams should it emphasize to capture the most value? What strategic relationships must TiVo form in an environment where companies were cross-investing in multiple technologies across different industry segments? How could it expand its customer base and accelerate its revenues before competitors like Microsoft's WebTV became the default standard?

To understand that disruptive innovation from a value creation standpoint may not mean a profitable or viable business from a value capture standpoint; products are far easier to create than robust business architectures with solid profit engines; the future of interactivity is clouded by the conflicting visions of the varied players; and control over standards is a valuable choke point.

United Learning is a family-owned leader in the K-12 supplementary teaching material market. In January 2001, United Learning realized that sales for one of its flagship products, a drug and prevention program, were rapidly deteriorating because the program was not mentioned on a recently released U.S. Department of Education list of recommended products. United Learning must decide on which action to take: regain sales or focus on its other educational products--which are also threatened by changes in the regulatory environment.

United Learning is a family-owned leader in the K-12 supplementary teaching material market. In January 2001, United Learning realized that sales for one of its flagship products, a drug and prevention program, were rapidly deteriorating because the program was not mentioned on a recently released U.S. Department of Education list of recommended products. United Learning must decide on which action to take: regain sales or focus on its other educational products—which are also threatened by changes in the regulatory environment.

The case compares two U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) programs from the 1970s and 1980s: (1) “stealth” combat aircraft, capable of evading detection or engagement by anti-aircraft systems, and (2) precision attack of hardened ground vehicles from “standoff” distances, i.e., far behind the battle lines. Conceived at roughly the same time, motivated by the same strategic challenge, and initially driven by the same DoD organization, stealth combat aircraft progressed from idea to deployment in less than eight years---an astounding pace for a complex military system---while a demonstrated system for standoff precision strike against mobile ground targets was not fully implemented. The case highlights the critical role of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), part of the DoD, regarded as one of the most innovative entities in the U.S. federal government.

The case highlights factors that facilitate rapid, successful implementation of radically innovative or disruptive concepts. Students are introduced to the organizational realities facing such projects, including issues of strategic clarity, interdepartmental competition and cooperation, executive leadership, and timing. Comparing the differences in implementation of the two programs in the case reveals issues relevant to any large organization seeking to bring innovative concepts to fruition.

Pebble Technology Corporation (Pebble) was an early entrant into the smartwatch industry. Pebble’s Founder, Eric Migicovsky, began thinking about creating a smartwatch in 2008 while still an undergraduate engineering student. After selling about 1,500 prototype watches, he was accepted into Silicon Valley’s prestigious Y Combinator business start-up program. Finding it difficult to attract investors, Migicovsky launched a crowdfunding campaign that raised a record-breaking $10.27m on Kickstarter. The case concludes shortly after Apple’s unveiling of its soon-to-be-released Apple Watch. The case provides an opportunity to evaluate Pebble’s various strategic options at the time of Apple’s announcement.

The authors observed over 30 h of video and audio recordings of speeches, interviews and other events involving Pebble’s founder, other Pebble executives, investors and competitors. These recordings are all publicly available. Whenever possible, the authors also reviewed the Twitter feeds, Facebook sites and personal websites of Pebble’s top executives over time. Similarly, the authors followed Pebble’s official website, corporate blog and Kickstarter campaign websites. The authors also drew from numerous media reports. Due to the public nature of the data, no company release is provided nor has any information been disguised in any way.

The case is designed for both undergraduate and graduate students for courses in strategic management.

Case can be taught at the undergraduate or postgraduate level, including executive Master of Business Administration programs.

This case is intended for courses in strategic management, entrepreneurship and innovation at the undergraduate or postgraduate level.

The case is about challenges faced by Linda Portnoff, the Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Riteband, a Sweden-based fintech startup. In March 2020, Portnoff was conducting beta testing of Riteband’s app, which experts considered the world’s first stock exchange for music trading. After completing a PhD, Portnoff who was working as a Research Analyst, left her job to pursue entrepreneurship. Through Riteband, Portnoff helped to resolve pain points of artists who were forced to give the copyright of their music tracks or albums to distributors, in lieu of funds or promotional campaigns that distributors arranged for them. Portnoff invested in developing a patent-pending machine learning-based algorithm that based on several parameters could predict the likelihood of a music track or an album to become a success. Based on this prediction and royalty that artists were interested in sharing with fans, shares were issued to investors, who were also fans of the artists. As Portnoff identified an innovative business opportunity to trade music on a stock exchange based on Riteband’s machine learning algorithm, competition in Riteband’s strategic group was also becoming intense. Consequently, Portnoff was facing challenges of establishing competitive advantage of Riteband. Furthermore, as women in general faced challenges in raising funds for their startups, and even though Portnoff obtained some funding for Riteband, but overall, funding was a challenge for her as well. Moreover, as machine learning was a technical aspect for artists and potential investors, Portnoff also faced challenges to monetize on its machine learning algorithm.

By the end of the case study discussion, students should be able to: understand the principles of cross-industry innovation and explain the creation of new business opportunities based on cross-industry innovation; differentiate between direct and indirect competitors through strategic group analysis and further critically analyze the competitive advantage of business over other direct competitors; determine ways of reducing gender biases in venture capital funding; describe how machine learning works and further formulate ways to monetize a business through machine learning; and demonstrate the application of the value proposition canvas and business model canvas.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship; CSS 11: Strategy.

The case examines the development and launch of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) based on JUST Capital's socially responsible corporate ranking methodologies. The case provides a market overview of Environment, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) and socially responsible investing (SRI), what has driven growth in those areas worldwide, and several best-practice investment approaches. Following the overview, the case describes the founding and development of JUST Capital, explores JUST Capital's ranking methodologies, and presents the decision point faced by the CEO: requisite selection of one of three strategies in order for JUST Capital to generate “self-sustaining” revenue.

This case is based on using the fraud triangle, theoretical aspects like rationalization and motivation for understanding the financial pressures and corporate greed lead to accounting fraud. Building on the corporate governance’s weakness, the case explores the challenges and the changes that the company has to make to survive.

The case study has been entirely based on published resources. The case explores out the reasons why the companies commit accounting fraud using the motivations, financial pressures and the opportunities exploited due to a weak governance system.

The case deals with a RMB 2.2bn accounting fraud at Luckin Coffee Inc. (L.K.), a US-listed Chinese company, which led to a steep fall in its share price by more than 80% in April 2020. The company’s CEO had to resign in light of the accounting fraud, which involved fabricating the transactions in 2019, the same year it got listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. The case is a classic example of greed, corporate ambition and flaws in the corporate governance that led to the fraud while framing a course of action for the company moving forward. The case allows the learners to dive deep into the facts to find out why the fraud happened and its repercussions for the company and its various stakeholders. The case can be useful in Accounting, Corporate governance or Ethics modules for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

The case can be used for both postgraduate and undergraduate financial accounting or corporate governance modules or the executive development programmes explicitly dealing with ethical challenges and accounting fraud.