Search results

In early 2014, recent Stanford University graduate Tyler Shultz was in a quandary. He had been working at Theranos, a blood-diagnostic company founded by Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford-dropout wunderkind, for almost a year. Shultz had learned enough about the company to realize that its practices and the efficacy of its much-touted finger-prick blood-testing technology were questionable and that the company was going to great lengths to hide this fact from the public and from regulators.

Theranos and Holmes were Silicon Valley darlings, enjoying positive press and lavish attention from potential investors and technology titans alike. Just as companies like PayPal had revolutionized the stagnant payments industry and Uber had upended the for-hire transportation sector, Theranos had been positioned as the latest technology firm to substantially disrupt yet another mature sector: the medical laboratory business. By the start of 2014, the company had raised more than $400 million in funding, and had an estimated market valuation of $9 billion.

Shultz's situation was exacerbated by the fact that his grandfather, the highly respected former US Secretary of State George Shultz, was on the Theranos board and was one of Elizabeth Holmes's biggest supporters.

But Tyler Shultz worried about the customers he was convinced were receiving highly unreliable and often inaccurate blood-test results. With so much at stake, Shultz wondered how he should proceed. Should he raise his concerns with the firm's investors? Blow the whistle externally? Report to industry regulators? Go away quietly?

This case and its subsequent four brief follow-up cases are based largely on interviews with Tyler Shultz, and outline the dilemma he faced and the various steps he would take both to extricate himself from his unsavory position and let the public know the full extent of the deception at Theranos.

Five optional handouts are available to instructors to further discussion after the case has been debriefed. The handouts serve as additional decision points for the students if your class time permits.

The expected learning outcomes are to understand the complexities involved in the integration of two carriers with different business strategies and approaches, the merger of two brands with distinct personas and identities and the confluence of two different cultures; figure out the strategic options in front of the Tata Group and how it can deal with various macro- and micro-level business challenges, defy the financial hiccups and manoeuvre the operational complexities to accomplish mission Vihaan.AI; and develop a pragmatic approach to macro and micro business environmental scanning for making strategic business decisions.

In November 2022, Tata Group, the salt to software conglomerate, announced the merger of Air India (AI) and Vistara. This would lead to the formation of the full-service airline under the brand name “Air India”. The obvious reason behind this was the higher recognition, salience and recall of the brand AI as compared with Vistara in the global market. The Tata Group envisaged the brand AI to be a significant international aviation player with the heritage, persona and ethos of the brand Vistara in the renewed manifestation of AI. To realise these goals, Tata Group laid down an ambitious plan called “Vihaan.AI”, which was aimed at capturing a domestic market share of 30% by 2027.

This case study can be taught as part of undergraduate- and postgraduate-level management programmes.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 11: Strategy.